Malware

What’s a suspicious domain?

The question came up on slack and I started bullet pointing what would make a domain suspicious. Seemed like a reasonable blog post. In no particular order, some features that make a domain suspicious to spam filters.

Botnet activity warning

A bit of advice from the folks at the CBL, posted with permission and some light editing. I’ve been seeing some folks report longer connection times at some places, and this might explain some of it. It’s certainly possible, even likely, that the large ISPs are getting a lot of this kind of traffic.

A botnet, likely a variant of cutwail, has been for the past several years been specializing in using stolen credentials, doing port 25/587 SMTP AUTH connections to the spoof’d users server, and attempting to relay thru the connection to elsewhere. They will also, in some cases, attempt to log into the MX IP using a brute force attack against the email address. Other miscreants try the same thing with IMAP or POP or even SMTPS.
If they manage to compromise an email account, they use the account to send spam. For corporate accounts they can steal employee identities, request wire transfers, and send out corporately authenticated spam. If they get it, game over, the whole account is compromised and they can and do wreak havoc.
This has been going on for a couple of years, and now is the largest volume of spam from botnets. Cutwail is not the only botnet doing AUTH attacks, but appears to be the most prolific. Attacking POP and IMAP appears to be more recent, and is more related to spear-phishing (spamming executives) and other bad things.
In the last month or two, the behavior has changed a bit. The infections are trying to establish as many connections simultaneously as it can get away with. This is similar behavior to ancient or unpatched versions of qmail. This is swamping some servers by tying up a significant number (or even all) of the TCP sockets available.
The CBL is recommending that folks check their mail servers. If the mail server has a “simultaneous connection per IP limit”, it should be set to some limited number. If it’s not set then set it. Otherwise, your server is at risk for being unable to handle real mail. Make sure your IMAP and POP are secured as well as they are being targeted, too.
The XBL can also help with this. But securing your server is the first step.

GDPR and Whois data

For folks who aren’t following the discussion about whois records and GDPR compliance there’s a decent summary at vice.com: What Is Going to Happen With Whois?

Ransomware email protected by DMARC

Virus bulletin has an interesting post about DMARC and how some criminals are protecting their emails with DMARC.

Email is inherently a malicious traffic stream

It’s something many people don’t think about, but the majority of the traffic coming into the SMTP port is malicious. Spam is passively malicious, in that it just uses resources and bothers people. But there is a lot of actively malicious traffic coming into the SMTP port. Email is used as a vector to spread viruses and other malware. Email is also used for phishing and scamming. Many of the major hacks we’ve heard about over the last few years, including those in the email space, started with a single user getting infected through email.
We talk a lot about delivery here with clients and primarily focus on making sure their mail looks as unlike malicious mail as possible. We focus on spam filters, but every piece of mail goes through filters that also look for viruses, phishes, malware and other malicious traffic.
Mail servers are under attack constantly. The only reason our inboxes are useful is through the hard work of many people to filter out the bad and keep users from seeing the bulk of the mess attacking them.

Spam, Phish or Malware?

Some mornings I check mail from my phone. This showed up this morning.

My first thought was “oh, no, Pizza Hut is spamming, wonder who sold them my address.”
Then I remembered that iOS is horrible and won’t show you anything other than the Friendly From and maybe it was some weird phishing scheme.
When I got to my real mail client I checked headers, and sure enough, it wasn’t really from Pizza Hut. I’m guessing actually malware, but I don’t have a forensics machine to click the link and I’m not doing it on anything I can’t wipe (and have isolated from the rest of my network).
The frustrating thing for me is that this is an authenticated email. It not from Pizza Hut, the address belongs to some company in France. Apparently, that company has had their systems cracked and malware sent through them. Fully authenticated malware, pretending to be Pizza Hut, and passing authentication on various devices.
Pizza Hut isn’t currently publishing a DMARC record, but in this case, a DMARC record for Pizza Hut wouldn’t matter. None of the email addresses in the headers point to Pizza Hut.
I spent last week listening to a lot of people discussing DMARC and authentication and protecting people from scams and headers. But those all the protocols in the world won’t protect against this kind of thing. Phishing and malware can’t be fixed by technology alone. Even if every domain on the planet published a p=reject policy, mail like this would still get through.

