Introduction

Gamaredon, also known as Primitive Bear, ACTINIUM, and Shuckworm, is a unique player in the Russian espionage ecosystem that targets a wide variety of almost exclusively Ukrainian entities. While researchers often struggle to uncover evidence of Russian espionage activities, Gamaredon is notably conspicuous. The group behind it conducts large-scale campaigns while still primarily focusing on regional targets. The Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) identified the Gamaredon personnel as Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) officers.

Gamaredon’s large-scale campaigns are usually followed by data collection efforts aimed at specific targets, whose selection is likely motivated by espionage goals. These efforts run parallel to the deployment of various mechanisms and tools designed to maintain as much access to these targets as possible. One such tool is a USB propagating worm that we have named LitterDrifter.

The LitterDrifter worm is written in VBS and has two main functionalities: automatic spreading over USB drives, and communication with a broad, flexible set of command-and-control servers. These features are implemented in a manner that aligns with the group’s goals, effectively maintaining a persistent command and control (C2) channel across a wide array of targets. LitterDrifter seems to be an evolution of a previously reported activity tying Gamaredon group to a propagating USB Powershell worm.

In this report, we take an extensive dumpster dive into the analysis of Gamaredon’s LitterDrifter malware, as well as its C2 infrastructure.

Key Points

Gamaredon continues to focus on wide variety Ukrainian targets, but due to the nature of the USB worm, we see indications of possible infection in various countries like USA, Vietnam, Chile, Poland and Germany. In addition, we’ve observed evidence of infections in Hong Kong. All this might indicate that much like other USB worms, LitterDrifter have spread beyond its intended targets.

Figure 1 – Virus Total Submissions of LitterDrifter

The group recently started deploying LitterDrifter, a worm written in VBS, designed to propagate through removable USB drives and secure a C2 channel.

Gamaredon’s infrastructure remains extremely flexible and volatile, while at the same time maintaining previously reported characteristics and patterns.

LitterDrifter Overview

The LitterDrifter is a self-propagating worm with two main functionalities: spreading over drives and establishing a C2 channel to Gamaredon’s wide command and control infrastructure. Those two functionalities reside within an orchestration component saved to disk as “trash.dll”, which is actually a VBS, despite its file extension name.

trash.dll, as the initial orchestration component, runs first and its main function is to decode and execute the other modules and maintain initial persistence in the victim’s environment.

Following a successful execution, it runs the two extracted modules:

1. Spreader module – Distributes the malware in the system and potentially spreads it to other environments by prioritizing infection of a logical disk with mediatype=NULL, usually associated with USB removable media.

2. C2 Module – Retrieves a command and control server IP address by generating a random subdomain of a built-in C2 server, while also maintaining a backup option to retrieve a C2 IP address from a Telegram channel. Its main purpose is to establish communication with the attacker C&C server and to execute incoming payloads.

Dumpster Diving

Deobfuscoding the DEOBFUSCODER

The orchestration component (referred to as DEOBFUSCODER) is heavily obfuscated and is constructed from a series of strings with character substitution obfuscation. It consists of 7 functions and variables with name mangling. Throughout the run of the “Deobfucate” action, LitterDrifter invokes a function that delays the execution for a few seconds (the exact time varies from sample to sample) to delay the following actions.

The main function takes two encoded strings (the other two malicious components) as parameters. It then declares two paths under the user’s “Favorites” directory, designed to store the two decoded scripts from the other 2 encoded components of the VBS.

To ensure its persistence, the Deobfuscoder makes a copy of the original script to a hidden file called “trash.dll” in the user’s directory.

The script decodes the provided encoded strings and writes them to the “Favorites” directory as “jersey.webm”, the payload component, and “jaw.wm”, the spreader component (the names and extensions of the files and also the location inside the %userprofile% differ between variants).

After creating these files, the malware proceeds to set scheduled tasks for each of the 2 components, ensuring they are regularly executed. In addition, it adds an entry to the user’s startup items in the Registry Run Keys to ensure they run upon startup.

Both the tasks and the startup entries are disguised using technical-sounding names such as “RunFullMemoryDiagnostic” and “ProcessMemoryDiagnosticEvents” to appear legitimate and avoid arousing suspicion.

