The nonprofit Security Alliance is providing funds to protect security researchers who illegally access crypto assets with the aim of improving security.

Source: Nazarii Karkhut via Alamy Stock Photo

Thieves have stolen cryptocurrency worth billions of dollars from cryptocurrency exchanges and wallets. As security researchers probe the defenses of cryptocurrency platforms, an industry group is partnering with the Security Research Legal Defense Fund to ensure that these researchers are protected from legal threats.

In February, platforms including the Ethereum and Filecoin foundations; crypto-focused venture funds, like Paradigm and a16z crypto; and others — which have been battered by successive years with multibillion-dollar heists — formed the nonprofit Security Alliance to address the specific security needs of their industry. The group has launched various initiatives to improve companies' resilience, such as the emergency response bot Seal 911, the Security Alliance Information Sharing and Analysis Center, and now the Whitehat Legal Defense Fund.

Researchers who follow the principles of the Whitehat Safe Harbor Agreement and face legal expenses incurred by their actions can apply to the Security Research Legal Defense Fund (SRLDF) for money earmarked by crypto donors. To be eligible, the researcher must show financial need, have hacked in good faith for the purposes of vulnerability disclosure, and aimed to avoid harm to the public with the goal of improving the security of computers or software. The SRLDF board must approve any funding decisions.

While discerning the difference between good-faith and bad-faith efforts might, in theory, seem difficult, in practice bad-faith actors tend to make themselves clear. Earlier this week, for example, the Kraken crypto-trading platform alleged that a security researcher found a security flaw and filed for a bug bounty, but also refused to return funds stolen as part of testing the concept. That application for legal funding would probably not fare well.

**About the Author(s)**

Dark Reading

The Edge is Dark Reading's home for features, threat data and in-depth perspectives on cybersecurity.

Legal Defense Fund Covers Crypto Research

Ticketmaster, Santander Bank, and other large firms have suffered data leaks from a large cloud-based service, underscoring that companies need to pay attention to authentication.

Source: Frost79 via Shutterstock

A cybercriminals group known as UNC5537 has been on a tear.

Over the past month, the ransom gang, possibly related to ShinyHunters or Scattered Spider, stole more than 560 million customer records from Ticketmaster and posted it for sale on its reconstituted leak site, BreachForums, on May 28, asking for $500,000. Two days later, the group claimed to have stolen 30 millions account records from Spain-based Santander Bank, asking for a cool $2 million. Both companies acknowledged the breaches after the postings.

The cause of the data leaks — and at least 163 other breaches — appears not to be a vulnerability but the use of stolen credentials and poor controls on multifactor authentication (MFA), according to a June 10 analysis by incident-response firm Mandiant, part of Google.

"Mandiant's investigation has not found any evidence to suggest that unauthorized access to Snowflake customer accounts stemmed from a breach of Snowflake's enterprise environment," Mandiant stated in its analysis. "Instead, every incident Mandiant responded to associated with this campaign was traced back to compromised customer credentials."

While the theft of data from Snowflake's systems could have been prevented by MFA, the companies' failures go beyond the lack of that single control. Businesses using cloud services need to make sure that they have visibility into their attack surfaces, quickly removing the accounts of former employees and contractors and reducing the avenues through which opportunistic attackers could compromise systems, networks, or services, says Chris Morgan, senior cyber threat intelligence analyst at cloud-native security platform provider ReliaQuest.

"The biggest lesson learned is that threat actors do not need to employ sophisticated techniques," he says. "Targeting the low-hanging fruit — in this case, insecure credentials — can be achieved with little effort from the threat actor but provides ample opportunities."

Here are five lessons from the latest spate of cloud breaches.

**1\. Start With MFA and Then Go Beyond**

There is a lot of room for growth in the adoption of MFA. While 64% of workers and 90% of administrators used MFA, according to a report released a year ago, more than six out of every 10 organizations have at least one root user or administrator without MFA enabled on an account, according to Orca Security's "2024 State of Cloud report."

Businesses need to get to a consistent — and verifiable — 100%, says Ofer Maor, co-founder and chief technology officer at cloud-security firm Mitiga.

