Wednesday, May 31, 2023

Hacker Group 'Moses Staff' Using New StrifeWater RAT In Ransomware Attacks

 


A politically motivated hacker group tied to a series of espionage and sabotage attacks on Israeli entities in 2021 incorporated a previously undocumented remote access trojan (RAT) that masquerades as the Windows Calculator app as part of a conscious effort to stay under the radar.

Cybersecurity company Cybereason, which has been tracking the operations of the Iranian actor known as Moses Staff, dubbed the malware "StrifeWater."

"The StrifeWater RAT appears to be used in the initial stage of the attack and this stealthy RAT has the ability to remove itself from the system to cover the Iranian group's tracks," Tom Fakterman, Cybereason security analyst, said in a report. "The RAT possesses other capabilities, such as command execution and screen capturing, as well as the ability to download additional extensions."

Moses Staff came to light towards the end of last year when Check Point Research unmasked a series of attacks aimed at Israeli organizations since September 2021 with the objective of disrupting the targets' business operations by encrypting their networks, with no option to regain access or negotiate a ransom.

The intrusions were notable for the fact that they relied on the open-source library DiskCryptor to perform volume encryption, in addition to infecting the systems with a bootloader that prevents them from starting without the correct encryption key.


To date, victims have been reported beyond Israel, including Italy, India, Germany, Chile, Turkey, the U.A.E., and the U.S.

The new piece of the attack puzzle discovered by Cybereason comes in the form of a RAT that's deployed under the name "calc.exe" (the Windows Calculator binary) and is used during the early stages of the infection chain, only to be removed prior to the deployment of the file-encrypting malware.

The removal and the subsequent replacement of the malicious calculator executable with the legitimate binary, the researchers suspect, is an attempt on the part of the threat actor to cover up tracks and erase evidence of the trojan, not to mention enable them to evade detection until the final phase of the attack when the ransomware payload is executed.

StrifeWater, for its part, is no different from its counterparts and comes with numerous features, chief among them being the ability to list system files, execute system commands, take screen captures, create persistence, and download updates and auxiliary modules.

"The end goal for Moses Staff appears to be more politically motivated rather than financial," Fakterman concluded. "Moses Staff employs ransomware post-exfiltration not for financial gain, but to disrupt operations, obfuscate espionage activity, and to inflict damage to systems to advance Iran's geopolitical goals."

More articles
  1. Hak5 Tools
  2. Pentest Tools For Ubuntu
  3. Hacker Security Tools
  4. Hacker Tool Kit
  5. What Is Hacking Tools
  6. Hack Tools For Windows
  7. Hacker Security Tools
  8. Hacker Tools Free Download
  9. Hack Tools Mac
  10. New Hacker Tools
  11. Hacker Hardware Tools
  12. Pentest Tools Website Vulnerability
  13. Hacking Tools 2020
  14. Hacking Tools Github
  15. Hack Tools Online
  16. Physical Pentest Tools
  17. Hacking Tools For Mac
  18. Hack Tools Mac
  19. Pentest Tools Free
  20. Hack Tools For Mac
  21. Hacking Apps
  22. Hack Tools 2019
  23. Hacker Tools Mac
  24. Blackhat Hacker Tools
  25. Pentest Tools Apk
  26. Hack Tools For Ubuntu
  27. Tools 4 Hack
  28. Hack Tools Online
  29. Pentest Tools Kali Linux
  30. Hack Tools For Mac
  31. Nsa Hack Tools
  32. Nsa Hack Tools Download
  33. Hack Tool Apk
  34. Hacker Tools Hardware
  35. Install Pentest Tools Ubuntu
  36. Pentest Tools Find Subdomains
  37. Pentest Tools Windows
  38. Hacker
  39. Hack Tools
  40. Top Pentest Tools
  41. Best Pentesting Tools 2018
  42. Hacking Tools Download
  43. Hacking Tools Online
  44. Hacking Tools For Mac
  45. Pentest Tools Website
  46. Pentest Tools Windows
  47. How To Hack
  48. Hack Rom Tools
  49. Blackhat Hacker Tools
  50. Hacking Tools Github
  51. Top Pentest Tools
  52. How To Make Hacking Tools
  53. Hack Tools 2019
  54. Hacking Tools Mac
  55. Hacker Tool Kit
  56. Pentest Box Tools Download
  57. Hacking Tools For Kali Linux
  58. Hack Tools For Mac
  59. Hacker Tools Windows
  60. Tools For Hacker
  61. Pentest Tools Framework
  62. Pentest Tools Windows
  63. Pentest Tools Open Source
  64. How To Hack
  65. Hacking Tools Software
  66. Hacker Tools Free Download
  67. Pentest Box Tools Download
  68. Pentest Tools Kali Linux
  69. Hack Tools For Pc
  70. Hacking Tools Github
  71. Hacking App
  72. Pentest Reporting Tools
  73. Hacker Tools Free
  74. Hacking Tools For Windows 7
  75. Hack Tool Apk
  76. Hack Tools For Games
  77. Hacker Tools Linux
  78. Best Pentesting Tools 2018
  79. Hacker
  80. Hacker Tools 2019
  81. Pentest Tools Review
  82. Hacker Tools Github
  83. Hacking Tools Usb
  84. Pentest Tools
  85. Hacker Tools For Mac
  86. Hack Tools
  87. Hacker Tools Free
  88. Hacking Tools For Windows 7
  89. Hacker Tools Free Download
  90. Pentest Tools For Ubuntu
  91. Pentest Tools Windows
  92. Blackhat Hacker Tools
  93. Hacker Hardware Tools
  94. Pentest Tools Find Subdomains
  95. Pentest Tools Windows
  96. Wifi Hacker Tools For Windows
  97. How To Make Hacking Tools
  98. Hack Tools
  99. Hacker Techniques Tools And Incident Handling
  100. Hack Tools Online
  101. Hacker Tools Linux

