KEY SUMMARY POINTS Cybersecurity researchers Dr. Web have uncovered a new and active Linux malware campaign aimed at…

****KEY SUMMARY POINTS****

*   **New Linux Malware Campaign**: Cybersecurity researchers identified an active Linux malware campaign leveraging eBPF technology and targeting businesses and users globally.

*   **eBPF Exploitation**: Hackers are abusing eBPF’s low-level capabilities to hide activities, gather data, and bypass security measures, making detection challenging.

*   **Trojan Deployment**: Attackers use eBPF rootkits to conceal their presence and drop remote access Trojans capable of tunnelling traffic and maintaining communication within private networks.

*   **Public Platforms for Command Control**: Instead of private servers, malware configurations are stored on public platforms like GitHub and blogs, disguising malicious activity as legitimate.

*   **Rising eBPF Malware**: The use of eBPF-based malware, including families like Boopkit and BPFDoor, is increasing, with over 100 new vulnerabilities discovered in 2024 alone.

Cybersecurity researchers Dr. Web have uncovered a new and active Linux malware campaign aimed at businesses and users in Southeast Asia. The discovery came during an investigation into a malware attack reported by one of their clients.

The investigation began when a client approached Dr. Web with concerns about a possible compromise in their computer infrastructure. Upon analyzing the client’s data, Dr. Web identified multiple similar cases, indicating a large-scale and active campaign. Despite the initial uncertainty about how the attackers gained access, the researchers successfully tracked the initial stages of the attack.

****Exploiting eBPF Technology****

Researchers found that hackers have been abusing eBPF (extended Berkeley Packet Filter) technology in their attacks. For your information, eBPF is originally designed to provide better control over the Linux operating system’s network functions.

What’s noteworthy is the growing attention around eBPF, especially after August 2021, when tech giants like Google, Isovalent, Meta, Microsoft, and Netflix collaborated to establish the eBPF Foundation under the Linux Foundation to support the growth and adoption of eBPF technologies.

However, in the ongoing attack, eBPF’s low-level capabilities have allowed attackers to hide network activity, gather sensitive information, and bypass security measures. This has made it difficult for researchers to detect, and a lucrative opportunity for hackers particularly for advanced persistent threat (APT) groups looking to maintain long-term access to a target system.

In this specific campaign, as detailed by Dr. Web in its report published on December 10, the attackers used eBPF to load two rootkits. The first, an eBPF rootkit, hid the presence of a second rootkit, which then dropped a remote access Trojan (Trojan.Siggen28.58279 or Trojan:Win32/Siggen.GR!MTB) capable of tunnelling traffic, allowing attackers to communicate with infected devices even within private networks.

****Hiding in Plain Sight: Public Platforms as Command Centers****

The threat actors have also changed how they store their malware configurations. Instead of relying on private command-and-control servers, they are using popular, publicly accessible platforms.

The malware analyzed by Dr. Web was found retrieving settings from platforms like GitHub and even a Chinese cybersecurity blog. This tactic makes the malicious traffic appear legitimate, as it combines it with normal network activity. It also eliminates the need for the attackers to maintain separate control infrastructure, which can be more easily detected and shut down.

Screenshot shows malware hosted on GitHub and a Cybersecurity blog in Chinese language (Via Dr. Web)

Nevertheless, since 2023, the use of malicious eBPF software has been on the rise, with several malware families emerging, including Boopkit, BPFDoor, and Symbiote. The discovery of numerous vulnerabilities in eBPF technology has further worsened the situation.

This ongoing cyberattack is yet another example of how far government-backed hackers and cybercriminals are willing to go without fear of consequences. Their tactics, including exploiting advanced technologies like eBPF and using public platforms for configuration storage, make this quite clear.

1.  Telegram-Controlled TgRat Trojan Targets Linux Servers
2.  Play Ransomware Variant Targeting Linux ESXi Environments
3.  North Korean Hackers Deploy Linux Malware for ATM Cashouts
4.  Linux Malware ‘Perfctl’ Targets Millions by Mimicking System Files
5.  Godot Engine Abused to Drop Malware on Windows, macOS, Linux

Hackers Exploiting Linux eBPF to Spread Malware in Ongoing Campaign

With AI, it's not only the sky that's the limit, it's the entire universe.

This is no secret, online criminals are leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) in their malicious schemes. While AI tends to be abused to trick people (i.e. deepfakes) in order to gain something, sometimes, it is meant to defeat computer security programs.

With AI, this process has just become easier and we are seeing more and more cases of fake content produced for deception purposes. In the criminal underground, web pages or sites that are meant to be decoys are sometimes called “white pages,” as opposed to the “black pages” (malicious landing pages).

In this blog post, we take a look at a couple of examples where threat actors are buying Google Search ads and using AI to create white pages. The content is unique and sometimes funny if you are a real human, but unfortunately a computer analyzing the code would likely give it a green check.

**Fake-faced executives**

The first example is a phishing campaign targeting Securitas OneID. The threat actors are very cautious about avoiding detection by running ads that most of the time redirect to a completely bogus page unrelated to what one would expect, namely a phishing portal.

It did cross our minds they could very well be trolling security researchers, but if that was truly the case, why not simply go for Rick Astley’s _Never Gonna Give You Up_?

The entire site was created with AI, including the team’s faces. While in the past, criminals would go for stock photos or maybe steal a Facebook profile, now it’s easier and faster to make up your own, and it’s even copyright-free!

When Google tries to validate the ad, they will see this cloaked page with pretty unique content and there is absolutely nothing malicious with it.

**Parsec and the universe**

Our second example is another Google ad for Parsec this time, a popular remote desktop program used by gamers.

It so happens that a parsec is also an astronomical measurement unit and the threat actors (or should we say AI) went wild with it, creating a white page heavily influenced by Star Wars:

The artwork, including posters, is actually quite nice, even for a non-fan.

Once again, this cloaked content is a complete diversion which will take detection engines for a ride.

**AI vs AI: humans to the rescue**

These are just some of the many examples of AI being misused. In the early days of deepfakes, one may remember companies already training AI to detect AI.

