Home   Blog   Twitter   Database  

Pedos pollute YouTube comments on kids’ videos, advertisers flee

Can YouTube ever keep video comments under control, or it is time to kill off comments altogether?

Posted: 22 Feb 2019 | 5:18 am

WTF PDF: If at first you don't succeed, you may be Adobe re-patching its Acrobat, Reader patches

Plus: How Microsoft Edge helps Facebook Flash files dodge click-to-play rules in Edge

Adobe is taking a second crack at patching security bugs in its Acrobat and Reader PDF apps.…

Posted: 21 Feb 2019 | 1:51 pm

Monero Miner-Malware Uses RADMIN, MIMIKATZ to Infect, Propagate via Vulnerability

By Don Ovid Ladores, Michael Jhon Ofiaza and Gilbert Sison

Between the last week of January to February, we noticed an increase in hack tool installation attempts that dropped seemingly random files into the Windows directory. Initially appearing unrelated, analysis showed the final payload to be a Monero cryptocurrency-mining malware variant as it scans for open port 445 and exploit a Windows SMB Server Vulnerability MS17-010 (patched in 2017) for its infection and propagation routines, targeting companies in China, Taiwan, Italy, and Hong Kong.

MIMIKATZ has been used with other hack tools and coinmining-malware in previous routines to collect user accounts and system credentials, while malicious actors have used RADMIN tools to gain admin rights and other malware into targeted systems. However, this combination of RADMIN and MIMIKATZ becomes a concern for data exfiltration of enterprise assets and information because of the randomly named and seemingly-valid Windows functions that may go undetected. Also, we found it interesting that the sample itself does not download the coinminer. Instead, the miner malware payload is remotely downloaded and dropped through the command sent via RADMIN to the target machine. While using outdated software, the modular structure of this payload may give way to other modular malware being included as well.

Figure 1. Monero cryptocurrency mining-malware routine using RADMIN and MIMIKATZ.

The malware variant (detected by Trend Micro as Trojan.Win32.INFOSTEAL.ADS) is downloaded into the system from visiting infected websites or dropped by other malware, and proceeds with reinstallation by removing older versions of itself, files and processes related to the initial download to ensure that the infection process is updated.

Figure 2. Creates a file from its resource, names it as C:\windows\temp\ttt.exe (Trojan.Win32.INFOSTEAL.ADS), and executes it.

Figure 3. Malware checks if the name is svhost.exe or svchost.exe. If not, it terminates all the old versions of the malware, enabling firewall and port opening.

It connects to several URLs and IP addresses to send information regarding the infected machine and download files, including the encrypted coinminer and Trojan.Win32.MIMIKATZ.ADU. It will then drop an .EXE file named taskmgr.exe (detected by Trend Micro as Coinminer.Win32.MALXMR.ADS), which will decrypt and execute the Monero miner.

Figure 4. The malware variant connects to a URL to download encrypted files and send information from the machine.

It then drops a modified copy of itself in the drive and creates a scheduled task to execute wmiex, connecting online to send system information and download files for executing flushdns.

It continues to save and execute the downloaded file (detected by Trend Micro as Trojan.Win32.MIMIKATZ.ADU), a Python-compiled executable that imports several other Python modules (detected by Trend Micro as Trojan.PS1.MIMIKATZ.ADS) to gather credentials, as well as psexec, enabling the attacker to remotely execute commands. It is also capable of randomly scanning generated IP addresses over the internet and local networks for open port 445.

Figure 5. Saves the downloaded file as C:\windows\temp\svchost.exe (Trojan.Win32.MIMIKATZ.ADU) and executes it.

Using another Python module named impacket, it drops a hack tool (detected by Trend Micro as HackTool.Win32.Radmin.GB) for remote command communication from a malicious user by creating a named pipe \.\pipe\RemCom_communicaton.

Figure 6. Scans and checks for open ports.