Figure 3 – Deobfuscated snippet of the orchestrator DEOBFUSCODER’s Main Function.

The entire flow is deliberately obscured by ambiguous function and variable names as well as the use of inline scripting, which make it difficult for casual observers to discern its intent and activities.

Spreader Module Analysis

The core essence of the Spreader module lies in recursively accessing subfolders in each drive and creating LNK decoy shortcuts, alongside a hidden copy of the “trash.dll” file.

Figure 4 – trash.dll is distributed as a hidden file in a USB drive together with a decoy LNK.

Upon execution, the module queries the computer’s logical drives using Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI), and searches for logical disks with the MediaType value set to null, a method often used to identify removable USB drives.

For each logical drive detected, the spreader invokes the createShortcutsInSubfolders function. Within this function, it iterates the subfolders of a provided folder up to a depth of 2.

For every subfolder, it employs the CreateShortcut function as part of the “Create LNK” action, which is responsible for generating a shortcut with specific attributes. These shortcuts are LNK files that are given random names chosen from an array in the code. This is an example of the lure’s names from an array in one of the samples that we investigated:(“Bank_accоunt”, “постановa”, “Bank_accоunt”, “службовa”, “cоmpromising_evidence”). The LNK files use wscript.exe **** to execute “trash.dll” with specified arguments ” “”trash.dll”” /webm //e:vbScript //b /wm /cal “. In addition to generating the shortcut, the function also creates a hidden copy of “trash.dll” in the subfolder.

Figure 6 – A function in the Spreader component used to iterate subfolders.

C2 Module Analysis – Taking Out the Trash

Gamaredon’s approach towards the C&C is rather unique, as it utilizes domains as a placeholder for the circulating IP addresses actually used as C2 servers.

Before attempting to contact a C2 server, the script checks the %TEMP% folder for an existing C2 configuration file with a meaningless name that’s hardcoded in the malware. This mechanism acts as a self-check for the malware, verifying whether it already infected the machine. If present, the current execution could simply be a scheduled execution triggered by the persistence mechanisms discussed earlier. If there isn’t an existing config file, the malware switches gears and pings one of Gamaredon’s domains using a WMI query: select * from win32_pingstatus where address=’Write<random_2_digit_number>.ozaharso.ru’. The malware extracts the IP resolution for the domain from the response to the query and saves it to a new configuration file.

Figure 7 – LitterDrifter retrieving the C2 IP address using a WMI query.

With the IP address in hand, LitterDrifter constructs the IP into a URL. The format is usually along the lines of http://<cncIP>/jaw<random_2_digit_number>/index.html=?<random_2_digit_number>. The C2 communication is carried out using a custom user-agent that contains some information about the machine. This information includes the computer name and a hexadecimal form of the %systemdrive%’s serial number.

The end result is a user-agent that looks like this: mozilla/5.0 (windows nt 6.1; wow64) applewebkit/537.36 (khtml, like gecko) chrome/88.0.4324.152 yabrowser/21.2.3.106 yowser/2.5 safari/537.36;;<computer_name>_<system_drive_serial>;;/.justly/.

Figure 8 – LitterDrifter prepares the HTTP request, constructing the URL and user-agent.

The request’s HTTP header is also carefully tailored. For example, in one of the samples we found, the Referer field discreetly holds https://www.crimea.kp.ru/daily/euromaidan/, a nod to Crimea’s news site. It also sneaks in some specifics for the Accept-Language and the string marketCookie in the Cookie field.

LitterDrifter utilizes a fail counter to choose which C2 method is relevant. The fail counter increases each time the C2 fails to return either a payload or a Telegram backup channel, from which LitterDrifter extracts an alternative C2. The flow of the code suggests the first answer to return is usually a Telegram channel ID, which is saved in a backup file.

Based on the fail count, LitterDrifter chooses to which C2 to connect:

If the fail counter is currently set to 0, the request is carried out to the file saved in the configuration file.

If the fail counter is currently set to 1, LitterDrifter attempts to resolve its embedded C2 domain using a WMI Query, as previously described.

