The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has recently updated its Public Safety Communications and Cyber Resiliency Toolkit, adding seven new resources aimed at enhancing the resilience and security of public safety communications across the nation. This update comes as part of CISA’s ongoing effort to support public safety, national security, and emergency preparedness communities in ensuring seamless and secure communications during both everyday operations and emergency situations.
Public safety agencies rely heavily on communication systems to coordinate responses and deliver critical services. Any disruption in these communication systems can have disastrous consequences, delaying response times and potentially compromising lives. For this reason, Cyber Resiliency is a key focus for public safety organizations, which need to ensure that their communication networks can withstand and recover from cyberattacks and other disruptions.
CISA’s toolkit is designed to support public safety agencies in supplementing these capabilities. It provides tools to assess current systems, identify vulnerabilities, and implement strategies to protect the infrastructure against online threats, including cyber incidents, ransomware, and even natural disasters like electromagnetic pulse (EMP) events.
Recent Updates to the Public Safety Communications and Cyber Resiliency Toolkit
As of December 2024, the toolkit has received its latest update—Version 24.2—which includes seven new resources. These resources have been specifically designed to help public safety agencies address emerging challenges in communications resilience and cyber security. The update is timely, as it follows the release of new CISA guidelines and continues the agency’s efforts to provide the most up-to-date information to the public safety sector.
The toolkit now features resources addressing critical issues such as:
Cybersecurity and Cyber Incidents: The toolkit now includes enhanced guidance on protecting communication systems from cyberattacks, including the rising threat of ransomware. With ransomware attacks becoming more sophisticated, public safety agencies need resources that help them prevent, respond to, and recover from these types of incidents. The toolkit provides a comprehensive Cyber Resiliency strategy that emphasizes preparedness and swift recovery.
Next Generation 911 (NG911): NG911 represents the future of emergency communications, enabling more advanced features such as text-to-911, multimedia messaging, and real-time data sharing. However, NG911 systems also come with increased vulnerabilities. The updated toolkit includes new resources focused on securing NG911 systems and preventing cyber risks that may target them. For example, the Cyber Risks to Next Generation 911 guide is designed to familiarize public safety managers with the risks associated with NG911 and offers best practices to improve cybersecurity in these systems.
Power and Infrastructure Dependencies: Power disruptions and dependency on critical infrastructure are persistent challenges for public safety agencies. The updated toolkit includes resources like the Infrastructure Dependency Primer, which helps planners better understand the complex web of dependencies that can impact community resilience. By identifying and mitigating potential weaknesses in critical infrastructure, public safety organizations can strengthen their overall Cyber Resiliency.
Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) and Jamming: Both EMP and radio frequency (RF) jamming can significantly disrupt public safety communications, especially during emergencies. The toolkit now provides updated guidance on how to protect communication systems from these emerging threats. The Radio Frequency Interference Best Practices Guidebook offers public safety organizations practical advice on recognizing, responding to, and mitigating the effects of jamming and interference.
Key Resources in the Toolkit
The Public Safety Communications and Cyber Resiliency Toolkit has become an important tool for public safety agencies across the country, offering resources that cover a wide range of critical topics:
Resiliency Planning: Tools such as the Infrastructure Resilience Planning Framework help state, local, tribal, and territorial governments develop effective strategies to identify vulnerabilities and build resilient communication networks. This framework is crucial for ensuring that public safety agencies can maintain their operations during both normal and emergency conditions.
Priority Services and Telecommunications: The Priority Telecommunications Services section offers detailed information on how public safety agencies can ensure priority access to communication networks during times of crisis. Services such as Wireless Priority Services (WPS) and Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS) enable emergency personnel to maintain communication when networks are overloaded.
Cyber Resiliency for Public Safety: The toolkit includes resources designed to help agencies assess their cybersecurity posture. The Cyber Resiliency Resources for Public Safety document, for example, compiles tools and programs from federal agencies, industry, and trade associations to help agencies improve their cybersecurity defenses. This resource is especially valuable in light of increasing cyber threats targeting critical infrastructure.
Public Safety Communications Ecosystem: The toolkit offers an interactive graphic that outlines key components of the emergency communications ecosystem, helping users understand the interplay between various systems and technologies. This visualization aids public safety officials in recognizing potential vulnerabilities in their networks.
Procurement and Vendor Guidance: New documents, such as the Connected Communities Procurement and Implementation Guidance, provide public safety leaders with questions to ask when selecting vendors. These resources ensure that vendors’ products and services align with the public safety agency’s cybersecurity policies and operational needs.
A Living Document
One of the most valuable features of CISA’s Public Safety Communications and Cyber Resiliency Toolkit is its ability to evolve in response to new threats and emerging technologies. As new resources are developed and identified, the toolkit is regularly updated to reflect the latest best practices and recommendations for public safety agencies.
Since its last major update in April 2024, CISA has added several key resources, highlighting the agency’s commitment to providing public safety agencies with the tools they need to protect their networks and systems. Users are encouraged to revisit the toolkit regularly to ensure they are leveraging the most current and relevant information available.
Conclusion
The Public Safety Communications and Cyber Resiliency Toolkit remains an indispensable resource for public safety agencies seeking to protect their communication systems against cyber threats.
By using the toolkit, agencies can better prepare for the challenges of today and tomorrow, ensuring that they remain resilient in the face of natural disasters, cyberattacks, and other disruptions.
For more information, public safety officials and decision-makers are encouraged to explore the CISA toolkit and make use of the new resources now available in Version 24.2.
https://www.backbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/website_backbox_text_black.png00https://www.backbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/website_backbox_text_black.png2024-12-12 15:06:382024-12-12 15:06:38CISA Enhances Public Safety Communications with Seven New Resources in Cyber Resiliency Toolkit
As cybersecurity threats grow more sophisticated, collaboration becomes a cornerstone of effective defense strategies. This is where MISP, an open-source threat intelligence sharing platform, comes into play.
MISP, which stands for Malware Information Sharing Platform, is a free, open-source platform designed to facilitate the exchange, storage, and correlation of threat intelligence data. MISP lets organizations and researchers:
Exchange critical data points to identify cyber threats.