What about the bots?

M³AAWG published a letter to the FCC addressing the implementation of CSRIC III Cybersecurity Best Practices (pdf link)
The takeaway is that of the ISPs that contribute data to M³AAWG (37M+ users), over 99% of infected users receive notification that they are infected.
I hear from senders occasionally that they are not the problem, bots are the problem and why isn’t anyone addressing bots. The answer is that people are addressing the bot problem.

LinkedIn shuts down Intro product

Intro was the LinkedIn product that created an email proxy where all email users sent went through LinkedIn servers. This week LinkedIn announced it is discontinuing the product. They promise to find new ways to worm their way into the inbox, but intercepting and modifying user mail doesn’t seem to have been a successful business model.

Compromising a Mail Client

Your entire work life is in your work mail client.
All the people you communicate with – co-workers, friends, family, vendors, customers, colleagues.
Every email you send. Every email you receive. Any files you attach or receive.
If someone can compromise your mail client, they can see all that.
They can save copies of all your emails, data-mine them and use them for whatever purpose they like. They can build a view of your social network, based on who you exchange emails with, and a model of who you are, based on what you talk about.
That companies like Google do this for “free”, advertising supported webmail shouldn’t be much of a surprise by now – but your corporate email system and your work email is secure, right?
What if an attacker were to set up a man-in-the-middle attack on your employees? Install malware on their iPhone, such that all traffic were transparently routed through a proxy server controlled by the attacker?
Or they could use a more email-centric approach, configuring the compromised mail client to fetch mail from an IMAP server controlled by the attacker that took the employees credentials and passed them through to their real corporate IMAP server – that would let the attacker completely control what the compromised user saw in their inbox. As well as being able to read all mail sent to that user, they could silently filter mail, they could deliver new mail to the users inbox directly, bypassing any mail filters or security. They could even modify the contents of email on-the-fly – adding tracking links, redirection URLs or injecting entirely new content into the message.
Similarly, the attacker could route all outbound mail through a man-in-the-middle smarthost that copied the users credentials and used them to send mail on to their real corporate smarthost. As well as being able to read and modify all mail sent the attacker could also use that access to send mail that masqueraded as coming from the user.
Sounds like the sort of thing you’d expect from criminal malware? Not quite. What I’ve just described is Intro, a new product from LinkedIn.
LinkedIn will be asking your users to click on a link to install a “security profile” to their iPhones. If they do, then LinkedIn will have total control over the phone, and will use that to inject their SMTP and IMAP proxies into your users mailstreams. The potential for abuse by LinkedIn themselves is bad enough – I’ve no doubt that they’ll be injecting adverts for themselves into the mailstream, and their whole business is based on monetizing information they acquire about employees and their employers. But LinkedIn have also been compromised in the past, with attackers stealing millions of LinkedIn user credentials – if they can’t protect their own users credentials, I wouldn’t trust them with your employees credentials.
You might want to monitor where your employees are logging in to your servers from – and suspend any accounts that log in from LinkedIn network space.
Edit: Bishop Fox has looked at Intro too, and come to similar conclusions. TechCrunch too.

Flush your DNS cache (again)

This time it appears that DNS for major websites, including the NY Times, has been compromised. Attackers put in DNS entries that redirected visitors to a malware site. The compromise has been fixed and the fake DNS entries corrected.
However, people may still have the old data in their DNS caches and security experts are suggesting everyone flush their DNS cache to make sure the fake data is gone.
The Washington Post has an article explaining DNS hijacking.

