Connect with us

Security

Magecart strikes again: hotel booking websites come under fire

Published

on

Google keeps track of your online shopping habits via Gmail
Google puts all your online orders into a single page using purchase receipts stored in Gmail.

A fresh wave of Magecart-linked attacks is taking place with the hotel booking websites becoming the latest victims. 

Earlier this week, cybersecurity firm Trend Micro said that in early September, two hotel booking websites — owned by separate chains — were being injected with a JavaScript-based card-skimmer.

If the script was accessed remotely through a standard browser on a PC, loaded JavaScript was not malicious. 

However, if requested from a mobile device such as an Android or iOS handset, the “same link could also download a different script,” the team says, which is, in fact, a credit card skimmer. 

The injected code, which would appear on the payment page of the hotel websites, appears to have been active since August 9. Payment card details input by unwitting victims are harvested and sent to a remote server controlled by attackers. 

Trend Micro says the impacted websites did not host the code themselves, but rather it was found in scripts provided by the developer of the domains, Roomleader. 

Specifically, a JavaScript library called by Roomleader client websites uses a module called “viewedHotels.” The module is intended to be a way for saving viewed hotel information to visitor browser cookies but is, instead, serving malware.  

Trend Micro says that while the number of websites affected is small, it is still significant considering one brand caters for 107 hotels, while the other supports 73 hotels. These establishments are located in a total of 28 countries. 

The skimmer itself is generic and copies data including names, email addresses, telephone numbers, and payment card details. However, an interesting element is the fact this Magecart-related attack removes any credit card information input into a booking page and replaces it with another, crafted version. 

See also: Old Magecart web domains resurrected for fraudulent ad schemes

According to the team, there are two reasons for this which are most likely — the first being that some hotels will not ask for a CVV/CVC security code until they arrive, and so by replacing the form, the threat actors can also attempt to secure this key data. 

Secondly, it may be due to booking pages that host payment information in a different domain using HTML iframes in a bid to aid security. 

“In this scenario, a regular JavaScript skimmer will not be able to copy the data inside the secure iframe,” Trend Micro says. “Therefore, the attacker removes the iframe of the secured credit card form and injects his own form so the skimmer can copy the information.”

The injected code will check to see which language is in use — such as English, Spanish, or French — and will add a corresponding malicious credit card form. 

CNET: The pivot to privacy could come with a $100 million grant

It is not known how many individuals may have been impacted. Trend Micro says that it is also difficult to determine whether or not this threat group has been involved in previous Magecart campaigns due to a lack of evidence provided by network infrastructure or code, but added that it is certainly “possible.” 

In the past, Magecart groups have been connected with card-skimmer attacks taking place against companies including Ticketmaster, Newegg, and British Airways. 

Researchers from RiskIQ recently documented a new trend related to Magecart — the purchase of old, sinkholed domains for new malvertising schemes. 

TechRepublic: How to handle the public disclosure of bugs and security vulnerabilities

These domains are used to host malicious scripts called by infected websites, as well as to facilitate the theft of data. According to the researchers, once a domain has been recognized, sinkholed, and cut out of the attack chain, fraudsters wait until they also expire and are returned to the market by registrars. 

Once this occurs, these domains are purchased and the old JavaScript-based call routes are replaced not with card-skimming malware, but pages with advertisements — which suggests those behind this ‘secondary market’ are attempting to cash-in on fraudulent advertising. 

ZDNet has reached out to Roomleader and will update if we hear back. 

Previous and related coverage


Have a tip? Get in touch securely via WhatsApp | Signal at +447713 025 499, or over at Keybase: charlie0




Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Security

Key Criteria for Evaluating Security Information and Event Management Solutions (SIEM)

Published

on

Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) solutions consolidate multiple security data streams under a single roof. Initially, SIEM supported early detection of cyberattacks and data breaches by collecting and correlating security event logs. Over time, it evolved into sophisticated systems capable of ingesting huge volumes of data from disparate sources, analyzing data in real time, and gathering additional context from threat intelligence feeds and new sources of security-related data. Next-generation SIEM solutions deliver tight integrations with other security products, advanced analytics, and semi-autonomous incident response.

SIEM solutions can be deployed on-premises, in the cloud, or a mix of the two. Deployment models must be weighed with regard to the environments the SIEM solution will protect. With more and more digital infrastructure and services becoming mission critical to every enterprise, SIEMs must handle higher volumes of data. Vendors and customers are increasingly focused on cloud-based solutions, whether SaaS or cloud-hosted models, for their scalability and flexibility.

The latest developments for SIEM solutions include machine learning capabilities for incident detection, advanced analytics features that include user behavior analytics (UBA), and integrations with other security solutions, such as security orchestration automation and response (SOAR) and endpoint detection and response (EDR) systems. Even though additional capabilities within the SIEM environment are a natural progression, customers are finding it even more difficult to deploy, customize, and operate SIEM solutions.

