Attacks/Breaches

7/10/2018
06:10 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Ticketmaster Breach Part of Massive Payment Card Hacking Campaign

Threat actor Magecart has infiltrated over 800 e-commerce sites with card skimming software installed on third-party software components, RiskIQ says.

Cybersecurity vendor RiskIQ's investigation of a recently disclosed breach at Ticketmaster UK showed that the online ticket seller is just one of hundreds of victims of a huge campaign to steal payment card data by a threat group called Magecart.

RiskIQ says it found that Magecart has compromised over 800 e-commerce sites worldwide by secretly installing digital card-skimming software on third-party components and services used by these sites. One of Magecart's campaigns dubbed SERVERSIDE, alone has claimed at least 100 top-tier ecommerce websites and suggests the group has amassed a huge treasure trove of payment card data. "Magecart is bigger than any other credit card breach to date and isn’t stopping any day soon," the security vendor said.

In Ticketmaster's case, Magecart installed the card-skimming malware in a customer support software component from third-party supplier Inbenta. The rogue software was designed to capture payment card data being entered into online forms on Ticketmaster's site and ship it to a remote server controlled by the attackers. The command-and-control server that Magecart used in the Ticketmaster breach has been operational since at least late 2016.

Inbenta itself has said the breach resulted from a single piece of JavaScript code that was customized for Tickemaster that the attackers modified. According to the vendor, the code is not part of any Inbenta products or in any of its implementations at other websites. In addition to Inbenta, Magecart appears to have breached the systems of SociaPlus, another third-party supplier integrated with several Ticketmaster websites. As it did with Inbenta, Magecart modified a custom SociaPlus JavaScript module with its card-skimming software, RiskIQ said.

Ticketmaster, which discovered the breach June 23 and disclosed it about a week later, has described it as impacting less than 5% of the company's global customers. According to Ticketmaster, only UK customers who purchased tickets or attempted to purchase tickets via its site have been impacted. But RiskIQ says its investigation shows that Magecart has managed to compromise Ticketmaster sites in Ireland, Turkey, New Zealand, and Australia as well. Ticketmaster did not respond to a Dark Reading request seeking comment on RiskIQ's report.

Ticketmaster is just one of hundreds of e-commerce sites that Magecart has infiltrated with its card-stealing software. And Inbenta and SociaPlus are not the only third-party suppliers that the threat actor has exploited to get there: RiskIQ says Magecart has broken into and installed card-skimming malware onto software from other widely used third-party vendors such as PushAssist, CMS Clarity Connect, and Annex Cloud.

RiskIQ has been tracking Magecart's activities since 2015 and says the threat actor's strategy of targeting third-party suppliers marks a dangerous new shift from its previous practice of targeting individual websites.

"They seem to have gotten smarter," RiskIQ said. "Rather than go after websites, they’ve figured out that it’s easier to compromise third-party suppliers of scripts and add their skimmer."

For organizations, the breach at Ticketmaster breach and other sites are another reminder of the risks involved in using services and software from third parties without constantly vetting them for security issues.

Mandates like PCI, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and others make clear that organizations can no longer say a breach resulted from a third party and expect to avoid responsibility, says Justin Jett, director of audit and compliance for Plixer.

Under GDPR, Ticketmaster was required to disclose the breach publicly within 72 hours even though it was the result of malicious software in a third-party software components. "This makes it much more important to properly vet these third-party vendors because ultimately the organization is also liable," he says.

Risky Business

Given the extensive use of third-party software and services by most organizations these days, expecting a consistent level of security across the entire supply chain can be challenging, say security experts. But rather than shooting for 100% risk elimination, the goal instead should be to manage third-party risk in a manner that is aligned with business interests.

That means having a formal vendor risk management program that details the people, processes, and tools to execute it, says Chris Olson, CEO of The Media Trust. Organizations need to maintain a constantly updated inventory of all the third parties that directly or indirectly support their website. They need to conduct a risk assessment before bringing a supplier on board and then follow through with periodic audits.

Also critical are clearly spelled-out security policies and standards for third parties, Olson says."[Use] contract clauses and SLAs to ensure third parties align with those policies and standards and stay compliant with laws and regulations," he notes.

The key is to treat third parties as an integral part of your own company, adds Elad Shapira, head of research at Panorays. In doing that, realize that some suppliers will pose less of a security risk than others, he says. 

"Security visibility is key to understanding the risk that the third party poses to your company," Shapira says. "Once you have that visibility, you can demand a certain level of security that’s reflective of the risk appetite of your company."

Related Content:

 

 
Black Hat USA returns to Las Vegas with hands-on technical Trainings, cutting-edge Briefings, Arsenal open-source tool demonstrations, top-tier security solutions and service providers in the Business Hall. Click for information on the conference and to register.

Jai Vijayan is a seasoned technology reporter with over 20 years of experience in IT trade journalism. He was most recently a Senior Editor at Computerworld, where he covered information security and data privacy issues for the publication. Over the course of his 20-year ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
REISEN1955
100%
0%
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
7/11/2018 | 6:59:20 AM
A SINGLE LINE OF CODE
Buried in this informative article is the above fact --- that all it takes is modification of a single line of javascript code to vet an attack.  THIS is how frightening our world is now. 
visatantam
100%
0%
visatantam,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/10/2018 | 11:28:48 PM
Ticketmaster Breach Part of Massive Payment Card Hacking Campaign
That's just a complete misstep from an information security viewpoint
Crowdsourced vs. Traditional Pen Testing
Alex Haynes, Chief Information Security Officer, CDL,  3/19/2019
BEC Scammer Pleads Guilty
Dark Reading Staff 3/20/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Well, at least it isn't Mobby Dick!
Current Issue
5 Emerging Cyber Threats to Watch for in 2019
Online attackers are constantly developing new, innovative ways to break into the enterprise. This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at five emerging attack trends and exploits your security team should look out for, along with helpful recommendations on how you can prevent your organization from falling victim.
Flash Poll
The State of Cyber Security Incident Response
The State of Cyber Security Incident Response
Organizations are responding to new threats with new processes for detecting and mitigating them. Here's a look at how the discipline of incident response is evolving.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2015-3965
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-23
Hospira Symbiq Infusion System 3.13 and earlier allows remote authenticated users to trigger "unanticipated operations" by leveraging "elevated privileges" for an unspecified call to an incorrectly exposed function.
CVE-2016-10743
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-23
hostapd before 2.6 does not prevent use of the low-quality PRNG that is reached by an os_random() function call.
CVE-2019-9947
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-23
An issue was discovered in urllib2 in Python 2.x through 2.7.16 and urllib in Python 3.x through 3.7.2. CRLF injection is possible if the attacker controls a url parameter, as demonstrated by the first argument to urllib.request.urlopen with \r\n (specifically in the query string or PATH_INFO) follo...
CVE-2019-9948
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-23
urllib in Python 2.x through 2.7.16 supports the local_file: scheme, which makes it easier for remote attackers to bypass protection mechanisms that blacklist file: URIs, as demonstrated by triggering a urllib.urlopen('local_file:///etc/passwd') call.
CVE-2019-9945
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-23
SoftNAS Cloud 4.2.0 and 4.2.1 allows remote command execution. The NGINX default configuration file has a check to verify the status of a user cookie. If not set, a user is redirected to the login page. An arbitrary value can be provided for this cookie to access the web interface without valid user...