There will naturally be content produced by AI for legitimate reasons. After all, nothing prohibits anyone from creating a website entirely with AI, simply because it’s a fun thing to do.

In the end, AI can be seen as a tool which on its own is neutral but can be placed in the wrong hands. Because it is so versatile and cheap, criminals have embraced it eagerly.

Ironically, it is quite straightforward for a real human to identify much of the cloaked content as just fake fluff. Sometimes, things just don’t add up and are simply comical. Do jokes trigger the same reaction in an AI engine as they would to a human? It doesn’t seem like it… yet.

**We don’t just report on threats—we remove them**

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.

 AI-generated malvertising &#8220;white pages&#8221; are fooling detection engines 

Adam Griffin is still in disbelief over how quickly he was robbed of nearly $500,000 in cryptocurrencies. A scammer called using a real Google phone number to warn his Gmail account was being hacked, sent email security alerts directly from google.com, and ultimately seized control over the account by convincing him to click "yes" to a Google prompt on his mobile device.

Image: Shutterstock, iHaMoo.

**Adam Griffin** is still in disbelief over how quickly he was robbed of nearly $500,000 in cryptocurrencies. A scammer called using a real **Google** phone number to warn his Gmail account was being hacked, sent email security alerts directly from google.com, and ultimately seized control over the account by convincing him to click “yes” to a Google prompt on his mobile device.

Griffin is a battalion chief firefighter in the Seattle area, and on May 6 he received a call from someone claiming they were from Google support saying his account was being accessed from Germany. A Google search on the phone number calling him — **(650) 203-0000** — revealed it was an official number for Google Assistant, an AI-based service that can engage in two-way conversations.

At the same time, he received an email that came from a google.com email address, warning his Google account was compromised. The message included a “Google Support Case ID number” and information about the Google representative supposedly talking to him on the phone, stating the rep’s name as “Ashton” — the same name given by the caller.

Griffin didn’t learn this until much later, but the email he received had a real google.com address because it was sent via Google Forms, a service available to all **Google Docs** users that makes it easy to send surveys, quizzes and other communications.

A phony security alert Griffin received prior to his bitcoin heist, via Google Forms.

According to tripwire.com’s **Graham Cluely**, phishers will use Google Forms to create a security alert message, and then change the form’s settings to automatically send a copy of the completed form to any email address entered into the form. The attacker then sends an invitation to complete the form to themselves, not to their intended victim.

“So, the attacker receives the invitation to fill out the form – and when they complete it, they enter their intended victim’s email address into the form, not their own,” Cluely wrote in a December 2023 post. “The attackers are taking advantage of the fact that the emails are being sent out directly by Google Forms (from the google.com domain). It’s an established legitimate domain that helps to make the email look more legitimate and is less likely to be intercepted en route by email-filtering solutions.”

The fake Google representative was polite, patient, professional and reassuring. Ashton told Griffin he was going to receive a notification that would allow him to regain control of the account from the hackers. Sure enough, a Google prompt instantly appeared on his phone asking, “Is it you trying to recover your account?”

Adam Griffin clicked “yes,” to an account recovery notification similar to this one on May 6.

Griffin said that after receiving the pop-up prompt from Google on his phone, he felt more at ease that he really was talking to someone at Google. In reality, the thieves caused the alert to appear on his phone merely by stepping through Google’s account recovery process for Griffin’s Gmail address.

“As soon as I clicked yes, I gave them access to my Gmail, which was synched to **Google Photos**,” Griffin said.

Unfortunately for Griffin, years ago he used Google Photos to store an image of the secret seed phrase that was protecting his cryptocurrency wallet. Armed with that phrase, the phishers could drain all of his funds.

“From there they were able to transfer approximately $450,000 out of my Exodus wallet,” Griffin recalled.

Griffin said just minutes after giving away access to his Gmail account he received a call from someone claiming to be with Coinbase, who likewise told him someone in Germany was trying to take over his account.

Griffin said a follow-up investigation revealed the attackers had used his Gmail account to gain access to his Coinbase account from a VPN connection in California, providing the multi-factor code from his Google Authenticator app. Unbeknownst to him at the time, Google Authenticator by default also makes the same codes available in one’s Google account online.

But when the thieves tried to move $100,000 worth of cryptocurrency out of his account, Coinbase sent an email stating that the account had been locked, and that he would have to submit additional verification documents before he could do anything with it.

**GRAND THEFT AUTOMATED**

Just days after Griffin was robbed, a scammer impersonating Google managed to phish 45 bitcoins — approximately $4,725,000 at today’s value — from **Tony**, a 42-year-old professional from northern California. Tony agreed to speak about his harrowing experience on condition that his last name not be used.

Tony got into bitcoin back in 2013 and has been investing in it ever since. On the evening of May 15, 2024, Tony was putting his three- and one-year-old boys to bed when he received a message from Google about an account security issue, followed by a phone call from a “Daniel Alexander” at Google who said his account was compromised by hackers.

Tony said he had just signed up for Google’s **Gemini AI** (an artificial intelligence platform formerly known as “Bard”), and mistakenly believed the call was part of that service. Daniel told Tony his account was being accessed by someone in Frankfurt, Germany, and that he could evict the hacker and recover access to the account by clicking “yes” to the prompt that Google was going to send to his phone.

The Google prompt arrived seconds later. And to his everlasting regret, Tony clicked the “Yes, it’s me” button.

Then came another call, this one allegedly from security personnel at **Trezor**, a company that makes encrypted hardware devices made to store cryptocurrency seed phrases securely offline. The caller said someone had submitted a request to Trezor to close his account, and they forwarded Tony a message sent from his Gmail account that included his name, Social Security number, date of birth, address, phone number and email address.

Tony said he began to believe then that his Trezor account truly was compromised. The caller convinced him to “recover” his account by entering his cryptocurrency seed phrase at a phishing website (**verify-trezor\[.\]io**) that mimicked the official Trezor website.

“At this point I go into fight or flight mode,” Tony recalled. “I’ve got my kids crying, my wife is like what the heck is going on? My brain went haywire. I put my seed phrase into a phishing site, and that was it.”

Almost immediately, all of the funds he was planning to save for retirement and for his children’s college fund were drained from his account.

