Slashdot Mirror


Tools, Techniques, Procedures of the RSA Hackers Revealed

An anonymous reader writes "Details of the tools, techniques and procedures used by the hackers behind the RSA security breach have been revealed in a research paper (PDF) published by Australian IT security company Command Five. The paper also, for the first time, explains links between the RSA hack and other major targeted attacks. This paper is a vendor-neutral must-read for any network defenders concerned by the hype surrounding 'Advanced Persistent Threats.'"

54 comments

  1. PDF eh? by checkitout · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think everyone is afraid to click on that link.

    1. Re:PDF eh? by martin-boundary · · Score: 0

      I think everyone is afraid to click on that link.

      Yeah. Personally, if it turns out that it's ROT-13 encoded, I'm gonna freak out!

    2. Re:PDF eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised it's not Flash with an embedded PDF.

    3. Re:PDF eh? by ulski · · Score: 2

      or it could be a pdf with an embedded flash http://www.adobe.com/designcenter-archive/tutorials/flashpdf/

    4. Re:PDF eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I, too, have been around long enough to understand where you're coming from, Google Docs has had PDF import for years.

    5. Re:PDF eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean because the PDF somehow becomes corrupted when (and only when) you reject cookies from their webserver?

    6. Re:PDF eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick! Fetch the tinfoil hats!

    7. Re:PDF eh? by fuzzywig · · Score: 1
      but then they might hack teh googles!?

      I am already ashamed of myself for that comment :(

    8. Re:PDF eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its double ROT13

  2. An excellent summation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It was most interesting to see one antivirus lab take months longer than another to detect one of these rootkits -- and that the rootkit may have been out there for months longer than that.

    We might be past the useful span of antivirus software at this point. The attacker has always had the upper hand, being able to train malware against existing antivirus software.

    One piece of advice in there was to limit internal networks to using internal DNS. But it's smarter to go one step further. By determining which sites employees should visit and distributing a hosts file to all internal computers, a company can avoid the myriad risks of operating a DNS server. Then any outgoing DNS traffic can be detected by a savvy internalnet admin at the firewall, and the offending computers cleaned.

    E-mail attachments also continue to be a problem. The secret of the pros is to set up a script in your favorite language to detect e-mails with attachments, and move the attachments from the e-mail to the IT account. Then, once a trained professional examines each attachment, safe files can be copied into the folders of the relevant employees, and an e-mail sent to them to let them know they're in the clear.

    While good computer safety is complex, much of it can be automated or outsourced. But thankfully not all of it, am I right guys?

    1. Re:An excellent summation. by pntkl · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should take the advice of Rector Mompesson, stop the cleanup, and burn it all! > : ) j/k

    2. Re:An excellent summation. by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Companies need to have two types of networks, one that connects to everything (ie Internet) with the normal security measures. One that connects to nothing outside the company in any way, and does not connect to the other network that connects to everything.

      The internal network should host a minimum set of applications and databases that hold whatever is actually important to secure.

      This doesn't do anything about CEOs who will sell company tech to boost their bonuses but it will make it more difficult for everyone else who wants to compromise proprietary information.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    3. Re:An excellent summation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antivirus software is not that useful. Better use a system that is not vulnerable to viruses in the first place. Never used antivirus, never had virus trouble, had the machine on a public IP address since 1998...

      There is only one vulnerable system - drop that and you'll be fine.

    4. Re:An excellent summation. by Dogers · · Score: 1

      My question is why do the client machines (heck, even servers) need direct unfettered internet access? Block everything outbound, use a proxy and you have control of it - especially if you have a proxy that can intercept SSL and runs AV.

      Also, assuming Windows, you can lock down exactly what software is allowed to run. Don't have admin rights? Can't modify what can run, can't install new software, can't run malware.

      Straight away you're far more secure.

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    5. Re:An excellent summation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly more secure, but absolutely not safe. Some of the malware described in this report is both virtual machine and proxy aware - meaning that it will scoot out through your proxy like it wasn't there. Proxies are only effective with a well maintained whitelist. A silver bullet AV vendor solution can't do this for you without being either too strict or too open for your particular business requirements and threat model.

      Limiting admin rights is a good first step but privilege escalation exploits (particularly on Windows) and the ever present threat of a zero day mean that malware can install and run on your system even when it's locked down in this way.

      Constant vigilance is required to make sure that infections are contained and controlled - they will never be eliminated.

    6. Re:An excellent summation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, assuming Windows, you can lock down exactly what software is allowed to run. Don't have admin rights? Can't modify what can run, can't install new software, can't run malware.

