Leakproof by law: Previewing the 2020 data protection landscape
30
Oct 2019
30
Oct 2019
To achieve compliance in 2020, human teams need artificial intelligence to make sense of their dynamic digital estates.
From credit card details and medical records, through to private conversations and even dating preferences, the modern consumer entrusts an unprecedented number of organizations with their most sensitive information, hoping against hope that it will be stored on the digital equivalent of Fort Knox.
The reality, however, is that robust data privacy has thus far proven elusive. Almost 13 billion records were breached over the last two years — including from Facebook, Google, and the US Postal Service — demonstrating once again that no network perimeter can keep motivated attackers at bay.
For governments whose principal responsibility is to safeguard their citizens, implementing a strong data protection regime is therefore as challenging as it is critical. At a time when cyber-criminals find vulnerabilities in the most ostensibly airtight systems, these regulators have tended to shy away from mandating concrete security practices, since no one can anticipate which measures will repel the next unpredictable attack. Instead, most data protection laws default to ambiguous calls for “reasonable,” “adequate,” or “appropriate” cyber defenses — language that arguably renders any breached company noncompliant by definition.
While such ambiguity makes prediction pieces like this one speculative to some extent, the coming year will almost certainly witness both an increase in data protection laws around the world as well as a less forgiving interpretation of their requirements. Ultimately, as governments attempt to address growing public concern over data privacy, the mere fact of having suffered a breach could be seen as grounds for significant fines. Avoiding these fines — and doing right by one’s customers — entails assuming that the bad guys will inevitably get past the perimeter.
Figure 1: Noncompliance penalties are only getting larger as the 2020s near. Data source: CSO.
GDPR goes global
The EU’s adoption of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in April 2016 was the watershed moment in the history of data protection legislation. Its enumeration of individual privacy rights, its 72-hour breach notification requirement, and its broad data protection directives continue to serve as a blueprint for countless others, such as Brazil’s General Data Protection Law (LGPD), Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). All three of these regulations become enforceable in 2020, with major ramifications for companies worldwide.
Brazil’s law, which will go into effect on August 15, 2020, is modeled closely after GDPR. Like GDPR, the law applies to all companies that handle the personal data of any of Brazil’s 210 million residents — regardless of where these companies themselves are headquartered. Also like GDPR, of course, the LGPD’s security clauses are open to interpretation. The law compels data handlers to “adopt security, technical, and administrative measures able to protect personal data from unauthorized access,” taking into account “the current state of technology.”
The PDPA in Thailand — effective starting on May 27, 2020 — is similarly vague in mandating unspecified security measures. It parts company, however, in that violators face the possibility of criminal prosecution and even imprisonment for up to one year, in addition to civil damages. Organizations classified as Critical Information Infrastructure (CII), including banks, telecoms, utilities, and hospitals, are regulated under Thailand’s separate Cybersecurity Act and its slightly more detailed obligations.
Figure 2: New GDPR-inspired laws like Brazil’s will turn this map increasingly blue. Image source: DLA Piper.
In California, meanwhile, the CCPA will enforce noncompliance penalties of up to $750 per consumer per incident beginning on the first day of 2020, which could result in multibillion-dollar fines in the case of large-scale breaches. Such precise provisions indicate that GDPR-style legislation is more than a symbolic step toward data protection. And yet, as of August 2019, only 2% of companies reported that they were fully compliant with CCPA, perhaps because, according to a state-commissioned study, California firms will be forced to shell out $55 billion on just their initial compliance efforts.
Checkmate for checkbox compliance
Between the hundreds of data protection fines levied under GDPR and analogous laws, the common thread is that penalized companies are deemed to have suffered a preventable breach. For instance, in the aftermath of the 2017 Equifax compromise that exposed the personal information of more than 140 million consumers, the company was found to have been in violation of the FTC Safeguards Rule, which compelled it to adopt security measures “appropriate to [the] size and complexity” of its digital infrastructure. The US government concluded that the incident was “entirely preventable” had Equifax performed a “routine” security update on the impacted database — an oversight that precipitated at least $1.4 billion in total damages.
