RSS Security

🔒
❌ About FreshRSS
There are new articles available, click to refresh the page.
Before yesterdayKrebs on Security

Using Fake Reviews to Find Dangerous Extensions

29 May 2021 at 16:14

Fake, positive reviews have infiltrated nearly every corner of life online these days, confusing consumers while offering an unwelcome advantage to fraudsters and sub-par products everywhere. Happily, identifying and tracking these fake reviewer accounts is often the easiest way to spot scams. Here’s the story of how bogus reviews on a counterfeit Microsoft Authenticator browser extension exposed dozens of other extensions that siphoned personal and financial data.

Comments on the fake Microsoft Authenticator browser extension show the reviews for these applications are either positive or very negative — basically calling it out as a scam. Image: chrome-stats.com.

After hearing from a reader about a phony Microsoft Authenticator extension that appeared on the Google Chrome Store, KrebsOnSecurity began looking at the profile of the account that created it. There were a total of five reviews on the extension before it was removed: Three Google users gave it one star, warning people to stay far away from it; but two of the reviewers awarded it between three and four stars.

“It’s great!,” the Google account Theresa Duncan enthused, improbably. “I’ve only had very occasional issues with it.”

“Very convenient and handing,” assessed Anna Jones, incomprehensibly.

Google’s Chrome Store said the email address tied to the account that published the knockoff Microsoft extension also was responsible for one called “iArtbook Digital Painting.” Before it was removed from the Chrome Store, iArtbook had garnered just 22 users and three reviews. As with the knockoff Microsoft extension, all three reviews were positive, and all were authored by accounts with first and last names, like Megan Vance, Olivia Knox, and Alison Graham.

Google’s Chrome Store doesn’t make it easy to search by reviewer. For that I turned to Hao Nguyen, the developer behind chrome-stats.com, which indexes and makes searchable a broad array of attributes about extensions available from Google.

Looking at the Google accounts that left positive reviews on both the now-defunct Microsoft Authenticator and iArtbook extensions, KrebsOnSecurity noticed that each left positive reviews on a handful of other extensions that have since been removed.

Reviews on the iArtbook extension were all from apparently fake Google accounts that each reviewed two other extensions, one of which was published by the same developer. This same pattern was observed across 45 now-defunct extensions.

Like an ever-expanding venn diagram, a review of the extensions commented on by each new fake reviewer found led to the discovery of even more phony reviewers and extensions. In total, roughly 24 hours worth of digging through chrome-stats.com unearthed more than 100 positive reviews on a network of patently fraudulent extensions.

Those reviews in turn lead to the relatively straightforward identification of:

-39 reviewers who were happy with extensions that spoofed major brands and requested financial data
-45 malicious extensions that collectively had close to 100,000 downloads
-25 developer accounts tied to multiple banned applications

The extensions spoofed a range of consumer brands, including Adobe, Amazon, Facebook, HBO, Microsoft, Roku and Verizon. Scouring the manifests for each of these other extensions in turn revealed that many of the same developers were tied to multiple apps being promoted by the same phony Google accounts.

Some of the fake extensions have only a handful of downloads, but most have hundreds or thousands. A fake Microsoft Teams extension attracted 16,200 downloads in the roughly two months it was available from the Google store. A counterfeit version of CapCut, a professional video editing software suite, claimed nearly 24,000 downloads over a similar time period.

More than 16,000 people downloaded a fake Microsoft Teams browser extension over the roughly two months it was available for download from the Google Chrome store.

Unlike malicious browser extensions that can turn your PC into a botnet or harvest your cookies, none of the extensions examined here request any special permissions from users. Once installed, however, they invariably prompt the user to provide personal and financial data — all the while pretending to be associated with major brand names.

In some cases, the fake reviewers and phony extension developers used in this scheme share names, such as the case with “brook ice,” the Google account that positively reviewed the malicious Adobe and Microsoft Teams extensions. The email address [email protected] was used to register the developer account responsible for producing two of the phony extensions examined in this review (PhotoMath and Dollify).

Some of the data that informed this report. The full spreadsheet is available as a link at the end of the story.

As we can see from the spreadsheet snippet above, many of the Google accounts that penned positive reviews on patently bogus extensions left comments on multiple apps on the same day.

Additionally, Google’s account recovery tools indicate many different developer email addresses tied to extensions reviewed here share the same recovery email — suggesting a relatively few number of anonymous users are controlling the entire scheme. When the spreadsheet data shown above is sorted by email address of the extension developer, the grouping of the reviews by date becomes even clearer.

KrebsOnSecurity shared these findings with Google and will update this story in the event they respond. Either way, Google somehow already detected all of these extensions as fraudulent and removed them from its store.

However, there may be a future post here about how long that bad extension identification and removal process has taken over time. Overall, most of these extensions were available for two to three months before being taken down.

As for the “so what?” here? I performed this research mainly because I could, and I thought it was interesting enough to share. Also, I got fascinated with the idea that finding fake applications might be as simple as identifying and following the likely fake reviewers. I’m positive there is more to this network of fraudulent extensions than is documented here.

As this story illustrates, it pays to be judicious about installing extensions. Leaving aside these extensions which are outright fraudulent, so many legitimate extensions get abandoned or sold each year to shady marketers that it’s wise to only trust extensions that are actively maintained (and perhaps have a critical mass of users that would make noise if anything untoward happened with the software).

According to chrome-stats.com, the majority of extensions — more than 100,000 of them — are effectively abandoned by their authors, or haven’t been updated in more than two years. In other words, there a great many developers who are likely to be open to someone else buying up their creation along with their user base.

The information that informed this report is searchable in this Google spreadsheet.

Boss of ATM Skimming Syndicate Arrested in Mexico

28 May 2021 at 14:47

Florian “The Shark” Tudor, the alleged ringleader of a prolific ATM skimming gang that siphoned hundreds of millions of dollars from bank accounts of tourists visiting Mexico over the last eight years, was arrested in Mexico City on Thursday in response to an extradition warrant from a Romanian court.

Florian Tudor, at a 2020 press conference in Mexico in which he asserted he was a legitimate businessman and not a mafia boss. Image: OCCRP.

Tudor, a native of Craiova, Romania, moved to Mexico to set up Top Life Servicios, an ATM servicing company which managed a fleet of relatively new ATMs based in Mexico branded as Intacash.

Intacash was the central focus of a threepart investigation KrebsOnSecurity published in September 2015. That series tracked the activities of a crime gang working with Intacash that was bribing and otherwise coercing ATM technicians to install sophisticated Bluetooth-based skimmers inside cash machines throughout popular tourist destinations in and around Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula — including Cancun, Cozumel, Playa del Carmen and Tulum.

Follow-up reporting last year by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) found Tudor and his associates compromised more than 100 ATMs across Mexico using skimmers that were able to remain in place undetected for years. The OCCRP, which dubbed Tudor’s group “The Riviera Maya Gang,” estimates the crime syndicate used cloned card data and stolen PINs to steal more than $1.2 billion from bank accounts of tourists visiting the region.

Last year, a Romanian court ordered Tudor’s capture following his conviction in absentia for attempted murder, blackmail and the creation of an organized crime network that specialized in human trafficking.

Mexican authorities have been examining bank accounts tied to Tudor and his companies, and investigators believe Tudor and his associates paid protection and hush money to various Mexican politicians and officials over the years. In February, the leader of Mexico’s Green Party stepped down after it emerged that he received funds from Tudor’s group.

This is the second time Mexican authorities have detained Tudor. In April 2019, Tudor and his deputy were arrested for illegal firearms possession. That arrest came just months after Tudor allegedly ordered the execution of a former bodyguard who was trying to help U.S. authorities bring down the group’s lucrative skimming operations.

Tudor’s arrest this week inside the premises of the Mexican Attorney General’s Office did not go smoothly, according to Mexican news outlets. El Universal reports that a brawl broke out between Tudor’s lawyers and officials at the Mexican AG’s office, and a video released by the news outlet on Twitter shows Tudor resisting arrest as he is being hauled out of the building hand and foot.

A Mexican judge will decide on Tudor’s extradition to Romania in the coming weeks.

How to Tell a Job Offer from an ID Theft Trap

21 May 2021 at 17:41

One of the oldest scams around — the fake job interview that seeks only to harvest your personal and financial data — is on the rise, the FBI warns. Here’s the story of a recent LinkedIn impersonation scam that led to more than 100 people getting duped, and one almost-victim who decided the job offer was too-good-to-be-true.

Last week, someone began posting classified notices on LinkedIn for different design consulting jobs at Geosyntec Consultants, an environmental engineering firm based in the Washington, D.C. area. Those who responded were told their application for employment was being reviewed and that they should email Troy Gwin — Geosyntec’s senior recruiter — immediately to arrange a screening interview.

Gwin contacted KrebsOnSecurity after hearing from job seekers trying to verify the ad, which urged respondents to email Gwin at a Gmail address that was not his. Gwin said LinkedIn told him roughly 100 people applied before the phony ads were removed for abusing the company’s terms of service.

“The endgame was to offer a job based on successful completion of background check which obviously requires entering personal information,” Gwin said. “Almost 100 people applied. I feel horrible about this. These people were really excited about this ‘opportunity’.”

Erica Siegel was particularly excited about the possibility of working in a creative director role she interviewed for at the fake Geosyntec. Siegel said her specialty —  “consulting with start ups and small businesses to create sustainable fashion, home and accessories brands” — has been in low demand throughout the pandemic, so she’s applied to dozens of jobs and freelance gigs over the past few months.

On Monday, someone claiming to work with Gwin contacted Siegel and asked her to set up an online interview with Geosyntec. Siegel said the “recruiter” sent her a list of screening questions that all seemed relevant to the position being advertised.

