Connect with us

Security

Hacker backdoors popular JavaScript library to steal Bitcoin funds

Published

on


Image: BitPay

A hacker has gained (legitimate) access to a popular JavaScript library and has injected malicious code that steals Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash funds stored inside BitPay’s Copay wallet apps.

The presence of this malicious code was identified last week, but only today have researchers been able to understand what the heavily obfuscated malicious code actually does.

The library loading the malicious code is named Event-Stream, a JavaScript npm package for working with Node.js streaming data.

This is an extremely popular JavaScript library, with over two million weekly downloads on the npm.org repository, but about three months ago, its original author, due to a lack of time and interest, handed its development over to another programmer named Right9ctrl.

But according to an eagle-eyed user who spotted issues with Event-Stream last week, Right9ctrl had immediately poisoned the library with malicious code.

Right9ctrl released Event-Stream 3.3.6 which contained a new dependency –for the Flatmap-Stream library version 0.1.1. The Flatmap-Stream library v0.1.1 is where the malicious code resides.

According to users on Twitter, GitHub, and Hacker News, this malicious code lays dormant until it’s used inside the source code of Copay, a desktop and mobile wallet app developed by Bitcoin payment platform BitPay.

Once the malicious code has been compiled and shipped inside poisoned versions of the Copay wallet app, it will steal users’ wallet information, including private keys, and send it to the copayapi.host URL on port 8080.

It is believed that the hacker is using this information to empty victims’ wallets. For the time being, it is safe to believe that all versions of the Copay wallet released in September, October, and this month, are considered to have been infected.

Earlier today, the BitPay team released Copay v5.2.2 to remove the Event-Stream and Flatmap-Stream dependencies.

Maintainers of the npm.org JavaScript package repository have also intervened and taken down the Flatmap-Stream library from their site, making it inaccessible to all the projects where this was being loaded via the npm package installer utility.

The malicious Event-Stream v3.3.6 has also been taken down from npm.org, but the Event-Stream library is still available. This is because Right9ctrl, in an attempt to hide his malicious code, released subsequent versions of Event-Stream that didn’t contain any malicious code.

Project maintainers who use these two libraries are advised to update their dependency trees to the latest version available –Event-Stream version 4.0.1. This link contains a list of all the 3,900+ JavaScript npm packages where Event-Stream is loaded as a direct or indirect dependency.

This manual update/removal step is necessary as some projects are configured to cache all dependencies locally, and might not trigger the usual console error when attempting to download a non-existent npm package from npm.org when building a new project version.

This is not the first JavaScript/npm-related security issue that has taken place in the past years. In July this year, a hacker compromised the ESLint library with malicious code that was designed to steal the npm credentials of other developers.

In May 2018, a hacker tried to hide a backdoor in another popular npm package named getcookies.

In August 2017, the npm team removed 38 JavaScript npm packages that were caught stealing environment variables from other projects, in an attempt to collect project-sensitive information, such as passwords or API keys.

RELATED COVERAGE:

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Security

Cloud Data Security

Published

on

Data security has become an immutable part of the technology stack for modern applications. Protecting application assets and data against cybercriminal activities, insider threats, and basic human negligence is no longer an afterthought. It must be addressed early and often, both in the application development cycle and the data analytics stack.

The requirements have grown well beyond the simplistic features provided by data platforms, and as a result a competitive industry has emerged to address the security layer. The capabilities of this layer must be more than thorough, they must also be usable and streamlined, adding a minimum of overhead to existing processes.

To measure the policy management burden, we designed a reproducible test that included a standardized, publicly available dataset and a number of access control policy management scenarios based on real world use cases we have observed for cloud data workloads. We tested two options: Apache Ranger with Apache Atlas and Immuta. This study contrasts the differences between a largely role-based access control model with object tagging (OT-RBAC) to a pure attribute-based access control (ABAC) model using these respective technologies.

This study captures the time and effort involved in managing the ever-evolving access control policies at a modern data-driven enterprise. With this study, we show the impacts of data access control policy management in terms of:

  • Dynamic versus static
  • Scalability
  • Evolvability

In our scenarios, Ranger alone took 76x more policy changes than Immuta to accomplish the same data security objectives, while Ranger with Apache Atlas took 63x more policy changes. For our advanced use cases, Immuta only required one policy change each, while Ranger was not able to fulfill the data security requirement at all.

This study exposed the limitations of extending legacy Hadoop security components into cloud use cases. Apache Ranger uses static policies in an OT-RBAC model for the Hadoop ecosystem with very limited support for attributes. The difference between it and Immuta’s attribute-based access control model (ABAC) became clear. By leveraging dynamic variables, nested attributes, and global row-level policies and row-level security, Immuta can be quickly implemented and updated in comparison with Ranger.