Companies should "make sure MFA is enforced and required, and if using \[single sign-on\], make sure non-SSO login is disabled," he says. "Go beyond traditional MFA \[and\] turn on additional security measures, such as device- \[or\] hardware-based authentication for sensitive infrastructure."

Organizations should also put access control lists (ACLs) in place, restricting where users can access a cloud service or at least enabling reviews of access logs on a daily basis to spot any anomalies.

This further limits the ability of cyberattackers, says Jake Williams, faculty analyst and cybersecurity practitioner at analyst firm IANS Research.

"Really, for pretty much any cloud infrastructure ... it is a best practice to restrict what IP addresses folks can come from," he says. "If you can't, then access reviews are all the more important to make sure that people aren't coming from someplace you don't expect."

**3\. Maximize Visibility Into Cloud Services**

Companies need to also have a meaningful way of continuously monitoring for applications. Log data, access activity, and services that aggregate data sources into a complete picture can help companies detect and prevent attacks, like those on Snowflake.

In addition, organizations need to be able to alert on specific behavior or threat detections — an approach that would have detected the cybercriminals' attempts at accessing their cloud data, says Brian Soby, CTO and co-founder at AppOmni, a software-as-a-service security posture management firm.

"While security operations teams are spread thin and generally don't have the opportunity to develop deep expertise in the various applications used by their companies, their tooling and security platforms should have quickly identified these issues," he says. "In this scenario, there were certainly anomalous logins from unusual locations and the connection of highly questionable attacker applications to customer Snowflake instances."

**4\. Don't Rely on Your Cloud Providers' Defaults**

While cloud-service providers like to emphasize that security is a shared responsibility model, unless an attacker breaches the cloud provider's infrastructure or software — such as in last year's vulnerabilities in Progress Software's MoveIT Cloud service and MoveIT Transfer software — the responsibility almost always falls onto the customer.

Yet, often cloud providers prioritize usability over security, so companies should not rely on their providers' defaults to be secure. There is a lot that Snowflake, for example, could have done to make managing MFA easier, include turning on the security control by default, says Mitiga's Maor.

"What enables this attack to be successful, and at this scale, is that the default setting of Snowflake accounts does not require MFA, meaning once you get a compromised username and password, you can get full access immediately," he says. "Normally, high-sensitivity platforms would require users to enable MFA. Snowflake not only does not require MFA but also makes it very hard for administrators to enforce this."

**5\. Check Your Third Parties**

Finally, companies should also note that — even if they are not using Snowflake or another cloud service — a third-party provider may use the service for its back end, exposing their data to risk, says IANS Research's Williams.

"Your data may be in Snowflake, even if you're not using it," he says. "That's the complexities of supply chains today ... you're giving your data to a third-party service provider, who is then putting it into Snowflake and may or may not be using best practices."

Organizations should reach out to all of their service providers with access to their data and ensure that they are taking the proper steps to protect that information, Williams says.

**About the Author(s)**

Veteran technology journalist of more than 20 years. Former research engineer. Written for more than two dozen publications, including CNET News.com, Dark Reading, MIT's Technology Review, Popular Science, and Wired News. Five awards for journalism, including Best Deadline Journalism (Online) in 2003 for coverage of the Blaster worm. Crunches numbers on various trends using Python and R. Recent reports include analyses of the shortage in cybersecurity workers and annual vulnerability trends.

Multifactor Authentication Is Not Enough to Protect Cloud Data

Audit compliance not only demonstrates commitment to data security and privacy but also builds trust with customers and stakeholders.

Jason Miller, No-code Evangelist & Principal Consultant, Creatio

June 21, 2024

4 Min Read

Source: NicoElNino via Alamy Stock Photo

COMMENTARY

The data collected through the growing adoption of digital technologies presents enterprises with a chance to enhance their engagement strategies and a gives them a duty to ensure the security of customer information.  

A recent survey conducted by McKinsey shows the growing awareness among consumers about privacy rights, with 87% of respondents indicating they would not do business with an organization if they had concerns about its security practices. Given this increasing public awareness, the approach businesses take toward managing data and privacy can serve as a key differentiator and even provide a strategic advantage in the marketplace.  

