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.

Perimeter

8/9/2010
06:43 AM
Gadi Evron
Gadi Evron
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Yet Another Facebook Malware Evolution

Every once in a while I like to discuss the strategic view and how different players affect each other in the realm of cybercrime. This post is about the latest evolutionary development in the fight -- with Facebook malware.

Every once in a while I like to discuss the strategic view and how different players affect each other in the realm of cybercrime. This post is about the latest evolutionary development in the fight -- with Facebook malware.We have seen before how Facebook malware (and scams) try to lure the unsuspecting user to clicking on links, while at the same time obfuscating their activities as to not be detected by Facebook's security team.

The next phase in that evolution has happened. And much like other phases, we've seen it before in another time and place.

In 2004, botnets existed and were actively used for cybercrime activities. The security industry as a whole, save for a few individuals (including yours truly), were not aware of this threat or disregarded it as secondary.

What mattered was PR. The Year Of The Big Worms was behind us and with every new worm to be released into the wild, wilder claims would be sounded in the press, claiming the end of the world. In retrospect, while unplanned, this was as good as a campaign by the criminals to keep us in the industry busy with old technology while they make use of botnets.

Botnet was not an acknowledged term -- most of us called them Drone Armies back then. But the key issue is that these botnets performed the criminal activity a worm would, while making the shelf life of compromised computers much larger, as well as individual bots multipurpose rather than single-purpose.

And, indeed, history repeats itself, only with a different spin.

On Facebook, malware and scam activities always fight against time. They invent new tricks, and the Facebook security team responds in kind. Some of these tricks have grown to sophisticated complexity, while others are simply useless. While botnets were always used to operate fake Facebook profiles, they were not used separately for infection and scam.

In the past few weeks, we have seen more and more spam and scams on Facebook that don't actually infect the user -- thus drawing less of our attention. We keep looking for the worm, but it's not there.

What the criminals have done is divide their activities. On the one hand you have the botnet and infected users, all unrelated to Facebook. These then use Facebook on real users' computers to scam their friends. Their friends, in turn, may lose money in the scam, but will not get infected if they click the link/lure.

The difference is subtle, but key. By not infecting users on Facebook for their Facebook scams, the criminals have a lower profile and are much less interesting to Facebook security and the security industry.

In essence, the criminals, knowingly or not, have taken a page out of a security manual. They have reduced their risks by adding an extra layer, or hop, between them and their marks. Not only do they now draw less attention, it is also more difficult to discover, follow, and/or destroy these botnets because they are obfuscated behind the scenes. Don't get me wrong: Criminals have always used botnets on Facebook. This is a matter of type of usage and scale.

Ask any old timer in the industry, and he will tell you: "We've seen this before" -- in a different time, or place, or platform. This cyclical nature of our field is fascinating to me. It is always a new threat, a new platform, and a new technology. The challenge is to maintain our experience in between, and not just be tactically oriented.

Follow Gadi Evron on Twitter: http://twitter.com/gadievron.

Gadi Evron is an independent security strategist based in Israel. Special to Dark Reading. Gadi is CEO and founder of Cymmetria, a cyber deception startup and chairman of the Israeli CERT. Previously, he was vice president of cybersecurity strategy for Kaspersky Lab and led PwC's Cyber Security Center of Excellence, located in Israel. He is widely recognized for ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
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
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
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...