Finding a target and after exploiting the vulnerability – the patch was released in October 2017 – it will copy and execute Trojan.Win32.INFOSTEAL.ADS and repeat the whole routine.

Figure 7. Our telemetry showed the highest infection attempts on these days in China and Taiwan. It also shows that the attacks did not decrease even after the Lunar New Year holidays.

We will continue to follow this threat as our telemetry continues to detect it targeting unique systems; we have noted another gradual increase in detections at the time of publishing. We suspect that the cybercriminals behind this malware deployment are developing this modular structure to infect as many systems possible for future attacks via escalated privileges, remote access, and using stolen credentials. Since the info stealer is able to send back information such as user accounts, port forwarding, and system specifics, and capable of planting the hack tool for remote admin functions, it can let attackers remotely access the system to initiate more attacks in the future if left unchecked.

Conclusion

The cybercriminals might be taking advantage of the fact that the companies in these countries can’t detect the malware’s activity as the dates coincided with regional holiday celebrations and events. The technique masked its activities under randomly named files and seemingly valid functions, applying a load on the CPU and GPU resources that could cause systems to run abnormally slow.

We also noticed that the actors behind this might possess intermediate-level skills. The use and stitching of multiple free tools available online — from Python-compiled malware, open-source modules, outdated exploit and freeware hacktools — may indicate the cybercriminal is still sharpening their criminal skill set. As an example, the RADMIN tool used is at least five years old, already detected by multiple engines, and have been updated with newer open source versions, some of which are already used as legitimate system administrators’ tools for troubleshooting. For the malware to successfully infect the targeted system, it would have to be running without an installed protective structure. Either the malicious actor is expecting the targeted system to have minimal protection installed, or missed this aspect entirely.

Nonetheless, the technique shows some level of sophistication. Using MIMIKATZ and RADMIN for propagation while exploiting critical vulnerabilities enables malicious actors to spread malware with worm-like behavior to target specific systems in industries without being immediately detected. Reminiscent of Petya’s and SOBREBRECT’s routines, events such as psexec execution and SMB drops raise less suspicion while moving laterally within the network, but the use of this outdated software may hinder them.

Users are advised to regularly download patches from legitimate vendors as soon as they are released. For enterprises, we recommend having a multilayered protection system to detect, prevent, and resolve malware infections and attacks such as cryptocurrency miner-malware to prevent them from disrupting regular business operations.

Indicators of Compromise

Trend Micro products with XGen™ security detect and block the following:

SHA256 Detection
bdbfa96d17c2f06f68b3bcc84568cf445915e194f130b0dc2411805cf889b6cc Trojan.Win32.INFOSTEAL.ADS
d41e371d15ef33bdbf1a2011c27e2475cd9ad492b3cb64489ac7047dbadffeb2 Trojan.Win32.MIMIKATZ.ADU
d943bc6dc7614894cc1c741c6c18ac2dbd2c5069f3ab9bc9def5cc2661e54dee Trojan.PS1.MIMIKATZ.ADS
3c2fe308c0a563e06263bbacf793bbe9b2259d795fcc36b953793a7e499e7f71 HackTool.Win32.Radmin.GB
735d9699b69b3ae2d27cbf452d488e1d1adbe643c8228e7093d012bf7fcff6de Trojan.Win32.MIMIKATZ.ADT
01b842cab76c78a1d9860ade258923772fe3b08ae7a428d5f54e1bf9d9c3b205 Coinminer.Win32.MALXMR.ADS

URLs

dl[.]haqo[.]net/ins2.exez

i[.]haqo[.]net/i.png

ii[.]haqo[.]net/u.png

o[.]beahh[.]com/i.png

p[.]abbny[.]com/im.png

v[.]beahh[.]com/v

132[.]162[.]107[.]97/xmrig-32_1.mlz

139[.]162[.]107[.]97/h.bat

153[.]92[.]4[.]49

The post Monero Miner-Malware Uses RADMIN, MIMIKATZ to Infect, Propagate via Vulnerability appeared first on .

