Posts Tagged: Trusteer


27
Jun 13

Carberp Code Leak Stokes Copycat Fears

The source code for “Carberp” — a botnet creation kit coded by a team of at least two dozen hackers who used it to relieve banks of an estimated $250 million — has been posted online for anyone to download. The code leak offers security experts a fascinating and somewhat rare glimpse into the malcoding economy, but many also worry that its publication will spawn new hybrid strains of sophisticated banking malware.

Carberp admin panel. Source: Xylibox.blogspot.com

Carberp admin panel. Source: Xylibox.blogspot.com

The leak appears to have begun, as these things often do, with the sale of the source code in a semi-private cybercrime forum. On June 5, a member of the Lampeduza crime forum said he was selling the Carberp source to a single buyer, with a starting price of $25,000. The seller said he was helping out one of the developers of the code, who was short on cash.

By mid-June, links to download the entire Carberp archive were being posted on multiple forums, as first documented by Trusteer. Since then, experts from around the world have been tearing through the two-gigabyte archive to learn more about the code and its potential for future abuse in new and existing malware creations.

Leaking the source code was not like the leaking of a weapon, but more like the leaking of a tank factory,” wrote one Ukrainian tech blogger on Livejournal.

According to Peter Kruse, a specialist with the Copenhagen-based CSIS Security Group, the package includes the Carberp bootkit; this is a component that can subvert the Patchguard protection in Windows 7 x86 and 64-bit systems so that the malware loads itself at the most basic levels of the system (Kruse said the bootkit component is incomplete and does not work against Windows 8 PCs).

Also included are components of a Trojan known as UrSnif, as well as an extremely popular and prevalent rival botnet creation kit called Citadel.

“As with the leakage of the ZeuS source code, back in May 2011, this means that criminals have every chance to modify and even add new features to the kit,” Kruse wrote, noting that the Carberp archive also contains several text files that appear to be records of private chats and various usernames and passwords.

CHEEKY CODERS

Last year, Russian and Ukrainian authorities arrested a loosely-affiliated group of hackers accused of programming and using Carberp to rob millions from bank accounts of their countrymen. According to an account of the law enforcement action in the Russian news outlet Kommersant, Carberp was coded by a team of about 20-25 people under the age of 30. Most of the men had never met face-to-face. Each worked remotely and was responsible for developing specific modules of the Carberp code, components that were then transmitted to a main development server in Odessa, Ukraine.

Some of the leaked Carberp source code archives.

Some of the leaked Carberp source code archives.

Members of the coding forum kernelmode.info have been poring over comments left in the code by the Carberp developers. One set of comments, translated from Russian by a KrebsOnSecurity reader, suggests the developer was frustrated by having to program within the confines of what he considered sloppy operating system or perhaps Web browser plugin code.

“I will rip off someone’s hands for this kind of code!” the unidentified developer noted in one section of the Carberp source. “This stupid thing does God-knows-what.”

Continue reading →


26
Jun 12

Bank Settles With Calif. Cyberheist Victim

A California escrow firm that sued its bank last year after losing nearly $400,000 in a 2010 cyberheist has secured a settlement that covers the loss and the company’s attorneys fees. The settlement is notable because such cases typically favor the banks, and litigating them is often prohibitively expensive for small- to mid-sized businesses victimized by these crimes.

In March 2010, organized computer crooks stole $465,000 from Redondo Beach, Calif. based Village View Escrow Inc., sending 26 consecutive wire transfers from Village View’s accounts to 20 individuals around the world who had no legitimate or previous business with the firm. The escrow firm clawed back some of the stolen funds — $72,000 — but that still left Village View with a $393,000 loss, forcing the company’s owner to take out a personal loan at 12 percent interest to cover the loss of customer funds).

In June 2011, Village View sued its financial institutionProfessional Business Bank — arguing that the bank was negligent because it protected customer accounts solely with usernames and passwords. Last week, Village View announced that it had reached a settlement with its bank to recover more than just the full amount of the funds taken from the account plus interest for Village View Escrow.

