A Facebook Messenger phish is asking would-be victims to "take a look". But what lies in wait for eager clickers?
The post “Look what I found here” phish targets Facebook users appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

Facebook-themed messages are a frequent source of bogus links from both spam and compromised accounts. Whether you receive the messages via SMS, the Messenger app, or just inside regular web chat, it pays to be careful. A wide variety of attacks use bogus messages as their launchpad, and the risk of account compromise is ever-present. Phishing is not the only threat. Scammers will also happily send “check this out” messages and direct you to malware. This is why it’s crucial to be careful around links…any link. You just never know.

One such phishing message is currently doing the rounds in Dutch, and it plugs into a sense of FOMO to encourage you to click the link. It was first observed back in March, and appears to be making a comeback.

**How does this phish attack work?**

This is the message currently in circulation, being distributed through a compromised account:

> _Kijk eens wat ik hier heb gevonden?? \[url\]_

The message says “Look what I found here”.

This is a very common tactic, not giving anything away and almost baiting you into clicking. There’s a few others along these lines being sent to people in Facebook Messenger at the moment. One style of message is one that asks something along the lines of “Have you seen who died/Guess who died”. The answer, of course, is nobody has died. However, the aim of the game is to have you panic and hit the link without thinking.

It’s a similar technique in play here, although nowhere remotely as panic-inducing.

All the same, the link redirects to a fake Facebook page on what looks like a compromised photography website.

The site says “Facebook needs to verify that it’s you, log in to continue” and asks for mobile number/email and password.

Hitting the login button submits the data and redirects you through several different domains. In testing, we kept hitting a Google 404 error but you may well end up somewhere else depending on region, type of browser, device, and so on.

If you’ve entered your login after clicking through from a random message in this fashion, stop what you’re doing. Go to Facebook and change your password as soon as you possibly can.

**The power of “friendly” messaging**

The big problem with rogue messages via IM is the aspect of sender trust. If a link is sent to you from a total stranger on a public platform like Twitter, you’ll probably be sceptical and treat it with the caution it deserves. An SMS from a number you don’t recognise? They have some success depending on scam type, but you’d probably expect a banking phish or a fake parcel delivery message through that route.

But if you get a message from someone within your closed network of friends and family, where you may interact dozens or even hundreds of times a day, then it’s likely you’ll be clicking those links with a lot more confidence.

Sadly, accounts belonging to those you trust can be hijacked like any others. If your dad’s Facebook account was compromised yesterday and you woke to a link and a message which reads “Look what I found here”, what would you do?

Phishers know that if they can crack an account, it’ll almost certainly be allowed to send messages to people in its immediate circle as their security settings will permit them access. After all, you don’t add your closest relatives to Facebook and then _prevent_ them from sending you messages.

**Tips to avoid falling for rogue messages**

*   Watch out for messages which don’t logically follow on from the natural flow of a conversation, or a few hours after you stopped talking. “This you”, “Have you seen this photo”, “Did you hear who died”, “OMG I can’t believe it” all tied to a URL should raise some red flags.
*   If you’re presented with a “Login to view content” box, question why that is. If you’re on the Facebook website talking to someone and already logged in, there should be no reason why you’d be asked to login again. Check the URL. Does it say Facebook.com? Or is it a totally unrelated domain?
*   If you have an alternative method of communication with the person who sent you the message, try it. Ask them if they sent you a message on Facebook, and wait for their response before doing anything.
*   Enable 2-factor authentication (2FA). If you hand over your password to a phishing page, the phisher can’t do much with it while you’re protected with 2FA. This isn’t a silver bullet though, as more and more phishers are also taking 2FA codes with them when they phish your details.
*   Add login alerts to your Facebook account. If someone does manage to get hold of your login credentials and access your account, you’ll get notified by Facebook as soon as this happens so you can grab your account back as soon as possible.

Once your friend or family member regains access to their account, you can point them to these tips for keeping their own account locked down too. This way, you’ll be that little bit more safer next time account harvesting phishers are on the prowl.

Stay safe out there!

“Look what I found here” phish targets Facebook users

The 360° Assessment & Certification from MRG-Effitas can offer guidance to SMBs looking for a simple, effective cybersecurity product. 
The post Why MRG-Effitas matters to SMBs appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

When selecting the right cybersecurity vendor to protect their operations, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) can lean on several third-party research organizations that analyze which cybersecurity products can best prevent, detect, and clean up various types of cyberattacks today.

But these tests can sometimes assume a level of end-user complexity—and funding and staffing—that the average SMB might lack. Without a full-time security team, or even a single full-time internal IT hire, an SMB could unwittingly purchase a cybersecurity product that, while effective, requires a level of expertise they simply do not have.

