Moobot, Miori, AGoent, and a Gafgyt variant have joined the infamous Mirai botnet in attacking unpatched versions of vulnerable Wi-Fi routers.

Source: Stuart Miles via Alamy Stock Photo

A number of botnets are pummeling a nearly year-old command-injection vulnerability in TP-Link routers to compromise the devices for IoT-driven distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks.

There already is a patch for the flaw, tracked as CVE-2023-1389, found in the Web management interface of the TP-Link Archer AX21 (AX1800) Wi-Fi router and affecting devices Version 1.1.4 Build 20230219 or prior.

However, threat actors are taking advantage of unpatched devices to dispatch various botnets — include Moobot, Miori, AGoent, a Gafgyt variant, and variants of the infamous Mirai botnet — that can compromise the devices for DDoS and further nefarious activity, according to a blog post from Fortiguard Labs Threat Research.

"Recently, we observed multiple attacks focusing on this year-old vulnerability," which already was previously exploited by the in Mirai botnet, according to the post by Fortiguard researchers Cara Lin and Vincent Li. Fortiguard's IPS telemetry has detected significant traffic peaks, which alerted the researchers to the malicious activity, they said.

**Exploiting the TP-Link Flaw**

The flaw creates a scenario in which there is no sanitization of the "Country" field of the router's management interface, "so an attacker can exploit it for malicious activities and gain foothold," according to TP-Link's security advisory for the flaw.

"This is an unauthenticated command-injection vulnerability in the 'locale' API available via the web management interface," Lin and Li explained.

To exploit it, users can query the specified form "country" and conduct a "write" operation, which is handled by the "set\_country" function, the researchers explained. That function calls the "merge\_config\_by\_country" function and concatenates the argument of the specified form "country" into a command string. This string is then executed by the "popen" function.

"Since the 'country' field won't be emptied, the attacker can achieve command injection," the researchers wrote.

**Botnets to the Siege**

TP-Link's advisory when the flaw was revealed last year included acknowledgement of exploitation by the Mirai botnet. But since then other botnets as well as various Mirai variants also have taken siege against vulnerable devices.

One is Agoent, a Golang-based agent bot that attacks by first fetching the script file "exec.sh" from an attacker-controlled website, which then retrieves the Executable and Linkable Format (ELF) files of different Linux-based architectures.

The bot then executes two primary behaviors: the first is to create the host username and password using random characters, and the second is to establish connection with command and control (C2) to pass on the credentials just created by the malware for device takeover, the researchers said.

A botnet that creates denial of service (DoS) in Linux architectures called the Gafgyt variant also is attacking the TP-Link flaw by downloading and executing a script file and then retrieving Linux architecture execution files with the prefix filename "rebirth." The botnet then gets the compromised target IP and architecture information, which it concatenates into a string that is part of its initial connection message, the researchers explained.

"After establishing a connection with its C2 server, the malware receives a continuous 'PING' command from the server to ensure persistence on the compromised target," the researchers wrote. It then waits for various C2 commands to create DoS attacks.

The botnet called Moobot also is attacking the flaw to conduct DDoS attacks on remote IPs via a command from the attacker's C2 server, the researchers said. While the botnet targets various IoT hardware architectures, Fortiguard researchers analyzed the botnet's execution file designed for the "x86\_64" architecture to determine its exploitation activity, they said.

A variant of Mirai also is conducting DDoS attacks in its exploitation of the flaw by sending a packet from the C&C server to direct the endpoint to initiate the attack, the researchers noted.

"The command specified is 0x01 for a Valve Source Engine (VSE) flood, with a duration of 60 seconds (0x3C), targeting a randomly selected victim's IP address and the port number 30129," they explained.

Miori, another Mirai variant, also has joined the fray to conduct brute-force attacks on compromised devices, the researchers noted. And they also observed attacks by Condi that remains consistent with a version of the botnet that was active last year.

The attack retains the function to prevent reboots by deleting binaries responsible for shutting down or rebooting the system, and scans active processes and cross-references with predefined strings to terminate processes with matching names, the researchers said.

**Patch & Protect to Avoid DDoS**

Botnet attacks that exploit device flaws to target IoT environments are "relentless," and thus users should be vigilant against DDoS botnets," the researchers noted. Indeed, IoT adversaries are advancing their attacks by pouncing on unpatched device flaws to further their sophisticated attack agendas.

Attacks against TP-Link devices can be mitigated by applying the available patch for affected devices, and this practice should be followed for any other IoT devices "to safeguard their network environments from infection, preventing them from becoming bots for malicious threat actors," the researchers wrote.

Fortiguard also included in its post various indicators of compromise (IoCs) for the different botnet attacks, including C2 servers, URLs, and files that can help server administrators identify an attack.

