Security-X

Forum Security-X => News => Discussion démarrée par: igor51 le juillet 25, 2020, 04:01:06

Titre: [FireEye]Investigating with Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) – Part II
Posté par: igor51 le juillet 25, 2020, 04:01:06
Investigating with Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) – Part II


 


    Written by Will Gibb & Devon Kerr

In our blog post
            href="https://www.mandiant.com/blog/openioc-series-investigating-indicators-compromise-iocs-part/">"Investigating
      with Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) - Part I
," we
    presented a scenario involving the "Acme Widgets Co.," a
    company investigating an intrusion, and its incident responder,
    John. John's next objective is to examine the system
    "ACMWH-KIOSK" for evidence of attacker activity. Using the
    IOCs containing the tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) he
    developed during the analysis of "ACM-BOBBO," John
    identifies the following IOC hits:

      href="https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/legacy/ammo/Table-1-IOC-hit-summary.jpg">      width="819" height="616"
      src="https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/legacy/ammo/Table-1-IOC-hit-summary.jpg"
  class="size-full wp-image-5578" />
Table 1: IOC hit summary

After
    reviewing IOC hits in     href="/content/fireeye-www/en_US/services/freeware/redline.html">Redline™,
    John performs Live Response and put together the following timeline
    of suspicious activity on "ACMWH-KIOSK".

      href="https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/legacy/ammo/Table-2-Summary-of-significant-artifacts1.jpg">      width="817" height="593"
      src="https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/legacy/ammo/Table-2-Summary-of-significant-artifacts1.jpg"
  class="size-full wp-image-5585" />Table 2: Summary of significant
    artifacts

John examines the timeline in order to surmise the
    following chain of activities:

  • On October 15, 2013, at
          approximately 16:17:56 UTC, the attacker performed a type 3
          network logon, described here, to
          "ACMWH-KIOSK" from "ACM-BOBBO" using the ACME
          domain service account, "backupDaily."
  • A few
          seconds later, the attacker copied two executables,
          "acmCleanup.exe" and "msspcheck.exe," from
          "ACM-BOBBO" to "C:$RECYCLE.BIN."

   

By generating MD5 hashes of both files, John determines that
    "acmCleanup.exe" is identical to the similarly named file
    on "ACM-BOBBO", which means it won't require malware
    analysis. Since the MD5 hash of "msspcheck.exe" was not
    previously identified, John sends binary to a malware analyst, whose
    analysis reveals that "msspcheck.exe" is a variant of the
    "acmCleanup.exe" malware.

  • About a minute
          later, at 16:19:02 UTC, the attacker executed the Sysinternals
          PsExec remote command execution utility, which ran for
          approximately three minutes.
  • During this time period,
          event logs recorded the start and stop of the "WCE
          SERVICE" service, which corresponds to the execution of the
          Windows Credentials Editor (WCE).

John can assume
    PsExec was used to execute WCE, which is reasonable given the
    timeline of events and artifacts present on the system.

About
    seven minutes, later the registry recorded the modification of a Run
    key associated with persistence for "msspcheck.exe."
    Finally, at 16:48:11 UTC, the attacker logged off from
  "ACMWH-KIOSK".

John found no additional evidence of
    compromise. Since the IOCs are living documents, John's next step is
    to update his IOCs with relevant findings from his investigation of
    the kiosk system. John updates the "acmCleanup.exe
    (BACKDOOR)" IOC with information from the
    "msspcheck.exe" variant of the attacker's backdoor
  including:

  • File metadata like filename and MD5.

  •      
  • A uniquely named process handle discovered by John's malware
        analyst.
  • A prefetch entry for the "msspcheck.exe"
        binary.
  • Registry artifacts associated with persistence of
        "msspcheck.exe."

From there, John
    double-checks the uniqueness of the additional filename with some
    search engine queries. He can confirm that "msspcheck.exe"
    is a unique filename and update his "acmCleanup.exe
    (BACKDOOR)" IOC. By updating his existing IOC, John ensures
    that he will be able to identify evidence attributed to this
    specific variant of the backdoor.

Changes to the original IOC
    have been indicated in green.

The updated IOC can be seen
  below:

      href="https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/legacy/ammo/Figure-1-Augmented-IOC-for-acmCleanup.exe-BACKDOOR.png">      width="492" height="591"
      src="https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/legacy/ammo/Figure-1-Augmented-IOC-for-acmCleanup.exe-BACKDOOR.png"
  class="size-full wp-image-5576" />
Figure 1: Augmented IOC for
  acmCleanup.exe (BACKDOOR)

John needs additional information before
    he can start to act. He knows two things about the attacker that
    might be able to help him out:

  • The attacker is using a
          domain service account to perform network logons.
  • The
          attacker has been using WCE to obtain credentials and the
          "WCE SERVICE" service appears in event logs.

   

John turns to his security event and incident management (SEIM)
    system, which aggregates logs from his domain controllers,
    enterprise antivirus and intrusion detection systems. A search of
    type 3 network logons using the "backupDaily" domain
    account turns up 23 different systems accessed using that account.
    John runs another query for the "WCE SERVICE" and sees
    that logs from 3 domain controllers contain that service event. John
    needs to look for IOCs across all Acme machines in a short period of
  time.


Source: Investigating with Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) – Part II (http://)