Siegel said that within about an hour of submitting her answers, she received a reply saying the company’s board had unanimously approved her as a new hire, with an incredibly generous salary considering she had to do next to no work to get a job she could do from home.

Worried that her potential new dream job might be too-good-to-be-true, she sent the recruiter a list of her own questions that she had about the role and its position within the company.

But the recruiter completely ignored Siegel’s follow-up questions, instead sending a reply that urged her to get in touch with a contact in human resources to immediately begin the process of formalizing her employment. Which of course involves handing over one’s personal (driver’s license info) and financial details for direct deposit.

Multiple things about this job offer didn’t smell right to Siegel.

“I usually have six or seven interviews before getting a job,” Siegel said. “Hardly ever in my lifetime have I seen a role that flexible, completely remote and paid the kind of money I would ask for. You never get all three of those things.”

So she called her dad, an environmental attorney who happens to know and have worked with people at the real Geosyntec Consultants. Then she got in touch with the real Troy Gwin, who confirmed her suspicions that the whole thing was a scam.

“Even after the real Troy said they’d gotten these [LinkedIn] ads shut down, this guy was still emailing me asking for my HR information,” Siegel said. “So my dad said, ‘Troll him back, and tell him you want a signing bonus via money order.’ I was like, okay, what’s the worst that could happen? I never heard from him again.”

HOW TO SPOT A JOB SCAM

In late April, the FBI warned that technology is making these scams easier and more lucrative for fraudsters, who are particularly fond of impersonating recruiters.

“Fake Job or Employment Scams occur when criminal actors deceive victims into believing they have a job or a potential job,” the FBI warned. “Criminals leverage their position as “employers” to persuade victims to provide them with personally identifiable information (PII), become unwitting money mules, or to send them money.”

Last year, some 16,012 people reported being victims of employment scams with losses totaling more than $59 million, according to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). But the real losses each year from employment scams are likely far higher; as the Justice Department often points out, relatively few victims of these crimes report the matter to the IC3.

LinkedIn said its platform uses automated and manual defenses to detect and address fake accounts or fraudulent payments.

“Any accounts or job posts that violate our policies are blocked from the site,” LinkedIn said in response to a request for comment. “The majority of fake job postings are stopped before going live on our site, and for those job postings that aren’t, whenever we find fake posts, we work to remove it quickly.”

LinkedIn’s most recent transparency report says these automated defenses block or automatically remove 98.4% of the fake accounts. But the scam that ensnared Gwin and Siegel is more of a hybrid, in that the majority of it operates outside of LinkedIn’s control via email services like Gmail and Yahoo.

This, by the way, should be a major red flag for anyone searching for a job, says the FBI: “Potential employers contact victims through non-company email domains and teleconference applications.”

Here are some other telltale signs of a job scam, as per the FBI:

-Interviews are not conducted in-person or through a secure video call.
-Potential employers contact victims through non-company email domains and teleconference applications.
-Potential employers require employees to purchase start-up equipment from the company.
-Potential employers require employees to pay upfront for background investigations or screenings.
-Potential employers request credit card information.
-Potential employers send an employment contract to physically sign asking for PII.
-Job postings appear on job boards, but not on the companies’ websites.
-Recruiters or managers do not have profiles on the job board, or the profiles do not seem to fit their roles.

Recycle Your Phone, Sure, But Maybe Not Your Number

19 May 2021 at 15:13

Many online services allow users to reset their passwords by clicking a link sent via SMS, and this unfortunately widespread practice has turned mobile phone numbers into de facto identity documents. Which means losing control over one thanks to a divorce, job termination or financial crisis can be devastating.

Even so, plenty of people willingly abandon a mobile number without considering the potential fallout to their digital identities when those digits invariably get reassigned to someone else. New research shows how fraudsters can abuse wireless provider websites to identify available, recycled mobile numbers that allow password resets at a range of email providers and financial services online.

Researchers in the computer science department at Princeton University say they sampled 259 phone numbers at two major wireless carriers, and found 171 of them were tied to existing accounts at popular websites, potentially allowing those accounts to be hijacked.

The Princeton team further found 100 of those 259 numbers were linked to leaked login credentials on the web, which could enable account hijackings that defeat SMS-based multi-factor authentication.

“Our key finding is that attackers can feasibly leverage number recycling to target previous owners and their accounts,” the researchers wrote. “The moderate to high hit rates of our testing methods indicate that most recycled numbers are vulnerable to these attacks. Furthermore, by focusing on blocks of Likely recycled numbers, an attacker can easily discover available recycled numbers, each of which then becomes a potential target.”

The researchers located newly-recycled mobile numbers by browsing numbers made available to customers interested in signing up for a prepaid account at T-Mobile or Verizon (apparently AT&T doesn’t provide a similar interface). They said they were able to identify and ignore large blocks of new, unused numbers, as these blocks tend to be made available consecutively — much like newly printed money is consecutively numbered in stacks.

The Princeton team has a number of recommendations for T-Mobile and Verizon, noting that both carriers allow unlimited inquiries on their prepaid customer platforms online — meaning there is nothing to stop attackers from automating this type of number reconnaissance.

“On postpaid interfaces, Verizon already has safeguards and T-Mobile does not even support changing numbers online,” the researchers wrote. “However, the number pool is shared between postpaid and prepaid, rendering all subscribers vulnerable to attacks.”

They also recommend the carriers teach their support employees to remind customers about the risks of relinquishing a mobile number without first disconnecting it from other identities and sites online, advice they generally did not find was offered when interacting with customer support regarding number changes.

In addition, the carriers could offer their own “number parking” service for customers who know they will not require phone service for an extended period of time, or for those who just aren’t sure what they want to do with a number. Such services are already offered by companies like NumberBarn and Park My Phone, and they generally cost between $2-5 per month.

The Princeton study recommends consumers who are considering a number change instead either store the digits at an existing number parking service, or “port” the number to something like Google Voice. For a one-time $20 fee, Google Voice will let you port the number, and then you can continue to receive texts and calls to that number via Google Voice, or you can forward them to another number.

Porting seems like less of a hassle and potentially safer considering the average user has something like 150 accounts online, and a significant number of those accounts are going to be tied to one’s mobile number.

While you’re at it, consider removing your phone number as a primary or secondary authentication mechanism wherever possible. Many online services require you to provide a phone number upon registering an account, but in many cases that number can be removed from your profile afterwards.

It’s also important for people to use something other than text messages for two-factor authentication on their email accounts when stronger authentication options are available. Consider instead using a mobile app like AuthyDuo, or Google Authenticator to generate the one-time code. Or better yet, a physical security key if that’s an option.

The full Princeton study is available here (PDF).

Try This One Weird Trick Russian Hackers Hate

17 May 2021 at 14:14

In a Twitter discussion last week on ransomware attacks, KrebsOnSecurity noted that virtually all ransomware strains have a built-in failsafe designed to cover the backsides of the malware purveyors: They simply will not install on a Microsoft Windows computer that already has one of many types of virtual keyboards installed — such as Russian or Ukrainian. So many readers had questions in response to the tweet that I thought it was worth a blog post exploring this one weird cyber defense trick.

The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) more or less matches the exclusion list on an awful lot of malware coming out of Eastern Europe.

The Twitter thread came up in a discussion on the ransomware attack against Colonial Pipeline, which earlier this month shut down 5,500 miles of fuel pipe for nearly a week, causing fuel station supply shortages throughout the country and driving up prices. The FBI said the attack was the work of DarkSide, a new-ish ransomware-as-a-service offering that says it targets only large corporations.

DarkSide and other Russian-language affiliate moneymaking programs have long barred their criminal associates from installing malicious software on computers in a host of Eastern European countries, including Ukraine and Russia. This prohibition dates back to the earliest days of organized cybercrime, and it is intended to minimize scrutiny and interference from local authorities.

In Russia, for example, authorities there generally will not initiate a cybercrime investigation against one of their own unless a company or individual within the country’s borders files an official complaint as a victim. Ensuring that no affiliates can produce victims in their own countries is the easiest way for these criminals to stay off the radar of domestic law enforcement agencies.

Possibly feeling the heat from being referenced in President Biden’s Executive Order on cybersecurity this past week, the DarkSide group sought to distance itself from their attack against Colonial Pipeline. In a message posted to its victim shaming blog, DarkSide tried to say it was “apolitical” and that it didn’t wish to participate in geopolitics.

“Our goal is to make money, and not creating problems for society,” the DarkSide criminals wrote last week. “From today we introduce moderation and check each company that our partners want to encrypt to avoid social consequences in the future.”

But here’s the thing: Digital extortion gangs like DarkSide take great care to make their entire platforms geopolitical, because their malware is engineered to work only in certain parts of the world.

DarkSide, like a great many other malware strains, has a hard-coded do-not-install list of countries which are the principal members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) — former Soviet satellites that mostly have favorable relations with the Kremlin. The full exclusion list in DarkSide (published by Cybereason) is below:

Image: Cybereason.

Simply put, countless malware strains will check for the presence of one of these languages on the system, and if they’re detected the malware will exit and fail to install.

[Side note. Many security experts have pointed to connections between the DarkSide and REvil (a.k.a. “Sodinokibi”) ransomware groups. REvil was previously known as GandCrab, and one of the many things GandCrab had in common with REvil was that both programs barred affiliates from infecting victims in Syria. As we can see from the chart above, Syria is also exempted from infections by DarkSide ransomware. And DarkSide itself proved their connection to REvil this past week when it announced it was closing up shop after its servers and bitcoin funds were seized.]

