The recent attacks in the Middle East triggering explosions on pagers has raised new fears around physical hardware supply chain attacks.

In cybersecurity, we typically consider supply chain attacks to target software, in which adversaries infect a legitimate tool with a malicious, fake update that then spreads malware to affected devices. Think SolarWinds, Log4j, MOVEit, etc.

In the case of hardware supply chain attacks, malicious actors infiltrate the supply of devices, or the physical manufacturing process of pieces of hardware and purposefully build in security flaws, faulty parts, or backdoors they know they can take advantage of in the future, such as malicious microchips on a circuit board.

For Cisco’s part, the Cisco Trustworthy technologies program, including secure boot, Cisco Trust Anchor module (TAm), and runtime defenses give customers the confidence that the product is genuinely from Cisco.

As I was thinking about the threat of hardware supply chain attacks, I was left wondering who, exactly, should be tasked with solving this problem. And I think I’ve decided the onus falls on several different sectors.

It shouldn’t just be viewed as a cybersecurity issue, because for a hardware supply chain attack, an adversary would likely need to physically infiltrate or tamper with the manufacturing process. Entering a manufacturing facility or other stops along the logistics chain would require some level of network-level manipulation, such as faking a card reader or finding a way to trick physical defenses — that’s why Cisco Talos Incident Response looks for these types of things in Purple Team exercises.

But it’s also a question of logistics and storage. Could a device be tampered with while it’s just being stored in a warehouse awaiting shipment? What about entering the back of a tractor-trailer that’s hauling the devices? Or even just being able to sneak photos of the devices’ information, say, for example, the EID on a cellphone or its SIM card.

The process to protect against supply chain hardware attacks is not straightforward, unfortunately. There is little synchronization and partnership between logistics, cybersecurity, and manufacturing companies.

There are also new technologies that can protect against physical tampering, like smart containers, real-time monitoring systems and automated security checkpoints, but these are all expensive solutions for security teams (at the physical and network levels) that are already stretched for budget and human capital.

The cybersecurity industry certainly has a role to play in addressing supply chain attacks of all kinds, but it’s also not something this community alone can solve.

The one big thing

Attackers are abusing features of legitimate internet websites to transmit spam. This web infrastructure and its associated email infrastructure are otherwise used for legitimate purposes, which makes blocking these messages more difficult for defenders, according to new research from Talos.

Why do I care?

As a spammer, one of the problems with spinning up your own architecture to deliver mail is that once the spam starts flowing, these sources (IPs/domains) can be blocked. Realizing this, many spammers have elected to attack webpages and mail servers of legitimate organizations, so they may use these “pirated” resources to send unsolicited emails. Adversaries are still finding new ways to leverage preexisting tools and structures in email systems to send spam and malicious attachments that defenders wouldn’t normally consider.

So now what?

There are several steps users can take to avoid receiving large amounts of spam or being duped by bad actors using “traditional” email tools. A strong password for your email account, or even better, a password manager, can keep your email account secure. When someone is using unique credentials everywhere, one single compromised account will not impact any other online accounts belonging to that victim. For admins and defenders, educating your users to be wary of such email messages is a good way to prevent them from falling victim to phishing and other attacks that arrive by email.

Top security headlines of the week

Representatives from cybersecurity company CrowdStrike spoke to U.S. Congress this week about a faulty update that shut down Windows machines across the country earlier this year. The incident caused disruptions across multiple industries, including commercial flights, public transportation, retail and more. Lawmakers questioned whether the affected software should have access to core systems on computers, and the threat that AI-written code could present in the future. Executives from CrowdStrike took responsibility for the outage. They said the company was doing everything possible to prevent a similar incident from happening again and executing a broad “lessons learned” process. The incident forced over 8 million Microsoft Windows machines into the dreaded “Blue Screen of Death.” For the first 24 hours of the incident, rebooting the systems only worked if the user carried out a specific process that was complicated and needed to be explained by an expert. Eventually, an automatic update rolled out and fixed the issue. (Washington Post, BBC)