      And then you end up paying a shit load of money for the IT guys to maintain the systems. If Windows forced programs to behave properly, it wouldn't be that big of an issue. But there is no end to the software which should happily run under user permission space but in practice requires some level of either Admin access or granted admin-level access for a few specific group areas. The end result is that even on a "well-secured" Windows system the actions of one user can adversely affect the others, and malware which normally would have been isolated to a single user gets spread to the others through shared directories.

      But regardless of how the clients are setup, a strong network policy should at least mitigate the effects of an attack.

  3. Not much about RSA by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Informative

    The report details malware that connected to a particular control host, named alyac.org. The host was used in an attack on SK Communications. One particular piece of malware (the Murcy malware the paper describes) is indicated to have been used in the RSA attack.

    The RSA connection is detailed in the paragraph of the report titled "Link To RSA Breach":

    The majority of the known callback domains for Murcy malware were used in the March 2011 RSA breach. This suggests that the attackers responsible for the RSA breach also use the Murcy malware. Given that the malware is reportedly not in widespread use, the Chinese server communicating with ‘path.alyac.org’ may have been compromised by the same attackers responsible for the RSA breach

    There's little else that's really information specifically about the RSA breach. Still a nice bit of information about malware, but it'd be nice if the summary mentioned SK Communications, since that's the paper's real focus.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    1. Re:Not much about RSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Murcy malware is apparently also linked by the protocol it uses ('IP2B') to the Night Dragon attacks and a family of malware called the 'Destory RAT'. The shared infrastructure and tools indicate that the same attackers responsible for the SK Communications hack were behind both the RSA hack and Sykipot malware; presumably we can conclude that the description of their "Techniques and Procedures" applies equally to all.

    2. Re:Not much about RSA by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      The majority of the known callback domains for Murcy malware were used in the March 2011 RSA
      breach. This suggests that the attackers responsible
      for the RSA breach also use the Murcy malware.
      Given that the malware is reportedly not in
      widespread use, the Chinese server communicating
      with ‘path.alyac.org’ may have been compromised by
      the same attackers responsible for the RSA breach

      A Chinese site hacked, is nothing sacred?

  4. That should be done anyway. by khasim · · Score: 4, Informative

    All internal systems should use the internal DNS server.
    The firewalls should block any outgoing DNS queries from any systems (except the internal DNS servers).
    The firewall logs should be checked each day for violations.
    The internal DNS server logs should be checked each day for unusual activity.

    Even if you cannot prevent your systems from being compromised you should be looking for the signs that they are compromised.

    1. Re:That should be done anyway. by jgrahn · · Score: 2

      All internal systems should use the internal DNS server. The firewalls should block any outgoing DNS queries from any systems (except the internal DNS servers). The firewall logs should be checked each day for violations. The internal DNS server logs should be checked each day for unusual activity.

      Even if you cannot prevent your systems from being compromised you should be looking for the signs that they are compromised.

      You mean the "insights" section on page 17 in the report. That part scared me. They also recommend blocking traffic from the network to address X unless it's preceded by a DNS query which resolves to X. Breaking IP in non-obvious ways (impossible to debug unless you have control over the firewalls) has pretty bad consequences too ...

    2. Re:That should be done anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The firewall logs should be checked each day for violations.

      I for one support this statement. It must be checked by a Unionized member of the Cisco Guild. We will have job security forever.

    3. Re:That should be done anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      well obviously, they're just proving that research papers are an
      excellent attack vector on folks who care about security and
      implement security recommendations blindly.

    4. Re:That should be done anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you wish to check the logs every day, I suggest that you have some script summarize them for you. If you don't want to do all the coding yourself, you can get a tool such as Splunk or (possibly) OSSIM.

      According to SANS, you should at least look at the top-x and the bottom-y (where x and y are arbitrary integers, but x=y=10 is good enough for my home network).

    5. Re:That should be done anyway. by Cramer · · Score: 1

      That would break any cached lookups (which most OSes and applications have done for eons), local host file records (granted, they could be compromised), and access by direct IP address.

      It's not a half bad idea for systems in hostile environments. The problem is... no firewall in existance can do this out of the box. (it could be rigged up for a few of them.)

    6. Re:That should be done anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cache has to be populated from DNS at some point, meaning that there was a corresponding lookup. The problem is establishing a suitable timeframe within which the lookup can be remembered.

      Even if no commercial firewall can currently protect the network in this way it doesn't mean that they shouldn't- it just means that the firewalls aren't capable of defending against modern threats. We can't adapt the threat to suit our defensive capabilities, but we can evolve our capabilities to meet the threat.

  5. Silly q by AHuxley · · Score: 1, Interesting

    But what is a "Financial IP address" wrt the chart on page 12? Most of the other data is an ip or domain?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Silly q by pntkl · · Score: 1

      But what is a "Financial IP address" wrt the chart on page 12? Most of the other data is an ip or domain?