This is where one third-party research team, in particular, can help.

MRG-Effitas, which produces quarterly reports about cybersecurity products that publicly participate in evaluations, focuses its analyses on “real world” malware attacks and detection capabilities. Not only do the researchers test malware samples that are currently infecting endpoints across the world, but the researchers also stress the importance of simple, effective notifications that will help the average user respond to any detected cyberthreat.

“Simulating normal user behaviour means that we pay special attention to all alerts given by security applications,” wrote the researchers in their most recent quarterly report for their program, the “360° Assessment & Certification.”

The 360° Assessment & Certification combines several tests that are then grouped into four separate certifications. Based on how a cybersecurity product performed in certain tests, that product will either earn a certificate or not. This almost-binary representation of a product’s performance is simple and effective, and it can help to quickly inform an SMB about whether a certain product is right for their company.

At the core of the MRG-Effitas certification process—which tests how products respond to known exploits, ransomware, botnets, adware, and more—is the user.

“A pass is given only when alerts are straightforward, and clearly suggest that the malicious action should be blocked,” the report said. “With this in mind, it is very important to note that the best choice for an average user is to keep things as simple as possible and not to overwhelm them with cryptic pop-ups, alerts or questions.”

****Testing and certification****

The 360° Assessment & Certification by MRG-Effitas involves the following nine rounds of testing:

*   In the Wild/Full Spectrum Test
*   PUA/Adware Test
*   Exploit/Fileless Test
*   Real Botnet Test
*   Banking Simulator Test
*   Ransomware Simulator Test
*   False Positive Ransomware Test
*   False Positive Test
*   Performance Test

Each test has a specific purpose, from testing how cybersecurity products respond to an end-user visiting a malicious URL that delivers malware, to the detection of non-malicious but meddlesome applications such as adware, to even testing how a product responds to live ransomware samples observed in real world applications, and to simulated ransomware samples developed by MRG-Effitas. Importantly, MRG-Effitas also tests the performance load of each cybersecurity product, analyzing how much time it takes to perform certain tasks on devices that have the cybersecurity product installed.

While MRG-Effitas performs testing in the above nine categories, it only awards certificates in four categories: The 360° Assessment, the 360° Exploit Degree, the 360° Online Banking Degree, and the 360° Ransomware Degree.

For the 360° Assessment, MRG-Effitas assigns two levels of certification—Level 1 and Level 2—depending on how successfully a cybersecurity product detected the cyberthreats that were launched at it during testing. A vendor only receives Level 1 certification if it detected all threats on “first exposure or via behaviour protection,” the report said, and it passed the Real Botnet Test.

The malware load used during the 360° Assessment is significant. In the most recent round, it involved 360 “In The Wild” samples that included: “20 trojans, 54 backdoors, 50 financial malware samples, 53 ransomware, 49 spyware, 84 malicious documents, \[and\] 50 malicious script files.”

Just four products publicly received a Level 1 certification in the recent 360° Assessment: Malwarebytes Endpoint Protection, Bitdefender Endpoint Security, Microsoft Windows Defender, and Symantec Endpoint Protection.

A similar test deploys 50 financial malware samples against the detection and protection capabilities of the cybersecurity products, along with simulated banking malware. Five products publicly received the 360° Online Banking Certification: Malwarebytes Endpoint Protection, Avira Antivirus Pro, Bitdefender Endpoint Security, ESET Endpoint Security, and Symantec Endpoint Protection.

****Ransomware simulations****

In just the past decade, ransomware has evolved tremendously. Developers of the infamous family of malware have gone from asking for measly sums of money from individuals to creating entire business models in which they license out their ransomware tool to other threat actors. When those threat actors successfully hit a business—which they could have purchased access to from other threat actors—the original ransomware developers take a cut of whatever eventual payment is made. To make matters worse, threat actors have also begun deploying ransomware that not only encrypts a company’s files, but it also first exfiltrates any sensitive data, which the threat actors then use as a second point of leverage: Pay up or your data will be published for everyone to see.

The researchers at MRG-Effitas, recognizing this rapid pace of ransomware evolution, have, for years, tested cybersecurity products against ransomware samples developed in-house that could represent where ransomware development is headed in just months or years.

In the most recent 360° Assessment & Certification, MRG-Effitas deployed 53 ransomware samples against the cybersecurity products, and an additional four simulated ransomware samples. To achieve the 360° Ransomware Certification, a product must have protected a device from the 53 ransomware samples and 4 simulated ransomware simulated samples, and it must have passed the false positive ransomware test.