“I made mistakes due to being so busy and not thinking correctly,” Tony told KrebsOnSecurity. “I had gotten so far away from the security protocols in bitcoin as life had changed so much since having kids.”

Tony shared this text message exchange of him pleading with his tormentors after being robbed of 45 bitcoins.

Tony said the theft left him traumatized and angry for months.

“All I was thinking about was protecting my boys and it ended up costing me everything,” he said. “Needless to say I’m devastated and have had to do serious therapy to get through it.”

**MISERY LOVES COMPANY**

Tony told KrebsOnSecurity that in the weeks following the theft of his 45 bitcoins, he became so consumed with rage and shame that he was seriously contemplating suicide. Then one day, while scouring the Internet for signs that others may have been phished by Daniel, he encountered Griffin posting on Reddit about the phone number involved in his recent bitcoin theft.

Griffin said the two of them were initially suspicious of each other — exchanging cautious messages for about a week — but he decided Tony was telling the truth after contacting the FBI agent that Tony said was working his case. Comparing notes, they discovered the fake Google security alerts they received just prior to their individual bitcoin thefts referenced the same phony “Google Support Case ID” number.

Adam Griffin and Tony said they received the same Google Support Case ID number in advance of their thefts. Both were sent via Google Forms, which sends directly from the google.com domain name.

More importantly, Tony recognized the voice of “Daniel from Google” when it was featured in an interview by **Junseth**, a podcaster who covers cryptocurrency scams. The same voice that had coaxed Tony out of his considerable cryptocurrency holdings just days earlier also had tried to phish Junseth, who played along for several minutes before revealing he knew it was a scam.

Daniel told Junseth he was a teenager and worked with other scam callers who had all met years ago on the game **Minecraft**, and that he recently enjoyed a run of back-to-back Gmail account compromises that led to crypto theft paydays.

“No one gets arrested,” Daniel enthused to Junseth in the May 7 podcast, which quickly went viral on social media. “It’s almost like there’s no consequences. I have small legal side hustles, like businesses and shit that I can funnel everything through. If you were to see me in real life, I look like a regular child going to school with my backpack and shit, you’d never expect this kid is stealing all this shit.”

Daniel explained that they often use an automated bot that initiates calls to targets warning that their account is experiencing suspicious activity, and that they should press “1” to speak with a representative. This process, he explained, essentially self-selects people who are more likely to be susceptible to their social engineering schemes. \[It is possible — but not certain — that this bot Daniel referenced explains the incoming call to Griffin from Google Assistant that precipitated his bitcoin heist\].

Daniel told Junseth he and his co-conspirators had just scored a $1.2 million theft that was still pending on the bitcoin investment platform SwanBitcoin. In response, Junseth tagged SwanBitcoin in a post about his podcast on Twitter/X, and the CEO of Swan quickly replied that they caught the $1.2 million transaction that morning.

Apparently, Daniel didn’t appreciate having his voice broadcast to the world (or his $1.2 million bitcoin heist disrupted) because according to Junseth someone submitted a baseless copyright infringement claim about it to Soundcloud, which was hosting the recording.

The complaint alleged the recording included a copyrighted song, but that wasn’t true: Junseth later posted a raw version of the recording to Telegram, and it clearly had no music in the background. Nevertheless, Soundcloud removed the audio file.

“All these companies are very afraid of copyright,” Junseth explained in a May 2024 interview with the podcast whatbitcoindid.com, which features some of the highlights from his recorded call with Daniel.

“It’s interesting because copyright infringement really is an act that you’re claiming against the publisher, but for some reason these companies have taken a very hard line against it, so if you even claim there’s copyrighted material in it they just take it down and then they leave it to you to prove that you’re innocent,” Junseth said. “In Soundcloud’s instance, part of declaring your innocence is you have to give them your home address and everything else, and it says right on there, ‘this will be provided to the person making the copyright claim.'”

**AFTERMATH**

When Junseth asked how potential victims could protect themselves, Daniel explained that if the target doesn’t have their Google Authenticator synced to their Google cloud account, the scammers can’t easily pivot into the victim’s accounts at cryptocurrency exchanges, as they did with Griffin.

By default, Google Authenticator syncs all one-time codes with a Gmail user’s account, meaning if someone gains access to your Google account, they can then access all of the one-time codes handed out by your Google Authenticator app.

To change this setting, open Authenticator on your mobile device, select your profile picture, and then choose “Use without an Account” from the menu. If you disable this, it’s a good idea to keep a printed copy of one-time backup codes, and to store those in a secure place.

You may also wish to download Google Authenticator to another mobile device that you control. Otherwise, if you turn off cloud synching and lose that sole mobile device with your Google Authenticator app, it could be difficult or impossible to recover access to your account if you somehow get locked out.

Griffin told KrebsOnSecurity he had no idea it was so easy for thieves to take over his account, and to abuse so many different Google services in the process.

“I know I definitely made mistakes, but I also know Google could do a lot better job protecting people,” he said.

In response to questions from KrebsOnSecurity, Google said it can confirm that this was a narrow phishing campaign, reaching a “very small group of people.”

“We’re aware of this narrow and targeted attack, and have hardened our defenses to block recovery attempts from this actor,” the company said in a written statement, which emphasized that the real Google will never call you.

“While these types of social engineering campaigns are constantly evolving, we are continuously working to harden our systems with new tools and technical innovations, as well as sharing updated guidance with our users to stay ahead of attackers,” the statement reads.

Both Griffin and Tony say they continue to receive “account security” calls from people pretending to work for Google or one of the cryptocurrency platforms.

“It’s like you get put on some kind of list, and then those lists get recycled over and over,” Tony said.

Griffin said that for several months after his ordeal, he accepted almost every cryptocurrency scam call that came his way, playing along in the vain hope of somehow tricking the caller into revealing details about who they are in real life. But he stopped after his taunting caused one of the scammers to start threatening him personally.

“I probably shouldn’t have, but I recorded two 30-minute conversations with these guys,” Griffin said, acknowledging that maybe it wasn’t such a great idea to antagonize cybercriminals who clearly already knew everything about him. “One guy I talked to about his personal life, and then his friend called me up and said he was going to dox me and do all this other bad stuff. My FBI contact later told me not to talk to these guys anymore.”

