Google email Accounts Compromise

I was asked to comment yesterday on the story that emerged about the Google mail accounts that were compromised over the last few days, so I thought I'd put some of my answers down here. First off, Google wasn't compromised; a set of phishing emails were sent out and a fake Gmail login set up to harvest login details. These were used to set up forwarding rules to copy mail to another account.

Unfortunately, although a large number of people are aware of phishing and are (to a certain extent) vigilant, it only takes one person within the organisation to fall for the attack to compromise security. The scammers are becoming better at targeting people and making the initial phishing contact more believable to some people. Phishing is not just about email, although that is the most common avenue for the initial contact. Social media is also commonly used and we have seen the use of SEO to force phishing sites to the top of search engine rankings as well. User education is the only real way out of this.

Could this be cyber espionage? I would think that is most likely given the profile of those targeted. Information is worth a lot of money and political weight. In recent years we have seen a decrease in attacks designed to deface/destroy/delay/deny services and information. Instead, we are now seeing information and identity theft as major goals. Viruses won't necessarily stop your computer from working, but they will use Trojans to steal your login credentials. Malware now will silently sign your machine up to botnets rather than perform an obviously malicious action.

What can companies like Google do to stop this? Well, they can improve their SPAM filtering for a start. It is possible to eliminate the vast majority of phishing emails, which would drastically reduce the problems. However, many of the major vendors aren't strong enough on this. Secondly, user education would help a lot, but can't always help you against the best social engineers. To be honest, though, the governments and organisations that these people work for shouldn't allow the use of gmail, or other accounts (which have fewer controls than a corporate email setup), for official business and should educate their users to use different passwords, be vigilant, etc.

Spear phishing is a more difficult one to combat as it targets a specific user or group of users that the attacker has knowledge of. If I know your habits and who your friends are then I can use that information to trick you much more easily. If you receive an email or Facebook message from your partner, do you hesitate before opening it? The reason this doesn't happen more is that it takes background research and, by definition, targets very few people. This technique is only relevant if you want what that specific user has access to. Hence it is more likely to be information that they were after.

Another way to combat these types of attack is to use one-time passwords as well, so that intercepting a single logon only gives you access during that session, and isn't valid in the future. However, tokens are prohibitively expensive for Google to hand out to everyone. There are other solutions such as SMS tokens, but these aren't all that cheap, when multiplied up by the number of gmail users, and aren't without their problems. Software token solutions such as Swivel, GrIDsure, FireID, etc., are possibly cost-effective enough to be implemented and could drastically reduce the success of these attacks. However, none of these stop the man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack, so you could still hijack the session and set up a forwarding rule to obtain a copy of all their mail. Google do allow you to set up alerts and have to validate changes through a 2-step process, but you have to enable this. This should be the default for all of these services. Perhaps they could also add a footer to all versions of the email to specify where it has been forwarded to.

How worrying is this sort of attack? Well, that depends. Most people can be socially engineered - look at Derren Brown! For the individual, spear phishing is unlikely to be a problem, but with a lack of education they may well fall for a bulk phishing scam anyway (thousands do or nobody would bother). However, for those with access to secrets or other valuable information, it is a serious issue. It all comes down to how good the attacker is. I believe that HM Treasury is the most attacked entity in this country and that is mostly for information rather than evading tax or performing Denial-of-Service, etc. They should be worried about this type of attack.

HDD Tools & Other Malware Removal

Recently I had someone come to me with their laptop saying that they had a new anti-virus program that they didn't remember installing and that 'other things' on their laptop didn't seem to work any more. The same thing happened to a corporate desktop machine I was asked about a couple of weeks later, that was originally running McAfee. Finally, two days ago I saw another corporate machine running McAfee that was saying that it had a hard drive failure. A tool, called HDD Tools, then automatically ran to diagnose the problem and stated that if they purchased the full HDD Tools product then it could fix the problem.

Each of these was a piece of malware that had infected the machine and was trying to get the user to enter their credit card details into a website so that money can be taken from their account and maybe their card cloned. These malware programs go along with the fake anti-virus software that the APWG have reported a huge rise in recently. These are a collection of programs that purport to be useful software and will fix a problem that you are experiencing. The truth of the matter is that it is that software that is causing you the problems in the first place and paying them the money will just cause more trouble.

The later breed of scams using these supposedly useful tools do one of two things in general - either they cost you money and they may try to clone your card, or they will enlist your machine in a botnet. For a discussion of this type of malware and its proliferation, see this blog post.