CAVEAT EMPTOR

Will installing one of these languages keep your Windows computer safe from all malware? Absolutely not. There is plenty of malware that doesn’t care where in the world you are. And there is no substitute for adopting a defense-in-depth posture, and avoiding risky behaviors online.

But is there really a downside to taking this simple, free, prophylactic approach? None that I can see, other than perhaps a sinking feeling of capitulation. The worst that could happen is that you accidentally toggle the language settings and all your menu options are in Russian.

If this happens (and the first time it does the experience may be a bit jarring) hit the Windows key and the space bar at the same time; if you have more than one language installed you will see the ability to quickly toggle from one to the other. The little box that pops up when one hits that keyboard combo looks like this:

Cybercriminals are notoriously responsive to defenses which cut into their profitability, so why wouldn’t the bad guys just change things up and start ignoring the language check? Well, they certainly can and maybe even will do that (a recent version of DarkSide analyzed by Mandiant did not perform the system language check).

But doing so increases the risk to their personal safety and fortunes by some non-trivial amount, said Allison Nixon, chief research officer at New York City-based cyber investigations firm Unit221B.

Nixon said because of Russia’s unique legal culture, criminal hackers in that country employ these checks to ensure they are only attacking victims outside of the country.

“This is for their legal protection,” Nixon said. “Installing a Cyrillic keyboard, or changing a specific registry entry to say ‘RU’, and so forth, might be enough to convince malware that you are Russian and off limits. This can technically be used as a ‘vaccine’ against Russian malware.”

Nixon said if enough people do this in large numbers, it may in the short term protect some people, but more importantly in the long term it forces Russian hackers to make a choice: Risk losing legal protections, or risk losing income.

“Essentially, Russian hackers will end up facing the same difficulty that defenders in the West must face — the fact that it is very difficult to tell the difference between a domestic machine and a foreign machine masquerading as a domestic one,” she said.

KrebsOnSecurity asked Nixon’s colleague at Unit221B — founder Lance James — what he thought about the efficacy of another anti-malware approach suggested by Twitter followers who chimed in on last week’s discussion: Adding entries to the Windows registry that specify the system is running as a virtual machine (VM). In a bid to stymie analysis by antivirus and security firms, some malware authors have traditionally configured their malware to quit installing if it detects it is running in a virtual environment.

But James said this prohibition is no longer quite so common, particularly since so many organizations have transitioned to virtual environments for everyday use.

“Being a virtual machine doesn’t stop malware like it used to,” James said. “In fact, a lot of the ransomware we’re seeing now is running on VMs.”

But James says he loves the idea of everyone adding a language from the CIS country list so much he’s produced his own clickable two-line Windows batch script that adds a Russian language reference in the specific Windows registry keys that are checked by malware. The script effectively allows one’s Windows PC to look like it has a Russian keyboard installed without actually downloading the added script libraries from Microsoft.

To install a different keyboard language on a Windows 10 computer the old fashioned way, hit the Windows key and X at the same time, then select Settings, and then select “Time and Language.” Select Language, and then scroll down and you should see an option to install another character set. Pick one, and the language should be installed the next time you reboot. Again, if for some reason you need to toggle between languages, Windows+Spacebar is your friend.

DarkSide Ransomware Gang Quits After Servers, Bitcoin Stash Seized

14 May 2021 at 15:44

The DarkSide ransomware affiliate program responsible for the six-day outage at Colonial Pipeline this week that led to fuel shortages and price spikes across the country is running for the hills. The crime gang announced it was closing up shop after its servers were seized and someone drained the cryptocurrency from an account the group uses to pay affiliates.

“Servers were seized (country not named), money of advertisers and founders was transferred to an unknown account,” reads a message from a cybercrime forum reposted to the Russian OSINT Telegram channel.

“A few hours ago, we lost access to the public part of our infrastructure,” the message continues, explaining the outage affected its victim shaming blog where stolen data is published from victims who refuse to pay a ransom.

“Hosting support, apart from information ‘at the request of law enforcement agencies,’ does not provide any other information,” the DarkSide admin says. “Also, a few hours after the withdrawal, funds from the payment server (ours and clients’) were withdrawn to an unknown address.”

DarkSide organizers also said they were releasing decryption tools for all of the companies that have been ransomed but which haven’t yet paid.

“After that, you will be free to communicate with them wherever you want in any way you want,” the instructions read.

The DarkSide message includes passages apparently penned by a leader of the REvil ransomware-as-a-service platform. This is interesting because security experts have posited that many of DarkSide’s core members are closely tied to the REvil gang.

The REvil representative said its program was introducing new restrictions on the kinds of organizations that affiliates could hold for ransom, and that henceforth it would be forbidden to attack those in the “social sector” (defined as healthcare and educational institutions) and organizations in the “gov-sector” (state) of any country. Affiliates also will be required to get approval before infecting victims.

The new restrictions came as some Russian cybercrime forums began distancing themselves from ransomware operations altogether. On Thursday, the administrator of the popular Russian forum XSS announced the community would no longer allow discussion threads about ransomware moneymaking programs.

“There’s too much publicity,” the XSS administrator explained. “Ransomware has gathered a critical mass of nonsense, bullshit, hype, and fuss around it. The word ‘ransomware’ has been put on a par with a number of unpleasant phenomena, such as geopolitical tensions, extortion, and government-backed hacks. This word has become dangerous and toxic.”

In a blog post on the DarkSide closure, cyber intelligence firm Intel 471 said it believes all of these actions can be tied directly to the reaction related to the high-profile ransomware attacks covered by the media this week.

“However, a strong caveat should be applied to these developments: it’s likely that these ransomware operators are trying to retreat from the spotlight more than suddenly discovering the error of their ways,” Intel 471 wrote. “A number of the operators will most likely operate in their own closed-knit groups, resurfacing under new names and updated ransomware variants. Additionally, the operators will have to find a new way to ‘wash’ the cryptocurrency they earn from ransoms. Intel 471 has observed that BitMix, a popular cryptocurrency mixing service used by Avaddon, DarkSide and REvil has allegedly ceased operations. Several apparent customers of the service reported they were unable to access BitMix in the last week.”

Microsoft Patch Tuesday, May 2021 Edition

11 May 2021 at 20:28

Microsoft today released fixes to plug at least 55 security holes in its Windows operating systems and other software. Four of these weaknesses can be exploited by malware and malcontents to seize complete, remote control over vulnerable systems without any help from users. On deck this month are patches to quash a wormable flaw, a creepy wireless bug, and yet another reason to call for the death of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer (IE) web browser.

While May brings about half the normal volume of updates from Microsoft, there are some notable weaknesses that deserve prompt attention, particularly from enterprises. By all accounts, the most pressing priority this month is CVE-2021-31166, a Windows 10 and Windows Server flaw which allows an unauthenticated attacker to remotely execute malicious code at the operating system level. With this weakness, an attacker could compromise a host simply by sending it a specially-crafted packet of data.

“That makes this bug wormable, with even Microsoft calling that out in their write-up,” said Dustin Childs, with Trend Micro’s ZDI program. “Before you pass this aside, Windows 10 can also be configured as a web server, so it is impacted as well. Definitely put this on the top of your test-and-deploy list.”

Kevin Breen from Immersive Labs said the fact that this one is just 0.2 points away from a perfect 10 CVSS score should be enough to identify just how important it is to patch.

“For ransomware operators, this kind of vulnerability is a prime target for exploitation,” Breen said. “Wormable exploits should always be a high priority, especially if they are for services that are designed to be public facing. As this specific exploit would not require any form of authentication, it’s even more appealing for attackers, and any organization using HTTP.sys protocol stack should prioritize this patch.”

Breen also called attention to CVE-2021-26419 — a vulnerability in Internet Explorer 11 — to make the case for why IE needs to stand for “Internet Exploder.” To trigger this vulnerability, a user would have to visit a site that is controlled by the attacker, although Microsoft also recognizes that it could be triggered by embedding ActiveX controls in Office Documents.

“IE needs to die – and I’m not the only one that thinks so,” Breen said. “If you are an organization that has to provide IE11 to support legacy applications, consider enforcing a policy on the users that restricts the domains that can be accessed by IE11 to only those legacy applications. All other web browsing should be performed with a supported browser.”

Another curious bug fixed this month is CVE-2020-24587, described as a “Windows Wireless Networking Information Disclosure Vulnerability.” ZDI’s Childs said this one has the potential to be pretty damaging.

“This patch fixes a vulnerability that could allow an attacker to disclose the contents of encrypted wireless packets on an affected system,” he said. “It’s not clear what the range on such an attack would be, but you should assume some proximity is needed. You’ll also note this CVE is from 2020, which could indicate Microsoft has been working on this fix for some time.”

Microsoft also patched four more security holes its Exchange Server corporate email platform, which recently was besieged by attacks on four other zero-day Exchange flaws that resulted in hundreds of thousands of servers worldwide getting hacked. One of the bugs is credited to Orange Tsai of the DEVCORE research team, who was responsible for disclosing the ProxyLogon Exchange Server vulnerability that was patched in an out-of-band release back in March.

Researcher Orange Tsai commenting that nobody guessed the remote zero-day he reported on Jan. 5, 2021 to Microsoft was in Exchange Server.

“While none of these flaws are deemed critical in nature, it is a reminder that researchers and attackers are still looking closely at Exchange Server for additional vulnerabilities, so organizations that have yet to update their systems should do so as soon as possible,” said Satnam Narang, staff research engineer at Tenable.

As always, it’s a good idea for Windows users to get in the habit of updating at least once a month, but for regular users (read: not enterprises) it’s usually safe to wait a few days until after the patches are released, so that Microsoft has time to iron out any kinks in the new armor.

