In the past few years we have witnessed a growing number of significant data breaches.
The Data Breach Epidemic Report reviews the most significant data breaches that occurred in 2018 and provides our analysis of the major data leaks. It also includes key trends we identified based on ~5B leaked records detected and analyzed by our team.
4,812,840,627 – Total Leaked Records In 2018
1,925,136,251 – Unique Records
24,224,940 – Organizations
53% of all leaked data comes from .com domains
Distribution of “Combo Lists” is the key trend in the 2018 data leaks
Leaked records by region:
APAC – 1.5B records
EMEA – 728M records
LATAM – 34M records
THE ANALYSIS PROCESS
In order to identify and analyze the major breaches of 2018, our analysts have been continuously monitoring activities on the Dark Web, in closed hacking communities and in other sources, to uncover indicators of breaches and data leaks.
In the report you will find a summary of the most popular ways hackers use to exploit stolen data, with real-life examples of attacks that exploited leaked records.
Based on our analysis of the leaked data we obtained from several underground sources, we were able to identify several key trends, for example, the increasing distribution of “Combo Lists”, the demand for region specific leaks and countries that had most government data leaked.
ANALYSIS OF EXPLOITATION METHODS
The report also shares the hackers’ perspective, reviewing the most popular ways hackers use to exploit leaked data. These include credential stuffing attacks, brute force attacks, social engineering and email based-attacks. This information is valuable as it can really help organizations prioritize risk and improve their resilience and readiness against these attack methods.
THE BIGGEST DATA BREACHES OF 2018
In the report, you will find the list of the most prominent data breaches that occurred in 2018, and what we can learn from the millions of compromised records and stolen data.
The following is an excerpt from the report. To receive a copy, please send a request to: email@example.com
2016 has been replete with an unprecedented volume of cyber events of varying impact and future significance. From our perspective, on account of our persistent presence and active participation in discussions Continue reading “SenseCy 2016 Annual CTI Report”
The healthcare sector has recently become a desirable target for cyber crooks. According to Symantec ISTR report statistics, healthcare was the most breached sub-sector in 2015, comprising almost 40% of all the attacks. Hospital security systems are generally less secure than those of financial organizations, as monetary theft has always been perceived as the greatest threat for organizations, and dangers to other sectors were usually underestimated. Moreover, awareness of cyber-attacks against hospitals and medical centers is much lower than it is to financial cybercrime, and as a result, the employees are less well-trained on how to avoid falling victim to a cyber-attack.
Only lately, this concept has started to be challenged, revealing the potential damage that can be caused by the theft and leakage of patient data. However, the ‘bad guys’ remain one step ahead and during the last few months, we have witnessed a spate of attacks targeting the healthcare industry: ransomware attacks encrypting essential data and demanding payment of a ransom, numerous data leakages revealing confidential patient data, unauthorized access to medical networks and even the hacking of medical devices, such as pumps and X-ray equipment.
Moreover, the healthcare sector is being targeted by hackers not only directly, but also via third-party companies in the supply chain, such as equipment and drug suppliers. These companies usually store some confidential data that originates in the hospitals’ databases and may even have access to the hospital IT systems, but they are far less secure than the hospitals themselves. Thus, they serve as a preferable infiltration point for malicious actors pursuing the theft of medical data and attempting to infiltrate the hospitals’ networks.
The consequences of attacks on the healthcare industry may be extensive, including the impairment of the medical center functioning, which may result in danger to human lives in the worst case scenario. In other cases, personal data will be stolen and sold on underground markets. Cybercriminals will take advantages of these personal details for identity theft or for future cyber-attacks combining social engineering based on the stolen details.
While monitoring closed Deep-Web and Darknet sources, SenseCy analysts recently noticed a growing interest toward the healthcare sector among cyber criminals. Databases of medical institutions are traded on illicit marketplaces and closed forums, along with access to their servers. In the last few months alone, we came across several occurrences indicating extensive trade of medical records and access to servers where this data is stored.
The first case, in May 2016, was the sale of RDP access for a large clinic group with several branches in the central U.S., which was offered for sale on a Darknet closed forum. For a payment of $50,000 Bitcoins, the buyer would receive access to the compromised workstation, with access to 3 GB of data stored on four hard disks. Additionally, the workstation allows access to an aggregate electronical system (EHR) for managing medical records, where data regarding patients, suppliers, payments and more can be exploited.
Although the seller did not mention the origin of the credentials he was selling, he claimed that local administrator privileges could be received on the compromised system. He also specified that 45 users from the medical personnel were logged into the system from the workstation he hacked.
The relatively high price for this offer indicates the high demand for medical information. With RDP access, the potential attackers can perform any action on the compromised workstation: install malware, encrypt the files or erase them, infect other machines in the network and access any data stored in the network. The consequences can be tremendous.
Just a few weeks later, in June 2016, our analysts detected another cyber-accident related to healthcare. This time, three databases allegedly stolen via an RDP access to a medical organization were offered for sale for more than $500,000 on a dedicated Darknet marketplace. In one of his posts, the seller claimed that one of the databases belongs to a large American health insurer.