Sound advice. So is hanging up whenever anyone calls you about a security problem with one of your accounts. Even security-conscious people tend to underestimate the complex and shifting threat from phone-based phishing scams, but they do so at their peril.

When in doubt: Hang up, look up, and call back. If your response to these types of calls involves anything other than hanging up, researching the correct phone number, and contacting the entity that claims to be calling, you may be setting yourself up for a costly and humbling learning experience.

Understand that your email credentials are more than likely the key to unlocking your entire digital identity. Be sure to use a long, unique passphrase for your email address, and never pick a passphrase that you have ever used anywhere else (not even a variation on an old password).

Finally, it’s also a good idea to take advantage of the strongest multi-factor authentication methods offered. For Gmail/Google accounts, that includes the use of passkeys or physical security keys, which are heavily phishing resistant. For Google users holding measurable sums of cryptocurrency, the most secure option is Google’s free Advanced Protection program, which includes more extensive account security features but also comes with some serious convenience trade-offs.

How to Lose a Fortune with Just One Bad Click

Artificial intelligence capabilities are coming to a desktop near you — with Microsoft 365 Copilot, Google Gemini with Project Jarvis, and Apple Intelligence all arriving (or having arrived). But what are the risks?

Source: 'Who is Danny' via Shutterstock

Artificial intelligence has come to the desktop.

Microsoft 365 Copilot, which debuted last year, is now widely available. Apple Intelligence just reached general beta availability for users of late-model Macs, iPhones, and iPads. And Google Gemini will reportedly soon be able to take actions through the Chrome browser under an in-development agent feature dubbed Project Jarvis.

The integration of large language models (LLMs) that sift through business information and provide automated scripting of actions — so-called "agentic" capabilities — holds massive promise for knowledge workers but also significant concerns for business leaders and chief information security officers (CISOs). Companies already suffer from significant issues with the oversharing of information and a failure to limit access permissions — 40% of firms delayed their rollout of Microsoft 365 Copilot by three months or more because of such security worries, according to a Gartner survey.

The broad range of capabilities offered by desktop AI systems, combined with the lack of rigorous information security at many businesses, poses a significant risk, says Jim Alkove, CEO of Oleria, an identity and access management platform for cloud services.

"It's the combinatorics here that actually should make everyone concerned," he says. "These categorical risks exist in the larger \[native language\] model-based technology, and when you combine them with the sort of runtime security risks that we've been dealing with — and information access and auditability risks — it ends up having a multiplicative effect on risk."

Related:Citizen Development Moves Too Fast for Its Own Good

Desktop AI will likely take off in 2025. Companies are already looking to rapidly adopt Microsoft 365 Copilot and other desktop AI technologies, but only 16% have pushed past initial pilot projects to roll out the technology to all workers, according to Gartner's "The State of Microsoft 365 Copilot: Survey Results." The overwhelming majority (60%) are still evaluating the technology in a pilot project, while a fifth of businesses haven't even reached that far and are still in the planning stage.

Most workers are looking forward to having a desktop AI system to assist them with daily tasks. Some 90% of respondents believe their users would fight to retain access to their AI assistant, and 89% agree that the technology has improved productivity, according to Gartner.

**Bringing Security to the AI Assistant**

Unfortunately, the technologies are black boxes in terms of their architecture and protections, and that means they lack trust. With a human personal assistant, companies can do background checks, limit their access to certain technologies, and audit their work — measures that have no analogous control with desktop AI systems at present, says Oleria's Alkove.

Related:Cleo MFT Zero-Day Exploits Are About to Escalate, Analysts Warn

AI assistants — whether they are on the desktop, on a mobile device, or in the cloud — will have far more access to information than they need, he says.

"If you think about how ill-equipped modern technology is to deal with the fact that my assistant should be able to do a certain set of electronic tasks on my behalf, but nothing else," Alkove says. "You can grant your assistant access to email and your calendar, but you cannot restrict your assistant from seeing certain emails and certain calendar events. They can see everything."

This ability to delegate tasks needs to become part of the security fabric of AI assistants, he says.

**Cyber-Risk: Social Engineering Both Users & AI**

Without such security design and controls, attacks will likely follow.

Earlier this year, a prompt injection attack scenario highlighted the risks to businesses. Security researcher Johann Rehberger found that an indirect prompt injection attack through email, a Word document, or a website could trick Microsoft 365 Copilot into taking on the role of a scammer, extracting personal information, and leaking it to an attacker. Rehberger initially notified Microsoft of the issue in January and provided the company with information throughout the year. It's unknown whether Microsoft has a comprehensive fix for the issue.

Related:Generative AI Security Tools Go Open Source

The ability to access the capabilities of an operating system or device will make desktop AI assistants another target for fraudsters who have been trying to get a user to take actions. Instead, they will now focus on getting an LLM to take actions, says Ben Kilger, CEO of Zenity, an AI agent security firm.

"An LLM gives them the ability to do things on your behalf without any specific consent or control," he says. "So many of these prompt injection attacks are trying to social engineer the system — trying to go around other controls that you have in your network without having to socially engineer a human."

**Visibility Into AI's Black Box**

Most companies lack visibility into and control of the security of AI technology in general. To adequately vet the technology, companies need to be able to examine what the AI system is doing, how employees are interacting with the technology, and what actions are being delegated to the AI, Kilger says.

"These are all things that the organization needs to control, not the agentic platform," he says. "You need to break it down and to actually look deeper into how those platforms actually being utilized, and how do people build and interact with those platforms."

The first step to evaluating the risk of Microsoft 365 Copilot, Google's purported Project Jarvis, Apple Intelligence, and other technologies is to gain this visibility and have the controls in place to limit an AI assistant's access on a granular level, says Oleria's Alkove.

Rather than a big bucket of data that a desktop AI system can always access, companies need to be able to control access by the eventual recipient of the data, their role, and the sensitivity of the information, he says.

