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.

Endpoint

2/16/2017
09:00 AM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

MEDJACK.3 Poses Advanced Threat To Hospital Devices

A newly discovered version of the "medical device hijack" attack targets older operating systems to bypass security measures and steal patient data.

Researchers have discovered a new version of medical device hijack (MEDJACK), which is leaving medical devices like x-ray machines and MRI scanners vulnerable to cybercriminals. MEDJACK.3 is a sophisticated zero-day attack through which hackers steal patient data.

MEDJACK was discovered in 2015 as an organized initiative targeting medical devices in three disparate hospital attacks. TrapX Labs found medical devices provided backdoors for hackers to infiltrate healthcare networks because they're the hardest devices to secure and remediate after an attack.

MEDJACK.2, discovered in 2016, is a more advanced version of the original. Cybercriminals used backdoors and botnets to exploit devices and enter networks. Because they used old malware to exploit older versions of Windows, they went undetected by endpoint security software.

At RSAC 2017, TrapX vice president of marketing Anthony James will discuss a new variation of the threat in the session MEDJACK.3: New Research on Attacks on Hospital Medical Devices. The company was conducting a proof-of-value investigation on the medical infrastructure of ten UK member hospitals when it noticed sophisticated advancements in how hackers entered networks.

James explains how experts created fake medical devices like MRI scanners and CT scanners on the hospital networks. When the devices started to get probed, the researchers learned how vulnerable the fake devices were. Devices were deployed on both older operating systems (Windows XP, Windows Server 2003) and newer ones (Windows 2008, 2012).

"What was really interesting and different was this [attack] was a little more targeted," he says. "The others were indiscriminate - they would take anything that would accept malware."

As the attack progressed, interesting data came to light. Researchers learned hackers were using an old malware spreader to redirect the attack towards older operating systems. An OS without specific security patches would be left vulnerable and accept the hacker's tool.

The attack had been architected in a way that new operating systems would ignore it because they had been patched against those spreading capabilities. Newer systems wouldn't even be alerted to such a low-level vulnerability.

A Dangerous Combination

Further, James continues, there were interesting characteristics in the malware, which is equipped with anti-detection capabilities. "It didn't want to be detected by sandboxing systems and newer advanced protection threat systems," he says. If a victim had a sandbox, it would lay dormant.

"The combination is concerning," he notes. "Attackers are leveraging legacy malware-spreading tools that bypass a lot of today's operating systems and target older systems."

This is a major problem for the healthcare industry because most medical devices run old software. A high percentage of healthcare infrastructure already has these types of attacks resident in their medical devices; they just don't know it.

"Of all the [healthcare] breaches in the last 1-2 years, there hadn't been a drastic change in how to protect the infrastructure," James notes.

It takes years for healthcare devices to get certified, and technology continues to change in the meantime. Once a device is certified on the Windows XP operating system, they won't go back through the multi-year process to get re-certified on an upgraded system.

The healthcare space is a hotspot for cybercriminals seeking easy access to sensitive patient data. Major cyberattacks on the healthcare industry grew 63% in 2016, TrapX found. Sophisticated hackers were responsible for 31% of all major HIPAA data breaches in 2016, marking a 300% jump over the past three years.

It's a tough problem to tackle, and lack of both funding and awareness is putting institutions at risk. There are best practices healthcare organizations can adopt to protect themselves. Segregating the networks is an important step, James notes.

"It's one of the glaringly obvious things," he says. For example, make devices separate in design so the x-ray doesn't connect to the nurses' station; this could prevent the spread of an attack.

He also recommends healthcare organizations regularly update devices with new software and patches as often as they can. This isn't very different from standard IT infrastructure, but healthcare institutions often don't have the mentality that devices are all on the same network. These devices are viewed as industrial machines, but they can be breach points.

TrapX will discuss the details of MEDJACK.3 and strategies healthcare institutions can implement to protect themselves from this threat and future MEDJACK attacks.

Related Content:

Kelly Sheridan is the Staff Editor at Dark Reading, where she focuses on cybersecurity news and analysis. She is a business technology journalist who previously reported for InformationWeek, where she covered Microsoft, and Insurance & Technology, where she covered financial ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Florida Town Pays $600K to Ransomware Operators
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  6/20/2019
Pledges to Not Pay Ransomware Hit Reality
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  6/21/2019
AWS CISO Talks Risk Reduction, Development, Recruitment
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  6/25/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
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-2019-1619
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-27
A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Data Center Network Manager (DCNM) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to bypass authentication and execute arbitrary actions with administrative privileges on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to improper session ...
CVE-2019-1620
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-27
A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Data Center Network Manager (DCNM) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to upload arbitrary files on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to incorrect permission settings in affected DCNM software. An attacker could ex...
CVE-2019-1621
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-27
A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Data Center Network Manager (DCNM) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to gain access to sensitive files on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to incorrect permissions settings on affected DCNM software. An attacker...
CVE-2019-1622
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-27
A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Data Center Network Manager (DCNM) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to retrieve sensitive information from an affected device. The vulnerability is due to improper access controls for certain URLs on affected DCNM software...
CVE-2019-10133
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
A flaw was found in Moodle before 3.7, 3.6.4, 3.5.6, 3.4.9 and 3.1.18. The form to upload cohorts contained a redirect field, which was not restricted to internal URLs.