Kim Dincel, a shareholder at Silicon Valley Law Group, which represented the plaintiffs, said the Uniform Commercial Code and its corresponding California Commercial Code limits the damages resulting from wire transfer fraud to only the actual amount of money lost plus interest – nothing more.  Common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and fraud, and the damages that attached to them, are generally precluded from being asserted by a victim of wire transfer fraud in a lawsuit involving wire transfer fraud, he added.

“Banks typically deny liability for the cyber-theft which forces small businesses to spend money they do not have on legal fees and regulatory expenses in order to recover a limited and defined set of damages under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC),” Dincel said in a prepared statement released Monday.

The Bank of Manhattan, which acquired Professional Business Bank last month, did not return calls seeking comment.

Continue reading →


24
Aug 11

Hybrid Hydras and Green Stealing Machines

Hybrids seem to be all the rage in the automobile industry, so it’s unsurprising that hybrid threats are the new thing in another industry that reliably ships updated product lines: The computer crime world. The public release of the source code for the infamous ZeuS Trojan earlier this year is spawning novel attack tools. And just as hybrid cars hold the promise of greater fuel efficiency, these nascent threats show the potential of the ZeuS source code leak for morphing ordinary, run-of-the-mill malware into far more efficient data-stealing machines.

Researchers at Trusteer have unearthed evidence that portions of the leaked ZeuS source code have been fused with recent versions of Ramnit, a computer worm first spotted in January 2010. Amid thousands of other password-stealing, file-infecting worms  capable of spreading via networked drives, Ramnit is unremarkable except in one respect: It is hugely prolific. According to a report (PDF) from Symantec, Ramnit accounted for 17.3 percent of all malicious software that the company detected in July 2011.

Continue reading →


11
Jul 11

ZeuS Trojan for Google Android Spotted

Criminals have developed a component of the ZeuS Trojan designed to run on Google Android phones. The new strain of malware comes as security experts are warning about the threat from mobile malware that may use tainted ads and drive-by downloads.

Image courtesy Fortinet.

Researchers at Fortinet said the malicious file is a new version of “Zitmo,” a family of mobile malware first spotted last year that stands for “ZeuS in the mobile.” The Zitmo variant, disguised as a security application, is designed to intercept the one-time passcodes that banks send to mobile users as an added security feature. It masquerades as a component of Rapport, a banking activation application from Trusteer. Once installed, the malware lies in wait for incoming text messages, and forwards them to a remote Web server.

Trusteer published a lengthy blog post today that mentions an attack by this threat “that was used in conjunction with Zeus 2.1.0.10. The user was first infected with Zeus on their PC and then Zeus showed the message requesting the user to download the Android malware component.” In a phone interview, Trusteer CEO Mickey Boodaei said crooks used the Trojan in live attacks against several online banking users during the first week of June, but that the infrastructure that supported the attacks was taken offline about a month ago.

Boodaei offers a bold and grim forecast for the development of mobile malware, predicting that within 12 to 24 months more than 1 in 20 (5.6%) of Android phones and iPads/iPhones could become infected by mobile malware if fraudsters start integrating zero-day mobile vulnerabilities into leading exploit kits.

The last bit about exploit kits is key, because almost all mobile malware developed so far uses some type of social engineering to install itself on a device. Boodaei predicts a future time when crooks begin incorporating mobile phone vulnerabilities into automated exploit kits like BlackHole and Eleonore, which use security flaws to install malicious software when the user visits a booby-trapped site with a vulnerable device.

Continue reading →


2
Jun 11

Spotting Web-Based Email Attacks

Google warned on Wednesday that hackers were launching targeted phishing attacks against hundreds of Gmail account users, including senior U.S. government officials, Chinese political activists, military personnel and journalists. That story, as related in a post on the Official Google Blog, was retold in hundreds of media outlets today as the latest example of Chinese cyber espionage: The lead story in the print edition of The Wall Street Journal today was, “Google: China Hacked Email.”