In the most recent round of testing, all nine publicly-evaluated cybersecurity products achieved ransomware certification.

****Performance****

Understanding whether a cybersecurity product works well is, obviously, important. But of similar importance to SMBs is understanding what impact a cybersecurity product will have on a suite of endpoints. Without large budgets that could allow for constantly refreshed, new devices to be purchased, SMBs should consider how much a cybersecurity product could slow down their organizations’ devices.

Thankfully, MRG-Effitas analyzes cybersecurity products based on their impact on performing simple operations, like downloading a file, opening a Microsoft Office program, or opening a website. The analysis also measures the time spent performing a security software update and the CPU usage during the update process.

Unlike the certificates offered by MRG-Effitas for other categories, there is no certificate or “pass/fail” result when testing performance. Instead, SMBs can look at the performance measurements for each product in the latest 360° Assessment & Certification.

****Less “interpretation,” quicker answers****

The simplicity of MRG-Effitas’ 360° Assessment & Certification gives SMBs a quick guide into what cybersecurity products could be the right fit for them. Without having to dive into countless interpretive reports from each cybersecurity vendor, SMBs can instead look at the most recent 360° Assessment & Certification and ask themselves: Which of these products received certification and which did not?

Knowing that MRG-Effitas hews its testing ideology to the user—only offering certifications for products that clearly notify and warn users about how to respond to a threat—SMBs can be sure that whatever tool they choose will, at the very least, be easy to use on their end.

Why MRG-Effitas matters to SMBs

Research from Malwarebytes reveals an enormous, coronavirus-fuelled surge in malware detections in 2021.
The post How COVID-19 fuelled a surge in malware appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

2021 saw a massive surge in detections of malware, adware, and Potentially Unwanted Programs (PUPs). It didn’t matter what the computers were used for or what operating system they ran—across business and home computers, on Windows and on Mac, detections went up, enormously.

Detections of malware on Windows business machines were 143% higher in 2021 than in 2020, and 65% higher on consumer machines.

Windows malware detection totals 2019-2021

Detections of malware, adware, and PUPs on macOS increased almost 220%.

Mac malware, adware and PUP detection totals 2019-2021

The background to this extraordinary jump in detections is the coronavirus pandemic, so we call this surge in detections the “Covid bounce”.

**The Covid bounce**

In 2020, the recently-discovered novel coronavirus, and the restrictions put in place to slow its progress, caused trillions of dollars of lost economic activity and a mass migration of knowledge workers from offices to homes.

Almost all forms of business suffered—even illegal ones like cybercrime. Crooks were just as likely to get COVID-19 as anyone else, and the targets they preyed upon changed beyond recognition.

Many businesses wound down or folded, and those that didn’t had to upend their IT infrastructure overnight to support working from home. How people worked, where they worked, the tools they used, and the things they cared about were all in flux.

No wonder then, that in 2020, malware detections on Windows business machines fell 24%.

The effect was not spread evenly across all types of malware though. Detections of Emotet and TrickBot collapsed by 89% and 69% respectively, leading some to speculate that while these highly sophisticated forms of malware were extremely effective at permeating corporate networks they may be poorly adapted to exploit the work-from-home environment.

Meanwhile, detections of hacking tools, information stealers, and other malware that could help criminals better understand the transformation in their victims’ environments, increased considerably.

In 2021, as restrictions lifted gradually around the world, and as organisations and the criminals preying on them adapted to remote and hybrid work, detection numbers climbed precipitously.

And they didn’t simply return to the pre-Covid status quo, they soared past 2019’s numbers. In 2021, the detection numbers for business threats were 85% higher than in 2019, and consumer threat detections were 47% higher.

Cryptocurrency values soared in 2021 and, to nobody’s surprise, detections of malware that mines cryptocurrencies increased more than 300 precent.

Adware, spyware, and worms all displayed an enormous bounce back in 2021, climbing 200%, and detections of email threats showed a considerable “Covid bounce” too. But while the old guard of Emotet and TrickBot remained, they were not the presence of old as several new pretenders jostled for position.

It is impossible to say why detections bounced back so alarmingly last year, but the plain fact is that the world now is not the world of 2019. Events like the coronavirus pandemic have far-reaching effects that go far beyond the immediate, obvious and tragic health consequences, affecting all walks of life, even the security of your servers, laptops, and remote workers.

The pandemic accelerated the transition from a bricks-and-mortar to online existence, and for many businesses and services there is no going back.

After a period of adjustment and uncertainty in 2020, cybercrime seems to have emerged supremely well adapted to this new reality.