Other improvements include better user experience and lower time-to-value for new deployments. To achieve this, vendors are working on:

  • Streamlining data onboarding
  • Preloading customizable content—use cases, rulesets, and playbooks
  • Standardizing data formats and labels
  • Mapping incident alerts to common frameworks, such as the MITRE ATT&CK framework

Vendors and service providers are also expanding their offerings beyond managed SIEM solutions to à la carte services, such as content development services and threat hunting-as-a-service.

There is no one-size-fits-all SIEM solution. Each organization will have to evaluate its own requirements and resource constraints to find the right solution. Organizations will weigh factors such as deployment models or integrations with existing applications and security solutions. However, the main decision factor for most customers will revolve around usability, affordability, and return on investment. Fortunately, a wide range of solutions available in the market can almost guarantee a good fit for every customer.

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

Security

Key Criteria for Evaluating Secure Service Access

Published

on

Since the inception of large-scale computing, enterprises, organizations, and service providers have protected their digital assets by securing the perimeter of their on-premises data centers. With the advent of cloud computing, the perimeter has dissolved, but—in most cases—the legacy approach to security hasn not. Many corporations still manage the expanded enterprise and remote workforce as an extension of the old headquarters office/branch model serviced by LANs and WANs.

Bolting new security products onto their aging networks increased costs and complexity exponentially, while at the same time severely limiting their ability to meet regulatory compliance mandates, scale elastically, or secure the threat surface of the new any place/any user/any device perimeter.

The result? Patchwork security ill-suited to the demands of the post-COVID distributed enterprise.

Converging networking and security, secure service access (SSA) represents a significant shift in the way organizations consume network security, enabling them to replace multiple security vendors with a single, integrated platform offering full interoperability and end-to-end redundancy. Encompassing secure access service edge (SASE), zero-trust network access (ZTNA), and extended detection and response (XDR), SSA shifts the focus of security consumption from being either data center or edge-centric to being ubiquitous, with an emphasis on securing services irrespective of user identity or resources accessed.

This GigaOm Key Criteria report outlines critical criteria and evaluation metrics for selecting an SSA solution. The corresponding GigaOm Radar Report provides an overview of notable SSA vendors and their offerings available today. Together, these reports are designed to help educate decision-makers, making them aware of various approaches and vendors that are meeting the challenges of the distributed enterprise in the post-pandemic era.

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

Security

Key Criteria for Evaluating Edge Platforms

Published

on

Edge platforms leverage distributed infrastructure to deliver content, computing, and security closer to end devices, offloading networks and improving performance. We define edge platforms as the solutions capable of providing end users with millisecond access to processing power, media files, storage, secure connectivity, and related “cloud-like” services.

The key benefit of edge platforms is bringing websites, applications, media, security, and a multitude of virtual infrastructures and services closer to end devices compared to public or private cloud locations.

The need for content proximity started to become more evident in the early 2000s as the web evolved from a read-only service to a read-write experience, and users worldwide began both consuming and creating content. Today, this is even more important, as live and on-demand video streaming at very high resolutions cannot be sustained from a single central location. Content delivery networks (CDNs) helped host these types of media at the edge, and the associated network optimization methods allowed them to provide these new demanding services.

As we moved into the early 2010s, we experienced the rapid cloudification of traditional infrastructure. Roughly speaking, cloud computing takes a server from a user’s office, puts it in a faraway data center, and allows it to be used across the internet. Cloud providers manage the underlying hardware and provide it as a service, allowing users to provision their own virtual infrastructure. There are many operational benefits, but at least one unavoidable downside: the increase in latency. This is especially true in this dawning age of distributed enterprises for which there is not just a single office to optimize. Instead, “the office” is now anywhere and everywhere employees happen to be.

Even so, this centralized, cloud-based compute methodology works very well for most enterprise applications, as long as there is no critical sensitivity to delay. But what about use cases that cannot tolerate latency? Think industrial monitoring and control, real-time machine learning, autonomous vehicles, augmented reality, and gaming. If a cloud data center is a few hundred or even thousands of miles away, the physical limitations of sending an optical or electrical pulse through a cable mean there are no options to lower the latency. The answer to this is leveraging a distributed infrastructure model, which has traditionally been used by content delivery networks.

As CDNs have brought the internet’s content closer to everyone, CDN providers have positioned themselves in the unique space of owning much of the infrastructure required to bring computing and security closer to users and end devices. With servers close to the topological edge of the network, CDN providers can offer processing power and other “cloud-like” services to end devices with only a few milliseconds latency.

While CDN operators are in the right place at the right time to develop edge platforms, we’ve observed a total of four types of vendors that have been building out relevant—and potentially competing—edge infrastructure. These include traditional CDNs, hyperscale cloud providers, telecommunications companies, and new dedicated edge platform operators, purpose-built for this emerging requirement.

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.

Vendor 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