Hacking Windows 95, Part 1

During a CTF game, we came across very-very old systems. Turns out, it is not that easy to hack those dinosaur old systems, because modern tools like Metasploit do not have sploits for those old boxes and of course our "133t h4cking skillz" are useless without Metasploit... :)

But I had an idea: This can be a pretty good small research for fun.

The rules for the hack are the following:
  1. Only publicly available tools can be used for this hack, so no tool development. This is a CTF for script bunniez, and we can't haz code!
  2. Only hacks without user interaction are allowed (IE based sploits are out of scope).
  3. I need instant remote code execution. For example, if I can drop a malware to the c: drive, and change autoexec.bat, I'm still not done, because no one will reboot the CTF machine in a real CTF for me. If I can reboot the machine, that's OK.
  4. I don't have physical access.
I have chosen Windows 95 for this task. First, I had to get a genuine Windows 95 installer, so I visited the Microsoft online shop and downloaded it from their official site.

I installed it in a virtualized environment (remember, you need a boot floppy to install from the CD), and it hit me with a serious nostalgia bomb after watching the installer screens. "Easier to use", "faster and more efficient", "high-powered performance", "friendly", "intuitive interface". Who does not want that? :)






Now that I have a working Windows 95 box, setting up the TCP/IP is easy, let's try to hack it!

My first tool is always nmap. Let's scan the box! Below I'm showing the interesting parts from the result:

PORT      STATE           SERVICE       VERSION 139/tcp   open            netbios-ssn 137/udp   open|filtered   netbios-ns 138/udp   open|filtered   netbios-dgm Running: Microsoft Windows 3.X|95 OS details: Microsoft Windows for Workgroups 3.11 or Windows 95 TCP Sequence Prediction: Difficulty=25 (Good luck!) IP ID Sequence Generation: Broken little-endian incremental 

The first exciting thing to note is that there is no port 445! Port 445 is only since NT 4.0. If you check all the famous windows sploits (e.g., MS03-026, MS08-067), all of them use port 445 and named pipes. But there are no named pipes on Windows 95!

Because I'm a Nessus monkey, let's run a free Nessus scan on it!

Only one critical vulnerability found:
Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Unsupported Installation Detection

Thanks for nothing, Nessus! But at least it was for free.

Next, I tried GFI Languard, nothing. It detected the machine as Win95, the opened TCP port, and some UDP ports as open (false-positive), and that's all...

