Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Threat Intelligence

11/16/2017
10:30 AM
Curtis Jordan
Curtis Jordan
Commentary
100%
0%

Forget APTs: Let's Talk about Advanced Persistent Infrastructure

Understanding how bad guys reuse infrastructure will show you the areas of your network to target when investigating new threats and reiteration of old malware.

Security staff put a lot of emphasis on advanced persistent threats, or APTs, and rightly so. They are extremely difficult to defend against if a hacker is specifically targeting an organization. But with everyone's focus on APTs, we may be missing a different type of attack vector: advanced persistent infrastructure.

We tend to view threats in a silo, often ignoring correlating histories. By doing that, we miss vital information about attacks. In this case, intruders are using patterns that weren't readily picked up in the past. They aren't looking to buy a new server for every new attack. Instead, threat actors will reuse IPs and domain names across multiple campaigns.

The evolution of the Apache Struts vulnerability is a good example of how threat actors use advanced persistent infrastructure as an attack vector. In 2014, there were initial reports of exploits against the Struts vulnerability. In early 2017, new exploits were discovered in a Struts 2 vulnerability. We noticed the two exploits followed a very distinct pattern.

According to data submitted by qualified companies without attribution on TruSTAR's threat intelligence platform, we can now see threats trending across major industry sectors like retail, financial services, cloud, and healthcare. For the past four weeks, indicators of compromise (IOCs) associated with Apache Struts 2 have been trending across our all of the users who submit data to our platform. Looking back at historical report data in the Struts 1 and Struts 2 vulnerabilities, we found that the IP addresses used with the original Struts are now being used with the new Struts.

This lead to some interesting observations:

  • Tactics May Change But IPs Don't. Unless they are a member of a big crime organization, most bad guys don't have the money to buy new IP addresses and domains over and over again. Hence, when an IP address comes online we should know exactly what it is tied to and its history.
  • Hackers Feed on the Lazy. The connections between Struts 1 and Struts 2 created a new reality: as is often the case, when a new zero-day exploit is reported, organizations are slow to move on patching these things. The bad guys know they have to act quickly to make use of the exploit. What they do is simply retool their favorite form of malware, and then use the infrastructure access they have in place, like IPs and domains, to launch the new attacks.

Recognizing how these IP addresses and domains are reused allow you to predict what may be coming down the pike. Look at your activity history. That will give you an idea about what to be on the lookout for. When you see a new version or variant of a known malware, monitor old IPs and domains that directly correlate for new activity.

By understanding how bad guys reuse infrastructure, you’ll have a better idea of the areas of your network to target when investigating a new threat, especially when it is a reiteration of an old malware.

This research was provided by the TruSTAR Data Science Unit. Click here to download the IOCs that are currently leveraging the Apache Struts 2 attack.

This research was provided by the TruSTAR Data Science Unit. Click here to download the IOCs that are currently leveraging the Apache Struts 2 attack.

Related Content:

 

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two days of practical cyber defense discussions. Learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the INsecurity agenda here.

Curtis Jordan is TruSTAR's lead security engineer where he manages engagement with the TruSTAR network of security operators from Fortune 100 companies and leads security research and intelligence analysis. Prior to working with TruSTAR, Jordan worked at CyberPoint ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
bdsaltaformaggio
100%
0%
bdsaltaformaggio,
User Rank: Author
11/20/2017 | 12:33:57 PM
Homogeneous Systems
I could not agree more with your assessment. In fact, the situation is made exponentially worse due to many components being supplied by a single vendor. These largely homogeneous systems only serve to lower the bar for attackers.
Commentary
Cyberattacks Are Tailored to Employees ... Why Isn't Security Training?
Tim Sadler, CEO and co-founder of Tessian,  6/17/2021
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
7 Powerful Cybersecurity Skills the Energy Sector Needs Most
Pam Baker, Contributing Writer,  6/22/2021
News
Microsoft Disrupts Large-Scale BEC Campaign Across Web Services
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  6/15/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
The State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
In this report learn how enterprises are building their incident response teams and processes, how they research potential compromises, how they respond to new breaches, and what tools and processes they use to remediate problems and improve their cyber defenses for the future.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-34390
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Trusty TLK contains a vulnerability in the NVIDIA TLK kernel function where a lack of checks allows the exploitation of an integer overflow on the size parameter of the tz_map_shared_mem function.
CVE-2021-34391
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Trusty TLK contains a vulnerability in the NVIDIA TLK kernel�s tz_handle_trusted_app_smc function where a lack of integer overflow checks on the req_off and param_ofs variables leads to memory corruption of critical kernel structures.
CVE-2021-34392
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Trusty TLK contains a vulnerability in the NVIDIA TLK kernel where an integer overflow in the tz_map_shared_mem function can bypass boundary checks, which might lead to denial of service.
CVE-2021-34393
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Trusty contains a vulnerability in TSEC TA which deserializes the incoming messages even though the TSEC TA does not expose any command. This vulnerability might allow an attacker to exploit the deserializer to impact code execution, causing information disclosure.
CVE-2021-34394
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Trusty contains a vulnerability in all TAs whose deserializer does not reject messages with multiple occurrences of the same parameter. The deserialization of untrusted data might allow an attacker to exploit the deserializer to impact code execution.