Using Ranger as a data security mechanism creates a high policy-management burden compared to Immuta, as organizations migrate and expand cloud data use—which is shown here to provide scalability, clarity, and evolvability in a complex enterprise’s data security and governance needs.

The chart in Figure 1 reveals the difference in cumulative policy changes required for each platform configuration.

Figure 1. Difference in Cumulative Policy Changes

The assessment and scoring rubric and methodology is detailed in the report. We leave the issue of fairness for the reader to determine. We strongly encourage you, as the reader, to discern for yourself what is of value. We hope this report is informative and helpful in uncovering some of the challenges and nuances of data governance platform selection. You are encouraged to compile your own representative use cases and workflows and review these platforms in a way that is applicable to your requirements.

Continue Reading

Security

GigaOm Radar for Data Loss Prevention

Published

on

Data is at the core of modern business: It is our intellectual property, the lifeblood of our interactions with our employees, partners, and customers, and a true business asset. But in a world of increasingly distributed workforces, a growing threat from cybercriminals and bad actors, and ever more stringent regulation, our data is at risk and the impact of losing it, or losing access to it, can be catastrophic.

With this in mind, ensuring a strong data management and security strategy must be high on the agenda of any modern enterprise. Security of our data has to be a primary concern. Ensuring we know how, why, and where our data is used is crucial, as is the need to be sure that data does not leave the organization without appropriate checks and balances.

Keeping ahead of this challenge and mitigating the risk requires a multi-faceted approach. People and processes are key, as, of course, is technology in any data loss prevention (DLP) strategy.

This has led to a reevaluation of both technology and approach to DLP; a recognition that we must evolve an approach that is holistic, intelligent, and able to apply context to our data usage. DLP must form part of a broader risk management strategy.

Within this report, we evaluate the leading vendors who are offering solutions that can form part of your DLP strategy—tools that understand data as well as evaluate insider risk to help mitigate the threat of data loss. This report aims to give enterprise decision-makers an overview of how these offerings can be a part of a wider data security approach.

Continue Reading

Security

Key Criteria for Evaluating Data Loss Prevention Platforms

Published

on

Data is a crucial asset for modern businesses and has to be protected in the same way as any other corporate asset, with diligence and care. Loss of data can have catastrophic effects, from reputational damage to significant fines for breaking increasingly stringent regulations.

While the risk of data loss is not new, the landscape we operate in is evolving rapidly. Data can leave data centers in many ways, whether accidental or malicious. The routes for exfiltration also continue to grow, ranging from email, USB sticks, and laptops to ever-more-widely-adopted cloud applications, collaboration tools, and mobile devices. This is driving a resurgence in the enterprise’s need to ensure that no data leaves the organization without appropriate checks and balances in place.

Keeping ahead of this challenge and mitigating the risk requires a multi-faceted approach. Policy, people, and technology are critical components in a data loss prevention (DLP) strategy.

As with any information security strategy, technology plays a significant role. DLP technology has traditionally played a part in helping organizations to mitigate some of the risks of uncontrolled data exfiltration. However, both the technology and threat landscape have shifted significantly, which has led to a reevaluation of DLP tools and strategy.

The modern approach to the challenge needs to be holistic and intelligent, capable of applying context to data usage by building a broader understanding of what the data is, who is using it, and why. Systems in place must also be able to learn when user activity should be classified as unusual so they can better interpret signs of a potential breach.

This advanced approach is also driving new ways of defining the discipline of data loss prevention. Dealing with these risks cannot be viewed in isolation; rather, it must be part of a wider insider risk-management strategy.

Stopping the loss of data, accidental or otherwise, is no small task. This GigaOM Key Criteria Report details DLP solutions and identifies key criteria and evaluation metrics for selecting such a solution. The corresponding GigOm Radar Report identifies vendors and products in this sector that excel. Together, these reports will give decision-makers an overview of the market to help them evaluate existing platforms and decide where to invest.

How to Read this Report

This GigaOm report is one of a series of documents that helps IT organizations assess competing solutions in the context of well-defined features and criteria. For a fuller understanding consider reviewing the following reports:

Key Criteria report: A detailed market sector analysis that assesses the impact that key product features and criteria have on top-line solution characteristics—such as scalability, performance, and TCO—that drive purchase decisions.

GigaOm Radar report: A forward-looking analysis that plots the relative value and progression of vendor solutions along multiple axes based on strategy and execution. The Radar report includes a breakdown of each vendor’s offering in the sector.

Solution Profile: An in-depth vendor analysis that builds on the framework developed in the Key Criteria and Radar reports to assess a company’s engagement within a technology sector. This analysis includes forward-looking guidance around both strategy and product.

Continue Reading

Trending