Share signals or attributes indicating the compromise of information systems.
Automate the process of data sharing and find correlations between threat data.
Benefits of ANY.RUN’s MISP Instance
With ANY.RUN’s MISP instance, you can:
1. Access ANY.RUN’s TI Feeds
Receive a direct stream of the latest malicious IPs, URLs, domains, ports, file names, and hashes. These are extracted from public malware and phishing samples, including ones not found elsewhere, submitted and analyzed in ANY.RUN’s Interactive Sandbox by security professionals worldwide. IOCs are pulled from different sources, including network activities and malware configurations.
Want to integrate TI Feeds via MISP? Reach out to us and we’ll help you set it up
Connect your own monitoring and triage tools and systems, such as SIEM/XDR solutions, to ANY.RUN’s MISP instance via API.
3. Improve Threat Detection
Correlate and enrich your IOCs with ANY.RUN’s to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the threat landscape.
4. Generate IDS Rules
Export indicators (attributes) from ANY.RUN’s MISP instance in NIDS-compatible formats and import them in your detection tools like IDS/IPS or NGFW to improve network security of your organization and ensure proactive defense against current threats.
5. Create Custom Workflows
Leverage ANY.RUN’s indicators in your automated threat analysis workflows.
6. Synchronize MISP Instances
Synchronize your MISP instance with ANY.RUN’s to get relevant threat data.
7. Visualize Threat Intelligence Data
Ensure a more convenient view of relevant threats by visualizing ANY.RUN’s TI Feeds data.
8. Enrich with Your Threat Data
Add your IOCs to the ones provided by ANY.RUN to gain a better picture of the threats at hand.
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.
https://www.backbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/website_backbox_text_black.png00https://www.backbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/website_backbox_text_black.png2024-12-12 13:06:512024-12-12 13:06:51Access and Use ANY.RUN’s TI Feeds via MISP
On December 6, 2024, Cyble Research & Intelligence Labs (CRIL) observed that the hacktivist alliance known as the “Holy League” on their Telegram channel declared cyberattacks against France. According to the alliance, these operations were executed in retaliation to France’s continued support of Ukraine and Israel. Prominent members of the alliance, including the pro-Russian group NoName057(16), the pro-Islamic threat actor Mr. Hamza, and the pro-Palestinian collective Anonymous Guys, amplified the announcement across their platforms. Shortly after, these groups actively participated in coordinated attacks, demonstrating a unified effort among ideologically diverse threat actors to target French assets.
The timing of the attacks coincides with a political crisis in France and the visit of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump. On December 5, the French Parliament passed a no-confidence vote against Prime Minister Michel Barnier. President Emmanuel Macron now faces mounting pressure to appoint a successor, with some calling for his resignation.
This political turmoil has created a vulnerable environment, providing hacktivist groups with an opportunity to sow chaos, disrupt public order by disrupting public and critical infrastructure, and amplify uncertainty within the nation.
Another startling development observed during the campaign is the collaboration between pro-Islamic and pro-Russian hacktivist collectives, especially when pro-Islamic groups are supporting revolutionary movements in Syria that have led to the ousting of erstwhile President Bashar-al-Assad, previously staunchly supported by Russia. This alliance highlights a pragmatic convergence of interests, where shared objectives in destabilizing common adversaries outweigh ideological differences.
“Holy League” members initiated sustained attacks on France from December 7, 2024. CRIL investigated these cyberattacks on France distinctively in two categories: coordinated attacks by the alliance members and systematic attacks individually by each group as per their modus operandi. Moreover, the “Holy League” has threatened to launch similar attacks against other countries, such as Germany.
Observations and Analysis
Ina post on the Telegram channel on December 6, 2024, “Holy League” announced the campaign against France immediately after December 4, 2024, when Prime Minister Michel Barnier was ousted through a no-confidence vote. The agenda seems evident: to reap this opportunity to stir public unrest.
Between December 7 and December 10, 2024, hacktivists executed DDoS attacks, compromised Industrial Control Systems (ICS), conducted website defacements, and claimed data breaches of several French entities. This analysis will dissect each attack vector and attribute activities to specific threat groups where possible.
DDOS Attacks
Several hacktivists launched a wave of DDoS attacks on French entities from December 7 to December 10, 2024, prominent ones being NoName057(16), People’s Cyber Army, and Mr. Hamza.
NoName057(16) and the People’s Cyber Army primarily focused on the official websites of French cities and other private entities, including the major French financial corporation AXA.
Mr. Hamza concentrated on high-value governmental targets, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the French Directorate-General for External Security (DGSE), the French National Nuclear Energy Commission (CEA), and the French National Cybersecurity Agency (ANSSI).
Anonymous Guys directed their efforts towards several key ministries and government departments, such as the Ministry of Armed Forces, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and the Ministry of Solidarity and Health, among others.
According to CRIL, more than 50 separate DDoS attacks were identified against French websites over these four days, affecting multiple sectors of the economy and government.
Defacement
The pro-Russian group Z-Pentest’s defacement attacks were primarily focused on small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) from diverse industries in France, including Energy and utilities, Agriculture and livestock, Automotive, and Hospitality. Notably, Energy and Utility firms such as Atlantic Energies Pose and Electricité Générale Lespiau and 10 other websites were defaced with pro-Russian statements.
Unauthorized Access to CCTV and SCADA
Four Holy League members—Hunt3rKill3rs, Shadow Unit, EvilNet, and KozSec—have claimed unauthorized access to several systems in France.
Shadow Unit, a pro-Islamic hacktivist collective, claimed the breach of the SCADA systems of Corus Nuclear Power Plant and the French Marne Aval station.
KozSec, A pro-Russian collective, claimed to target an undisclosed French industry. The hacktivist group shared screenshots and videos of the intrusion, emphasizing their successful access to sensitive industrial systems.
Data Breaches
Two groups associated with the Holy League – Shadow Unit and UserSec, claimed separately. Compromising the website plubioclimatique.paris.fr and exfiltrating over 50 PDF documents and over 100GB of data from French Government websites, respectively.