But before you update, please make sure you have backed up your system and/or important files. It’s not uncommon for a Windows update package to hose one’s system or prevent it from booting properly, and some updates have been known to erase or corrupt files.

So do yourself a favor and backup before installing any patches. Windows 10 even has some built-in tools to help you do that, either on a per-file/folder basis or by making a complete and bootable copy of your hard drive all at once.

And if you wish to ensure Windows has been set to pause updating so you can back up your files and/or system before the operating system decides to reboot and install patches on its own schedule, see this guide.

If you experience glitches or problems installing any of these patches this month, please consider leaving a comment about it below; there’s a better-than-even chance other readers have experienced the same and may chime in here with some helpful tips.

A Closer Look at the DarkSide Ransomware Gang

11 May 2021 at 16:37

The FBI confirmed this week that a relatively new ransomware group known as DarkSide is responsible for an attack that caused Colonial Pipeline to shut down 5,550 miles of pipe, stranding countless barrels of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel on the Gulf Coast. Here’s a closer look at the DarkSide cybercrime gang, as seen through their negotiations with a recent U.S. victim that earns $15 billion in annual revenue.

Colonial Pipeline has shut down 5,500 miles of fuel pipe in response to a ransomware incident. Image: colpipe.com

New York City-based cyber intelligence firm Flashpoint said its analysts assess with a moderate-strong degree of confidence that the attack was not intended to damage national infrastructure and was simply associated with a target which had the finances to support a large payment.

“This would be consistent with DarkSide’s earlier activities, which included several ‘big game hunting’ attacks, whereby attackers target an organization that likely possesses the financial means to pay the ransom demanded by the attackers,” Flashpoint observed.

In response to public attention to the Colonial Pipeline attack, the DarkSide group sought to play down fears about widespread infrastructure attacks going forward.

“We are apolitical, we do not participate in geopolitics, do not need to tie us with a defined government and look for other our motives [sic],” reads an update to the DarkSide Leaks blog. “Our goal is to make money, and not creating problems for society. From today we introduce moderation and check each company that our partners want to encrypt to avoid social consequences in the future.”

First surfacing on Russian language hacking forums in August 2020, DarkSide is a ransomware-as-a-service platform that vetted cybercriminals can use to infect companies with ransomware and carry out negotiations and payments with victims. DarkSide says it targets only big companies, and forbids affiliates from dropping ransomware on organizations in several industries, including healthcare, funeral services, education, public sector and non-profits.

Like other ransomware platforms, DarkSide adheres to the current badguy best practice of double extortion, which involves demanding separate sums for both a digital key needed to unlock any files and servers, and a separate ransom in exchange for a promise to destroy any data stolen from the victim.

At its launch, DarkSide sought to woo affiliates from competing ransomware programs by advertising a victim data leak site that gets “stable visits and media coverage,” as well as the ability to publish victim data by stages. Under the “Why choose us?” heading of the ransomware program thread, the admin answers:

An advertisement for the DarkSide ransomware group.

“High trust level of our targets. They pay us and know that they’re going to receive decryption tools. They also know that we download data. A lot of data. That’s why the percent of our victims who pay the ransom is so high and it takes so little time to negotiate.”

In late March, DarkSide introduced a “call service” innovation that was integrated into the affiliate’s management panel, which enabled the affiliates to arrange calls pressuring victims into paying ransoms directly from the management panel.

In mid-April the ransomware program announced new capability for affiliates to launch distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks against targets whenever added pressure is needed during ransom negotiations.

DarkSide also has advertised a willingness to sell information about upcoming victims before their stolen information is published on the DarkSide victim shaming blog, so that enterprising investment scammers can short the company’s stock in advance of the news.

“Now our team and partners encrypt many companies that are trading on NASDAQ and other stock exchanges,” DarkSide explains. “If the company refuses to pay, we are ready to provide information before the publication, so that it would be possible to earn in the reduction price of shares. Write to us in ‘Contact Us’ and we will provide you with detailed information.”

DarkSide also started recruiting new affiliates again last month — mainly seeking network penetration testers who can help turn a single compromised computer into a full-on data breach and ransomware incident.

Portions of a DarkSide recruitment message, translated from Russian. Image: Intel 471.

“We have grown significantly in terms of the client base and in comparison to other projects (judging by the analysis of publicly available information), so we are ready to grow our team and a number of our affiliates in two fields,” DarkSide explained. The advertisement continued:

“Network penetration testing. We’re looking for one person or a team. We’ll adapt you to the work environment and provide work. High profit cuts, ability to target networks that you can’t handle on your own. New experience and stable income. When you use our product and the ransom is paid, we guarantee fair distribution of the funds. A panel for monitoring results for your target. We only accept networks where you intend to run our payload.”

DarkSide has shown itself to be fairly ruthless with victim companies that have deep pockets, but they can be reasoned with. Cybersecurity intelligence firm Intel 471 observed a negotiation between the DarkSide crew and a $15 billion U.S. victim company that was hit with a $30 million ransom demand in January 2021, and in this incident the victim’s efforts at negotiating a lower payment ultimately reduce the ransom demand by almost two-thirds.

The DarkSide ransomware note.

The first exchange between DarkSide and the victim involved the usual back-and-forth establishing of trust, wherein the victim asks for assurances that stolen data will be deleted after payment.

Image: Intel 471.

When the victim counter-offered to pay just $2.25 million, DarkSide responded with a lengthy, derisive reply, ultimately agreeing to lower the ransom demand to $28.7 million.

“The timer it [sic] ticking and in in next 8 hours your price tag will go up to $60 million,” the crooks replied. “So, you this are your options first take our generous offer and pay to us $28,750 million US or invest some monies in quantum computing to expedite a decryption process.”

Image: Intel 471.

The victim complains that negotiations haven’t moved the price much, but DarkSide countered that the company can easily afford the payout. “I don’t think so,” they wrote. “You aren’t poor and aren’t children if you f*cked up you have to meet the consequences.”

Image: Intel 471.

The victim firm replies a day later saying they’ve gotten authority to pay $4.75 million, and their tormentors agree to lower the demand significantly to $12 million.

Image: Intel 471.

The victim replies that this is still a huge amount, and it tries to secure additional assurances from the ransomware group if it agrees to pay the $12 million, such as an agreement not to target the company ever again, or give anyone access to its stolen data. The victim also tried to get the attackers to hand over a decryption key before paying the full ransom demand.

Image: Intel 471.

The crime gang responded that its own rules prohibit it from giving away a decryption key before full payment is made, but they agree to the rest of the terms.

Image: Intel 471.

The victim firm agrees to pay an $11 million ransom, and their extortionists concur and promise not to attack or help anyone else attack the company’s network going forward.

Image: Intel 471

Flashpoint assesses that at least some of the criminals behind DarkSide hail from another ransomware outfit called “REvil,” a.k.a. “Sodinokibi” (although Flashpoint rates this finding at only “moderate” confidence). REvil is widely considered to be the newer name for GandCrab, a ransomware-as-a-service offering that closed up shop in 2019 after bragging that it had extorted more than $2 billion.

Experts say ransomware attacks will continue to grow in sophistication, frequency and cost unless something is done to disrupt the ability of crooks to get paid for such crimes. According to a report late last year from Coveware, the average ransomware payment in the third quarter of 2020 was $233,817, up 31 percent from the second quarter of last year. Security firm Emsisoft found that almost 2,400 U.S.-based governments, healthcare facilities and schools were victims of ransomware in 2020.

Last month, a group of tech industry heavyweights lent their imprimatur to a task force that delivered an 81-page report to the Biden administration on ways to stymie the ransomware industry. Among many other recommendations, the report urged the White House to make finding, frustrating and apprehending ransomware crooks a priority within the U.S. intelligence community, and to designate the current scourge of digital extortion as a national security threat.

Further reading: Intel 471’s take on the Colonial Pipeline attack.

Fintech Startup Offers $500 for Payroll Passwords

10 May 2021 at 14:25

How much is your payroll data worth? Probably a lot more than you think. One financial startup that’s targeting the gig worker market is offering up to $500 to anyone willing to hand over the payroll account username and password given to them by their employer, plus a regular payment for each month afterwards in which those credentials still work.

This ad, from workplaceunited[.]com, promised up to $500 for people who provided their payroll passwords, plus $25 a month for each month those credentials kept working.

New York-based Argyle.com says it’s building a platform where people who work multiple jobs and/or side hustles can improve their credit and employment options by pooling all of their gig work data in one place.

“Consumers’ access to financial security and upward mobility is dependent on their access to and control over their own employment records and how easily they can share those records with financial institutions,” Argyle explained in a May 3 blog post. “We enable access to a dataset that, for too long, has gone unstandardized, unregulated, and controlled by corporations instead of consumers, contributing to system-wide inequalities.”

Argyle’s app flow. Image: Argyle.com.

In that sense, Argyle is making a play for a discrete chunk of a much larger employment data market dominated by the major credit bureaus, which have been hoovering up and selling access to employment data for years.

The 800-lb. gorilla there is Equifax, whose The Work Number product has for years purchased employment data flows from some of the world’s largest companies (employees consent to this sharing as part of their employment contract, and The Work Number makes it fairly easy for anyone to learn how much you earn).

The Work Number is designed to provide automated employment and income verification for prospective employers, and tens of thousands of companies report employee salary data to it. It also allows anyone whose employer uses the service to provide proof of their income when purchasing a home or applying for a loan.

On its blog, Argyle imagines a world in which companies choose to integrate its application platform interface (API) and share their employee payroll data. At the same time, the company appears to be part of an effort in which non-salaried workers are prompted to repay their erstwhile employers’ trust by selling payroll credentials.

