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.

Threat Intelligence

Email Bomb Threats Follow Sextortion Playbook

Yesterday's wave of email bomb threats appear to be an evolution of tactics by the same groups that earlier tried "sextortion" and personal threats, Talos researchers say.

On December 13, dozens of organizations across the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand received email messages demanding $20,000 in bitcoin in return for the location of bombs  that had allegedly been planted at their offices. While the threats caused some confusion and a fair amount of annoyance, no bombs were found anywhere the threat was received.

While there is now an international search for the perpetrator(s), researchers at Talos say that the actors behind the bomb threats seem to be the same groups behind the waves of "sextortion" and blackmail email messages that have been plaguing victims since early summer.

"What they're doing now is kind of refining their social engineering approach to try to come up with other situations where the victim might actually be convinced to send the bitcoins," says Jaeson Schultz, technical leader at Talos. He points out that some of the specific language in the email messages, the address range of the senders, and the bitcoin wallets provided as the destination of the ransom all point to the same group of actors behind the evolving attacks.

And the attacks are evolving ever more rapidly. By late yesterday afternoon, the bomb threats had ceased, to be replaced with personal threats; acid attacks were the weapon of choice in the later extortion attempts.

Those personal threats are a return to an older tactic, says Schultz. "We've seen examples of messages where, for example, the attackers were claiming that they were a hit man who was hired to chop off the victim's hands or something. They had a change of heart, and now they are willing to — for a price that's paid in bitcoin — call off the attack and provide information about who hired them," he explains, saying that these rather gruesome messages were more common in September but had slowed.

Schultz says that researchers have been monitoring the bitcoin wallets provided as a target for the ransom, and that it doesn't appear as though any of the victims had actually paid the ransom. Colin Bastable, CEO of Lucy Security doesn't think that collecting ransom was really part of the attackers' plans. "This isn’t about extortion, it is about causing disruption. It worked," he said in a statement provided to Dark Reading. He continued, "There was no feasible way to collect money – so whilst it was criminal, the cost was paid in mass disruption. I think it is a trial run to see how America responds in such cases."

Schultz agrees with Bastable's broad conclusion about the ransom. "I guess the only thing I can kind of deduce is that the criminals in this case are not necessarily worried about having bitcoins that are tainted through this malicious activity." And he doesn't think we've seen the last of these attacks.

"Evidently these folks are making enough money that it is worth their time to continue these these tactics and I think it speaks to the fact that social engineering is one of the more powerful attacks out there," Schultz says. "It's an attack on the users themselves who are oftentimes the weakest link in any sort of a secure system."

Related content:

Curtis Franklin Jr. is Senior Editor at Dark Reading. In this role he focuses on product and technology coverage for the publication. In addition he works on audio and video programming for Dark Reading and contributes to activities at Interop ITX, Black Hat, INsecurity, and ... 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-2019-10133
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.
CVE-2019-10134
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 size of users' private file uploads via email were not correctly checked, so their quota allowance could be exceeded.
CVE-2019-10154
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
A flaw was found in Moodle before versions 3.7, 3.6.4. A web service fetching messages was not restricted to the current user's conversations.
CVE-2019-9039
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
The Couchbase Sync Gateway 2.1.2 in combination with a Couchbase Server is affected by a previously undisclosed N1QL-injection vulnerability in the REST API. An attacker with access to the public REST API can insert additional N1QL statements through the parameters ?startkey? and ?endkey? of the ?_a...
CVE-2018-20846
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
Out-of-bounds accesses in the functions pi_next_lrcp, pi_next_rlcp, pi_next_rpcl, pi_next_pcrl, pi_next_rpcl, and pi_next_cprl in openmj2/pi.c in OpenJPEG through 2.3.0 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash).