Login

Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!

Related Sponsor

Related Sponsor

Headlines


Recent Headlines
Vuln: Wireshark HIP Dissector CVE-2014-6426 Remot... SecurityFocus Vulns
Wireshark HIP Dissector CVE-2014-6426 Remote Denial of Service Vulnerability
Vuln: Wireshark RTSP Dissector CVE-2014-6427 Remo... SecurityFocus Vulns
Wireshark RTSP Dissector CVE-2014-6427 Remote Denial of Service Vulnerability
Vuln: Wireshark CUPS Dissector CVE-2014-6425 Deni... SecurityFocus Vulns
Wireshark CUPS Dissector CVE-2014-6425 Denial of Service Vulnerability
Vuln: Wireshark Netflow Dissector CVE-2014-6424 D... SecurityFocus Vulns
Wireshark Netflow Dissector CVE-2014-6424 Denial of Service Vulnerability
TA14-290A: SSL 3.0 Protocol Vulnerability and POO... US-CERT
Original release date: October 17, 2014 | Last revised: October 20, 2014

Systems Affected

All systems and applications utilizing the Secure Socket Layer (SSL) 3.0 with cipher-block chaining (CBC) mode ciphers may be vulnerable. However, the POODLE (Padding Oracle On Downgraded Legacy Encryption) attack demonstrates this vulnerability using web browsers and web servers, which is one of the most likely exploitation scenarios.

Overview

US-CERT is aware of a design vulnerability found in the way SSL 3.0 handles block cipher mode padding. The POODLE attack demonstrates how an attacker can exploit this vulnerability to decrypt and extract information from inside an encrypted transaction.

Description

The SSL 3.0 vulnerability stems from the way blocks of data are encrypted under a specific type of encryption algorithm within the SSL protocol. The POODLE attack takes advantage of the protocol version negotiation feature built into SSL/TLS to force the use of SSL 3.0 and then leverages this new vulnerability to decrypt select content within the SSL session. The decryption is done byte by byte and will generate a large number of connections between the client and server.

While SSL 3.0 is an old encryption standard and has generally been replaced by Transport Layer Security (TLS) (which is not vulnerable in this way), most SSL/TLS implementations remain backwards compatible with SSL 3.0 to interoperate with legacy systems in the interest of a smooth user experience. Even if a client and server both support a version of TLS the SSL/TLS protocol suite allows for protocol version negotiation (being referred to as the “downgrade dance” in other reporting). The POODLE attack leverages the fact that when a secure connection attempt fails, servers will fall back to older protocols such as SSL 3.0. An attacker who can trigger a connection failure can then force the use of SSL 3.0 and attempt the new attack. [1]

Two other conditions must be met to successfully execute the POODLE attack: 1) the attacker must be able to control portions of the client side of the SSL connection (varying the length of the input) and 2) the attacker must have visibility of the resulting ciphertext. The most common way to achieve these conditions would be to act as Man-in-the-Middle (MITM), requiring a whole separate form of attack to establish that level of access.

These conditions make successful exploitation somewhat difficult. Environments that are already at above-average risk for MITM attacks (such as public WiFi) remove some of those challenges.

Impact

The POODLE attack can be used against any system or application that supports SSL 3.0 with CBC mode ciphers. This affects most current browsers and websites, but also includes any software that either references a vulnerable SSL/TLS library (e.g. OpenSSL) or implements the SSL/TLS protocol suite itself. By exploiting this vulnerability in a likely web-based scenario, an attacker can gain access to sensitive data passed within the encrypted web session, such as passwords, cookies and other authentication tokens that can then be used to gain more complete access to a website (impersonating that user, accessing database content, etc.).

Solution

There is currently no fix for the vulnerability SSL 3.0 itself, as the issue is fundamental to the protocol; however, disabling SSL 3.0 support in system/application configurations is the most viable solution currently available.

Some of the same researchers that discovered the vulnerability also developed a fix for one of the prerequisite conditions; TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV is a protocol extension that prevents MITM attackers from being able to force a protocol downgrade. OpenSSL has added support for TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV to their latest versions and recommend the following upgrades: [2]

  • OpenSSL 1.0.1 users should upgrade to 1.0.1j.
  • OpenSSL 1.0.0 users should upgrade to 1.0.0o.
  • OpenSSL 0.9.8 users should upgrade to 0.9.8zc.

Both clients and servers need to support TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV to prevent downgrade attacks.

Other SSL 3.0 implementations are most likely also affected by POODLE. Contact your vendor for details. Additional vendor information may be available in the National Vulnerability Database (NVD) entry for CVE-2014-3566 [3] or in CERT Vulnerability Note VU#577193. [4]

References

Revision History

  • October 17, 2014 Initial Release
  • October 20, 2014 Added CERT Vulnerability Note VU#577193 to the Solution section

This product is provided subject to this Notification and this Privacy & Use policy.


TA14-268A: GNU Bourne-Again Shell (Bash) ‘Shell... US-CERT
Original release date: September 25, 2014 | Last revised: September 30, 2014

Systems Affected

  • GNU Bash through 4.3.
  • Linux and Mac OS X systems, on which Bash is part of the base operating system.
  • Any BSD or UNIX system on which GNU Bash has been installed as an add-on.
  • Any UNIX-like operating system on which the /bin/sh interface is implemented as GNU Bash.

Overview

A critical vulnerability has been reported in the GNU Bourne-Again Shell (Bash), the common command-line shell used in many Linux/UNIX operating systems and Apple’s Mac OS X. The flaw could allow an attacker to remotely execute shell commands by attaching malicious code in environment variables used by the operating system [1]. The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is releasing this Technical Alert to provide further information about the GNU Bash vulnerability.

Description

GNU Bash versions 1.14 through 4.3 contain a flaw that processes commands placed after function definitions in the added environment variable, allowing remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted environment which enables network-based exploitation. [2, 3]

Critical instances where the vulnerability may be exposed include: [4, 5]

  • Apache HTTP Server using mod_cgi or mod_cgid scripts either written in bash, or spawn GNU Bash subshells, or on any system where the /bin/sh interface is implemented using GNU Bash.
  • Override or Bypass ForceCommand feature in OpenSSH sshd and limited protection for some Git and Subversion deployments used to restrict shells and allows arbitrary command execution capabilities. This data path is vulnerable on systems where the /bin/sh interface is implemented using GNU Bash.
  • Allow arbitrary commands to run on a DHCP client machine.

Impact

This vulnerability is classified by industry standards as “High” impact with CVSS Impact Subscore 10 and “Low” on complexity, which means it takes little skill to perform. This flaw allows attackers who can provide specially crafted environment variables containing arbitrary commands to execute on vulnerable systems. It is especially dangerous because of the prevalent use of the Bash shell and its ability to be called by an application in numerous ways.

Solution

Initial solutions for Shellshock do not completely resolve the vulnerability. It is advised to install existing patches and pay attention for updated patches to address CVE-2014-6271, CVE-2014-7169, CVE-2014-7186, CVE-2014-7187, CVE-2014-6277, and CVE-2014-6278. Red Hat has provided a support article [6] with updated information.

Many UNIX-like operating systems, including Linux distributions and Apple Mac OS X include Bash and are likely to be affected. Contact your vendor for updated information. A list of vendors can be found in CERT Vulnerability Note VU#252743 [7].

US-CERT recommends system administrators review the vendor patches and the NIST Vulnerability Summaries for CVE-2014-6271, CVE-2014-7169, CVE-2014-7186, CVE-2014-7187, CVE-2014-6277 and CVE-2014-6278 to mitigate damage caused by the exploit.

References

Revision History

  • September 25, 2014 - Initial Release
  • September 26, 2014 - Minor Revisions
  • September 30, 2014 - Update to include additional CVE information

This product is provided subject to this Notification and this Privacy & Use policy.


TA14-212A: Backoff Point-of-Sale Malware US-CERT
Original release date: July 31, 2014 | Last revised: August 27, 2014

Systems Affected

Point-of-Sale Systems

 

Overview

This advisory was prepared in collaboration with the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), United States Secret Service (USSS), Financial Sector Information Sharing and Analysis Center (FS-ISAC), and Trustwave Spiderlabs, a trusted partner under contract with the USSS.  The purpose of this release is to provide relevant and actionable technical indicators for network defense against the PoS malware dubbed "Backoff" which has been discovered exploiting businesses' administrator accounts remotely and exfiltrating consumer payment data.