Service Organization Control 2 (SOC 2) is an auditing procedure that ensures service providers securely manage data to protect the privacy of their clients and the interests of the organization. It serves as a benchmark for service-oriented businesses to showcase their dedication to the highest standards of data security. 

**Steps Toward SOC 2 Type II Compliance**

Achieving SOC 2 Type II compliance can be a daunting task. Here's a comprehensive road map to assist companies in navigating this journey more smoothly: 

**1\. Understand the Requirements  **

Understanding the specific requirements of SOC 2 Type II involves familiarizing yourself with the five trust service criteria (TSC) — security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy — and determining which apply to your organization's operations. 

**2\. Conduct a Gap Analysis **

A thorough gap analysis, covering all aspects of your operations, from IT infrastructure to employee training programs, helps identify areas where your current controls may fall short of SOC 2 standards. Automate this process by collecting data across various systems and generating reports that highlight discrepancies between current practices and SOC 2 standards. 

**3\. Develop and Implement Controls **

Following your gap analysis, develop applications or workflows that address identified gaps without the need for extensive coding — including automating compliance processes, enhancing data protection measures, or streamlining access controls — making it easier to tailor solutions to your organization's specific needs.  

**4\. Document Policies and Procedures **

Documentation is a critical component of SOC 2 Type II compliance. It's not enough to have controls in place; you must also have documented policies and procedures that describe how these controls are implemented and maintained. Creating and managing documentation can help organize policies and procedures in an easily accessible manner, ensuring that they are up to date and readily available for both your team and auditors. 

**5\. Engage in Continuous Monitoring **

SOC 2 Type II requires evidence of continuous monitoring and effectiveness of controls over time. Set up automated monitoring systems to track the performance of your controls in real-time, alerting you to any issues immediately, which helps in maintaining continuous compliance and addressing problems promptly.

**6\. Choose a Qualified Auditor **

Selecting the right auditor is crucial for a successful SOC 2 Type II audit. Look for auditors with experience in your industry and a deep understanding of the SOC 2 framework. The right auditor will not only assess your compliance but can also provide insights that help improve your security posture. 

**7\. Prepare for the Audit **

Preparation is key to a successful audit. Organize documentation, controls evidence, and compliance reports in a centralized database. This ensures that all necessary information is easily accessible and can be presented efficiently during the audit. 

**8\. Continuous Improvement **

Compliance with SOC 2 Type II is not a one-time event but an ongoing commitment. By automating this process, you can enable quick adjustments to workflows, policies, and controls, allowing your organization to stay agile and adapt to new threats, regulatory changes, or business growth, without the need for extensive coding resources.  

**Secure the Future with Customers' Trust  **

Achieving SOC 2 Type II compliance is a significant undertaking, but enterprises can improve the efficiency and accuracy of audits by streamlining data collection, verification, and anomaly detection processes via unified workflow automation, automated reports and dashboards, and single-source data storage that eliminates out-of-sync or duplicate data. Audit compliance is an investment in a company's future. It not only demonstrates the commitment to data security and privacy but also builds trust with customers and stakeholders. By following these steps and fostering a culture of continuous improvement, organizations can navigate the SOC 2 Type II compliance process more effectively and establish themselves as leaders in data security.

**About the Author(s)**

No-code Evangelist & Principal Consultant, Creatio

Jason Miller is a digital leader and no-code evangelist who enables companies to improve their operations through no-code technology and helps drive value in their business workflows with a focus on productivity, automation, and higher customer engagement. With more than 15 years of experience in technological solutions spanning various industries, he has helped numerous organizations bring their projects to life by delivering a unique view into how the advent of digital technologies can vastly increase the pace of change in business environments.

Securing Customers' Trust With SOC 2 Type II Compliance

CDK Global, which makes software for car dealers, experienced a cyber incident that halted vehicle sales and service across the US.

Source: Joe Hendrickson via Alamy Stock Photo

A supply chain cyberattack on software provider CDK Global forced thousands of car dealerships to shut down Wednesday, a traditionally busy day for sales with the Juneteenth holiday.

Reports said the first dealerships started getting booted offline around 2 a.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 19. Some shut down altogether, unable to access critical information, while others maintained some services by relying on paper records.

On Thursday morning, CDK said that there had been a second cyber incident.

