Does the Islamic State have Offensive Cyber Capabilities?

The short answer to this question is another question – does it really matter? What is more important is their ever-growing desire and motivation to obtain and develop offensive capabilities in cyber-space.

There has been debate among security experts on this matter since the Islamic State (IS) started operating in the cyber domain. On the one hand, some argue that IS hackers have already proven their ability to launch successful cyber-attacks and now they are attempting to carry out meaningful attacks against critical infrastructures (with no success thus far).

On the other hand, an emerging theory suggests that attacks previously associated with IS were actually perpetrated by a sophisticated group of Russian hackers. In other words, the alleged attacks against a French TV station in April 2015, the hijacking of the CENTCOM Twitter account in June 2015 and others were the work of a Russian APT group, and not the IS-affiliated “Cyber Caliphate.”

But again – does it really matter? We can say with a high degree of certainty that IS as a terror organization is trying to develop cyber capabilities. We received a strong indication of this trend in late August 2015, when a US drone strike killed a British IS cyber expert.

Even before that, in early 2014, we had heard of so-called cyber operations conducted by the Al-Qaeda Electronic Army (AQEA, or AQECA – the Al-Qaeda Electronic Cyber Army) against US government websites.

We assess that at the moment IS hacking entities (such as “Cyber Caliphate” or the Islamic Cyber Army – ICA) do not have high technical capabilities. That said, we should not underestimate the Islamic State’s attempts to develop an offensive cyber capability. An analysis of IS publications reveals a clear increase in the motivation of IS-inspired hackers to wage attacks against high-profile Western targets.

A concerning development in this aspect would be indications of the purchasing of attack tools and malware from highly sophisticated cyber criminals. Taking into consideration the clear intentions expressed by IS in relation to executing cyber-attacks against the West, such tools could be directed at critical infrastructures, sensitive organizations, government agencies and more.

Ashley Madison Hack – Review and Implications

On July 12, 2015, the IT-systems of Ashley Madison (owned by Avid Life Media), a Canada-based online dating service for married people, were hacked. The attackers, who call themselves Impact Team, released a message claiming they had taken control over all of the company’s systems and extracted databases containing client details, source codes, email correspondence and more.According to the message, the attack occurred in response to Ashley Madison‘s exposure of its clients – although the company offered and charged clients for a full profile deletion, this, in fact, was never carried out. Impact Team demanded that Ashley Madison and another website owned by Avid Life Media (ALM) cease their activity and shut down in 30 days, otherwise all stolen data would be published.

One month later, on August 16, 2015, Impact Team realized its threats – a link for downloading the data was posted on a password-protected hacking forum on the Darknet. The leaked data contained details of 37 million Ashley Madison users. Additionally, the attackers released data, containing mostly internal company information, in two additional stages.

The message containing the link for downloading the data stolen in the Ashley Madison hack

The message containing the link for downloading the data stolen in the Ashley Madison hack

The Attack

The infiltration vector used by the attackers is not known. According to ex-Ashley Madison CEO, the attack was performed by a provider or a former employee who possessed legitimate login credentials. Apparently, as in an APT attack, Impact Team had access to the company systems for a long period of time. They stated that they had collected information for years and that the attack started long before the data was exposed.

In an email interview with members of Impact Team, they said “they worked hard to make a fully undetectable attack, then got in and found nothing to bypass – Nobody was watching. No security. The only thing was a segmented network. You could use Pass1234 from the internet to VPN to root on all servers.

The Leaked Data

Despite the fact that Ashley Madison maintained a low security level on its systems, the clients data was stored with many more precautions – full credit card data was not stored, but instead only the last four digits, in accordance with the company’s declared policy. Nevertheless, information about payments that contained names and addresses of the clients were stored and later used by cybercriminals.

The passwords of Ashley Madison‘s clients were encrypted using a bcrypt algorithm, which is considered to be extremely strong. Another security measure taken by the company was the separation of databases for email addresses and passwords. However, an error in one of the exposed source codes enabled the decryption of 11 million passwords in only 10 days. A security researcher decrypted another 4,000 “strongly encrypted” passwords, due to the fact that they were widely used passwords.

