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.

Analytics

Guerrilla Storage

Hackers could use your computers to house their data, Symantec researchers say

If you find a few megabytes of data in your buffers that don't belong to you, beware: You may have been infected by a storage-hungry parasite.

In its blog this week, Symantec Corp. (Nasdaq: SYMC) is warning users of an exploit called "parasitic storage," in which hackers store small amounts of data on hundreds of machines.

"A tiny bit of RAM on a large number of computers can be used to store secret data that an attacker wants to hide, while a lot of information can be stored on some servers at the risk of being found and removed," Symantec says.

The concept of parasitic storage is not new, and by itself it creates very little problem for users, since the storage load is usually diffused across the network in buffers or in transit, notes Javier Santoyo, manager of development at Symantec.

"But a problem may come if the data stored in the buffers is a trigger for malware on a machine," Santoyo says. "We haven't seen it yet, but there is a potential."

Parasitic storage is not just a way to save hackers a few bucks on a hard drive. In many cases, it's used to store sensitive or illegal data. By diffusing the data across many machines in a configuration controlled only by the attacker, a cyber criminal can "keep" incriminating information that can't be accessed by others.

"If the computer is powered off or unplugged, the data is lost forever," Symantec notes. "Although losing data this easily may be seen as a drawback to some, it's an advantage when the attacker wants plausible deniability. As far as anyone -- such as parents or law enforcement -- can tell, the data never even existed."

Unlike botnets, parasitic storage can make use of legitimate storage in network devices, without taking over or compromising the infected machine. "The attacker would have to compromise at least one system to make it work -- bad guys never use their own equipment for this type of attack -- but after that, they are basically using available memory on the network," Santoyo says. "It's very hard to detect, because it all looks like valid data."

"Another method of [parasitic storage] is to combine stenography (encoding text within images) with free image hosting," Symantec says. "On the Internet, there are many sites that allow users to upload full-size images, and even more that let users upload small avatars. An attacker can make use of thousands of these sites to hide a considerable amount of data.

"It may even be possible to encode the location of the next chunk of data in the current chunk, which means that only a small amount of data would have to be stored online," Symantec explains. "As long as this data is encrypted and spread out enough, it may not be possible to determine that the data even exists, let alone find it."

Santoyo says parasitic storage is "currently a low level threat" and Symantec is not currently developing any tools to stop it. Users can flush the hitchhiking data by recycling or rebooting their machines, but such rebooting is often difficult on devices such as servers, which run on a 24x7 basis, he notes.

— Tim Wilson, Site Editor, Dark Reading

Tim Wilson is Editor in Chief and co-founder of Dark Reading.com, UBM Tech's online community for information security professionals. He is responsible for managing the site, assigning and editing content, and writing breaking news stories. Wilson has been recognized as one ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
Why Cyber-Risk Is a C-Suite Issue
Marc Wilczek, Digital Strategist & CIO Advisor,  11/12/2019
DevSecOps: The Answer to the Cloud Security Skills Gap
Lamont Orange, Chief Information Security Officer at Netskope,  11/15/2019
Attackers' Costs Increasing as Businesses Focus on Security
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  11/15/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
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-2019-19040
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-17
KairosDB through 1.2.2 has XSS in view.html because of showErrorMessage in js/graph.js, as demonstrated by view.html?q= with a '"sampling":{"value":"<script>' substring.
CVE-2019-19041
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-17
An issue was discovered in Xorux Lpar2RRD 6.11 and Stor2RRD 2.61, as distributed in Xorux 2.41. They do not correctly verify the integrity of an upgrade package before processing it. As a result, official upgrade packages can be modified to inject an arbitrary Bash script that will be executed by th...
CVE-2019-19012
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-17
An integer overflow in the search_in_range function in regexec.c in Oniguruma 6.x before 6.9.4_rc2 leads to an out-of-bounds read, in which the offset of this read is under the control of an attacker. (This only affects the 32-bit compiled version). Remote attackers can cause a denial-of-service or ...
CVE-2019-19022
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-17
iTerm2 through 3.3.6 has potentially insufficient documentation about the presence of search history in com.googlecode.iterm2.plist, which might allow remote attackers to obtain sensitive information, as demonstrated by searching for the NoSyncSearchHistory string in .plist files within public Git r...
CVE-2019-19035
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-17
jhead 3.03 is affected by: heap-based buffer over-read. The impact is: Denial of service. The component is: ReadJpegSections and process_SOFn in jpgfile.c. The attack vector is: Open a specially crafted JPEG file.