Here I wanted to tell you a couple if simple steps to remove this type of software if you do get infected. Obviously, it should go without saying that you should do everything possible to try to avoid getting infected in the first place rather than try to recover from it - the damage may already be done. However, there are many similarities between them and you will need to remove them. A simple procedure can often work to get rid if them as follows (N.B. this will not always work and if you make a mistake you can make things much worse).

1. Detect that you have rogue software (malware) on your system. This isn't always hard as, in the case of HDD Tools, it will keep popping its window up and not allow you access to the C:\ drive of your computer. Other things to look for are if your AV product doesn't work or if you get strange services appearing in the Task Manager. Often the malware will stop Task Manager from running by disabling the Run command and the right-click functionality on the Taskbar. However, sometimes you can still get access to it by pressing Ctrl+Shift+Esc. Look for processes with random names; HDD Tools uses a number like 20418112.exe, that will change with each infected machine.
2. Reboot your machine in Safe Mode by pressing F8 during boot (that's the function key F8, NOT press the F key then the 8 key). If your machine boots up normally then you didn't press F8 early enough - you need to reboot again. You need to go into Safe Mode as the malware will prevent you from deleting it normally by having a background service running. This will not be started in Safe Mode, so you can remove it.
3. Once in Safe Mode, you can begin to remove the malware. First, you need to find out what the malware is and where it's stored. Mostly the malware won't appear in the list of installed programs so can't simply be uninstalled, but that's worth a check. However, sometimes this can be used to reinfect the machine, so be wary. If you have rogue software on your system then it will probably have created some kind of shortcut on the desktop or in the Start menu to make it seem legitimate. Have a look at where this points to and what the name of the file is. Other places to look are in the Startup folder and in the list of services installed on the machine. In the case of HDD Tools, it installs a desktop icon and Start menu folder.
4. Navigate to the path in Windows Explorer to find all the files you are looking to remove, but don't remove them yet. HDD Tools stores its files in your temporary folder, e.g. C:\Documents and Settings\username\AppData\Local Settings\temp, or C:\users\username\AppData\Local\temp. You may need to show hidden files and folders to be able to see this folder in Windows Explorer by changing the settings in Folder Options.
5. Run a file search on your machine to see if there are any other instances of those files anywhere else for you to remove.
6. Run Regedit from the Run... command to open up the registry editor (Warning: messing around with the registry can ruin your machine). Now run a search for the filename in the registry.
7. You will need to go through the registry to remove all references to the malware and any keys that it has created. In general, if the only entries in the key relate to the malware you can remove the key, otherwise just remove the values. These often appear in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE or HKEY_CURRENT _USER in the Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion key.
8. Once you have deleted these, you can go back and delete the original files.
9. Reboot normally and check your machine.

It is still possible to get infected even if you have a properly managed device with Anti-virus software installed. The problem is that they are not 100% effective. See 'How secure is your AV Product?'

Series of Demo Videos of Trusteer's Rapport

I am currently producing a series of videos demonstrating the anti-spyware capabilities of Trusteer's Rapport. So far I have looked at keylogging software and screen capture. Specifically, I have demonstrated it with Zemana ScreenLogger, Zemana KeyLogger and SpyShelter. I will be adding more videos over the next few days. The first two videos are embedded below. (Edit: 17/05/10 - I have now added three more videos covering Zemana SSL Logger, AKLT and Snadboy's Revelation V2.)





Links to the YouTube videos are below:

• Trusteer's Rapport Demo 1 - Zemana ScreenLogger
• Trusteer's Rapport Demo 2 - Zemana KeyLogger
• Trusteer's Rapport Demo 3 - SpyShelter
• Trusteer's Rapport Demo 4 - AKLT
• Trusteer's Rapport Demo 5 - Zemana SSL Logger
• Trusteer's Rapport Demo 6 - Snadboy's Revelation V2
• Trusteer's Rapport Demo 7 - Pharming Attack
• Trusteer's Rapport Demo 8 - Amecisco Invisible Keylogger Stealth
• Trusteer's Rapport Demo 9 - Anti-Phishing Protection

Keylogging Trusteer's Rapport

Let's get some perspective on this first: no security product is 100% secure and just because there may be an obscure way round a product doesn't mean you shouldn't use it and that it won't protect you against a lot of attacks. How secure is your Anti-Virus (AV) product? Certainly not 100%, so we need layers of security. Rapport is another layer of security and could help protect your machine.

