Exploitation of Remote Services
Adversaries may exploit remote services to gain unauthorized access to internal systems once inside of a network. Exploitation of a software vulnerability occurs when an adversary takes advantage of a programming error in a program, service, or within the operating system software or kernel itself to execute adversary-controlled code. A common goal for post-compromise exploitation of remote services is for lateral movement to enable access to a remote system. An adversary may need to determine if the remote system is in a vulnerable state, which may be done through Network Service Discovery or other Discovery methods looking for common, vulnerable software that may be deployed in the network, the lack of certain patches that may indicate vulnerabilities, or security software that may be used to detect or contain remote exploitation. Servers are likely a high value target for lateral movement exploitation, but endpoint systems may also be at risk if they provide an advantage or access to additional resources. There are several well-known vulnerabilities that exist in common services such as SMB (Citation: CIS Multiple SMB Vulnerabilities) and RDP (Citation: NVD CVE-2017-0176) as well as applications that may be used within internal networks such as MySQL (Citation: NVD CVE-2016-6662) and web server services.(Citation: NVD CVE-2014-7169) Depending on the permissions level of the vulnerable remote service an adversary may achieve Exploitation for Privilege Escalation as a result of lateral movement exploitation as well.
Procedure Examples |
|
Name | Description |
---|---|
Flame |
Flame can use MS10-061 to exploit a print spooler vulnerability in a remote system with a shared printer in order to move laterally.(Citation: Kaspersky Flame)(Citation: Kaspersky Flame Functionality) |
WannaCry |
WannaCry uses an exploit in SMBv1 to spread itself to other remote systems on a network.(Citation: LogRhythm WannaCry)(Citation: FireEye WannaCry 2017)(Citation: US-CERT WannaCry 2017) |
Wizard Spider |
Wizard Spider has exploited or attempted to exploit Zerologon (CVE-2020-1472) and EternalBlue (MS17-010) vulnerabilities.(Citation: FireEye KEGTAP SINGLEMALT October 2020)(Citation: DFIR Ryuk's Return October 2020)(Citation: DFIR Ryuk in 5 Hours October 2020) |
Fox Kitten |
Fox Kitten has exploited known vulnerabilities in remote services including RDP.(Citation: ClearkSky Fox Kitten February 2020)(Citation: CrowdStrike PIONEER KITTEN August 2020)(Citation: ClearSky Pay2Kitten December 2020) |
Earth Lusca |
Earth Lusca has used Mimikatz to exploit a domain controller via the ZeroLogon exploit (CVE-2020-1472).(Citation: TrendMicro EarthLusca 2022) |
Stuxnet |
Stuxnet propagates using the MS10-061 Print Spooler and MS08-067 Windows Server Service vulnerabilities.(Citation: Nicolas Falliere, Liam O Murchu, Eric Chien February 2011) |
QakBot |
QakBot can move laterally using worm-like functionality through exploitation of SMB.(Citation: Crowdstrike Qakbot October 2020) |
Emotet |
Emotet has been seen exploiting SMB via a vulnerability exploit like EternalBlue (MS17-010) to achieve lateral movement and propagation.(Citation: Symantec Emotet Jul 2018)(Citation: US-CERT Emotet Jul 2018)(Citation: Secureworks Emotet Nov 2018)(Citation: Red Canary Emotet Feb 2019) |
Empire |
Empire has a limited number of built-in modules for exploiting remote SMB, JBoss, and Jenkins servers.(Citation: Github PowerShell Empire) |
Bad Rabbit |
Bad Rabbit used the EternalRomance SMB exploit to spread through victim networks.(Citation: Secure List Bad Rabbit) |
NotPetya |
NotPetya can use two exploits in SMBv1, EternalBlue and EternalRomance, to spread itself to other remote systems on the network.(Citation: Talos Nyetya June 2017)(Citation: US-CERT NotPetya 2017)(Citation: US District Court Indictment GRU Unit 74455 October 2020) |
Ember Bear |
Ember Bear has used exploits for vulnerabilities such as MS17-010, also known as `Eternal Blue`, during operations.(Citation: CISA GRU29155 2024) |
InvisiMole |
InvisiMole can spread within a network via the BlueKeep (CVE-2019-0708) and EternalBlue (CVE-2017-0144) vulnerabilities in RDP and SMB respectively.(Citation: ESET InvisiMole June 2020) |
APT28 |
APT28 exploited a Windows SMB Remote Code Execution Vulnerability to conduct lateral movement.(Citation: FireEye APT28)(Citation: FireEye APT28 Hospitality Aug 2017)(Citation: MS17-010 March 2017) |
Conficker |
Conficker exploited the MS08-067 Windows vulnerability for remote code execution through a crafted RPC request.(Citation: SANS Conficker) |
PoshC2 |
PoshC2 contains a module for exploiting SMB via EternalBlue.(Citation: GitHub PoshC2) |
Lucifer |
Lucifer can exploit multiple vulnerabilities including EternalBlue (CVE-2017-0144) and EternalRomance (CVE-2017-0144).(Citation: Unit 42 Lucifer June 2020) |
