Security-X

Forum Security-X => News => Discussion démarrée par: igor51 le juillet 26, 2020, 12:00:35

Titre: [FireEye]SCANdalous! (External Detection Using Network Scan Data and Automation)
Posté par: igor51 le juillet 26, 2020, 12:00:35
SCANdalous! (External Detection Using Network Scan Data and Automation)

Real Quick


 

In case you’re thrown by that fantastic title, our lawyers made us
  change the name of this project so we wouldn’t get sued.
  SCANdalous—a.k.a. Scannah Montana a.k.a. Scanny McScanface a.k.a.
  “Scan I Kick It? (Yes You Scan)”—had another name before today that,
  for legal reasons, we’re keeping to ourselves. A special thanks to our
  legal team who is always looking out for us, this blog post would be a
  lot less fun without them. Strap in folks.


 

Introduction


 

Advanced Practices is known for using primary source data obtained
  through     href="/content/fireeye-www/en_US/mandiant/incident-response.html">Mandiant
    Incident Response,     href="/content/fireeye-www/en_US/mandiant/managed-detection-and-response.html">Managed
  Defense, and product telemetry across thousands of FireEye
  clients. Regular, first-hand observations of threat actors afford us
  opportunities to learn intimate details of their modus operandi. While
  our visibility from organic data is vast, we also derive value from
  third-party data sources. By looking outwards, we extend our
  visibility beyond our clients’ environments and shorten the time it
  takes to detect adversaries in the wild—often before they initiate
  intrusions against our clients.


 

In October 2019, Aaron Stephens gave his     href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1tEOkY-7JE">“Scan’t Touch
  This” talk at the annual FireEye Cyber Defense Summit (slides
  available     href="https://github.com/aaronst/talks/blob/master/scanttouchthis.pdf">on
    his Github). He discussed using network scan data for external
  detection and provided examples of how to profile command and control
  (C2) servers for various post-exploitation frameworks used by criminal
  and intelligence organizations alike. However, manual application of
  those techniques doesn’t scale. It may work if your role focuses on
  one or two groups, but Advanced Practices’ scope is much broader. We
  needed a solution that would enable us to track thousands of groups,
  malware families and profiles. In this blog post we’d like to talk
  about that journey, highlight some wins, and for the first time
  publicly, introduce the project behind it all: SCANdalous.


 

Pre-SCANdalous Case Studies


 

Prior to any sort of system or automation, our team used traditional
  profiling methodologies to manually identify servers of interest. The
  following are some examples. The success we found in these case
  studies served as the primary motivation for SCANdalous.


 


  APT39 SSH Tunneling


 

After observing APT39 in a series of intrusions, we determined they
  frequently created     href="/content/fireeye-www/en_US/blog/threat-research/2019/01/bypassing-network-restrictions-through-rdp-tunneling.html">Secure
    Shell (SSH) tunnels with PuTTY Link to forward Remote Desktop
  Protocol connections to internal hosts within the target
  environment. Additionally, they preferred using BitVise SSH servers
  listening on port 443. Finally, they were using servers hosted by
  WorldStream B.V.


 

Independent isolation of any one of these characteristics would
  produce a lot of unrelated servers; however, the aggregation of
  characteristics provided a strong signal for newly established
  infrastructure of interest. We used this established profile and
  others to illuminate dozens of servers we later attributed to   href="/content/fireeye-www/en_US/blog/threat-research/2019/01/apt39-iranian-cyber-espionage-group-focused-on-personal-information.html">APT39,
  often before they were used against a target.


 


  APT34 QUADAGENT


 

In February 2018, an independent researcher shared a sample of what
  would later be named QUADAGENT. We had not observed it in an intrusion
  yet; however, by analyzing the characteristics of the C2, we were able
  to develop a strong profile of the servers to track over time. For
  example, our team identified the server   class="code">185.161.208\.37 and domain   class="code">rdppath\.com within hours of it being established.
  A week later, we identified a QUADAGENT dropper with the previously
  identified C2. Additional examples of QUADAGENT are depicted in Figure 1.


