Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Attacks/Breaches

6/9/2016
04:30 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

OPM Data Breach: A New Twist On The Discovery Of The Malware

Congressional members lay out details of the chain of events that led to the revelation of the Office of Personnel Management's big data breach.

The DLL file disguised as a McAfee antivirus executable was confirmation that something was amiss. That’s what convinced Office of Personnel Management contractor Brendan Saulsbury that this was not legitimate traffic in the agency’s network: OPM doesn’t use McAfee’s AV software.

Saulsbury told a congressional committee earlier this year that he was the first person to spot malicious activity that ultimately revealed the now-infamous and historic data breach at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), shooting down previous reports that it was found by forensics security vendor CyTech Services during a product demonstration at the agency in April 2015.

letter late last month from Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) of the House Oversight Committee to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence said original claims that forensics firm CyTech Services was the first to spot the cyberattack on OPM was “inaccurate” and that OPM, via its Cylance security tool, found the malware five days before CyTech’s systems did. Cummings provided details on pieces of the puzzle that led to the breach discovery.

In an interview with Cummings’ committee on February 17 of this year, Saulsbury said that on April 16, 2015, he spotted malware on two different OPM servers “beaconing” out to a command and control server:  “[W]e were able to determine that the actual malware was a DLL file that was called mcutil.dll. It was basically trying to fly under the radar as if it was a McAfee antivirus executable. The problem is that OPM doesn’t use McAfee, so that stood out right there to us that, at that point, I was 100 percent certain that this is malware that is beaconing out.”

The account relayed in Cummings’ letter to the Intelligence Committee raises questions over how another contractor, CyTech Services, could have been led to believe it found the malware at OPM a few days later.

OPM did not offer a direct comment on the letter documenting the new information, but instead referred to the agency’s comments mentioned in Rep. Cummings’ letter. According to Cummings, Jeff Wagner, director of security operations for OPM, told the committee it was Cylance’s security tool that spotted the malware: "Mr. Wagner also explained that the tool used to identify the malware was developed by a different contractor, Cylance, that Ms. Seymour [former OPM CIO] had hired previously to enhance OPM's cybersecurity: Because of the unique capability of Cylance in mapping binary files as opposed to looking at direct signatures, we knew it was going to be able to immediately find any malware no matter what the indicators were.”

Wagner in an April 17, 2015 email to Seymour said Cylance representatives would be arriving at OPM to assist with forensics since it was "their tool that found the Malware." Cummings also said the email was sent five days before CyTech found the malware in OPM systems.

Ben Cotton, president and CEO of CyTech, told Dark Reading this week that he didn’t claim to be the first to discover the malware on OPM’s systems. “I don’t know what happened prior to us arriving on April 21,” he says. “On April 21, we ran [our forensics product] as a demo, and we discovered that malware on three live processes inside OPM’s operational network.”

He says he and his team showed this to the OPM team in the room at the time, and then CyTech became involved in an incident response operation. “Our software found it 12 minutes after” loading, he says. “It was still live in their operational network, exploiting servers and systems we found it on.”

OPM did not appear to be in an incident response posture at the time, he says, and his company assisted with IR afterward, until around May 1, also supporting the FBI and US Secret Service, he says. Cotton says the OPM team never mentioned to him or his team prior to the demo that the malware had been discovered previously on OPM systems.

Meanwhile, Cotton says he’s awaiting payment for the IR services his team offered OPM.

Some 21.5 million individuals had their social security numbers, residency and employment history, family, health, and financial history exposed in the massive data breach of OPM's background-check investigation database.

Of the 19.7 million individuals who had applied for the background checks, 1.1 million had their fingerprint scans exposed as well. The remaining 1.8 million people affected by the breach were spouses or other members of the applicants' households.

Related Content:

 

Kelly Jackson Higgins is Executive Editor at DarkReading.com. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Kelly Jackson Higgins
50%
50%
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
6/10/2016 | 12:32:23 PM
Re: thoughts that come to mind...
I've been wondering if it was a matter of miscommunication among teams at OPM that led to the confusion over who found the malware and when.
jeffcarson
50%
50%
jeffcarson,
User Rank: Apprentice
6/10/2016 | 10:25:38 AM
thoughts that come to mind...
From the article, it sounds like there were communication (silo?) gaps among the security staff and some competition between security vendors on who discovered it first.   I suspect that there is far more going on than that dll was beaconing to c&c.  Afterall, there was bigtime exfil of records, right?
RDP Bug Takes New Approach to Host Compromise
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  7/18/2019
The Problem with Proprietary Testing: NSS Labs vs. CrowdStrike
Brian Monkman, Executive Director at NetSecOPEN,  7/19/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-10101
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-23
ServiceStack ServiceStack Framework 4.5.14 is affected by: Cross Site Scripting (XSS). The impact is: JavaScrpit is reflected in the server response, hence executed by the browser. The component is: the query used in the GET request is prone. The attack vector is: Since there is no server-side valid...
CVE-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-23
Voice Builder Prior to commit c145d4604df67e6fc625992412eef0bf9a85e26b and f6660e6d8f0d1d931359d591dbdec580fef36d36 is affected by: CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection'). The impact is: Remote code execution with the same privileges as the...
CVE-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-23
Jeesite 1.2.7 is affected by: SQL Injection. The impact is: sensitive information disclosure. The component is: updateProcInsIdByBusinessId() function in src/main/java/com.thinkgem.jeesite/modules/act/ActDao.java has SQL Injection vulnerability. The attack vector is: network connectivity,authenticat...
CVE-2018-18670
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-23
GNUBOARD5 5.3.1.9 has XSS that allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the "Extra Contents" parameter, aka the adm/config_form_update.php cf_1~10 parameter.
CVE-2018-18672
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-23
GNUBOARD5 5.3.1.9 has XSS that allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the "board head contents" parameter, aka the adm/board_form_update.php bo_content_head parameter.