Cloudflare and Spamhaus

Spamhaus has been the subject of a lot of discussion the last few weeks. I touched on this a little in June when I blogged that a number of large brands were getting SBL listings.
But big brands are not the only companies with publicly discussed SBL listings.
Cloudflare, the content delivery network that grew out of project honeypot, has a number of SBL listings, covering at least 2 /18s and a /20. Representatives and customers of Cloudflare have been discussing the listings on twitter.
As a content provider, Cloudflare isn’t actually sending mail nor are they actually hosting the content. What they are doing is providing consistent name service and traffic routing to malicious websites. In fact, they’ve been providing services to a malware botnet controller (SBL138291) since May, 2012. They’re also providing services to a number of SEO spammers. Both of these actions are justification for a SBL listing, and Spamhaus has a history of listing providers protecting spammers.
Cloudflare claims they take action on all “properly filed complaints” and they may actually do that. But their reports require quite a bit of information and require consent for releasing information to 3rd parties. Looking at the website, it appears to me to be a site designed to discourage abuse reports and stop people from reporting problems to Cloudflare.
When you look at the Cloudflare business model it’s clearly one that will be abused. Cloudflare acts as a reverse proxy / pass through network that caches data from their customers. This protects the abusers webhosting setup and prevents people tracking the abuser from being able to determine the true host of a website. As a responsible internet citizen, Cloudflare should be disconnecting the customers hiding behind Cloudflare’s services.
Unfortunately, Cloudflare seems unwilling to actually police their customers. They’ve taken a totally hands off approach.
Let’s be frank. Cloudflare has been providing service to Botnet C&C servers for at least two months. It doesn’t matter that the abuser has the malware on a machine elsewhere, Cloudflare’s IP is the one that serves the data. I don’t care what you think about spam, providing service to malware providers is totally unacceptable. It’s even more unacceptable when you claim to be a security company. Nothing about malware is legitimate and the fact that Cloudflare is continuing to host a malware network command and control node is concerning at the very least.
Cloudflare (.pdf) is listed on Spamhaus for providing spam support services. The most obvious of these is providing service to a malware controller. And Spamhaus escalated the listings because they are allowing other abusers to hide behind their reverse proxy.

DNS Changer servers going offline

There are a whole host of different botnets. One botnet run by Rove Digital infected computers with viruses that changed their DNS settings, giving the botnet runners the ability to control how the infected computers viewed the Internet.
The criminals behind the DNS Changer virus were arrested in November of last year. The court ordered the Internet Systems Consortium (ISC) to operate replacement DNS servers for computers infected with the botnet viruses in order to give users a chance to clean and fix their computers.
That court order expires on Monday.
Anyone who is still infected with the DNS Changer malware will see their internet services greatly curtailed when the DNS servers go offline.
If you run Windows and you haven’t yet checked to see if you’re infected, you should do so soon. There are a number of websites you can visit that will tell you if you are actually infected with the DNS changer virus and if you are will give you information on how to fix your system.

Browsers, security and paranoia

MAAWG is coming up and lots of us are working on documents, and presentations. One of the recent discussions is what kind of security recommendations, if any, should we be making. I posted a list of things including “Don’t browse the web with a machine running Windows.”
Another participant told me he thought my recommendation to not use a windows machine to browse the web was over the top and paranoid. It may be, but drive by malware attacks are increasing. Visiting big sites may not be enough to protect you, as hackers are compromising sites and installing malware to infect visitors to those sites. Some ad networks have also been used to spread malware.
Criminals have even figured out how to install malware on a machine from email, without the recipient having to click or open attachments.
Avoiding the internet from a machine running Windows is a security recommendation I don’t expect many people to follow, but I do not think security and anti-virus software is enough to protect people from all of the exploits out there.
Of course, there are a lot of reasons that one might be forced to use a particular browser or operating system. For instance, I was on the phone with my bank just today to ask if they supported Safari. They say they do, but there are some things that just don’t work. The customer service rep said that they recommend Internet Explorer to all their users. She then suggested I switch browsers. No thanks, I’ll deal with the broken website.
Compromises are a major threat, and criminals are spending a lot of time and money on creating ways to get past current security. No longer is “not clicking on malware” enough to protect users. When a security clearinghouse is compromised and used as a vector for a targeted attack against Google, none of us are safe. When a security company is compromised, none of us are safe.
I realize my recommendation to avoid browsing the web on a Windows based machine is more wishful thinking than practical. I also know that other browsers and operating systems will be targeted if enough people move away from currently vulnerable operating systems. And I know that a simple, offhand suggestion won’t fix the problem.
As someone who’s been online long enough to see the original Green Card spam I know that online dangers evolve. But I can’t help thinking that most of us aren’t taking the current threats seriously enough.

