Attacks/Breaches

10/20/2017
06:40 PM
Dawn Kawamoto
Dawn Kawamoto
Quick Hits
50%
50%

IOTroop Botnet Hits Over a Million Organizations in Under 30 Days

The IoT botnet is expected to spread faster than Mirai.

A new IoT botnet dubbed IOTroop is expected to spread faster than Mirai because it has infected more than 1 million organizations since its discovery in late September, according to Check Point Software Technologies, which made the discovery.

IOTroop's malware seeks out vulnerabilities in wireless IP camera devices, such as GoAhead, D-Link, TP-Link, AVTECH, NETGEAR, MikroTik, Linksys, and others, Check Point states. "The malware is able to spread faster than Mirai for it leverages numerous vulnerabilities, rather than only compromising devices that use default credentials," says Maya Horowitz, Check Point's group manager of Threat Intelligence.

Although IOTroop shares some technical aspects with Mirai, Check Point stresses it is a new botnet with a far more sophisticated attack campaign. IOTroop, for example, uses the Internet of Things devices that it infects to scan additional devices and report back to the command-and-control server with its findings, Horowitz says. This helps IOTroop to accelerate the speed at which it spreads, she notes. IOTroop takes advantage of users' failure to patch existing vulnerabilities in their IoT devices, and also the ability to launch its malware without human interaction.

Read more about IOTroop here

Dawn Kawamoto is an Associate Editor for Dark Reading, where she covers cybersecurity news and trends. She is an award-winning journalist who has written and edited technology, management, leadership, career, finance, and innovation stories for such publications as CNET's ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
jenshadus
50%
50%
jenshadus,
User Rank: Strategist
10/26/2017 | 3:13:14 PM
Re: Security cameras = insecure
Let them spy on me.  My camera at work doesn't work, and the one at home on my laptop is always off since I only get on it once a week.  The only other camera I have is a wifi to spy on the horses, but it's a piece of junk that loses power all the time.  Guess best option is not to have a camera.  But what about the cell?  Guess someone would look in my dark pocket a lot!
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
10/22/2017 | 10:59:48 AM
Security cameras = insecure
How unfortunate. Cameras are among the most frequently compromised IoT devices -- and they long have been. It doesn't take a lot of time to find those exposures, either, if you know what you're doing.

Moreover, for botnet purposes, the users are left unaware. The camera still functions perfectly as a camera. Sensational headlines are generally only made if online do-badders are using those vulnerabilities to spy on people (and, even then, naturally, only when they get found out!).
Government Shutdown Brings Certificate Lapse Woes
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  1/11/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
The Year in Security 2018
This Dark Reading Tech Digest explores the biggest news stories of 2018 that shaped the cybersecurity landscape.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises Are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Data breach fears and the need to comply with regulations such as GDPR are two major drivers increased spending on security products and technologies. But other factors are contributing to the trend as well. Find out more about how enterprises are attacking the cybersecurity problem by reading our report today.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-6443
PUBLISHED: 2019-01-16
An issue was discovered in NTPsec before 1.1.3. Because of a bug in ctl_getitem, there is a stack-based buffer over-read in read_sysvars in ntp_control.c in ntpd.
CVE-2019-6444
PUBLISHED: 2019-01-16
An issue was discovered in NTPsec before 1.1.3. process_control() in ntp_control.c has a stack-based buffer over-read because attacker-controlled data is dereferenced by ntohl() in ntpd.
CVE-2019-6445
PUBLISHED: 2019-01-16
An issue was discovered in NTPsec before 1.1.3. An authenticated attacker can cause a NULL pointer dereference and ntpd crash in ntp_control.c, related to ctl_getitem.
CVE-2019-6446
PUBLISHED: 2019-01-16
An issue was discovered in NumPy 1.16.0 and earlier. It uses the pickle Python module unsafely, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted serialized object, as demonstrated by a numpy.load call.
CVE-2019-6442
PUBLISHED: 2019-01-16
An issue was discovered in NTPsec before 1.1.3. An authenticated attacker can write one byte out of bounds in ntpd via a malformed config request, related to config_remotely in ntp_config.c, yyparse in ntp_parser.tab.c, and yyerror in ntp_parser.y.