Conclusion
The recent cyberattacks by the “Holy League” underscore a new, broader geopolitical landscape where hacktivist alliances can sow and exploit discord for their objectives. The collaboration between ideologically diverse groups, such as pro-Islamic and pro-Russian hacktivists, signals a shift in how adversaries may align their interests against common targets. The implications extend beyond France, as similar threats loom over other nations, signaling a new era of cyber conflict where common adversaries may overshadow ideological differences.
https://www.backbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/website_backbox_text_black.png00https://www.backbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/website_backbox_text_black.png2024-12-12 12:07:062024-12-12 12:07:06Hacktivist Alliances Target France Amidst Political Crisis
As long as we’ve had the internet, users have tried to obfuscate how and what they are connecting to. In some cases, this is to work around restrictions put in place by governments or a desire to access content that is not otherwise available in a given region.
This is why technologies like VPNs and The Onion Router (TOR) become popular: They allow users to easily access content without exposing their IP address or location. These technologies are intended to protect users and information and have done a good job of doing so. However, adversaries have taken notice and are using proxy networks for malicious activities.
Proxy Chain Services
It is important to distinguish the different proxy chain services, as there are legitimate reasons for some of them to exist. From a privacy/defender point-of-view, they can be split into the following groups:
VPN and TOR: These services provide the user anonymity, but the defender can, for the most part, determine that it’s receiving requests from these networks. As such, there is no expectation that the origin of the connection is the exact same as the user’s physical location. The user has no control of the path or exit node location.
Commercial residential services: These provide anonymity to users, while at the same time allowing them to choose the exit point. These services do not provide any clues to the defender about the nature of the connection.
Malicious proxy services: Threat actors use these networks to hide their location and choose their exit node. These are set up to be used by malicious operators from multiple sources. They can take two shapes: The nodes are installed on leased servers from different providers in different regions, or their nodes can be compromised edge devices that bounce connections in chains.
The first group has a clear legitimate use case, and the second has been advertised as a means to measure marketing engagement. However, threat actors can also use them without the bandwidth owner understanding what is at risk. The third case is clear: The networks are built to be rented for distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks or access to be sold so other actors can anonymize their activities.
History
Leveraging proxy networks for malicious purposes was something we first stumbled on with our research into Honeygain. This was one of the first times we saw technologies like proxyware being abused maliciously.
Proxyware is a type of technology that uses agents installed by users to act as proxies for other users. The users installing these agents are typically compensated for adding their node to the proxy network. Criminals stumbled upon this quickly and began to weaponize and monetize it, allowing them to benefit from the anonymity these technologies provide since it traces back to a random computer in a random location. At the time, the focus was purely criminal in nature, but state-sponsored groups have been leveraging TOR and VPNs for decades to launch their attacks, typically dropping out of a VPN near the target.
State-sponsored groups also realize that TOR and VPNs have limitations and could potentially expose their operations, so they needed something more opaque and less traceable. Enter VPNFilter.
VPNFilter was the first large-scale proxy network leveraged by state-sponsored actors, in this case Russia. This completely changed how proxy networks were operated and would set the tradecraft for state-sponsored proxy networks for the next several years. The most unique aspect of VPNFilter was the targeting: small office and home office (SOHO) routers.
The network was made up of SOHO routers that were being compromised with malicious firmware providing a variety of capabilities, including interception and proxy capabilities.
This was also a fairly significant botnet, consisting of some 500,000 devices that created a massive network from which to launch attacks without repercussions. Fortunately, we worked with affected vendors, and they resolved many of the issues that were being exploited, both vulnerability and otherwise.
This wasn’t the last time we saw Russian-aligned actors leveraging these types of botnets. A few years later, Cyclops Blink was uncovered. Another Russian actor controlled a proxy network that again primarily consisted of consumer devices.
The targeting of consumer devices for this type of activity has become the focus of state-sponsored groups’ foray into this space. They also make excellent targets, since many users leave default configurations in place and rarely think to update their devices. Fortunately, post-VPNFilter, many vendors have switched to automatic updates, allowing for more frequent patching. This has resulted in state-sponsored groups widening their targeting.
Today, we see not just SOHO routers, but also NAS and a variety of IoT devices being targeted and added to these networks. This problem has just gotten worse in the past several years.
Currently, there are several proxy-based networks, with a focus on SOHO devices (e.g., routers, NAS, etc.) and a variety of IoT components (e.g., security cameras) being compromised and added to a botnet that, in some ways, mirrors Mirai botnet activities.
The basic operating model for these botnets is that they are peer-to-peer, meaning there is no discernable routing. This model provides a sophisticated network of devices to obfuscate the true origin of an attack, and in many circumstances, allows the attacker to appear in close proximity to the victim, including coming from geographically adjacent residential networks.
The attacks originating from these networks have been tied to espionage and the targeting of critical infrastructure in the U.S. and globally. Most countries are concerned with this escalation, and it has the attention of the majority of vendors in this space.
These networks have also grown with staggering efficiency, with new nodes being added constantly as other nodes fall off and need to be compromised again. Based on reporting, the majority of these infections are using N-Day vulnerabilities or weak credentials to gain access, something we’ve seen repeatedly out of botnets like Mirai for the last decade. The major difference is that Mirai is used to conduct DDoS attacks, and the new iterations are being used to launch state-sponsored attacks with anonymity.
Network Resiliency Coalition
The repeated use of N-Day vulnerabilities and weak credentials ties into the work that Cisco has been doing for some time related to old and outdated networking equipment and the risks they introduce. The Network Resiliency Coalition is one of the projects aimed at trying to resolve this difficult problem. Anonymization networks’ reliance on networking equipment, specifically exploiting known vulnerabilities, adds more weight to the importance of this effort. By working with industry peers, Cisco is trying to help remove many of the systems that are being abused in these attacks by working with vendors to ensure proper patching is provided to mitigate these known vulnerabilities, in a timely manner.
More projects like this that encompass the IoT industry and the non-edge SOHO appliances like NAS devices would also have a contribution to the fight against anonymization networks. This combined with better credential management, most notably ensuring that default credentials are complex and unique, could make a huge impact on how successful these networks are in continuing to grow. Vendors are working to try and resolve some of these weaknesses, but it also is paramount for defenders to take note.
