On May 22, 2017, PhishMe® received several emails with .ISO images as attachments via the Phishing Defense Center. ISO images are typically used as an archive format for the content of an optical disk and are often utilized as the installers for operating system. However, in this case, a threat actor leveraged this archive format as a means to deliver malware content to the recipients of their phishing email. Analysis of the attachments showed that this archive format was abused to deliver malicious AutoIT scripts hidden within a PE file that appears to be a Microsoft Office Document file, which creates a process called MSBuild.exe and caused it to act as a Remote Access Trojan. AutoIT is a BASIC-like scripting language designed for automating Windows GUI tasks and general scripting. Like any scripting or programming language, it can be used for malicious purposes.
Financial losses from business email compromise (BEC) scams skyrocketed by 2,370% between January 2015 and December 2016, according to an FBI public service announcement released Thursday. The alarming statistic represents a sharp increase from the agency’s previous announcement, serving as a warning to users to stay vigilant in recognizing the threat.
Adding another entry to the ever-growing list of encryption ransomware, the Jaff Ransomware made its debut onto the threat landscape with large sets of phishing emails on May 11, 2017 – one day before the sensational impact of the WannaCry ransomware attack. However, the risks posed by the Jaff ransomware should not be overlooked. This, too, is a robust ransomware that leverages some of the most prolifically-used delivery mechanisms in phishing email and embodies characteristics associated with other very successful malware.
According to internet sources, Eugene Pupov is not a student at Coventry University.
Since the campaign’s recent widespread launch, security experts and internet sleuths have been scouring the internet to discover the actor responsible for yesterday’s “Google Doc” phishing worm. As parties continued their investigations into the phishing scam, the name “Eugene Popov” has consistently popped up across various blogs that may be tied to this campaign.
A blog post published yesterday by endpoint security vendor Sophos featured an interesting screenshot containing a string of tweets from the @EugenePupov Twitter handle claiming the Google Docs phishing campaign was not a scam, but rather a Coventry University graduate student’s final project gone awry.
Several folks on Twitter, including Twitter verified Henry Williams (@Digitalhen) have pointed out a serious flaw in the @EugenePupov profile.
This twitter account, which fraudulently used a profile image portraying molecular biologist Danil Vladimirovich Pupov from the Institute of Molecular Genetics at the Russian Academy of Sciences, has since been deactivated.
Coventry University’s communications team quickly responded on social media denying all claims that anyone named Eugene Pupov is a current or former student.
Something clearly is “phishy” about this situation.
Despite the university’s recent announcement discrediting claims of enrollment for a Eugene Popov, I would like to hypothetically explore the theory that yesterday’s campaign was a result of a student phishing research project that went terribly viral. Our PhishMe Intelligence teams identified and obtained the campaign source code and noticed that the most notable aspect of this phishing campaign was its uncanny ability to self-replicate and spread. From our vantage, there is no outward evidence indicating data was stolen or manipulated as previously alleged.
The list of domains created for this alleged “student demonstration” stinks like rotten phish.
As a career-wide security researcher and current leader of phishing intelligence research teams, this list of domains is concerning. Typically, when a researcher is creating proof-of-concept code for a white paper or presentation, the naming conventions adjust the URLs to showcase their malicious or fraudulent nature for education purposes, examples being:
If the party responsible intended to showcase educational materials that had any potential to unintentionally mislead a victim, they would typically create one, possibly two, examples to help avoid such scenario. A similar example of this would be the puny code phishing sample recently covered in WIRED where the researcher created one puny code example domain.
What’s most concerning here is the number of googledoc look-alike domains. In most best practice scenarios, a legitimate security researcher would not typically register 9 domains to illustrate a point or to educate on a threat vector. This behavior pattern is most noticeably tied to malicious actors with real nefarious motivations behind their actions.
It may be some time before the true motives of the phishing worm author are revealed, however we are inclined to believe there is a very good chance that malicious intent was in development during this campaign, the execution of which snowballed quickly beyond the author’s desired scope.
Google Doc Campaign Makes a Mark
In the process of managing phishing threats for our customers, our Phishing Defense Center and PhishMe Intelligence teams saw a flood of suspicious emails with subject line stating that someone has “has shared a document on Google Docs with you”, which contained a link to “Open in Docs”. The “Open in Docs” link goes to one of several URLs all within the https://accounts.google.com website.
Throughout April, our Phishing Defense Team observed an increase in malicious URLs that deliver the financial crimes and botnet trojan known as Geodo. These emails take a simple approach to social engineering, using just a sentence or two prompting the victim to click on a link to see a report or invoice that has been sent to them.
An example of a typical phishing email used in these attacks is shown below:
Below are some examples of subject lines we have observed:
Emails containing malicious links providing the PDF documents used to deliver this malware have also been found to contain the word “attachment” somewhere within in the subject line.
Once the Geodo payload is in place on the victim’s computer, it will connect to the Geodo command and control infrastructure allowing the attacker to collect sensitive information from the infected machine.
Listed below are command and control hosts that have been observed during our analysis:
The core functionality of the Geodo trojan lies in its ability to collect sensitive information from infected machines and their users. Sophisticated browser-based information stealing functionality provided by Geodo includes form grabs and HTTPS man-in-the-middle attacks. Geodo also sports the ability to produce new sets of phishing emails, delivering itself to new potential victims.
Full List of Geodo IOCs collected by the Phishing Defense Center
Infection URLs (Where the malware was originally downloaded from):
Command and Control hosts:
PhishMe cautions its customers to be wary of emails containing suspicious links or attachments. Specific to this sample, we recommend that customers be observant for unexpected emails that contain subject lines referring to invoices or attachments, and email bodies that ask you to visit a link to see an invoice or report. PhishMe Simulator customers may consider launching simulations that follow this style of attack to further train their users to detect and report suspicious emails.
Want to be notified of the latest malware strains and phishing threats? – sign up for our complimentary PhishMe Threat Alerts service, delivered straight to your inbox.
One of the most popular Netflix series, Orange is the New Black, scored an early parole due to some bad behavior this weekend. TheDarkOverload, the group claiming responsibility for the hack, already released the season five premier and is threatening to release “a trove of unreleased TV shows and movies.”