However, a closer inspection reveals challenges far deeper than just a simple oversight. Equifax did indeed scan its network for vulnerabilities, but the automated scanner it used was not properly configured to search all of its assets. The truth is that these kinds of misconfigurations and blind spots are a symptom of the conventional approach to cyber security itself, an approach reliant on humans to adjust and monitor a vast array of siloed security tools. In the context of cloud environments designed to be dynamic and IoT devices that are often unbeknownst to the security team, there is nothing routine about defending the “size and complexity” of the modern enterprise.
The upshot of all these new laws, requirements, and fines is that the days of mere checkbox compliance are over. Breached companies can no longer throw up their hands and point to the list of perimeter security tools they had in place, particularly because attackers largely exploit user errors and misconfigurations that — while inevitable — also appear preventable in a vacuum. Rather, to achieve compliance in 2020, human teams need artificial intelligence to make sense of their dynamic digital estates. By learning how each unique user and device normally functions while ‘on the job’, such Cyber AI detects threats that are already inside the perimeter — before they cost the company in court.
Like this and want more?
Receive the latest blog in your inbox
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
NEWSLETTER
Like this and want more?
Stay up to date on the latest industry news and insights.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
AUTHOR
ABOUT ThE AUTHOR
Justin Fier
SVP, Red Team Operations
Justin is one of the US’s leading cyber intelligence experts, and holds the position of SVP, Red Team Operations at Darktrace. His insights on cyber security and artificial intelligence have been widely reported in leading media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, CNN, The Washington Post, and VICELAND. With over 10 years’ experience in cyber defense, Justin has supported various elements in the US intelligence community, holding mission-critical security roles with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman Mission Systems and Abraxas. Justin is also a highly-skilled technical specialist, and works with Darktrace’s strategic global customers on threat analysis, defensive cyber operations, protecting IoT, and machine learning.
A Thorn in Attackers’ Sides: How Darktrace Uncovered a CACTUS Ransomware Infection
24
Apr 2024
What is CACTUS Ransomware?
In May 2023, Kroll Cyber Threat Intelligence Analysts identified CACTUS as a new ransomware strain that had been actively targeting large commercial organizations since March 2023 [1]. CACTUS ransomware gets its name from the filename of the ransom note, “cAcTuS.readme.txt”. Encrypted files are appended with the extension “.cts”, followed by a number which varies between attacks, e.g. “.cts1” and “.cts2”.
As the cyber threat landscape adapts to ever-present fast-paced technological change, ransomware affiliates are employing progressively sophisticated techniques to enter networks, evade detection and achieve their nefarious goals.
How does CACTUS Ransomware work?
In the case of CACTUS, threat actors have been seen gaining initial network access by exploiting Virtual Private Network (VPN) services. Once inside the network, they may conduct internal scanning using tools like SoftPerfect Network Scanner, and PowerShell commands to enumerate endpoints, identify user accounts, and ping remote endpoints. Persistence is maintained by the deployment of various remote access methods, including legitimate remote access tools like Splashtop, AnyDesk, and SuperOps RMM in order to evade detection, along with malicious tools like Cobalt Strike and Chisel. Such tools, as well as custom scripts like TotalExec, have been used to disable security software to distribute the ransomware binary. CACTUS ransomware is unique in that it adopts a double-extortion tactic, stealing data from target networks and then encrypting it on compromised systems [2].
At the end of November 2023, cybersecurity firm Arctic Wolf reported instances of CACTUS attacks exploiting vulnerabilities on the Windows version of the business analytics platform Qlik, specifically CVE-2023-41266, CVE-2023-41265, and CVE-2023-48365, to gain initial access to target networks [3]. The vulnerability tracked as CVE-2023-41266 can be exploited to generate anonymous sessions and perform HTTP requests to unauthorized endpoints, whilst CVE-2023-41265 does not require authentication and can be leveraged to elevate privileges and execute HTTP requests on the backend server that hosts the application [2].