Impact on Defenders
This continued focus by state-sponsored groups to leverage these networks presents problems for defenders. Attacks from these groups are likely to be coming from residential networks, potentially even from residential networks in the same cities and countries as your organization operates, making identification and attribution increasingly difficult.
Organizations need to realize that attacks can come from anywhere, even the same IP space that your employees connect to their VPNs, so plan accordingly.
This is further complicated by the increased focus by state-sponsored groups on the use of legitimate credentials. If you have a connection coming from the same IP space as your employees, using legitimate credentials organizations have little hope to stop it. This is where the increased focus on identity comes into play — organizations need to start taking additional steps to be able to distinguish between the illegitimate and legitimate use of credentials, and that ties back to behavior.
Increasingly, organizations should be looking at users’ behavior when it comes to connections.
Are they using their typical device type? (e.g., Windows desktop/MacOS laptop)
Are they logging on during their typical hours? (e.g., 9-5 M-F)
Are there other managed devices in proximity?
Are they using their managed device?
This last point is a critical one. For organizations particularly concerned with credential abuse, managed device access restriction may be the best option.
This ensures that only managed devices can connect to corporate VPNs through technologies like certificates.
The downside to this approach is that it’s expensive, and for many organizations not practical, but for those with the budgets and the concern, it’s a needed escalation beyond just multi-factor authentication (MFA).
You may have noticed we haven’t mentioned MFA until now. But that’s because in 2024, it’s assumed you’ve already rolled out MFA for medium to large enterprises. It is no longer an optional security feature.
Defenders need to adjust for the state-sponsored threats they will be facing in 2024 and beyond. This means adding more identity capabilities in the near term and looking at additional security protections like managed device-only access in the future.
https://www.backbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/website_backbox_text_black.png00https://www.backbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/website_backbox_text_black.png2024-12-12 11:06:342024-12-12 11:06:34The evolution and abuse of proxy networks
No one can deny the convenience of cloud file-storage services like Dropbox or OneDrive. The one drawback is that cybercriminals, intelligence agencies, or the hosting provider itself can view your cloud-based files without authorization. But there’s a more secure alternative: encrypted cloud file-storage. Some call it end-to-end encryption (E2EE) — similar to Signal and WhatsApp. According to the marketing blurb, files are encrypted on your device and sent to the cloud already in secure form — the encryption key remaining in your possession and no one else’s. Not even the provider can sniff this information. But is that really the case?
Swiss-cheese encryption
The Applied Cryptography Group at ETH Zurich took apart the algorithms of five popular encrypted storage services: Sync.com, pCloud, Icedrive, Seafile, and Tresorit. In each of them, the researchers found errors in the implementation of encryption allowing, to varying degrees, file manipulation, and even access to fragments of unencrypted data. Earlier, they’d discovered flaws in two other popular hosting services — MEGA and Nextcloud.
In all cases, attacks are carried out from a malicious server. The scenario is as follows: the intruders either hack the encrypted hosting servers, or, by manipulating routers along the client-to-server path, force the victim’s computer to connect to another server mimicking the genuine encrypted hosting server. If this tricky maneuver succeeds, the attackers can theoretically:
In the case of com, plant folders and files with incriminating information, and change the file names and metadata of stored information. Also, the hacked server can send new encryption keys to the client, then decrypt any files downloaded afterwards. Plus, the built-in share function allows the malicious server to decrypt any file shared by the victim, since the decryption key is contained in the link that’s sent when the server is accessed.
In the case of pCloud, plant files and folders, arbitrarily move files and swap file names, delete file fragments, and decrypt files downloaded post-hack.
In the case of Seafile, force the client to use an older version of the protocol, making it easier to bruteforce passwords, swap or delete file fragments, plant files and folders, and modify file metadata.
In the case of Icedrive, plant files consisting of fragments of other files already uploaded to the cloud, change the name and location of stored files, and reorder file fragments.
In the case of Tresorit, manipulate the metadata of stored files— including authorship.
In the case of Nextcloud, manipulate encryption keys — allowing decryption of downloaded files.
In the case of MEGA, restore encryption keys and thus decrypt all files. It’s also possible to plant incriminating files.
The malicious server in each case is a hard-to-implement but not blue-sky component of the attack. In light of the cyberattacks on Microsoft and Twilio, the possibility of compromising a major player is real. And of course, E2EE by definition needs to be resistant to malicious server-side actions.
Without going into technical details, we note that the developers of all the services seem to have implemented bona fide E2EE and used recognized, strong algorithms like AES and RSA. But file encryption creates a lot of technical difficulties when it comes to document collaboration and co-authoring. The tasks required to overcome these difficulties and factor in all possible attacks involving modified encryption keys remain unsolved, but Tresorit has done a far better job than anyone else.
The researchers point out that the developers of the various services made very similar errors independently of each other. This means that the implementation of encrypted cloud storage is fraught with non-trivial cryptographic nuances. What’s needed is a well-developed protocol thoroughly tested by the cryptographic community — such as TLS for websites or the Signal Protocol for instant messengers.
Costly fixes
The biggest problem with fixing the identified bugs is that not only do the applications and server software need updating, but also, in many cases, user-saved files need re-encrypting. Not every hosting provider can afford these huge computational outlays. What’s more, re-encryption is only possible in cooperation with each user — not unilaterally. Which is probably why fixes are slow in coming:
com responded to the researchers after six months, and only after the appearance of press reports. Having finally woken up, they announced a fix for the problem of key leakage when sharing links, and said they’d to patch the other flaws as well — but without giving a time frame.
Tresorit promised to fix the issue in 2025 (but the problem is less acute for them).
Seafile fixed the issue of protocol version downgrade without commenting on the other flaws.
Icedrive decided not to address the identified issues.
pCloud didn’t respond to the researchers until the appearance of press reports, then announced that the attacks are theoretical and don’t require immediate action.
Nextcloud fixed the issue and majorly reworked the overall approach to E2EE in version 3.12. The updated encryption scheme has yet to be researched.