Before long, we again discovered evidence of hacking into a medical-related organization, this time by Russian-speaking hackers. On one of the forums we monitor, a member tried to sell an SSH access to the server of an American company supplying equipment to 130 medical center in the U.S. He uploaded screenshots proving that he accessed the server where personal data of patients is stored.
The conclusions following these findings are concerning. An extensive trade in medical information and compromised workstations and servers is a common sight on underground illegal markets. This business generates hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars annually, ensuring its continuation as long as there are such high profits to those involved. Since the ramifications can be grave, the healthcare sector must take all necessary measures to protect their systems and data:
Implement a strong password policy, because many hacks are a result of brute-force attack. Strong passwords and two-factor authentications to log into organizational systems should be the number one rule for medical organizations.
Deploy suitable security systems.
Instruct the employees to follow cyber security rules – choosing strong and unique passwords, spotting phishing email messages, avoiding clicking on links and downloading files from unknown sources, etc. Consider periodic training for employees on these issues to maintain high awareness and compliance with the rules.
Use Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) – to keep up with the times regarding the current most prominent threats to your organization and industry.
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.
Cybercrime 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hacking group AnonGhost has published an official video on #OpUSA, its upcoming cyber campaign against the United States. The video, addressed to the U.S. government, does not mention the date of the campaign or the list of targets, but based on the group’s 2013 #OpUSA campaign, it appears that it is set to take place on May 7. The official video’s YouTube page mentions prominent AnonGhost members Mauritania Attacker, An0nx0xtn, DarkCoder, Donnazmi, and Hussein Haxor, all of whom promote the group’s agenda in social networks.
On May 7, 2013, AnonGhost, along with other groups such as the Tunisian Hackers, threatened to hack American government and financial websites. While they were highly motivated, they failed to achieve much other than to deface several websites and leak emails and personal information. A possible reason for their limited success is that several days before the campaign, hackers speculated on social media that #OpUSA was actually a trap set by the federal government in order to expose and arrest the participants.
One of the groups that participated in 2013, N4m3le55 Cr3w, published a long list of recommended DDoS tools at that time, most of which are common hacking tools that are likely to be used in the current campaign as well.
TorsHammer, a Python-based DDoS tool created by the group called An0nSec.
SYN Flood DOS, a DDoS tool that operates with NMAP and conducts a SYN Flood attack.
In a successful MitM attack, the hacker infiltrates a web session between a bank and a bank customer, intercepts the messages they are exchanging, including credentials and classified information, and injects new messages, all without arousing the suspicion of either party.
In most cases, the injections are tailored to the victim. In other words, the victim sees a website purporting to belong to the specific bank whose site the victim is attempting to access. The injections are delivered via banking Trojans such as Zeus. On closed forums, injections are sold as separate modules for banking malware.
On one of the leading Russian-language cybercrime forums, we recently discovered a new thread offering web-injection services. The author was selling a large variety of injections for banks and online services in the United States and Canada.
According to the thread, the service includes an administration panel for managing the infected machines and stolen data, the ability to change the victim’s banking account balance (after a money transfer was performed), the ability to grab answers to security questions, and many other features.
The prices are quite affordable and vary from $50 to $150, though it should be noted that anyone wishing to carry out an MitM attack should already possess a botnet of machines infected with banking Trojans. When the victim tries to access his bank account, the attacker intercepts the session and displays a fake webpage that is very similar to the real bank’s site. The victim is asked to fill in login credentials, answer security questions, provide credit card data, and more. The attacker immediately receives the information through the administration panel and can use it to transfer the money, while the victim receives a connection error and simply tries to connect to the bank’s website one more time.
Detecting such an attack can be difficult, since one failed connection to the bank website or minor differences between the design of the fake page and that of the real page do not usually arouse the victim’s suspicions. In addition, as mentioned above, the account balance that the victim sees does not change after the money has been stolen.
The seller has launched a website to promote sales of the injections he coded. The site contains samples of injections for banks in the United States and Canada and for online services such as PayPal and Ebay. The targeted banks are Wells Fargo, HSBC, Citizens Bank, Scotiabank, RBC Bank, and many more. There was a section in the site indicating that European institutions will be targeted in the future.
One of the most common posts seen on hacker forums is “Hello, I’m new and I want to be a hacker.” Any aspiring hacker must learn coding, networking, system security, and the like, and increasingly, hacking forums are responding to this demand and providing tutorials for those who wish to learn the basics quickly.
Hacking forums have two main kinds of tutorial sections, one open to any forum member and the other exclusively for VIP members. In this post we will review two case studies from closed forums, one from the onion network and the other from the Deep Web.
The first tutorial, taken from a closed forum in the onion network, is actually four tutorials wrapped together to teach POS (point-of-sale) hacking. It includes a list of essential malware and software for POS hacking. While it starts with a basic overview of POS and of RAM (random-access memory) scraping, it very quickly dives into explanations that require an advanced understanding of hacking.