Let's try another free vulnerability scanner tool, Nexpose. The results are much better:
  • CIFS NULL Session Permitted  
  • Weak LAN Manager hashing permitted
  • SMB signing not required
  • Windows 95/98/ME Share Level Password Bypass   
  • TCP Sequence Number Approximation Vulnerability  
  • ICMP netmask response
  • CIFS Share Readable By Everyone
I think the following vulnerabilities are useless for me at the moment:
  • Weak LAN Manager hashing permitted - without user interaction or services looking at the network, useless (I might be wrong here, will check this later)
  • TCP Sequence Number Approximation Vulnerability - not interesting
  • ICMP netmask response - not interesting
  • CIFS Share Readable By Everyone - unless there is a password in a text file, useless
But we have two interesting vulns:
  • CIFS NULL Session Permitted  - this could be interesting, I will check this later ...
  • Windows 95/98/ME Share Level Password Bypass - BINGO!
Let me quote Nexpose here:

"3.2.3 Windows 95/98/ME Share Level Password Bypass (CIFS-win9x-onebyte-password)

A flaw in the Windows 95/98/ME File and Print Sharing service allows unauthorized users to access file and print shares by sending the first character of the password. Due to the limited number of attempts required to guess the password, brute force attacks can be performed in just a few seconds.

Established connection to share TEST with password P."

The vulnerability description at MS side:

For example if the password is "Password" (without quotes) and the client sends the password "P" (without quotes) and the length of 1, the client is authenticated. To find the rest of the password, the attacker increments the length to 2 and starts guessing the second letter until he reaches "PA" and gets authenticated again. As share passwords in Windows 95 are not case sensitive, "Pa" and "PA" will also be accepted. The attacker can continue to increment the length and guessing the next letter one-by-one until he gets the full "PASSWORD" (as the maximum length is 8 characters).

I believe all characters between ALT+033 and ALT+255 can be used in the share password in Windows 95, but as it is case insensitive, we have 196 characters to use, and a maximum length of 8 characters. In worst case this means that we can guess the full password in 1568 requests. The funny thing is that the share password is not connected to (by default) any username/account, and it cannot be locked via brute force.

Luckily there is a great tool which can exploit this vulnerability:

Let's check this tool in action:


W00t w00t, it brute forced the password in less then 2 seconds!

Looking at a wireshark dump we can see how it is done:


As you can see, in the middle of the dump we can see that it already guessed the part "PASS" and it is brute-forcing the fifth character, it founds that "W" is the correct fifth character, and starts brute-forcing the sixth character.

If we are lucky with the CTF, the whole C:\ drive is shared with full read-write access, and we can write our team identifier into the c:\flag.txt. But what if we want remote code execution? Stay tuned, this is going to be the topic of the next part of this post.
More articles

Playing With TLS-Attacker

In the last two years, we changed the TLS-Attacker Project quite a lot but kept silent about most changes we implemented. Since we do not have so much time to keep up with the documentation (we are researchers and not developers in the end), we thought about creating a small series on some of our recent changes to the project on this blog.


We hope this gives you an idea on how to use the most recent version (TLS-Attacker 2.8). If you feel like you found a bug, don't hesitate to contact me via GitHub/Mail/Twitter. This post assumes that you have some idea what this is all about. If you have no idea, checkout the original paper from Juraj or our project on GitHub.

TLDR: TLS-Attacker is a framework which allows you to send arbitrary protocol flows.


Quickstart:
# Install & Use Java JDK 8
$ sudo apt-get install maven
$ git clone https://github.com/RUB-NDS/TLS-Attacker
$ cd TLS-Attacker
$ mvn clean package

So, what changed since the release of the original paper in 2016? Quite a lot! We discovered that we could make the framework much more powerful by adding some new concepts to the code which I want to show you now.