Although the issues identified by the Applied Cryptography Group cannot be called purely theoretical, they do not represent a mass threat readily exploitable by cybercriminals. Therefore, hasty action isn’t required; rather — a sober assessment of your situation is needed:
How sensitive is the data in your storage, and how tempting is it to outsiders?
How much data do you store in the encrypted service, and is it easy to move to another?
How important are the collaboration and file-sharing features?
If collaboration isn’t important, while the data stored is critical, the best option is to switch to local file encryption. You can do this in a variety of ways — for example, by storing data in an encrypted container file or an archive with a strong password. If you need to transfer data to another device, you can upload an already encrypted archive to the cloud hosting service.
If you want to combine collaboration and convenience with proper security guarantees, and the amount of stored data isn’t that great, it’s worth moving the data to one of the services that better withstood ETH Zurich’s testing. That means Tresorit first and foremost, but don’t discount MEGA and Nextcloud.
If none of these solutions fits the bill, you can opt for other encrypted hosting services, but with additional precautions: avoid storing highly sensitive data, promptly update client applications, regularly check your cloud drives, and delete outdated or extraneous information.
In any case, remember that the most likely attack on your data will take the shape of an infostealer simply compromising your computer or smartphone. Therefore, encrypted hosting must go hand in hand with full anti-malware protection for all smartphones and computers.
https://www.backbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/website_backbox_text_black.png00https://www.backbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/website_backbox_text_black.png2024-12-12 09:06:502024-12-12 09:06:50Which encrypted file storage to choose? | Kaspersky official blog
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) added a critical vulnerability, CVE-2024-49138, to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog based on evidence that this flaw is being actively exploited. The vulnerability, identified in the Microsoft Windows Common Log File System (CLFS), is a heap-based buffer overflow issue that has the potential to allow attackers to escalate privileges on vulnerable systems. As part of Microsoft’s Patch Tuesday release, this flaw was patched alongside other critical vulnerabilities.
CVE-2024-49138 is a heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability in the CLFS driver. This driver is used by both user-mode and kernel-mode software in Windows for general-purpose logging. This vulnerability affects several versions of Microsoft Windows operating systems, including Windows 10 and 11, as well as several Windows Server versions.
Heap-based buffer overflow vulnerabilities, like CVE-2024-49138, are common attack vectors for cybercriminals. These flaws can result in system crashes, denial of service, or even allow malicious actors to execute arbitrary code. In the case of CVE-2024-49138, it allows attackers to escalate their privileges to the SYSTEM level, enabling them to take full control of a compromised system.
This issue was actively exploited in the wild before it was addressed by Microsoft, which makes it particularly dangerous. The flaw has been assigned a CVSSv3.1 score of 7.8 (high severity).
CVE-2024-49138 Impact on Affected Systems
The vulnerability affects a broad range of Windows operating systems. Specifically, it impacts Windows 11 versions 22H2, 23H2, and 24H2 for both x64 and ARM64-based systems. In addition, Windows 10 versions from 1607 to 22H2 are vulnerable, including x64, ARM64, and 32-bit systems.
Furthermore, several Windows Server versions are also impacted, spanning from 2008 to 2025. This includes versions such as Windows Server 2012, 2016, 2019, and 2022, with both Core and full installations being affected. These widespread vulnerabilities increase the potential for exploitation across various systems in both personal and enterprise environments.
Active Exploitation and Patch Release
Given that CVE-2024-49138 was actively exploited before the patch was released, Microsoft’s Patch Tuesday update for December 2024 was critical in addressing the issue. Microsoft rated this vulnerability as important, reflecting the immediate threat posed to organizations and users who have not yet applied the patch.
An official security update was issued for all affected systems, and users are encouraged to install it as soon as possible to mitigate the risk of attack. CISA’s inclusion of CVE-2024-49138 in its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog highlights the growing focus on vulnerabilities that attackers are actively targeting.
By cataloging such issues, CISA aims to increase awareness and ensure that organizations prioritize the application of patches for vulnerabilities that are under active exploitation.
Recommendations and Mitigation Strategies
To protect systems from CVE-2024-49138, organizations, and individual users should follow these best practices:
The Microsoft Patch Tuesday update for December 2024 addresses CVE-2024-49138. Ensure that all affected systems are updated with the latest patches. Microsoft provides an official patch link for direct updates.
Implement a consistent patch management strategy to ensure all vulnerabilities are patched as soon as updates are available. Automating patching processes can reduce the risk of missed updates, especially for critical vulnerabilities like CVE-2024-49138.
Organizations should use Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) systems to detect unusual activities associated with privilege escalation. Monitoring network traffic and system logs can help identify attempts to exploit CVE-2024-49138 before damage occurs.
An effective incident response plan is essential. Organizations should regularly test their response procedures for various vulnerabilities, including those that target Microsoft Windows components like the CLFS driver.
Users running older, unsupported versions of Windows should prioritize upgrading to supported versions to reduce their exposure to vulnerabilities such as CVE-2024-49138.
Conclusion
CISA’s inclusion of this flaw in its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog emphasizes the urgency of applying the December 2024 Patch Tuesday update. Organizations should adopt automated patch management, use SIEM systems for early detection, and have an incident response plan in place. Users running outdated Windows versions should upgrade to reduce vulnerability.
https://www.backbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/website_backbox_text_black.png00https://www.backbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/website_backbox_text_black.png2024-12-11 13:06:492024-12-11 13:06:49CISA Adds CVE-2024-49138 to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog, Urgency for Microsoft Users
New Zealand’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) has revealed its Cyber Security Insights Report for Q3 2024, offering a detailed overview of the cyber threats impacting New Zealand. The third-quarter report highlights an increase in cyber incidents, providing a deeper understanding of threat actors targeting individuals, businesses, and organizations across the country.
According to the NCSC’s Cyber Security Insights Report, the number of reported incidents surged to 1,905 in Q3 2024, marking a 58% increase compared to the previous quarter. While this rise might initially seem disconcerting, the NCSC noted that such an increase is actually a positive development. It reflects more New Zealanders and businesses taking proactive steps by reporting cyber incidents, thereby contributing to the country’s overall security posture.