If the fail counter is set to 2, LitterDrifter attempts to connect to a C2 extracted from a Telegram backup channel, using a different user-agent and a Referer of https://www.interfax.ru/tags/, which is another Russian news site. From there, it extracts an IP address used as a C2.

Figure 10 – Gamaredon’s Telegram channel that conceals a C&C IP address.

If a payload is found within the C2 reply, LitterDrifter tries to decode it. It unwraps any base64 content and attempts to run the decoded data. Based on our analysis, the payload is not downloaded to most targets.

Figure 11 – LitterDrifter’s fail count options and execution of a received payload (Deobfuscated).

Infrastructure

During our analysis, we noticed distinct patterns in the infrastructure employed by Gamaredon in this operation. This includes registration patterns, as all of the domains used by Gamaredon’s LitterDrifter are registered by REGRU-RU. and are part of the TLD .ru. These findings align with other past reports of Gamaredon’s infrastructure.

Based on some of the patterns, we were able to associate specific domains and subdomains with LitterDriffter’s operation, and other domains that are linked to other clusters of Gamaredon’s activity.

In the LitterDrifter campaign, the C2 module gets the resolution for a Gamaredon-owned domain through a WMI query. It does so by generating a random subdomain of a hardcoded domain, using random words and digits so each domain exhibits a diverse range of associated subdomains. Some domains have just a few subdomains, while others have several hundred. The following charts show the number of subdomains for each of the domains we encountered:

As we described earlier, the WMI query to Gamaredon’s domain returns an IP address that is used as the operational C2 of the campaign. On average, an IP address remains operational for roughly 28 hours. However, the IP address serving as the active C2 usually changes several times a day (all of the IP addresses used might fall within the same subnet), as seen below:

Figure 13 – Number of C&C IP addresses per day in the past 2 months.

Conclusion

In this report, we explored the inner workings of this recently identified worm. Comprised of two primary components – a spreading module and a C2 module – it’s clear that LitterDrifter was designed to support a large-scale collection operation. It leverages simple, yet effective techniques to ensure it can reach the widest possible set of targets in the region.

LitterDrifter doesn’t rely on groundbreaking techniques and may appear to be a relatively unsophisticated piece of malware. However, this same simplicity is in line with its goals, mirroring Gamaredon’s overall approach. This method has demonstrated considerable effectiveness, as evidenced by the group’s sustained activities in Ukraine.

Check Point Customers Remain Protected

Check Point Customers remain protected against attacks detailed in this report while using Check Point Harmony Endpoint and Threat Cloud.