Action System

In the first Version of TLS-Attacker (1.x), WorkflowTraces looked like this:
Although this design looks straight forward, it lacks flexibility. In this design, a WorkflowTrace is basically a list of messages. Each message is annotated with a <messageIssuer>, to tell TLS-Attacker that it should either try to receive this message or send it itself. If you now want to support more advanced workflows, for example for renegotiation or session resumption, TLS-Attacker will soon reach its limits. There is also a missing angle for fuzzing purposes. TLS-Attacker will by default try to use the correct parameters for the message creation, and then apply the modifications afterward. But what if we want to manipulate parameters of the connection which influence the creation of messages? This was not possible in the old version, therefore, we created our action system. With this action system, a WorkflowTrace does not only consist of a list of messages but a list of actions. The most basic actions are the Send- and ReceiveAction. These actions allow you to basically recreate the previous behavior of TLS-Attacker 1.x . Here is an example to show how the same workflow would look like in the newest TLS-Attacker version:


As you can see, the <messageIssuer> tags are gone. Instead, you now indicate with the type of action how you want to deal with the message. Another important thing: TLS-Attacker uses WorkflowTraces as an input as well as an output format. In the old version, once a WorkflowTrace was executed it was hard to see what actually happened. Especially, if you specify what messages you expect to receive. In the old version, your WorkflowTrace could change during execution. This was very confusing and we, therefore, changed the way the receiving of messages works. The ReceiveAction has a list of <expectedMessages>. You can specify what you expect the other party to do. This is mostly interesting for performance tricks (more on that in another post), but can also be used to validate that your workflow executedAsPlanned. Once you execute your ReceiveAction an additional <messages> tag will pop up in the ReceiveAction to show you what has actually been observed. Your original WorkflowTrace stays intact.


During the execution, TLS-Attacker will execute the actions one after the other. There are specific configuration options with which you can control what TLS-Attacker should do in the case of an error. By default, TLS-Attacker will never stop, and just execute whatever is next.

Configs

As you might have seen the <messageIssuer> tags are not the only thing which is missing. Additionally, the cipher suites, compression algorithms, point formats, and supported curves are missing. This is no coincidence. A big change in TLS-Attacker 2.x is the separation of the WorkflowTrace from the parameter configuration and the context. To explain how this works I have to talk about how the new TLS-Attacker version creates messages. Per default, the WorkflowTrace does not contain the actual contents of the messages. But let us step into TLS-Attackers point of view. For example, what should TLS-Attacker do with the following WorkflowTrace:

Usually, the RSAClientKeyExchange message is constructed with the public key from the received certificate message. But in this WorkflowTrace, we did not receive a certificate message yet. So what public key are we supposed to use? The previous version had "some" key hardcoded. The new version does not have these default values hardcoded but allows you as the user to define the default values for missing values, or how our own messages should be created. For this purpose, we introduced the new concept of Configs. A Config is a file/class which you can provide to TLS-Attacker in addition to a WorkflowTrace, to define how TLS-Attacker should behave, and how TLS-Attacker should create its messages (even in the absence of needed parameters). For this purpose, TLS-Attacker has a default Config, with all the known hardcoded values. It is basically a long list of possible parameters and configuration options. We chose sane values for most things, but you might have other ideas on how to do things. You can execute a WorkflowTrace with a specific config. The provided Config will then overwrite all existing default values with your specified values. If you do not specify a certain value, the default value will be used. I will get back to how Configs work, once we played a little bit with TLS-Attacker.

TLS-Attacker ships with a few example applications (found in the "apps/" folder after you built the project). While TLS-Attacker 1.x was mostly a standalone tool, we currently see TLS-Attacker more as a library which we can use by our more sophisticated projects. The current example applications are:
  • TLS-Client (A TLS-Client to execute WorkflowTraces with)
  • TLS-Server (A TLS-Server to execute WorkflowTraces with)
  • Attacks (We'll talk about this in another blog post)
  • TLS-Forensics (We'll talk about this in another blog post)
  • TLS-Mitm (We'll talk about this in another blog post)
  • TraceTool (We'll talk about this in another blog post) 

TLS-Client

The TLS-Client is a simple TLS-Client. Per default, it executes a handshake for the default selected cipher suite (RSA). The only mandatory parameter is the server you want to connect to (-connect).

The most trivial command you can start it with is:

Note: The example tool does not like "https://" or other protocol information. Just provide a hostname and port

Depending on the host you chose your output might look like this:

or like this:

So what is going on here? Let's start with the first execution. As I already mentioned. TLS-Attacker constructs the default WorkflowTrace based on the default selected cipher suite. When you run the client, the WorkflowExecutor (part of TLS-Attacker which is responsible for the execution of a WorkflowTrace) will try to execute the handshake. For this purpose, it will first start the TCP connection.
This is what you see here:

After that, it will execute the actions specified in the default WorkflowTrace. The default WorkflowTrace looks something like this:
This is basically what you see in the console output. The first action which gets executed is the SendAction with the ClientHello.