Posted: 20 Feb 2019 | 5:04 am

Ryuk, Exploring the Human Connection

In collaboration with Bill Siegel and Alex Holdtman from Coveware.

 

At the beginning of 2019, McAfee ATR published an article describing how the hasty attribution of Ryuk ransomware to North Korea was missing the point. Since then, collective industry peers discovered additional technical details on Ryuk’s inner workings, the overlap between Ryuk and Hermes2.1, and a detailed description of how the ransomware is piggybacking the infamous and ever evolving Trickbot as a primary attack vector. In this blog post we have teamed up with Coveware to take a closer look at the adversary and victim dynamics of Ryuk Ransomware. We structured our research using the Diamond threat model and challenged our existing hypotheses with fresh insights.

Introduction to The Diamond Model

Within Cyber Threat intelligence research, a popular approach is to model the characteristics of an attack using The Diamond Model of Intrusion Analysis. This model relates four basic elements of an intrusion: adversary, capabilities, infrastructure and victim.

For the Ryuk case described above the model can be applied as follows: “An Adversary, cyber-criminal(s), have a capability (Ryuk Ransomware) that is being spread via a TrickBot infection Infrastructure targeting specific victims.

Diamond model of Intrusion Analysis

The Diamond Model offers a holistic view of an intrusion that is a helpful guideline to shape the direction of intelligence research. By searching for relationships between two elements one can gather new evidence. For instance, by analyzing and reverse engineering a piece of malware one might uncover that a certain server is being used for command and control infrastructure, thus linking capability with infrastructure (as shown below).

Linking Infrastructure and Capability

Alternatively, one might search underground forums to find information on adversaries who sell certain pieces of malware, thus linking an adversary with a capability. For instance, finding the underground forum advertisement of Hermes2.1.

Linking Adversary and Capability

Analysis of Competing Hypotheses

In our earlier publication we explained The Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH), the process of challenging formed hypotheses with research findings.
By following this method, we concluded that the strongest hypothesis is not the one with the most verifying evidence, but the one with the least falsifying evidence.

In order to construct a hypothesis with the least falsifying evidence we welcome research published by our industry peers to dissimilate insights that challenge our hypotheses. When we combined all the evidence with links on the diamond model, we discovered that one essential link wasn’t made, the link between adversary and victim.

Seeking New Insights Between Adversary and Victim

Despite published research, the direct link between adversary and victim remained relatively unexplored. Unlike most cybercrime, ransomware and digital extortion frequently creates a strong social connection between adversary and victim. The adversary has certain needs and views the victim as the means to fulfill those needs. The connection between an adversary and victim often generates valuable insights, especially in cases where (extensive) negotiation take place.

Luckily, one of our NoMoreRansom partners, Coveware, is specialized in ransomware negotiations and has gained valuable insights help us link adversary and victim.

The social connection between Adversary and Victim

Ransom Amounts and Negotiations

By aggregating ransomware negotiation and payment data, Coveware is able to identify strain-specific ransomware trends. With regards to Ryuk, it should be noted that ransom amounts average more than 10x the average, making it the costliest type of ransomware. Coveware also observed that some Ryuk ransoms were highly negotiable, while others were not. The bar-belled negotiation results generated an average ransom payment of $71k, a 60% discount from an average opening ask of $145k.

The bar-belled negotiation outcomes meant that some victims were stonewalled. These victims either lost their data or took on staggering financial risk to pay the ransom. The outcomes also imply that in certain cases the adversary would rather receive infrequent large windfalls (often in excess of 100BTC), while in other cases the adversary was keen to monetize every attack and accept lower amounts to ensure payment. This difference in modus operandi suggests that more than one cyber-criminal group is operating Ryuk ransomware.

Ransom Note and Negotiation Similarities and Differences

Similarities between Bitpaymer and Ryuk ransom notes have been observed before. While it is not uncommon for ransom notes to share similar language, sequences of phrases tend to remain within the same ransomware family. Slight copy+paste modifications are made to the ransom text as a variant is passed along to different groups, but large alterations are rarely made. Below is a comparison of a Bitpaymer initial email (left) and a standard Ryuk initial email (right).