The fact that hackers are launching extremely sophisticated email attacks that appear to trace back to China makes for great headlines, but it isn’t exactly news. I’m surprised by how few media outlets took the time to explain the mechanics behind these targeted attacks, because they offer valuable insight into why people who really ought to know better keep falling for them. A more complete accounting of the attacks may give regular Internet users a better sense of the caliber of scams that are likely to target them somewhere down the road.

Google said “the goal of this effort seems to have been to monitor the contents of targeted users’ emails, with the perpetrators apparently using stolen passwords to change peoples’ forwarding and delegation settings. (Gmail enables you to forward your emails automatically, as well as grant others access to your account.)”

This statement freaked me out a little bit. When was the last time you checked whether your email forwarding settings had been modified? If you’re like me, probably never. This might be the most useful aspect of the Google disclosure, and it contains a few helpful pointers about how to check those settings in Gmail. Google also took this opportunity to remind users about the value of enabling 2-step verification, a security precaution I highlighted in a February blog post.

To my mind, the most valuable content in the Google Blog entry is a footnote that points to the Contagio Malware Dump blog, an incredibly detailed and insightful (if slightly dangerous) resource for information on targeted attacks. It’s worth noting that Google relied on Contagio to reconstruct how the attacks took place, and the author –blogger Mila Parkour — first wrote about these attacks almost four months ago.

Most of targeted email attacks chronicled on Parkour’s blog involve poisoned file attachments that exploit zero-day software flaws in programs like Adobe Flash or Microsoft Word.  This campaign also encouraged people to click a link to download a file, but the file was instead an HTML page that mimicked Gmail’s login page. The scam page also was custom-coded to fill in the target’s Gmail username. Contagiodump has a proof-of-concept page available at this link that shows the exact attack, except populated with “JDoe” in the username field.

Parkour also published an informative graphic highlighting the differences between the fake Google login page and the legitimate page at https://mail.google.com.

Continue reading →


23
Feb 11

Sold a Lemon in Internet Banking

An online bank robbery in which computer crooks stole $63,000 from a Kansas car dealership illustrates the deftness with which cyber thieves are flouting the meager security measures protecting commercial accounts at many banks.

At 7:45 a..m. Monday, Nov. 1, 2010, the controller for Abilene, Kansas based Green Ford Sales, Inc. logged into his account at First Bank Kansas to check the company’s accounts. Seven hours later, he logged back in and submitted a payroll batch for company employees totaling $51,970. The bank’s authentication system sent him an e-mail to confirm the batch details, and the controller approved it.

The controller didn’t know it at the time, but thieves had already compromised his Microsoft Windows PC with a copy of the ZeuS trojan, which allowed them to monitor his computer and log in to the company’s bank account using his machine. Less than an hour after the bookkeeper approved the payroll batch, bank records show, the thieves logged in to Green Ford’s account from the same Internet address normally used by the dealership, using the controller’s correct user name and password.

The attackers cased the joint a bit — checking the transaction history, account summary and balance — and then logged out. They waited until 1:04 p.m. the next day to begin creating their own $63,000 payroll batch, by adding nine new “employees” to the company’s books. The employees added were in fact money mules, willing or unwitting individuals recruited through work-at-home job scams to help crooks launder stolen funds.

Green Ford’s controller never received the confirmation email sent by the bank to verify the second payroll batch initiated by the fraudsters, because the crooks also had control over the controller’s e-mail account.

“They went through and deleted it,” said Green Ford owner Lease Duckwall. “If they had control over his machine, they’d have certainly had control over his email and the password for that, too.”

To me, this attack gets to the heart of why these e-banking thefts continue unabated at banks all over the country every week: An attacker who has compromised an account holder’s PC can control every aspect of what the victim sees or does not see, because that bad guy can then intercept, delete, modify or re-route all communications to and from the infected PC. If a bank’s system of authenticating a transaction depends solely on the customer’s PC being infection-free, then that system is trivially vulnerable to compromise in the face of today’s more stealthy banking trojans.