Then, we expect to receive messages. Since we want to be an RSA handshake, we do not expect a ServerKeyExchange message, but only want a ServerHello, Certificate and a ServerHelloDone message.

We then execute the second SendAction:

and finally, we want to receive a ChangeCipherSpec and Finished Message:

In the first execution, these steps all seem to have worked. But why did they fail in the second execution? The reason is that our default Config does not only allow specify RSA cipher suites but creates ClientHello messages which also contain elliptic curve cipher suites. Depending on the server you are testing with, the server will either select and RSA cipher suite, or an elliptic curve one. This means, that the WorkflowTrace will not executeAsPlanned. The server will send an additional ECDHEServerKeyExchange. If we would look at the details of the ServerHello message we would also see that an (ephemeral) elliptic curve cipher suite is selected:

Since our WorkflowTrace is configured to send an RSAClientKeyExchange message next, it will just do that:

Note: ClientKeyExchangeMessage all have the same type field, but are implemented inside of TLS-Attacker as different messages

Since this RSAClientKeyExchange does not make a lot of sense for the server, it rejects this message with a DECODE_ERROR alert:

If we would change the Config of TLS-Attacker, we could change the way our ClientHello is constructed. If we specify only RSA cipher suites, the server has no choice but to select an RSA one (or immediately terminate the connection). We added command line flags for the most common Config changes. Let's try to change the default cipher suite to TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA:

As you can see, we now executed a complete ephemeral elliptic curve handshake. This is, because the -cipher flag changed the <defaultSelectedCiphersuite> parameter (among others) in the Config. Based on this parameter the default WorkflowTrace is constructed. If you want, you can specify multiple cipher suites at once, by seperating them with a comma.

We can do the same change by supplying TLS-Attacker with a custom Config via XML. To this we need to create a new file (I will name it config.xml) like this:

You can then load the Config with the -config flag:

For a complete reference of the supported Config options, you can check out the default_config.xml. Most Config options should be self-explanatory, for others, you might want to check where and how they are used in the code (sorry).

Now let's try to execute an arbitrary WorkflowTrace. To do this, we need to store our WorkflowTrace in a file and load it with the -workflow_input parameter. I just created the following WorkflowTrace:


As you can see I just send a ServerHello message instead of a ClientHello message at the beginning of the handshake. This should obviously never happen but let's see how the tested server reacts to this.
We can execute the workflow with the following command:

The server (correctly) responded with an UNEXPECTED_MESSAGE alert. Great!

Output parameters & Modifications

You are now familiar with the most basic concepts of TLS-Attacker, so let's dive into other things TLS-Attacker can do for you. As a TLS-Attacker user, you are sometimes interested in the actual values which are used during a WorkflowTrace execution. For this purpose, we introduced the -workflow_output flag. With this parameter, you can ask TLS-Attacker to store the executed WorkflowTrace with all its values in a file.
Let's try to execute our last created WorkflowTrace, and store the output WorkflowTrace in the file out.xml:


The resulting WorkflowTrace looks like this:

As you can see, although the input WorkflowTrace was very short, the output trace is quite noisy. TLS-Attacker will display all its intermediate values and modification points (this is where the modifiable variable concept becomes interesting). You can also execute the output workflow again.


Note that at this point there is a common misunderstanding: TLS-Attacker will reset the WorkflowTrace before it executes it again. This means, it will delete all intermediate values you see in the WorkflowTrace and recompute them dynamically. This means that if you change a value within <originalValue> tags, your changes will just be ignored. If you want to influence the values TLS-Attacker uses, you either have to manipulate the Config (as already shown) or apply modifications to TLS-Attackers ModifiableVariables. The concept of ModifiableVariables is mostly unchanged to the previous version, but we will show you how to do this real quick anyway.

So let us imagine we want to manipulate a value in the WorkflowTrace using a ModifiableVariable via XML. First, we have to select a field which we want to manipulate. I will choose the protocol version field in the ServerHello message we sent. In the WorkflowTrace this looked like this:

For historical reasons, 0x0303 means TLS 1.2. 0x0300 was SSL 3. When they introduced TLS 1.0 they chose 0x0301 and since then they just upgraded the minor version.