You can learn more about the Covid bounce and how it changed the outlook for cyberthreats into 2022 and beyond in the Malwarebytes 2022 Threat Review.

How COVID-19 fuelled a surge in malware

Threat actors have launched a new campaign that starts with compromised WordPress sites and leads to fake reCAPTCHA sites designed to get visitors to accept web push notifications.
The post Fake reCAPTCHA forms dupe users via compromised WordPress sites appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

Researchers at Sucuri investigated a number of WordPress websites complaining about unwanted redirects and found websites that use fake CAPTCHA forms to get the visitor to accept web push notifications.

These websites are a new wave of a campaign that leverages many compromised WordPress sites.

**CAPTCHA**

CAPTCHA (“Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart”) is one of the annoyances that we have learned to take for granted when we browse the Internet. Scientists developed CAPTCHA as a method to tell humans and bots apart so as to to keep bots from accessing sites or systems where they are not welcome.

Google bought and owns reCAPTCHA, which represents a CAPTCHA system expressly developed to reduce the needed amount of user interaction. The original version asked users to decipher hard to read text or match images. Version 2 required users to decipher text or match images if the analysis of cookies and canvas rendering suggested an automatic download of the page. Since version 3, reCAPTCHA doesn’t interrupt users, running automatically when users load pages or click buttons.

The basic version of a real reCAPTCHA the threat actors used as a template to create the fake ones looks like this:

_legitimate reCAPTCHA_

**The campaign**

The fake CAPTCHA sites are part of a long lasting campaign responsible for injecting malicious scripts into compromised WordPress websites. This campaign leverages known vulnerabilities in WordPress themes and plugins and has impacted an enormous number of websites over the years.

The compromised websites all share a common issue. The threat actors injected malicious JavaScript within the affected website’s files and database. Attackers attempted to automatically infect any .js file with jQuery in the name, on a compromised website. They then injected obfuscated code when successful. This malicious JavaScript was appended under the current script or under the head of the page where it was fired on every page load, redirecting site visitors to the destination chosen by the threat actor.

The Malwarebytes Threat Intelligence Team tracked a rogue affiliate’s traffic which flowed through the same **local\[.\]drakefollow\[.\]com** subdomain that was mentioned in the Sucuri blog. The threat actor chose to promote a legitimate security product in this case, but might as well have led visitors to potentially unwanted programs (PUPs), adware, or tech support scams.

_Traffic flow from compromised WordPress site to rogue affilate’s site_

**The fake CAPTCHA**

At this point in the chain of redirections, the fake reCAPTCHA websites kick in. The fake reCAPTCHA sites are the final step towards duping the visitor. The unsuspecting visitor will land on a site that tries to trick them into accepting push notifications from the landing page’s domain.

_fake reCAPTCHA_

Visitors think they need to click “Allow” to get past the CAPTCHA screen, when in fact they are giving permission to the domain to send them push notifications.

By design, push notifications work similarly across different operating systems and web browsers. They appear outside of the browser window just above the taskbar on the right hand side. This is misleading as they may seem to originate from the operating system. Knowing the difference between a web push notification and an alert that comes from the operating system or another program installed on the device is hard, and that makes it difficult for the unsuspecting user of an affected system to know what is going on.

As we reported in the past, adware, search hijackers, and PUP families have added push notifications as one of their attack vectors. Sucuri warns that it is also one of the most common ways attackers display “tech support” scams, where users are told their computer is infected or slow and they should call a toll-free number to fix the problem.

**Removal and mitigation**

Knowing that these fake reCAPTCHA sites exist and being able to spot the difference with a real one is your best protection. Also, many security programs, including Malwarebytes, will block access to the campaign’s domains.

If your system shows you push notifications, you can find detailed instructions on how to disable and remove permissions for browser push notifications in our article: Browser push notifications: a feature asking to be abused.

Website owners can use Sucuri’s free remote website scanner to detect the malware.

Stay safe, everyone!

_Special thanks to the Malwarebytes Threat Intelligence Tea_m _for their contribution and the screenshot_

Fake reCAPTCHA forms dupe users via compromised WordPress sites

The most important and interesting computer security stories from the last seven days.
The post A week in security (May 9 – 15) appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

*   Partner Success Story
*   Marek Drummond
    
    Managing Director at Optimus Systems
    
    "Thanks to the Malwarebytes MSP program, we have this high-quality product in our stack. It’s a great addition, and I have confidence that customers’ systems are protected."
    