"Late in the evening of June 19, we experienced an additional cyber incident and proactively shut down most of our systems," CDK said in a statement provided to Dark Reading. "In partnership with third party experts, we are assessing the impact and providing regular updates to our customers."

CDK's statement added that it took systems offline as a precaution.

"We are continuing to conduct extensive tests on all other applications, and we will provide updates as we bring those applications back online," CDK said in its statement. "Our first priority is always the security of our customers, and our actions reflect our obligation to them as a trusted partner."

**Looking for Answers**

The specific nature of the supply chain cyber incident and whether systems have been restored remains unclear. However, Roger Grimes, data-driven defense evangelist with KnownBe4, said he suspects ransomware.

"It hasn't been released what type of 'cyber incident' this is, but there's a good chance it's related to ransomware," Grimes said in a statement. "When more details are released, I hope part of the details include how the cyber threat made its way into CDK's systems (e.g., social engineering, unpatched software or firmware, etc.). Because in order to mitigate future occurrences you need to start with how the current incident was caused."

According to Andrew Costis, chapter lead on the adversary research team at AttackIQ, the cyber incident is far from over for dealerships that rely on CDK software.

"CDK is suffering from not one, but two cyberattacks that have caused the SaaS provider to shut down IT systems," he told Dark Reading in a statement. "Given the extensive reliance on this third-party vendor, the fallout from this attack reverberates throughout the entire automotive industry."

Thousands of Car Dealerships Stalled Out After Software Provider Cyberattack

The notorious cyber espionage group has been harrying French interests for years, and isn't flagging now as the Paris Olympics approach.

Source: Paul Ward via Alamy Stock Photo

Midnight Blizzard, the Russia-backed advanced persistent threat (APT) behind the 2016 US elections interference and the 2020 SolarWinds attacks, has been taking aim at French diplomatic entities since at least 2021 — and it remains an active threat, according to French CERT.

Russia, which not coincidentally is banned from the upcoming Summer Olympics in Paris, shows no sign of easing off of its cyberattack activities, particularly against Ukraine and European friends of Ukraine, IT companies, and US critical infrastructure.

Now, CERT-FR has warned in a recent alert that Midnight Blizzard (aka Nobelium, APT29, Cozy Bear, and The Dukes) has been consistently attempting to exfiltrate strategic intelligence from embassies and diplomats, in an activity cluster it calls "Diplomatic Orbiter." The targets have included the French Ministry of Culture, the National Agency for Territorial Cohesion, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the country's embassy in Ukraine, and others.

"Most of Nobelium campaigns against diplomatic entities use compromised legitimate email accounts belonging to diplomatic staff, and conduct phishing campaigns against diplomatic institutions, embassies, and consulates," according to the CERT-FR alert (PDF). "These activities are also publicly described as a campaign called 'Diplomatic Orbiter.' The lure documents used in these attacks are typically forged to target diplomatic staff."

Once gaining initial access, the operators attempt to deliver custom, first-stage loaders to execute public tools such as Cobalt Strike or Brute Ratel C4. The ultimate goal is to access the victim's network, ensure persistence, and exfiltrate data. Many of the attacks have been unsuccessful, the organization stressed.

**About the Author(s)**

Russia's Midnight Blizzard Seeks to Snow French Diplomats

The old, but newly disclosed, vulnerability is buried deep inside personal computers, servers, and mobile devices, and their supply chains, making remediation a headache.

Source: Alexander Cimbal via Alamy Stock Photo

A vast swath of computers is likely to be affected by a newly published vulnerability in Intel processors.

CVE-2024-0762, unfortunately nicknamed "UEFIcanhazbufferoverflow," is a buffer overflow issue affecting multiple versions of Phoenix Technologies' SecureCore Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) firmware. First disclosed by the vendor in May, it has now been described in detail by Eclypsium researchers in a blog post.

They first spotted it back in November, while analyzing UEFI images in Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon 7th Gen and X1 Yoga 4th Gen laptops. The problem lies in an unsafe call to the GetVariable() runtime service, used for reading the contents of a UEFI variable. A lack of adequate checks could allow an attacker to feed it too much data, thereby causing an overflow. From there, the attacker could take advantage by escalating privileges and executing code in a targeted machine during runtime.

