company logo

Product

Our Product

We are Reshaping the way Developers find and fix vulnerabilities before they get exploited.

Solutions

By Industry

BFSI

Healthcare

Education

IT & Telecom

Government

By Role

CISO/CTO

DevOps Engineer

Resources

Resource Library

Get actionable insight straight from our threat Intel lab to keep you informed about the ever-changing Threat landscape.

Subscribe to Our Weekly Threat Digest

Company

Contact Us

Have queries, feedback or prospects? Get in touch and we shall be with you shortly.

loading..
loading..
loading..
Loading...

Ransomware

loading..
loading..
loading..

Ransomware Targeting Casinos via 3rd Party Gaming Vendors: FBI Warns

FBI alerts casinos of ransomware attacks using legitimate tools. Learn mitigation techniques for cyber resilience

08-Nov-2023
2 min read

Related Articles

loading..

Encryptor

Interlock

Interlock ransomware disrupts organizations worldwide, encrypting data on FreeBS...

The **Interlock ransomware** has emerged as a new and dangerous player on the global cyber threat landscape, targeting **FreeBSD servers**—an uncommon but highly valuable target. This tactic signifies a shift among ransomware operators who are broadening their range from typical Windows systems to less traditionally attacked environments, exploiting vulnerabilities in systems critical to enterprise infrastructure. This deep-dive explores **Interlock’s strategy**, the technical nuances that make it a distinctive threat, and how organizations can protect against this sophisticated ransomware. #### What is Interlock Ransomware? The **Interlock ransomware** made its appearance in **September 2024**, quickly gaining notoriety for its targeted focus on **FreeBSD systems**, a Unix-like operating system widely used in critical infrastructure due to its stability and performance. Unlike most ransomware that primarily focuses on **Windows** and **Linux** platforms, Interlock has taken the **unusual approach of developing a custom encryptor for FreeBSD**. This targeting strategy allows attackers to disrupt key operations, leveraging the fact that FreeBSD is often used for hosting crucial services and managing enterprise workloads. #### A Targeted Approach to Attack FreeBSD Servers The FreeBSD-targeting encryptor is notable because ransomware designed specifically for this platform is rare. Historically, ransomware groups have focused their efforts on **Windows systems** due to their sheer number and extensive use. However, as **Hive ransomware** and others have shifted towards attacking **Linux** and **FreeBSD** environments, so too has Interlock, marking a new chapter in the evolution of cyber threats. **Why FreeBSD?** The answer lies in the widespread use of FreeBSD servers in environments that require high reliability and uptime, such as network infrastructure and hosting services. By successfully compromising these systems, Interlock’s operators aim to maximize the impact of their attacks, resulting in significant operational disruptions for the victim. #### Technical Deep Dive: Understanding the Interlock Encryptor The **Interlock ransomware encryptor** was initially detected by researchers who noted that it is an **ELF binary** specifically compiled for FreeBSD 10.4. The ELF (Executable and Linkable Format) is typically used for Unix-like operating systems, and its compilation for FreeBSD shows the deliberate targeting of this niche but important platform. Upon analysis, the **Interlock encryptor** presented itself as a **64-bit statically linked ELF binary**, which means that the malware includes all necessary libraries to run independently of the host system's library versions. This tactic ensures that the ransomware works across different versions of FreeBSD, expanding its range of potential victims. The **statically linked** nature of the encryptor also means that the payload is harder to interfere with or block without full access to the system. When executed, the **ransomware appends the extension .interlock** to encrypted files and drops a ransom note named "!