Why Africans should be worried about PETYA 0 747

  • The malicious software has been identified as a modified version of a previously known ransomware, called Petya or Petrwrap, that has been substantially altered.
  • Due to its unique characteristics, it has been dubbed as NotPetya and ExPetya, which is currently detected by ESET as Win32/Diskcoder.C Trojan.
  • NotPetya can be termed as a worm, which can self-replicate across multiple networks. Petya uses two primary methods to spread across networks. Execution across network shares and SMB exploits
  • The current global ransomware trend utilises the EternalBlue Exploit in order to take advantage of the vast use of the Windows Operating System.
  • More than 80% of enterprise servers and endpoints in the African Digital Economy run on the Windows Operating System.
africans-worried-petya

It all begins with the MS17-010 Exploit

The EternalBlue Exploit, otherwise known as MS17-010, developed by the NSA and pilfered by the Shadow Brokers continues to open opportunities for malicious malware authors as fresh ransomware attacks continue to ravage Europe while spreading through the globe at an alarming pace.

Notably, it has become evident that in the realm of cybersecurity, the adage of once bitten, twice shy, seldom applies as unpatched computer systems have been utilised for a second time by cybercriminals to achieve exponential infection rates, reminiscent of the WannaCry nightmare that the globe experienced only two months ago.

NotPetya

The malicious software has been identified as a modified version of a previously known ransomware, called Petya or Petrwrap, that has been substantially altered, prompting a debate among researchers over whether it is new malware.

Due to its unique characteristics, it has been dubbed as NotPetya and ExPetya, which is currently detected by ESET as Win32/Diskcoder.C Trojan. If it successfully infects the MBR (Master Boot Record), it will encrypt the whole drive itself. Otherwise, it encrypts all files, like Mischa.

How does NotPetya replicate?

In many ways, NotPetya can be termed as a worm, which can self-replicate across multiple networks. Petya uses two primary methods to spread across networks. These include:

  • Execution across network shares: It attempts to spread to the target computers by copying itself to [COMPUTER NAME]\\admin$ using the acquired credentials. It is then executed remotely using either PsExec or the Windows Management Instrumentation Command-line (WMIC) tool. Both are legitimate tools.
  • SMB exploits: It attempts to spread using variations of the EternalBlue and EternalRomance exploits.

Crucially, NotPetya seeks to gain administrator access on a machine and then leverages that power to commandeer other computers on the network: it takes advantage of the fact that far too many organizations employ flat networks in which an administrator on one endpoint can control other machines, or sniff domain admin credentials present in memory, until total control over the Windows network is achieved. It achieves primary access through using phishing techniques to trick administrators into running the malware with high privileges.

What institutions have been adversely affected?

africans-worried-petya

The most severe damage is being reported by Ukrainian businesses, with systems compromised at Ukraine’s central bank, state telecom, municipal metro, and Kiev’s Boryspil Airport. Systems were also compromised at Ukraine’s Ukrenego electricity supplier, although a spokesperson said the power supply was unaffected by the attack. The attack has even affected operations at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, which has switched to manual radiation monitoring as a result of the attack.

Infections have also been reported in more isolated devices like point-of-sale terminals and ATMs. The virus has also spread internationally. The Danish shipping company Maersk has also reported systems down across multiple sites, including the company’s Russian logistics arm Damco.

The virus also reached servers for the Russian oil company Rosneft, although it’s unclear how much damage was incurred. There have also been several recorded cases in the United States, including the pharmaceutical company Merck, a Pittsburgh-area hospital, and the US offices of law firm DLA Piper.

The attacks have been indiscriminate across every vulnerable vertical as institution after institution falls short against the unique threat posed by NotPetya.

Why Africans should be concerned about the current global ransomware trend

The current global ransomware trend, of utilising the EternalBlue Exploit in order to take advantage of the vast use of the Windows Operating System should send chills down the spines of any executive worth his salt in the African Digital Market for the following reasons.