 


      src="https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/blog/images/scandalous/Picture1.png" alt="" />
 
 Figure 1: QUADAGENT C2 servers in the
    Shodan user interface


 

Five days after the QUADAGENT dropper was identified, Mandiant was
  engaged by a victim that was targeted via the same C2. This activity
  was later attributed to APT34. During the investigation, Mandiant
  uncovered APT34 using RULER.HOMEPAGE. This was the first time our
  consultants observed the tool and technique used in the wild by a real
  threat actor. Our team developed a profile of servers hosting HOMEPAGE
  payloads and began tracking their deployment in the wild. Figure 2
  shows a timeline of QUADAGENT C2 servers discovered between February
  and November of 2018.


 


      src="https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/blog/images/scandalous/Picture2a.jpg" alt="" />
 
   
 Figure 2: Timeline of QUADAGENT C2 servers discovered
    throughout 2018


 


  APT33 RULER.HOMEPAGE, POSHC2, and POWERTON


 

A month after that aforementioned intrusion, Managed Defense
  discovered a threat actor using RULER.HOMEPAGE to download and execute
  POSHC2. All the RULER.HOMEPAGE servers were previously identified due
  to our efforts. Our team developed a profile for POSHC2 and began
  tracking their deployment in the wild. The threat actor pivoted to a
  novel PowerShell backdoor, POWERTON. Our team repeated our workflow
  and began illuminating those C2 servers as well. This activity was
  later attributed to APT33 and was documented in our OVERRULED post.


 

SCANdalous


 


  Scanner, Better, Faster, Stronger


 

Our use of scan data was proving wildly successful, and we wanted to
  use more of it, but we needed to innovate. How could we leverage this
  dataset and methodology to track not one or two, but dozens of active
  groups that we observe across our solutions and services? Even if
  every member of Advanced Practices was dedicated to external
  detection, we would still not have enough time or resources to keep up
  with the amount of manual work required. But that’s the key word:
  Manual. Our workflow consumed hours of individual analyst
  actions, and we had to change that. This was the beginning of
  SCANdalous: An automated system for external detection using
  third-party network scan data.


 

A couple of nice things about computers: They’re great at
  multitasking, and they don’t forget. The tasks that were taking us
  hours to do—if we had time, and if we remembered to do them every
  day—were now taking SCANdalous minutes if not seconds. This not only
  afforded us additional time for analysis, it gave us the capability to
  expand our scope. Now we not only look for specific groups, we also
  search for common malware, tools and frameworks in general. We deploy
  weak signals (or broad signatures) for software that isn’t inherently
  bad, but is often used by threat actors.


 

Our external detection was further improved by automating additional
  collection tasks, executed by SCANdalous upon a discovery—we call them
  follow-on actions. For example, if an interesting open directory is
  identified, acquire certain files. These actions ensure the team never
  misses an opportunity during “non-working hours.” If SCANdalous finds
  something interesting on a weekend or holiday, we know it will perform
  the time-sensitive tasks against the server and in defense of our clients.


 

The data we collect not only helps us track things we aren’t seeing
  at our clients, it allows us to provide timely and historical context
  to our incident responders and security analysts. Taking observations
  from Mandiant Incident Response or Managed Defense and distilling them
  into knowledge we can carry forward has always been our bread and
  butter. Now, with SCANdalous in the mix, we can project that knowledge
  out onto the Internet as a whole.


 


  Collection Metrics


 

Looking back on where we started with our manual efforts, we’re
  pleased to see how far this project has come, and is perhaps best
  illustrated by examining the numbers. Today (and as we write these
  continue to grow), SCANdalous holds over five thousand signatures
  across multiple sources, covering dozens of named malware families and
  threat groups. Since its inception, SCANdalous has produced over two
  million hits. Every single one of those, a piece of contextualized
  data that helps our team make analytical decisions. Of course, raw
  volume isn’t everything, so let’s dive a little deeper.


 

When an analyst discovers that an IP address has been used by an
  adversary against a named organization, they denote that usage in our
  knowledge store. While the time at which this observation occurs does
  not always correlate with when it was used in an intrusion, knowing
  when we became aware of that use is still valuable. We can
  cross-reference these times with data from SCANdalous to help us
  understand the impact of our external detection.