The report stresses several key trends, with incidents of unauthorized access almost doubling. Additionally, phishing and credential harvesting incidents jumped by 70%, illustrating the heightened efforts of cybercriminals trying to trick victims into clicking malicious links.
Overview of the NCSC’s Cyber Security Insights Report
The NCSC’s report highlighted various online threats that New Zealanders faced in Q3-2024. Threat Actors have increasingly targeted routers, attempting to break into home and business networks.
Another threat identified is the Adversary-in-the-Middle (AitM) phishing attack, which compromises session cookies to bypass traditional security measures. Furthermore, the report introduces dynamic CVVs—a new technology aimed at curbing online fraud and offering more security for card transactions.
As the holiday season approaches, the NCSC also warns of common scams designed to steal personal information and money. New Zealanders are encouraged to visit the NCSC’s Own Your Online website for additional guidance on recognizing and avoiding these scams.
Financial Impact and Incident Breakdown
The NCSC’s analysis of financial losses in Q3 2024 reveals a 19% decrease compared to the previous quarter, with reported direct financial losses totaling $5.5 million. However, 25% of all incidents reported still resulted in some form of financial loss.
A closer look at the types of incidents shows that phishing and credential harvesting continue to be the most prevalent types of cybercrime. These incidents accounted for 43% of all reported incidents. Other categories include scams and fraud (31%) and unauthorized access (16%).
Here is the breakdown of incidents by category for Q3 2024:
The Phishing Disruption Service (PDS), a free service provided by the NCSC, continues to play an important role in protecting New Zealanders. By collecting and analyzing phishing links reported by the public, the NCSC actively publishes verified phishing indicators for organizations to block. In Q3 2024, the NCSC processed over 20,500 phishing indicators, with more than 6,200 of those being added to the PDS.
In Q3 2024, postage and shipping services were the industries most commonly impersonated by phishing scammers, reflecting an increasing trend in scams targeting the e-commerce and logistics sectors.
Conclusion
The NCSC Q3 2024 report highlights 98 incidents affecting national organizations, ranging from minor to notable in severity. No incidents are categorized as highly national emergencies.
The rising number of cyber incidents emphasizes the need for improved cybersecurity measures as cybercriminals adapt their tactics. Phishing attacks and unauthorized access continue to be prominent threats, highlighting the importance of strong security practices like multi-factor authentication and advanced threat detection.
Editor’s note: The current article is authored by Mostafa ElSheimy, a malware reverse engineer and threat intelligence analyst. You can find Mostafa on X and LinkedIn.
In this malware analysis report, we will delve into Nova, a newly discovered fork of the Snake Keylogger family. This variant has been observed employing even more sophisticated tactics, signaling the continued adaptation and persistence of the Snake malware family in the cybersecurity landscape.
Overview of Snake Keylogger
Snake Keylogger, a .NET-based malware first identified in November 2020, is infamous for its credential-stealing and keylogging capabilities.
It primarily spreads through phishing and spearphishing campaigns, where malicious Office documents or PDFs are used to deliver downloader scripts via PowerShell. Once executed, Snake Keylogger captures keystrokes, steals saved credentials, takes screenshots, and extracts clipboard data.
As of 2024, Snake Keylogger has continued to evolve, adopting advanced evasion techniques such as process hollowing and heavily obfuscated code to avoid detection.
This variant uses a suspended child process to inject its payload, which makes it more difficult for security software to identify and neutralize. Furthermore, reports indicate that Snake Keylogger has grown more prevalent, with significant spikes in zero-day detections, suggesting its ongoing threat to both personal and corporate cybersecurity.
Technical Analysis Using ANY.RUN Sandbox
Let’s run a sandbox analysis session using ANY.RUN’s Interactive Sandbox to discover the technical details of this malware.
Nova scans the registry keys and their subkeys, checking for entries containing email or password data.
If such entries are found, Nova attempts to decrypt the password using the decryptOutlookPassword method.
4. Decrypting passwords
The decryptOutlookPassword method performs the following actions:
Takes the encrypted Outlook password as a byte array.
Removes the first byte from the array.
Decrypts the remaining data and converts it to a readable string.
Strips any null characters from the resulting string before returning it.
5. Retrieving account details
It retrieves the email value and converts it to a byte array using GetBytes.
Then, it retrieves the SMTP server value, if available and adds the recovered account details to the list.
Extracting and Decrypting Browser Login Information
Various functions exist for extracting browser login credentials. For this analysis, we will focus on Chrome_Speed, which targets Google Chrome’s saved login data.
1. Locating the Login Data file
Chrome_Speed constructs the path to the Login Data SQLite file, where Chrome stores saved login credentials. Then verifies the existence of the Login Data file before proceeding.
2. Retrieving Login entries
It loops through each login entry, retrieving the origin_url, username_value, and password_value.
3. Decrypting passwords
If passwords are stored in Version 10 format, it uses the master key for decryption. For older formats, an alternative decryption method, Decrypttttt, is employed.
Learn to analyze cyber threats
See a detailed guide to using ANY.RUN’s Interactive Sandbox for malware and phishing analysis
Read full guide
Key Methods Analyzed
Let’s analyze GetMasterKey and Decrypttttt methods:
1. GetMasterKey
GetMasterKey retrieves and decrypts the master key used by Google Chrome to protect saved passwords. It reads the encrypted master key from the Local State file located in the Chrome user data directory, then decrypts it for further use.
The process begins by constructing the path to the Local State file, which stores the encrypted master key.
It first checks for the existence of the Local State file; if the file is absent, the method returns null.
Upon confirming the file’s presence, the contents are read, and a regular expression is employed to extract the encrypted master key.
The method iterates through the matches to convert the encrypted key from a Base64 string into a byte array.
Notably, a new byte array is created that excludes the first five bytes of the original array, as these bytes do not form part of the actual key.
Finally, the method attempts to decrypt the trimmed key using the ProtectedData.Unprotect method, which is designed to decrypt data that has been secured with the ProtectedData.Protect method.
The Unprotect method is a function that decrypts data protected by the Windows Data Protection API (DPAPI). It first checks if the input data is valid and compatible with NT-based systems.
The method then pins the memory of the encrypted data and any optional entropy to avoid issues during decryption.