The ten most common Ashley Madison cracked passwords encrypted in a bcrypt algorithm

The ten most common Ashley Madison cracked passwords encrypted in a bcrypt algorithm

Moreover, Ashley Madison saved IP addresses of its users for as long as five years. Thus, almost every user behind each profile can be identified.

The Consequences

The release of the data led to numerous discussions on hacking forums regarding ways to exploit the data. Some hackers focused on extortion schemes, while others offered to initiate spear-phishing attacks based on the leaked data.

Darknet forum member explains how to look for users by their corporate email address

Darknet forum member explains how to look for users by their corporate email address

In other attack reported by TrendMicro, hackers distributed email messages allegedly from Impact Team or law firms. They asked for money in exchange for removing the recipient’s name from the leak or for initiating a class action lawsuit against Ashley Madison.

A fraud email message allegedly sent by Impact Team

A fraud email message allegedly sent by Impact Team

Besides financial damage, according to press publications, three people committed suicide after the leaked data was released.

Moreover, not only its clients, but the company itself suffered damage because of the exposure of confidential information. Exposure of internal correspondence of Ashley Madison‘s executives revealed the company’s improper business activity, such as hacking into its competitors systems, creating fake profiles on its website and more. Finally, Ashley Madison’s financial losses are estimated at more than 200 million dollars, since the company was about to launch an initial public offering later this year.


Analysis of the leaked email correspondence of Ashley Madison‘s executives demonstrates that they were fully aware of the importance of cyber security measures. In the beginning of 2012, following the cyber-attack on the Grinder mobile application, the company’s then-CTO expressed his concerns regarding passwords that were stored fully unencrypted. Later in 2012, an encryption for passwords was initiated. On another occasion, after the email correspondence leak of General Petraeus, an employee suggested implementing an encrypted email service for Ashley Madison users. Despite the severity of the hack, several measures taken by the company, such as the encryption of the users’ passwords, reduced the damage caused by the leak. Nevertheless, the encryption, even a strong one such as bcrypt, is not enough and a password complexity policy should be implemented in the organization. Using strong passwords, maintaining different and complex passwords for the high-privileged accounts of the IT systems and restricting the access to these accounts will limit the attackers’ ability to move laterally in the organization’s network and take control of it.

ORX-Locker – A Darknet Ransomware That Even Your Grandmother Can Use

Written by Ran L. and Mickael S.

The bar for becoming a cyber-criminal has never been so low. Whether buying off-the-shelf malware or writing your own, with a small investment, anyone can make a profit. Now it seems that the bar has been lowered even further with the creation of a new Darknet site that offers Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS), titled ORX-Locker.

Ransomware-as-a-Service enables a user with no knowledge or cash to create his own stubs and use them to infect systems. If the victim decides to pay, the ransom goes to the service provider, who takes a percent of the payment and forwards the rest to the user. For cyber-criminals, this is a win-win situation. The user who cannot afford to buy the ransomware or does not have the requisite knowledge can acquire it for free, and the creator gets his ransomware spread without any effort from his side.

This is not the first time we have seen this kind of service. McAfee previously (May, 2015) reported on Tox. While Tox was the first ransomware-as-a-service, it seems that ORX has taken the idea one step further, with AV evasion methods and complex communication techniques, and apparently also using universities and other platforms as its infrastructure.

In the “August 2015 IBM Security IBM X-Force Threat Intelligence Quarterly, 3Q 2015,” published on Monday (August 24, 2015), IBM mentioned TOX while predicting: “This simplicity may spread rapidly to more sophisticated but less common ransomware attack paradigms and lead to off-the-shelf offerings in the cloud.” Just one day later, a post was published on a closed Darknet forum regarding the new ORX-Locker service.