Even worse than the severity of the bug, though, is its spread. Intel supplies the majority of PC processors sold around the world, and SecureCore firmware runs on 10 different generations of Intel chips. Eclypsium estimates it could affect hundreds of PC models across a wide spectrum of vendors.

**The Rub With UEFI**

There are few areas of a machine where malicious attacks are so effective, and so difficult to excise, as UEFI and its predecessor, BIOS. As the firmware interface that controls how a system boots, it is the first and most privileged code that runs once a user hits the power button on their device.

Its special status has attracted attackers far and wide in recent years, allowing them to nab root-level privileges, establish persistence through reboots, bypass security programs that might otherwise catch more traditional malware, and more.

"It's not not really the greatest place to hack into, but it is a really good place to set up shop," explains Nate Warfield, director of threat research and intelligence with Eclypsium.

"If you have code execution during that stage of a computer booting, you can drop something into the boot sector. Or you can use this vector to inject malware into Windows before it starts." He points to the recent CosmicStrand UEFI rootkit as a case in point. It's also what makes UEFIcanhazbufferoverflow so dangerous.

Still, it was only assigned a "high" 7.5 out of 10 in the CVSS scoring system. That, Warfield says, comes down to a couple of factors.

First, it requires that an attacker already have access to their targeted machine. 

Additionally, unlike your typical headline vulnerability, exploits in this case may need to be customized to a certain degree depending on the targeted computer model's configuration, and the permissions assigned to the problematic variable, adding a certain degree of complexity to the whole affair.

**The Good News and (More) Bad**

Unfortunately, this same complexity extends to vendors developing patches.

"The vulnerability we found affected a whole bunch of different versions of \[Phoenix's\] UEFI code. So they had to patch all of those for their customers, and now everyone has to go and pull those and package them up for all the versions of their BIOS," Warfield explains. "They may end up having to fix 10, 15, or 20 different tiny differences \[in architecture\] because this one supports this many GPUs, this one supports different hardware configurations for the motherboard. It's impossible to know."

Lenovo — which coordinated with the researchers in recent months — started releasing fixes last month, though some computers will remain exposed until later in the summer. Other, more recently informed original equipment and design manufacturers will surely take even longer. Organizations using Intel-powered computers can do little more than twiddle their thumbs in the meantime.

"This is the whole supply chain problem in a nutshell," Warfield says. "We informed the vendor. We have to wait for them to tell their customers' OEMs, who have to package their fixes and deliver it to their customers, who are the end users."

**About the Author(s)**

Nate Nelson is a freelance writer based in New York City. Formerly a reporter at Threatpost, he contributes to a number of cybersecurity blogs and podcasts. He writes "Malicious Life" -- an award-winning Top 20 tech podcast on Apple and Spotify -- and hosts every other episode, featuring interviews with leading voices in security. He also co-hosts "The Industrial Security Podcast," the most popular show in its field.

High-Risk Overflow Bug in Intel Chips Likely Impacts 100s of PC Models

The stream was briefly knocked offline, preventing millions of fans from accessing the game. Poland's head of digital services says "all leads lead to the Russian Federation."

Source: Fifg via Alamy Stock Photo

The UEFA Euro 2024 soccer championship tournament kicked off last weekend, but fans of European national teams aren't the only ones paying attention. Cyberattackers took aim at Polish public television, TVP, disrupting its online broadcast of Poland's Group D opening match against the Netherlands.

The broadcaster determined that the attack was a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) effort that was timed for the start of the match.

"At about 3 p.m., Polish Television recorded a DDoS attack carried out from IP addresses located in Poland," TVP said in a statement on social platform X (via Google Translate). "After less than a minute, we took action in collaboration with national operators, which led to a mitigation of the attack. The IT teams have restored the service."

**An Accidental Crash, or Russian Harrying?**

Bartłomiej Wypartowicz, editor at Eastern European cybersecurity outlet Defence 24, quickly raised the possibility that the incident might not have been malicious; more than half of the population in Poland reportedly tried to access the stream, and the group responsible for the majority of the traffic appears to be a legitimate community called "fans of the Polish national team on Sunday after lunch."