It calls CryptUnprotectData to decrypt the data and handles errors by throwing exceptions when needed.
Finally, it clears sensitive data from memory before releasing resources.
2. Decrypttttt
Decrypttttt method is a function that decrypts a byte array using the Windows Data Protection API (DPAPI).
It begins by initializing data structures to hold the encrypted data and the decrypted output.
The method pins the input byte array in memory to prevent the garbage collector from moving it during decryption.
After setting up the necessary structures, it calls CryptUnprotectData API to perform the decryption.
Once the data is decrypted, the method copies the output into a new byte array, converts it to a string, and removes any trailing null characters.
Finally, it returns the decrypted string, ensuring proper handling of sensitive data throughout the process.
Let’s get back to Chrome_Speed function
It combines the URL, username, and password into a formatted string:
"rn============X============rnURL: "
"rnUsername: "
"rnPassword: "
"rnApplication: Google Chromern=========================rn "
The formatted string is appended to a collection of stored credentials for further use or exfiltration.
Extracting Windows Product Key
The process of extracting the Windows product key involves accessing the system registry and decoding the DigitalProductID. Here’s a detailed breakdown:
Accessing the registry
First it opens “Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion” registry key
Fetching DigitalProductID
Then, the DigitalProductID is fetched from the registry as a byte array. This ID is used to generate the Windows product key.
Extracting relevant bytes
A specific portion of the DigitalProductID is copied into a new byte array.
The product key is derived from bytes starting at index 52 in the sourceArray.
Decoding the product key
The outer loop runs 25 times (from 0 to 24) to form the product key. The inner loop processes each byte in reverse (from 14 to 0) to decode and generate the corresponding characters.
Formatting the product key
The method returns the formatted product key as a string (e.g., XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX)
Getting Victim’s Info
The process gathers key information about the victim, including:
IP Address
Country
PC Name
Date and Time
It gets the victim’s IP by making a request to: hxxp[://]checkip[.]dyndns[.]org/
The country information is retrieved by querying: hxxps[://]reallyfreegeoip[.]org/xml/
Data format
The collected information is structured in a formatted string for further use:
Getting Clipboard Data
The process of extracting data from the clipboard involves the following steps:
IsClipboardFormatAvailable checks if the clipboard contains text in Unicode format
OpenClipboard opens the clipboard to allow examination and retrieval of data
GetClipboardData retrieves the data handle from the clipboard in the specified format
Exfiltration
Nova supports three data exfiltration methods: FTP, SMTP, or Telegram, depending on the configuration set by the malware author.
It compares the UltraSpeed.QJDFjPqkSr value against specific flags:
“#FTPEnabled”: If true, data is exfiltrated via FTP.
“#SMTPEnabled”: If true, data is exfiltrated via SMTP.
“#TGEnabled”: If true, data is exfiltrated via Telegram.
In this particular sample, the exfiltration method is Telegram:
As we see, there are no credentials provided for SMTP and FTP servers:
Telegram Exfiltration
The code responsible for exfiltration through Telegram includes details about the bot and its endpoint for sending data:
Telegram API endpoint: hxxps[://]api[.]telegram[.]org/bot7479124552:AAELHYVLYxHEQdxzK-H17KRix-YKXifzKCI
Try all features of ANY.RUN’s Interactive Sandbox for free
The provided images showcase JSON responses retrieved from the Telegram Bot API. These responses contain detailed information about bots that are directly associated with the NOVA family of malware.
Code Reference to “NOVA”
The malware’s source code explicitly mentions “NOVA”, reinforcing its attribution to this specific malware family.
Conclusion
The Nova variant of the Snake Keylogger represents a significant evolution of its predecessor, with advanced evasion techniques and a broader array of data exfiltration capabilities.
Written in VB.NET, Nova leverages obfuscation methods such as Net Reactor Obfuscator and utilizes process hollowing to evade detection, making it a more persistent and stealthy threat. Through its sophisticated techniques, including credential harvesting from a wide variety of browsers, email clients, and other sensitive data, Nova demonstrates its ability to target both personal and corporate systems effectively.
The malware is capable of extracting a wide range of valuable information, including saved passwords, credit card details, and system keys, from both browsers and email clients. In addition, its ability to gather data from a victim’s clipboard and exfiltrate it via multiple channels—such as FTP, SMTP, or Telegram—demonstrates its adaptability and versatility.
While the use of Telegram as the exfiltration method in this specific sample shows a shift towards more covert communication, the ability to switch exfiltration methods allows the malware to avoid detection by security systems that might block certain channels. The malware’s integration with popular tools like Telegram also indicates its use in large-scale, automated cybercrime activities, making it a serious threat to organizations and individuals alike.
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
https://www.backbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/website_backbox_text_black.png00https://www.backbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/website_backbox_text_black.png2024-12-11 11:06:382024-12-11 11:06:38Analysis of Nova: A Snake Keylogger Fork
The Patch Tuesday for December of 2024 includes 72 vulnerabilities, including four that Microsoft marked as “critical.” The remaining vulnerabilities listed are classified as “important.”
Microsoft assessed that exploitation of the four “critical” vulnerabilities is “less likely.”
CVE-2024-49112 is the most serious of this bunch, with a CVSS severity score of 9.8 out of 10. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability in Windows Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) calls to execute arbitrary code within the context of the LDAP service. Additionally, CVE-2024-49124 and CVE-2024-49127 permit an unauthenticated attacker to send a specially crafted request to a vulnerable LDAP server, potentially executing the attacker’s code if they succeed in a “race condition.” Although the above vulnerabilities are marked as “critical” and with high CVSS, Microsoft has determined that exploitation is “less likely.”
CVE-2024-49126 – Windows Local Security Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS) remote code execution vulnerability. An attacker with no privileges could target the server accounts and execute malicious code on the server’s account through a network call. Despite being considered “critical”, the successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires an attacker to win a “race condition” which complexity is high, Microsoft has determined that exploitation is “less likely.”
CVE-2024-49105 is a “critical” remote code execution vulnerability in a remote desktop client. Microsoft has assessed exploitation of this vulnerability as “less likely”. An authenticated attacker could exploit by triggering remote code execution on the server via a remote desktop connection using Microsoft Management Console (MMC). It has not been detected in the wild.
