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.

Network Security //

Data Center

8/30/2018
08:05 AM
Dave Klein
Dave Klein
News Analysis-Security Now
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

Cryptojacking: How Bad Actors Make Money off Your Data Center

Cryptojacking is all the rage right now among bad actors. However, it's not only smartphones that are being targeted, but enterprise data centers as well. Here's how security teams can protect their infrastructure.

It's a fact of life in the digital age: No sooner does an Internet-enabled concept become the "next big thing" than armies of bad actors rise up to exploit it for illicit gains.

The latest example is cryptocurrency, which has evolved quickly from the secretive tender of the Dark Web to a darling of hedge funds and legitimate investors.

The explosion of currencies and their fast-profit potential have given rise to the phenomenon of cryptojacking -- the commandeering of systems to harvest their compute power and electricity to mine cryptocurrency. A study reported in Newsweek estimated that about a half-billion computers are currently mining cryptocurrencies without their owners' knowledge.

Though the players are mysterious, the reasons for their rise are not.

(Source: iStock)
(Source: iStock)

Barriers to entry are extremely low. Cryptomining software toolkits are available online for as little as $30. The coding is not particularly complicated. And while cryptocurrency values can swing wildly in a single day, the profit potential at the high end is undeniably appealing. (See Cryptocurrency Crime: The Internet's New Wild West.)

There are two prevalent forms of cryptojacking.

The one that has garnered more attention is the takeover of end-user devices through browser-based attacks using infected websites or adware. The second type, which is now becoming more common, is the infiltration and injection of mining code into data center servers. These attacks notably target large telcos, ISPs, midsized enterprises, as well as state and local government agencies.

A report from IBM X-Force Research found that cryptomining attacks targeting enterprises jumped sixfold between January and August 2017.

The impact on unwitting victims amounts to "death by a thousand cuts" -- subtle nuisances that individually may not mean much but collectively can be very damaging and expensive. As cryptojackers consume computing resources, users will likely notice a slowdown of legitimate processes and higher electricity bills due to inflated CPU usage. Users may pay for hardware and software upgrades they wouldn't otherwise need when they start having performance issues. And if a breach becomes public or affects customer service, it can do lasting brand damage.

The growing movement of attackers from end users to enterprises is understandable.

It's more efficient -- a single attack on a data center can provide access to far more compute power than multiple endpoint attacks. Once the attack has breached perimeter defenses, it can move alongside lateral traffic, where security teams usually have little to no visibility, and go undetected for months, harnessing network servers into botnets. Attackers manage to stay below the radar and maximize dwell time by consuming only as much compute power as they need.

Since 2016, researchers at GuardiCore Labs have seen a spike in enterprise data center cryptomining campaigns, and discovered four prominent examples: PhotoMiner, Bondnet, Hexmen and Operation Prowli. These discoveries illuminate several cryptojacking patterns now being deployed in these and other attack campaigns.

  • Worms: The first was a worm we named PhotoMiner. First detected by our global sensor network in January 2016, PhotoMiner infiltrates endpoints by infecting websites hosted on FTP servers, while making money by mining Monero, the favored anonymous currency of cryptojackers. GuardiCore Labs has since documented thousands of PhotoMiner attacks originating from hundreds of IP addresses.
  • Botnets: The second is Bondnet, a distinct type of botnet uncovered in January 2017. Its originator had installed a cryptocurrency miner in thousands of servers and conscripted them into a botnet. Bondnet also leaves a backdoor capable of taking full control of a system.
  • Variants, databases, hidden scripts: Our third discovery, Hexmen, both originates from and targets data centers in China. It comes in three variants: Hex, named for the numerous variations on Hex.exe that appear in its code; Hanako, named after the backdoor user it adds to compromised databases; and Taylor, so named because the attackers exchange scripts by hiding them in Taylor Swift photos.
  • Brute force: The fourth, Operation Prowli, has compromised more than 40,000 machines around the world using a variety of attack techniques, including exploits, password brute-forcing and weak configurations.

What do enterprises need to avoid falling victim to schemes like these?

First, visibility into data center activity down to the process level, combined with micro-segmentation for setting security policies around individual and logically grouped applications.

Second, reputation-based detection informed by global threat intelligence and honed for east-west traffic. And third, dynamic deception to monitor and capture attackers' activities undetected and confront specific east-west attacks in the data center.

For cryptojackers, compute power is money. Be on the lookout for resource usage spikes, unexpected network connections and irregular activity, and set up a monitoring solution that can quickly spot lurking malware that has breached the firewall. Cryptojackers are the craftiest of cybercriminals. Security teams need to be just as clever to outsmart them.

Related posts:

Dave Klein is the Senior Director of Technical Evangelism for GuardiCore. Follow him on Twitter @CyberCaffeinate.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
News
Former CISA Director Chris Krebs Discusses Risk Management & Threat Intel
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  2/23/2021
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
Security + Fraud Protection: Your One-Two Punch Against Cyberattacks
Joshua Goldfarb, Director of Product Management at F5,  2/23/2021
News
Cybercrime Groups More Prolific, Focus on Healthcare in 2020
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/22/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: "The truth behind Stonehenge...."
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Building the SOC of the Future
Building the SOC of the Future
Digital transformation, cloud-focused attacks, and a worldwide pandemic. The past year has changed the way business works and the way security teams operate. There is no going back.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-27886
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-02
rakibtg Docker Dashboard before 2021-02-28 allows command injection in backend/utilities/terminal.js via shell metacharacters in the command parameter of an API request. NOTE: this is NOT a Docker, Inc. product.
CVE-2016-8153
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-02
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2016. Notes: none.
CVE-2016-8154
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-02
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2016. Notes: none.
CVE-2016-8155
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-02
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2016. Notes: none.
CVE-2016-8156
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-02
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2016. Notes: none.