**About the Author(s)**

Elizabeth Montalbano is a freelance writer, journalist, and therapeutic writing mentor with more than 25 years of professional experience. Her areas of expertise include technology, business, and culture. Elizabeth previously lived and worked as a full-time journalist in Phoenix, San Francisco, and New York City; she currently resides in a village on the southwest coast of Portugal. In her free time, she enjoys surfing, hiking with her dogs, traveling, playing music, yoga, and cooking.

Various Botnets Pummel Year-Old TP-Link Flaw in IoT Attacks

Having a solid disaster recovery plan is the glue that keeps your essential functions together when all hell breaks loose.

Source: Aleksei Gorodenkov via Alamy Stock Photo

COMMENTARY

As the conflict in Ukraine enters its third year, the global community is confronted with the grim reality of modern warfare, where cyber operations have emerged as a pivotal battleground. Reflecting on past events and the ongoing crisis, it's evident that cyberattacks have become a constant threat, leaving no sector untouched and rendering the Ukrainian people and their systems vulnerable to relentless aggression.

In January 2022, as tensions loomed, I was tasked with outlining the potential consequences of a Russian attack on Ukraine to a private equity client with operations in the region. Little did we know that the scenarios we discussed would soon transition from hypothetical to harrowing realities.

Fast forward to 2024, and the dire situation persists. Recent cyberattacks targeting Ukrainian state agencies, including the state-owned energy company, and financial institutions such as Monobank, Ukraine's largest mobile-only bank, underscore the severity of the ongoing digital onslaught. The infiltration of Ukrainian telecommunications giant Kyivstar by Russian hackers further highlights the magnitude of the threat, leaving millions without vital services for days.

**How to Prepare for Cyber Warfare**

Amidst this turmoil, organizations must prioritize disaster recovery preparedness to mitigate risks and enhance resilience. Here are essential steps to consider:

1.  Safety of personnel: Beyond technical aspects, acknowledging the human impact of cyber warfare is paramount. With millions of Ukrainian people displaced and seeking refuge, ensuring the safety and well-being of your teams and their vulnerable families should be a top priority.
    
2.  Comprehensive backup strategies: Implementing robust backup solutions for critical data, systems, and networks is essential to restore operations swiftly in the event of a cyberattack. A multisite strategy ensures data survivability even in the face of unforeseen disasters.
    
3.  Cybersecurity training and awareness: Educating employees about cybersecurity best practices significantly reduces the likelihood of successful attacks, making every individual a frontline defender against cyber threats.
    
4.  Multilayered defense mechanisms: Adopting a multilayered approach to cybersecurity, including firewalls, intrusion detection systems, and endpoint protection, strengthens defenses and minimizes vulnerabilities.
    
5.  Incident response planning: Developing a comprehensive incident response plan enables organizations to react swiftly and effectively to cyber breaches, ensuring minimal disruption and damage.
    
6.  Collaboration and information sharing: Collaborating within the cybersecurity community and sharing threat intelligence and best practices bolsters defenses and adaptability against evolving threats.
    

When I reflect on the pre-war briefing on that cold January day in 2022, I recall how dark and macabre my presentation was. Nobody thought that what I was outlining could become reality. But it did. And even worse.

As we continue to witness the devastating impact of cyber warfare in Ukraine, it serves as a poignant reminder of the imperative for preparedness and resilience in the face of modern threats. By implementing proactive cybersecurity measures, prioritizing human safety, and fostering collaboration, organizations can defend against cyberattacks and uphold principles of sovereignty and stability in the digital age. It is essential for organizations to have a solid disaster recovery plan, as it is the glue that keeps your essential functions together when all hell breaks loose. Together, we can navigate the complexities of cyber warfare and work towards a future where technology protects and empowers all, even amidst conflict and adversity.

**About the Author(s)**

Independent Cybersecurity Consultant

Hadi Shavarini an independent cybersecurity consultant is a seasoned CISSP, with over 20 years of extensive Cloud Security experience across Data, Application, IAM, and Infrastructure domains, along with strategic cybersecurity expertise. As a Cybersecurity Consultant and virtual Chief Information Security Officer (vCISO), he specializes in delivering unparalleled advisory and cybersecurity services fortifying organizations' governance, risk, and compliance strategies. Hadi has demonstrated proficiency in steering cybersecurity initiatives across diverse industries, including financial services, healthcare, energy, manufacturing, tech, and retail. As a vCISO and trusted advisor, he excels in fostering strong client relationships, conducting cybersecurity evaluations, and guiding clients in implementing security frameworks and regulatory compliance. Hadi's leadership extends to his roles as CEO & Cofounder at Blue Robin Inc., and CEO & Cofounder at WebMedicPro. His expertise encompasses a wide range of IT solutions, project management, and strategic consultancy in cybersecurity and technology integration.