ORX – First Appearance

On August 25, 2015, a user dubbed orxteam published a post regarding the new ransomware service. The message, which was part of his introduction post – a mandatory post every new user has to make to be accepted to the forum – described the new ORX-Locker ransomware as a service platform. In the introduction, the user presented himself as Team ORX, a group that provides private locker software (their name for ransomware) and also ransomware-as-a-service platform.

ORX team introduction post in a closed Darknet hacking forum.

ORX Team introduction post in a closed Darknet hacking forum.

ORX Locker Online Platform

Team ORX has built a Darknet website dedicated to the new public service. To enter the site, new users just need to register. No email or other identification details are required. Upon registration, users have the option to enter a referral username, which will earn them three percent from every payment made to the new user. After logging in, the user can move between five sections:

Home – the welcome screen where you users can see statistics on how much system has been locked by their ransom, how many victims decided to pay, how much they earned and their current balance.

Build EXE – Team ORX has made the process of creating a stub so simple that the only thing a user needs to do is to enter an ID number for his stub (5 digits max) and the ransom price (ORX put a minimum of $75). After that, the user clicks on the Build EXE button and the stub is created and presented in a table with all other stubs previously created by the user.

ORX-Locker Darknet platform, which enables every registered user to build his own ransomware stub.

ORX-Locker Darknet platform, which enables every registered user to build his own ransomware stub.

Stats – This section presents the user with information on systems infected with his stub, including the system OS, how many files have been encrypted, time and date of infection, how much profit has been generated by each system, etc.

Wallet – following a successful infection, the user can withdraw his earnings and transfer them to a Bitcoin address of his choosing.

Support – This section provides general information on the service, including more information on how to build the stub and a mail address (orxsupport@safe-mail[.]net) that users can contact if they require support.


When a user downloads the created stub, he gets a zip file containing the stub, in the form of an “.exe” file. Both the zip and the stub names consist of a random string, 20-characters long. Each file has a different name.

Once executed, the ransomware starts communicating with various IP addresses. The following is a sample from our analysis:

  1. 130[.]75[.]81[.]251 – Leibniz University of Hanover
  2. 130[.]149[.]200[.]12 – Technical University of Berlin
  3. 171[.]25[.]193[.]9 – DFRI (Swedish non-profit and non-party organization working for digital rights)
  4. 199[.]254[.]238[.]52 – Riseup (Riseup provides online communication tools for people and groups working on liberatory social change)

As you can see, some of the addresses are related to universities and others to organizations with various agendas.

Upon activation, the ransomware connects to the official TOR project website and downloads the TOR client. The malware then transmits data over this channel. Using hidden services for communication is a trend that has been adopted by most known ransomware tools in the last year, as was the case of Cryptowall 3.0. In our analysis, the communication was over the standard 9050 port and over 49201.

The final piece would be the encryption of files on the victim’s machine. Unlike other, more “target oriented” ransomware, this particular one locks all files, changing the file ending to .LOCKED and deletes the originals.

When the ransomware finishes encrypting the files, a message will popup announcing that all the files were encrypted, and a payment instruction file will be created on the desktop.

After the ransomware finishes encrypting the files, a message will popup announcing that all the files were encrypted

After the ransomware finishes encrypting the files, a message will popup announcing that all the files were encrypted

In the payment instruction file (.html), the victim receives a unique payment ID and a link to the payment website, located on the onion network (rkcgwcsfwhvuvgli[.]onion). After entering the site using the payment ID, the victim receives another set of instructions in order to complete the payment.

ORX-Locker payment platform which has a dedicated site located on the onion network.

ORX-Locker payment platform, which has a dedicated site located on the onion network.

Finally, although some basic persistence and anti-AV mechanisms are present, the malware still has room to “grow.” We are certain that as its popularity grows, more developments and enhancements will follow.