A comparison of a Bitpaymer initial email (left) and a standard Ryuk initial email (right)

The shared language implies that text once unique to a Bitpaymer campaign was borrowed for a Ryuk campaign, possibly by an operator running simultaneous ransom campaigns of both Bitpaymer and Ryuk or the imitation can be considered as the sincerest form of flattery.

Different Initial Email Response May Be Different Adversaries?

A more dramatic scripted communication difference has been observed in the initial email response from Ryuk adversaries. The initial email response is typically identical within ransomware families belonging to the same campaign. When significant differences in length, language, and initial ransom amount appear in the initial email response we are comfortable assuming they belong to unique groups with unique modus operandi. This would mean that Ryuk in being spread by more than one actor group.

Below are two such Ryuk examples:

 

Post Payment Bitcoin Activity

A final indicator that multiple groups are running simultaneous Ryuk campaigns can be observed in the activity of bitcoin after it hits a ransom address. Surprisingly, despite the differences between negotiation outcome and initial communications, Coveware observed little difference between the BTC wallets (blacked out to protect victims) associated with the above cases. Initial comparison showed no meaningful discrepancy in difference between the time of a ransom payment and the time of a corresponding withdraw. Additionally, the distribution of funds upon withdrawal was consistently split between two addresses. Coveware will continue to monitor the funds associated with campaigns for meaningful indicators.

Ryuk Negotiating Profiles

With few exceptions, the rest of the email replies during a Ryuk extortion negotiation are extremely short and blunt. Typical replies and retorts are generally less than 10 written words and often just a single number if the ransom amount is the point of discussion. This correspondence is unique to Ryuk.

One reply did contain quite a remarkable expression; “à la guerre comme à la guerre,” to contextualize the methods and reasons for the cyber criminals’ attacks on western companies. The French expression originates from the seventeenth century and literally translates to “in war as in war” and loosely translates to: “In Harsh times one has to do with what’s available”. The striking thing about this expression is that is prominently featured in volume 30 of the collected works of the Soviet Revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin. Lenin uses the expression to describe the struggle of his people during the war against western capitalism.

This concept of “The capitalistic West versus the Poor east” is actually something McAfee ATR sees quite often expressed by cyber criminals from some of the Post-Soviet republics. This expression may be a clear indicator of the origin and cultural view of the criminals behind Ryuk.

Ryuk poses existential risk to certain industries

Even though the average ransom discounts of Ryuk are large (~60%), the absolute level of the ransom is extreme. Accordingly, we have seen evidence that links ransom demands to the size of the network footprint of the victim company. However, this doesn’t mean that the ransom demand correlates to the victims actual operational and financial size.

Companies in the IT Hosting and the Freight and Logistics industries have been particularly susceptible to this discrepancy. Coveware has assisted at least 3 companies that have had to unwind their business when an affordable ransom amount, could not be reached. Typically, downtime costs are 10x the ransom amount, but in these industries downtime costs can be particularly extreme.

IT Hosting companies are of note as the size and number of their servers can make them appear like a large organization. Unfortunately, the business of hosting involves high fixed costs, low operating margins, and zero tolerance of downtime by end clients.  Hosting companies that get attacked typically have a few hours to restore service before their clients drop them for alternatives. Moreover, these companies suffer irreparable harm to their reputations, and may trigger SLA breaches that leave them exposed to liability.  The inability to pay a six-figure ransom has caused multiple hosting companies to shut down.

Freight and Logistics firms are also acutely exposed. These firms also present like larger firms given the volume of data they move and their network footprint. Additionally, attacks against Freight and Logistics firms can cause immediate supply chain issues for the victims’ end clients, who are subsequently forced to route through other service providers. Similar to IT Hosting, Freight and Logistics firms have low operating margins and end clients with little tolerance for service interruptions. The inability to pay or negotiate a large ransom has materially impacted several firms in this industry.

