Connect with us


North Korea’s APT38 hacking group behind bank heists of over $100 million



According to a new report published today by US cyber-security firm FireEye, there’s a clear and visible distinction between North Korea’s hacking units –with two groups specialized in political cyber-espionage, and a third focused only in cyber-heists at banks and financial institutions.

For the past four years, ever since the Sony hack of 2014, when the world realized North Korea was a serious player on the cyber-espionage scene, all three groups have been incessantly covered by news media under the umbrella term of Lazarus Group.

But in a report released today, FireEye’s experts believe there should be made a clear distinction between the three groups, and especially between the ones focused on cyber-espionage (TEMP.Hermit and Lazarus Group), and the one focused on financial crime (APT38).

Image: FireEye

The activities of the first two have been tracked and analyzed for a long time, and have been the subject of tens of reports from both the private security industry and government agencies, but little is known about the third.

Many of the third group’s financially-motivated hacking tools have often been included in Lazarus Group reports, where they stuck out like a sore thumb when looked at together with malware designed for cyber-espionage.

But when you isolate all these financially-motivated tools and track down the incidents where they’ve been spotted, you get a clear picture of completely separate hacking group that seems to operate on its own, on a separate agenda from most of the Lazarus Group operations.

This group, according to FireEye, doesn’t operate by a quick smash-and-grab strategy specific to day-to-day cyber-crime groups, but with the patience of a nation-state threat actor that has the time and tools to wait for the perfect time to pull off an attack.


Image: FireEye

FireEye said that when it put all these tools and past incidents together, it tracked down APT38’s first signs of activity going back to 2014, about the same time that all the Lazarus Group-associated divisions started operating.

But the company doesn’t blame the Sony hack and the release of “The Interview” movie release on the group’s apparent rise. According to FireEye’s experts, it was UN economic sanctions levied against North Korea after a suite of nuclear tests carried out in 2013.

Experts believe –and FireEye isn’t the only one, with other sources reporting the same thing– that in the face of dwindling state revenues, North Korea turned to its military state hacking divisions for help in bringing in funds from external sources through unorthodox methods.

These methods relied on hacking banks, financial institutions, and cryptocurrency exchanges. Target geography didn’t matter, and no area was safe from APT38 hackers, according to FireEye, which reported smaller hacks all over the world, in countries such as Poland, Malaysia, Vietnam, and others.


Image: FireEye

FireEye’s “APT38: Un-usual Suspects” report details a timeline of past hacks and important milestones in the group’s evolution.

  • February 2014 – Start of first known operation by APT38
  • December 2015 – Attempted heist at TPBank
  • January 2016 – APT38 is engaged in compromises at multiple international banks concurrently
  • February 2016 – Heist at Bangladesh Bank (intrusion via SWIFT inter-banking system)
  • October 2016 – Reported beginning of APT38 watering hole attacks orchestrated on government and media sites
  • March 2017 – SWIFT bans all North Korean banks under UN sanctions from access
  • September 2017 – Several Chinese banks restrict financial activities of North Korean individuals and entities
  • October 2017 – Heist at Far Eastern International Bank in Taiwan (ATM cash-out scheme)
  • January 2018 – Attempted heist at Bancomext in Mexico
  • May 2018 – Heist at Banco de Chile

All in all, FireEye believes APT38 tried to steal over $1.1 billion, but made off with roughly $100 million, based on the company’s conservative estimates.

The security firms says that all the bank cyber-heists, successful or not, revealed a complex modus operandi, one that followed patterns previous seen with nation-state attackers, and not with regular cyber-criminals.

The main giveaway is their patience and willingness to wait for months, if not years, to pull off a hack, during which time they carried out extensive reconnaissance and surveillance of the compromised target or they created target-specific tools.

“APT38 operators put significant effort into understanding their environments and ensuring successful deployment of tools against targeted systems,” FireEye experts wrote in their report. “The group has demonstrated a desire to maintain access to a victim environment for as long as necessary to understand the network layout, necessary permissions, and system technologies to achieve its goals.”

“APT38 also takes steps to make sure they remain undetected while they are conducting their internal reconnaissance,” they added. “On average, we have observed APT38 remain within a victim network approximately 155 days, with the longest time within a compromised system believed to be 678 days (almost two years).”


Image: FireEye

But the group also stood out because it did what very few others financially-motivated groups did. It destroyed evidence when in danger of getting caught, or after a hack, as a diversionary tactic.

In cases where the group believed they left too much forensic data behind, they didn’t bother cleaning the logs of each computer in part but often deployed ransomware or disk-wiping malware instead.

Some argue that this was done on purpose to put investigators on the wrong trail, which is a valid argument, especially since it almost worked in some cases.

For example, APT38 deployed the Hermes ransomware on the network of Far Eastern International Bank (FEIB) in Taiwan shortly after they withdrew large sums of money from the bank’s ATMs, in an attempt to divert IT teams to data recovery efforts instead of paying attention to ATM monitoring systems.

APT38 also deployed the KillDisk disk-wiping malware on the network of Bancomext after a failed attempt of stealing over $110 million from the bank’s accounts, and also on the network of Banco de Chile after APT38 successfully stole $10 million from its systems.

Initially, these hacks were reported as IT system failures, but through the collective efforts of experts around the world [1, 2, 3] and thanks to clues in the malware’s source, experts linked these hacks to North Korea’s hacking units.