If Argyle is worried these two goals might somehow conflict, that is not obvious by looking at some of its direct-to-consumer efforts.

The website pictured below prompts visitors to “connect payroll,” and those who proceed agree to have their payroll data shared with a company called Earnin, a mobile payday loan app that lets users get an advance on their upcoming paycheck.

Clicking “Connect Payroll” brings up a list of payroll login pages for brand name companies, including Walmart, Starbucks, Amazon, Uber, Chipotle, etc., with a search feature that reveals login pages for everyone from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to the Federal Reserve and Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

The default Argyle list of payroll login pages for major companies.

Here’s what comes up when you search by “Department of” at this site:

Drilling down into individual companies listed here produces a username and password form that in some cases is modified to request an employee identifier other than a username, such as a employee ID, associate or partner number instead. Here’s the login page for Starbucks employees:

The site pictured above actively checks if any submitted credentials are working, by submitting them directly to the employer in question. This Argyle status page indicates the system’s “data connection status” to countless employers.

Some of you may be thinking, “How many of us actually know or have our payroll passwords?” According to Argyle, plenty of people do.

“At Argyle, we are intimately familiar with how likely someone is to know the password for their employment account or payroll system, because we’ve seen hundreds of thousands of users successfully (and unsuccessfully) provide their credentials,” Argyle’s Billy Mardsen wrote on Apr. 1. “We closely monitor their success rate—what we call conversion—because it drives the performance of the products and applications that our clients build on top of Argyle.”

Argyle’s “conversion” numbers by employer. Image: Argyle.com

UNCOMMON GROUNDS

KrebsOnSecurity first heard about this company via Twitter from security researcher Kevin Beaumont, who pointed to a nest of domains associated with Argyle’s API — nearly all of which are offline now. At the time, Beaumont and others digging into this suspected the sites were part of an elaborate phishing scam.

These sites, which seemed to be grouped around a recent recruitment effort variously called “Workers United,” “UniteAtWork,” “WageCompete” and “CommonGrounds,” indicate that Argyle’s platform has been pivotal in a slew of campaigns paying employees at specific companies up to $100 for their payroll account passwords. Here’s one seeking T-Mobile employees:

A promotion offering T-Mobile employees $100 to give up their T-Mobile payroll account passwords.

Another recent promotion targeted employees at J.P. Morgan Chase, the largest financial institution in the United States:

Argyle declined multiple interview requests for this story, so it’s not clear how much of a role — if any — the company may have played in these various sites. But code prebuilds and instructions published in the company’s name on Github strongly suggest Argyle was instrumental in the WageCompete initiative.

Also, this page over at Scopeinc.com says the WageCompete program is provided by Argyle Expert Services.

Here’s a graphical look at the various websites mentioned here and their ties to Argyle’s API (click to enlarge):

The network of sites paying people for payroll passwords and their connections to Argyle’s API. Click to enlarge. Image: Virustotal

One of the sites in that graphic above that’s connected to Argyle’s API — workerresearchalliances[.]com — is currently live and includes the same verbiage about participants getting paid for their payroll credentials. The terms and conditions of the “WorkersApp beta program” were set by a company called Workers Research Alliances LLC, incorporated in February. The address for Workers Research Alliances is just a few blocks from Argyle’s office in New York City.

‘WE DO THINGS OTHERS DARE NOT DO’

Steve Friedl, an IT consultant in the payroll service bureau industry, said it appears Argyle has been paying people to help them refine their API and data scraping technology.

“They are not paying this money just to be able to sell people services, they are doing so to maintain their screen-scraping software API,” Friedl said. “This is essentially paying employees to help Argyle hack their payroll provider.”

Last fall Argyle announced it had landed a $20 million investment from Bain Capital, among others. The company’s co-founder, Shmulik Fishman, is described as a “disruptor” who says he wants to make credit scores obsolete.

“We’re fearless,” Fishman told Authority Magazine. “We do things other people dare not do.”

That much is clear. Hey, I can get behind almost anything that disintermediates the creaky old credit bureaus in a straightforward and consumer-friendly way. And the last time I checked, it’s not against the law to give someone your password, or to induce someone to do so willingly in exchange for something else (unless maybe you work for a federal agency).

But I wonder how many of the companies listed on all these payroll connect sites will respond to knowing their brands and logos are associated with a site that asks their employees to give away passwords.

KrebsOnSecurity contacted multiple high-level sources at major companies whose login pages are shown in these payroll connect programs running on Argyle’s platform. None of those sources were authorized to talk to the media, but all seemed fairly horrified at what they were seeing, and each said their employer’s legal departments were launching their own investigations.

Beaumont said he’s worried that in some companies, an employee’s payroll credentials may work to gain access to other parts of the organization — meaning some employees may be giving away more than they realize.

“My concern is some companies use single sign-on for payroll,” Beaumont said. “That’s a lot of access for a data harvesting company.”

Investment Scammer John Davies Reinvents Himself?

7 May 2021 at 13:15

John Bernard, a pseudonym used by a convicted thief and con artist named John Clifton Davies who’s fleeced dozens of technology startups out of an estimated $30 million, appears to have reinvented himself again after being exposed in a recent investigative series published here. Sources tell KrebsOnSecurity that Davies/Bernard is now posing as John Cavendish and head of a new “private office” called Hempton Business Management LLP.

John Davies is a U.K. man who absconded from justice before being convicted on multiple counts of fraud in 2015. Prior to his conviction, Davies served 16 months in jail before being cleared of murdering his wife on their honeymoon in India.

Davies’ fraud convictions stemmed from a series of U.K. companies he set up supposedly to help troubled companies reorganize their debt and turn things around. Davies ended up looting what little money his clients had left and spending it on lavish cars, home furnishings, vacations and luxury watches.

In a three-part series published last year, KrebsOnSecurity exposed how Davies — wanted by authorities in the U.K. — had fled the country, taken on the surname Bernard, remarried, and moved to his new (and fourth) wife’s hometown in Ukraine.

The scam artist John Bernard (left) in a recent Zoom call, and a photo of John Clifton Davies from 2015.

After eluding justice in the U.K., Davies reinvented himself as The Private Office of John Bernard, pretending to be a billionaire Swiss investor who made his fortunes in the dot-com boom 20 years ago and who was seeking private equity investment opportunities.

In case after case, Bernard would promise to invest millions in hi-tech startups, only to insist that companies pay tens of thousands of dollars worth of due diligence fees up front. However, the due diligence company he insisted on using — another Swiss firm called Inside Knowledge — also was secretly owned by Bernard, who would invariably pull out of the deal after receiving the due diligence money.

Bernard found a constant stream of new marks by offering extraordinarily generous finders fees to investment brokers who could introduce him to companies seeking an infusion of cash. Inside Knowledge and The Private Office both closed up shop not long after their exploits were detailed here late last year.

But it appears Davies has just assumed a new name. KrebsOnSecurity recently heard from an investment broker who previously represented multiple clients that got fleeced by Mr. Bernard/Davies over the years. That broker said he was blown away to hear Davies’ unique British accent on a recent call with a client that had been in investment talks with a Northern Ireland firm called Hempton Business Management.

This time, the source said, Davies was introduced by handlers on the call as John Cavendish.

“I just sat in on a call and John’s voice is unmistakable,” said the broker, who asked to remain anonymous. “He stumbled on the beginning of the call trying to remember which last name he was supposed to use. Immediately they go back to the standard script about the types of deals they are looking for. They want to be minority investors in private transactions and they are industry agnostic.  Their deal sizes are investments in the $5-20 million range, they prefer to not use big 4 firms for due diligence, and they have some smaller firms they use which are better suited for smaller investment deals.”

The source forwarded me some correspondence from Hempton Business Management, and I noticed it was sent from a Mariya Kulykova. This is interesting because Mr. Bernard’s personal assistant in Ukraine was a Mariya Kulikova (Ms. Kulikova deleted Bernard’s former companies from her LinkedIn profile shortly after last year’s series).

The company’s website says Hempton has been around since 2017, but the domain name was only registered in late November 2020. There is no information about who runs or owns the company on its site.

Hemptonllp[.]com was registered via Gandi, the same French registrar John Bernard/Davies has used over the years with his dozens of phantom companies.

Hempton Business Management’s only presence on LinkedIn appears to be a help wanted ad from a few weeks ago, for a marketing position at an office in Kyiv, Ukraine.

In response to an emailed request for comment on the apparent connections, Mr. Cavendish forwarded the message to a James Donohoe, who replied that he was the owner of Hempton. Donohoe said the domain was new because the company recently re-branded, although he declined to discuss the matter further.

“This sounds like an accusation of a big fraud?,” Donohoe wrote. “I have never had any dealings with a John Clifton Davies or John Bernard. You really are a cheeky little bugger aren’t you!”

Mr. Donohoe did not respond to further requests for comment.

Hempton appears to be part of a network of corporate facades designed to lead any investigators into a labyrinth of entities that exist only on paper. Hempton is what’s known as a “shelf corporation,” an aged or seasoned company that was formed but never used as a business. Shelf corporations are registered solely for the purposes of being resold to others at a later date. Simply put, their resale allows new enterprises to appear older, more established, and trusted.

“Perhaps the leading reason for acquiring an aged entity in general is credibility,” explains TBA & Associates, a company co-registered in the UK and New Zealand that has created hundreds of shelf companies for sale (PDF), including Hempton Business Management LLP in 2017.

“Business relationships are frequently influenced by the length of time a company has been in existence,” TBA continues. “This is often true when establishing financial and client/vendor relationships.”

Some of the shelf companies created and sold by TBA & Associates.