He posted on X, "Millions of IP addresses want to visit the site" (via Google Translate).

However, Pawel Olszewski, Poland's deputy minister of digital affairs, said in an interview with local media yesterday that the crash was certainly malicious, and likely backed by Russia, which wanted to "prevent Polish citizens from watching the match online."

Cybercriminals have a long history of attacking major world sporting events — from the now-infamous Russia-led Olympic Destroyer attacks against the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, to attempted disruptions to the 2022 UEFA World Cup in Qatar, to threats against the upcoming Summer Games in Paris.

In this case, "all leads lead to the Russian Federation," Olszewski told Radio RMF24 (via Google Translate). "It was a DDoS attack aimed at disabling the service. … This attack was repelled very quickly."

**About the Author(s)**

Tara Seals has 20+ years of experience as a journalist, analyst and editor in the cybersecurity, communications and technology space. Prior to Dark Reading, Tara was Editor in Chief at Threatpost, and prior to that, the North American news lead for Infosecurity Magazine. She also spent 13 years working for Informa (formerly Virgo Publishing), as executive editor and editor-in-chief at publications focused on both the service provider and the enterprise arenas. A Texas native, she holds a B.A. from Columbia University, lives in Western Massachusetts with her family and is on a never-ending quest for good Mexican food in the Northeast.

DDoS Attack Targets Poland's UEFA Euro Opening Match

Had the bill become a law, it would have given consumers the right to sue companies that violate their privacy.

Source: Wangkun Jia via Alamy Stock Photo

The Vermont General Assembly this week failed to override Gov. Phil Scott's veto of H.121, a bill that would have given the state one of the strongest data privacy protection laws in the US. While the Vermont House voted 128-17 to override, the state Senate voted 14 yeas to 15 nays, leaving the governor's veto standing and killing the bill.

The bill, officially named "An act relating to enhancing consumer privacy and the age-appropriate design code," notably contained a right-of-action provision that would allow consumers to sue companies that misused their sensitive data. The other half of the bill, dubbed "Kids Code," would have required online services targeted at people under 18 years old to account for privacy and to ensure that all content kids could access was appropriate for children.

In his June 13 letter to the General Assembly, Gov. Scott said he was vetoing the bill because the data privacy component would create a hostile business environment in the Green Mountain State. Scott also noted that the Kids Code part of the bills brought up First Amendment issues that California was already dealing with in courts. He recommended that Vermont adopt Connecticut's less litigious data privacy law to address the first half and wait for California to straighten out legal challenges to the second.

Companies might breathe a sigh of relief to avoid having to meet yet another set of data privacy requirements. If an organization conducts business in the European Union, for example, it has to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). As many as 19 US states have passed data privacy laws of their own, according to an industry interest group. And while federal data privacy legislation is still under development, US President Joe Biden issued an executive order at the end of February to firm up policies about how user data is handled nationally and internationally.

**About the Author(s)**

Dark Reading

The Edge is Dark Reading's home for features, threat data and in-depth perspectives on cybersecurity.

Consumer Privacy Bill Fails in Vermont

The "Markopolo" threat actors built a convincing brand and Web presence for fake software to deliver the dangerous Atomic macOS stealer, among other malware, to carry out cryptocurrency heists.

Source: Klaus Ohlenschlaeger via Alamy Stock Photo

A widespread campaign aimed at stealing cryptocurrency is spreading a wave of infostealers through fake virtual meeting software for both macOS and Windows platforms, particularly targeting the former with the dangerous Atomic stealer.

Discovered by Recorded Future's Insikt Group, the campaign attributed to a threat actor dubbed "Markopolo" is responsible for an elaborate Web and social media presence for a fake app called Vortax, according to a report (PDF) published this week.

Vortax is purported to be virtual meeting software for various platforms but actually is a delivery mechanism for three infostealers: Rhadamanthys, Stealc, and Atomic, the researchers found. Attackers target cryptocurrency users in the campaign through social media and Telegram channels for the purpose of stealing credentials, so they can in turn steal crypto from them, according to Insikt.