Ryuk Decryptor findings and issues

When victims do pay the exorbitant ransom amount, the criminals will provide a decryptor to unlock a their files. This decryptor is actually framework that needs to be loaded with a victim’s private RSA key, provided by the criminals, in order to decrypt. Ensuring that the provided decryptor will only work for this specific victim. This setup allows the criminals to quickly load a victim’s key in the framework and offer a custom decryptor with minimal code change while the underlaying framework remains the same.

From Coveware’s experience we have learned that the decryption process is quite cumbersome and full of possible fatal errors. Luckily Coveware was able to share the Ryuk decryptor with McAfee ATR in order to take a closer look at the issues and level of sophistication of the decryptor.

Once launched the first thing the decryptor does is to search the HKEY_CURRENT_USER Hive for a value pair named “svchos” in the path “SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run” and delete the specific entry. This removes the persistence of the malware. Afterwards it will reboot the system and remove any remaining Ryuk malware still receding on the system.

Deleting the “svchos” value from the registry.

Once rebooted the user needs to run the tool again and the decryptor will provide two options to decrypt.

The main interface of the Ryuk decryptor with the different menu options.

HERMES File Marker

During the decryption process we have found that the decryptor searches for the known file marker string HERMES which is located in the encrypted file.

The HERMES marker clearly visible within the file

The fact that Ryuk ransomware adds HERMES filemarker string was already known, but discovering this specific check routine in the decryptor strengthens the hypotheses that Ryuk is a slightly modified version of Hermes2.1 ransomware kit that is sold online even more.

Decryptor Issues

While examining the decryptor we were astonished by the lack of sophistication and the amount of errors that resided within the code. Some of the most prominent issues were:

Looking at the decryptor, it is very worrisome to see that the criminals behind Ryuk can get away with such bad programming. It shows a clear lack of empathy towards their victims and the absence of solid coding skills. Victims who do pay the exorbitant ransom demand are far from in the clear. The decryptor offered by the criminals has a very high risk of malfunctioning, resulting in permanent damage to their precious files. Victims should always make an exact copy of the encrypted hard disk before trying to use the decryptor.

Call to action in piecing the different parts together

By combining all the fresh insights with the information that was already discovered by ourselves and industry peers we can start defining our leading hypotheses around Ryuk. Based on this hypothesis, we will actively look for falsifying evidence. We encourage the security community to participate in this process. We realize that only by collaboration can we piece the different parts of the Ryuk puzzle together.

By now it should be without question that involvement of the DPRK is the least likely hypothesis. Our leading Hypothesis on Ryuk until proven otherwise is;

Ryuk is a direct descendant from Hermes2.1 with slight modifications, based on the code overlap in the ransomware as well as the decryptor. Ryuk is not designed to be used in a largescale corporate environment, based on all the scalability issues in the decryptor. At this moment there are several actors or actor-groups spreading Ryuk, based on the extortion modus operandi and different communications with the victims. The actors or actor-groups behind Ryuk have a relationship with one of the Post-Soviet republics, based on the Russian found in one of the encrypted files and the cultural references observed in the negotiations. The actors behind Ryuk most likely have an affiliation or relationship with the actors behind Trickbot and, based on their TTP, are better skilled at exploitation and lateral movement than pure Ransomware development.

Conclusion

In the last seven months Ryuk has proven to be a highly profitable form of ransomware, despite the poor programming behind it and its decryptor. The criminals have proven to be ruthless and several of their victims were forced to wind down their businesses after they were unable to afford the exorbitant ransom.

When a company does give in to the high demands it is extra painful to see a situation occur where they are permanently unable to recover their files due to the faulty decryptor.

A solid data loss prevention strategy still remains the best advice against all forms of ransomware, for general prevention advice please visit NoMoreRansom. Always seek professional assistance when you are faced with a targeted ransomware attack such as Ryuk.