I have said in my previous post about this issue how well Trusteer dealt with me. So, now to the method of keylogging Trusteer. It's quite simple really, but requires a special setup. Rapport hooks onto the keyboard driver to prevent keylogging. However, if you invoke the remote desktop feature in Windows then a different keyboard driver is invoked, which Rapport cannot hook onto. So, if you're using a remote desktop connection into your machine then Rapport will not be giving you the full protection (it still has other layers of protection that work in this scenario).

Is this such a special case that you don't need to worry about it? Well not necessarily. There are a plethora of remote access software solutions available to users who are increasingly using them to access their machines at home or at work. There is also another technology that can be leveraged to cause this effect whilst the user is at the actual machine. Microsoft have introduced RemoteApps to the Windows desktop environment to allow for legacy applications to appear to run seamlessly on Windows 7. This is done via Virtual PC running another OS and the RAIL QFE update to allow applications to be exposed from a desktop machine as RemoteApps. However, we can use this technique to look back at the machine and expose the web browser as a RemoteApp, which the user should not notice.



As I say, it's a special case and not one a user would normally encounter, but it is possible. There are other issues with Trusteer as well, being able to capture the screen of protected websites and information leakage as highlighted on ReviewMyLife.co.uk here. It doesn't mean you shouldn't use Rapport though, just know and trust the machine that you're using. Basically, don't ever connect to any secure site or service from an untrusted machine, no matter what's installed on it.

Trusteer's Response to Issues with Rapport

I have been getting a lot of hits on this blog relating to Trusteer's Rapport, so I thought I would take a better look at the product. During my investigations, I was able to log keystrokes on a Windows 7 machine whilst accessing NatWest. However, the cause is as yet unknown as Rapport should be secure against this keylogger, so I'm not going to share the details here yet (there will be a video once Trusteer are happy there is no further threat).

I have had quite a dialogue with Trusteer over this potential problem and can report that their guys are pretty switched on, they picked up on this very quickly and are taking it extremely seriously. They are also realistic about all security products and have many layers of security in place within their own product. No security product is 100% secure - it can't be. The best measure of a product, in my opinion, is the company's response to potential problems. I have to admit that Trusteer have been exemplary here.

Why do I keep saying it's a potential problem when I have logged keystrokes? Well, under normal operating conditions this isn't possible with the keylogger used. Most home users won't have a machine set up like the test machine in this case.

Trusteer have also pointed out that keyloggers are not the main threat facing the banks at the moment and are of less use now than in the past. Rapport has several layers of security protecting the machine beyond keyloggers and blocking screen capture. One of he major plus points about Rapport is their anti-phishing and anti-pharming technologies. Although, again, these aren't perfect, it's better than nothing.

I don't agree totally with Trusteer here though. The problem with being able to log typed characters comes back to weak passwords and single-factor authentication. In this case, NatWest seem to require a customer ID, consisting of the user's date of birth and a 4 digit ID in the format ddmmyyxxxx, a 4 digit PIN and only a short password. Now, they will let any Customer ID through in this format whether it's valid or not (good from a security point of view as you don't know if you've got a valid Customer ID or not). However, clearly they allow 6 character passwords and then ask for three of them. So with one capture I can have 3 out of 4 PIN digits and half the password. We know people choose weak passwords that can be guessed. This becomes a crossword puzzle to make a 6 character password given three known characters. I would agree with Trusteer that keyloggers and screen capture shouldn't be a problem now, but it still is, as the banks cling onto simple username and password authentication, often with poor password policies.

If the banks move to 2-factor authentication and one-time passwords then most of this would be redundant, and Trusteer could concentrate on pushing us off to the correct site to avoid phishing and pharming attacks. Of course, these will become even more prevelant and sophisticated. Technology can't stop this alone, it has to be coupled with user education. Screen capture can still cause problems with strong authentication solutions, such as those using images or on-screen grids to generate one-time passwords.

So, what's the bottom line? Since my earlier posts, Rapport has come a long way with compatibility, etc. The tone of the marketing has also changed for the better and is more realistic (although some of the 44 partner banks could be doing more). So Rapport could be an additional layer of security to protect you, but you will still have to be vigilant. You must have an up-to-date, legitimate anti-virus/anti-malware product, firewall protection, tight controls on your browser and a cautious and skeptical approach to all communiations and links. Without these, Rapport isn't going to help you anyway.