Documents from the UK business record index Companies House show two entities as officers in Hempton: ABA Group & Associates LTD, and Harper & Partners Ltd. Both of these are shelf companies in Hong Kong that are listed for sale in the same TBA PDF advertisement linked for Hempton.

Searching Companies House for information on ABA Group and Harper & Partners leads to a dizzying number of other shelf companies in Hong Kong, Belize and the U.K. — all of which also were recently listed for sale by TBA.

The only person’s name attached to each of these companies is a Joaquim Magro de Almeida, a rather mysterious 72 year-old Portuguese business consultant. OpenCorporates says this same guy is an officer in 313 active companies. The U.K.’s Companies House lists Mr. Almeida as one of three officers in Euro Forex Investments Ltd., which Reuters says was a sprawling pyramid scheme that stole $1 billion from at least 3,700 victims in China, the United States and elsewhere.

This 2017 story from New Zealand financial news site interest.co.nz follows a trail of various other investment scams leading back to TBA shell companies, and to Mr. Almeida, too.

In my first report on John Davies, I noted that before becoming John Bernard he previously used the pseudonym “Jonathan Bibi” with an address in the offshore company haven of Seychelles. That identity was tied to a number of fraudulent cryptocurrency and binary options investment schemes.

Fraudsters are drawn to complexity, and they typically incorporate their shell or shelf companies in countries with little to no oversight or background checks tied to the creation and maintenance of corporate entities. As we’ve seen here, the U.K. is a favorite of fraudsters and money launderers worldwide. In a scathing 2017 report titled Hiding in Plain Sight (PDF), Transparency International found some 766 UK corporate vehicles were alleged to have been used in 52 large-scale corruption and money laundering cases approaching £80 billion.

Malicious Office 365 Apps Are the Ultimate Insiders

5 May 2021 at 12:27

Phishers targeting Microsoft Office 365 users increasingly are turning to specialized links that take users to their organization’s own email login page. After a user logs in, the link prompts them to install a malicious but innocuously-named app that gives the attacker persistent, password-free access to any of the user’s emails and files, both of which are then plundered to launch malware and phishing scams against others.

These attacks begin with an emailed link that when clicked loads not a phishing site but the user’s actual Office 365 login page — whether that be at microsoft.com or their employer’s domain. After logging in, the user might see a prompt that looks something like this:

These malicious apps allow attackers to bypass multi-factor authentication, because they are approved by the user after that user has already logged in. Also, the apps will persist in a user’s Office 365 account indefinitely until removed, and will survive even after an account password reset.

This week, messaging security vendor Proofpoint published some new data on the rise of these malicious Office 365 apps, noting that a high percentage of Office users will fall for this scheme [full disclosure: Proofpoint is an advertiser on this website].

Ryan Kalember, Proofpoint’s executive vice president of cybersecurity strategy, said 55 percent of the company’s customers have faced these malicious app attacks at one point or another.

“Of those who got attacked, about 22 percent — or one in five — were successfully compromised,” Kalember said.

Kalember said Microsoft last year sought to limit the spread of these malicious Office apps by creating an app publisher verification system, which requires the publisher to be a valid Microsoft Partner Network member.

That approval process is cumbersome for attackers, so they’ve devised a simple work around. “Now, they’re compromising accounts in credible tenants first,” Proofpoint explains. “Then, they’re creating, hosting and spreading cloud malware from within.”

The attackers responsible for deploying these malicious Office apps aren’t after passwords, and in this scenario they can’t even see them. Rather, they’re hoping that after logging in users will click yes to a approve the installation of a malicious but innocuously-named app into their Office365 account.

Kalember said the crooks behind these malicious apps typically use any compromised email accounts to conduct “business email compromise” or BEC fraud, which involves spoofing an email from someone in authority at an organization and requesting the payment of a fictitious invoice. Other uses have included the sending of malware-laced emails from the victim’s email account.

Last year, Proofpoint wrote about a service in the cybercriminal underground where customers could access various Office 365 accounts without a username or password. The service also advertised the ability to extract and filter emails and files based on selected keywords, as well as attach malicious macros to all documents in a user’s Microsoft OneDrive.

A cybercriminal service advertising the sale of access to hacked Office365 accounts. Image: Proofpoint.

“You don’t need a botnet if you have Office 365, and you don’t need malware if you have these [malicious] apps,” Kalember said. “It’s just easier, and it’s a good way to bypass multi-factor authentication.”

KrebsOnSecurity first warned about this trend in January 2020. That story cited Microsoft saying that while organizations running Office 365 could enable a setting to restrict users from installing apps, doing so was a “drastic step” that “severely impairs your users’ ability to be productive with third-party applications.”

Since then, Microsoft added a policy that allows Office 365 administrators to block users from consenting to an application from a non-verified publisher. Also, applications published after November 8, 2020, are coupled with a consent screen warning in case the publisher is not verified, and the tenant policy allows the consent.

Microsoft’s instructions for detecting and removing illicit consent grants in Office 365 are here.

Proofpoint says O365 administrators should limit or block which non-administrators can create applications, and enable Microsoft’s verified publisher policy — as a majority of cloud malware is still coming from Office 365 tenants that are not part of Microsoft’s partner network. Experts say it’s also important to ensure you have security logging turned on so that alerts are generated when employees are introducing new software into your infrastructure.

The Wages of Password Re-use: Your Money or Your Life

4 May 2021 at 17:22

When normal computer users fall into the nasty habit of recycling passwords, the result is most often some type of financial loss. When cybercriminals develop the same habit, it can eventually cost them their freedom.

Our passwords can say a lot about us, and much of what they have to say is unflattering. In a world in which all databases — including hacker forums — are eventually compromised and leaked online, it can be tough for cybercriminals to maintain their anonymity if they’re in the habit of re-using the same unusual passwords across multiple accounts associated with different email addresses.

The long-running Breadcrumbs series here tracks how cybercriminals get caught, and it’s mostly through odd connections between their online and offline selves scattered across the Internet. Interestingly, one of the more common connections involves re-using or recycling passwords across multiple accounts.

And yes, hackers get their passwords compromised at the same rate as the rest of us. Which means when a cybercrime forum gets hacked and its user databases posted online, it is often possible to work backwards from some of the more unique passwords for each account and see where else that password was used.

SWATTING THE FLY

Of all the stories I’ve written here over the last 11 years, probably the piece I get asked most to recount is the one about Sergey “Fly” Vovnenko, a Ukrainian man who in 2013 hatched and executed a plan to buy heroin off the dark web, ship it to our house and then spoof a call to the police from one of our neighbors saying we were dealing drugs.

Fly was the administrator of a Russian-language identity theft forum at the time, and as a secret lurker on his forum KrebsOnSecurity watched his plan unfold in real time. As I described in a 2019 story about an interview Fly gave to a Russian publication upon his release from a U.S. prison, his propensity for password re-use ultimately landed him in Italy’s worst prison for more than a year before he was extradited to face charges in America.

Around the same time Fly was taking bitcoin donations for a fund to purchase heroin on my behalf, he was also engaged to be married to a young woman. But Fly apparently did not fully trust his bride-to-be, so he had malware installed on her system that forwarded him copies of all email that she sent and received.

But Fly would make at least two big operational security mistakes in this spying effort: First, he had his fiancée’s messages forwarded to an email account he’d used for plenty of cybercriminal stuff related to his various “Fly” identities.

Mistake number two was the password for his email account was the same as his cybercrime forum admin account. And unbeknownst to him at the time, that forum was hacked, with all email addresses and hashed passwords exposed.

Soon enough, investigators were reading Fly’s email, including the messages forwarded from his wife’s account that had details about their upcoming nuptials, such as shipping addresses for their wedding-related items and the full name of Fly’s fiancée. It didn’t take long to zero in on Fly’s location in Naples.

POOR PASSWORDS AS GOOD OPSEC?

While it may sound unlikely that a guy so enmeshed in the cybercrime space could make such rookie security mistakes, I have found that a great many cybercriminals actually have worse operational security than the average Internet user.

Countless times over the years I’ve encountered huge tranches of valuable, dangerous data — like a botnet control panel or admin credentials for cybercrime forums — that were full of bad passwords, like password1 or 123qweasd (an incredibly common keyboard pattern password).

I suspect this may be because the nature of illicit activity online requires cybercrooks to create vast numbers of single- or brief-use accounts, and as such they tend to re-use credentials across multiple sites, or else pick very poor passwords — even for critical resources.

Regardless of their reasons or lack thereof for choosing poor passwords, it is fascinating that in terms of maintaining one’s operational security it actually benefits cybercriminals to use poor passwords in many situations.

For example, it is often the denizens of the cybercrime underground who pick crappy passwords for their forum accounts who end up doing their future selves a favor when the forum eventually gets hacked and its user database is posted online.

SOME ADVICE FOR EVERYONE

It really stinks that it’s mid-2021 and we’re still so reliant on passwords. But as long as that’s the case, I hope it’s clear that the smartest choice for all Internet users is to pick unique passwords for every site. The major Web browsers will now auto-suggest long, complex and unique passwords when users go to set up a new account somewhere online, and this is obviously the simplest way to achieve that goal.

Password managers are ideal for people who can’t break the habit of re-using passwords, because you only have to remember one (strong) master password to access all of your stored credentials.

If you don’t trust password managers and have trouble remembering complex passwords, consider relying instead on password length, which is a far more important determiner of whether a given password can be cracked by available tools in any timeframe that might be reasonably useful to an attacker.

In that vein, it’s safer and wiser to focus on picking passphrases instead of passwords. Passphrases are collections of multiple (ideally unrelated) words mushed together. Passphrases are not only generally more secure, they also have the added benefit of being easier to remember. Their main limitation is that countless sites still force you to add special characters and place arbitrary limits on password length possibilities.