YARA rule:

rule ORXLocker
author = “SenseCy”
date = “30/08/15”
description = “ORXLocker_yara_rule”

$string0 = {43 61 6e 27 74 20 63 6f 6d 70 6c 65 74 65 20 53 4f 43 4b 53 34 20 63 6f 6e 6e 65 63 74 69 6f 6e 20 74 6f 20 25 64 2e 25 64 2e 25 64 2e 25 64 3a 25 64 2e 20 28 25 64 29 2c 20 72 65 71 75 65 73 74 20 72 65 6a 65 63 74 65 64 20 62 65 63 61 75 73 65 20 74 68 65 20 63 6c 69 65 6e 74 20 70 72 6f 67 72 61 6d 20 61 6e 64 20 69 64 65 6e 74 64 20 72 65 70 6f 72 74 20 64 69 66 66 65 72 65 6e 74 20 75 73 65 72 2d 69 64 73 2e}
$string1 = {43 61 6e 27 74 20 63 6f 6d 70 6c 65 74 65 20 53 4f 43 4b 53 35 20 63 6f 6e 6e 65 63 74 69 6f 6e 20 74 6f 20 25 30 32 78 25 30 32 78 3a 25 30 32 78 25 30 32 78 3a 25 30 32 78 25 30 32 78 3a 25 30 32 78 25 30 32 78 3a 25 30 32 78 25 30 32 78 3a 25 30 32 78 25 30 32 78 3a 25 30 32 78 25 30 32 78 3a 25 30 32 78 25 30 32 78 3a 25 64 2e 20 28 25 64 29}
$string2 = {53 4f 43 4b 53 35 3a 20 73 65 72 76 65 72 20 72 65 73 6f 6c 76 69 6e 67 20 64 69 73 61 62 6c 65 64 20 66 6f 72 20 68 6f 73 74 6e 61 6d 65 73 20 6f 66 20 6c 65 6e 67 74 68 20 3e 20 32 35 35 20 5b 61 63 74 75 61 6c 20 6c 65 6e 3d 25 7a 75 5d}
$string3 = {50 72 6f 78 79 20 43 4f 4e 4e 45 43 54 20 66 6f 6c 6c 6f 77 65 64 20 62 79 20 25 7a 64 20 62 79 74 65 73 20 6f 66 20 6f 70 61 71 75 65 20 64 61 74 61 2e 20 44 61 74 61 20 69 67 6e 6f 72 65 64 20 28 6b 6e 6f 77 6e 20 62 75 67 20 23 33 39 29}
$string4 = {3c 61 20 68 72 65 66 3d 68 74 74 70 73 3a 2f 2f 72 6b 63 67 77 63 73 66 77 68 76 75 76 67 6c 69 2e 74 6f 72 32 77 65 62 2e 6f 72 67 3e 68 74 74 70 73 3a 2f 2f 72 6b 63 67 77 63 73 66 77 68 76 75 76 67 6c 69 2e 74 6f 72 32 77 65 62 2e 6f 72 67 3c 2f 61 3e 3c 62 72 3e}
$string5 = {43 3a 5c 44 65 76 5c 46 69 6e 61 6c 5c 52 65 6c 65 61 73 65 5c 6d 61 69 6e 2e 70 64 62}
$string6 = {2e 3f 41 56 3f 24 62 61 73 69 63 5f 6f 66 73 74 72 65 61 6d 40 44 55 3f 24 63 68 61 72 5f 74 72 61 69 74 73 40 44 40 73 74 64 40 40 40 73 74 64 40 40}
$string7 = {2e 3f 41 56 3f 24 62 61 73 69 63 5f 69 6f 73 40 5f 57 55 3f 24 63 68 61 72 5f 74 72 61 69 74 73 40 5f 57 40 73 74 64 40 40 40 73 74 64 40 40}
$string8 = “ttp://4rhfxsrzmzilheyj.onion/get.php?a=” wide
$string9 = “\\Payment-Instructions.htm” wide

all of them

The Latest Trends in the Russian Underground – H1 2015 Summary

It is summer in Russia, and the time of the year when people head to the seaside on vacation for a couple of weeks’ break. The decline in activity can be clearly seen on the Russian-speaking forums and marketplaces dealing with cybercrime. Apparently, cybercriminals also take a rest from their online activities, just as they would from a regular full-time job. For us, it is the best time to perform a deep analysis of the main trends in the Russian underground boards during the first half of 2015. When preparing the insights from this analysis, our goal was to identify the main scope of interest on closed, Russian-speaking forums these days, as well as to pinpoint the shifts that have occurred in the last six months.