Firstly, more than 80% of enterprise servers and endpoints in the African Digital Economy run on the Windows Operating System, thus exposing majority of our organisations to the next-generational strains of ransomware being designed by savvy malware authors. Moreover, a significant percentage of these Windows systems are run on legacy platforms such as XP and Windows Vista which exponentially increase the probability that these systems are probably unpatched.

Secondly, there is an astounding number of citizens who are unaware of the cybersecurity risks present within their daily lives. Kenya, serves as a key example to the plight of the African digital economy. With an 85.3% internet penetration rate, Kenya boasts a wealth of 37.7m netizens, actively contributing to their digital ecosystem.

Moreover, due to the proliferation of mobile banking, internet banking continues to rise within the region. However, contrary to logical perception, about 90% of Kenya’s netizens remain unaware of the increased cyber risks within their digital market. This poses a unique and advanced risk as ransomware’s primary source of entry is through A

In conclusion, new strains of ransomware seem to tactically replicate across networks utilising unpatched Windows systems and untrained company personnel through phishing e-mails to wreak havoc across targeted networks. The African Digital Economy is especially vulnerable to these risks as they exploit our unique weaknesses.

Our recommendations:

  1. Invest in new-school cybersecurity awareness training.
  2. Deploy reputable endpoint protection.
  3. Strengthen your business continuity capabilities.
  4. Evaluate and Patch Installed Software.
  5. Monitor access rights.
Previous ArticleNext Article

Approximately US $150,000 worth of Ethereum-based cryptocurrency stolen 0 635

Online cryptocurrency website MyEtherWallet.com has confirmed that some visitors could have been temporarily redirected to a phishing site designed to steal users’ credentials and – ultimately – empty their cryptocurrency wallets.

According to reports, whoever was behind the attack may have successfully stolen approximately US $152,000 worth of Ethereum-based cryptocurrency.

However,  MyEtherWallet may not have been at fault, as the website explained in its statement:

“This is not due to a lack of security on the [MyEtherWallet] platform. It is due to hackers finding vulnerabilities in public facing DNS servers.”

British security researcher Kevin Beaumont confirms in a blog post that some of MyEtherWallet’s traffic had been redirected to a server based in Russia after traffic intended for Amazon’s DNS resolvers was pointed to a server hosted in Chicago by Equinix.

For the scheme to succeed, someone pulled off a hijack of a crucial component of the internet known as Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), to reroute traffic intended for Amazon’s Route 53 DNS service to the server in Chicago. As a consequence, for some users, entering myetherwallet.com into their browser did not take them to the genuine site but instead to a server at an IP address chosen by the hackers.

The only obvious clue that a typical user might have spotted was that when they visited the fake MyEtherWallet site they would have seen an error message telling them that the site was using an untrustworthy SSL certificate.

It seems that the attackers made a mistake in not obtaining a valid SSL certificate.

Despite the error with their SSL certificate, the hackers haven’t done badly for themselves – both in this attack and in the past. Fascinatingly, the bogus MyEtherWallet website set up by the criminals was moving stolen cryptocurrency into a wallet which already contained some US $27 million worth of assets. Inevitably that raises questions of its own – have the hackers already made a substantial fortune through other attacks, or might their activities be supported by a nation state?

In a statement Equinix confirmed that a customer’s equipment at its Chicago data center was used in the hackers’ hijacking of Amazon’s Route 53 DNS service:

“The server used in this incident was not an Equinix server but rather customer equipment deployed at one of our Chicago IBX data centers… We generally do not have visibility or control over what our customers – or customers of our customers – do with their equipment.”

Amazon however, do not find the blame to lie on themselves, communicating the following statement:

“Neither AWS nor Amazon Route 53 were hacked or compromised. An upstream Internet Service Provider (ISP) was compromised by a malicious actor who then used that provider to announce a subset of Route 53 IP addresses to other networks with whom this ISP was peered. These peered networks, unaware of this issue, accepted these announcements and incorrectly directed a small percentage of traffic for a single customer’s domain to the malicious copy of that domain.”