      From page 16: "... an IP address allocated to a large US financial institution."

    2. Re:Silly q by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes but what was its role?
      Based on the lines was it watching, been watched, provided cover, been used to move funds, a drop off point for data on the move?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Silly q by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The domain 'todaygonever.com' pointed to the IP address. See page 16.

  6. What is the compromised computer running? by dgharmon · · Score: 2

    "the compromised computer communicating with âpath.alyac.orgâ(TM) is running Windows 2003 Server Web Edition, Service Pack 2 .. only computers running Windows XP were observed communicating with âpath.alyac.orgâ(TM)". Command and Control in the Fifth Domain, Feb 2012

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:What is the compromised computer running? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The second statement appears to refer only to 'XShell' communications, when considered as part of the full sentence: "While XShell supports numerous versions of the Windows OS (including Windows XP, Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 2000, 2003 and 2008 server both 32 and 64 bit versions), only computers running Windows XP were observed communicating with 'path.alyac.org'." (p. 4)

      (The 'Windows 2003 Server Web Edition, Service Pack 2' computer was communicating via the 'LURK' protocol - see page 2).

  7. blacked out areas readable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You can just copy and paste text from the blacked out areas if you want to see it.

    1. Re:blacked out areas readable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh really? What does it say? I don't speak 'xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'

    2. Re:blacked out areas readable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh really? What does it say? I don't speak 'xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'

      So go get a reader that properly renders the forms, and it'll be shown in plaintext.

  8. Yummy. Digitally signed root kits. by sgt+scrub · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IMHO the most important thing in the article is that the malware was digitally signed. This exposes the weakness in digital signatures. Not only for applications and modules(drivers) but UEFI and all of the other "secure boot" ideas.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  9. And you are an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >I for one support this statement. It must be checked by a Unionized member of the Cisco Guild. We will have job security forever.

    If you were not a first-rate idiot, you would know that regular inspection of firewall logs is indeed a key requirement of any vigilant security strategy. It does not matter whether that firewall is from Cisco, Checkpoint, Linux iptables or any other of probably 100 major systems of that kind.

    But you as a super-jerk will surely believe that installing a virus scanner is sufficient and that windows users can safely run as root. Your kind of idiots blend in excellently into large multinational corpos like Lockmart or RSA security. Those which are fscked on a regular basis by anon and the chinese.

  10. For a reveal, it sure blacks out a lot of stuff by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    If this was a real reveal, there'd be no blacked out information.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:For a reveal, it sure blacks out a lot of stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I can tell it's only personal information about the victims that has been blacked out...

    2. Re:For a reveal, it sure blacks out a lot of stuff by godel_56 · · Score: 1

      If this was a real reveal, there'd be no blacked out information.

      BTW, amusingly for a security company document, I think the PDF has been improperly redacted. Using Foxit Reader I jumped to the end of the document and then scrolled forward from there. I could briefly read the content of figures 10 and 11 on page 14 with no problem.

      When I reversed direction they were blacked out again, and I have been unable to repeat the trick. From what I read, I don't know why they bothered. Both messages were bland and unconvincing phishing invitations to an unnamed conference, with details (and malware) in the attachments. No personal names or organisations were mentioned.

    3. Re:For a reveal, it sure blacks out a lot of stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some readers don't seem to render the diagrams properly - they're not redacted.

    4. Re:For a reveal, it sure blacks out a lot of stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! OMGZ! Just by using a reader that renders diagrams properly I can see all the redacted information!!!1111!!!ONE!!!

  11. Not Necessarily Owned By That Institution by 65Galaxie · · Score: 1

    If you look at the whois record (http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-75-100-117-112-1/pft), you'll see that it is indeed listed as owned by a financial institution -- at least, in theory. As they pointed out in the article, the attackers registered DNS names using look-alike credentials, so why not do the same with IP blocks? If you look closer at the above whois, you'll notice that ARIN has been unable to contact the Point of Contact who registered the IPs since 2 weeks after they were registered and the email address is not owned by said financial institution.

    Thus, I would conclude that there is a high likelihood the IP registration was spoofed like they did with DNS entries.

    --
    Sig? No thanks, I don't smoke...
  12. Wooosh! by OneAhead · · Score: 1

    This is so bad it's almost funny.

  13. Re:Yummy. Digitally signed root kits. by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

    IMHO the most important thing in the article is that the malware was digitally signed. This exposes the weakness in digital signatures. Not only for applications and modules(drivers) but UEFI and all of the other "secure boot" ideas.

    I'd go a bit further in saying that it exposes the weakness ouf using digital signatures period in all applications of it - legal and otherwise.

    --
    Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)