Security researchers have discovered a new Iranian state-sponsored actor that is providing initial access for other well-known APTs in the same country. UNC1860 is believed to have ties to Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) and provides access to other Iranian threat actors like OilRig and Scarred Manticore. The group’s focus is reportedly solely focused on breaching networks and obtaining an initial foothold, targeting a range of sectors including government, media, education, critical infrastructure and telecommunications. Researchers say UNC1860 has teamed up for attacks targeting organizations in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and laid the groundwork for wiper attacks in Albania and Israel. The group’s activities had gone largely undetected thus far because their implants are entirely passive, and don’t send any information out of the target network. The APT also doesn’t rely on any kind of command and control (C2) infrastructure. (Dark Reading, SecurityWeek)

Popular AI chat tool ChatGPT contains a flaw that could allow adversaries to implant false “memories” and steal user data in perpetuity. A security researcher discovered a proof of concept in which they could store false information and malicious instructions in a user’s long-term memory settings through indirect prompt injection. The researcher first reported the vulnerability to OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, in May, but at the time the issue was labeled as a safety issue and not a security issue, closing out the case. After developing the POC, the company eventually released a partial fix earlier this month that prevents memories from being abused as an exfiltration vector. However, an adversary could still implant long-term information into ChatGPT through prompt injections targeting the memory tool, just not through the traditional ChatGPT web interface that most users access the tool through. (Ars Technica, wunderwuzzi’s blog)

Can’t get enough Talos?

Upcoming events where you can find Talos

VB2024 (Oct. 2 – 4)

Dublin, Ireland

MITRE ATT&CKcon 5.0 (Oct. 22 – 23)

McLean, Virginia and Virtual

Nicole Hoffman and James Nutland will provide a brief history of Akira ransomware and an overview of the Linux ransomware landscape. Then, morph into action as they take a technical deep dive into the latest Linux variant using the ATT&CK framework to uncover its techniques, tactics and procedures.

misecCON (Nov. 22)

Lansing, Michigan

Terryn Valikodath from Cisco Talos Incident Response will explore the core of DFIR, where digital forensics becomes detective work and incident response turns into firefighting.

Most prevalent malware files from Talos telemetry over the past week

SHA 256: a31f222fc283227f5e7988d1ad9c0aecd66d58bb7b4d8518ae23e110308dbf91
MD5: 7bdbd180c081fa63ca94f9c22c457376
Typical Filename: c0dwjdi6a.dll
Claimed Product: N/A
Detection Name: Trojan.GenericKD.33515991

SHA 256: 47ecaab5cd6b26fe18d9759a9392bce81ba379817c53a3a468fe9060a076f8ca
MD5: 71fea034b422e4a17ebb06022532fdde
Typical Filename: VID001.exe
Claimed Product: N/A
Detection Name: RF.Talos.80

SHA 256: 76491df69a26019139ac11117cd21bf5d0257a5ebd3d67837f558c8c9c3483d8
MD5: b209df2951e29ab5eab4009579b10b8d
Typical Filename: FileZilla_3.67.1_win64_sponsored2-setup.exe
Claimed Product: FileZilla
Detection Name: W32.76491DF69A-95.SBX.TG

SHA 256: 5e537dee6d7478cba56ebbcc7a695cae2609010a897d766ff578a4260c2ac9cf
MD5: 2cfc15cb15acc1ff2b2da65c790d7551
Typical Filename: rcx4d83.tmp
Claimed Product: N/A
Detection Name: Win.Dropper.Pykspa::tpd

SHA 256: 581866eb9d50265b80bae4c49b04f033e2019797131e7697ca81ae267d1b4971
MD5: 4c5fdfd4868ac91db8be52a9955649af
Typical Filename: N/A
Claimed Product: N/A
Detection Name: W32.581866EB9D-100.SBX.TG

Cisco Talos Blog – Read More