*   See full story

A week in security (May 9 – 15)

Malwarebytes Threat Intelligence has uncovered an attack using the lure of information about the war in Ukraine to target people in Germany.
The post Custom PowerShell RAT targets Germans seeking information about the Ukraine crisis appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

_This blog post was authored by Hossein Jazi and Jérôme Segura_

Populations around the world—and in Europe in particular—are following the crisis in Ukraine very closely, and with events unfolding on a daily basis, people are hungry for information.

Although all countries have reasons to be concerned, the situation is Germany is more complicated than most. It is one of the few European countries to have received criticism for its attitude to the Ukraine-Russia conflict, as it struggles to end its reliance on Russian energy, and Moscow recently imposed sanctions on Gazprom Germania, further increasing economic tensions.

This week our analysts discovered a new campaign that plays on these concerns by trying to lure Germans with a promise of updates on the current threat situation in Ukraine. The downloaded document is in fact decoy for a Remote Access Trojan (RAT) capable of stealing data and executing other malicious commands on a victim’s computer.

**Decoy site lures victims with Ukraine situation**

Threat actors registered an expired German domain name at collaboration-bw\[.\]de that was formally used as a collaboration platform to develop new ideas for the Baden-Württemberg state.

Threat actors registered an expired domain associated with Baden-Württemberg

The threat actors used the domain to host a website that looked like the official Baden-Württemberg website, baden-wuerttemberg.de.

A comparison of the real baden-wuerttemberg.de (top) and the malicious fake (bottom)

With this copycat, the attackers created the perfect placeholder for the lure they wanted their victims to download: A file tantalising called 2022-Q2-Bedrohungslage-Ukraine (threat situation in Ukraine for Q2), offered via a prominent blue download button.

The website promises important information and tips about the Ukraine crisis

An English translation of the page reads:

**Important, current threat situation regarding the Ukraine crisis**

On this website you will always find the most important information and tips for dealing with the current threat posed by the Ukraine crisis. Please download the document now and read through the current information. The document is constantly updated and is up to date. Our suggested tips can be practically implemented in everyday work and you should already implement them today. Thanks for your support.

**File analysis**

The archive file called 2022-Q2-Bedrohungslage-Ukraine contains a file named 2022-Q2-Bedrohungslage-Ukraine.chm. The CHM format is Microsoft’s HTML help file format, which consists of a number of compiled HTML files.

The CHM file displays a fake error message

Victims will get a fake error message when they open up that file, while PowerShell quietly runs a Base64 command.

PowerShell executes a Base64-encoded command

After de-obfuscating the command we can see it is designed to execute a script downloaded from the fake Baden-Württemberg website, using Invoke-Expression (IEX).

The PowerShell code fetches and executes a malicious script

The malicious script downloaded from the fake Baden-Württemberg website

The downloaded script creates a folder called SecuriyHealthService in the current user directory and drops two files into it: MonitorHealth.cmd and a script called Status.txt. The .cmd file is very simple and just executes Status.txt through PowerShell.

Finally, the downloaded script makes MonitorHealth.cmd persistent by creating a scheduled task that will execute it each day at a specific time.

**PowerShell RAT (Status.txt)**

Status.txt is a RAT written in PowerShell. It starts its activities by collecting some information about the victim’s computer, such as the current username and working directory, and the computer’s hostname. It also builds a unique id for the victim, the clientid.

This data is exfiltrated as a JSON data structure sent to the server via a POST request:

$json = '{
  "type": "newclient",
  "result": "",
  "pwd": "' + $pwd\_b64 + '",
  "cuser": "' + $cuser + '",
  "hostname": "' + $hname + '",
  "clientid": "' + $clientid + '"
}';

$headers = @{'X-Request-ID' = $strhash;}

However, before executing this requests the script will first bypass the Windows Antimalware Scan Interface (AMSI) using an AES-encrypted function called bypass. It is decrypted using a generated key and IV before execution.

The bypass function that contains the encrypted script to bypass AMSI.

The content of the AMSI bypass script after decryption

This RAT has the following capabilities:

*   **Download** (type: D0WNl04D): Download files from server
*   **Upload** (type: UPL04D): Upload file to the server
*   **LoadPS1** (type: L04DPS1): Load and execute a PowerShell script
*   **Command** (type: C0MM4ND): Execute a specific command

**German command and control server**

The attack was thoughtfully carried out—even ensuring that the stolen data was sent to a German domain name, kleinm\[.\]de, to avoid suspicion.

It is not easy to attribute this activity to a specific actor, and there are no solid indicators to support attribution. Based on motivation alone, we hypothesise that a Russian threat actor could be targeting German users, but without clear connections in infrastructure or similarities to known TTPs, such attribution is weak.