Preparing for Cyber Warfare: 6 Key Lessons From Ukraine

A native-first approach delivers better protections and a more efficient use of resources than best-of-breed solutions, benefiting cloud service providers and end-user customers alike.

Source: Rasi Bhadramani via Alamy Stock Photo

As companies increasingly migrate to public cloud platforms like Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services (AWS), and Google Cloud, many are opting to lift and shift their existing security toolsets in the process. Today, the average company deploys as many as 76 disparate security tools. This is commonly known as a best-of-breed approach.

However, the problem with a best-of-breed model is that it creates security and efficiency gaps for cloud workloads. Because third-party cloud security solutions rely on the visibility provided by the cloud service provider's (CSP) application programming interface (API), each one comes with its own unique set of limitations and blind spots. This makes it difficult for security engineers and analysts to accurately and efficiently triage and remediate threats.

By contrast, a native-first cloud security approach deploys seamlessly integrated first-party security solutions to drive greater cost and resource efficiencies, as well as increase overall security resiliency. Here are three reasons to prioritize a native-first approach over best-of-breed.

**Reduce Your Attack Surface**

One key argument for implementing a native-first cloud security approach over best-of-breed is that relying on multiple third-party security solutions can inadvertently expand an organization's attack surface. Each new tool introduces its own set of configurations, APIs, and potential vulnerabilities. If not properly managed, third-party tools can create additional opportunities for attackers to exploit weaknesses in the security infrastructure. In fact, cloud misconfigurations were responsible for 80% of data security breaches in 2023.

On the other hand, a native-first cloud security approach relies on first-party solutions and doesn't require any changes to the customer's cloud environment. That minimizes the risk of introducing additional weaknesses.

**Eliminate Security Blind Spots**

Another core benefit of a native-first cloud security model is that it eliminates the blind spots often seen with best-of-breed solutions. Third-party solutions often struggle to integrate with one another or with the specific cloud platform being used, which can lead to gaps in visibility and coordination — making it difficult to have a unified view of the security landscape. And because public cloud environments often rely on a variety of interconnected services and APIs, organizations run the risk of missing potential threats or vulnerabilities if their best-of-breed security tools are not designed to work seamlessly with these cloud-native services.

A native-first approach eliminates this issue because all of the CSP solutions are already designed to work together seamlessly. For example, a cloud container workload protection plan that natively integrates with Azure Kubernetes Services (AKS) and Azure Container Repository (ACR) would not require any changes to the protection plan when changes are made to the container-based solution. Similarly, a cloud-native application protection platform (CNAPP) integrating with Microsoft threat intelligence can ensure security teams can respond to security incidents in real time.

**Drive Greater Team Efficiencies**

Finally, taking a best-of-breed approach means that security teams are responsible for managing multiple security solutions from different vendors. This is complex and resource-intensive, requiring teams to understand the various interfaces, policies, and update schedules, while also managing crucial security configurations and responding promptly to emerging threats. Running multiple security tools concurrently can also lead to redundant system resources. This redundancy affects the overall performance of the cloud environment and increases operational costs without necessarily improving security effectiveness.

Under a native-first model, security teams only need to understand their CSP's services — thus cutting down on the initial learning curve required since the native solutions leverage other native services, such as dashboards and responses. Many CSPs are also designed to ensure the efficient use of customers' cloud resources, with much of the heavy lifting done within the CSP's control plane. 

Ultimately, a native-first cloud security approach delivers better protections and a more efficient use of resources than best-of-breed third-party solutions. And because CSPs are used to serving a wide range of customers and use cases, they can often offer more flexibility, innovation, and specialized security expertise than third-party vendors. By exploring available native-first security solutions to see what makes the most sense for their environments, organizations can take the first step toward a more secure and more efficient cloud-based future.

— Read more Partner Perspectives from Microsoft Security

**About the Author(s)**

Microsoft

Protect it all with Microsoft Security.

Microsoft offers simplified, comprehensive protection and expertise that eliminates security gaps so you can innovate and grow in a changing world. Our integrated security, compliance, and identity solutions work across platforms and cloud environments, providing protection without compromising productivity.

We help customers simplify the complex by prioritizing risks with unified management tools and strategic guidance created to maximize the human expertise inside your company. Our unparalleled AI is informed by trillions of signals so you can detect threats quickly, respond effectively, and fortify your security posture to stay ahead of ever-evolving threats.

Why a Native-First Approach Is Key to Cloud Security

The documents contained malicious VBA code, indicating they may be used as lures to infect organizations.