Tonto Team |
Tonto Team has used EternalBlue exploits for lateral movement.(Citation: TrendMicro Tonto Team October 2020) |
menuPass |
menuPass has used tools to exploit the ZeroLogon vulnerability (CVE-2020-1472).(Citation: Symantec Cicada November 2020) |
TrickBot |
TrickBot utilizes EternalBlue and EternalRomance exploits for lateral movement in the modules wormwinDll, wormDll, mwormDll, nwormDll, tabDll.(Citation: ESET Trickbot Oct 2020) |
Dragonfly |
Dragonfly has exploited a Windows Netlogon vulnerability (CVE-2020-1472) to obtain access to Windows Active Directory servers.(Citation: CISA AA20-296A Berserk Bear December 2020) |
MuddyWater |
MuddyWater has exploited the Microsoft Netlogon vulnerability (CVE-2020-1472).(Citation: DHS CISA AA22-055A MuddyWater February 2022) |
Threat Group-3390 |
Threat Group-3390 has exploited MS17-010 to move laterally to other systems on the network.(Citation: Unit42 Emissary Panda May 2019) |
FIN7 |
FIN7 has exploited ZeroLogon (CVE-2020-1472) against vulnerable domain controllers.(Citation: CrowdStrike Carbon Spider August 2021) |
Mitigations |
|
Mitigation | Description |
---|---|
Disable or Remove Feature or Program |
Remove or deny access to unnecessary and potentially vulnerable software to prevent abuse by adversaries. |
Vulnerability Scanning |
Vulnerability scanning is used to find potentially exploitable software vulnerabilities to remediate them. |
Exploit Protection |
Use capabilities to detect and block conditions that may lead to or be indicative of a software exploit occurring. |
Network Segmentation |
Architect sections of the network to isolate critical systems, functions, or resources. Use physical and logical segmentation to prevent access to potentially sensitive systems and information. Use a DMZ to contain any internet-facing services that should not be exposed from the internal network. Configure separate virtual private cloud (VPC) instances to isolate critical cloud systems. |
Exploitation of Remote Services Mitigation |
Segment networks and systems appropriately to reduce access to critical systems and services to controlled methods. Minimize available services to only those that are necessary. Regularly scan the internal network for available services to identify new and potentially vulnerable services. Minimize permissions and access for service accounts to limit impact of exploitation. Update software regularly by employing patch management for internal enterprise endpoints and servers. Develop a robust cyber threat intelligence capability to determine what types and levels of threat may use software exploits and 0-days against a particular organization. Make it difficult for adversaries to advance their operation through exploitation of undiscovered or unpatched vulnerabilities by using sandboxing, if available. Other types of virtualization and application microsegmentation may also mitigate the impact of some types of exploitation. The risks of additional exploits and weaknesses in implementation may still exist. (Citation: Ars Technica Pwn2Own 2017 VM Escape) Security applications that look for behavior used during exploitation such as Windows Defender Exploit Guard (WDEG) and the Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit (EMET) can be used to mitigate some exploitation behavior. (Citation: TechNet Moving Beyond EMET) Control flow integrity checking is another way to potentially identify and stop a software exploit from occurring. (Citation: Wikipedia Control Flow Integrity) Many of these protections depend on the architecture and target application binary for compatibility and may not work for all software or services targeted. |
Threat Intelligence Program |
A threat intelligence program helps an organization generate their own threat intelligence information and track trends to inform defensive priorities to mitigate risk. |
Application Isolation and Sandboxing |
Restrict execution of code to a virtual environment on or in transit to an endpoint system. |
Privileged Account Management |
Manage the creation, modification, use, and permissions associated to privileged accounts, including SYSTEM and root. |
Update Software |
Perform regular software updates to mitigate exploitation risk. |
Detection
Detecting software exploitation may be difficult depending on the tools available. Software exploits may not always succeed or may cause the exploited process to become unstable or crash. Also look for behavior on the endpoint system that might indicate successful compromise, such as abnormal behavior of the processes. This could include suspicious files written to disk, evidence of Process Injection for attempts to hide execution, evidence of Discovery, or other unusual network traffic that may indicate additional tools transferred to the system.