The post Ryuk, Exploring the Human Connection appeared first on McAfee Blogs.

Posted: 19 Feb 2019 | 9:01 pm

Introducing Reneo

Reneo is a Windows tool to help incident responders, forensics specialists, and security researchers analyze and reverse engineer malicious and obfuscated scripts and other content. This tool can convert from/to various formats, transform, deobfuscate, encode/decode, encrypt/decrypt, and hash strings. The … Continue reading

Posted: 27 Jun 2018 | 8:14 am

Rootkit Umbreon / Umreon - x86, ARM samples



Pokémon-themed Umbreon Linux Rootkit Hits x86, ARM Systems
Research: Trend Micro


There are two packages
one is 'found in the wild' full and a set of hashes from Trend Micro (all but one file are already in the full package)






Download

Download Email me if you need the password  



File information

Part one (full package)

#File NameHash ValueFile Size (on Disk)Duplicate?
1.umbreon-ascii0B880E0F447CD5B6A8D295EFE40AFA376085 bytes (5.94 KiB)
2autoroot1C5FAEEC3D8C50FAC589CD0ADD0765C7281 bytes (281 bytes)
3CHANGELOGA1502129706BA19667F128B44D19DC3C11 bytes (11 bytes)
4cli.shC846143BDA087783B3DC6C244C2707DC5682 bytes (5.55 KiB)
5hideportsD41D8CD98F00B204E9800998ECF8427E0 bytes ( bytes)Yes, of file promptlog
6install.sh9DE30162E7A8F0279E19C2C30280FFF85634 bytes (5.5 KiB)
7Makefile0F5B1E70ADC867DD3A22CA62644007E5797 bytes (797 bytes)
8portchecker006D162A0D0AA294C85214963A3D3145113 bytes (113 bytes)
9promptlogD41D8CD98F00B204E9800998ECF8427E0 bytes ( bytes)
10readlink.c42FC7D7E2F9147AB3C18B0C4316AD3D81357 bytes (1.33 KiB)
11ReadMe.txtB7172B364BF5FB8B5C30FF528F6C51252244 bytes (2.19 KiB)
12setup694FFF4D2623CA7BB8270F5124493F37332 bytes (332 bytes)
13spytty.sh0AB776FA8A0FBED2EF26C9933C32E97C1011 bytes (1011 bytes)Yes, of file spytty.sh
14umbreon.c91706EF9717176DBB59A0F77FE95241C1007 bytes (1007 bytes)
15access.c7C0A86A27B322E63C3C29121788998B8713 bytes (713 bytes)
16audit.cA2B2812C80C93C9375BFB0D7BFCEFD5B1434 bytes (1.4 KiB)
17chown.cFF9B679C7AB3F57CFBBB852A13A350B22870 bytes (2.8 KiB)
18config.h980DEE60956A916AFC9D2997043D4887967 bytes (967 bytes)
19config.h.dist980DEE60956A916AFC9D2997043D4887967 bytes (967 bytes)Yes, of file config.h
20dirs.c46B20CC7DA2BDB9ECE65E36A4F987ABC3639 bytes (3.55 KiB)
21dlsym.c796DA079CC7E4BD7F6293136604DC07B4088 bytes (3.99 KiB)
22exec.c1935ED453FB83A0A538224AFAAC71B214033 bytes (3.94 KiB)
23getpath.h588603EF387EB617668B00EAFDAEA393183 bytes (183 bytes)