Over the past year, the Secret Service has responded to network intrusions at numerous businesses throughout the United States that have been impacted by the “Backoff” malware. Seven PoS system providers/vendors have confirmed that they have had multiple clients affected. Reporting continues on additional compromised locations, involving private sector entities of all sizes, and the Secret Service currently estimates that over 1,000 U.S. businesses are affected.

Recent investigations revealed that malicious actors are using publicly available tools to locate businesses that use remote desktop applications. Remote desktop solutions like Microsoft's Remote Desktop [1], Apple Remote Desktop [2], Chrome Remote Desktop [3], Splashtop 2 [4], and LogMeIn [5] offer the convenience and efficiency of connecting to a computer from a remote location. Once these applications are located, the suspects attempted to brute force the login feature of the remote desktop solution. After gaining access to what was often administrator or privileged access accounts, the suspects were then able to deploy the point-of-sale (PoS) malware and subsequently exfiltrate consumer payment data via an encrypted POST request.

Organizations that believe they have been impacted should contact their local Secret Service field office and may contact the NCCIC for additional information.

Description

“Backoff” is a family of PoS malware and has been discovered recently. The malware family has been witnessed on at least three separate forensic investigations. Researchers have identified three primary variants to the “Backoff” malware including 1.4, 1.55 (“backoff”, “goo”, “MAY”, “net”), and 1.56 (“LAST”).

These variations have been seen as far back as October 2013 and continue to operate as of July 2014. In total, the malware typically consists of the following four capabilities. An exception is the earliest witnessed variant (1.4) which does not include keylogging functionality. Additionally, 1.55 ‘net’ removed the explorer.exe injection component:

  • Scraping memory for track data
  • Logging keystrokes
  • Command & control (C2) communication
  • Injecting malicious stub into explorer.exe

The malicious stub that is injected into explorer.exe is responsible for persistence in the event the malicious executable crashes or is forcefully stopped. The malware is responsible for scraping memory from running processes on the victim machine and searching for track data. Keylogging functionality is also present in most recent variants of “Backoff”. Additionally, the malware has a C2 component that is responsible for uploading discovered data, updating the malware, downloading/executing further malware, and uninstalling the malware.

Variants

Based on compiled timestamps and versioning information witnessed in the C2 HTTP POST requests, “Backoff” variants were analyzed over a seven month period. The five variants witnessed in the “Backoff” malware family have notable modifications, to include:

1.55 “backoff”

  • Added Local.dat temporary storage for discovered track data
  • Added keylogging functionality
  • Added “gr” POST parameter to include variant name
  • Added ability to exfiltrate keylog data
  • Supports multiple exfiltration domains
  • Changed install path
  • Changed User-Agent

1.55 “goo”

  • Attempts to remove prior version of malware
  • Uses 8.8.8.8 as resolver

1.55 “MAY”

  • No significant updates other than changes to the URI and version name

1.55 “net”

  • Removed the explorer.exe injection component

1.56 “LAST”

  • Re-added the explorer.exe injection component
  • Support for multiple domain/URI/port configurations
  • Modified code responsible for creating exfiltration thread(s)
  • Added persistence techniques

Command & Control Communication

All C2 communication for “Backoff” takes place via HTTP POST requests. A number of POST parameters are included when this malware makes a request to the C&C server.

  • op : Static value of ‘1’
  • id : randomly generated 7 character string
  • ui : Victim username/hostname
  • wv : Version of Microsoft Windows
  • gr (Not seen in version 1.4) : Malware-specific identifier
  • bv : Malware version
  • data (optional) : Base64-encoded/RC4-encrypted data

The ‘id’ parameter is stored in the following location, to ensure it is consistent across requests:

  • HKCU\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\identifier

If this key doesn’t exist, the string will be generated and stored. Data is encrypted using RC4 prior to being encoded with Base64. The password for RC4 is generated from the ‘id’ parameter, a static string of ‘jhgtsd7fjmytkr’, and the ‘ui’ parameter. These values are concatenated together and then hashed using the MD5 algorithm to form the RC4 password. In the above example, the RC4 password would be ‘56E15A1B3CB7116CAB0268AC8A2CD943 (The MD5 hash of ‘vxeyHkSjhgtsd7fjmytkrJosh @ PC123456).