In order to manipulate this ModifiableVariable, we first need to know its type. In some cases it is currently non-trivial to determine the exact type, this is mostly undocumented (sorry). If you don't know the exact type of a field you currently have to look at the code. The following types and modifications are defined:
  • ModifiableBigInteger: add, explicitValue, shiftLeft, shiftRight, subtract, xor
  • ModifiableBoolean: explicitValue, toggle
  • ModifiableByteArray: delete, duplicate, explicitValue, insert, shuffle, xor
  • ModifiableInteger: add, explicitValue, shiftLeft, shiftRight, subtract, xor
  • ModifiableLong: add, explicitValue, subtract, xor
  • ModifiableByte: add, explicitValue, subtract, xor
  • ModifiableString: explicitValue
As a rule of thumb: If the value is only up to 1 byte of length we use a ModifiableByte. If the value is up to 4 bytes of length, but the values are used as a normal number (for example in length fields) it is a ModifiableInteger. Fields which are used as a number which are bigger than 4 bytes (for example a modulus) is usually a ModifiableBigInteger. Most other types are encoded as ModifiableByteArrays. The other types are very rare (we are currently working on making this whole process more transparent).
Once you have found your type you have to select a modification to apply to it. For manual analysis, the most common modifications are the XOR modification and the explicit value modification. However, during fuzzing other modifications might be useful as well. Often times you just want to flip a bit and see how the server responds, or you want to directly overwrite a value. In this example, we want to overwrite a value.
Let us force TLS-Attacker to send the version 0x3A3A. To do this I consult the ModifiableVariable README.md for the exact syntax. Since <protocolVersion> is a ModifiableByteArray I search in the ByteArray section.

I find the following snippet:

If I now want to change the value to 0x3A3A I modify my WorkflowTrace like this:

You can then execute the WorkflowTrace with:

With Wireshark you can now observe  that the protocol version got actually changed. You would also see the change if you would specify a -workflow_output or if you start the TLS-Client with the -debug flag.

More Actions

As I already hinted, TLS-Attacker has more actions to offer than just a basic Send- and ReceiveAction (50+ in total). The most useful, and easiest to understand actions are now introduced:

ActivateEncryptionAction

This action does basically what the CCS message does. It activates the currently "negotiated" parameters. If necessary values are missing in the context of the connection, they are drawn from the Config.


DeactivateEncryptionAction

This action does the opposite. If the encryption was active, we now send unencrypted again.


PrintLastHandledApplicationDataAction

Prints the last application data message either sent or received.


PrintProposedExtensionsAction

Prints the proposed extensions (from the client)


PrintSecretsAction

Prints the secrets (RSA) from the current connection. This includes the nonces, cipher suite, public key, modulus, premaster secret, master secret and verify data.


RenegotiationAction

Resets the message digest. This is usually done if you want to perform a renegotiation.


ResetConnectionAction

Closes and reopens the connection. This can be useful if you want to analyze session resumption or similar things which involve more than one handshake.


SendDynamicClientKeyExchangeAction

Send a ClientKeyExchange message, and always chooses the correct one (depending on the current connection state). This is useful if you just don't care about the actual cipher suite and just want the handshake done.


SendDynamicServerKeyExchangeAction

(Maybe) sends a ServerKeyExchange message. This depends on the currently selected cipher suite. If the cipher suite requires the transmission of a ServerKeyExchange message, then a ServerKeyExchange message will be sent, otherwise, nothing is done. This is useful if you just don't care about the actual cipher suite and just want the handshake done.


WaitAction

This lets TLS-Attacker sleep for a specified amount of time (in ms).





As you might have already seen there is so much more to talk about in TLS-Attacker. But this should give you a rough idea of what is going on.

If you have any research ideas or need support feel free to contact us on Twitter (@ic0nz1, @jurajsomorovsky ) or at https://www.hackmanit.de/.

If TLS-Attacker helps you to find a bug in a TLS implementation, please acknowledge our tool(s). If you want to learn more about TLS, Juraj and I are also giving a Training about TLS at Ruhrsec (27.05.2019).
Read more