*   During a threat-hunting exercise, Cisco Talos discovered documents with potentially confidential information originating from Ukraine. The documents contained malicious VBA code, indicating they may be used as lures to infect organizations. 
*   The results of the investigation have shown that the presence of the malicious code is due to the activity of a rare multi-module virus that's delivered via the .NET interop functionality to infect Word documents. 
*   The virus, named OfflRouter, has been active in Ukraine since 2015 and remains active on some Ukrainian organizations’ networks, based on over 100 original infected documents uploaded to VirusTotal from Ukraine and the documents’ upload dates. 
*   We assess that OfflRouter is the work of an inventive but relatively inexperienced developer, based on the unusual choice of the infection mechanism, the apparent lack of testing and mistakes in the code. 
*   The author’s design choices may have limited the spread of the virus to very few organizations while allowing it to remain active and undetected for a long period of time. 

As a part of a regular threat hunting exercise, Cisco Talos monitors files uploaded to open-source repositories for potential lures that may target government and military organizations. Lures are created from legitimate documents by adding content that will trigger malicious behavior and are often used by threat actors. 

For example, malicious document lures with externally referenced templates written in Ukrainian language are used by the Gamaredon group as an initial infection vector. Talos has previously discovered military theme lures in Ukrainian and Polish, mimicking the official PowerPoint and Excel files, to launch the so-called “Picasso loader,” which installs remote access trojans (RATs) onto victims' systems. 

In July 2023, threat actors attempted to use lures related to the NATO summit in Vilnius to install the Romcom remote access trojan. These are just some of the reasons why hunting for document lures is vital to any threat intelligence operation.  

In February 2024, Talos discovered several documents with content that seems to originate from Ukrainian local government organizations and the Ukrainian National Police uploaded to VirusTotal. The documents contained VBA code to drop and run an executable with the name \`ctrlpanel.exe\`, which raised our suspicion and prompted us to investigate further.   

Eventually, we discovered over 100 uploaded documents with potentially confidential information about government and police activities in Ukraine. The analysis of the code showed unexpected results – instead of lures used by advanced actors, the uploaded documents were infected with a multi-component VBA macro virus OfflRouter, created in 2015. The virus is still active in Ukraine and is causing potentially confidential documents to be uploaded to publicly accessible document repositories.   

**Attribution **

Although the virus is active in Ukraine, there are no indications that it was created by an author from that region. Even the debugging database string used to name the virus “E:\\Projects\\OfflRouter2\\OfflRouter2\\obj\\Release\\ctrlpanel.pdb” present in the ctrlpanel.exe does not point to a non-English speaker. 

From the choice of the infection mechanism, VBA code generation, several mistakes in the code, and the apparent lack of testing, we estimate that the author is an inexperienced but inventive programmer.  

The choices made during the development limited the virus to a specific geographic location and allowed it to remain active for almost 10 years. 

**OfflRouter has been confined to Ukraine **

According to earlier research by the Slovakian government CSIRT (Computer Security Incident Response Team) team, some infected documents were already publicly available on the Ukrainian National Police website in 2018.  

The newly discovered infected documents are written in Ukrainian, which may have contributed to the fact that the virus is rarely seen outside Ukraine. Since the malware has no capabilities to spread by email, it can only be spread by sharing documents and removable media, such as USB memory sticks with infected documents. The inability to spread by email and the initial documents in Ukrainian are additional likely reasons the virus stayed confined to Ukraine.  

One of the documents was recently uploaded to VirusTotal from Ukraine. 

The virus targets only documents with the filename extension .doc, the default extension for the OLE2 documents, and it will not try to infect other filename extensions. The default Word document filename extension for the more recent Word versions is .docx, so few documents will be infected as a result.  

This is a possible mistake by the author, although there is a small probability that the malware was specifically created to target a few organizations in Ukraine that still use the .doc extension, even if the documents are internally structured as Office Open XML documents.  

Other issues prevented the virus from spreading more successfully and most of them are found in the executable module, ctrlpanel.exe, dropped and executed by the VBA part of the code.  

When the virus is run, it attempts to set the value Ctrlpanel of the registry key HKLM\\Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Run so that it runs on the Windows boot. An internal global string \_RootDir is used as the value, however, the string only contains the folder where the ctrlpanel.exe is found and not its full path, which makes this auto-start measure fail.  

One interesting concept in the .NET module is the entire process of infecting documents. As a part of the infection process, the VBA code is generated by combining the code taken from the hard-coded strings in the module with the encoded bytes of the ctrlpanel.exe binary. This makes the generated code the same for every infection cycle and rather easy to detect. Having a VBA code generator in the .NET code has more potential to make the infected documents more difficult to detect.  