__README__!.txt" in each affected directory. This file provides the victim with instructions to access an **anonymous Tor-based negotiation site**, where they are coerced into paying a hefty ransom to regain access to their data. #### Double-Extortion: Theft and Encryption Interlock employs a **double-extortion model**—not only does it encrypt files, but it also exfiltrates data before initiating encryption. The stolen data serves as additional leverage, threatening to publicly release it if the ransom is not paid. This tactic not only creates financial pressure on organizations but also raises the stakes by threatening their **reputation** and regulatory consequences. #### Real-World Impact: Wayne County Example The **Wayne County government** in Michigan became one of the early victims of the Interlock ransomware attack. The attack took place on October 3, 2024, and led to disruptions across county services, including preventing **online tax payments**, **inmate bonding** at the Sheriff's Office, and **recording real estate transactions** at the Register of Deeds Office. This highlights the **critical impact** that targeting FreeBSD infrastructure can have, especially when it powers essential public services. The attack involved multiple system shutdowns, revealing the broad reach of a targeted ransomware attack on essential services and critical infrastructure. #### Lateral Movement and Encrypted Negotiations During the attack process, Interlock spreads laterally throughout the compromised network, infecting multiple systems before deploying the ransomware. Once encryption is completed, victims are instructed to use an **anonymous chat room on the dark web**. To access this chat room, victims must enter an **organization-specific ID**, ensuring that the ransomware operators can uniquely identify each victim and negotiate individually, often based on the victim’s ability to pay. #### How to Defend Against Interlock Ransomware? Given the sophisticated nature of Interlock ransomware, it is imperative for organizations, particularly those using FreeBSD, to take proactive measures: 1. **Patch Management**: Always ensure that systems are running the latest updates. FreeBSD systems should be patched to mitigate known vulnerabilities. 2. **Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)**: Implement **MFA** for remote access services like SSH to reduce the risk of unauthorized access. 3. **Data Backup**: Regularly backup data and store backups offline to prevent ransomware from encrypting both live data and backup copies. 4. **Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)**: Deploy **EDR solutions** to monitor and detect any anomalous activity within the network. This includes unauthorized lateral movement or attempts to encrypt files. The **Interlock ransomware** is a stark reminder of the rapidly evolving nature of **cyber threats**. By targeting **FreeBSD**, a platform not usually associated with mainstream ransomware attacks, Interlock has demonstrated the ability of ransomware operators to diversify their attacks to increase impact and pressure. Organizations using FreeBSD must reinforce their **cyber defenses**, patch vulnerabilities, and prepare for the eventuality of an attack to mitigate the damage. The evolution of **cross-platform ransomware**, as seen in the cases of both **Interlock** and **Hive**, means that organizations can no longer rely solely on traditional antivirus or security practices designed primarily for **Windows** environments. Instead, a **holistic approach** to security, involving advanced monitoring, robust backup strategies, and stringent access controls, is necessary to safeguard against these increasingly sophisticated threats.