Indicators of Compromise

LitterDrifter samples

cbeaedfa84b02a2bd41a70fa92a46c36

6349dd85d9549f333117a84946972d06

2239800bfc8fdfddf78229f2eb8a7b95

42bc36d5debc21dff3559870ff300c4e

4c2431e5f868228c1f286fca1033d221

1536ec56d69cc7e9aebb8fbd0d3277c4

49d1f9ce1d0f6dfa94ad9b0548384b3a

83500309a878370722bc40c7b83e83e3

8096dfaa954113242011e0d7aaaebffd

bbb464b327ad259ad5de7ce3e85a4081

cdae1c55ec154cd6cef4954519564c01

2996a70d09fff69f209051ce75a9b4f8

9d9851d672293dfd8354081fd0263c13

96db6240acb1a3fca8add7c4f9472aa5

1c49d04fc0eb8c9de9f2f6d661826d24

88aba3f2d526b0ba3db9bc3dfee7db39

86d28664fc7332eafb788a44ac82a5ed

1da0bf901ae15a9a8aef89243516c818

579f1883cdfd8534167e773341e27990

495b118d11ceae029d186ffdbb157614

Infrastructure

ozaharso[.]ru

nubiumbi[.]ru

acaenaso[.]ru

atonpi[.]ru

suizibel[.]ru

dakareypa[.]ru

ahmozpi[.]ru

nebtoizi[.]ru

squeamish[.]ru

nahtizi[.]ru

crisiumbi[.]ru

arabianos[.]ru

gayado[.]ru

quyenzo[.]ru

credomched[.]ru

lestemps[.]ru

urdevont[.]ru

hoanzo[.]ru

absorbeni[.]ru

aethionemaso[.]ru

aychobanpo[.]ru

ayzakpo[.]ru

badrupi[.]ru

barakapi[.]ru

boskatrem[.]ru

brudimar[.]ru

decorous[.]ru

dumerilipi[.]ru

heartbreaking[.]ru

judicious[.]ru

karoanpa[.]ru

lamentable[.]ru

procellarumbi[.]ru

ragibpo[.]ru

raidla[.]ru

ramizla[.]ru

samiseto[.]ru

superficial[.]ru

talehgi[.]ru

undesirable[.]ru

valefgo[.]ru

vasifgo[.]ru

vilaverde[.]ru

vloperang[.]ru

zerodems[.]ru

geminiso[.]ru

vilaverde[.]ru

lamentable[.]ru

raidla[.]ru

boskatrem[.]ru

heartbreaking[.]ru

sabirpo[.]ru

valefgo[.]ru

vasifgo[.]ru

absorbeni[.]ru

vloperang[.]ru

decorous[.]ru

ramizla[.]ru

procellarumbi[.]ru

andamanos[.]ru

triticumos[.]ru

The post Malware Spotlight – Into the Trash: Analyzing LitterDrifter appeared first on Check Point Research.

Check Point Research – ​Read More

This article is based on research by Marcelo Rivero, Malwarebytes’ ransomware specialist, who monitors information published by ransomware gangs on their Dark Web sites. In this report, “known attacks” are those where the victim did not pay a ransom. This provides the best overall picture of ransomware activity, but the true number of attacks is far higher.

In October, 318 new victims were posted on ransomware leak sites. The top active gangs were LockBit (64), NoEscape (40), and PLAY (36). Major stories for the month included the takedown of several high-profile groups, including alleged Sony Systems attacker RansomedVC, new data shedding light on Cl0p’s education sector bias, and a deep-dive revealing the danger of the group behind September’s infamous casino attacks.

Last month three major ransomware groups—RansomedVC, Ragnar, and Trigona—were shut down, the first two by law enforcement and the third by Ukrainian hacktivists. Let’s dive into RansomedVC, a group which burst onto the scene in August and quickly gained notoriety for allegedly breaching several well-known companies. In late October, the lead hacker behind the group was seen on Telegram trying to sell the operation. Just days later, the account announced that it was “putting an end to” the group after learning that six of its affiliates may have been arrested. The group had posted 42 victims on their leak site at the time of their take down.

While law enforcement is yet to come forward confirming the RansomedVC arrests, the same is not true for RagnarLocker group, which Europol and Eurojust announced they had taken down last month. RagnarLocker started in 2019 and was responsible for numerous high-profile attacks against municipalities and critical infrastructure across the world. At the time of the takedown action, the group had posted a total of 42 victims on their leak site.

Trigona’s demise, on the other hand, was not at the hands of investigators but activists, highlighting the impact that broader geopolitical struggles can have on the ransomware landscape. In mid-October, the Ukrainian Cyber Alliance (UCA) breached the Trigona Confluence server and completely deleted and defaced their sites. Formed around 2016 to defend Ukraine’s cyberspace against Russian interference, the UCA used a public exploit for CVE-2023-22515 to gain access to Trigona infrastructure. Trigona is responsible for at least 30 attacks across various sectors since first emerging in October 2022.

Known ransomware attacks by ransomware group, October 2023

Known ransomware attacks by country, October 2023

Known ransomware attacks by industry sector, October 2023

In other October news, Resilience, a cyber insurance company, reported that 48% of all MOVEit cyberattack victims in its client base during the first half of 2023 were from the education sector. This suggests a possible targeting preference of the Cl0p campaign towards educational institutions. However, this figure might not fully represent the situation.