Once launched, the executable module stays active in memory and uses threading timers to execute two background worker objects, the first one tasked with the infection of documents and the second one with checking for the existence of the potential plugin modules for the .NET module.  

The infection background worker enumerates the mounted drives and attempts to find documents to infect by using the Directory.Getfiles function with the string search pattern “\*.doc” as a parameter.  

One of the parameters of the function is the SearchOption parameter which specifies the option to search in subdirectories or only the in the root folder. For fixed drives, the module chooses to search only the root folder, which is an unusual choice, as it is quite unlikely that the root folder will hold any documents to infect.  

For removable drives, the module also searches all subfolders, which likely makes it more successful. Finally, it checks the list of recent documents in Word and attempts to infect them, which contributes to the success of the virus spreading to other documents on fixed drives.  

__The choice of document filename extensions is limited to .doc.__

**OfflRouter VBA code drops and executes the main executable module **

The VBA part of the virus runs when a document is opened, provided macros are enabled, and it contains code to drop and run the executable module ctrlpanel.exe.

__The VBA part creates and executes the executable module of the virus.__

 The beginning of the macro code defines a function that checks if the file already exists and if it does not, it opens it for writing and calls functions CheckHashX, which at first glance looks like containing junk code to reset the value of the variable \`Y\`. However, the variable Y is defined as a private property with an overridden setter function, which converts the variable value assignment into appending the supplied value to the end of the opened executable module C:\\Users\\Public\\ctrlpanel.exe. Every code line that looks like an assignment appends the assigned value to the end of the file, and that is how the executable module is written.  

This technique is likely implemented to make the detection of the embedded module a bit more difficult, as the executable mode is not stored as a contiguous block, but as a sequence of integer values that look like being assigned to a variable.  

To a more experienced analyst, this code looks like garbage code generated by polymorphic engines, and it raises the question of why the author has not extended the code generation to pseudo-randomize the code.  

__Infected Word documents drop the .NET component that infects other documents__. 

The virus is unique, as it consists of VBA and executable modules with the infection logic contained in the PE executable .NET module.  

__The property Y has an overridden setter function to write into a file.__

**Ctrlpanel.exe .NET module **

The unique infection method used by ctrlpanel.exe is through the Office Interop classes of .NET VBProject interface Microsoft.Vbe.Interop and the Microsoft.Office.Interop.Word class that exposes the functionality of the Word application.  

The Interop.Word class is used to instantiate a Document class which allows access to the VBA macro code and the addition of the code to the target document file using the standard Word VBA functions.  

When the .NET module ctrlpanel.exe is launched, it attempts to open a mutex ctrlpanelapppppp to check if another module instance is already running on the system. If the mutex already exists, the process will terminate.  

Suppose no other module instances are running. In that case, ctrlpanel.exe creates the mutex named “ctrlpanelapppppp”, attempts to set the registry run key so the module runs on system startup, and finally initializes two timers to run associated background timer callbacks – VBAClass\_Timer\_Callback and PluginClass\_TimerCallback, implemented to start the Run function of the classes VBAClass and PluginClass, respectively. 

__Ctrlpanel.exe has two threads of execution.__

The VBAClass\_Timer\_Callback will be called one second after the creation of VBAClass\_Timer timer and the PluginClass\_Timer\_Callback three seconds after the creation of the PluginClass\_Timer.  

The full functionality of the executable module is implemented by two classes, VBAClass and PluginClass, specifically within their respective functions Backgroundworker\_DoWork. 

**_VBAClass is tasked with generating VBA code and infecting other Word documents_ **

 The background worker function runs in an infinite loop and contains two major parts, the first is tasked with the document infection and the second with finding the documents to infect, the logic we already described above.  

The infection iterates through a list of the document candidates to infect and uses an innovative method to check the document infection marker to avoid multiple infection processes – the function checks the document creation metadata, adds the creation times, and checks the value of the sum. If the sum is zero, the document is considered already infected.  

__The file system time of creation is used as an infection marker.__

If the document to be infected is created in the Word 97-2003 binary format (OLE2), the document will be saved with the same name in Microsoft Office Open XML format with enabled macros (DOCX).  

The infection uses the traditional VBA class infection routine. It accesses the Visual Basic code module of the first VBComponent and then adds the code generated by the function MyScript to the document’s code module. After that, the infected document is saved.  

__The target document is converted to .docx and then infected.__

The code generation function MyScript contains static strings and instructions to dynamically generate code that will be added to infected documents. It opens its own executable ctrlpanel.exe for reading and reads the file 32-bit by 32-bit value which gets converted to decimal strings that can be saved as VBA code. For every repeating 32-bit value, most commonly for zero, the function creates a for loop to write the repeating value to the dropped file. The purpose is unclear, but it is likely to achieve a small saving in the size of the code and compress it.  