loading..   03-Nov-2024
loading..   5 min read
loading..

Zero-Click

NAS

Zero Day

Explore how Synology's rapid response to zero-day vulnerabilities sets a new cyb...

The recent zero-day vulnerabilities discovered at Pwn2Own Ireland 2024 highlight Synology’s swift handling of cybersecurity threats, offering a valuable case study in rapid response and the evolution of corporate responsibility in an era of increasingly sophisticated cyber threats. #### From Vulnerability to Accountability It’s easy to see the Synology zero-day incident as just another security patch story. However, what’s more thought-provoking is how it reveals a broader narrative about the need for a shift in how vendors perceive their role in safeguarding users. Midnight Blue's discovery of the RISK:STATION vulnerability (CVE-2024-10443) speaks volumes about the potential of collaborative efforts between security researchers and vendors. Synology’s accelerated response—delivering patches for BeeStation and DiskStation within a remarkable 48 hours—demonstrates a newfound urgency that goes beyond compliance. It embodies the fact that companies must now see themselves as active custodians of user safety. The stakes here are stark. A critical zero-click vulnerability, such as RISK:STATION, is akin to a digital wildfire waiting to happen—especially when millions of network-attached storage (NAS) devices, used both at home and across enterprises, are exposed to the internet. Midnight Blue’s prompt communication and Synology’s swift release of patches turned what could have been a devastating incident into a teachable moment for all companies grappling with vulnerabilities: timing and transparency can be the difference between chaos and control. #### Beyond Patches: The Human Element in Cybersecurity The technical details of Synology's patched vulnerabilities, while crucial, mask a deeper layer of significance—the human factor. Vulnerabilities, particularly those in ubiquitous devices like NAS systems, hold very tangible implications for everyday users. The reality that these vulnerabilities were found not just in common homes, but within the infrastructure of police departments, critical infrastructure contractors, and more, underscores the very real human cost of security gaps. Midnight Blue's subsequent media reach-out to emphasize mitigative actions reflects an essential, yet often overlooked, dimension of cybersecurity: informing and empowering the users themselves. The narrative here is not just about how swiftly a vendor can release a patch, but also about how well users can be educated to take immediate action. For many, these patches aren't applied automatically, necessitating awareness, engagement, and proactive defense on the part of device owners. By framing the dissemination of patch information as a top priority, Synology and Midnight Blue have taken a step toward bridging the gap between tech companies and their customers in cybersecurity literacy. #### Toward a Secure Digital Future The hurried patch releases by Synology and QNAP in the wake of Pwn2Own’s discoveries set a new standard in timeliness, but they also illustrate the changing relationship between security research and product safety. Vendors, previously accustomed to the luxury of taking up to 90 days to address reported vulnerabilities, must now operate in an accelerated environment where rapid exploitation is a clear and present danger. The story of RISK:STATION is a stark reminder that no connected device is immune, and every link in the chain of connectivity needs vigilance. The Internet of Things, of which NAS devices are a part, is only as strong as its weakest point, and often that point is the delay between vulnerability disclosure and patch application. Synology's response demonstrates how shrinking this gap must be at the forefront of vendor priorities. The challenge lies not just in the release of patches, but also in how swiftly and effectively they reach every vulnerable system. As NAS devices increasingly serve as repositories for sensitive information—not just for enterprises but for individuals who trust them with their family photos and personal data—stories like this should serve as a clarion call to both users and vendors. For vendors, it’s about recognizing the gravity of their role in user protection. For users, it’s a reminder to be vigilant, apply patches promptly, and reconsider how they expose their devices online. The Synology incident is, in many ways, a microcosm of what’s to come as our digital ecosystems expand. It’s a reminder that cybersecurity is as much about the processes of discovery and patching as it is about communication, education, and the fundamental responsibility of every player in the digital space to take security as seriously as possible. In a hyper-connected age, vigilance is no longer optional—it’s imperative.

loading..   02-Nov-2024
loading..   4 min read
loading..

AI

Azure

Microsoft

Azure AI vulnerability reveals flaws in content moderation guardrails, raising q...