File Indicators:

The following is a list of the Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) that should be added to the network security to search to see if these indicators are on their network.

1.4

Packed MD5: 927AE15DBF549BD60EDCDEAFB49B829E

Unpacked MD5: 6A0E49C5E332DF3AF78823CA4A655AE8

Install Path: %APPDATA%\AdobeFlashPlayer\mswinsvc.exe

Mutexes:

uhYtntr56uisGst

uyhnJmkuTgD

Files Written:

%APPDATA%\mskrnl

%APPDATA%\winserv.exe

%APPDATA%\AdobeFlashPlayer\mswinsvc.exe

Static String (POST Request): zXqW9JdWLM4urgjRkX

Registry Keys:

HKCU\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\identifier

HKCU\ SOFTWARE \Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\Windows NT Service

User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0

URI(s): /aircanada/dark.php

1.55 “backoff”

Packed MD5: F5B4786C28CCF43E569CB21A6122A97E

Unpacked MD5: CA4D58C61D463F35576C58F25916F258

Install Path: %APPDATA%\AdobeFlashPlayer\mswinhost.exe

Mutexes:

Undsa8301nskal

uyhnJmkuTgD

Files Written:

%APPDATA%\mskrnl

%APPDATA%\winserv.exe

%APPDATA%\AdobeFlashPlayer\mswinhost.exe

%APPDATA%\AdobeFlashPlayer\Local.dat

%APPDATA%\AdobeFlashPlayer\Log.txt

Static String (POST Request): ihasd3jasdhkas

Registry Keys:

HKCU\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\identifier

HKCU\ SOFTWARE \Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\Windows NT Service

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/24.0

URI(s): /aero2/fly.php

1.55 “goo”

Pa  cked MD5: 17E1173F6FC7E920405F8DBDE8C9ECAC

Unpacked MD5: D397D2CC9DE41FB5B5D897D1E665C549

Install Path: %APPDATA%\OracleJava\javaw.exe

Mutexes:

nUndsa8301nskal

nuyhnJmkuTgD

Files Written:

%APPDATA%\nsskrnl

%APPDATA%\winserv.exe

%APPDATA%\OracleJava\javaw.exe

%APPDATA%\OracleJava\Local.dat

%APPDATA%\OracleJava\Log.txt

Static String (POST Request): jhgtsd7fjmytkr

Registry Keys:

HKCU\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\identifier

HKCU\ SOFTWARE \Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\Windows NT Service

User-Agent:

URI(s): /windows/updcheck.php

1.55 “MAY”

Packed MD5: 21E61EB9F5C1E1226F9D69CBFD1BF61B

Unpacked MD5: CA608E7996DED0E5009DB6CC54E08749

Install Path: %APPDATA%\OracleJava\javaw.exe

Mutexes:

nUndsa8301nskal

nuyhnJmkuTgD

Files Written:

%APPDATA%\nsskrnl

%APPDATA%\winserv.exe

%APPDATA%\OracleJava\javaw.exe

%APPDATA%\OracleJava\Local.dat

%APPDATA%\OracleJava\Log.txt

Static String (POST Request): jhgtsd7fjmytkr

Registry Keys:

HKCU\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\identifier

HKCU\ SOFTWARE \Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\Windows NT Service

User-Agent:

URI(s): /windowsxp/updcheck.php

1.55 “net”

Packed MD5: 0607CE9793EEA0A42819957528D92B02

Unpacked MD5: 5C1474EA275A05A2668B823D055858D9

Install Path: %APPDATA%\AdobeFlashPlayer\mswinhost.exe

Mutexes:

nUndsa8301nskal

Files Written:

%APPDATA%\AdobeFlashPlayer\mswinhost.exe

%APPDATA%\AdobeFlashPlayer\Local.dat

%APPDATA%\AdobeFlashPlayer\Log.txt

Static String (POST Request): ihasd3jasdhkas9

Registry Keys:

HKCU\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\identifier

HKCU\ SOFTWARE \Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\Windows NT Service

User-Agent:

URI(s): /windowsxp/updcheck.php

1.56 “LAST”

Packed MD5: 12C9C0BC18FDF98189457A9D112EEBFC

Unpacked MD5: 205947B57D41145B857DE18E43EFB794

Install Path: %APPDATA%\OracleJava\javaw.exe

Mutexes:

nUndsa8301nskal

nuyhnJmkuTgD

Files Written:

%APPDATA%\nsskrnl

%APPDATA%\winserv.exe

%APPDATA%\OracleJava\javaw.exe

%APPDATA%\OracleJava\Local.dat

%APPDATA%\OracleJava\Log.txt

Static String (POST Request): jhgtsd7fjmytkr

Registry Keys:

HKCU\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\identifier

HKCU\ SOFTWARE \Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\Windows NT Service

HKLM\ SOFTWARE \Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\Windows NT Service

HKCU\SOFTWARE\\Microsoft\Active Setup\Installed Components\{B3DB0D62-B481-4929-888B-49F426C1A136}\StubPath

HKLM\SOFTWARE\\Microsoft\Active Setup\Installed Components\{B3DB0D62-B481-4929-888B-49F426C1A136}\StubPath

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/24.0

URI(s):  /windebug/updcheck.php

Impact

The impact of a compromised PoS system can affect both the businesses and consumer by exposing customer data such as names, mailing addresses, credit/debit card numbers, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses to criminal elements. These breaches can impact a business’ brand and reputation, while consumers’ information can be used to make fraudulent purchases or risk compromise of bank accounts. It is critical to safeguard your corporate networks and web servers to prevent any unnecessary exposure to compromise or to mitigate any damage that could be occurring now.

Solution

At the time this advisory is released, the variants of the “Backoff’ malware family are largely undetected by anti-virus (AV) vendors. However, shortly following the publication of this technical analysis, AV companies will quickly begin detecting the existing variants. It’s important to maintain up‐to‐date AV signatures and engines as new threats such as this are continually being added to your AV solution. Pending AV detection of the malware variants, network defenders can apply indicators of compromise (IOC) to a variety of prevention and detection strategies.[6],[7],[8] IOCs can be found above.

The forensic investigations of compromises of retail IT/payment networks indicate that the network compromises allowed the introduction of memory scraping malware to the payment terminals. Information security professionals recommend a defense in depth approach to mitigating risk to retail payment systems. While some of the risk mitigation recommendations are general in nature, the following strategies provide an approach to minimize the possibility of an attack and mitigate the risk of data compromise:

Remote Desktop Access

  • Configure the account lockout settings to lock a user account after a period of time or a specified number of failed login attempts. This prevents unlimited unauthorized attempts to login whether from an unauthorized user or via automated attack types like brute force.[9]
  • Limit the number of users and workstation who can log in using Remote Desktop.
  • Use firewalls (both software and hardware where available) to restrict access to remote desktop listening ports (default is TCP 3389).[10]
  • Change the default Remote Desktop listening port.
  • Define complex password parameters. Configuring an expiration time and password length and complexity can decrease the amount of time in which a successful attack can occur.[11]
  • Require two-factor authentication (2FA) for remote desktop access.[12]
  • Install a Remote Desktop Gateway to restrict access.[13]
  • Add an extra layer of authentication and encryption by tunneling your Remote Desktop through IPSec, SSH or SSL.[14],[15]
  • Require 2FA when accessing payment processing networks. Even if a virtual private network is used, it is important that 2FA is implemented to help mitigate keylogger or credential dumping attacks.
  • Limit administrative privileges for users and applications.
  • Periodically review systems (local and domain controllers) for unknown and dormant users.

Network Security

  • Review firewall configurations and ensure that only allowed ports, services and Internet protocol (IP) addresses are communicating with your network. This is especially critical for outbound (e.g., egress) firewall rules in which compromised entities allow ports to communicate to any IP address on the Internet. Hackers leverage this configuration to exfiltrate data to their IP addresses.
  • Segregate payment processing networks from other networks.
  • Apply access control lists (ACLs) on the router configuration to limit unauthorized traffic to payment processing networks.
  • Create strict ACLs segmenting public-facing systems and back-end database systems that house payment card data.
  • Implement data leakage prevention/detection tools to detect and help prevent data exfiltration.
  • Implement tools to detect anomalous network traffic and anomalous behavior by legitimate users (compromised credentials).