Clicktracking 2: Electric Boogaloo

A week or so back I talked about clicktracking links, and how to put them together to avoid abuse and blocking issues.
Since then I’ve come across another issue with click tracking links that’s not terribly obvious, and that you’re not that likely to come across, but if you do get hit by it could be very painful – phishing and malware filters in web browsers.

First, some background about how a lot of malware is distributed, what’s known as “drive-by malware”. This is where the hostile code infects the victims machine without them taking any action to download and run it, rather they just visit a hostile website and that website silently infects their computer.
The malware authors get people to visit the hostile website in quite a few different ways – email spam, blog comment spam, web forum spam, banner ads purchased on legitimate websites and compromised legitimate websites, amongst others.
That last one, compromised legitimate websites, is the type we’re interested in. The sites compromised aren’t usually a single, high-profile website. Rather, they tend to be a whole bunch of websites that are running some vulnerable web application – if there’s a security flaw in, for example, WordPress blog software then a malware author can compromise thousands of little blog sites, and embed malware code in each of them. Anyone visiting any of those sites risks being infected, and becoming part of a botnet.
Because the vulnerable websites are all compromised mechanically in the same way, the URLs of the infected pages tend to look much the same, just with different hostnames – http://example.com/foo/bar/baz.html, http://www.somewhereelse.invalid/foo/bar/baz.html and http://a.net/foo/bar/baz.html – and they serve up just the same malware (or, just as often, redirect the user to a site in russia or china that serves up the malware that infects their machine).
A malware filter operator might receive a report about http://example.com/foo/bar/baz.html and decide that it was infected with malware, adding example.com to a blacklist. A smart filter operator might decide that this might be just one example of a widespread compromise, and go looking for the same malware elsewhere. If it goes to http//a.net/foo/bar/baz.html and finds the exact same content, it’ll know that that’s another instance of the infection, and add a.net to the blacklist.
What does this have to do with clickthrough links?
Well, an obvious way to implement clickthrough links is to use a custom hostname for each customer (“click.customer.com“), and have all those pointing at a single clickthrough webserver. It’s tedious to setup the webserver to respond to each hostname as you add a new customer, though, so you decide to have the webserver ignore the hostname. That’ll work fine – if you have customer1 using a clickthrough link like http://click.customer1.com/123/456/789.html you’d have the webserver ignore “click.customer1.com” and just read the information it needs from “123/456/789.html” and send the redirect.
But that means that if you also have customer2, using the hostname click.customer2.com, then the URL http://click.customer2.com/123/456/789.html it will redirect to customer1’s content.
If a malware filter decides that http://click.customer1.com/123/456/789.html redirects to a phishing site or a malware download – either due to a false report, or due to the customers page actually being infected – then they’ll add click.customer1.com to their blacklist, meaning no http://click.customer1.com/ URLs will work. So far, this isn’t a big problem.
But if they then go and check http://click.customer2.com/123/456/789.html and find the same redirect, they’ll blacklist click.customer2.com, and so on for all the clickthrough hostnames of yours they know about. That’ll cause any click on any URL in any email a lot of your customers send out to go to a “This site may harm your computer!” warning – which will end up a nightmare even if you spot the problem and get the filter operators to remove all those hostnames from the blacklist within a few hours or a day.
Don’t let this happen to you. Make sure your clickthrough webserver pays attention to the hostname as well as the path of the URL.
Use different hostnames for different customers clickthrough links. And if you pick a link from mail sent by Customer A, and change the hostname of that link to the clickthrough hostname of Customer B, then that link should fail with an error rather than displaying Customer A’s content.