In February 2024, Mindgard disclosed a striking vulnerability: Microsoft’s Azure AI Content Safety Service, which many depend on to ensure responsible AI behavior, had two glaring weaknesses. These vulnerabilities allowed sophisticated attackers to slip through the well-advertised “guardrails,” bypassing established mechanisms to keep harmful content at bay. At first glance, this might seem like a run-of-the-mill vulnerability disclosure, but let’s dive into why this breach underscores a far deeper challenge for AI security and our collective perception of safety. ### **Illusion of Impenetrability** Microsoft’s Azure AI Content Safety service, promoted as a safeguard for AI content, comprises AI Text Moderation and Prompt Shield. AI Text Moderation is responsible for blocking harmful content like hate speech, while Prompt Shield aims to protect AI models against manipulative attacks such as jailbreaks and prompt injection. These mechanisms are supposed to ensure that harmful, inappropriate, or manipulated content cannot make its way into the output generated by AI systems. However, the discovery by Mindgard has exposed a stark truth: while AI guardrails sound reliable, they often exist in a precarious balance between effectiveness and exploitation. The vulnerabilities revolved around ‘Character Injection’ and ‘Adversarial ML Evasion’ techniques—both methods designed to exploit blind spots in detection mechanisms. This insight changes our perception of what it means to create guardrails around AI. The once-assumed invincibility of AI moderation tools begins to crumble when we realize the ease with which creative adversaries can identify loopholes, rendering those safety nets insufficient. ### **Attack Techniques: Exploiting Blind Spots** The first evasion technique—Character Injection—leverages imperceptible character modifications that result in evading detection while retaining a message’s meaning to human readers. For instance, attackers used variations like diacritical marks (‘a’ to ‘á’), homoglyphs (using ‘O’ instead of ‘0’), and zero-width spaces. These changes, while trivial to the human eye, wreaked havoc on AI classifiers trained on natural text, achieving a staggering evasion success rate ranging from 83% to 100%. Adversarial ML evasion techniques took a different approach, by modifying the context at the word level, introducing small changes that disoriented the AI system's understanding—undermining content moderation by up to 58%. These attacks highlight how machine learning models inherently struggle to address ambiguities that are easily recognized by humans. This challenge reveals a critical limitation in the effectiveness of guardrails—they often operate on shallow semantics without robust context understanding, making them susceptible to surprisingly simple manipulations. ### **Undermining Trust and AI Safety Narratives** What does this mean for us as individuals, corporations, and societies increasingly adopting AI into our daily lives? First and foremost, it serves as a powerful reminder that AI moderation is neither flawless nor immune to adversarial ingenuity. This incident undermines trust in AI systems' capability to act autonomously and ethically without supervision, and it questions the scalability of relying purely on technical barriers for safety. The reliability of content moderation and ethical AI relies on maintaining impenetrable defenses—an illusion shattered when attackers identify and exploit vulnerabilities. The consequences of bypassing Azure’s safeguards extend beyond just inappropriate content slipping through. The system’s incapacity to identify these sophisticated attacks means sensitive and harmful content can infiltrate the AI’s decision-making process, generate malicious responses, or even propagate misinformation. For instance, with Prompt Shield’s evasion, adversaries could manipulate a model into breaking ethical guidelines, potentially resulting in dangerous real-world consequences, from influencing public discourse to committing fraud. Such incidents compel us to rethink what true “safety” means in an AI context. ### **Guardrails as an Ongoing Process, Not a Product** The vulnerabilities revealed by Mindgard illustrate a critical lesson—guardrails are not one-time fixes. They require an iterative, adaptive approach to respond to the ever-evolving tactics of adversarial actors. This raises a provocative point: are AI safety guardrails sufficient as they stand today? Or do we need to look beyond traditional reactive security measures, adopting more proactive and resilient approaches that learn and evolve just as the attackers do? This calls for a paradigm shift in how we approach the AI safety narrative. Instead of presenting these solutions as definitive safety barriers, the focus should be on transparency, adaptability, and continual learning. Mitigation strategies, such as embedding context-aware AI, deploying diverse moderation techniques, and conducting consistent red teaming, need to be integrated to create a more robust and resilient AI security architecture. ### **A Shared Responsibility** The onus of securing AI systems doesn’t rest solely on the service providers. Developers, users, and companies integrating AI models into their ecosystems must actively understand the limitations and risks inherent in the tools they use. Supplementary moderation tools, tighter integrations, and human oversight are crucial components for developing truly effective safety mechanisms. It’s easy to read vulnerability disclosures and view them as flaws in someone else’s product. But the reality is that AI vulnerabilities represent weaknesses in our collective ability to control the technology we create. The impact of AI’s failures isn’t limited to a single company or product—the consequences affect people, trust, and societal norms. As we forge ahead, the lessons from these vulnerabilities should drive us to embrace a more nuanced understanding of AI’s limitations. True AI safety isn’t just a feature to be checked off—it’s an ongoing, collaborative pursuit to ensure these tools work for us, not against us.

loading..   02-Nov-2024
loading..   5 min read