In order to draw conclusions, we analyzed the threads from the last six months from the four leading Russian forums. These forums mainly serve as a marketplace for attack tools and platforms, in addition to being a source of information and consultation for the forum members. Hereinafter, we tried to summarize the main topics of conversation on Russian marketplaces dedicated to cybercrime during the past six months:

Exploit Kits: In recent months, we have witnessed numerous attacks involving EK as the intrusion vector, including Angler, Neutrino, Nuclear, Magnitude and RIG. These EKs are constantly updated with new exploits.

While some EKs are offered for sale on trading boards, others are available exclusively to selected buyers via private sales, using the Jabber instant messaging system for example. For one case in point, RIG EK 3.0 is offered for a monthly rental fee of $700 on a closed Russian forum (this is considered an extremely low price). In comparison, Angler EK, AKA XXX is not advertised at all among Russian forum members on any of the closed forums.

RIG EK Statistics – screenshots published by the developer of the EK

RIG EK Statistics – screenshots published by the developer of the EK

Banking Trojans: During the last few months, we did not spot any new banking Trojans for sale on the Russian underground. The majority of recent attacks against the financial industry clients were perpetrated using DYRE or Dridex banking Trojans. Even though there is evidence that both were developed by Russian coders and are distributed among Russian-speaking criminals, we did not witness any commercial trading of these Trojans.

The two Trojans currently selling on Russian forums are Kronos, whose sales started back in the middle of 2014, and the new version of Tinba, which is based on source code leaked in the 2014 version.

Tinba banking Trojan offered for rent

Tinba banking Trojan offered for rent

Ransomware: Despite the fact that new campaigns distributing ransomware are uncovered on a regular basis, culminating in an FBI alert at the beginning of 2015, we did not see an elevated interest in this kind of malware on the Russian forums. The sales of CTB-Locker were ceased, at least publicly, probably because of the extensive media coverage. None of the ransomware tools that are widely used in the wild (TorrentLocker, Tesla Crypt, Cryptowall), are offered for sale on Russian marketplaces. The only two new ransomware tools offered during H1 2015 were GM Cryptolocker for Android-based devices and Azazel locker, for just $200. Both are relatively new and there has been no comprehensive feedback from buyers as yet.

The interface of GM Cryptolocker – ransomware for mobile platforms

The interface of GM Cryptolocker – ransomware for mobile platforms

RAT malware based on legitimate software – a clear new trend on the Russian underground is the development of malicious tools based on the source code of legitimate software for remote access (such as TeamViewer, AmmyAdmin, etc.). These tools are disguised as an update for the software or as a setup file. Additional tools traded on the forums exploit services and programs for remote control, such as RDS (Remote Desktop Services, RMS (Remote Manipulator System) and RDP (Remote Desktop Protocol).

To date, we have identified five different malicious tools of this kind for sale during the last six months. According to the sellers’ description, they are capable of bypassing defense mechanisms installed on the machine and gaining full access to it.

Screenshot from a video uploaded by the seller of TVSpy, a RAT based on TeamViewer software. The video presents the malware in action.

Screenshot from a video uploaded by the seller of TVSpy, a RAT based on TeamViewer software. The video presents the malware in action.

Loaders and Droppers – In recent months, we have identified a rise in this type of malware for sale on Russian underground forums. Generally, they it is spread via spam emails, and once installed on the system, serves as a tunnel for later installations of malicious programs. In this manner, defense mechanisms can be bypassed. One instance involving this malware was the infamous Andromeda, sold since 2011 to date for only $500. Andromeda was employed by the Carbanak group against financial targets. Aside from Andromeda, we also identified six new loaders and droppers offered for sale during the past six months.

