Login
The U.S. government today announced a coordinated crackdown against QakBot, a complex malware family used by multiple cybercrime groups to lay the groundwork for ransomware infections. The international law enforcement operation involved seizing control over the botnet’s online infrastructure, and quietly removing the Qakbot malware from tens of thousands of infected Microsoft Windows computers.
Dutch authorities inside a data center with servers tied to the botnet. Image: Dutch National Police.
In an international operation announced today dubbed “Duck Hunt,” the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) said they obtained court orders to remove Qakbot from infected devices, and to seize servers used to control the botnet.
“This is the most significant technological and financial operation ever led by the Department of Justice against a botnet,” said Martin Estrada, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California, at a press conference this morning in Los Angeles.
Estrada said Qakbot has been implicated in 40 different ransomware attacks over the past 18 months, intrusions that collectively cost victims more than $58 million in losses.
Emerging in 2007 as a banking trojan, QakBot (a.k.a. Qbot and Pinkslipbot) has morphed into an advanced malware strain now used by multiple cybercriminal groups to prepare newly compromised networks for ransomware infestations. QakBot is most commonly delivered via email phishing lures disguised as something legitimate and time-sensitive, such as invoices or work orders.
Don Alway, assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles field office, said federal investigators gained access to an online panel that allowed cybercrooks to monitor and control the actions of the botnet. From there, investigators obtained court-ordered approval to instruct all infected systems to uninstall Qakbot and to disconnect themselves from the botnet, Alway said.
The DOJ says their access to the botnet’s control panel revealed that Qakbot had been used to infect more than 700,000 machines in the past year alone, including 200,000 systems in the United States.
Working with law enforcement partners in France, Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands, Romania and the United Kingdom, the DOJ said it was able to seize more than 50 Internet servers tied to the malware network, and nearly $9 million in ill-gotten cryptocurrency from QakBot’s cybercriminal overlords. The DOJ declined to say whether any suspects were questioned or arrested in connection with Qakbot, citing an ongoing investigation.
According to recent figures from the managed security firm Reliaquest, QakBot is by far the most prevalent malware “loader” — malicious software used to secure access to a hacked network and help drop additional malware payloads. Reliaquest says QakBot infections accounted for nearly one-third of all loaders observed in the wild during the first six months of this year.
Qakbot/Qbot was once again the top malware loader observed in the wild in the first six months of 2023. Source: Reliaquest.com.
Researchers at AT&T Alien Labs say the crooks responsible for maintaining the QakBot botnet have rented their creation to various cybercrime groups over the years. More recently, however, QakBot has been closely associated with ransomware attacks from Black Basta, a prolific Russian-language criminal group that was thought to have spun off from the Conti ransomware gang in early 2022.
Today’s operation is not the first time the U.S. government has used court orders to remotely disinfect systems compromised with malware. In May 2023, the DOJ quietly removed malware from computers around the world infected by the “Snake” malware, an even older malware family that has been tied to Russian intelligence agencies.
Documents published by the DOJ in support of today’s takedown state that beginning on Aug. 25, 2023, law enforcement gained access to the Qakbot botnet, redirected botnet traffic to and through servers controlled by law enforcement, and instructed Qakbot-infected computers to download a Qakbot Uninstall file that uninstalled Qakbot malware from the infected computer.
“The Qakbot Uninstall file did not remediate other malware that was already installed on infected computers,” the government explained. “Instead, it was designed to prevent additional Qakbot malware from being installed on the infected computer by untethering the victim computer from the Qakbot botnet.”
The DOJ said it also recovered more than 6.5 million stolen passwords and other credentials, and that it has shared this information with two websites that let users check to see if their credentials were exposed: Have I Been Pwned, and a “Check Your Hack” website erected by the Dutch National Police.
Further reading:
–The DOJ’s application for a search warrant application tied to Qakbot uninstall file (PDF)
–The search warrant application connected to QakBot server infrastructure in the United States (PDF)
–The government’s application for a warrant to seize virtual currency from the QakBot operators (PDF)
–A technical breakdown from SecureWorks
So is your smart speaker really listening in on your conversations?
That’s the crux of a popular privacy topic. Namely, are we giving up some of our privacy in exchange for the convenience of a smart speaker that does our bidding with the sound of our voice? After all, you’re using it to do everything from search for music, order online, and control the lights and temperature in your home.
What is your smart speaker really hearing—and recording?
Let’s take a look at what’s going on inside of your smart speaker, how it processes your requests, and what companies do with the recordings and transcripts of your voice.
More or less, smart speakers are listening to all the time. Each smart speaker has its own “wake word” that it listens for, like Alexa, Siri, or Google. When the device hears that wake word or thinks it hears it, it begins recording and awaits your verbal commands. Unless you have the microphone or listening feature turned off, your device indeed actively listens for that wake word all the time.