Edit: video in later post - Keylogging Trusteer's Rapport

Proposed Pseudo-Code for Hacking Process

It is quite common in Information Systems to use pseudo code to describe a process. I have often thought that the same principle can be applied to the process of hacking an organisation, which may help people understand the process and how to protect themselves. Below is my proposal for this pseduo-code for the hacking process. This is very much a work in progress. I would welcome feedback on it and I will update it as suggestions are made or as I feel it needs revising.

organisation = proposed target
organisation.footprint(value, effort, risk)
profit = value - (effort * risk)
if profit > 0 then
  organisation.enumerate()
  select attack_type
    case DoS
      engage_botnet(myBotnet)
      myBotnet.launchDDoS(organisation)
    case Access
      organisation.gainAccess(myAccount)
      myAccount.Elevate()
      organisation.installBackdoor(myAccount)
      organisation.cleanUP()
  end select
else
  exit
end if

This highlights the fact that we only need enough security to make it not worthwhile attacking, i.e. it will cost the attacker more to compromise our system than they will gain. Who would spend £1m to get £10 worth of information? We don't need (indeed cannot have) absolute security, just enough to protect our system. It also highlights another interesting point. Perhaps we should make our countermeasures public - not the actual implementational details or versions, but the fact that they are in place, e.g. that we have an IDS. Consider blatant versus hidden CCTV cameras. Cameras in plain sight deter most criminals, whereas hidden cameras spy on criminals while they perpetrate their crime.

We want to make the risk of being caught/prosecuted value high, so that hackers require a higher value:effort ratio, which we won't give them. Given two identically protected organisations with the same value, would you attack the one that doesn't monitor activity or the one that does?

Obviously, the above is very vague and doesn't provide methods to complete these tasks, but that is not the point of this post. Backdoors and Trojans are usually relatively easy to install if you have the right level of access to the system, so much of your security is going to hang on stopping a hacker from gaining access. Gaining access to an organisation is usually performed in one of four main ways:

• Malware
• Sniffing
• Direct Attack
• Social Engineering

There are ways to protect yourself, up to a point. Some of the most critical are:

• Installing Antivirus/Antispyware
• Latest OS and Application Patches
• Enterprise-level firewall, with IDS/IPS, AV, etc.
• Personal firewalls on all mobile devices
• Secure, hardened configurations
• Browser lock-down
• Encrypted communication (e.g. SSL/TLS, VPN, etc.)
• User Education!

The last point is often overlooked as a critical security practice. Please feel free to comment.

ATM & Bank Card Security

I recently read an article in New Scientist entitled "Want to clone bank cards? Just press 'print'". They state that it has been discovered that

"... a devious piece of criminal coding that has been quietly at work in a clutch of cash machines at banks in Russia and Ukraine. It allows a gang member to walk up to an ATM, insert a "trigger" card, and use the machine's printer to produce a list of all the debit card numbers used that day, including their start and expiry dates - and their PINs. Everything needed, in fact, to clone those cards and start emptying bank accounts."

This is possible because ATM Terminal vendors have succumbed to financial pressures, and the demand for greater functionality, and moved to using standard modular PC architectures and off-the-shelf operating systems, such as Microsoft Windows and Linux. These ATM devices then become vulnerable to similar malware as their desktop counterparts.

SpiderLabs, part of Trustwave, identified that in this case a new version of the 50KB lsass.exe Windows XP file is loaded onto the system via a compromised Borland Delphi installer utility, isadmin.exe (note, that's LSASS.EXE, not 1SASS.EXE as some have reported). You can view the full report from Trustwave as a PDF here. The legitimate lsass.exe executable is used to cache session data in Windows, so that users don't have to re-enter passwords when receiving new emails or returning to a website, which is essentially what the malware developers want to do with the card data. Actually, this has no place on an ATM, but may not be picked up, due to the fact that it is, by default, on most Windows XP installs.

If a trigger card is not detected, the malware stores the transaction data to a file called tr12 and key or PIN data to a file called k1 in the C:/WINDOWS directory. If a trigger card is detected, then a menu of 10 options is displayed for 10 seconds, with functions including: uninstalling, deleting logs, printing logs via the built-in printer encrypted with DES and possibly the ability to export the data onto the trigger card. This particular malware only works on transactions in US dollars, Russian Rouble or Ukrainian Hryvnia. It is also said that chip-and-PIN cards across Europe are not vulnerable to this malware as the PIN is encrypted in the secure PIN pad.