Finally, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with writing down your passwords, provided a) you do not store them in a file on your computer or taped to your laptop, and b) that your password notebook is stored somewhere relatively secure, i.e. not in your purse or car, but something like a locked drawer or safe.

Further reading: Who’s Behind the GandCrab Ransomware?

Task Force Seeks to Disrupt Ransomware Payments

29 April 2021 at 12:26

Some of the world’s top tech firms are backing a new industry task force focused on disrupting cybercriminal ransomware gangs by limiting their ability to get paid, and targeting the individuals and finances of the organized thieves behind these crimes.

In a 81-page report delivered to the Biden administration this week, top executives from Amazon, Cisco, FireEye, McAfee, Microsoft and dozens of other firms joined the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Europol and the U.K. National Crime Agency in calling for an international coalition to combat ransomware criminals, and for a global network of ransomware investigation hubs.

The Ransomware Task Force urged the White House to make finding, frustrating and apprehending ransomware crooks a priority within the U.S. intelligence community, and to designate the current scourge of digital extortion as a national security threat.

The Wall Street Journal recently broke the news that the DOJ was forming its own task force to deal with the “root causes” of ransomware. An internal DOJ memo reportedly “calls for developing a strategy that targets the entire criminal ecosystem around ransomware, including prosecutions, disruptions of ongoing attacks and curbs on services that support the attacks, such as online forums that advertise the sale of ransomware or hosting services that facilitate ransomware campaigns.”

According to security firm Emsisoft, almost 2,400 U.S.-based governments, healthcare facilities and schools were victims of ransomware in 2020.

“The costs of ransomware go far beyond the ransom payments themselves,” the task force report observes. “Cybercrime is typically seen as a white-collar crime, but while ransomware is profit-driven and ‘non-violent’ in the traditional sense, that has not stopped ransomware attackers from routinely imperiling lives.”

A proposed framework for a public-private operational ransomware campaign. Image: IST.

It is difficult to gauge the true cost and size of the ransomware problem because many victims never come forward to report the crimes. As such, a number of the task force’s recommendations focus on ways to encourage more victims to report the crimes to their national authorities, such as requiring victims and incident response firms who pay a ransomware demand to report the matter to law enforcement and possibly regulators at the U.S. Treasury Department.

Last year, Treasury issued a controversial memo warning that ransomware victims who end up sending digital payments to people already being sanctioned by the U.S. government for money laundering and other illegal activities could result in hefty fines.

Philip Reiner, CEO of the Institute for Security and Technology and executive director of the industry task force, said the reporting recommendations are one of several areas where federal agencies will likely need to dedicate more employees. For example, he said, expecting victims to clear ransomware payments with the Treasury Department first assumes the agency has the staff to respond in any kind of timeframe that might be useful for a victim undergoing a ransomware attack.

“That’s why we were so dead set in putting forward comprehensive framework,” Reiner said. “That way, Department of Homeland Security can do what they need to do, the State Department, Treasury gets involved, and it all needs to be synchronized for going after the bad guys with the same alacrity.”

Some have argued that making it illegal to pay a ransom is one way to decrease the number of victims who acquiesce to their tormentors’ demands. But the task force report says we’re nowhere near ready for that yet.

“Ransomware attackers require little risk or effort to launch attacks, so a prohibition on ransom payments would not necessarily lead them to move into other areas,” the report observes. “Rather, they would likely continue to mount attacks and test the resolve of both victim organizations and their regulatory authorities. To apply additional pressure, they would target organizations considered more essential to society, such as healthcare providers, local governments, and other custodians of critical infrastructure.”

“As such, any intent to prohibit payments must first consider how to build organizational cybersecurity maturity, and how to provide an appropriate backstop to enable organizations to weather the initial period of extreme testing,” the authors concluded in the report. “Ideally, such an approach would also be coordinated internationally to avoid giving ransomware attackers other avenues to pursue.”

The task force’s report comes as federal agencies have been under increased pressure to respond to a series of ransomware attacks that were mass-deployed as attackers began exploiting four zero-day vulnerabilities in Microsoft Exchange Server email products to install malicious backdoors. Earlier this month, the DOJ announced the FBI had conducted a first-of-its-kind operation to remove those backdoors from hundreds of Exchange servers at state and local government facilities.

Many of the recommendations in the Ransomware Task Force report are what you might expect, such as encouraging voluntary information sharing on ransomware attacks; launching public awareness campaigns on ransomware threats; exerting pressure on countries that operate as safe havens for ransomware operators; and incentivizing the adoption of security best practices through tax breaks.

A few of the more interesting recommendations (at least to me) included:

-Limit legal liability for ISPs that act in good faith trying to help clients secure their systems.

-Create a federal “cyber response and recovery fund” to help state and local governments or critical infrastructure companies respond to ransomware attacks.

-Require cryptocurrency exchanges to follow the same “know your customer” (KYC) and anti-money laundering rules as financial institutions, and aggressively targeting exchanges that do not.

-Have insurance companies measure and assert their aggregated ransomware losses and establish a common “war chest” subrogation fund “to evaluate and pursue strategies aimed at restitution, recovery, or civil asset seizures, on behalf of victims and in conjunction with law enforcement efforts.”

-Centralize expertise in cryptocurrency seizure, and scaling criminal seizure processes.

-Create a standard format for reporting ransomware incidents.

-Establish a ransomware incident response network.

Experian API Exposed Credit Scores of Most Americans

28 April 2021 at 20:47

Big-three consumer credit bureau Experian just fixed a weakness with a partner website that let anyone look up the credit score of tens of millions of Americans just by supplying their name and mailing address, KrebsOnSecurity has learned. Experian says it has plugged the data leak, but the researcher who reported the finding says he fears the same weakness may be present at countless other lending websites that work with the credit bureau.

Bill Demirkapi, an independent security researcher who’s currently a sophomore at the Rochester Institute of Technology, said he discovered the data exposure while shopping around for student loan vendors online.

Demirkapi encountered one lender’s site that offered to check his loan eligibility by entering his name, address and date of birth. Peering at the code behind this lookup page, he was able to see it invoked an Experian Application Programming Interface or API — a capability that allows lenders to automate queries for FICO credit scores from the credit bureau.

“No one should be able to perform an Experian credit check with only publicly available information,” Demirkapi said. “Experian should mandate non-public information for promotional inquiries, otherwise an attacker who found a single vulnerability in a vendor could easily abuse Experian’s system.”

Demirkapi found the Experian API could be accessed directly without any sort of authentication, and that entering all zeros in the “date of birth” field let him then pull a person’s credit score. He even built a handy command-line tool to automate the lookups, which he dubbed “Bill’s Cool Credit Score Lookup Utility.”

Demirkapi’s Experian credit score lookup tool.

KrebsOnSecurity put that tool to the test, asking permission from a friend to have Demirkapi look up their credit score. The friend agreed and said he would pull his score from Experian (at this point I hadn’t told him that Experian was involved). The score he provided matched the score returned by Demirkapi’s lookup tool.

In addition to credit scores, the Experian API returns for each consumer up to four “risk factors,” indicators that might help explain why a person’s score is not higher.

For example, in my friend’s case Bill’s tool said his mid-700s score could be better if the proportion of balances to credit limits was lower, and if he didn’t owe so much on revolving credit accounts.

“Too many consumer finance company accounts,” the API concluded about my friend’s score.

The reason I could not test Demirkapi’s findings on my own credit score is that we have a security freeze on our files at the three major consumer credit reporting bureaus, and a freeze blocks this particular API from pulling the information.

Demirkapi declined to share with Experian the name of the lender or the website where the API was exposed. He refused because he said he suspects there may be hundreds or even thousands of companies using the same API, and that many of those lenders could be similarly leaking access to Experian’s consumer data.

“If we let them know about the specific endpoint, they can just ban/work with the loan vendor to block these requests on this one case, which doesn’t fix the systemic problem,” he explained.

Nevertheless, after being contacted by this reporter Experian figured out on its own which lender was exposing their API; Demirkapi said that vendor’s site now indicates the API access has been disabled.

“We have been able to confirm a single instance of where this situation has occurred and have taken steps to alert our partner and resolve the matter,” Experian said in a written statement. “While the situation did not implicate or compromise any of Experian’s systems, we take this matter very seriously. Data security has always been, and always will be, our highest priority.”

Demirkapi said he’s disappointed that Experian did exactly what he feared they would do.

“They found one endpoint I was using and sent it into maintenance mode,” he said. “But this doesn’t address the systemic issue at all.”

Leaky and poorly-secured APIs like the one Demirkapi found are the source of much mischief in the hands of identity thieves. Earlier this month, auto insurance giant Geico disclosed that fraudsters abused a bug in its site to steal drivers license numbers from Americans.

Geico said the data was used by thieves involved in fraudulently applying for unemployment insurance benefits. Many states now require drivers license numbers as a way of verifying an applicant’s identity.

In 2013, KrebsOnSecurity broke the news about an identity theft service in the underground that programmatically pulled sensitive consumer credit data directly from a subsidiary of Experian. That service was run by a Vietnamese hacker who’d told the Experian subsidiary he was a private investigator. The U.S. Secret Service later said the ID theft service “caused more material financial harm to more Americans than any other.”

Additional reading: Experian’s Credit Freeze Security is Still a Joke (Apr. 27, 2021)

Experian’s Credit Freeze Security is Still a Joke

26 April 2021 at 21:58

In 2017, KrebsOnSecurity showed how easy it is for identity thieves to undo a consumer’s request to freeze their credit file at Experian, one of the big three consumer credit bureaus in the United States.  Last week, KrebsOnSecurity heard from a reader who had his freeze thawed without authorization through Experian’s website, and it reminded me of how truly broken authentication and security remains in the credit bureau space.

