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

1/5/2017
08:31 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

‘Ghost Hosts’ Bypass URL Filtering

Malware authors have found a way to evade URL-blocking systems by swapping bad domain names with unknown ones.

For some time now URL filtering techniques have provided a fairly reliable way for organizations to block traffic into their network from domains that are known to be malicious. But as with almost every defense mechanism, threat actors appear to have found a way around that as well.

Security researchers from Cyren are warning about a new tactic for fooling Web security and URL--filtering systems. The technique, which Cyren has dubbed "Ghost Host," is designed to evade host and domain blacklists by swapping bad domain names and inserting random, non-malicious host names in the HTTP host field instead.

The objective is to evade host and domain blacklists by resetting the host name with a benign one, even when the actual connection is to a malicious command and control IP, according to a Cyren blog post today.

“Ghost hosts are unknown or known-benign host names used by malware for evading host and URL blacklists,” says Geffen Tzur, a security researcher at Cyren.

“The malware will use a ghost host in the HTTP header, but actually connect to a different destination, hosted on a different IP,” he says.  This way, network security systems that inspect the HTTP "host" header will not notice the underlying connection to the malicious IP, and will allow the connection, he says.

According to Tzur, Cyren stumbled upon the new detection evasion technique while analyzing the behavior of Necurs, an especially persistent botnet that is being used to distribute spam, ransomware, and other malware.

The malicious destination IP address, to which compromised machines was being directed to, was the same as the one used for establishing the connection in the first place. But by using a ghost host, the threat actors were able to hide that fact, Tzur says.

“Since the ghost hosts have no effect on the established connection, they may be used with other IP addresses,” he says. That means there’s no way to confirm if ghost hosts are paired to the underlying IPs, he says.

According to Tzur, malware authors can manipulate HTTP requests at their will to fool URL filtering systems. They can employ an HTTP client, which connects to one malicious IP and sends HTTP requests with customized headers. The unknown hosts are inserted during request creation.

“Malware authors can manipulate the HTTP request at their will. They can employ an HTTP client which connects to one malicious IP and sends HTTP requests with customized headers,” he says. “The unknown hosts are inserted during request creation and are probably hardcoded.”

Tzur says there have been no previously reported incidents he knows of where malware actors have attempted to fool detection systems by inserting benign names in the HTTP host field.

“It is as easy as using any open source HTTP client which features header manipulation,” Tzur says, and there are multiple HTTP client implementations that allow this sort of manipulation.

Botnet owners can benefit from the technique in multiple ways. The most obvious one is that URL filtering systems will not block ghost hostnames. Cyren checked to see whether popular URL filtering systems detected the ghost host names, and none of them did.

Related stories:

 

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
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
7 Tips for Infosec Pros Considering A Lateral Career Move
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/21/2020
For Mismanaged SOCs, The Price Is Not Right
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment:   It's a PEN test of our cloud security.
Current Issue
IT 2020: A Look Ahead
Are you ready for the critical changes that will occur in 2020? We've compiled editor insights from the best of our network (Dark Reading, Data Center Knowledge, InformationWeek, ITPro Today and Network Computing) to deliver to you a look at the trends, technologies, and threats that are emerging in the coming year. Download it today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Organizations have invested in a sweeping array of security technologies to address challenges associated with the growing number of cybersecurity attacks. However, the complexity involved in managing these technologies is emerging as a major problem. Read this report to find out what your peers biggest security challenges are and the technologies they are using to address them.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-5226
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-24
Cross-site scripting in SimpleSAMLphp before version 1.18.4. The www/erroreport.php script allows error reports to be submitted and sent to the system administrator. Starting with SimpleSAMLphp 1.18.0, a new SimpleSAML\Utils\EMail class was introduced to handle sending emails, implemented as a wrapp...
CVE-2019-1517
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-24
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2019. Notes: none.
CVE-2019-1518
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-24
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2019. Notes: none.
CVE-2019-1519
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-24
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2019. Notes: none.
CVE-2019-1520
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-24
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2019. Notes: none.