Cash Register and PoS Security

  • Implement hardware-based point-to-point encryption. It is recommended that EMV-enabled PIN entry devices or other credit-only accepting devices have Secure Reading and Exchange of Data (SRED) capabilities. SRED-approved devices can be found at the Payment Card Industry Security Standards website.
  • Install Payment Application Data Security Standard-compliant payment applications.
  • Deploy the latest version of an operating system and ensure it is up to date with security patches, anti-virus software, file integrity monitoring and a host-based intrusion-detection system.
  • Assign a strong password to security solutions to prevent application modification. Use two-factor authentication (2FA) where feasible.
  • Perform a binary or checksum comparison to ensure unauthorized files are not installed.
  • Ensure any automatic updates from third parties are validated. This means performing a checksum comparison on the updates prior to deploying them on PoS systems. It is recommended that merchants work with their PoS vendors to obtain signatures and hash values to perform this checksum validation.
  • Disable unnecessary ports and services, null sessions, default users and guests.
  • Enable logging of events and make sure there is a process to monitor logs on a daily basis.
  • Implement least privileges and ACLs on users and applications on the system.

References

Revision History

  • July, 31 2014 - Initial Release
  • August 18, 2014 - Minor revision to remote desktop solutions list
  • August 22, 2014 - Changes to the Overview section
  • August 26, 2014 - Minor revision to remote desktop solutions list

This product is provided subject to this Notification and this Privacy & Use policy.


TA14-150A: GameOver Zeus P2P Malware US-CERT
Original release date: June 02, 2014 | Last revised: August 18, 2014

Systems Affected

  • Microsoft Windows 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and 8
  • Microsoft Server 2003, Server 2008, Server 2008 R2, and Server 2012

Overview

GameOver Zeus (GOZ), a peer-to-peer (P2P) variant of the Zeus family of bank credential-stealing malware identified in September 2011, [1] uses a decentralized network infrastructure of compromised personal computers and web servers to execute command-and-control. The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in collaboration with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), is releasing this Technical Alert to provide further information about the GameOver Zeus botnet.

Description

GOZ, which is often propagated through spam and phishing messages, is primarily used by cybercriminals to harvest banking information, such as login credentials, from a victim’s computer. [2] Infected systems can also be used to engage in other malicious activities, such as sending spam or participating in distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks. 

Prior variants of the Zeus malware utilized a centralized command and control (C2) botnet infrastructure to execute commands. Centralized C2 servers are routinely tracked and blocked by the security community. [1] GOZ, however, utilizes a P2P network of infected hosts to communicate and distribute data, and employs encryption to evade detection. These peers act as a massive proxy network that is used to propagate binary updates, distribute configuration files, and to send stolen data. [3] Without a single point of failure, the resiliency of GOZ’s P2P infrastructure makes takedown efforts more difficult. [1]

Impact

A system infected with GOZ may be employed to send spam, participate in DDoS attacks, and harvest users' credentials for online services, including banking services.

Solution

Users are recommended to take the following actions to remediate GOZ infections:

  • Use and maintain anti-virus software - Anti-virus software recognizes and protects your computer against most known viruses. It is important to keep your anti-virus software up-to-date (see Understanding Anti-Virus Software for more information).
  • Change your passwords - Your original passwords may have been compromised during the infection, so you should change them (see Choosing and Protecting Passwords for more information).
  • Keep your operating system and application software up-to-date - Install software patches so that attackers can't take advantage of known problems or vulnerabilities. Many operating systems offer automatic updates. If this option is available, you should enable it (see Understanding Patches for more information).
  • Use anti-malware tools - Using a legitimate program that identifies and removes malware can help eliminate an infection. Users can consider employing a remediation tool (examples below) that will help with the removal of GOZ from your system.