"How do you grant access to portions of your information and portions of the actions that you would normally take as an individual, to that agent, and also only for a period of time?" Alkove asks. "You might only want the agent to take an action once, or you may only want them to do it for 24 hours, and so making sure that you have those kind of controls today is critical."

Microsoft, for its part, acknowledges the data-governance challenges, but argues that they are not new, just made more apparent due to AI’s arrival.

"AI is simply the latest call to action for enterprises to take proactive management of controls their unique, respective policies, industry compliance regulations, and risk tolerance should inform – such as determining which employee identities should have access to different types of files, workspaces, and other resources," a company spokesperson said in a statement.

The company pointed to its Microsoft Purview portal as a way that organizations can continuously manage identities, permission, and other controls. Using the portal, IT admins can help secure data for AI apps and proactively monitor AI use though a single management location, the company said. Google declined to comment about its forthcoming AI agent.

**About the Author**

Veteran technology journalist of more than 20 years. Former research engineer. Written for more than two dozen publications, including CNET News.com, Dark Reading, MIT's Technology Review, Popular Science, and Wired News. Five awards for journalism, including Best Deadline Journalism (Online) in 2003 for coverage of the Blaster worm. Crunches numbers on various trends using Python and R. Recent reports include analyses of the shortage in cybersecurity workers and annual vulnerability trends.

Does Desktop AI Come With a Side of Risk?

A fraudulent Google ad meant to phish employees for their login credentials redirects them to a fake browser update page instead.

On December 15, we detected a malicious campaign targeting Kaiser Permanente employees via Google Search Ads. The fraudulent ad masquerades as the health care company’s HR portal used to check for benefits, download paystubs and other corporate related tasks.

We believe the threat actors’ intent was to phish KP employees for their login credentials, but something unexpected happened. Instead, victims who clicked on the ad were redirected to a compromised website that prompted them to update their browser.

This notification is part of a malware campaign known as SocGholish that tricks users into running a script supposedly meant to update their browser. Rather, it infects machines and if the victim is deemed important enough, a human operator will gain access in order to perform nefarious actions.

In this blog post, we review how this attack unfolds and why a compromised website derailed the attackers’ plan. We already reported the malicious ad to Google.

Several criminal gangs are currently abusing Google Ads to phish victims of various large companies. They prey on employees simply googling for their HR portal so that they can display a malicious ad to lure them in.

Case in point, when searching for Kaiser Permanente’s HR portal, we saw the following ad:

We were able to identify the advertiser who registered a fake account under the name ‘Heather Black’. This ad was only showed for U.S.-based searches, as can be seen in the Google Ads Transparency Center report:

**Former company’s website hijacked for phishing**

The displayed url shown in the ad (_https://www.bellonasoftware\[.\]com_) does not look associated with Kaiser Permanente. According to LinkedIn, Bellona Software was a company based in Romania. We can see what their website looked like in 2021, using the Internet Archive:

Sometimes more recently, this same website was taken over by criminals who transformed it into a phishing page for Kaiser Permanente:

**Malicious redirect to SocGholish**

It looks like there was more than one cook in the kitchen, as malicious code was also injected in the core JavaScript libraries for that website, confirmed in a scan by Sucuri’s SiteCheck:

When potential victims clicked on the ad, they landed on that compromised website, which in turn briefly displayed the phishing template only for as long as a mouse scroll or click. Then, a new screen appeared with what looks like a Google Chrome notification claiming the user’s browser is out of date:

This screen, also known as SocGholish, is a long running malware campaign that targets vulnerable websites indiscriminately. When a user executes the downloaded _Update.js_ file, they are instead running a malicious script that will collect some of their computer’s information and relay it to a group of criminals. After this fingerprinting takes place, additional tooling such as Cobalt Strike may be downloaded, preparing the ground for a _human on keyboard_ type of attack.

To the best of our knowledge, the phishing campaign has nothing to do with SocGholish, and we assume that the original threat actors did not anticipate for the website they took over to be compromised. As for the gang behind SocGholish, the victims would come from a Google search, something they usually check for via the referer.

**Protecting against web threats**

For victims, neither the phishing scheme nor the malware are a happy outcome. While initially targeted because of what they searched for, they fell into the hands of a different criminal syndicate.

Such is the reality of web threats. This is a dynamic and ever changing landscape with a number of malicious players trying to lure users in their own way.

Online ads, and in particular search ads, continue to be a threat. As we have showed many times on this blog, any brand is at risk of being impersonated. Unfortunately, this trend has continued unabated throughout 2024.

At the same time, ‘old’ malware campaigns like SocGholish pose a risk due to a never ending number of outdated websites ready to be compromised and act as a springboard for malware delivery.

When searching online, we urge to use extreme caution with any sponsored results and if possible add protection to your online browsing experience with tools like Malwarebytes Browser Guard.

We reported the malicious ad to Google and will update this blog if we hear anything back.

**We don’t just report on threats—we remove them**

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.

**Indicators of Compromise**

Phishing site

bellonasoftware\[.\]com

SocGholish infrastructure

premium\[.\]davidabostic\[.\]com  
riders\[.\]50kfor50years\[.\]com

 Malicious ad distributes SocGholish malware to Kaiser Permanente employees 

Plus: The US indicts North Koreans in fake IT worker scheme, file-sharing firm Cleo warns customers to patch a vulnerability amid live attacks, and more.

What a week! On Monday, police arrested 26-year-old Luigi Mangione and charged him in the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Mangione’s five-day run from authorities ended after he was spotted eating at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania, about 300 miles from Manhattan, where Thompson was gunned down on the morning of December 4. Authorities say they found Mangione carrying fake IDs and a 3D-printed “ghost gun,” the model of which is known as the FMDA, or “Free Men Don’t Ask.”

Meanwhile, a flood of mysterious drone sightings across New Jersey and neighboring states caused so much havoc, it quickly gained federal attention. While many people wondered why the US military couldn’t just shoot down the drones, the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and independent experts say the drone mystery may not be much of a mystery, and the drones are probably mostly just airplanes.

As for more terrestrial threats, we dove into the far-right realm of “Active Clubs,” small groups of young, fitness-focused men who are steeped in extremist ideology and linked to several violent attacks. While the man who helped invent the Active Club network, Robert Rundo, was sentenced in federal court this week, Active Clubs around the world are proliferating.