For instance, if Resilience has a higher proportion of clients in the education sector, it could bias the data towards that sector. On the other hand, data from Malwarebytes indeed indicates that while the education sector comprises only 3% of all MOVEit hosts, they account for 6% of the victims. However, this trend is likely not due to a deliberate focus by Cl0p, whose attacks were more opportunistic in scope, but rather because educational sectors often have fewer resources to promptly address vulnerabilities like those in MOVEit. Thus, the bias observed is more circumstantial than intentional. At any rate, given that the education sector frequently relies on third-party applications like MOVEit, the impact of Cl0p’s activities serves as a stark reminder for these institutions to adopt robust third-party security best practices.

Microsoft’s deep dive into Scattered Spider last month shed new light on the relatively new, albeit dangerous, ransomware gang who made headlines in September for attacking MGM Resorts and Caesar Entertainment. For small security teams, one of the most important findings about the group is their use of Living Of The Land (LOTL) techniques to avoid detection: Scattered Spider employs everyday tools like PowerShell for reconnaissance and stealthily alters network settings to bypass security measures. They also exploit identity providers and modify security systems, blending their malicious activities with normal network operations.

With the success of groups like Scattered Spider increasingly relying on LOTL attacks, it’s vital for defenders to focus on detecting anomalous activities within legitimate tools and network configurations. Strengthening monitoring and analysis capabilities can help identify and counter the subtle, sophisticated techniques employed by these ransomware gangs.

New(?) player: Hunters International

Hunters International is a new ransomware player suspected to be a rebrand of the Hive ransomware, which was shutdown in January 2023 by law enforcement. Despite Hunters International’s denial, claiming they are a distinct entity that purchased Hive’s source code, the overlap in their malware’s coding and functionality suggests a direct lineage from Hive.

Their activity, though limited, includes a notable attack on a UK school.

How to avoid ransomware

Block common forms of entry. Create a plan for patching vulnerabilities in internet-facing systems quickly; and disable or harden remote access like RDP and VPNs.

Prevent intrusions. Stop threats early before they can even infiltrate or infect your endpoints. Use endpoint security software that can prevent exploits and malware used to deliver ransomware.

Detect intrusions. Make it harder for intruders to operate inside your organization by segmenting networks and assigning access rights prudently. Use EDR or MDR to detect unusual activity before an attack occurs.

Stop malicious encryption. Deploy Endpoint Detection and Response software like Malwarebytes EDR that uses multiple different detection techniques to identify ransomware, and ransomware rollback to restore damaged system files.

Create offsite, offline backups. Keep backups offsite and offline, beyond the reach of attackers. Test them regularly to make sure you can restore essential business functions swiftly.

Don’t get attacked twice. Once you’ve isolated the outbreak and stopped the first attack, you must remove every trace of the attackers, their malware, their tools, and their methods of entry, to avoid being attacked again.

Malwarebytes – ​Read More

Some people believe that if you don’t click on dangerous links, open suspicious files, or install programs from untrusted sources, you don’t have to worry about malware infections. Unfortunately, this isn’t entirely true. There are so-called zero-click exploits that don’t require any actions of the targeted user.

Creating zero-click exploits requires both serious expertise and significant resources. The vulnerabilities needed for zero-clicks to work are, to say the least, not easily discovered — information about such security issues can cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars on the black market.

However, this does not mean that attacks using zero-click exploits are rare. Information about vulnerabilities (including those suitable for creating zero-click exploits) is often published by researchers on the Internet, sometimes along with proof-of-concept code. That is, after some time, any cybercriminal who follows infosec news will be able to use this vulnerability in their malware. Yes, software developers try to fix such vulnerabilities ASAP, but as we know, not everyone promptly installs updates.

Also, we should not forget about vulnerabilities in IoT devices, servers, and other connected systems such as network attach storage (NAS). All this equipment operates without constant human control, and therefore exploits designed to attack them do not rely on any user action. Either way, it’s worth at least knowing about zero-click attacks; even better — to take some measures to protect your company against them.

Examples of zero-click attacks

Using real-life examples of zero-click attacks, let’s see how they work in practice, and what methods the creators of these exploits use to achieve their goals.