The campaign is connected to a previously reported attack by Markopolo, identified then only as a Russian-speaking threat group, that previously targeted the Web3 gaming community. The group is known for using shared hosting and command-and-control (C2) infrastructure in order to be able to pivot agilely to new scams when detected, according to Insikt.

"The campaign indicates a widespread credential-harvesting operation, potentially positioning Markopolo as an initial access broker or 'log vendor' on Dark Web shops like Russian Market or 2easy Shop," Insikt Group wrote in a blog post associated with the report.

The activity also demonstrates an uptick in infostealers that target macOS, which traditionally have been less prevalent than their Windows counterparts, Insikt Group noted in its report. Reports of Atomic stealer in particular have been on the rise based on recent research.

"The high volume of \[Atomic\] activity observed in this campaign builds on previous Insikt Group reporting, which found that mentions of macOS malware and exploit kits increased by 79% year-on-year from 2022 to 2023," according to the report. This "may indicate" a link between the overall number of references to macOS malware and the increased frequency of Atomic stealer campaigns observed in the wild, the researchers noted.

**Vortax: Threats Hiding Behind a Convincing Brand**

The foundation of the campaign is in Vortax, a fake "self-proclaimed" virtual meeting software marketed as cross-platform and AI-enhanced for which attackers built a convincing online brand. All major search engines index Vortax, which has a presence (@VortaxSpace) on social media platforms and even maintains a Medium blog using what are likely AI-generated articles.

The company behind the software claims to operate out of an address in Toronto that is actually an apartment building, and even boasts online about bogus awards from respected publications such as Forbes. However, closer inspection revealed that Vortax is a fraud, particularly shown by related website domains, vortax.io and vortax.space — the latter of which has since been suspended — that are rife with spelling and grammatical errors, according to Insikt.

Vortax advertises applications for Windows, Linux, macOS, iOS, and Android on its sites, though users cannot actually download the applications without a “Room ID," which functions as a meeting invitation.

Accounts associated with Vortax have four primary methods for sharing Room IDs — the most common of which are R12307012, R39264552, R87103129, and R71231209. These methods include: replies to the Vortax account on social media; direct messages on social media; posting in cryptocurrency-related Telegram channels; and posting in cryptocurrency-themed Discord channels.

These IDs ultimately lead to an installer for downloading Vortax, which as described just a front for delivering infostealing malware. On Windows platforms, the fake software delivers Rhadamanthys and Stealc, while it loads the Atomic stealer on macOS platforms.

To the user, it appears that Vortax is never actually installed, with the installation process "claiming that it encounters critical errors that impede it from running," while the software is actually "running many malicious processes" in the background, according to the report.

**Mitigation Against Malware-Hiding Software**

Insikt made a number of suggestions for mitigating the campaign, particularly across the macOS platform — which increasingly is being targeted and thus demands new vigilance and "robust defense strategies," according to the report.

Indeed, the distribution of Atomic stealer, previously distributed via fake software updates, demonstrates a pivot by by infostealing threat actors to macOS. One mitigation for the campaign, then, is to ensure that detection systems for Atomic infostealer are regularly updated to prevent infections, according to Insikt.

Organizations also should educate users on the risks of downloading unapproved software, especially from social media or search engines, and implement strict security controls to prevent employees from doing so. They also should encourage corporate network users to report suspicious activities encountered on social media and other platforms.

According to Insikt Group, using intelligence and monitoring platforms that scan for malicious domains and IP addresses associated with Atomic stealer and other macOS malware also can help prevent infection.

**About the Author(s)**

Elizabeth Montalbano is a freelance writer, journalist, and therapeutic writing mentor with more than 25 years of professional experience. Her areas of expertise include technology, business, and culture. Elizabeth previously lived and worked as a full-time journalist in Phoenix, San Francisco, and New York City; she currently resides in a village on the southwest coast of Portugal. In her free time, she enjoys surfing, hiking with her dogs, traveling, playing music, yoga, and cooking.

'Vortax' Meeting Software Builds Elaborate Branding, Spreads Infostealers

The updated framework is an equalizer for smaller organizations to meet the industry at its breakneck pace of innovation.