Finally, we investigated cheating schemes that use tiny cameras to gain an illicit edge in poker, and we interrogated the ways humans will use generative AI to make the world a more dangerous place.

But that’s not all. Each week, we round up the privacy and security news we didn’t cover in depth ourselves. Click the headlines to read the full stories. And stay safe out there.

Back in May, Microsoft jubilantly announced Recall, an AI feature for some Windows PCs that silently takes screenshots every five seconds and then allows you to easily search through the resulting digital footprint. Forgotten where you saw a recipe online? Tapping a couple of keywords into Recall could, in theory, find the dish again. It didn’t take long for the privacy and security community to find gaping holes in the feature.

In response, Microsoft delayed Recall’s launch and eventually made some significant changes—such as making Recall opt-in rather than on by default, better encrypting information captured by Recall, and adding authentication to access data that it stored. Recall finally launched for some users this month.

However, this week, testing of Recall by Tom’s Hardware demonstrated that a key safeguard put in place by Microsoft can still fail. With a Recall setting called “filter sensitive information” turned on, Tom’s Hardware’s tests found that it still took screenshots of some sensitive information—such as credit card numbers and Social Security numbers. When the publication typed a credit card number and a username and password into a Notepad window, they were gathered in the screenshots. “Similarly, when I filled out a loan application PDF in Microsoft Edge, entering a social security number, name and DOB, Recall captured that,” Avram Piltch writes. The tool, however, didn’t record details when they were entered on a couple of online stores.

Microsoft pointed to its product information that says the system will get better over time and that people should report if sensitive information is captured by Recall. While that may be the case, it’s unlikely that any system can correctly determine what is and isn’t sensitive every time. And that could make it a bigger target for hackers.

**14 North Koreans Identified and Indicted as Fraudulent IT Workers**

For years, North Korean nationals posing as tech workers have tried to get hired by global businesses so they can send their wages back to help the Hermit Kingdom pay for its nuclear programs. Increasingly, some companies are revealing they were targeted, and investigators are unravelling the schemes. This week, the US government indicted 14 North Koreans for their alleged role in generating $88 million, stealing sensitive business information, and attempting to use that information to extort more payments from companies. To get hired, the FBI alleges, the IT workers stole real identities, paid people in the US to use their home Wi-Fi connections, or paid them to attend job interviews. Researchers from Google-owned cybersecurity firm Mandiant who focus on North Korea say that in recent months they’ve seen IT workers following through on leaking sensitive data and demanding more cryptocurrency than ever before—although, they say this desperation could be a sign of the schemes becoming less effective.

**Cleo File-sharing Software Exploited to Spread Cybercriminal Malware**

File-sharing software firm Cleo this week warned customers to implement a new security patch to prevent a wave of intrusions by cybercriminals actively exploiting a vulnerability in its code. Researchers at security firm Huntress Labs told news outlet Recorded Future that at least two dozen organizations have already been breached by the hackers exploiting the Cleo flaw. Huntress has found a sample of malware found on those victims’ networks it calls Malichus, and says it appears to have been used by a sophisticated hacker group. Huntress also noted that Blue Yonder, a software firm breached by the Termite ransomware gang in November, had a vulnerable instance of Cleo’s software exposed on its network, and some evidence suggests the same cybercrime group may now be using the software’s vulnerability to hit other victims. Cleo first released a patch for the bug currently being exploited in October, but hackers appear to have circumvented it, and the company is urging customers to apply its new patch now.

**US Sanctions Chinese Hackers Who Allegedly Hijacked Thousands of Firewalls**

For five years, UK cybersecurity firm Sophos engaged in a cat-and-mouse game with a mysterious group of Chinese hackers targeting the company’s firewalls as a vector to break into its customers’ networks, as WIRED chronicled in October. Sophos went so far as to download surveillance “implants” to its devices that the hackers were testing to better monitor and preempt their intrusion techniques—and to gain more information about who they were and where they operated. Now, following Sophos’s revelations, those hackers have been hit with sanctions from the US government, and one of them has been indicted by name. Sichuan Silence Information Technology, based in Chengdu, and an alleged hacker named Guan Tianfeng are accused of hijacking 81,000 firewalls by exploiting a zero-day vulnerability that Guan is said to have discovered. Sichuan Silence, a known seller of disinformation tools to the Chinese government, and Guan are accused of targeting 23,000 firewalls in the US specifically, 36 of which were used in US critical infrastructure networks. The US State Department also issued a $10 million bounty for information about the company or Guan.

Microsoft’s AI Recall Tool Is Still Sucking Up Credit Card and Social Security Numbers

PRESS RELEASE

BOSTON — December 12, 2024 — Zerto, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise company, today announced the launch of the Zerto Cloud Vault, which delivers Zerto’s best-in-class cyber resilience capabilities as a service through managed service providers (MSPs). Zerto’s security-focused MSP partners at launch include Assurestor, Converge, LincolnIT, and Verinext. Built on the capabilities of the Zerto Cyber Resilience Vault, the Zerto Cloud Vault is a cloud-based, fully managed solution that offers logical air-gapping, immutability, and clean room recovery.

Ransomware attacks remain a harsh fact of life for most businesses with collective ransomware losses totaling over $1 billion in 2023 alone. This financial toll is exacerbated by the resulting data loss and downtime, with some estimates suggesting upwards of $1 million in losses per hour of downtime for larger businesses.

With Zerto Cloud Vault, customers can leverage MSPs that deliver tailored cyber resilience strategies to meet the specific requirements of their organizations. Cloud Vault is the latest offering in HPE’s comprehensive cyber resilience portfolio and complements the existing Zerto Cyber Resilience Vault, which is deployed as a self-hosted, on-premises stack.

Zerto Cloud Vault capabilities include:

*   Managed Cyber Services: Take advantage of MSP experts who know how to prevent and mitigate attacks and have built their services on top of Zerto’s award-winning technology.
    
*   Real-Time Encryption Detection: Detect encryption anomalies in real-time and be alerted within seconds to potential issues through integration with cybersecurity dashboards.
    
