Login
A roundup of some of the handiest tools that security professionals can use to search for and monitor devices that are accessible from the internet
The post Top 5 search engines for internet‑connected devices and services appeared first on WeLiveSecurity
Before rushing to embrace the LLM-powered hire, make sure your organization has safeguards in place to avoid putting its business and customer data at risk
The post Meet “AI”, your new colleague: could it expose your company’s secrets? appeared first on WeLiveSecurity
A Russian man identified by KrebsOnSecurity in January 2022 as a prolific and vocal member of several top ransomware groups was the subject of two indictments unsealed by the Justice Department today. U.S. prosecutors say Mikhail Pavolovich Matveev, a.k.a. “Wazawaka” and “Boriselcin” worked with three different ransomware gangs that extorted hundreds of millions of dollars from companies, schools, hospitals and government agencies.
An FBI wanted poster for Matveev.
Indictments returned in New Jersey and the District of Columbia allege that Matveev was involved in a conspiracy to distribute ransomware from three different strains or affiliate groups, including Babuk, Hive and LockBit.
The indictments allege that on June 25, 2020, Matveev and his LockBit co-conspirators deployed LockBit ransomware against a law enforcement agency in Passaic County, New Jersey. Prosecutors say that on May 27, 2022, Matveev conspired with Hive to ransom a nonprofit behavioral healthcare organization headquartered in Mercer County, New Jersey. And on April 26, 2021, Matveev and his Babuk gang allegedly deployed ransomware against the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Treasury has added Matveev to its list of persons with whom it is illegal to transact financially. Also, the U.S. State Department is offering a $10 million reward for the capture and/or prosecution of Matveev, although he is unlikely to face either as long as he continues to reside in Russia.
In a January 2021 discussion on a top Russian cybercrime forum, Matveev’s alleged alter ego Wazawaka said he had no plans to leave the protection of “Mother Russia,” and that traveling abroad was not an option for him.
“Mother Russia will help you,” Wazawaka concluded. “Love your country, and you will always get away with everything.”
In January 2022, KrebsOnSecurity published Who is the Network Access Broker ‘Wazawaka,’ which followed clues from Wazawaka’s many pseudonyms and contact details on the Russian-language cybercrime forums back to a 33-year-old Mikhail Matveev from Abaza, RU (the FBI says his date of birth is Aug. 17, 1992).
A month after that story ran, a man who appeared identical to the social media photos for Matveev began posting on Twitter a series of bizarre selfie videos in which he lashed out at security journalists and researchers (including this author), while using the same Twitter account to drop exploit code for a widely-used virtual private networking (VPN) appliance.
“Hello Brian Krebs! You did a really great job actually, really well, fucking great — it’s great that journalism works so well in the US,” Matveev said in one of the videos. “By the way, it is my voice in the background, I just love myself a lot.”
Prosecutors allege Matveev used a dizzying stream of monikers on the cybercrime forums, including “Boriselcin,” a talkative and brash personality who was simultaneously the public persona of Babuk, a ransomware affiliate program that surfaced on New Year’s Eve 2020.
Previous reporting here revealed that Matveev’s alter egos included “Orange,” the founder of the RAMP ransomware forum. RAMP stands for “Ransom Anon Market Place, and analysts at the security firm Flashpoint say the forum was created “directly in response to several large Dark Web forums banning ransomware collectives on their site following the Colonial Pipeline attack by ransomware group ‘DarkSide.”
As noted in last year’s investigations into Matveev, his alleged cybercriminal handles all were driven by a uniquely communitarian view that when organizations being held for ransom decline to cooperate or pay up, any data stolen from the victim should be published on the Russian cybercrime forums for all to plunder — not privately sold to the highest bidder.
In thread after thread on the crime forum XSS, Matveev’s alleged alias “Uhodiransomwar” could be seen posting download links to databases from companies that have refused to negotiate after five days.
Matveev is charged with conspiring to transmit ransom demands, conspiring to damage protected computers, and intentionally damaging protected computers. If convicted, he faces more than 20 years in prison.
Further reading:
Who is the Network Access Broker “Wazawaka?”
The New Jersey indictment against Matveev (PDF)
The indictment from the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C. (PDF)
The launch of .web top-level domain is once again at risk of being delayed by baseless procedural maneuvering.
On May 2, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Board of Directors posted a decision on the .web matter from its April 30 meeting, which found “that NDC (Nu Dotco LLC) did not violate the Guidebook or the Auction Rules” and directed ICANN “to continue processing NDC’s .web application,” clearing the way for the delegation of .web. ICANN later posted a preliminary report from this meeting showing that the Board vote on the .web decision was without objection.
Less than 24 hours later, however, Altanovo (formerly Afilias) – a losing bidder whose repeatedly rejected claims already have delayed the delegation of .web for more than six years – dusted off its playbook from 2018 by filing yet another ICANN Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP), beginning the cycle of another independent review of the Board’s decision, which last time cost millions of dollars and resulted in years of delay.
Under ICANN rules, a CEP is intended to be a non-binding process designed to efficiently resolve or narrow disputes before the initiation of an Independent Review Process (IRP). ICANN places further actions on hold while a CEP is pending. It’s an important and worthwhile aspect of the multistakeholder process…when used in good faith.