Jamie Moles, Senior Technical Manager, ExtraHop

June 20, 2024

4 Min Read

Source: Skorzewiak via Alamy Stock Photo

COMMENTARY

The National Institute of Standards and Technology's Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 (NIST CSF 2.0) could not have come at a better time. Ransomware attacks have already built up a devastating track record on businesses and institutions across all industries in the past year: 58% of respondents to a recent survey experienced six or more ransomware attacks in the past 12 months. This comes among other concerns, including data breaches, generative AI threats, insider threats, and more, proving that cybersecurity needs to be more accessible than ever.

Historically, industry guidance to prevent these attacks was aimed at critical infrastructure or larger enterprises in high-risk industries. But cybersecurity is an "everyone" problem, and many organizations are beginning to catch on to the idea that cyber-risks are just as important as all other business risks. The same survey found that the average incident downtime is 56 hours, and considering that a survey conducted by ABB in 2023 puts the median cost of downtime at nearly $125,000 per hour, this downtime would cost $7 million — per incident. 

NIST's CSF 2.0, released this February, provides an important resource for organizations of all sizes to avoid these far-reaching costs by reexamining their security initiatives, fending off evolving threats, and preparing to meet today's innovations with a more guided approach. While just a framework, it can be used to inform three critical changes all organizations should make in the year ahead.

**Three Critical Changes Everyone Should Make in the Coming Year****1\. Building a New Approach to Securing Infrastructure**

The path to securing infrastructure may seem like an obvious route: Get the right tools to detect, defend, and respond to security incidents. But one area organizations often miss, and one of the most significant additions to NIST CSF 2.0, is governance. 

A strong governance strategy establishes all people, process, and organizational concerns for cybersecurity. This includes the development of a cybersecurity strategy and policies, oversight for the strategy and policies, controls for supply chain, and more. 

This is especially important for smaller companies with plans to continue scaling. Having a set plan in place to quickly and efficiently react to a potential security breach can alleviate the capital losses that come with the territory: Net income, quarterly earnings, and stock prices all drop significantly after data breaches. An effective plan can possibly reduce those effects.

**2\. Investing to Fit Specific Business Needs**

An organization may choose to handle risk in one or more ways, and this all depends on its specific business needs. NIST CSF 2.0 can help determine areas and levels of risk, and from there, organizations can decide on the right solutions. This can feel overwhelming for many organizations, especially as solution providers are continuously innovating and developing new tools.

One universal truth in the industry is that security operations center (SOC) analysts are overwhelmed and resource strapped. AI- and ML-based solutions have arisen as a helpful bridge in combating this industry burnout to effectively manage risk and build business resilience against threats. Additionally, tools that enhance visibility are essential in further securing the attack surface. Despite investments in vulnerability management, endpoint detection and response (EDR), and security information and event management (SIEM) tools, there are many blind spots in the network, cloud, and more that organizations need to address as well.

**3\. Developing an Organizationwide Approach to Security Hygiene**

While the right tools are essential, a critical part of NIST CSF 2.0's "Protect" focuses on awareness, training, and identity and access management as critical safeguards to managing risk. While the framework calls out a great number of risk factors, overall cyber hygiene is a critically undervalued part of cybersecurity.

This is an age-old method that works for attackers time and time again, and the costs add up. Luckily, for smaller organizations, they typically perform best on the cyber hygiene bell curve, with midsize organizations lagging behind. But one successful attack can be all it takes to financially destabilize a small organization, as respondents paid an average of nearly $2.5 million in ransom in 2023, and generative AI has only made social engineering attacks easier. 

**Taking Advantage of Industry Resources**

Though it provides essential guidelines, keep in mind that NIST's CSF 2.0 is meant to be used in conjunction with other frameworks and guidance, and is not a catch-all solution. It's also designed to be customized as an organization grows and evolves.

However, the framework is an equalizer for smaller organizations to meet the industry at its breakneck pace of innovation now that it is designed for organizations of all sizes. This includes understanding how threat actors are advancing and the new tools to defend against them, both of which are essential to building business resilience in the long run.

**About the Author(s)**

Senior Technical Manager, ExtraHop

Jamie Moles is senior technical manager at ExtraHop. He brings more than 30 years of cybersecurity experience helping customers understand and mitigate the risk contemporary threats pose to their business.

Source

DARKReading