*   Immutable Data Copies: Retain data for up to 12 months and protect against ransomware attacks through immutable copies, all without impacting production workloads, without any agents or snapshots.
    
*   Clean Room Recovery: Leverage the elasticity of the cloud to create clean environments on demand with isolated networks that are protected from attackers. Use it to validate data, scrub malware, and perform forensics before recovering back into production.
    
*   Non-Disruptive Testing: With Zerto’s non-disruptive solutions, businesses can test more frequently and comprehensively, including conducting cyber recovery tests at any time on entire sites, multiple sites, or individual VMs. These tests can be used to validate recovery plans and train incident response teams.
    
*   Fully isolated from production environments: Ability to run different security postures within product and vault environments.
    

“Zerto’s disaster recovery and cyber resilience solutions offer peace of mind to businesses struggling to combat ransomware attacks,” said Jim O’Dorisio, senior vice president and general manager, HPE Storage. “Leveraging our cyber resilience capabilities, MSPs will be able to bring fully managed Cloud Vault services to even more organizations, helping them thwart the plans of attackers and keep precious business assets safe.”

Coupled with the expertise of Zerto’s vetted MSP partners, the hosted Zerto Cloud Vault mitigates the most devastating ransomware scenarios while keeping businesses in compliance with state and federal regulations — reducing the risk of substantial fines or prosecution. Where other solutions offer detrimental lengthy recovery point objectives (RPOs) and recovery time objectives (RTOs), Zerto Cloud Vault slashes both, minimizing the risks of disruption and allowing businesses to get back on their feet as fast as possible after the inevitable happens. Zerto is a part of HPE’s hybrid cloud business, helping HPE customers protect workloads and data across hybrid IT environments.

Partner Quotes

“Our Gold Standard for cyber recovery considers a product’s recoverability readiness, non-disruptive testing capability, and speed of data recovery; we found that Zerto substantially delivered on all these points. Combined with Cloud Vault, the protection provided from ransomware attacks was robust and allowed pinpoint recovery faster than any other products evaluated,” said Stephen Young, executive director, Assurestor.

“Ransomware attacks are a real threat to the data and operations of organizations of all sizes. Having the ability to offer a cloud vault with Zerto technology gives our clients added protection against ransomware and peace of mind that they can recover successfully,” said John Antimisiaris, executive vice president, LincolnIT.

“Some of our clients’ infrastructure protection needs to be kept with a very tight RPO, but they still need some deeper recovery options than simple replication can provide. A cyberattack is seldom clearly understood, even when recovery efforts have begun. Zerto Cloud Vault provides immutable protection history that can be leveraged to find the latest clean point in time for replicated hosts,” said Jeremy Brovage, product engineer and solutions architect, Converge Enterprise Cloud.

“Cyberattacks that encrypt data are one of the primary disruptors requiring data recovery. Zerto provides the best tools to recover quickly and with the least data loss in a cloud vault,” said Nick Martino, product manager, managed services, Verinext.

Explore the Zerto Cloud Vault and discover how it empowers businesses to safeguard their data and operations: Learn More. 

About Zerto

Zerto, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise company, empowers customers to run an always-on business by simplifying the protection, recovery, and mobility of on-premises and cloud applications. Zerto eliminates the risk and complexity of modernization and cloud adoption across private, public, and hybrid deployments. The simple, software-only solution uses continuous data protection at scale to solve for ransomware resilience, disaster recovery, and multi-cloud mobility. Zerto is trusted by over 9,500 customers globally, and is powering offerings for Microsoft Azure, IBM Cloud, Google Cloud, Oracle Cloud, and more than 350 managed service providers.

Zerto Introduces Cloud Vault Solution for Enhanced Cyber Resilience Through MSPs

A new side-channel attack method is a computationally practical way to infer the structure of a convolutional neural network — meaning that cyberattackers or rival companies can plagiarize AI models and take their data for themselves.

Source: Daniel Chetroni via Alamy Stock Photo

Researchers have demonstrated how to recreate a neural network using the electromagnetic (EM) signals emanating from the chip it runs on.

The method, called "TPUXtract," comes courtesy of North Carolina State University's Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Using many thousands of dollars worth of equipment and a novel technique called "online template-building," a team of four managed to infer the hyperparameters of a convolutional neural network (CNN) — the settings that define its structure and behavior — running on a Google Edge Tensor Processing Unit (TPU), with 99.91% accuracy.

Practically, TPUXtract enables a cyberattacker with no prior information to essentially steal an artificial intelligence (AI) model: They can recreate a model in its entirety and save the actual data it was trained on, for purposes of intellectual property (IP) theft or follow-on cyberattacks.

**How TPUXtract Works to Recreate AI Models**

The study was conducted on a Google Coral Dev Board, a single-board computer for machine learning (ML) on smaller devices: think edge, Internet of Things (IoT), medical equipment, automotive systems, etc. In particular, researchers paid attention to the board's Edge Tensor Processing Unit (TPU), the application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) at the heart of the device that allows it to efficiently run complex ML tasks.

Any electronic device like this, as a byproduct of its operations, will emit EM radiation, the nature of which will be influenced by the computations it performs. Knowing this, the researchers conducted their experiments by placing an EM probe on top of the TPU — removing any obstructions like cooling fans — and centering it on the part of the chip emanating the strongest EM signals. Then they fed the machine input data and recorded the signals it leaked.

To begin to make sense of those signals, they first identified that before any data gets processed, a neural network quantizes — compresses — its input data. Only when the data is in a format suitable for the TPU does the EM signal from the chip shoot up, indicating that computations have begun.

At this point, the researchers could begin mapping the EM signature of the model. But trying to estimate all of the dozens or hundreds of compressed layers that comprise the network at the same time would have been effectively impossible.

Every layer in a neural network will have some combination of characteristics: It will perform a certain type of computation, have a certain number of nodes, etc. Importantly, "the property of the first layer affects the 'signature,' or the side-channel pattern of the second layer," notes Ashley Kurian, one of the researchers. Thus, trying to understand anything about the second, 10th, or 100th layer becomes increasingly impossible, as it rests on all of the properties of what came before it.