The Operation Triangulation espionage campaign

Not long ago, employees of our company were attacked by an unknown group using, among other things, a zero-click exploit. After discovering it, we named this espionage campaign Operation Triangulation. Using Apple’s iMessage service, the attackers sent a message to the victim’s iPhone with a special attachment containing an exploit. Thanks to a previously unknown vulnerability in iOS, this exploit, without any user input, triggered the execution of malicious code that connected to a C2 server and gradually loaded additional malicious payload. It first elevated privileges using additional exploits and then launched a full-blown APT platform.

To get around the iPhone’s internal security mechanisms, the platform operated exclusively in the device’s RAM. It allowed the attackers to collect information about the owner and launch additional plugins downloaded from С2 servers. The infection was only detected thanks to our network event monitoring and analyzing system.

Of course, Apple quickly fixed this vulnerability, but it is not the first exploitation of a bug in iMessage that allows attackers to infect an iPhone using an invisible malware. Since attackers are actively researching this service, there is no guarantee that they will not find some alternative method and use it (possibly even for mass attacks).

Intellexa Predator spyware and a zero-click vulnerability in Safari

Another fairly recent example: Apple recently released an important update for iOS, macOS, and some other software products, fixing several serious vulnerabilities. A vulnerability in the WebKit (a browser engine used by Apple Safari browser) was exploited by a zero-click exploit, part of Intellexa Predator spyware.

First, the attackers waited for the moment when the victim accessed a website whose connection didn’t use encryption (that is, HTTP rather than HTTPS). After that, they conducted a man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack by redirecting the victim to an infected site. Then, the aforementioned vulnerability in the Safari browser was exploited — it allowed the attackers to execute arbitrary code on the iPhone without any action from the victim. Subsequently, the criminals used additional vulnerabilities to install spyware on the compromised iPhone.

Researchers also discovered a similar exploit chain that the creators of Predator used to infect Android smartphones. In this case, the zero-click attack was executed in the Chrome browser.

Earlier this year, we reported other vulnerabilities of this kind in both Apple Safari and Google Chrome. All of them enable the creation of malicious web pages that, in turn, infect with malware the smartphones or computers of users who visit them — again without any additional actions on the part of the victims.

How to defend against zero-click attacks

Since the primary danger of zero-clicks lies in the fact that their creators don’t require any active action at all by the victim, the usual principles of online hygiene aren’t very helpful here. However, there are still some things you can do to protect devices:

Keep software up to date — especially the operating system and all browsers installed on it.
If you have any reason to be concerned about attacks using high-level commercial spyware (such as NSO Pegasus), see our dedicated post with recommendations on how to defend against them.
For iPhone users, it’s good to use Lockdown Mode. This mode helps partially protect against serious attacks, but should by no means be considered a panacea.
Supply all corporate devices with a reliable protective solution that will take care of security during periods when new vulnerabilities are already being exploited, but the corresponding patches haven’t yet been released.
This also applies to iOS. Yes, due to Apple’s policy, there are no full-fledged antivirus solutions for this operating system. However, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business includes an application that does at least block dangerous web pages, thereby reducing the likelihood of vulnerabilities being exploited in the browser.

Kaspersky official blog – ​Read More

A question for many businesses these days isn’t “Will we get hacked?” but rather, “Might we have already been hacked unknowingly?” The stealthy nature of advanced cyberthreats means that organizations need to be continuously vigilant. To safeguard sensitive data and critical systems, many turn to various cybersecurity services – including compromise assessment services. While compromise assessment may sound similar to incident response, penetration testing, and/or managed detection and response (MDR), it serves a distinct purpose in the realm of cybersecurity. In this post, we explore the concept of a compromise assessment service and show how it differs from these other crucial cybersecurity operations.

What is a compromise assessment service?

A compromise assessment service is a proactive cybersecurity project-based measure designed to identify signs of compromise within an organization’s IT infrastructure. This assessment focuses on detecting threats or suspicious activities that may have gone unnoticed within an organization’s environment. The primary objectives of compromise assessment are typically the following:

To perform a tool-aided indicator of compromise (IoC) scan of all hosts in the IT infrastructure
To analyze network activity, including outgoing connections to potential attackers’ command and control servers
To conduct initial incident investigation to identify tools and techniques used for the attack (if signs of network compromise were found)
To reveal suspected sources of an attack and other likely compromised systems
To provide recommendations on further remediation actions

What’s the difference between compromise assessment (CA) and incident response (IR)?