__Repeating 32-bit values are “compressed.”__

For every 4,096 bytes, the code generates a new CheckHashX subroutine to break the code into chunks. The purpose of this is not clear.  

__The VBA code infecting files is dynamically created.__

 After the file is infected, the background worker adds the infection marker file by setting the values of hour, minute, second, and millisecond creation times to zero.

__The infection market is set after the infected file has been copied to its original location.__

**_PluginClass is tasked with discovering and loading plugins_ **

Ctrlpanel.exe can also search for potential plugins present on removable media, which is very unusual for simple viruses that infect documents. This may indicate that the author’s aims were a bit more ambitious than the simple VBA infection. 

Searching for the plugins in removable drives is unusual as it requires the plugins to be delivered to the system on a physical media, such as a USB drive or a CD-ROM. The plugin loader searches for any files with the filename extension .orp, decodes its name using Base64 decoding function, decodes the file content using Base64 decoding, copies the file into the c:\\users\\public\\tools folder with the previously decoded name and the extension .exe and finally executes the plugin. 

__Any plugins found on a removable drive are decoded, copied to drive C: and launched.__

If the plugins are already present on an infected machine, ctrlpanel.exe will try to encode them using Base64 encoding, copy them to the root of the attached removable media with the filename extension “.orp” and set the newly created file attributes to the values system and hidden so that they are not displayed by default by Windows File Explorer. 

**It is unclear if the initial vector is a document or the executable module ctrlpanel.exe **

The advantage of the two-module virus is that it can be spread as a standalone executable or as an infected document. It may even be advantageous to initially spread as an executable as the module can run standalone and set the registry keys to allow execution of the VBA code and changing of the default saved file formats to doc before infecting documents. That way, the infection may be a bit stealthier.  

The following registry keys are set: 
HKEY\_CURRENT\_USER\\Software\\Microsoft\\Office\\14.0\\Word\\Security\\AccessVBOM (to allow access to Visual Basic Object Model by the external applications) 
  
HKEY\_CURRENT\_USER\\Software\\Microsoft\\Office\\14.0\\Word\\Security\\VBAWarnings (to disable warnings about potential Macro code in the infected documents) 
  
HKEY\_CURRENT\_USER\\Software\\Microsoft\\Office\\14.0\\Word\\Options\\DefaultFormat (to set the default format to DOC) 

**Coverage **

Ways our customers can detect and block this threat are listed below. 

Cisco Secure Endpoint (formerly AMP for Endpoints) is ideally suited to prevent the execution of the malware detailed in this post. Try Secure Endpoint for free here.  

Cisco Secure Email (formerly Cisco Email Security) can block malicious emails sent by threat actors as part of their campaign. You can try Secure Email for free here. 

Cisco Secure Firewall (formerly Next-Generation Firewall and Firepower NGFW) appliances such as Threat Defense Virtual, Adaptive Security Appliance and Meraki MX can detect malicious activity associated with this threat. 

Cisco Secure Network/Cloud Analytics (Stealthwatch/Stealthwatch Cloud) analyzes network traffic automatically and alerts users of potentially unwanted activity on every connected device.  

Cisco Secure Malware Analytics (formerly Threat Grid) identifies malicious binaries and builds protection into all Cisco Secure products. 

Umbrella, Cisco’s secure internet gateway (SIG), blocks users from connecting to malicious domains, IPs and URLs, whether users are on or off the corporate network. Sign up for a free trial of Umbrella here. 

Cisco Secure Web Appliance (formerly Web Security Appliance) automatically blocks potentially dangerous sites and tests suspicious sites before users access them.  

Additional protection with context to your specific environment and threat data are available from the Firewall Management Center.  

Cisco Duo provides multi-factor authentication for users to ensure only those authorized are accessing your network.  

Open-source Snort Subscriber Rule Set customers can stay up to date by downloading the latest rule pack available for purchase on Snort.org. Snort SIDs for this threat are  

The following ClamAV signatures detect malware artifacts related to this threat: 

Doc.Malware.Valyria-6714124-0 

Win.Virus.OfflRouter-10025942-0 

**IOCs **

IOCs for this research can also be found at our GitHub repository here. 