24getprocname.hF5781A9E267ED849FD4D2F5F3DFB8077805 bytes (805 bytes)
25includes.hF4797AE4B2D5B3B252E0456020F58E59629 bytes (629 bytes)
26kill.cC4BD132FC2FFBC84EA5103ABE6DC023D555 bytes (555 bytes)
27links.c898D73E1AC14DE657316F084AADA58A02274 bytes (2.22 KiB)
28local-door.c76FC3E9E2758BAF48E1E9B442DB98BF8501 bytes (501 bytes)
29lpcap.hEA6822B23FE02041BE506ED1A182E5CB1690 bytes (1.65 KiB)
30maps.c9BCD90BEA8D9F9F6270CF2017F9974E21100 bytes (1.07 KiB)
31misc.h1F9FCC5D84633931CDD77B32DB1D50D02728 bytes (2.66 KiB)
32netstat.c00CF3F7E7EA92E7A954282021DD72DC41113 bytes (1.09 KiB)
33open.cF7EE88A523AD2477FF8EC17C9DCD7C028594 bytes (8.39 KiB)
34pam.c7A947FDC0264947B2D293E1F4D69684A2010 bytes (1.96 KiB)
35pam_private.h2C60F925842CEB42FFD639E7C763C7B012480 bytes (12.19 KiB)
36pam_vprompt.c017FB0F736A0BC65431A25E1A9D393FE3826 bytes (3.74 KiB)
37passwd.cA0D183BBE86D05E3782B5B24E2C964132364 bytes (2.31 KiB)
38pcap.cFF911CA192B111BD0D9368AFACA03C461295 bytes (1.26 KiB)
39procstat.c7B14E97649CD767C256D4CD6E4F8D452398 bytes (398 bytes)
40procstatus.c72ED74C03F4FAB0C1B801687BE200F063303 bytes (3.23 KiB)
41readwrite.cC068ED372DEAF8E87D0133EAC0A274A82710 bytes (2.65 KiB)
42rename.cC36BE9C01FEADE2EF4D5EA03BD2B3C05535 bytes (535 bytes)
43setgid.c5C023259F2C244193BDA394E2C0B8313667 bytes (667 bytes)
44sha256.h003D805D919B4EC621B800C6C239BAE0545 bytes (545 bytes)
45socket.c348AEF06AFA259BFC4E943715DB5A00B579 bytes (579 bytes)
46stat.cE510EE1F78BD349E02F47A7EB001B0E37627 bytes (7.45 KiB)
47syslog.c7CD3273E09A6C08451DD598A0F18B5701497 bytes (1.46 KiB)
48umbreon.hF76CAC6D564DEACFC6319FA167375BA54316 bytes (4.21 KiB)
49unhide-funcs.c1A9F62B04319DA84EF71A1B091434C644729 bytes (4.62 KiB)
50cryptpass.py2EA92D6EC59D85474ED7A91C8518E7EC192 bytes (192 bytes)
51environment.sh70F467FE218E128258D7356B7CE328F11086 bytes (1.06 KiB)
52espeon-connect.shA574C885C450FCA048E79AD6937FED2E247 bytes (247 bytes)
53espeon-shell9EEF7E7E3C1BEE2F8591A088244BE0CB2167 bytes (2.12 KiB)
54espeon.c499FF5CF81C2624B0C3B0B7E9C6D980D14899 bytes (14.55 KiB)
55listen.sh69DA525AEA227BE9E4B8D59ACFF4D717209 bytes (209 bytes)
56spytty.sh0AB776FA8A0FBED2EF26C9933C32E97C1011 bytes (1011 bytes)
57ssh-hidden.shAE54F343FE974302F0D31776B72D0987127 bytes (127 bytes)
58unfuck.c457B6E90C7FA42A7C46D464FBF1D68E2384 bytes (384 bytes)
59unhide-self.pyB982597CEB7274617F286CA80864F499986 bytes (986 bytes)
60listen.shF5BD197F34E3D0BD8EA28B182CCE7270233 bytes (233 bytes)

