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.

Partner Perspectives  Connecting marketers to our tech communities.
SPONSORED BY
8/23/2017
09:00 AM
Brett White
Brett White
Partner Perspectives
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
100%
0%

Ransomware: The Tripflare in the Modern Cyberwar

With the frequency and scale of breaches on the rise, and our legacy security failing to protect us, is ransomware the catalyst we need to trigger improvement in our security postures?

May and June 2017 saw the outbreak and rapid spread of WannaCry and NotPetya across the world. Though the initial infection vectors differed, both of these worms leveraged the same Server Message Block (SMB) vulnerabilities for lateral propagation and privilege escalation, though NotPetya added a couple of extra tricks to its bag. 

These SMB vulnerabilities – EternalBlue and DoublePulsar – stemmed from a leak of NSA-authored hacking tools released by The Shadow Brokers.  In both cases, the malware delivered was overt in nature, contributing to fast detection times and, in the case of WannaCry, the rapid discovery of a kill switch which was used to halt the attack.

When The Shadow Brokers dumped the cache of tools onto the Internet, Rapid7 reported that security researchers went from feeling "like kids in a candy store" to being disinterested as they realized that "the exploits were antiques and had all been patched."  However, as time and ransomware actors would go on to prove, "even though we thought we were safe against these non-zero-day, unexciting attacks, we were not." And although vulnerable servers should not have been "exposed to the public Internet in an unrestricted manner," over 250,000 machines were infected by WannaCry within the first day. This was also not the first time that a cryptoworm had leveraged vulnerabilities that had been patched years earlier by the vendor.

As the WannaCry and NotPetya attacks progressed, we saw reports of breaches from the NHS, telecommunications service providers, critical infrastructure providers, vehicle manufacturers, airports and logistics companies, and even speed camera operators.  But for each of these thousands of companies, across many industry verticals, the impact could have been much worse, if the payload had have been different. What if it had targeted and exfiltrated NHS patient records? What if it had modified shipping or customer manifests?  What if it had disabled speed cameras or worse, moved laterally and modified traffic light sequences? What if the attack was more covert in nature? Would we have ever known?

Over the last six years, Mandiant analysts have reported a reduction in the median breach detection time from 416 days (2012) to 99 days (2017). And while, on the surface, this looks positive, it worryingly corresponds to an increase in the percentage of breaches reported by internal sources from 6% (2012) to 47% (2017), during the period in which we have seen a massive boom in ransomware innovation and activity. 

So, I wonder, if ransomware attacks are leading to an increase in the percentage of internal breach notifications, and driving the median breach detection time down, thanks to their sheer volume and overt nature, how long are the covert attacks going undetected, before ransomware actors start leveraging their Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs), alerting us to the failings of our security architectures and policies, forcing us to make a change?

Until we see broader adoption of machine learning for discovering new threats, more automated sharing of threat intelligence between security vendors and security products, and the ability to leverage the network to shut down attacks at the source, we have to ask ourselves – is ransomware the tripflare in the modern cyberwar that we can’t afford not to have?

Brett White is a Senior Security Specialist with Juniper Networks in Australia.  He is a trained pen tester and ethical hacker who is passionate about leveraging threat intelligence to help educate people on the current threat landscape, improve their cyber-hygiene, and ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
REISEN1955
50%
50%
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
8/23/2017 | 10:08:17 AM
If anything ....
Lack of solid, tested backup and restore protocols.  I have argued for some time that encrypted files on workstation or server are the functional same as a drive crash or OS failure.  Workstations generally far easier to restore, local backup of data less so as rules change all over the place.  SERVERS should have reliable, tested plans for data restoration IF drives or infrastructure fails.  Ransomware is thus EASY to defeat.  WHY go so crazy?  Because many firms DO NOT have these plans in place.  Thus, IT staff works 24/7 for 2 weeks not knowing what they are doing at 2 am.  Sad.
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/25/2020
Hacking Yourself: Marie Moe and Pacemaker Security
Gary McGraw Ph.D., Co-founder Berryville Institute of Machine Learning,  9/21/2020
Startup Aims to Map and Track All the IT and Security Things
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15208
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, when determining the common dimension size of two tensors, TFLite uses a `DCHECK` which is no-op outside of debug compilation modes. Since the function always returns the dimension of the first tensor, malicious attackers can ...
CVE-2020-15209
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, a crafted TFLite model can force a node to have as input a tensor backed by a `nullptr` buffer. This can be achieved by changing a buffer index in the flatbuffer serialization to convert a read-only tensor to a read-write one....
CVE-2020-15210
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, if a TFLite saved model uses the same tensor as both input and output of an operator, then, depending on the operator, we can observe a segmentation fault or just memory corruption. We have patched the issue in d58c96946b and ...
CVE-2020-15211
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, saved models in the flatbuffer format use a double indexing scheme: a model has a set of subgraphs, each subgraph has a set of operators and each operator has a set of input/output tensors. The flatbuffer format uses indices f...
CVE-2020-15212
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, models using segment sum can trigger writes outside of bounds of heap allocated buffers by inserting negative elements in the segment ids tensor. Users having access to `segment_ids_data` can alter `output_index` and then write to outside of `outpu...