F-Secure       

http://www.f-secure.com/en/web/home_global/online-scanner (Windows Vista, 7 and 8)

http://www.f-secure.com/en/web/labs_global/removal-tools/-/carousel/view/142 (Windows XP)

Heimdal

http://goz.heimdalsecurity.com/ (Microsoft Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8 and 8.1)   

McAfee

www.mcafee.com/stinger (Windows XP SP2, 2003 SP2, Vista SP1, 2008, 7 and 8)

Microsoft

http://www.microsoft.com/security/scanner/en-us/default.aspx (Windows 8.1, Windows 8, Windows 7, Windows Vista, and Windows XP) 

Sophos

http://www.sophos.com/VirusRemoval (Windows XP (SP2) and above) 

Symantec

http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/international-takedown-wounds-gameover-zeus-cybercrime-network (Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7)

Trend Micro

http://www.trendmicro.com/threatdetector (Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8/8.1, Windows Server 2003, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2008 R2)

FireEye and Fox-IT

www.decryptcryptolocker.com FireEye and Fox-IT have created a web portal claiming to restore/decrypt files of CryptoLocker victims. US-CERT has performed no evaluation of this claim, but is providing a link to enable individuals to make their own determination of suitability for their needs. At present, US-CERT is not aware of any other product that claims similar functionality.

The above are examples only and do not constitute an exhaustive list. The U.S. Government does not endorse or support any particular product or vendor.

 

References

Revision History

  • Initial Publication - June 2, 2014
  • Added McAfee - June 6, 2014
  • Added FireEye and Fox-IT web portal to Solutions section - August 15, 2014

This product is provided subject to this Notification and this Privacy & Use policy.


TA14-098A: OpenSSL 'Heartbleed' vulnerability (CV... US-CERT
Original release date: April 08, 2014

Systems Affected

  • OpenSSL 1.0.1 through 1.0.1f
  • OpenSSL 1.0.2-beta

Overview

A vulnerability in OpenSSL could allow a remote attacker to expose sensitive data, possibly including user authentication credentials and secret keys, through incorrect memory handling in the TLS heartbeat extension.

Description

OpenSSL versions 1.0.1 through 1.0.1f contain a flaw in its implementation of the TLS/DTLS heartbeat functionality. This flaw allows an attacker to retrieve private memory of an application that uses the vulnerable OpenSSL library in chunks of 64k at a time. Note that an attacker can repeatedly leverage the vulnerability to retrieve as many 64k chunks of memory as are necessary to retrieve the intended secrets. The sensitive information that may be retrieved using this vulnerability include:

  • Primary key material (secret keys)
  • Secondary key material (user names and passwords used by vulnerable services)
  • Protected content (sensitive data used by vulnerable services)
  • Collateral (memory addresses and content that can be leveraged to bypass exploit mitigations)

Exploit code is publicly available for this vulnerability.  Additional details may be found in CERT/CC Vulnerability Note VU#720951.

Impact

This flaw allows a remote attacker to retrieve private memory of an application that uses the vulnerable OpenSSL library in chunks of 64k at a time.

Solution

OpenSSL 1.0.1g has been released to address this vulnerability.  Any keys generated with a vulnerable version of OpenSSL should be considered compromised and regenerated and deployed after the patch has been applied.

US-CERT recommends system administrators consider implementing Perfect Forward Secrecy to mitigate the damage that may be caused by future private key disclosures.

References

Revision History

  • Initial Publication

This product is provided subject to this Notification and this Privacy & Use policy.


TA14-069A: Microsoft Ending Support for Windows X... US-CERT
Original release date: March 10, 2014 | Last revised: June 18, 2014

Systems Affected

  • Microsoft Windows XP with Service Pack 3 (SP3) Operating System
  • Microsoft Office 2003 Products

Overview

Microsoft is ending support for the Windows XP operating system and Office 2003 product line on April 8, 2014. [1] After this date, these products will no longer receive:

  • Security patches which help protect PCs from harmful viruses, spyware, and other malicious software
  • Assisted technical support from Microsoft
  • Software and content updates

Description

All software products have a lifecycle. End of support refers to the date when Microsoft no longer provides automatic fixes, updates, or online technical assistance. [2] As of February 2014, nearly 30 percent of Internet-connected PCs still run Windows XP. [3]

Microsoft will send “End of Support” notifications to users of Windows XP who have elected to receive updates via Windows Update. Users in organizations using Windows Server Update Services (WSUS), System Center Configuration manager, or Windows Intune will not receive the notification. [4]

Impact

Computer systems running unsupported software are exposed to an elevated risk to cybersecurity dangers, such as malicious attacks or electronic data loss.