Digital Certificates Trade – This phenomenon started as a sporadic sales thread, appearing occasionally on several forums during the last year. As demand expanded, trade in digital certificates evolved into a successful sub-category on Russian underground marketplaces. Recently, a dedicated online shop for trade in digital certificates was launched. The average price for one certificate is about 1.4 BTC.

The vigorous trade in these certificates demonstrates that they are quite useful for the purchasers, who use them to sign the malicious code they distribute and evade detection.

For obvious reasons, the sellers do not disclose the origin of the certificates, but claim they are authentic and were issued by a Certificate Authority (CA).

An online shop for digital certificates trade

An online shop for digital certificates trade

Brazilian Trojans Poised to Spread around the World

When we talk about Brazil, we no longer think only Carnival and caipiriña, or the favelas (slums) that came into being as a result of the highly unequal distribution of income. Bearing in mind that Brazil is one of the largest countries in the world, a major new concern has arisen as the Internet and technological devices are being used to find fast ways to earn money.

In 2014, Brazil was listed as the country with the most number of attacked users. Kaspersky identified over 90,000 attacks in Brazil, with Russia in second place.

Brzail_number_of_attacksCybercrime has combined the creativity of Brazilian hackers with new forms of illegal activities, specifically online bank fraud, turning the country into a producer of Trojan malware. The increased variety of Trojans produced in Brazil is becoming a trend. Hackers are spreading their tools via hacking communities, by selling or simply sharing tools, tutorials and tips for using Trojans as a means to intercept information on users and their banks. They use social network platforms, personal blogs or “security information web sites,” IRC channels and the forums on the deep web where “laranjas” (oranges in Portuguese, used to denominate a tool/card trader) do business to sell the malware or the stolen data.

A hacker asks for help in generating Boletos, a payment method consisting with bank tickets, commonly used in Brazil

A hacker asks for help in generating Boletos, a payment method consisting with bank tickets, commonly used in Brazil

While hackers from other countries use malware tools such as Zeus, the uniqueness of the Brazilian hackers is that they develop specific, personalized codes targeting banking frauds. They also find creative ways to use software to access their targets, with the aim of stealing bank accounts. CPL is one of these innovations – a legitimate Windows Control Panel file is being used by cybercriminals to spread banking Trojans targeting Brazilian users.

Cybercriminals send fake emails, using social engineering techniques designed to mislead users. Usually, the email content is a document with a quotation, invoice or receipt, information on a debt or a banking situation, or digital payment instruments used in Brazil, such as Boleto bancário or Electronic tax note, file photographs, videos or similar.

An example for the use of the CPL malware in a phishing email

An example for the use of the CPL malware in a phishing email

The fact that Brazil has the highest percentage of online banking users has also contributed to the development of different personalized attacks. As a result, banking Trojans have become the number one threat in Brazilian cybercrime. As previously demonstrated in the Brazilian malware arena, some code writers spread their viruses around the world. The security sector, in this case the banking sector, must be aware of the possible dangers and increase their efforts to protect their clients.

The Swine Flu Wants to Infect Your PC

Russian underground forums often serve as a marketplace for talented coders of sophisticated malware who develop attack tools to target the financial industry.

During routine monitoring of these forums, we came across a new type of malware loader called H1N1. Loaders are used as an initial intrusion vector, enabling an attacker to install malware on a workstation at a later time of his own choosing. They provide the attacker with both an initial foothold in the victim’s system and a future channel for delivering malicious programs at any time.

The new loader, which is named after the swine flu virus, was offered for sale in late April for $500 by a member of a Russian password-protected forum.

According to the sales thread, H1N1 is a non-resident loader. This means that it is executed in the system, installs the programs from its task list, and deletes itself after the computer is rebooted. (A resident loader, on the other hand, writes itself into the operating system and is not deleted after reboot. Since it receives commands from the C&C server, it can keep installing malicious software on the infected computer.)