CVE-2024-49117 is a remote code execution vulnerability in Windows Hyper-V. Although marked as “critical,” Microsoft has determined that exploitation is “less likely.” The exploit needs an authenticated attacker and locally on a guest VM to send specially crafted file operation requests on the VM to hardware resources on the VM and trigger remote code execution on the host server. Microsoft has not detected active exploitation of this vulnerability in the wild.
CVE-2024-49106, CVE-2024-49108, CVE-2024-49115, CVE-2024-49119 and CVE-2024-49120, CVE-2024-49123, CVE-2024-49132, CVE-2024-49116, CVE-2024-49128 are remote code execution vulnerabilities in Windows Remote Desktop Gateway (RD Gateway) Service. An attacker could exploit this by connecting to a system with the Remote Desktop Gateway role, triggering the “race condition” to create a “use-after-free” scenario, and then leveraging the execute arbitrary code. Although marked as “critical,” Microsoft has determined that exploitations are “less likely” and the attack complexity considered “high.” Microsoft has not detected active exploitation of these vulnerabilities in the wild.
CVE-2024-49122 and CVE-2024-49118 are remote code execution vulnerabilities in Microsoft Message Queuing (MSMQ) which is a queue manager in Microsoft Windows system. An attacker would need to send a specially crafted malicious MSMQ packet to a MSMQ server and win the “race condition” that is able to exploit on the server side which also means the attack complexity is “high”. While considered “critical” those were determined that exploitation is “less likely” and not been detected in the wild.
CVE-2024-49138 is an elevation of privilege vulnerability in Windows Common Log File System Driver, and while it only has a 7.8 out of 10 CVSS score, it has been actively exploited in the wild.
Cisco Talos would also like to highlight several vulnerabilities that are only rated as “important,” but Microsoft lists as “more likely” to be exploited:
CVE-2024-49070 – Microsoft SharePoint Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
CVE-2024-49093 – Windows Resilient File System (ReFS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
CVE-2024-49114 – Windows Cloud Files Mini Filter Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
A complete list of all the other vulnerabilities Microsoft disclosed this month is available on its update page. In response to these vulnerability disclosures, Talos is releasing a new Snort rule set that detects attempts to exploit some of them. Please note that additional rules may be released at a future date and current rules are subject to change pending additional information. Cisco Security Firewall customers should use the latest update to their ruleset by updating their SRU. Open-source Snort Subscriber Rule Set customers can stay up to date by downloading the latest rule pack available for purchase on Snort.org.
The rules included in this release that protect against the exploitation of many of these vulnerabilities are 64308, 64309, 64310, 64311, 64313, 64314, 63874, 63875, 64312, 64306, 64307. There are also these Snort 3 rules 301085, 301086, 301087, 300987, 64312, 301084
https://www.backbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/website_backbox_text_black.png00https://www.backbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/website_backbox_text_black.png2024-12-10 21:06:422024-12-10 21:06:42Microsoft Patch Tuesday for December 2024 contains four critical vulnerabilities
From the perspective of information security, wireless networks are typically perceived as something that can be accessed only locally — to connect to them, an attacker needs to be physically close to the access point. This significantly limits their use in attacks on organizations, and so they are perceived as relatively risk-free. It’s easy to think that some random hacker on the internet could never simply connect to a corporate Wi-Fi network. However, the newly emerged Nearest Neighbor attack tactic demonstrates that this perception is not entirely accurate.
Even a well-protected organization’s wireless network can become a convenient entry point for remote attackers if they first compromise another, more vulnerable company located in the same building or a neighboring one. Let’s delve deeper into how this works and how to protect yourself against such attacks.
A remote attack on an organization’s wireless network
Let’s imagine a group of attackers planning to remotely hack into an organization. They gather information about the given company, investigate its external perimeter, and perhaps even find employee credentials in databases of leaked passwords. But they find no exploitable vulnerabilities. Moreover, they discover that all of the company’s external services are protected by two-factor authentication, so passwords alone aren’t sufficient for access.
One potential penetration method could be the corporate Wi-Fi network, which they could attempt to access using those same employee credentials. This applies especially if the organization has a guest Wi-Fi network that’s insufficiently isolated from the main network — such networks rarely use two-factor authentication. However, there’s a problem: the attackers are on the other side of the globe and can’t physically connect to the office Wi-Fi.
This is where the Nearest Neighbor tactic comes into play. If the attackers conduct additional reconnaissance, they’ll most likely discover numerous other organizations whose offices are within the Wi-Fi signal range of the target company. And it’s possible that some of those neighboring organizations are significantly more vulnerable than the attackers’ initial target.
This may simply be because these organizations believe their activities are less interesting to cyberattack operators — leading to less stringent security measures. For example, they might not use two-factor authentication for their external resources. Or they may fail to update their software promptly — leaving easily exploitable vulnerabilities exposed.
One way or another, it’s easier for the attackers to gain access to one of these neighboring organizations’ networks. Next, they need to find within the neighbor’s infrastructure a device connected to the wired network and equipped with a wireless module, and compromise it. By scanning the Wi-Fi environment through such a device, the attackers can locate the SSID of the target company’s network.
Using the compromised neighboring device as a bridge, the attackers can then connect to the corporate Wi-Fi network of their actual target. In this way, they get inside the perimeter of the target organization. Having achieved this initial objective, the attackers can proceed with their main goals — stealing information, encrypting data, monitoring employee activity, and more.
How to protect yourself against the Nearest Neighbor attack
It’s worth noting that this tactic has already been used by at least one APT group, so this isn’t just a theoretical threat. Organizations that could be targeted by such attacks should start treating the security of their wireless local area networks as seriously as the security of their internet-connected resources.
To protect against the Nearest Neighbor attack, we recommend the following:
Ensure that the guest Wi-Fi network is truly isolated from the main network.
Strengthen the security of corporate Wi-Fi access — for instance, by using two-factor authentication with one-time codes or certificates.
Enable two-factor authentication — not only for external resources but also for internal ones, and, in general, adopt the Zero Trust security model.