Users may also encounter problems with software and hardware compatibility since new software applications and hardware devices may not be built for Windows XP or Office 2003.

Organizations that are governed by regulatory obligations may find they are no longer able to satisfy compliance requirements. [4]

Solution

Computers operating Windows XP with SP3 or running Office 2003 products will continue to work after support ends. However, using unsupported software may increase the risk of viruses and other security threats.

Users have the option to upgrade to a currently supported operating system or office productivity suite. The Microsoft “End of Support” pages for Windows XP and Office 2003 offer additional details.

There are software vendors and service providers in the marketplace who offer assistance in migrating from Windows XP or Office 2003 to a currently supported operating system or office productivity suite. US-CERT does not endorse or support any particular product or vendor.

Users who choose to continue using Windows XP after the end of support may mitigate some risks by using a web browser other than Internet Explorer. The Windows XP versions of some alternative browsers will continue to receive support temporarily. Users should consult the support pages of their chosen alternative browser for more details.

References

Revision History

  • March 10, 2014 - Initial Release
  • June 18, 2014 - A spelling correction was made.

This product is provided subject to this Notification and this Privacy & Use policy.


TA14-017A: UDP-based Amplification Attacks US-CERT
TA14-013A: NTP Amplification Attacks Using CVE-20... US-CERT
TA14-002A: Malware Targeting Point of Sale System... US-CERT
TA13-317A: Microsoft Updates for Multiple Vulnera... US-CERT
News: Change in Focus SecurityFocus News
News: Google: 'no timetable' on China talks SecurityFocus News
News: Monster botnet held 800,000 people's detail... SecurityFocus News
News: Latvian hacker tweets hard on banking whist... SecurityFocus News
News: MS uses court order to take out Waledac bot... SecurityFocus News
Brief: Google offers bounty on browser bugs SecurityFocus News
Brief: Cyberattacks from U.S. "greatest concern" SecurityFocus News
Brief: Microsoft patches as fraudsters target IE ... SecurityFocus News
Brief: Attack on IE 0-day refined by researchers SecurityFocus News
News: Twitter attacker had proper credentials SecurityFocus News
News: PhotoDNA scans images for child abuse SecurityFocus News
News: Conficker data highlights infected networks SecurityFocus News
Infocus: Enterprise Intrusion Analysis, Part One SecurityFocus News
SANSFIRE 2011 SANS Information Security Reading Room
Bugtraq: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-14:... SecurityFocus Vulns
SANSFIRE 2011 @RISK: The Consensus Security Alert
Infocus: Responding to a Brute Force SSH Attack SecurityFocus News
Mass SQL Injection for Malware Distribution SANS Information Security Reading Room
Bugtraq: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-14:... SecurityFocus Vulns
Infocus: Data Recovery on Linux and ext3 SecurityFocus News
Malcode Context of API Abuse SANS Information Security Reading Room
Bugtraq: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-14:... SecurityFocus Vulns
Infocus: WiMax: Just Another Security Challenge? SecurityFocus News
Four Attacks on OAuth - How to Secure Your OAuth ... SANS Information Security Reading Room
Bugtraq: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-14:... SecurityFocus Vulns
Gunter Ollmann: Time to Squish SQL Injection SecurityFocus News
Security Vulnerabilities and Wireless LAN Technol... SANS Information Security Reading Room
More rss feeds from SecurityFocus SecurityFocus Vulns
Mark Rasch: Lazy Workers May Be Deemed Hackers SecurityFocus News
Animal Farm: Protection From Client-side Attacks ... SANS Information Security Reading Room
Adam O'Donnell: The Scale of Security SecurityFocus News
Auditing for Policy Compliance with QualysGuard a... SANS Information Security Reading Room
Mark Rasch: Hacker-Tool Law Still Does Little SecurityFocus News
Tracking Malware With Public Proxy Lists SANS Information Security Reading Room
More rss feeds from SecurityFocus SecurityFocus News
Application Whitelisting: Panacea or Propaganda SANS Information Security Reading Room

Bookmark and Share