It has been speculated that deploying the malware was either an inside job or the result of bribes and threats; the reasoning being that an attacker would have to have physical access to the ATM to deploy the malware. However, the ATMs and banking network, although separate from the Internet, have not necessarily been hardened enough. Back on 25th November 2003 the first known case of a worm (Welchia) infecting Windows XP based ATM machines was reported, which used the closed financial network to propagate. This was possible because the ATMs weren't patched by the financial institutions in question. This brings on the whole problem of patch management on ATMs as well as placing greater restrictions on the financial networks. How long will it be before keyloggers are available for chip-and-PIN cards as well?

Trojan Keylogger Screensaver Compromising Novell Client for Windows

I've been talking about 2-factor authentication and improving authentication mechanisms for a while now and trying to get companies to implement such solutions. One such organisation uses the Novell client for Windows on Windows XP. When a user attempts to log in they are not required to press Ctrl+Alt+Del. Many forums and reviews state that this is an advantage, as users don't like it! The point of pressing Ctrl+Alt+Del (CAD) on Windows is to stop all applications from running and kill Trojans, etc. Novell have replaced the MSGina.dll with NWGina.dll so that they can capture the CAD key combination. This is the standard way to override the built-in login screen and replace it with a custom one. However, Novell have decided to allow administrators to eliminate the need for the CAD key combination. This, obviously reduces the overall security of the system.

I know that there are many ways to write a keylogger, some more sophisticated than others, but a lot of these low-level system keyloggers can be picked up by AV (Anti-Virus) software. I wanted to show that you don't need to be able to create this type of keylogger to obtain the username/password combination from a system that doesn't require the CAD key combination. Another reason for not going down this route is that I wanted to show that this could be put on a live system, not just in the lab. Therefore, it mustn't trigger the AV when installed or when running. The solution I decided to try was to write a screensaver to mimic the Novell login screen, capture the username/password, write these to a web service and then hand back to the real Novell client.

I have just listed a few things there without explanation. Why don't I just take the details and log the user in myself, then pass the username/password to my web service? Well, this would require either modifications to the NWGina or System calls that would trigger the AV and other protection mechanisms. I wanted this to remain undetected. Basically, a screensaver is just an application that is run automatically, rather than explicitly by the user. Indeed, when you write a screensaver you produce an .exe file and just rename it as .scr. Obviously there are a few things you have to do to make it function as a screensaver, like be full-screen and always on top. You also have to handle mouse and keyboard events to end the screensaver and return control of the desktop to the user. However, instead of immediately exiting our application and returning control, why not pop up another form to mimic the login dialog and fool users into giving us their password? It's easy really.

So what do we do once the user has entered their details? Well, the screensaver writes the data to a simple web handler that I wrote for this purpose. All it does is take an HTTP GET request with URL parameters and return a simple text confirmation to the screensaver. I don't care that it's in plaintext and somebody might read it. Obviously, I would have to anonymize the server so that it couldn't be traced, but I'm not actually trying to deploy this. Once the screensaver has confirmation that the username/password have been logged, then it displays the 'incorrect password' dialog and immediately exits to reveal the real login dialog. In this way, the user will most likely think that they have mistyped their password. As a little trick, I decided to make the ruse more plausible by turning the CAPS Lock on as soon as the user clicks the login button.

The final thing to evade detection was to set a limit as to how many times the Trojan would appear. Nobody mistypes their password the first time they log in every time, so I decided that a 1 in 5 rule would probably be acceptable. Here I assumed that users might accept that they have mistyped their password 1 in 5 times, particularly with the CAPS Lock trick as well. You could go for a lot less than this, but then you'd have to make sure it was on the machine for a while to capture the passwords. Again, this is simple to do, generate a pseudo-random number to determine whether to show the Trojan dialog or exit the program.

Having written the screensaver I had to test it. Well, I have access to a corporate laptop and desktop with the Novell client on and McAfee AV software. It works a treat. Very realistic and not picked up by the AV. I have asked people to look at it and try it (without using their real username/password combination) and they have said that they wouldn't have realised. I'm not sure it's particularly ethical to try this on a real network, so I'll probably leave it there, however there is still the issue of mass distribution of such a Trojan. I don't believe that this will be terribly difficult though, especially if using a bit of social engineering as well.

So, how do you defeat this method? Don't disable CAD, or if it is disabled then press it anyway!