A
recent study conducted by the Cyber Security Research Institute (CSRI) this
week revealed that stolen digital code-signing certificates are readily
available for anyone to purchase on the dark web for up to $1,200.
As
you may know, digital certificates issued by a trusted certificate authority
(CA) are used to cryptographically sign computer applications and software, and
are trusted by your computer for execution of those programs without any
warning messages.
However,
malware author and hackers who are always in search of advanced techniques to
bypass security solutions have been abusing trusted digital certificates during
recent years.
Hackers
use compromised code signing certificates associated with trusted software
vendors in order to sign their malicious code, reducing the possibility of
their malware being detected on targeted enterprise networks and consumer
devices.
The
infamous Stuxnet worm that targeted Iranian nuclear processing facilities in
2003 also used legitimate digital certificates. Also, the recent
CCleaner-tainted downloads infection was made possible due to digitally-signed
software update.
Stealthy
Digitally-Signed Malware Is Increasingly Prevalent
However,
separate research conducted by a team of security researchers have found that
digitally signed malware has become much more common than previously thought.
The
trio researchers—Doowon Kim, BumJun Kwon and Tudor Dumitras from the University
of Maryland, College Park—said they found a total of 325 signed malware
samples, of which 189 (58.2%) carried valid digital signatures while 136 carry
malformed digital signatures.
"Such
malformed signatures are useful for an adversary: we find that simply copying
an Authenticode signature from a legitimate sample to an unsigned malware
sample may help the malware bypass AV detection," the researchers said.
Those
189 malware samples signed correctly were generated using 111 compromised
unique certificates issued by recognized CAs and used to sign legitimate
software.
At
the time of writing, 27 of these compromised certificates had been revoked,
although malware signed by one of the remaining 84 certificates that were not
revoked would still be trusted as long as carry a trusted timestamp.
"A
large fraction (88.8%) of malware families rely on a single certificate, which
suggests that the abusive certificates are mostly controlled by the malware
authors rather than by third parties," the trio said.
The
researchers have released a list of the abusive certificates at
signedmalware.org.
Revoking
Stolen Certificate Doesn't Stop Malware Immediately
Even
when a signature is not valid, the researchers found that at least 34
anti-virus products failed to check the certificate's validity, eventually
allowing malicious code to run on the targeted system.
The
researchers also conducted an experiment to determine if malformed signatures
can affect the anti-virus detections. To demonstrate this, they downloaded 5
random unsigned ransomware samples that almost all anti-virus programs detected
as malicious.
The
trio then took two expired certificates that previously had been used to sign
both legitimate software and in-the-wild malware and used them to sign each of
the five ransomware samples.
Top
Antivirus Fail to Detect Malware Signed With Stolen Certificates
When
analysing the resulting ten new samples, the researchers found that many
anti-virus products failed to detect the malware as malicious.
The
top three anti-virus products—nProtect, Tencent, and Paloalto—detected unsigned
ransomware samples as malware, but considered eight of out ten crafted samples
as benign.
Even
popular anti-virus engines from Kaspersky Labs, Microsoft, TrendMicro,
Symantec, and Commodo, failed to detect some of the known malicious samples.
Other
affected anti-virus packages included CrowdStrike, Fortinet, Avira,
Malwarebytes, SentinelOne, Sophos, TrendMicro and Qihoo, among others.
"We
believe that this [inability in detecting malware samples] is due to the fact
that AVs take digital signatures into account when filter and prioritize the
list of files to scan, in order to reduce the overhead imposed on the user’s
host," the researchers said.
"However,
the incorrect implementation of Authenticode signature checks in many AVs gives
malware authors the opportunity to evade detection with a simple and
inexpensive method."
The
researchers said they reported this issue to the affected antivirus companies,
and one of them had confirmed that their product fails to check the signatures
correctly and they had planned to fix the issue.
The
researchers presented their findings at the Computer and Communications
Security (CCS) conference in Dallas on Wednesday.
For
more detailed information on the research, you can head on to their research
paper [PDF] titled "Certified Malware: Measuring Breaches of Trust in the
Windows Code-Signing PKI."
Source : thehackernews.com
========== Hacking Don't Need Agreements ==========
Just Remember One Thing You Don't Need To Seek Anyone's Permission To Hack Anything Or Anyone As Long As It Is Ethical, This Is The Main Principle Of Hacking Dream
Thank You for Reading My Post, I Hope It Will Be Useful For You
I Will Be Very Happy To Help You So For Queries or Any Problem Comment Below Or You Can Mail Me At Bhanu@HackingDream.net
No comments:
Post a Comment