The second tutorial is a basic PayPal hacking tutorial, taken from a closed forum on the Deep Web and oriented toward noobs (beginners). It is actually more about scamming than hacking. It notes that one way to get user details is to hack vulnerable shopping sites using SQL injections and explains how to check whether the stolen user details are associated with a PayPal account. It also mentions that user details can simply be acquired from posts on the forum.
What is really interesting is that this practical forum has many tutorial sections and sub-sections (we counted six), which raises an interesting question: Why do hackers share?
There is no one answer to this question, but we can divide hackers’ motivations into four categories:
Self-promotion – One of the differences between regular hackers and good hackers is reputation. The most obvious way for hackers to improve their reputation is of course to perform a good hack, but they can also enhance their reputation by being part of a well-known hacking team or displaying vast knowledge, such as by publishing tutorials. It appears that Red, a junior member of the onion network forum who is not known and has a small number of posts, is increasing his value in the eyes of other forum members and site administrators by publishing tutorials, including the POS tutorial. This improved reputation can give him new privileges, such as access to the forum’s VIP sections. In most cases, tutorials shared for this reason range from beginner to intermediate level and can be understand by almost any beginner.
Site promotion – Commerce in hacking forums hiding deep in the Internet works like any other free market: if you have the right goods, people will come and your business will boom, but if your shop does not look successful, customers will stay away. Hacking forums, like other businesses, compete for the attention of their target audience. The PayPal tutorial was published by BigBoss, a site administrator, who was probably seeking publicity for the site. To ensure that there is a large number of tutorials on the site, the administrators publish their own from time to time. These can be very simple (as in this case) or very specialized and technical (such as those offered in closed forum sections).
Financial gain – As we noted, these forums are businesses, and like any business, they need to sell products in order to make a profit. They can do this by creating VIP sections with unique content (such as special tutorials) open to paying members only, as opposed to VIP sections based on reputation or Individual members also use the forums for financial gain and sell more concrete items—malware, credit cards, and the like—or more abstract items, like knowledge in the form of tutorials or lessons. In most cases the tutorials are very advanced, with extensive details, so that their creators can charge for them.
Knowledge sharing — Sometimes, people share their knowledge without any ulterior motive. This is usually done in a closed section of a forum and only with prime members or a group of friends. In this case, the knowledge shared varies according to the group and can be state-of-the-art or very simple.
In a society based heavily on information, we cannot escape the frequently rehashed concept that “knowledge is power.” As the technology world continues to evolve and the hacker community along with it, the need for “how to” knowledge is growing. Tutorials provide beginners with an effective gateway into the world of hacking and expose advanced users to new methods of operation. For us, the observers, they provide a small glimpse into developing trends, attack methods, methods of assessing hacker knowledge, and much more.
Several months ago, while monitoring Russian underground forums, we came across a new malware designed to attack Android smartphones via a social engineering vector, luring victims into providing their banking data, as well as credit card details to the attackers.
The malware is dubbed GM BOT, and it has been offered for rent since October 2014 on a Russian underground forum dealing with malware development and sales. The price was $4,000 for one month, and this later dropped to $2,000. In January 2015, the renter of the GM BOT posted about deploying the malware on Australian botnet, including screenshots of banking details from Australian banks.
Later, in February 2015, the renter posted examples of Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attacks that can be carried out by his malware, two of them presenting fake login pages to Australian banks.
GM BOT Capabilities
The first version of the malware was released on October 29, 2014 and according to the thread, it is designed to collect banking and credit card details. The data collection from the infected devices is performed via a social engineering vector, when fake pages are presented to victims. The tool works in different ways:
Collection of VBV data by using a fake Google Play application (Luhn algorithm is used for validation).
Scanning the mobile phone for installed banking services, and presenting dialog boxes for filling in confidential data.
Checking for email and social media accounts linked to the phone (Gmail, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and presenting dialog boxes for filling in confidential data.
In addition, the malware is capable of incoming SMS message interception and blocking (to avoid alerts from the bank from reaching the victim), as well as incoming call redirection, GPS data monitoring and more. The malware received highly positive feedback from other forum members, as suitable for cybercrime activity.
Initially, the thread’s author specified that the bot would be rented to five clients – Russian speakers only. On November 3, 2014, the renter announced that all the five clients had been found, and that the ad was no longer relevant. However, one month later, on December 2, he posted about updates of GM BOT capabilities, saying that he is looking for more clients. The new version of the bot enables its operator to create JS or HTML dialog boxes that are presented to the victim, thus expanding the number of accounts whose credentials can be achieved.
The Australian Link
On January 13, 2015, the author posted again. This time the post included screenshots showing the results of GM BOT activity. According to the post, 165 users in Australia were infected on January 10. 68 of these were communicating back with the C&C infrastructure at the moment of the post. Screenshots of the collected data were attached.
On February 12, 2015, another post regarding GM BOT was uploaded by the author, focusing on its MitM attacks capabilities. According to this post, the bot can inject JS or HTML code into running application, thus showing the user fake pages for drawing out data.
It should be mentioned that the malware distribution method is not included in the rented product. This means that the attacker who purchases the malware delivers it to the victims by a method of his choosing, spam emails for instance.