Darktrace’s Coverage of CACTUS Ransomware
In November 2023, Darktrace observed malicious actors leveraging the aforementioned method of exploiting Qlik to gain access to the network of a customer in the US, more than a week before the vulnerability was reported by external researchers.
Here, Qlik vulnerabilities were successfully exploited, and a malicious executable (.exe) was detonated on the network, which was followed by network scanning and failed Kerberos login attempts. The attack culminated in the encryption of numerous files with extensions such as “.cts1”, and SMB writes of the ransom note “cAcTuS.readme.txt” to multiple internal devices, all of which was promptly identified by Darktrace DETECT™.
While traditional rules and signature-based detection tools may struggle to identify the malicious use of a legitimate business platform like Qlik, Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI was able to confidently identify anomalous use of the tool in a CACTUS ransomware attack by examining the rarity of the offending device’s surrounding activity and comparing it to the learned behavior of the device and its peers.
Unfortunately for the customer in this case, Darktrace RESPOND™ was not enabled in autonomous response mode during their encounter with CACTUS ransomware meaning that attackers were able to successfully escalate their attack to the point of ransomware detonation and file encryption. Had RESPOND been configured to autonomously act on any unusual activity, Darktrace could have prevented the attack from progressing, stopping the download of any harmful files, or the encryption of legitimate ones.
Cactus Ransomware Attack Overview
Holiday periods have increasingly become one of the favoured times for malicious actors to launch their attacks, as they can take advantage of the festive downtime of organizations and their security teams, and the typically more relaxed mindset of employees during this period [4].
Following this trend, in late November 2023, Darktrace began detecting anomalous connections on the network of a customer in the US, which presented multiple indicators of compromise (IoCs) and tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) associated with CACTUS ransomware. The threat actors in this case set their attack in motion by exploiting the Qlik vulnerabilities on one of the customer’s critical servers.
Darktrace observed the server device making beaconing connections to the endpoint “zohoservice[.]net” (IP address: 45.61.147.176) over the course of three days. This endpoint is known to host a malicious payload, namely a .zip file containing the command line connection tool PuttyLink [5].
Darktrace’s Cyber AI Analyst was able to autonomously identify over 1,000 beaconing connections taking place on the customer’s network and group them together, in this case joining the dots in an ongoing ransomware attack. AI Analyst recognized that these repeated connections to highly suspicious locations were indicative of malicious command-and-control (C2) activity.
Figure 1: Cyber AI Analyst Incident Log showing the offending device making over 1,000 connections to the suspicious hostname “zohoservice[.]net” over port 8383, within a specific period.
The infected device was then observed downloading the file “putty.zip” over a HTTP connection using a PowerShell user agent. Despite being labelled as a .zip file, Darktrace’s detection capabilities were able to identify this as a masqueraded PuttyLink executable file. This activity resulted in multiple Darktrace DETECT models being triggered. These models are designed to look for suspicious file downloads from endpoints not usually visited by devices on the network, and files whose types are masqueraded, as well as the anomalous use of PowerShell. This behavior resembled previously observed activity with regards to the exploitation of Qlik Sense as an intrusion technique prior to the deployment of CACTUS ransomware [5].
Figure 2: The downloaded file’s URI highlighting that the file type (.exe) does not match the file's extension (.zip). Information about the observed PowerShell user agent is also featured.
Following the download of the masqueraded file, Darktrace observed the initial infected device engaging in unusual network scanning activity over the SMB, RDP and LDAP protocols. During this activity, the credential, “service_qlik” was observed, further indicating that Qlik was exploited by threat actors attempting to evade detection. Connections to other internal devices were made as part of this scanning activity as the attackers attempted to move laterally across the network.
Figure 3: Numerous failed connections from the affected server to multiple other internal devices over port 445, indicating SMB scanning activity.
The compromised server was then seen initiating multiple sessions over the RDP protocol to another device on the customer’s network, namely an internal DNS server. External researchers had previously observed this technique in CACTUS ransomware attacks where an RDP tunnel was established via Plink [5].