Some advice from award winning security blogger, researcher and speaker, Graham Cluley – avoid putting your cryptocurrency wallet online, keep them off your smartphone or computer and perhaps instead invest in a hardware wallet.

Beware: ad slingers thinly disguised as security apps 0 684

Fake Security App

According to AV-Comparatives, an independent testing organization, there are significant differences in the level of protection provided by mobile security solutions. However, even the least secure of them are still far better than questionable apps that impersonate security applications in order to display ads to users. Thirty-five such applications have recently been discovered in the Google Play official Android app store.

These apps have Google Play statistics showing a minimum of over six million installs, cumulatively. However, not all those were necessarily real installations, it is possilbe that many were bot downloads posting fake reviews to improve the ratings for the app.

All 35 apps have been flagged by ESET and eventually removed from the store.

In addition to annoying their victims with ads, disguising these apps as security software has some serious negative side effects, too. In mimicking basic security functions – in fact, they all act as very primitive security checkers relying on a few trivial hardcoded rules – they often detect legitimate apps as malicious. And last but not least, they create a false sense of security in the victims, which might expose them to real risks from malicious apps that are not detected as such.

ESET’s analysis has shown that among these 35 apps, only a handful stand out for their specific features: one app is not completely free as it offers a paid upgrade; one app has implemented a primitive, easily bypassed, app-locker manager; another app flags other apps from this group as dangerous by default; and finally, one misuses ESET’s branding.

 

Security-mimicking functionality
In order to stay under the radar, all the shady ad-displaying apps mimic actual mobile security solutions. However, their ‘detection mechanisms’ are incomplete and very primitive, which makes them easy to bypass and prone to false positives.

Our research into these questionable apps has shown that their ‘detection mechanisms’ can be divided into four categories. These mechanisms are identical or almost identical across the whole set of apps.

1) Package name whitelist & blacklist
These whitelists features popular apps such as Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Skype and others. The ‘blacklists’ contains far too few items to be considered security functionality at all.

2) Permissions blacklist
All apps (including legitimate ones) are flagged if they require some of the listed permissions that are considered dangerous, such as send and receive SMS, access location data, access the camera, etc.

3) Source whitelist
All apps but those from the official Android store, Google Play, are flagged – even if they are completely benign.

4) Activities blacklist
All apps that contain any of the blacklisted activities: that is, parts of applications. This mainly concerns some ad-displaying activities.

Flagged are all apps that contain any of the blacklisted activities, i.e., packages of application that are used in an application. These packages can handle additional functionalities (mainly some ad-displaying activities).

While there is nothing wrong with the idea of activity blacklisting, the implementation in these questionable apps is rather sloppy. For example, Google Ads is included in the blacklist despite the fact that it is a legitimate service. On top of being legitimate, this service is implemented in all of the shady apps we analyzed.

Additional security “functionality”
Some of the questionable security apps are capable of protecting a user’s apps with a password or a pattern locker. The idea behind this seemingly useful feature is to provide the user with another layer of security in selected apps.

However, due to insecure implementation, this feature also fails to provide true security to the user.

The problem is that relevant information is not stored safely on the device – instead of using encryption, which is common baseline practice in cybersecurity, these apps store the names of locked apps and the passwords to unlock them as plaintext.

This means that the data can be accessed after the device is rooted.

Besides compromising the unencrypted data by rooting the phone, there is another way to bypass the app lock. An attacker with physical access to the device can change the app-locking password without knowing the old one!

Conclusion
Having a security solution installed in an Android phone is definitely a good thing. However, not all apps featuring “security” or “antivirus” in their name do what the name promises. Before installing a security solution, think twice: is it really a tool you can safely rely on?

The 35 pseudo-security apps described in this article are not, say, ransomware or other hardcore malware. The only harm they do is displaying annoying ads, making false-positive detections and giving the victim a false sense of security. However, those millions of unwary users who downloaded them could easily have ended up downloading true malware in some similar disguise.

Instead of shady apps with flashy names and icons and outlandish, unsubstantiated promises, seek a reputable security solution. And which one to choose? An independent test by a well-respected testing organization might help.