The Malwarebytes Threat Intelligence team continues to monitor attacks taking advantage of the war in Ukraine while ensuring our customers are protected.

**Indicators of Compromise (IOCs)**

**Phishing site**

collaboration-bw\[.\]de/bedrohung-ukr.html

**Lure**

2022-Q2-Bedrohungslage-Ukraine.zip  
2430f68285120686233569e51e2147914dc87f82c7dbdf07fe0c34dbb1aca77c  
2022-Q2-Bedrohungslage-Ukraine.chm  
80bad7e0d5a5d2782674bb8334dcca03534aa831c37aebb5962da1cd1bec4130

**Status.txt**  
a5d8beaa832832576ca97809be4eee9441eb6907752a7e1f9a390b29bbb9fe1f

**MonitorHealth.cmd**  
fc71522a4125ca4bdc5e5deca4a6498e7f2da4408614c2e1284c3ae8c083a5fd

**C2**

kleinm\[.\]de

**MITRE ATT&CK**

Tactic

ID

Name

Description

Execution

T1059

Command and Scripting Interpreter

Starts cmd.exe to run hh.exe

Executes PowerShell script to download and execute a script

Persistence

T1053

Scheduled Task/Job

Executes task scheduler to add MonitorHealth.cmd as a daily task

Defense evasion

T1222

File and Directory Permissions Modification

Uses attrib.exe to hide SecuriyHealthService folder

Custom PowerShell RAT targets Germans seeking information about the Ukraine crisis

Virtual kidnap attempts are big business for criminals. We offer some steps to minimise the risk of this awful attempt at fraud.
The post How to spot the signs of a virtual kidnap scam appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

Threats and bluster play a key role in most online attacks: Ransomware has its ransom note; trolls threaten to ramp up the pressure; tech support scammers insist your PC needs urgent assistance.

Some take it a step further, leaning in with a more direct approach, ranging from death threats to sextortion, and even kidnap claims. These tactics have been around for a very long time. You can reach back to 2007 and look in amazement at the 419 death threat. In 2013, we had pretend hitmen threatening murder unless victims paid $25,000 to survive their non-existent wrath.

An example of the kidnapping variety is currently in the news, and it’s well worth familiarising yourself with it.

**The virtual kidnap: Step by step**

Kidnap scams involve making a phone call to a victim and telling them a loved one has been taken. Threats of violence soon follow, unless a ransom—typically in the form of a wire transfer—is paid. The most disturbing aspect of these calls is that scammers play recordings of screams in the background.

One horribly fascinating aspect of this crime is that panic and adrenaline can _convince_ victims that the voice they hear is that of their son, daughter, spouse, and so on. You see this time and time again. In that kind of high-stakes, high-pressure scenario, who can blame them?

Things become even worse when social engineering combines with publicly available data to make it even more convincing.

**Profiling the victim**

Victims of the most recent virtual kidnap attempt likely had some of their information used against them in the call. Scammers pretended to have someone’s mother held hostage, with the threat of never seeing her again. Sadly, the ruse was made more convincing because the caller ID displayed as the recipient’s mother’s phone number. Somehow, somewhere, they were able to connect the two relatives and their cell numbers.

The already convincing impact of the scream recording would be amplified by the recognisable number. At this point, it’s already game over. The fraudster on this occasion asked for money to be sent through Venmo. We see criminals gravitating to digital payment systems, cryptocurrencies, and even gift cards across most realms of attack. Wire fraud is still big business, but digital transfers are appealing to those wanting to make a quick getaway.

On this occasion, the victim is $900 out of pocket and that’s before we consider the significant psychological impact of a supposed kidnap phone call.

**Tips to avoid virtual kidnapping attempts**

This is clearly an incredibly disturbing thing to have happen, and plenty of tactics to combat this crime have developed this past decade. FBI Chicago released several good pieces of advice in March, which take into account the social engineering side of things:

*   Never post news of upcoming travel dates and locations online.
*   Discuss virtual kidnapping with family members prior to any travel.
*   Have a “password” that family members can use to confirm a loved one is really in trouble.
*   Be wary of providing financial information to strangers over the phone.

Some of the other tips focus mainly on bogus wire transfers. As we see above, criminals are happy to use other methods to swipe ill-gotten gains. Not being able to describe the victim is another good tip, but how many people would risk asking this in the heat of the moment? Would you _really_ want to upset a kidnapper and have them just hang up because you said the wrong thing?