part 2 (those listed in the Trend Micro article)
#File NameHash ValueFile Size (on Disk)
1015a84eb1d18beb310e7aeeceab8b84776078935c45924b3a10aa884a93e28acA47E38464754289C0F4A55ED7BB556489375 bytes (9.16 KiB)
20751cf716ea9bc18e78eb2a82cc9ea0cac73d70a7a74c91740c95312c8a9d53aF9BA2429EAE5471ACDE820102C5B81597512 bytes (7.34 KiB)
30a4d5ffb1407d409a55f1aed5c5286d4f31fe17bc99eabff64aa1498c5482a5f0AB776FA8A0FBED2EF26C9933C32E97C1011 bytes (1011 bytes)
40ce8c09bb6ce433fb8b388c369d7491953cf9bb5426a7bee752150118616d8ffB982597CEB7274617F286CA80864F499986 bytes (986 bytes)
5122417853c1eb1868e429cacc499ef75cfc018b87da87b1f61bff53e9b8e86709EEF7E7E3C1BEE2F8591A088244BE0CB2167 bytes (2.12 KiB)
6409c90ecd56e9abcb9f290063ec7783ecbe125c321af3f8ba5dcbde6e15ac64aB4746BB5E697F23A5842ABCAED36C9146149 bytes (6 KiB)
74fc4b5dab105e03f03ba3ec301bab9e2d37f17a431dee7f2e5a8dfadcca4c234D0D97899131C29B3EC9AE89A6D49A23E65160 bytes (63.63 KiB)
88752d16e32a611763eee97da6528734751153ac1699c4693c84b6e9e4fb08784E7E82D29DFB1FC484ED277C70218781855564 bytes (54.26 KiB)
9991179b6ba7d4aeabdf463118e4a2984276401368f4ab842ad8a5b8b730885222B1863ACDC0068ED5D50590CF792DF057664 bytes (7.48 KiB)
10a378b85f8f41de164832d27ebf7006370c1fb8eda23bb09a3586ed29b5dbdddfA977F68C59040E40A822C384D1CEDEB6176 bytes (176 bytes)
11aa24deb830a2b1aa694e580c5efb24f979d6c5d861b56354a6acb1ad0cf9809bDF320ED7EE6CCF9F979AEFE451877FFC26 bytes (26 bytes)
12acfb014304b6f2cff00c668a9a2a3a9cbb6f24db6d074a8914dd69b43afa452584D552B5D22E40BDA23E6587B1BC532D6852 bytes (6.69 KiB)
13c80d19f6f3372f4cc6e75ae1af54e8727b54b51aaf2794fedd3a1aa463140480087DD79515D37F7ADA78FF5793A42B7B11184 bytes (10.92 KiB)
14e9bce46584acbf59a779d1565687964991d7033d63c06bddabcfc4375c5f1853BBEB18C0C3E038747C78FCAB3E0444E371940 bytes (70.25 KiB)

Posted: 20 Mar 2018 | 6:29 am

Equifax breach could be most costly in corporate history

NEW YORK/TORONTO (Reuters) – Equifax Inc (EFX.N) said it expects costs related to its massive 2017 data breach to surge by $275 million this year, suggesting the incident at the credit reporting bureau could turn out to be the most costly hack in corporate history.

The projection, which was disclosed on a Friday morning earnings conference call, is on top of $164 million in pretax costs posted in the second half of 2017. That brings expected breach-related costs through the end of this year to $439 million, some $125 million of which Equifax said will be covered by insurance.

“It looks like this will be the most expensive data breach in history,” said Larry Ponemon, chairman of Ponemon Institute, a research group that tracks costs of cyber attacks.

Total costs of the breach, which compromised sensitive data of some 247 million consumers, could be“well over $600 million,” after including costs to resolve government investigations into the incident and civil lawsuits against the firm, he said.

The post Equifax breach could be most costly in corporate history appeared first on CyberESI.

Posted: 2 Mar 2018 | 11:37 am

Freedome VPN For Mac OS X

Take a look at this:

F-Secure Freedome Mac OS X

F-Secure Freedome for OS X (freshly installed on a Labs Mac Team MacBook).

Mac_Team_Test_Machines

The beta is now open for everyone to try for 60 days at no cost.

Download or share.

On 24/04/15 At 12:37 PM

Posted: 24 Apr 2015 | 1:37 am