Incident response is a reactive cybersecurity process, which comes into play once a security incident has been detected. IR teams are responsible for investigating the nature and scope of a breach, containing it, eradicating the threat, and restoring normal operations. Incident response aims to minimize the impact of security incidents and prevent their reoccurrence.

Both CA and IR share common approaches and methodologies – including collection and analysis of digital forensic artifacts (Prefetch, Amcache, etc.), usage of IoC-scanners to find compromised hosts, and binary reverse engineering to prove the presence of malicious functions in certain programs or scripts.

The primary differences between CA and IR are:

Aspect
Compromise assessment
Incident response

Primary goal
To identify missed/unknown incidents
To reduce the impact of an identified security breach or an attack on your IT environment

Input data
Doesn’t require technical data for the input
Requires technical data for the input: alert from security control, suspicious file, signal about data leakage, ransom note, etc., which obviously prove that an incident has occurred

Timing
– Periodic assessment project
– Precedes IR in identifying an incident
– Can follow IR to make sure of no other compromises
– Is initiated after security incident detection
– Follows compromise assessment if a breach is detected

Scope
Broad scan across entire organization’s network to find all signs of compromise

Only the network segments affected by the reported incident

What’s the difference between compromise assessment and penetration testing?

Penetration testing – often referred to as pentesting – is a simulated cyberattack on a system, network, or application to evaluate its security vulnerabilities. The primary goal of a pentest is to identify potential weak points that malicious hackers might exploit, thereby allowing organizations to strengthen their security posture.

Both penetration testing and compromise assessment activities require skilled professionals with a deep understanding of cyberthreats and defenses. While they have different primary objectives, both are proactive measures to understand and improve security.

The key differences between a penetration test and a compromise assessment.

Aspect
Penetration testing
Compromise assessment

Objective
To identify vulnerabilities before they’re exploited
To identify instances of successful exploitation of vulnerabilities

Scope
Predefined (e.g., specific systems, applications)
Typically, the whole organization

Methodology
Simulated cyberattacks using tools and manual techniques
To examine logs, network traffic, anomalies and system behaviors

What’s the difference between compromise assessment and managed detection and response

Managed detection and response services involve continuous monitoring, threat detection, and incident response by a third-party provider. MDR combines technology, human expertise, and threat intelligence to identify and respond to security threats in real time. The focus of MDR is on providing a holistic cybersecurity solution that includes both monitoring and response capabilities.

Both CA and MDR use a combination of advanced technologies, threat intelligence, and skilled analysts to identify potential security breaches and suspicious activities within an organization’s network.

The key differences between CA and MDR are as follows:

Aspect
Compromise Assessment
MDR

Timing
-Periodic assessment project (one-time assessment)
– no SLA for notifications
– Continuous 24/7 activity (ongoing service)
– Strict SLA for notifications

Analysis focus
– Past and current attacks
– Forensic state analysis
– Current attacks
– Behavioral monitoring

Sources of data for analysis
– EDR/NTA
– SIEM
– Digital footprint intelligence (darknet)
EDR/NTA

Conclusion

As cyberthreats become increasingly sophisticated, the traditional reactive approach to cybersecurity is no longer sufficient. A compromise assessment service offers a proactive solution, ensuring that organizations aren’t just waiting for the next breach but actively seeking out and neutralizing latent threats. By conducting such assessments, you can eliminate the residual risk of being breached without notice.

A compromise assessment service plays a critical role in proactively identifying potential compromises and security weaknesses within an organization’s network. While it may share some similarities with incident response, penetration testing, and managed detection and response services, it’s a project-flow activity whose primary focus is on proactive identification of unnoticed attacks that bypassed an organization’s security systems and processes.

Understanding the differences among these cybersecurity practices is crucial for organizations seeking to build a robust defense strategy. Each service has its place in an organization’s cybersecurity posture, and they can complement one another to create a comprehensive and effective corporate security framework. You can learn more or contact our Kaspersky Compromise Assessment experts at the service’s web page.

Kaspersky official blog – ​Read More