References
- National Vulnerability Database. (2017, September 24). CVE-2014-7169 Detail. Retrieved April 3, 2018.
- National Vulnerability Database. (2017, February 2). CVE-2016-6662 Detail. Retrieved April 3, 2018.
- National Vulnerability Database. (2017, June 22). CVE-2017-0176 Detail. Retrieved April 3, 2018.
- CIS. (2017, May 15). Multiple Vulnerabilities in Microsoft Windows SMB Server Could Allow for Remote Code Execution. Retrieved April 3, 2018.
- Gostev, A. (2012, May 30). Flame: Bunny, Frog, Munch and BeetleJuice…. Retrieved March 1, 2017.
- Gostev, A. (2012, May 28). The Flame: Questions and Answers. Retrieved March 1, 2017.
- US-CERT. (2017, May 12). Alert (TA17-132A): Indicators Associated With WannaCry Ransomware. Retrieved March 25, 2019.
- Berry, A., Homan, J., and Eitzman, R. (2017, May 23). WannaCry Malware Profile. Retrieved March 15, 2019.
- Noerenberg, E., Costis, A., and Quist, N. (2017, May 16). A Technical Analysis of WannaCry Ransomware. Retrieved March 25, 2019.
- The DFIR Report. (2020, October 18). Ryuk in 5 Hours. Retrieved October 19, 2020.
- The DFIR Report. (2020, October 8). Ryuk’s Return. Retrieved October 9, 2020.
- Kimberly Goody, Jeremy Kennelly, Joshua Shilko, Steve Elovitz, Douglas Bienstock. (2020, October 28). Unhappy Hour Special: KEGTAP and SINGLEMALT With a Ransomware Chaser. Retrieved October 28, 2020.
- ClearSky. (2020, December 17). Pay2Key Ransomware – A New Campaign by Fox Kitten. Retrieved December 21, 2020.
- Orleans, A. (2020, August 31). Who Is PIONEER KITTEN?. Retrieved December 21, 2020.
- ClearSky. (2020, February 16). Fox Kitten – Widespread Iranian Espionage-Offensive Campaign. Retrieved December 21, 2020.
- Wikipedia. (2018, January 11). Control-flow integrity. Retrieved March 12, 2018.
- Nunez, N. (2017, August 9). Moving Beyond EMET II – Windows Defender Exploit Guard. Retrieved March 12, 2018.
- Chen, J., et al. (2022). Delving Deep: An Analysis of Earth Lusca’s Operations. Retrieved July 1, 2022.
- Nicolas Falliere, Liam O Murchu, Eric Chien 2011, February W32.Stuxnet Dossier (Version 1.4) Retrieved. 2017/09/22
- CS. (2020, October 7). Duck Hunting with Falcon Complete: A Fowl Banking Trojan Evolves, Part 2. Retrieved September 27, 2021.
- US-CERT. (2018, July 20). Alert (TA18-201A) Emotet Malware. Retrieved March 25, 2019.
- Symantec. (2018, July 18). The Evolution of Emotet: From Banking Trojan to Threat Distributor. Retrieved March 25, 2019.