But that does not appear to be what is happening here. Altanovo and its backers initiated this repeat CEP despite the fact that it lost a fair, ICANN-sponsored auction; lost, in every important respect, the IRP; lost its application for reconsideration of the IRP (which it was sanctioned for filing, and which was determined to be frivolous by the IRP panel); and has now lost before the ICANN Board.
The Board’s decision expressly found that these disputes “have delayed the delegation of .web for more than six years” and already cost each of the parties, including ICANN, “millions of dollars in legal fees.”
Further delay appears to be the only goal of this second CEP – and any follow-on IRP – because no one could conclude in good faith that an IRP panel would find that the thorough process and decision on .web established in the Board’s resolutions and preliminary report violated ICANN’s bylaws. At the end of the day, all that will be accomplished by this second CEP and a second IRP is continued delay, and delay for delay’s sake amounts to an abuse of process that threatens to undermine the multistakeholder processes and the rights of NDC and Verisign.
ICANN will, no doubt, follow its processes for resolving the CEP and any further procedural maneuvers attempted by Altanovo. But, given Altanovo’s track record of losses, delays, and frivolous maneuvering since the 2016 .web auction, a point has been reached when equity demands that this abuse of process not be allowed to thwart NDC’s right, as determined by the Board, to move ahead on its .web application.
The post Will Altanovo’s Maneuvering Continue to Delay .web? appeared first on Verisign Blog.
Countless smartphones seized in arrests and searches by police forces across the United States are being auctioned online without first having the data on them erased, a practice that can lead to crime victims being re-victimized, a new study found. In response, the largest online marketplace for items seized in U.S. law enforcement investigations says it now ensures that all phones sold through its platform will be data-wiped prior to auction.
Researchers at the University of Maryland last year purchased 228 smartphones sold “as-is” from PropertyRoom.com, which bills itself as the largest auction house for police departments in the United States. Of phones they won at auction (at an average of $18 per phone), the researchers found 49 had no PIN or passcode; they were able to guess an additional 11 of the PINs by using the top-40 most popular PIN or swipe patterns.
Phones may end up in police custody for any number of reasons — such as its owner was involved in identity theft — and in these cases the phone itself was used as a tool to commit the crime.
“We initially expected that police would never auction these phones, as they would enable the buyer to recommit the same crimes as the previous owner,” the researchers explained in a paper released this month. “Unfortunately, that expectation has proven false in practice.”
The researchers said while they could have employed more aggressive technological measures to work out more of the PINs for the remaining phones they bought, they concluded based on the sample that a great many of the devices they won at auction had probably not been data-wiped and were protected only by a PIN.
Beyond what you would expect from unwiped second hand phones — every text message, picture, email, browser history, location history, etc. — the 61 phones they were able to access also contained significant amounts of data pertaining to crime — including victims’ data — the researchers found.
Some readers may be wondering at this point, “Why should we care about what happens to a criminal’s phone?” First off, it’s not entirely clear how these phones ended up for sale on PropertyRoom.
“Some folks are like, ‘Yeah, whatever, these are criminal phones,’ but are they?” said Dave Levin, an assistant professor of computer science at University of Maryland.
“We started looking at state laws around what they’re supposed to do with lost or stolen property, and we found that most of it ends up going the same route as civil asset forfeiture,” Levin continued. “Meaning, if they can’t find out who owns something, it eventually becomes the property of the state and gets shipped out to these resellers.”
Also, the researchers found that many of the phones clearly had personal information on them regarding previous or intended targets of crime: A dozen of the phones had photographs of government-issued IDs. Three of those were on phones that apparently belonged to sex workers; their phones contained communications with clients.
An overview of the phone functionality and data accessibility for phones purchased by the researchers.
One phone had full credit files for eight different people on it. On another device they found a screenshot including 11 stolen credit cards that were apparently purchased from an online carding shop. On yet another, the former owner had apparently been active in a Telegram group chat that sold tutorials on how to run identity theft scams.
The most interesting phone from the batches they bought at auction was one with a sticky note attached that included the device’s PIN and the notation “Gry Keyed,” no doubt a reference to the Graykey software that is often used by law enforcement agencies to brute-force a mobile device PIN.
“That one had the PIN on the back,” Levin said. “The message chain on that phone had 24 Experian and TransUnion credit histories”.
The University of Maryland team said they took care in their research not to further the victimization of people whose information was on the devices they purchased from PropertyRoom.com. That involved ensuring that none of the devices could connect to the Internet when powered on, and scanning all images on the devices against known hashes for child sexual abuse material.
It is common to find phones and other electronics for sale on auction platforms like eBay that have not been wiped of sensitive data, but in those cases eBay doesn’t possess the items being sold. In contrast, platforms like PropertyRoom obtain devices and resell them at auction directly.
PropertyRoom did not respond to multiple requests for comment. But the researchers said sometime in the past few months PropertyRoom began posting a notice stating that all mobile devices would be wiped of their data before being sold at auction.
“We informed them of our research in October 2022, and they responded that they would review our findings internally,” Levin said. “They stopped selling them for a while, but then it slowly came back, and then we made sure we won every auction. And all of the ones we got from that were indeed wiped, except there were four devices that had external SD [storage] cards in them that weren’t wiped.”
A copy of the University of Maryland study is here (PDF).
Why do people still download files from sketchy places and get compromised as a result?
The post You may not care where you download software from, but malware does appeared first on WeLiveSecurity
FreshRSS 