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

ShadowHammer Dangers Include Update Avoidance

More fallout from the compromise of Asus's automated software update.

When a platform is attacked, there are well-practiced tools and strategies for response. When servers that provide software and firmware updates get hit as in the recent ShadowHammer attack that hit Asus and its customers, remediation can be much more of a challenge technologically and behaviorally.

The ShadowHammer attackers used a trusted supplier — which itself was using trusted certificates for authentication — to target a relatively small number of end users. But the impact of the attack may be felt far beyond the targeted systems as customers around the world lose confidence in the software, firmware, updates, and patches provided by Asus.

Researchers at Skylight Cyber last week published a list of the roughly 600 MAC addresses targeted in the breach. Kaspersky Lab earlier had published a tool in which a specific MAC could be compared against a hidden table of addresses to see whether it was targeted in the attack.

Kaspersky’s investigation identified 600 MAC addresses — a unique identifier assigned to each networked device — hard-coded into ASUS' backdoored update utility. "This indicates that the wide-reaching attack was launched for the purpose of targeting a relatively small number of very specific devices," says Mark Orlando, CTO of Cyber Protection Solutions at Raytheon.

The small number of devices targeted in ShadowHammer is not a factor unique to the attack. "A common thread among many of these supply chain attacks is that, despite having access to a trove of compromised systems at their disposal, attackers have only targeted a smaller subset of those systems," says Satnam Narang, senior research engineer at Tenable.

In a security environment that often brings the requirement for rapid software and firmware updates to deal with zero-day or rapidly evolving threats, a breach in trust may be the most damaging of ShadowHammer's effects. "This can result in end-user skepticism about applying software updates, which often contain critical security updates that, if left unpatched, could be exploited," Narang says.

"We plainly see the need for validation of trusted-vendor channels in addition to digital signatures — which, in this case, appears to have further concealed the malicious activity by providing a false sense of integrity — not just for software and platform updates, but any 'trusted' vendor network which has access into our environment," says Colin Little, senior threat analyst at Centripetal Networks.. 

That doesn't mean channels like update servers should be given network carte blanche. "Organizations should take a hard look at supply chain security, and specifically software update security, in light of this report," Orlando says.

Because compromised updates can be digitally signed and will likely get past signature-based protection, "the best defenses are a shift towards proactive analysis, e.g. threat hunting, and tougher scrutiny of third-party software," he says.

Related Content:

 

 

 

 

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two cybersecurity summits at Interop 2019. Learn from the industry's most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the Interop agenda here.

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
DavidHamilton
50%
50%
DavidHamilton,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/16/2019 | 4:13:37 AM
Clear your name
It is always a chain reaction when you engage a third party to do the job for you. End users only see you at the front so the blame will be pushed to you even if you weren't the one handling the security component at the back. Nobody would know it wasn't you until you release a press release explaining what was going on and clearing your name in the process.
Where Businesses Waste Endpoint Security Budgets
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  7/15/2019
US Mayors Commit to Just Saying No to Ransomware
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/16/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
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-2019-14230
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-21
An issue was discovered in the Viral Quiz Maker - OnionBuzz plugin before 1.2.7 for WordPress. One could exploit the id parameter in the set_count ajax nopriv handler due to there being no sanitization prior to use in a SQL query in saveQuestionVote. This allows an unauthenticated/unprivileged user ...
CVE-2019-14231
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-21
An issue was discovered in the Viral Quiz Maker - OnionBuzz plugin before 1.2.2 for WordPress. One could exploit the points parameter in the ob_get_results ajax nopriv handler due to there being no sanitization prior to use in a SQL query in getResultByPointsTrivia. This allows an unauthenticated/un...
CVE-2019-14207
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-21
An issue was discovered in Foxit PhantomPDF before 8.3.11. The application could crash when calling the clone function due to an endless loop resulting from confusing relationships between a child and parent object (caused by an append error).
CVE-2019-14208
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-21
An issue was discovered in Foxit PhantomPDF before 8.3.10. The application could be exposed to a NULL pointer dereference and crash when getting a PDF object from a document, or parsing a certain portfolio that contains a null dictionary.
CVE-2019-14209
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-21
An issue was discovered in Foxit PhantomPDF before 8.3.10. The application could be exposed to Heap Corruption due to data desynchrony when adding AcroForm.