Here’s where things get interesting, though. There’s a difference between “listening” and “recording.” The act of listening is passive. Your smart speaker is waiting to hear its name. That’s it. Once it does hear its name, it begins recording for a few seconds to record your command. From there, your spoken command goes into the company’s cloud for processing by way of an encrypted connection.
There are exceptions to when your command may go to the company’s cloud for processing, like Siri on iPhones, which according to Apple, “You don’t sign in with your Apple ID to use Siri, and the audio of your requests is processed entirely on your iPhone.” Also, Google Assistant may process some requests without going to the cloud, like “When a user triggers a smart home Action that has a local fulfillment path, Assistant sends the EXECUTE intent or QUERY intent to the Google Home or Google Nest device rather than the cloud fulfillment.”
In the cases where information does go to the cloud, processing entails a few things. First, it makes sure that the wake word was heard. If it’s determined that the wake word was indeed spoken (or something close enough to it—more on that in a minute), the speaker follows through on the request or command. Depending on your settings, that activity may get stored in your account history, whether as a voice recording, transcript, or both. If the wake word was not detected, processing ends at that point.
Enter the issue of mistaken wake words. While language models and processing technologies used by smart speakers are constantly evolving, there are occasions where a smart speaker acts as if a wake word was heard when it simply wasn’t said. Several studies on the topic have been published in recent years. In the case of research from Northeastern University, it was found that dialogue from popular television shows could be interpreted as wake words that trigger recording. For example, their findings cite:
“We then looked at other shows with a similarly high dialogue density (such as Gilmore Girls and The Office) and found that they also have a high number of activations, which suggests that the number of activations is at least in part related to the density of dialogue. However, we have also noticed that if we consider just the amount of dialogue (in a number of words), Narcos is the one that triggers the most activations, even if it has the lowest dialogue density.”
Of interest is not just the volume of dialogue, but the pronunciation of the dialogue:
“We investigated the actual dialogue that produced Narcos‘ activations and we have seen that it was mostly Spanish dialogue and poorly pronounced English dialogue. This suggests that, in general, words that are not pronounced clearly may lead to more unwanted activations.”
Research such as this suggests that smart speakers at the time had room for improvement when it comes to properly detect wake words, thus leading to parts of conversation being recorded without the owner intending it. If you own a smart speaker, I wouldn’t be too surprised to hear that you’ve had some issues like that from time to time yourself.
As mentioned above, the makers of smart speakers make constant improvements to their devices and services, which may include the review of commands from users to make sure they are interpreted correctly. There are typically two types of review—machine and human. As the names suggest, a machine review is a digital analysis and human reviews entail someone listening to and evaluating a recorded command or reading and evaluating a transcript of a written command.
However, several manufacturers let you exercise some control over that. In fact, you’ll find that they post a fair share of articles about this collection and review process, along with your choices for opting in or out as you wish:
The quickest way to ensure a more private experience with your smart speaker is to disable listening—or turn it off entirely. Depending on the device, you may be able to do this with the push of a button, a voice command, or some combination of the two. This will keep the device from listening for its wake word. Likewise, this makes your smart speaker unresponsive to voice commands until you enable them again. This approach works well if you decide there are certain stretches of the day where your smart speaker doesn’t need to be on call.
Yet let’s face it, the whole idea of a smart speaker is to have it on and ready to take your requests. For those stretches where you leave it on, there’s another step you can take to shore up your privacy.
In addition to making sure you’re opted out of the review process mentioned above, you can also delete your recordings associated with your voice commands.
Managing your voice history like this gives you yet one more way you can take control of your privacy. In many ways, it’s like deleting your search history from your browser. And when you consider just how much activity and how many queries your smart speaker may see over the course of days, weeks, and months, you can imagine just how much information that captures about you and your family. Some of it is undoubtedly personal. Deleting that history can help protect your privacy in the event that information ever gets breached or somehow ends up in the hands of a bad actor.
Lastly, above and beyond these privacy tips for your smart speakers, comprehensive online protection will help you look out for your privacy overall. In the case of ours, we provide a full range of privacy and device protection, along with identity theft protection that includes $1M identity theft coverage, identity monitoring, and identity restoration assistance from recovery pros—and antivirus too, of course. Together, they can make your time spent online far more secure.
You’re the smart one in this relationship
With privacy becoming an increasingly hot topic (rightfully so!), several companies have been taking steps to make the process of managing yours easier and a more prevalent part of their digital experience. As you can see, there are several ways you can take charge of how your smart speaker uses, and doesn’t use, your voice.
It used to be that many of these settings were tucked away deep in menus, rather than something companies would tout on web pages dedicated to privacy. So as far as smart speakers go, the information is out there, and I hope this article helps make the experience with yours more private and secure.
The post Smarter Homes & Gardens: Smart Speaker Privacy appeared first on McAfee Blog.
FreshRSS 