H1N1 characteristics

  • Bypasses User Account Control (UAC) through a UAC whitelist, which allows it to run files with elevated privileges. This bypass does not require use of additional .dll libraries or Windows Sysprep. If the loader is unable to receive elevated privileges, it will run programs with user privileges.
  • Traffic in both directions is encrypted.
  • Installs .exe files on the infected computer using Windows Instrumentation Management (WMI). The .dll files are installed from memory.
  • Has an embedded security mechanism that recognizes when it is being executed in a virtual machine.
  • Can be injected into the address space of legitimate system processes (of the default browsers).
  • Bypasses AV and HIPS programs. With AV programs, it does this by identifying their running processes and paths, creating copies of the processes, injecting into the copied processes, and finally, disabling all threads of the AV software’s legitimate processes.
  • Elevates privileges from a low integrity level by using WMI and exploiting the CVE-2014-4113 vulnerability.
  • Identifies and neutralizes certain AV programs.
H1N1 administration panel

H1N1 administration panel

A number of forum members who claimed to have used the tool gave generally positive feedback but stated that it does not bypass all AV programs. According to the technical analysis (below), Kaspersky Internet Security identified the presence of the loader, while ESET NOD32 and Outpost Security Suite did not. Avira only identified the activity as malicious in some cases (depending on the crypt of the loader).

In a VirusTotal analysis of the loader’s files, the detection ratio was 41/57 for the dropper file (as of May 21, 2015) and 22/57 for the memory file (as of May 14, 2015).

Technical Analysis

It is common practice on closed Russian forums for veteran, trusted members to analyze and validate malware sold by newbies to prevent them from cheating and selling a low-quality product. It is harder to find buyers for non-validated malware, especially if the seller is new to the forum (for a review of different types of sellers, see our previous post on this subject). Since a major part of the underground ecosystem is based on reputation and the hierarchy on different underground forums, an impartial entity whose role is to validate new goods is extremely important.

Ares, the administrator of a well-known Russian forum, conducted a validation analysis to check whether H1N1 really possesses the capabilities claimed by the seller, including the ability to bypass security measures. He published an extensive review on his forum.

According to Ares, the code is written in Assembly language and was obfuscated (for security purposes). Once all the initial procedures are loaded (the code utilizes kernel32 and advapi32 during loading), the loader launches the Explorer process from syswow64 on x64 systems and system32 on x86 systems. The process is mapped with a rewritten shellcode entrypoint.

The shellcode receives all of the necessary APIs and reads a packed binary file (which it extracts).

The binary is a .dll file that scans for various important API elements and then checks the hash signature of the filename through which the process was started. If the file name is Explorer, it tries to elevate its privileges.

Initially the malicious .dll file copies itself and patches with the shellcode. Later it moves the copied file into the system32/setup folder. After that, H1N1 runs several checks (such as OS version) and tries to elevate its privileges from medium to high.

The loader uses various methods to inject malicious content into legitimate processes. For example, if injection into a default browser fails, it tries to inject the malicious content through svchost.

Lastly, the execution module kicks in where the loader will be executed. The malware conducts fake network tests (for example, pinging various websites), collects information about the infected machine, and then requests content from the C&C server. The HTTP requests are encrypted with RC4 and the data length is transferred in the HTTP header.

HTTP requests from the C&C server

HTTP requests from the C&C server

Following publication of the analysis by Ares and in response to critical feedback from forum members, the seller has been updating and improving H1N1. For example, he responded to criticism of the UAC bypass by announcing that he had changed the bypass method and that it was now similar to the method used by the Carberp Trojan.

In later tests performed by several authoritative forum members, privilege escalation and the UAC bypass had a relatively low success rate. However, since then, the author claims to have fixed the problems with the loader.

An Important Recommendation

H1N1 uses bthudtask.exe for its purposes. This executable is part of Microsoft Windows and is usually located under C:\Windows\system32. The file description is “Bluetooth Uninstall Device Task.” If you do not require Bluetooth devices, we would strongly recommend removing the file from your end-points.