10e720fbcf797a2f40fbaa214b3402df14b7637404e5e91d7651bd13d28a69d8 - .NET module ctrlpanel.exe  

**Infected documents  **

2260989b5b723b0ccd1293e1ffcc7c0173c171963dfc03e9f6cd2649da8d0d2c 

2b0927de637d11d957610dd9a60d11d46eaa3f15770fb474067fb86d93a41912 

802342de0448d5c3b3aa6256e1650240ea53c77f8f762968c1abd8c967f9efd0 

016d90f337bd55dfcfbba8465a50e2261f0369cd448b4f020215f952a2a06bce 

**Mutex **

ctrlpanelapppppp

OfflRouter virus causes Ukrainian users to upload confidential documents to VirusTotal

Threat actors are exploiting unpatched Atlassian servers to deploy a Linux variant of Cerber (aka C3RB3R) ransomware.
The attacks leverage CVE-2023-22518 (CVSS score: 9.1), a critical security vulnerability impacting the Atlassian Confluence Data Center and Server that allows an unauthenticated attacker to reset Confluence and create an administrator account.
Armed with this access, a

Critical Atlassian Flaw Exploited to Deploy Linux Variant of Cerber Ransomware

Cybersecurity researchers have discovered a new campaign that's exploiting a recently disclosed security flaw in Fortinet FortiClient EMS devices to deliver ScreenConnect and Metasploit Powerfun payloads.
The activity entails the exploitation of CVE-2023-48788 (CVSS score: 9.3), a critical SQL injection flaw that could permit an unauthenticated attacker to execute unauthorized code or

Hackers Exploit Fortinet Flaw, Deploy ScreenConnect, Metasploit in New Campaign

But even with that focus, the sophisticated threat group has continued operations against targets globally, including the US, says Google's Mandiant.

Source: Militarist via Shutterstock

The formidable Sandworm hacker group has played a central role supporting Russian military objectives in Ukraine over the past two years even as it has stepped up cyberthreat operations in other regions of strategic political, economic, and military interest to Russia.

That's the upshot of the analysis of the threat actor's activities undertaken by Google Cloud's Mandiant security group. They found that Sandworm — or APT44, as Mandiant has been tracking it — to be responsible for nearly all disruptive and destructive cyberattacks in Ukraine since Russia's invasion in February 2022.

In the process, the threat actor established itself as the primary cyberattack unit within Russia's Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) and among all Russian state-backed cybergroups, Mandiant assessed. No other cyber outfit appears as totally integrated with Russia's military operators as Sandworm is presently, the security vendor noted in a report this week that offers a detailed look at the group's tools, techniques, and practices.

"APT44 operations are global in scope and mirror Russia's wide ranging national interests and ambitions," Mandiant warned. "Even with an ongoing war, we have observed the group sustain access and espionage operations across North America, Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, and Latin America."

One manifestation of Sandworm's broadening global mandate was a series of attacks on three water and hydroelectric facilities in the US and France earlier this year by a hacking outfit called CyberArmyofRussia\_Reborn, which Mandiant believes is controlled by Sandworm.

The attacks — which appear to have been more a demonstration of capabilities than anything else — caused a system malfunction at one of the attacked US water facilities. In October 2022, a group that Mandiant believes was APT44 deployed ransomware against logistics providers in Poland in a rare instance of deploying a disruptive capability against a NATO country.

**Global Mandate**

Sandworm is a threat actor that has been active for more than a decade. It's well known for numerous high-profile attacks such as the one in 2022 that took down sections of Ukraine's power grid just prior to a Russian missile strike; the 2017 NotPetya ransomware outbreak, and an attack at the opening ceremony of the Pyeongchang Olympic Games in South Korea. The group has traditionally targeted government and critical infrastructure organizations, including those in the defense, transportation, and energy sectors. The US government and others have attributed the operation to a cyber unit within Russia's GRU. In 2020, the US Justice Department indicted several Russian military officers for their alleged role in various Sandworm campaigns.

"APT44 has an extremely broad targeting remit," says Dan Black, principal analyst at Mandiant. "Organizations who develop software or other technologies for industrial control systems and other critical infrastructure components should have APT44 front and center in their threat models."

Gabby Roncone, a senior analyst with Mandiant's Advanced Practices team, includes media organizations among APT44/Sandworm's targets, especially during elections. "Many key elections of high interest to Russia are taking place this year, and APT44 may attempt to be a key player" in them, Roncone says.

Mandiant itself has been tracking APT44 as a unit within Russia's military intelligence. "We track a complex external ecosystem that enables their operations, including state-owned research entities and private companies," Roncone adds.

Within Ukraine, Sandworm's attacks have increasingly focused on espionage activity with a view to gathering information for Russian military forces' battlefield advantage, Mandiant said. In many cases, the threat actor's favorite tactic for gaining initial access to target networks has been through exploitation of routers, VPNs, and other edge infrastructure. It's a tactic that the threat actor has been increasingly using since Russia's Ukraine invasion. While the group has accumulated a vast collection of bespoke attack tools, it has often relied on legitimate tools and living-off-the-land techniques to evade detection.