It is difficult to believe that there are still banks that are using nothing more than passwords for online authentication on commercial accounts. Then again, some of the techniques being folded into today’s banking trojans can defeat many of the most advanced client-side authentication mechanisms in use today.

Banks often complain that commercial account takeover victims might have spotted thefts had the customer merely reconciled its accounts at day’s end. But several new malware strains allow attackers to manipulate the balance displayed when the victim logs in to his or her account.

Perhaps the most elegant fraud techniques being built into trojans involve an approach known as “session riding,” where the fraudster in control of a victim PC simply waits until the user logs in, and then silently hijacks that session to move money out of the account.

Amit Klein, chief technology officer at Trusteer, blogged this week about a relatively new strain of malware dubbed OddJob, which hijacks customers’ online banking sessions in real time using their session ID tokens. According to Klein, OddJob keeps online banking sessions open after customers think they have “logged off,” enabling criminals to extract money and commit fraud unnoticed.

All of these developments illustrate the need for some kind of mechanism on the bank’s end for detecting fraudulent transactions, such as building profiles of what constitutes normal customer activity and looking for activity that appears to deviate from that profile. For example, in almost every case I’ve written about, the victim was robbed after thieves logged in and added multiple new names to the payroll. There are most certainly other such markers that are common to victims of commercial account fraud, and banks should be looking out for them. Unfortunately, far too many small to mid-sized banks outsource much of their visibility at the transaction level to third-party service providers, most of whom have been extremely slow to develop and implement solutions that would enable partner banks to flag many warning signs of account takeovers.

Continue reading →


29
Apr 10

A Closer Look at Rapport from Trusteer

A number of readers recently have written in to say their banks  have urged customers to install a security program called Rapport as a way to protect their online bank accounts from fraud. The readers who pinged me all said they didn’t know much about this product, and did I recommend installing it? Since it has been almost two years since I last reviewed the software, I thought it might be useful to touch base with its creators to see how this program has kept pace with the latest threats.

The basics elements of Rapport – designed by a company called Trusteer — haven’t changed much. As I wrote in May 2008, the software works by assuming control over the application programming interfaces or APIs in Windows, the set of tools which allow software developers to create programs that interact with key Windows functionalities.

From that 2008 piece:

“Some of today’s nastiest data-stealing malware works by hijacking these Windows APIs. For example, keyloggers simply hijack or ‘hook’ the Windows API that handles the transmission of data from user interfaces, such as the keyboard and mouse. A more advanced type of malware – known as a ‘form grabber’ – hijacks the ‘WinInet‘ API – which sets up the SSL (think https://) transaction between the user’s browser and the encrypted Web site. By hijacking this API, a form grabber can rip out usernames and passwords even when the user is submitting them into a site that encrypts the data during transmission because it grabs that information at the lower level of the operating system, before it is encrypted.

Trusteer’s software examines these and other vital Windows APIs to see if any other process is trying to intercept sensitive data. It then blocks those that do.”

I spoke last week with Trusteer CEO Mickey Boodaei about his company’s software, how it has changed over the years, and what’s new about it.

BK: A lot of customers are being asked to download the software and don’t know much about Trusteer or Rapport. One customer wrote in banked at BBVA, and another was with Fifth Third. Both banks very recently had multiple customers lose hundreds of thousands of dollars to the sort of online banking fraud I’ve been writing about lately.

MB: Well, the more press coverage we get, the more it will help build familiarity with our brand among consumers.

BK: Since we last talked, you were working with just a handful of banks — such as ING. Can you talk about how the business has grown and who you’re partnering with now?

MB: Over the last year in the U.S., we’ve been seeing a significant change in the amount of interest we’re getting from banks, especially around business banking. It looks like banks are getting really worried about it, as many have seen fairly significant fraud losses. Right now in North America we have around 50 banks using our technology, and few others in the United Kingdom.

Read on after the jump for my thoughts on this software, and a discussion of some of the malware that specifically targets Rapport.

Continue reading →