This article was about malware targeted against Macs that can be hidden in the Mac app store. The writer of the article says that although they found the vulnerability, no one has used it yet from what they can see.
This attack could be used by bypassing the code signing done before submission to the app store. The code signature checks or code signing is basically virtual security checks, to make sure the app is safe and stable. It was noticed that the code only gets checked once, and then the signature doesn’t get checked again. This means that an attacker can make a clean app, submit it to the app store, and then once it gets downloads from users, release an update infected with malware for the users to download. They can also steal or buy real code signatures and put them into their malicious app and it has the possibility of getting published to the app store for everyone to download.
The writer of the main article says, “As a result of this research, Reed himself added code signature verification to Malwarebytes Mac products so they now perform a check every time they launch.” Reed works at the company Malwarebytes and he put out an update to their software to check the code signature again of updates to apps. He even says, “A script kiddie could pull off something like this.” This shows how something should be done to fix this problem before others catch on and start infecting peoples computers with malware. This was released recently, so hopefully, it gets fixed soon. I remember when I made my app for the app store and I do not ever remember any checks being done to my updates after the initial release.
California Governor Jerry Brown is the first governor to sign a bill to protect against the very prevalent cyber attacks on Internet of Things (IoT) devices. CNET tells:
The law mandates that any maker of an Internet-connected, or “smart,” device ensure the gadget has “reasonable” security features that “protect the device and any information contained therein from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.”
Since this bill is the first of its kind, it is expected that many other states will begin to follow California’s example and implement some sort of protection against IoT attacks. Although the bill requires manufacturers to assign a password to each device, many of the stipulations are non-specific, like many cyber laws. It is hard to be specific in a case like this, as attacks could easily find a loophole not covered within the bill. With a vague bill, it in a way could deter an attacker who knows the law could be translated in a number of ways to point to what he or she might have been doing as illegal.
This need of security was demonstrated most by the WannaCry ransomware attacks that hit hospitals across the nation. Hospitals have been increasingly using devices connected to their networks to aid in caring for patients. The attacks locked up devices that were in use, potentially threatening the lives of patients. An attack like this is more alarming than many ransomware attacks, as it takes the attacker’s morals (or in this case, lack of morals) into account more than other attacks.
The lack of security on IoT devices has desperately needed to be addressed, as over 8.4 billion IoT devices are out in the world on networks with little to no security. The law goes into effect at the beginning of 2020. California’s status as the most populated state in the U.S. is part of the reason the bill was signed into effect and is also the hope for cyber security experts to be influential in persuading others to join in the fight against attacks.
Around three weeks ago SecureWorks, a cybersecurity research group, discovered a massive phishing scheme that has been recently targeting many universities. This phishing attack has targeted over 76 universities in 14 countries, including Australia, Canada, China, Israel, Japan, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Most of these spoof sites had domains which attempted to replicate the universities’ library pages, getting access to accounts attempting to enter their library resources, and obtaining 31 terabytes of academic knowledge. When the information was entered, they were redirected to the actual university library site where they either were signed in or asked to repeat their credentials. The 16 domains were created between May and August of this year. Many of these stolen research papers were then sold by texting an encrypted message to WhatsApp or Telegram.
These phishing attacks were found to be perpetrated by the Cobalt Dickens hacking group which has been found to be closely associated with the Iranian government. In March of this year, the United States had indicted the Mabna hacking group and nine members in connection with the group. This group’s previous attacks appeared to have the same infrastructure as the Cobalt Dickens attacks, implying some of the same members were involved. These universities which create cutting-edge research are high priority targets due to the value of their information presents as well as the difficulty of securing them. This hack has taken place shortly after the United States decided to re-establish economic sanctions with the United States implying a potential political motivation.
“This widespread spoofing of login pages to steal credentials reinforces the need for organizations to incorporate multi-factor authentication using secure protocols and implement complex password requirements on publicly accessible systems.” -SecureWorks
Within the last few weeks, two Zero-Day exploits were disclosed on Twitter. Typically, exploits are reported to the company with a vulnerable product, researchers wait until the company fixes the vulnerability, and after patches are released for the exploit the vulnerability is made public. Companies that run bug bounty programs often pay researchers for finding vulnerabilities, however those companies almost always pay researchers less than they could get if they sold those vulnerabilities on the black market. Some bug bounty programs can also have extremely limited scope or are reluctant to reward researchers with bounties. As a result, companies such as Zerodium have formed which operate in the gray area of buying and selling exploits. For example, last year Zerodium offered to pay up to $250,000 to researchers who found a remote code execution vulnerability that resulted in root access, while the bug bounty program run by Tor would pay a maximum of $4,000.
Just a few days earlier, on August 27, a Twitter user going by the handle @SandboxEscaper posted a tweet containing a Local Privilege Escalation Exploit that worked on fully updated windows machines. Both the source code and a Proof of Concept (PoC) were published by the researcher. In the tweet, SandboxEscaper complained about how unpleasant dealing with Microsoft had been for them in the past. Very quickly after SandboxEscaper released this exploit, malware in the wild began to use the exploit.
The most worrisome thing about these two vulnerabilities is how they were both disclosed in such irresponsible manners, allowing them to be exploited in the wild before NoScript and Microsoft had time to put out patches. One of the important things that cybersecurity researchers emphasize is the process of responsible disclosure, and it’s extremely worrisome to see this completely ignored by multiple sources.
Baltimore’s 911 dispatch system was breached Sunday, March 25th, shutting down automatic dispatching until Monday, March 26th, as well as halting call logs from 9:54 a.m. Sunday to 7:42 a.m. Monday.
A server running the city’s computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system was infiltrated around 8:30 Sunday morning, forcing caller information to be relayed manually for the remainder of the day into Monday. Under normal circumstances, caller information appears on a map and the nearest first responders are dispatched automatically. The attack effectively slowed this process and demanded that call center staff relay this information to dispatchers themselves.
The exploited vulnerability was a port that had been left open after an IT team attempted to troubleshoot a communications issue and in the process made changes to the firewall. City workers were able to take the affected server offline, conduct a thorough investigation, and successfully bring it back online by approximately 2 a.m. Monday morning. Later reports confirmed that the attack did involve ransomware, but neither the ransom amount nor the city’s response to the ransomware has been stated.