Keeping cell phone numbers private on any website is a must. Posting photos of your vacation in real-time? Set up a private Instagram and share it with close friends and family only. Don’t leave contact details of family members stored in easily compromised email accounts. Lock them down with whatever additional methods are to hand. 2 factor authentication and password managers are good places to start.

Nobody wants a late night call claiming a loved one is being held hostage. Having said that, if the worst happens? Keep cool, take a deep breath, and work your way though the above suggestions. It’s almost certainly an _astonishingly_ malicious piece of fakery.

How to spot the signs of a virtual kidnap scam

Google are introducing virtual credit cards to the Chrome browser for users of their services in the US. We take a look at what's in store.
The post Virtual credit cards coming to Chrome: What you need to know appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

When you’re buying things online, reducing the exposure of payment details during transactions is one way to help reduce the risk of data theft. If you can _hide_ this payment data and switch it out for something else entirely, even better.

Google is proposing to do just that for customers in the US, with recently announced plans to offer a virtual credit card service for Chrome.

**What is a virtual credit card?**

The concept of virtual credit cards has been around for some time now. But with Google proposing to start using virtual credit cards, more people are likely to start talking about them.

Have you ever used a disposable email alias, or a VoIP service which displays a number of your choosing? These are ways you can keep your most personal information safe from prying eyes. Going one step further, it can be a valuable tool to pin down who’s had a breach, and who voluntarily leaks your data. If you create an email alias for every service you use, you’ll know the moment something has happened if the alias shows up in a dump or you receive spam on it.

Virtual credit card numbers share a few of these traits. Your actual card number never goes online. In its place is a variety of virtual numbers generated by your card provider connected to your account. These numbers may well expire at a set period in the future like real ones, so you don’t have to worry about an ever-increasing set of virtual details gathering dust in the corner.

Years ago, when I first started going to security conferences overseas, my bank card wasn’t accepted in most of the cities I visited. A stop-gap solution to this was someone buying me a bunch of pre-paid credit cards. This helped keep my real card safe. Virtual cards are like a _significantly_ more advanced version of pre-pay efforts. When I used them, some pre-paid cards had a cap on funds allocated so you had to buy several at a time, and they also expired if you didn’t use the money within a certain time period.

Good news: You don’t have to worry about _any_ of this with a virtual card number.

**What is Chrome offering to US based users?**

Here’s what Google has to say on the subject:

> _As people do more shopping online, keeping payment information safe and secure is critically important. We’re launching virtual cards on Chrome and Android. When you use autofill to enter your payment details at checkout, virtual cards will add an additional layer of security by replacing your actual card number with a distinct, virtual number. This eliminates the need to manually enter card details like the CVV at checkout, and they’re easy to manage at pay.google.com — where you can enable the feature for eligible cards, access your virtual card number, and see recent virtual card transactions. Virtual cards will be rolling out in the US for Visa, American Express, Mastercard and all Capital One cards starting this summer._

According to TechCrunch, Google “will not use any of this information for ad targeting purposes”. It remains to be seen if or when this rollout will extend to regions outside of the US.

**Keeping you safe, and saving you time**

The aim of the game is to make it harder for fraudsters to obtain your genuine details. Losing your card data to a skimming attack on a hijacked site or having it swiped from a database is a huge pain. Phonecalls and cancelled cards await.

I myself have had credit card details compromised. To this day, I have no idea how or where it happened. I only know that it involved a spectacular amount of wine. It happened during a rather complicated long distance house move, and having to sink time into calling fraud teams, cancelling the card I really could have done with for the move, and having a replacement card almost sent to the wrong address by mistake was really not great.

Yet these are the additional complications any sort of compromise routinely throw up. It’s never “just” the card details. If I’d had a virtual card number when the great wine heist of 2016 had taken place, it wouldn’t have mattered at all. I could have just switched to a new virtual number and be done. No card replacement required.

**Tightening the grip on bogus transactions**

Banks are increasingly ramping up checks made when trying to buy items online. Seeing a Verified by Visa popup, or a request to use an authenticator device, is fairly common. These tactics appear to be working. One bank reported 2,000 fewer cases of card fraud per month after the introduction of new payment checks.

Elsewhere, Apple Pay is serious about enhancing fraud prevention features. Location specific features (should you have them enabled) will help shut down rogue payment attempts.

A recent report claims card fraud losses could hit around $408.50 billion globally over the next decade. These are huge numbers to contend with. We’re going to need every tool available to chip away at that number. Whether you’re using virtual numbers, pre-loaded cards, or another method altogether for real world payments, having so many options available can only be a good thing.