H1N1 is a new type of malware loader and is not yet very sophisticated. However, it has attracted the attention of many high-ranking Russian underground forum members, who have analyzed it and written about its weak points. This seems to be encouraging the seller to improve and upgrade his product and fix the bugs.

Shell Profiles on the Russian Underground

Russian underground cyber-markets are known venues for purchasing high-quality hacking tools and services. Many such tools, popular worldwide, make their first appearances on closed Russian forums. There are two main types of sellers on these platforms: well-known members with seniority and strong reputations, who have already sold tools and received positive buyer feedback, and an emerging “shell profile” type of user. According to our recent analysis, such users typically register to a forum a few days before posting an advertisement for the tool. These new users often enlist the aid of forum administrators and more senior members, by providing them with a copy of the tool for their review, and thus gain the trust of potential buyers.


For example, CTB-Locker, a malware program, was first advertised on a Russian underground forum on June 10, 2014 by a user called Tapkin. This ransomware scans the computer for data files, encrypts them with a unique algorithm, and demands a ransom to release them. Tapkin registered on this forum on June 2, 2014, several days before posting the advertisement, and posted a total of five messages to the forum, all on the subject of CTB-Locker. Around this time, a user by the same name posted identical information on other forums.

Tapkin registered to another Russian underground forum on June 13, 2014, and three days later, he advertised the tool on the forum. This was the first and only thread that Tapkin started on this platform, and all of his posts were about this topic.

Tapkin stopped selling CTB-Locker on June 27, but on November 19, 2014, he posted another advertisement, this time for “serious” clients only. Tapkin last advertised the ransomware on a carding forum on December 8, 2014, after registering to this forum the same day.

Thus, in three cases, Tapkin registered to a forum a few days before posting an advertisement for the tool and did not participate in any other forum discussions. As a newly created profile, Tapkin lacked seniority and therefore had low credibility. However, our impression is that this user demonstrates knowledge regarding the tool, its capabilities and can answer questions regarding the technical component of the tool fluently. An analysis of Tapkin’s posts indicates that behind the shell profile is not one person, but rather a group of people who developed the tool together.

Forum comments indicating the presence of a team behind the username Tapkin

Forum comments indicating the presence of a team behind the username Tapkin

This username appears to have been created for the sole purpose of selling the ransomware, which was only advertised on Russian-speaking platforms. On May 19, 2015, a well-known forum user posted a message stating that his computer had been infected by CTB-Locker and asking for Tapkin. However, Tapkin had by then already disappeared.

Forum member post searching for Tapkin in correlation with CTB-Locker

Forum member post searching for Tapkin in correlation with CTB-Locker

Loki Bot

Another example of malware advertised by a new forum member is the Loki Bot password and coin wallet stealer. Loki Bot, written in C++, can steal passwords from browsers, FTP/SSH applications, email accounts, and poker clients. It has an option to configure C&C IP addresses or domains.

Bot-selling advertisement

Bot-selling advertisement

This bot, which works on Windows versions XP, Vista, 7, 8, and 8.1, is relatively new and is still under development. It was first advertised on a well-known Russian underground forum in early May 2015 by a new user with no reputation. A week later, a user by the same name registered on two other well-known underground forums attempted to boost his credibility by sending the forum administrator a test version of the malware. Similar to the previous example, we assume that a group of people is behind this user as well.

Forum administrator approves a new tool advertised by a “shell profile” user (May 18, 2015)

Forum administrator approves a new tool advertised by a “shell profile” user (May 18, 2015)

We can see that new users are registering on Russian underground forums for one purpose only, to sell a particular malware program, and their entire online presence is focused on this. They register to a forum a few days before posting an advertisement for the tool and do not participate in other forum discussions. Newly created profiles lack seniority and therefore have low credibility ratings. Sometimes such users attempt to improve their credibility by sending the forum administrator a test version of the malware. In some cases we can see that behind the shell profile there is a team, and not an individual. They appear suddenly and disappear just as suddenly after their business is completed.