A few days later, on November 24, Darktrace identified over 20,000 failed Kerberos authentication attempts for the username “service_qlik” being made to the internal DNS server, clearly representing a brute-force login attack. There is currently a lack of open-source intelligence (OSINT) material definitively listing Kerberos login failures as part of a CACTUS ransomware attack that exploits the Qlik vulnerabilities. This highlights Darktrace’s ability to identify ongoing threats amongst unusual network activity without relying on existing threat intelligence, emphasizing its advantage over traditional security detection tools.
Figure 4: Kerberos login failures being carried out by the initial infected device. The destination device detected was an internal DNS server.
In the month following these failed Kerberos login attempts, between November 26 and December 22, Darktrace observed multiple internal devices encrypting files within the customer’s environment with the extensions “.cts1” and “.cts7”. Devices were also seen writing ransom notes with the file name “cAcTuS.readme.txt” to two additional internal devices, as well as files likely associated with Qlik, such as “QlikSense.pdf”. This activity detected by Darktrace confirmed the presence of a CACTUS ransomware infection that was spreading across the customer’s network.
Figure 5: The model, 'Ransom or Offensive Words Written to SMB', triggered in response to SMB file writes of the ransom note, ‘cAcTuS.readme.txt’, that was observed on the customer’s network.
Figure 6: CACTUS ransomware extensions, “.cts1” and “.cts7”, being appended to files on the customer’s network.
Following this initial encryption activity, two affected devices were observed attempting to remove evidence of this activity by deleting the encrypted files.
Figure 7: Attackers attempting to remove evidence of their activity by deleting files with appendage “.cts1”.
Conclusion
In the face of this CACTUS ransomware attack, Darktrace’s anomaly-based approach to threat detection enabled it to quickly identify multiple stages of the cyber kill chain occurring in the customer’s environment. These stages ranged from ‘initial access’ by exploiting Qlik vulnerabilities, which Darktrace was able to detect before the method had been reported by external researchers, to ‘actions on objectives’ by encrypting files. Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI was also able to detect a previously unreported stage of the attack: multiple Kerberos brute force login attempts.
If Darktrace’s autonomous response capability, RESPOND, had been active and enabled in autonomous response mode at the time of this attack, it would have been able to take swift mitigative action to shut down such suspicious activity as soon as it was identified by DETECT, effectively containing the ransomware attack at the earliest possible stage.
Learning a network’s ‘normal’ to identify deviations from established patterns of behaviour enables Darktrace’s identify a potential compromise, even one that uses common and often legitimately used administrative tools. This allows Darktrace to stay one step ahead of the increasingly sophisticated TTPs used by ransomware actors.
Credit to Tiana Kelly, Cyber Analyst & Analyst Team Lead, Anna Gilbertson, Cyber Analyst
The State of AI in Cybersecurity: How AI will impact the cyber threat landscape in 2024
22
Apr 2024
About the AI Cybersecurity Report
We surveyed 1,800 CISOs, security leaders, administrators, and practitioners from industries around the globe. Our research was conducted to understand how the adoption of new AI-powered offensive and defensive cybersecurity technologies are being managed by organizations.
Are organizations feeling the impact of AI-powered cyber threats?
Nearly three-quarters (74%) state AI-powered threats are now a significant issue. Almost nine in ten (89%) agree that AI-powered threats will remain a major challenge into the foreseeable future, not just for the next one to two years.
However, only a slight majority (56%) thought AI-powered threats were a separate issue from traditional/non AI-powered threats. This could be the case because there are few, if any, reliable methods to determine whether an attack is AI-powered.
Identifying exactly when and where AI is being applied may not ever be possible. However, it is possible for AI to affect every stage of the attack lifecycle. As such, defenders will likely need to focus on preparing for a world where threats are unique and are coming faster than ever before.
Are security stakeholders concerned about AI’s impact on cyber threats and risks?
The results from our survey showed that security practitioners are concerned that AI will impact organizations in a variety of ways. There was equal concern associated across the board – from volume and sophistication of malware to internal risks like leakage of proprietary information from employees using generative AI tools.
What this tells us is that defenders need to prepare for a greater volume of sophisticated attacks and balance this with a focus on cyber hygiene to manage internal risks.