**An Elusive Enemy**

"APT44 is adept at flying under the detection radar. Building detections for commonly abused open source tools and living-off-the-land methods is critical," Black says.

Roncone also advocates that organizations map and maintain their network environments and segment networks where possible because of Sandworm's penchant for targeting vulnerable edge infrastructure for initial entry and re-entry into environments. "Organizations should additionally be wary of APT44 pivoting between espionage and disruptive goals after gaining access to networks," Roncone notes. "For folks working in media and media organizations in particular, digital safety training for individual journalists is key."

Black and Roncone perceive APT44/Sandworm's use of hacking fronts like CyberArmyofRussia\_Reborn as an attempt to draw attention to its campaigns and for deniability purposes.

"We have seen APT44 repeatedly use the CyberArmyofRussia\_Reborn Telegram to post evidence from and draw attention to its sabotage activity," Black says. "We cannot conclusively determine if this is an exclusive relationship but judge that APT44 has the ability to direct and influence what the persona posts on Telegram."

Black says APT44 could be using personas such as CyberArmyofRussia\_Reborn as a way to avoid direct attribution in case they cross a line or provoke a response. "But the second \[motive\] is that they create a fake sense of popular support for Russia's war — a false impression that average Russians are self-assembling to join the cyber fight against Ukraine."

**About the Author(s)**

Jai Vijayan is a seasoned technology reporter with over 20 years of experience in IT trade journalism. He was most recently a Senior Editor at Computerworld, where he covered information security and data privacy issues for the publication. Over the course of his 20-year career at Computerworld, Jai also covered a variety of other technology topics, including big data, Hadoop, Internet of Things, e-voting, and data analytics. Prior to Computerworld, Jai covered technology issues for The Economic Times in Bangalore, India. Jai has a Master's degree in Statistics and lives in Naperville, Ill.

'Sandworm' Group Is Russia's Primary Cyberattack Unit in Ukraine

Cisco is warning about a global surge in brute-force attacks targeting various devices, including Virtual Private Network (VPN) services, web application authentication interfaces, and SSH services, since at least March 18, 2024.
"These attacks all appear to be originating from TOR exit nodes and a range of other anonymizing tunnels and proxies," Cisco Talos said.
Successful attacks could

Cisco Warns of Global Surge in Brute-Force Attacks Targeting VPN and SSH Services

Israel prepares for a response to Iran's April 14 drone and missile attack.

Source: Birgit Korber via via Alamy Stock Photo

Adding fuel to speculation that Israel may wage strategic cyberattacks on Iran in response to the April 14 aerial drone and missile attack, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) held simulated cyber and combat warfare drills.

Israel's Northern Command forces held the drills with the nation's cyber and technology units to test the combination of cyber and kinetic warfare in preparation to the nation's response to the Iranian attack, according to The Jerusalem Post.

Earlier this week, Israeli citizens received threatening text messages purportedly from an Iranian-backed hacking team warning that it has hijacked the nation's radar systems, stating: "You have only a few hours to fix the systems."

Israeli officials had not verified the group's claims.

**About the Author(s)**

Israeli Defense Forces Hold Hybrid Cyber &amp; Military Readiness Drills

Incorrect access control in Dolibarr ERP CRM versions 19.0.0 and before, allows authenticated attackers to steal victim users' session cookies and CSRF protection tokens via user interaction with a crafted web page, leading to account takeover.

Skip to content

*   *   Actions
        
        Automate any workflow
        
    *   Packages
        
        Host and manage packages
        
    *   Security
        
        Find and fix vulnerabilities
        
    *   Codespaces
        
        Instant dev environments
        
    *   Copilot
        
        Write better code with AI
        
    *   Code review
        
        Manage code changes
        
    *   Issues
        
        Plan and track work
        
    *   Discussions
        
        Collaborate outside of code
        
    

*   *   GitHub Sponsors
        
        Fund open source developers
        
    
    *   The ReadME Project
        
        GitHub community articles
        
    
*   Pricing

**Provide feedback**

**Saved searches****Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly**

Sign up

1.  GitHub Advisory Database
2.  GitHub Reviewed
3.  CVE-2024-31503

**Dolibarr vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery**

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Apr 17, 2024 to the GitHub Advisory Database • Updated Apr 17, 2024

**Package**

composer dolibarr/dolibarr (Composer)

**Affected versions**

<= 19.0.0

**Description**

Published to the GitHub Advisory Database

Apr 17, 2024

Last updated

Apr 17, 2024

Tag

#auth