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.

Vulnerabilities / Threats

12/11/2015
04:14 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Latentbot: A Ghost in the Internet

Malware's multiple layers of obfuscation make it almost invisible FireEye says,

In what is quickly becoming a familiar pattern, security researchers have discovered a dangerous new malware threat that is notable largely because of how difficult it is to spot in the wild.

Threat actors have been using the malware, called Latentbot since mid-2013 to target organizations in at least nine countries including the US, United Kingdom, Brazil, United Arab Emirates and Canada.

During this time, the malware has operated almost invisibly and has managed to leave barely any traces of its existence on the Internet, security vendor FireEye said in an alert on the threat issued Friday.

The vendor described Latentbot as malware capable of taking complete control of systems, stealing data and surreptitiously watching its victims. Among other things, the malware is capable of completely corrupting a hard disk to make an infected system useless.

What makes the malware interesting is the manner in which it implements multiple layers of obfuscation to hide its tracks.

To start with, the malware uses a convoluted approach to infect a system. Victims are first targeted with an email containing a malicious Word attachment. When the attachment is opened it triggers an executable, which beacons out to a server that in turn downloads a secondary malware tool on the infected system.

FireEye said it identified the secondary malware as LuminosityLink, a previously known remote access Trojan designed to steal data and passwords, record keystrokes, and surreptitiously turn on any attached webcam or microphone. LuminosityLink itself is enough to take complete control of the infected system.

But it is only at this stage that a second command and control server drops Latentbot as a camouflaged .Net binary on the infected system. The binary in turn contains yet another similarly obfuscated fourth stage payload that is used to plant malicious code in system memory. The malware uses similar obfuscation to drop fifth and sixth stage payloads as well.

Daniel Regalado, a senior malware researcher at FireEye describes Latentbot as having multiple interesting features. The real malicious code for instance is only present in memory for a short period of time and is very hard to figure out.

“Latentbot won’t expose its internal workings [easily] due to its multiple layers of obfuscation and multiple injections into processes in memory,” Regalado says. “So, basically, an analyst must fully trace Latentbot in memory and have a proper response from the [C&C server] in order to understand how it works.”

Even then it is not an easy task because decrypted strings in memory are removed after use. Callback traffic, APIs, Registry keys and other typical indicators of compromise are decrypted dynamically making it hard to spot them. Latentbot also has a feature to wipe the master boot record of an infected system clean to remove all traces of its existence, a feature that is not common in malware of this sort, the security researcher says.

Another unique feature in Latentbot is its use of a hidden Virtual Network Computing (VNC) process in memory that allows attackers to remotely monitor victims without being noticed, he said. Finally, the malware’s highly modular plugin architecture makes it relatively easy for threat actors to enable multiple features and add new ones as needed, Regalado says.

“In order to know exactly what it is doing, multiple layer of obfuscations needs to be circumvented [and] a live communication to a C2 is required to download the malicious plugins, he says. “If you run Latentbot and the C2 is not responding, you will end up with a piece of malware showing nothing about its internal operations.”

Researchers have seen online sandboxes running samples of Latentbot since 2013 but have not been able to figure out how it works. “It is like a ghost in [the] Internet,” he says.

Latentbot, marks the third time in recent weeks where security researchers have warned about malware capable of evading detection for lengthy periods.

In November, RSA issued an alert on a so-called zero-detection threat dubbed GlassRAT that threat actors have been using nearly invisibly for the past three years to target Chinese nationals at large companies. Earlier the same month, Trustwave warned about Cherry Picker, a malware tool targeting point of sale systems that remained largely undetected by AV tools for some four years.

Jai Vijayan is a seasoned technology reporter with over 20 years of experience in IT trade journalism. He was most recently a Senior Editor at Computerworld, where he covered information security and data privacy issues for the publication. Over the course of his 20-year ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
crickard62
50%
50%
crickard62,
User Rank: Apprentice
12/14/2015 | 2:19:45 PM
Great article to raise awareness but...
... there is nothing actionable here.  Are there any antimalware solutions that can counter this?  Like @RyanSepe, I'd like to know how to deal with this.
RyanSepe
100%
0%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
12/14/2015 | 12:47:12 PM
Security Measures
What are some best practice security measures that can be taken to protect against something like LatentBot?
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-2019-1619
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-27
A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Data Center Network Manager (DCNM) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to bypass authentication and execute arbitrary actions with administrative privileges on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to improper session ...
CVE-2019-1620
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-27
A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Data Center Network Manager (DCNM) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to upload arbitrary files on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to incorrect permission settings in affected DCNM software. An attacker could ex...
CVE-2019-1621
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-27
A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Data Center Network Manager (DCNM) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to gain access to sensitive files on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to incorrect permissions settings on affected DCNM software. An attacker...
CVE-2019-1622
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-27
A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Data Center Network Manager (DCNM) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to retrieve sensitive information from an affected device. The vulnerability is due to improper access controls for certain URLs on affected DCNM software...
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.