"So if there are 'N' layers, and there are 'K' numbers of combinations \[of hyperparameters\] for each layer, then computing cost would have been N raised to K," she explains. The researchers studied neural networks with 28 to 242 layers (N) and estimated that K — the total number of possible configurations for any given layer — equaled 5,528.

Instead of having to commit infinite computing power to the problem, they figured they could isolate and analyze each layer in turn.

To recreate each layer of a neural network, the researchers built "templates" — thousands of simulated combinations of hyperparameters, and read the signals they gave off when processing data. Then they compared those results to the signals emitted by the model they were trying to approximate. The closest simulation would be considered correct. Then, they applied the same process to the next layer.

"Within a day, we could completely recreate a neural network that took weeks or months of computation by the developers," Kurian reports.

**Stolen AIs Lead to IP, Cybercrime Risk to Companies**

Pulling off TPUXtract isn't trivial. Besides a wealth of technical know-how, the process also demands a variety of expensive and niche equipment.

The NCSU researchers used a Riscure EM probe station with a motorized XYZ table to scan the chip's surface, and a high sensitivity electromagnetic probe for capturing its weak radio signals. A Picoscope 6000E oscilloscope recorded the traces, Riscure's icWaves field-programmable gate array (FPGA) device aligned them in real-time, and the icWaves transceiver used bandpass filters and AM/FM demodulation to translate and filter out irrelevant signals.

As tricky and costly as it may be for an individual hacker, Kurian says, "It can be a competing company who wants to do this, \[and they could\] in a matter of a few days. For example, a competitor wants to develop \[a copy of\] ChatGPT without doing all of the work. This is something that they can do to save a lot of money."

Intellectual property theft, though, is just one potential reason anyone might want to steal an AI model. Malicious adversaries might also benefit from observing the knobs and dials controlling a popular AI model, so they can probe them for cybersecurity vulnerabilities.

And for the especially ambitious, the researchers also cited four studies that focused on stealing regular neural network parameters. Theoretically, those methods in combination with TPUXtract could be used to recreate the entirety of any AI model — parameters and hyperparameters in all.

To combat these risks, the researchers suggested that AI developers could introduce noise into the AI inference process using dummy operations, or running random operations concurrently, or confuse analysis by randomizing the sequence of layers during processing.

"During the training process," says Kurian, "developers will have to insert these layers, and the model should be trained to know that these noisy layers need not be considered."

**About the Author**

Nate Nelson is a freelance writer based in New York City. Formerly a reporter at Threatpost, he contributes to a number of cybersecurity blogs and podcasts. He writes "Malicious Life" -- an award-winning Top 20 tech podcast on Apple and Spotify -- and hosts every other episode, featuring interviews with leading voices in security. He also co-hosts "The Industrial Security Podcast," the most popular show in its field.

With 'TPUXtract,' Attackers Can Steal Orgs' AI Models

Law enforcement across mainland China have been using EagleMsgSpy surveillance tool to collect mobile device data since at least 2017, new research shows.

Source: Vicky Barlow via Alamy Stock Photo

NEWS BRIEF

A surveillance tool named EagleMeSpy, developed by a Chinese software company for legal use by the country's public security bureaus, has been scraping the most sensitive data from targeted Android devices since at least 2017.

Researchers at Lookout warn that the EagleMeSpy spyware has been under constant development, and while at the moment they have only seen evidence of an Android version, analysis of the tool's infrastructure indicates a potential Apple iOS version is out there somewhere as well.

Unlike other commercial spyware products, EagleMeSpy requires physical access to the targeted device to deploy the tool, the Lookout team found. The researchers reported they found no evidence of the spyware in Google Play or any other app stores, leading them to conclude Chinese law enforcement officials are the only ones initiating the surveillance software infection.

"An installer component, which would presumably be operated by law enforcement officers who gained access to the unlocked device, is responsible for delivering a headless surveillance module that remains on the device and collects extensive sensitive data," the Lookout report read.

Once installed, EagleMsgSpy gathers everything it can, including chat and text messages, screen and audio recordings, call logs, contacts, location data, and network activity, Lookout said. Additional evidence shows the vendor behind the spyware has multiple clients.

"Lookout researchers have observed an evolution in the sophistication of the use of obfuscation and storage of encrypted keys over time," the report warned. "This indicates that this surveillanceware is an actively maintained product whose creators make continuous efforts to protect it from discovery and analysis."

**About the Author**

Dark Reading

Becky Bracken is a veteran multimedia journalist covering cybersecurity for Dark Reading.

Chinese Cops Caught Using Android Spyware to Track Mobile Devices

In Operation PowerOFF, global authorities aim to deter individuals from engaging in malicious cyber acts.

Source: M4OS Photos via Alamy Stock Photo

NEWS BRIEF

Law enforcement agencies around the world have seized 27 of the most popular Web platforms used to launch distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks.

The international operation, which remains ongoing, is known as PowerOFF and was coordinated by Europol, involving 15 countries. The operation targeted various levels of operatives in the groups engaged in the cybercriminal activities, including three administrators who were arrested in France and Germany. It also identified 300 other cybercriminals.

Three of the so-called "booter" and "stresser" websites that were taken down as part of Operation PowerOFF include zdstresser.net, orbitalstress.net, and starkstresser.net.

"While these platforms are often marketed as legitimate tools for stress-testing, they are frequently misused to facilitate malicious attacks," said Sarah Jones, cyber threat intelligence research analyst at Critical Start, in an emailed statement to Dark Reading. "By dismantling these services and identifying more than 300 customers, law enforcement agencies aim to disrupt the entire ecosystem addressing both the supply of these tools and the demand from those who use them for illegal activities."

The holiday season in particular has in the past been a peak period for hackers to carry out DDoS attacks, ultimately leading to financial loss, reputational damage for retailers, and operational disruption.

Law enforcement agencies launched an online ad campaign using Google search ads and YouTube to deter individuals from engaging in criminal activities like DDoS, highlighting the consequences of such attacks. Law enforcement also plans to conduct knock-and-talks, and use warning letters and emails.

**About the Author**

Skilled writer and editor covering cybersecurity for Dark Reading.

Tag

#google