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

10/17/2014
05:10 PM
50%
50%

Sophisticated Malvertising Campaign Targets US Defense Industry

Dubbed Operation DeathClick, the campaign puts a new twist on an old method of infecting users.

Malvertising is not something organizations normally associate with cyber espionage. But new research from Invincea may change that.

In a report, the security firm outlined an advanced persistent threat (APT) campaign it has dubbed "Operation DeathClick," targeting the US defense industry. Invincea has spotted more than two dozen micro-targeted attacks since September that are linked to the campaign. The objective of these attacks is likely intellectual property theft -- not ad fraud -- leading researchers to believe the perpetrators are advanced threat actors.

Within the last six months, the company has discovered and stopped targeted malvertising attacks against specific companies -- particularly those in the defense industry, according to the report.

"The combination of traditional cyber crime methods (malvertising) with targeted attacks against defense industrials for theft of IP represents another development in the ongoing blending of techniques from cyber crime and advanced threat actors with nation state agendas," the report says.

Traditional malvertising is used for click fraud, says Pat Belcher, director of security analytics at Invincea.

"In this campaign, the attacks appear intended to establish a remote persistent beachhead for the attackers into the defense/aerospace company networks," he says. "The types of malware we've seen in Operation DeathClick are typically backdoor trojans and attempts to enroll hosts in botnets. If a beachhead had been successfully established, the attackers would most likely move laterally across the network and perform other malicious actions, up to and including exfiltration of data."

The campaign uses what Invincea calls a micro-targeting system that utilizes IP address ranges, geographically narrowed-down ZIP codes, and information about user interests to target specific companies, types of companies, and user interests. The attackers are also using real-time bidding (RTB) to guarantee malicious ad delivery to the intended targets of the campaign. In real-time bidding, advertising buyers bid on an impression. If the bid is won, the buyer's ad gets displayed on the publisher's site.

"RTB micro-targeting can easily, and likely has already, replaced watering hole style attacks," says Belcher. "Why bother to compromise specific sites and wait for your target to visit when you can self-host an exploit kit and point a malvertizing cannon at your intended victim directly? It's easier, cheaper, and the likelihood of getting caught is much, much lower."

According to Invincea, the attackers redirect their ads for just minutes at a time and then abandon their exploit kit pages forever. As a result, list-based threat intelligence feeds are ineffective against them. In addition, the domains used do not appear in any proxy blacklist, and the malware droppers delivered by the exploit pages always employ different signatures, thereby evading traditional network and endpoint detection technology.

"Anyone can sign up to participate in real-time bidding anonymously and fund their campaigns from third-party payment providers such as PayPal," Belcher says. "Advertisers, and thus, malvertisers, are able to win bids that will point to normal ad content or redirect to self-hosted landing pages that are only online for minutes at a time."

For each winning ad bid, there is an ad bidder that can be tracked by his unique user ID or campaign profile, he says. However, since anyone can sign up for real-time ad bidding anonymously, the best that could be hoped is known malicious bidders could have their accounts suspended -- but even then, an attacker could re-register and start a new campaign under a different username.

The full report can be read here.

Brian Prince is a freelance writer for a number of IT security-focused publications. Prior to becoming a freelance reporter, he worked at eWEEK for five years covering not only security, but also a variety of other subjects in the tech industry. Before that, he worked as a ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
SOC 2s & Third-Party Assessments: How to Prevent Them from Being Used in a Data Breach Lawsuit
Beth Burgin Waller, Chair, Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Practice , Woods Rogers PLC,  12/5/2019
Deliver a Deadly Counterpunch to Ransomware Attacks: 4 Steps
Mathew Newfield, Chief Information Security Officer at Unisys,  12/10/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Our Endpoint Protection system is a little outdated... 
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-19604
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-11
Arbitrary command execution is possible in Git before 2.20.2, 2.21.x before 2.21.1, 2.22.x before 2.22.2, 2.23.x before 2.23.1, and 2.24.x before 2.24.1 because a "git submodule update" operation can run commands found in the .gitmodules file of a malicious repository.
CVE-2019-14861
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
All Samba versions 4.x.x before 4.9.17, 4.10.x before 4.10.11 and 4.11.x before 4.11.3 have an issue, where the (poorly named) dnsserver RPC pipe provides administrative facilities to modify DNS records and zones. Samba, when acting as an AD DC, stores DNS records in LDAP. In AD, the default permiss...
CVE-2019-14870
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
All Samba versions 4.x.x before 4.9.17, 4.10.x before 4.10.11 and 4.11.x before 4.11.3 have an issue, where the S4U (MS-SFU) Kerberos delegation model includes a feature allowing for a subset of clients to be opted out of constrained delegation in any way, either S4U2Self or regular Kerberos authent...
CVE-2019-14889
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
A flaw was found with the libssh API function ssh_scp_new() in versions before 0.9.3 and before 0.8.8. When the libssh SCP client connects to a server, the scp command, which includes a user-provided path, is executed on the server-side. In case the library is used in a way where users can influence...
CVE-2019-1484
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
A remote code execution vulnerability exists when Microsoft Windows OLE fails to properly validate user input, aka 'Windows OLE Remote Code Execution Vulnerability'.