Experian’s page for retrieving someone’s credit freeze PIN requires little more information than has already been leaked by big-three bureau Equifax and a myriad other breaches.

Dune Thomas is a software engineer from Sacramento, Calif. who put a freeze on his credit files last year at Experian, Equifax and TransUnion after thieves tried to open multiple new payment accounts in his name using an address in Washington state that was tied to a vacant home for sale.

But the crooks were persistent: Earlier this month, someone unfroze Thomas’ account at Experian and promptly applied for new lines of credit in his name, again using the same Washington street address. Thomas said he only learned about the activity because he’d taken advantage of a free credit monitoring service offered by his credit card company.

Thomas said after several days on the phone with Experian, a company representative acknowledged that someone had used the “request your PIN” feature on Experian’s site to obtain his PIN and then unfreeze his file.

Thomas said he and a friend both walked through the process of recovering their freeze PIN at Experian, and were surprised to find that just one of the five multiple-guess questions they were asked after entering their address, Social Security Number and date of birth had anything to do with information only the credit bureau might know.

KrebsOnSecurity stepped through the same process and found similar results. The first question asked about a new mortgage I supposedly took out in 2019 (I didn’t), and the answer was none of the above. The answer to the second question also was none of the above.

The next two questions were useless for authentication purposes because they’d already been asked and answered; one was “which of the following is the last four digits of your SSN,” and the other was “I was born within a year or on the year of the date below.” Only one question mattered and was relevant to my credit history (it concerned the last four digits of a checking account number).

The best part about this lax authentication process is that one can enter any email address to retrieve the PIN — it doesn’t need to be tied to an existing account at Experian. Also, when the PIN is retrieved, Experian doesn’t bother notifying any other email addresses already on file for that consumer.

Finally, your basic consumer (read: free) account at Experian does not give users the option to enable any sort of multi-factor authentication that might help stymie some of these PIN retrieval attacks on credit freezes.

Unless, that is, you subscribe to Experian’s heavily-marketed and confusingly-worded “CreditLock” service, which charges between $14.99 and $24.99 a month for the ability to “lock and unlock your file easily and quickly, without delaying the application process.” CreditLock users can both enable multifactor authentication and get alerts when someone tries to access their account.

Thomas said he’s furious that Experian only provides added account security for consumers who pay for monthly plans.

“Experian had the ability to give people way better protection through added authentication of some kind, but instead they don’t because they can charge $25 a month for it,” Thomas said. “They’re allowing this huge security gap so they can make a profit. And this has been going on for at least four years.”

Experian has not yet responded to requests for comment.

When a consumer with a freeze logs in to Experian’s site, they are immediately directed to a message for one of Experian’s paid services, such as its CreditLock service. The message I saw upon logging in confirmed that while I had a freeze in place with Experian, my current “protection level” was “low” because my credit file was unlocked.

“When your file is unlocked, you’re more vulnerable to identity theft and fraud,” Experian warns, untruthfully. “You won’t see alerts if someone tries to access your file. Banks can check your file if you apply for credit or loans. Utility and service providers can see your credit file.”

Experian says my security is low because while I have a freeze in place, I haven’t bought into their questionable “lock service.”

Sounds scary, right? The thing is — except for the part about not seeing alerts — none of the above statement is true if you already have a freeze on your file. A security freeze essentially blocks any potential creditors from being able to view your credit file, unless you affirmatively unfreeze or thaw your file beforehand.

With a freeze in place on your credit file, ID thieves can apply for credit in your name all they want, but they will not succeed in getting new lines of credit in your name because few if any creditors will extend that credit without first being able to gauge how risky it is to loan to you (i.e., view your credit file). It is now free to freeze your credit in all U.S. states and territories.

Experian, like the other consumer credit bureaus, uses their intentionally confusing “lock” terminology to frighten consumers into paying for monthly subscription services. A key selling point for these lock services is they can be a faster way to let creditors peek at your file when you wish to apply for new credit. That may or may not be true in practice, but consider why it’s so important for Experian to get consumers to sign up for their lock programs.

The real reason is that Experian makes money every time someone makes a credit inquiry in your name, and it does not want to do anything to hinder those inquiries. Signing up for a lock service lets Experian continue selling credit report information to a variety of third parties. According to Experian’s FAQ, when locked your Experian credit file remains accessible to a host of companies, including:

-Potential employers or insurance companies

-Collection agencies acting on behalf of companies you may owe

-Companies providing pre-screened credit card offers

-Companies that have an existing credit relationship with you (this is true for frozen files also)

-Personalized offers from Experian, if you choose to receive them

It is annoying that Experian can get away with offering additional account security only to people who pay the company a hefty sum each month to sell their information. It’s also amazing that this sloppy security I wrote about back in 2017 is still just as prevalent in 2021.

But Experian is hardly alone. In 2019, I wrote about how Equifax’s new MyEquifax site made it simple for thieves to lift an existing credit freeze at Equifax and bypass the PIN if they were armed with just your name, Social Security number and birthday.

Also in 2019, identity thieves were able to get a copy of my credit report from TransUnion after successfully guessing the answers to multiple-guess questions like the ones Experian asks. I only found out after hearing from a detective in Washington state, who informed me that a copy of the report was found on a removable drive seized from a local man who was arrested on suspicion of being part of an ID theft gang.

TransUnion investigated and found it was indeed at fault for giving my credit report to ID thieves, but that on the bright side its systems blocked another fraudulent attempt at getting my report in 2020.

“In our investigation, we determined that a similar attempt to fraudulently obtain your report occurred in April 2020, and was successfully blocked by enhanced controls TransUnion has implemented since last year,” the company said. “TransUnion deploys a multi-layered security program to combat the ongoing and increasing threat of fraud, cyber-attacks and malicious activity.  In today’s dynamic threat environment, TransUnion is constantly enhancing and refining our controls to address the latest security threats, while still allowing consumers access to their information.”

For more information on credit freezes (also called a “security freezes”), how to request one, and other tips on preventing identity fraud, check out this story.

If you haven’t done so lately, it might be a good time to order a free copy of your credit report from annualcreditreport.com. This service entitles each consumer one free copy of their credit report annually from each of the three credit bureaus — either all at once or spread out over the year.

Note to Self: Create Non-Exhaustive List of Competitors

20 April 2021 at 21:46

What was the best news you heard so far this month? Mine was learning that KrebsOnSecurity is listed as a restricted competitor by Gartner Inc. [NYSE:IT] — a $4 billion technology goliath whose analyst reports can move markets and shape the IT industry.

Earlier this month, a reader pointed my attention to the following notice from Gartner to clients who are seeking to promote Gartner reports about technology products and services:

What that notice says is that KrebsOnSecurity is somehow on Gartner’s “non exhaustive list of competitors,” i.e., online venues where technology companies are not allowed to promote Gartner reports about their products and services.

The bulk of Gartner’s revenue comes from subscription-based IT market research. As the largest organization dedicated to the analysis of software, Gartner’s network of analysts are well connected to the technology and software industries. Some have argued that Gartner is a kind of private social network, in that a significant portion of Gartner’s competitive position is based on its interaction with an extensive network of software vendors and buyers.

Either way, the company regularly serves as a virtual kingmaker with their trademark “Magic Quadrant” designations, which rate technology vendors and industries “based on proprietary qualitative data analysis methods to demonstrate market trends, such as direction, maturity and participants.”

The two main subjective criteria upon which Gartner bases those rankings are “the ability to execute” and “completeness of vision.” They also break companies out into categories such as “challengers,” “leaders,” “visionaries” and “niche players.”

Gartner’s 2020 “Magic Quadrant” for companies that provide “contact center as a service” offerings.

So when Gartner issues a public report forecasting that worldwide semiconductor revenue will fall, or that worldwide public cloud revenue will grow, those reports very often move markets.

Being listed by Gartner as a competitor has had no discernable financial impact on KrebsOnSecurity, or on its reporting. But I find this designation both flattering and remarkable given that this site seldom promotes technological solutions.

Nor have I ever offered paid consulting or custom market research (although I did give a paid keynote speech at Gartner’s 2015 conference in Orlando, which is still by far the largest crowd I’ve ever addressed).

Rather, KrebsOnSecurity has sought to spread cybersecurity awareness primarily by highlighting the “who” of cybercrime — stories told from the perspectives of both attackers and victims. What’s more, my research and content is available to everyone at the same time, and for free.

I rarely do market predictions (or prognostications of any kind), but in deference to Gartner allow me to posit a scenario in which major analyst firms start to become a less exclusive and perhaps less relevant voice as both an influencer and social network.

For years I have tried to corrupt more of my journalist colleagues into going it alone, noting that solo blogs and newsletters can not only provide a hefty boost from newsroom income, but they also can produce journalism that is just as timely, relevant and impactful.

Those enticements have mostly fallen on deaf ears. Recently, however, an increasing number of journalists from major publications have struck out on their own, some in reportorial roles, others as professional researchers and analysts in their own right.

If Gartner considers a one-man blogging operation as competition, I wonder what they’ll think of the coming collective output from an entire industry of newly emancipated reporters seeking more remuneration and freedom offered by independent publishing platforms like Substack, Patreon and Medium.

Oh, I doubt any group of independent journalists would seek to promulgate their own Non-Exclusive List of Competitors at Whom Thou Shalt Not Publish. But why should they? One’s ability to execute does not impair another’s completeness of vision, nor vice versa. According to Gartner, it takes all kinds, including visionaries, niche players, leaders and challengers.

❌