- Mclellan, M.. (2018, November 19). Lazy Passwords Become Rocket Fuel for Emotet SMB Spreader. Retrieved March 25, 2019.
- Donohue, B.. (2019, February 13). https://redcanary.com/blog/stopping-emotet-before-it-moves-laterally/. Retrieved March 25, 2019.
- Schroeder, W., Warner, J., Nelson, M. (n.d.). Github PowerShellEmpire. Retrieved April 28, 2016.
- Mamedov, O. Sinitsyn, F. Ivanov, A.. (2017, October 24). Bad Rabbit ransomware. Retrieved January 28, 2021.
- Scott W. Brady. (2020, October 15). United States vs. Yuriy Sergeyevich Andrienko et al.. Retrieved November 25, 2020.
- US-CERT. (2017, July 1). Alert (TA17-181A): Petya Ransomware. Retrieved March 15, 2019.
- Chiu, A. (2016, June 27). New Ransomware Variant "Nyetya" Compromises Systems Worldwide. Retrieved March 26, 2019.
- US Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency et al. (2024, September 5). Russian Military Cyber Actors Target U.S. and Global Critical Infrastructure. Retrieved September 6, 2024.
- Goodin, D. (2017, March 17). Virtual machine escape fetches $105,000 at Pwn2Own hacking contest - updated. Retrieved March 12, 2018.
- Hromcova, Z. and Cherpanov, A. (2020, June). INVISIMOLE: THE HIDDEN PART OF THE STORY. Retrieved July 16, 2020.
- Smith, L. and Read, B.. (2017, August 11). APT28 Targets Hospitality Sector, Presents Threat to Travelers. Retrieved August 17, 2017.
- Microsoft. (2017, March 14). Microsoft Security Bulletin MS17-010 - Critical. Retrieved August 17, 2017.
- FireEye. (2015). APT28: A WINDOW INTO RUSSIA’S CYBER ESPIONAGE OPERATIONS?. Retrieved August 19, 2015.
- Burton, K. (n.d.). The Conficker Worm. Retrieved February 18, 2021.
- Nettitude. (2018, July 23). Python Server for PoshC2. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
- Hsu, K. et al. (2020, June 24). Lucifer: New Cryptojacking and DDoS Hybrid Malware Exploiting High and Critical Vulnerabilities to Infect Windows Devices. Retrieved November 16, 2020.
- Daniel Lughi, Jaromir Horejsi. (2020, October 2). Tonto Team - Exploring the TTPs of an advanced threat actor operating a large infrastructure. Retrieved October 17, 2021.
- Symantec. (2020, November 17). Japan-Linked Organizations Targeted in Long-Running and Sophisticated Attack Campaign. Retrieved December 17, 2020.
- Boutin, J. (2020, October 12). ESET takes part in global operation to disrupt Trickbot. Retrieved March 15, 2021.
- CISA. (2020, December 1). Russian State-Sponsored Advanced Persistent Threat Actor Compromises U.S. Government Targets. Retrieved December 9, 2021.
- FBI, CISA, CNMF, NCSC-UK. (2022, February 24). Iranian Government-Sponsored Actors Conduct Cyber Operations Against Global Government and Commercial Networks. Retrieved September 27, 2022.
- Falcone, R. and Lancaster, T. (2019, May 28). Emissary Panda Attacks Middle East Government Sharepoint Servers. Retrieved July 9, 2019.
- Loui, E. and Reynolds, J. (2021, August 30). CARBON SPIDER Embraces Big Game Hunting, Part 1. Retrieved September 20, 2021.
Связанные риски
Риск | Связи | |
---|---|---|
Боковое перемещение злоумышленника по локальной сети
из-за
наличия технических (программных) уязвимостей
в программном обеспечении
Конфиденциальность
Целостность
|
2
|
Каталоги
Мы используем cookie-файлы, чтобы получить статистику, которая помогает нам улучшить сервис для вас с целью персонализации сервисов и предложений. Вы может прочитать подробнее о cookie-файлах или изменить настройки браузера. Продолжая пользоваться сайтом, вы даёте согласие на использование ваших cookie-файлов и соглашаетесь с Политикой обработки персональных данных.