 

Looking at the IP addresses marked by an analyst as observed at a
  client in the last year, we find that 21.7% (more than one in five)
  were also found by SCANdalous. Of that fifth, SCANdalous has an
  average lead time of 47 days. If we only consider the IP addresses
  that SCANdalous found first, the average lead time jumps to 106 days.
  Going even deeper and examining this data month-to-month, we find a
  steady upward trend in the percentage of IP addresses identified by
  SCANdalous before being observed at a client (Figure 3).


 


      src="https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/blog/images/scandalous/Picture3.png" alt="" />
 
 Figure 3: Percentage of IP addresses
    found by SCANdalous before being marked as observed at a client by a
    FireEye analyst


 

A similar pattern can be seen for SCANdalous’ average lead time over
  the same data (Figure 4).


 


      src="https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/blog/images/scandalous/Picture4.png" alt="" />
 
 Figure 4: Average lead time in days for
    SCANdalous over the same data shown in Figure 3


 

As we continue to create signatures and increase our external
  detection efforts, we can see from these numbers that the
  effectiveness and value of the resulting data grow as well.


 

SCANdalous Case Studies


 

Today in Advanced Practices, SCANdalous is a core element of our
  external detection work. It has provided us with a new lens through
  which we can observe threat activity on a scale and scope beyond our
  organic data, and enriches our workflows in support of Mandiant. Here
  are a few of our favorite examples:


 


  FIN6


 

In early 2019, SCANdalous identified a Cobalt Strike C2 server that
  we were able to associate with FIN6. Four hours later, the server was
  used to target a Managed Defense client, as discussed in our blog
    post,     href="/content/fireeye-www/en_US/blog/threat-research/2019/04/pick-six-intercepting-a-fin6-intrusion.html">Pick-Six:
    Intercepting a FIN6 Intrusion, an Actor Recently Tied to Ryuk and
    LockerGoga Ransomware.


 


  FIN7


 

In late 2019, SCANdalous identified a BOOSTWRITE C2 server and
  automatically acquired keying material that was later used to decrypt
  files found in a FIN7 intrusion worked by Mandiant consultants, as
  discussed in our blog post,     href="/content/fireeye-www/en_US/blog/threat-research/2019/10/mahalo-fin7-responding-to-new-tools-and-techniques.html">Mahalo
    FIN7: Responding to the Criminal Operators’ New Tools and Techniques.


 


  UNC1878 (financially motivated)


 

Some of you may also remember our     href="/content/fireeye-www/en_US/blog/threat-research/2020/03/the-cycle-of-adversary-pursuit.html">recent
    blog post on UNC1878. It serves as a great case study for how we
  grow an initial observation into a larger set of data, and then use
  that knowledge to find more activity across our offerings. Much of the
  early work that went into tracking that activity (see the section
  titled “Expansion”) happened via SCANdalous. The quick response from
  Managed Defense gave us just enough information to build a profile of
  the C2 and let our automated system take it from there. Over the next
  couple months, SCANdalous identified numerous servers matching
  UNC1878’s profile. This allowed us to not only analyze and attribute
  new network infrastructure, it also helped us observe when and how
  they were changing their operations over time.


 

Conclusion


 

There are hundreds more stories to tell, but the point is the same.
  When we find value in an analytical workflow, we ask ourselves how we
  can do it better and faster. The automation we build into our tools
  allows us to not only accomplish more of the work we were doing
  manually, it enables us to work on things we never could before. Of
  course, the conversion doesn’t happen all at once. Like all good
  things, we made a lot of incremental improvements over time to get
  where we are today, and we’re still finding ways to make more.
  Continuing to innovate is how we keep moving forward – as Advanced
  Practices, as FireEye, and as an industry.


 

Example Signatures


 

The following are example Shodan queries; however, any source of
  scan data can be used.


 


  Used to Identify APT39 C2 Servers


 
 


  Used to Identify QUADAGENT C2 Servers


 
 


  RULER.HOMEPAGE Payloads


 
Source: SCANdalous! (External Detection Using Network Scan Data and Automation) (http://)