Blackhole Exploit Kit Successor Years Away

msm1267 writes "The Blackhole Exploit Kit has been out of commission since October when its alleged creator, a hacker named Paunch, was arrested in Russia. The kit was a favorite among cybercriminals who took advantage of its frequent updates and business model to distribute financial malware to great profit. Since the arrest of Paunch, however, a viable successor has yet to emerge--and experts believe one will not in the short term. This is partially the reason for the increase in outbreaks of ransomware such as CryptoLocker as hackers aggressively attempt to recover lost profits."

Comments

What?

[cold fjord]

This isn't a story about wormholes and warp drive? It's just a story about hackers?

What a gyp!

Won't need too

[Billly Gates]

Come 90 days when 30% of all computers gets death by 1,000 fire ants with exploits all at once.

Especially since MSE wont wont save these users either.

Popcorn time, or an oh shit time if the internet potentially goes offline due to 260,000,000 infected bots.

Years Away? I call Shenanigans

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's face it, these professional exploit writers are not "years away" from their next great product. They don't stand idly by thinking they are winning. They continue to develop and hone their craft.

These new 'crypto locker' products are problematic and are going to wreak a lot of havoc on people. And while we security folks are battling the latest lock schlock the exploiteers are just waiting for us to get a handle on things so they can throw us the next curveball.

And let's not forget that the end of support for XP is coming in April. Whatever they have been holding back for XP's independence will show up soon after Microsoft finally sets XP adrift on an ice raft.

Re:Years Away? I call Shenanigans

[Cryacin]

One company's malware is another company's upgrade incentive.

Re:Years Away? I call Shenanigans

[sunderland56]

Let's face it, these professional exploit writers are not "years away" from their next great product.

And also don't forget - a *truly* great exploit kit is completely unknown to security researchers and the press. Once it's existence is known, it becomes much less useful.

Re:Years Away? I call Shenanigans

[asmkm22]

If you bothered to read the article, you'd note that in the first two paragraphs they mention that they are arguing not that there won't be any replacements available for a few years, but that it will take a few years for one of the many alternatives to rise to dominance.

Re:Years Away? I call Shenanigans

[mlts]

IMHO, what we have seen in the CryptoLocker game is just the beginning. We have close to a perfect storm here -- Bitcoin being a currency that is easy to use no matter where one is, provided Internet access is obtainable [1]. For the most part, security is a joke because people/businesses either don't care, view it as having no ROI, or just view it will happen to "the other guy." Unlike incoming Internet connections which will get stopped by at the minimum, a perimeter firewall, the untrusted code on an external web page makes it well into the depths of a company. Most companies might have something to block the nudie pics, or use a device to force all SSL transactions to go through a transparent listening/MITM proxy (BlueCoat for example), but usually that is the extent of how far they go. Blocking suspect malware IP addresses tends to be rare unless a company is on top of their game.

With this in mind, it might take a single browser or add-on weakness for an organization to get malware deployed. Since most Web browsers run as the user, it means the malware usually ends up with a full unlimited user context. Barring Web based malware, there is always the good old fashioned "foo.pdf .exe" Trojan.

CryptoLocker is just version 2.0 (v1.0 being the early ransomware with an easily factored key being the same, or a flimsy encryption algorithm.)

I can see RansomWare 3.0, if it manages to get root/Administrator authority, installing a low level driver. It will encrypt files, and backup programs will back up the encrypted stuff (a la Microsoft's EFS), but the user won't know because the driver will allow reading/writing for a period of time. Then, after a cutoff date, the private key is wiped, and the driver is dropped from the system. This not just encrypts the files that are accessible, but it also ensures that recent backups will be completely and utterly useless for restores. The private key can also just never be stored on disk, and quietly fetched from the malware owner's website every time the machine reboots.

To boot, the software will detect where the software is installed and base the ransom of where it is located. If a police station, the demand to release all prisoners in the county jail can be made. A government office means that the criminals can demand someone be fired. At the extreme, if the files locked up are valuable enough, the organization can demand an execution of someone they don't like.

Now the question -- how can we prevent this. Well, it costs money. Someone can invent software that can check backups and detect files that were encrypted, but in reality, it means RansomWare 3.1 will just encrypt the file in a valid .doc, .xls, or other format. It will take keeping a round of backups for a long time. It will take better heuristics so an AV utility [2] can detect some process fiddling over time with files and stop it. It might even require machines be rebooted from offline media and scanned in that condition, and instead of a scan looking for anything out of the ordinary, the reverse happening -- a scan looking for anything that isn't a signed binary or valid Registry entry in order to find rootkits (assuming ones that just don't exist in RAM.) It might even require a new computer architecture with a hypervisor that can suspend the entire machine, then scan the RAM image and the disk every so often.

[1]: BitCoin isn't anonymous, but there are a growing number of "wallet mixing"/laundering services popping up. I'm sure a lot of them likely will just make off with any coins they get (a "100% commission"), but even if a fraction if the haul gets handed to the person coming up to the table, it can still be a good haul for the person trying to launder.

[2]: AV utilities tend to be a joke, but we can hope they might do the job.

Re:Years Away? I call Shenanigans

[plover]

It certainly won't get Grandma to update her Windows XP box. "You mean the emails and internets machine? I don't do anything with that."

A million zombies strong - and growing.

Re:Years Away? I call Shenanigans

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and we should shame Grandma because she can't afford to plop down several grand on a Windows 8 license, new computer, and internet connection on her fixed income which barely pays for her medications and food. That seems legit.

Ah, it is good to see that you are back with your outlandish statements and disproportionate replies to innocuous statements.

Re:Sweet Memories

[myowntrueself]

I once ran a back orifice honeypot (fakebo) :) It was fun. The 'hackers' who took the bait would spend hours poking around in a virtual back orifice server. Some of them figured out it was a honeypot and left little messages for me ranging from "YOU BASTARD YOU MADE ME WASTE 2 HOURS OF MY LIFE!" to "Wow I finally figured out that this was a honeypot, very cool!"

Not Hackers

[ilikenwf]

People who do this aren't hackers, they're degenerate criminals. Hacking doesn't mean cybercrime, and I resent the assumption that it does.

Re:Not Hackers

[plover]

People who do this aren't hackers, they're degenerate criminals.

What exactly is a generate criminal, and how do they differ from degenerate criminals?

Re:Not Hackers

[VortexCortex]

What exactly is a generate criminal, and how do they differ from degenerate criminals?

Go to any parliament, or any of the Presidential/Prime Minister offices and you will find them.

But of course, they are worse than their degenerate counterparts.

Yes. But it is the regenerate criminal you should fear. Computing is almost to the point where a bot net can be host to more CPU cycles than required for sentience. One species' atrocity is another's way of life.

Re:Not Hackers

[Maritz]

A degenerate criminal is not quite massive enough to override the Pauli exclusion principle and form a Black Hole rootkit. Frankly, criminal neutron stars are quite enough, thank you!