One example of a growing internal risks is shadow AI. It takes little effort for employees to adopt publicly-available text-based generative AI systems to increase their productivity. This opens the door to “shadow AI”, which is the use of popular AI tools without organizational approval or oversight. Resulting security risks such as inadvertent exposure of sensitive information or intellectual property are an ever-growing concern.
Are organizations taking strides to reduce risks associated with adoption of AI in their application and computing environment?
71.2% of survey participants say their organization has taken steps specifically to reduce the risk of using AI within its application and computing environment.
16.3% of survey participants claim their organization has not taken these steps.
These findings are good news. Even as enterprises compete to get as much value from AI as they can, as quickly as possible, they’re tempering their eager embrace of new tools with sensible caution.
Still, responses varied across roles. Security analysts, operators, administrators, and incident responders are less likely to have said their organizations had taken AI risk mitigation steps than respondents in other roles. In fact, 79% of executives said steps had been taken, and only 54% of respondents in hands-on roles agreed. It seems that leaders believe their organizations are taking the needed steps, but practitioners are seeing a gap.
Do security professionals feel confident in their preparedness for the next generation of threats?
A majority of respondents (six out of every ten) believe their organizations are inadequately prepared to face the next generation of AI-powered threats.
The survey findings reveal contrasting perceptions of organizational preparedness for cybersecurity threats across different regions and job roles. Security administrators, due to their hands-on experience, express the highest level of skepticism, with 72% feeling their organizations are inadequately prepared. Notably, respondents in mid-sized organizations feel the least prepared, while those in the largest companies feel the most prepared.
Regionally, participants in Asia-Pacific are most likely to believe their organizations are unprepared, while those in Latin America feel the most prepared. This aligns with the observation that Asia-Pacific has been the most impacted region by cybersecurity threats in recent years, according to the IBM X-Force Threat Intelligence Index.
The optimism among Latin American respondents could be attributed to lower threat volumes experienced in the region, but it's cautioned that this could change suddenly (1).
What are biggest barriers to defending against AI-powered threats?
The top-ranked inhibitors center on knowledge and personnel. However, issues are alluded to almost equally across the board including concerns around budget, tool integration, lack of attention to AI-powered threats, and poor cyber hygiene.
The cybersecurity industry is facing a significant shortage of skilled professionals, with a global deficit of approximately 4 million experts (2). As organizations struggle to manage their security tools and alerts, the challenge intensifies with the increasing adoption of AI by attackers. This shift has altered the demands on security teams, requiring practitioners to possess broad and deep knowledge across rapidly evolving solution stacks.
Educating end users about AI-driven defenses becomes paramount as organizations grapple with the shortage of professionals proficient in managing AI-powered security tools. Operationalizing machine learning models for effectiveness and accuracy emerges as a crucial skill set in high demand. However, our survey highlights a concerning lack of understanding among cybersecurity professionals regarding AI-driven threats and the use of AI-driven countermeasures indicating a gap in keeping pace with evolving attacker tactics.
The integration of security solutions remains a notable problem, hindering effective defense strategies. While budget constraints are not a primary inhibitor, organizations must prioritize addressing these challenges to bolster their cybersecurity posture. It's imperative for stakeholders to recognize the importance of investing in skilled professionals and integrated security solutions to mitigate emerging threats effectively.
1. IBM, X-Force Threat Intelligence Index 2024, Available at: https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/L0GKXDWJ
2. ISC2, Cybersecurity Workforce Study 2023, Available at: https://media.isc2.org/-/media/Project/ISC2/Main/Media/ documents/research/ISC2_Cybersecurity_Workforce_Study_2023.pdf?rev=28b46de71ce24e6ab7705f6e3da8637e
![Cyber AI Analyst Incident Log showing the offending device making over 1,000 connections to the suspicious hostname “zohoservice[.]net” over port 8383, within a specific period.](https://assets-global.website-files.com/626ff4d25aca2edf4325ff97/662971c1cf09890fd46729a1_Screenshot%202024-04-24%20at%201.55.10%20PM.png)
