Attacks/Breaches

12/20/2017
05:36 PM
Kelly Sheridan
Kelly Sheridan
Slideshows
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

9 Banking Trojans & Trends Costing Businesses in 2017

New Trojans appeared, old ones resurfaced, and delivery methods evolved as cybercriminals set their sights on financial data.
Previous
1 of 10
Next

(Image: Muratart via Shutterstock)

(Image: Muratart via Shutterstock)

Banking Trojans have been a recurring theme in security news this year as criminals find new ways to steal money and data from their victims.

"We have started to see the re-emergence of banker Trojans," says Bogdan Botezatu, senior e-threat analyst at Bitdefender, noting that banking Trojans had their heyday between 2012 and 2013. "But we could have sworn the trend was otherwise."

It's interesting to see banking Trojans resurface because of the resources they need to work. Unlike comparatively simple attacks like ransomware, banking malware requires several players and is difficult to launch and monetize. Botezatu suggests the rise could be attributed to both code leaks of other banking Trojans and an oversaturation of the ransomware market.

Many of the banking Trojans we've seen this year are reminiscent of those we've seen in the past. Others are old threats being distributed in new ways, targeting new victims.

Terdot, a banking Trojan first seen in October 2016, takes its inspiration from source code of the Zeus banking Trojan following Zeus' source code leak in 2011. IcedID, another new banking Trojan that emerged in September, shares traits with Gozi, Zeus, and Dridex.

"Overall, this is similar to other banking Trojans, but that's also where I see the problem," says Limor Kessem, executive security advisor for IBM Security, of IcedID. It's rare to see banking Trojans that don't share qualities with existing variants. Attackers are copying one another and adding new features like anti-evasion techniques to further advance the malware.

Here, we look back on the new and evolved ways banking Trojans targeted victims in 2017. Any threats we missed that should've made the list? Which do you think will stick around next year? Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments and read on for more.

 

Kelly Sheridan is the Staff Editor at Dark Reading, where she focuses on cybersecurity news and analysis. She is a business technology journalist who previously reported for InformationWeek, where she covered Microsoft, and Insurance & Technology, where she covered financial ... View Full Bio

Previous
1 of 10
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
White House Cybersecurity Strategy at a Crossroads
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  7/17/2018
Mueller Probe Yields Hacking Indictments for 12 Russian Military Officers
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  7/13/2018
10 Ways to Protect Protocols That Aren't DNS
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  7/16/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-10869
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-19
redhat-certification does not properly restrict files that can be download through the /download page. A remote attacker may download any file accessible by the user running httpd.
CVE-2018-10870
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-19
redhat-certification does not properly sanitize paths in rhcertStore.py:__saveResultsFile. A remote attacker could use this flaw to overwrite any file, potentially gaining remote code execution.
CVE-2018-12959
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-19
The approveAndCall function of a smart contract implementation for Aditus (ADI), an Ethereum ERC20 token, allows attackers to steal assets (e.g., transfer all contract balances into their account).
CVE-2018-14336
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-19
TP-Link WR840N devices allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (connectivity loss) via a series of packets with random MAC addresses.
CVE-2018-10620
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-19
AVEVA InduSoft Web Studio v8.1 and v8.1SP1, and InTouch Machine Edition v2017 8.1 and v2017 8.1 SP1 a remote user could send a carefully crafted packet to exploit a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability during tag, alarm, or event related actions such as read and write, with potential for code t...