Virtual credit cards coming to Chrome: What you need to know

The facial recognition and surveillance company was sued for earning off the back of people's faceprints that were taken without consent.
The post Clearview AI banned from selling facial recognition data in the US appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

Clearview AI, a facial recognition software and surveillance company, is permanently banned from selling its faceprint database within the United States. The company also cannot sell its database to state and law enforcement entities in Illinois for five years.

This is a historic win for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). This nonprofit organization filed a lawsuit against Clearview in 2020, alleging the company has built its business around secretly taking facial recognition data from people without consent.

“By requiring Clearview to comply with Illinois’ pathbreaking biometric privacy law not just in the state, but across the country, this settlement demonstrates that strong privacy laws can provide real protections against abuse,” said ACLU’s Deputy Director Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project Nathan Freed Wessler (@NateWessler) in a statement.

> “Clearview can no longer treat people’s unique biometric identifiers as an unrestricted source of profit. Other companies would be wise to take note, and other states should follow Illinois’ lead in enacting strong biometric privacy laws.”

Clearview AI was known for scraping images of people from social networking sites, particularly Facebook, YouTube, Venmo, and other websites. According to a New York Times expose, Clearview’s app can show you additional photos of a person—after taking a snap of them—along with links to where these appeared.

Knowing this, a San Francisco Bay Area photographer and writer named Thomas Smith requested all his data from Clearview. And what came back, he said, freaked him out.

Under the settlement agreement, Clearview must also have an opt-out feature available on its website for Illinois residents so their faceprints can stop appearing in Clearview search results. They are further barred from offering free access to individual police officers without the approval of their respective departments.

Clearview AI banned from selling facial recognition data in the US

CISA and the FBI are sharing information about the US attribution of cyberattacks on SATCOM networks that targeted Ukraine but spilled over into other European countries.
The post Cyberattacks on SATCOM networks attributed to Russian threat actors appeared first on Malwarebytes Labs.

The Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have updated their joint cybersecurity advisory, Strengthening Cybersecurity of SATCOM Network Providers and Customers, originally released March 17, 2022, with US government attribution to Russian state-sponsored malicious cyberactors.

**Critical infrastructure**

When we touched on the subject a few months ago, we explained why we think satellites are critical infrastructure. Commercial satellites provide us with the ability to establish services like Internet access, television, GPS, and scientific information about the weather and other processes in the atmosphere and on the surface.

On March 17, 2022, the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) published an alert in conjunction with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) which warned of possible threats to US and international satellite communication (SATCOM) networks.

Along with that alert came a report that provided mitigation strategies for SATCOM providers and their customers. And, as part of CISA’s Shields Up initiative, all organizations are being asked to significantly lower their threshold for reporting and sharing indications of malicious cyberactivity.

**Spill over**

The United States believes Russia launched cyberattacks in late February against commercial satellite communications networks to disrupt Ukrainian command and control during the Russia invasion, and those actions had spillover impacts into other European countries.

In the months leading up to and after Russia’s invasion began, Ukraine experienced a series of disruptive cyber operations, including website defacements, distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, and cyberattacks to delete data from computers belonging to government and private entities.

For example, the United States has assessed that Russian military cyber operators have deployed multiple families of destructive wiper malware, like HermeticWiper, on Ukrainian Government and private sector networks.

Now, the US is sharing publicly its assessment that Russia launched cyberattacks in late February against commercial satellite communications networks to disrupt Ukrainian command and control during the invasion, and those actions had spillover impacts into other European countries.

**Defense**

In order to uphold the rules-based international order in cyberspace, the US and its allies and partners are taking steps to defend against Russia’s actions. The US government has developed new mechanisms to help Ukraine identify cyberthreats and recover from cyberincidents.

CISA has exchanged technical information on cybersecurity threats related to Russia’s further invasion of Ukraine with key partners, including Ukraine.

**Mitigation guidance**

On March 17, 2022 CISA issued an alert providing technical details and mitigation guidance on possible threats to US and international SATCOM networks. A quick recap:

*   Use secure methods for authentication.
*   Enforce principle of least privilege through authorization policies.
*   Review existing trust relationships with IT service providers.
*   Implement independent encryption across all communications links leased from, or provided by, your SATCOM provider.
*   Strengthen the security of operating systems, software, and firmware, including vulnerability and patch management.
*   Monitor network logs for suspicious activity and unauthorized or unusual login attempts.
*   Create, maintain, and exercise a cyberincident response plan, resilience plan, and continuity of operations plan so that critical functions and operations can be kept running if technology systems—including SATCOM networks—are disrupted or need to be taken offline.

Stay safe, everyone!

Source

Malwarebytes