But while the FireEye report is the first step into separating North Korea’s hacking units from one another, it will be a hard thing to pull off, and the main reason is because all of North Korea’s hacking infrastructure appears to heavily overlap, with agents sometimes reusing malware and online infrastructure for all sorts of operations.

This problem was more than evident last month when the US Department of Justice indicted a North Korean hacker named Park Jin Hyok with every North Korean hack under the sun, ranging from both cyber-espionage operations (Sony Pictures hack, WannaCry, Lockheed Martin hack) to financially-motivated hacks (Bangladesh Bank heist).

But while companies like FireEye continue to pull on the string of North Korean hacking efforts in an effort to shed some light on past attacks, the Pyongyang regime doesn’t seem to be interested in reining in APT38, despite some recent positive developments in diplomatic talks.

“We believe APT38’s operations will continue in the future,” FireEye said. “In particular, the number of SWIFT heists that have been ultimately thwarted in recent years coupled with growing awareness for security around the financial messaging system could drive APT38 to employ new tactics to obtain funds especially if North Korea’s access to currency continues to deteriorate.”

Previous and related coverage:

Source link

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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


The Five Pillars of (Azure) Cloud-based Application Security



This 1-hour webinar from GigaOm brings together experts in Azure cloud application migration and security, featuring GigaOm analyst Jon Collins and special guests from Fortinet, Director of Product Marketing for Public Cloud, Daniel Schrader, and Global Director of Public Cloud Architecture and Engineering, Aidan Walden.

These interesting times have accelerated the drive towards digital transformation, application rationalization, and migration to cloud-based architectures. Enterprise organizations are looking to increase efficiency, but without impacting performance or increasing risk, either from infrastructure resilience or end-user behaviors.

Success requires a combination of best practice and appropriate use of technology, depending on where the organization is on its cloud journey. Elements such as zero-trust access and security-driven networking need to be deployed in parallel with security-first operations, breach prevention and response.

If you are looking to migrate applications to the cloud and want to be sure your approach maximizes delivery whilst minimizing risk, this webinar is for you.

Continue Reading


Data Management and Secure Data Storage for the Enterprise



This free 1-hour webinar from GigaOm Research brings together experts in data management and security, featuring GigaOm Analyst Enrico Signoretti and special guest from RackTop Systems, Jonathan Halstuch. The discussion will focus on data storage and how to protect data against cyberattacks.

Most of the recent news coverage and analysis of cyberattacks focus on hackers getting access and control of critical systems. Yet rarely is it mentioned that the most valuable asset for the organizations under attack is the data contained in these systems.

In this webinar, you will learn about the risks and costs of a poor data security management approach, and how to improve your data storage to prevent and mitigate the consequences of a compromised infrastructure.

Continue Reading


CISO Podcast: Talking Anti-Phishing Solutions



Simon Gibson earlier this year published the report, “GigaOm Radar for Phishing Prevention and Detection,” which assessed more than a dozen security solutions focused on detecting and mitigating email-borne threats and vulnerabilities. As Gibson noted in his report, email remains a prime vector for attack, reflecting the strategic role it plays in corporate communications.

Earlier this week, Gibson’s report was a featured topic of discussions on David Spark’s popular CISO Security Vendor Relationship Podcast. In it, Spark interviewed a pair of chief information security officers—Mike Johnson, CISO for SalesForce, and James Dolph, CISO for Guidewire Software—to get their take on the role of anti-phishing solutions.

“I want to first give GigaOm some credit here for really pointing out the need to decide what to do with detections,” Johnson said when asked for his thoughts about selecting an anti-phishing tool. “I think a lot of companies charge into a solution for anti-phishing without thinking about what they are going to do when the thing triggers.”

As Johnson noted, the needs and vulnerabilities of a large organization aligned on Microsoft 365 are very different from those of a smaller outfit working with GSuite. A malicious Excel macro-laden file, for example, poses a credible threat to a Microsoft shop and therefore argues for a detonation solution to detect and neutralize malicious payloads before they can spread and morph. On the other hand, a smaller company is more exposed to business email compromise (BEC) attacks, since spending authority is often spread among many employees in these businesses.

Gibson’s radar report describes both in-line and out-of-band solutions, but Johnson said cloud-aligned infrastructures argue against traditional in-line schemes.

“If you put an in-line solution in front of [Microsoft] 365 or in front of GSuite, you are likely decreasing your reliability, because you’ve now introduced this single point of failure. Google and Microsoft have this massive amount of reliability that is built in,” Johnson said.

So how should IT decision makers go about selecting an anti-phishing solution? Dolph answered that question with a series of questions of his own:

“Does it nail the basics? Does it fit with the technologies we have in place? And then secondarily, is it reliable, is it tunable, is it manageable?” he asked. “Because it can add a lot overhead, especially if you have a small team if these tools are really disruptive to the email flow.”

Dolph concluded by noting that it’s important for solutions to provide insight that can help organizations target their protections, as well as support both training and awareness around threats. Finally, he urged organizations to consider how they can measure the effectiveness of solutions.

“I may look at other solutions in the future and how do I compare those solutions to the benchmark of what we have in place?”

Listen to the Podcast: CISO Podcast

Continue Reading