Some of the world’s top tech firms are backing a new industry task force focused on disrupting cybercriminal ransomware gangs by limiting their ability to get paid, and targeting the individuals and finances of the organized thieves behind these crimes.

In a 81-page report delivered to the Biden administration this week, top executives from Amazon, Cisco, FireEye, McAfee, Microsoft and dozens of other firms joined the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Europol and the U.K. National Crime Agency in calling for an international coalition to combat ransomware criminals, and for a global network of ransomware investigation hubs.

The Ransomware Task Force urged the White House to make finding, frustrating and apprehending ransomware crooks a priority within the U.S. intelligence community, and to designate the current scourge of digital extortion as a national security threat.

The Wall Street Journal recently broke the news that the DOJ was forming its own task force to deal with the “root causes” of ransomware. An internal DOJ memo reportedly “calls for developing a strategy that targets the entire criminal ecosystem around ransomware, including prosecutions, disruptions of ongoing attacks and curbs on services that support the attacks, such as online forums that advertise the sale of ransomware or hosting services that facilitate ransomware campaigns.”

According to security firm Emsisoft, almost 2,400 U.S.-based governments, healthcare facilities and schools were victims of ransomware in 2020.

“The costs of ransomware go far beyond the ransom payments themselves,” the task force report observes. “Cybercrime is typically seen as a white-collar crime, but while ransomware is profit-driven and ‘non-violent’ in the traditional sense, that has not stopped ransomware attackers from routinely imperiling lives.”

A proposed framework for a public-private operational ransomware campaign. Image: IST.

It is difficult to gauge the true cost and size of the ransomware problem because many victims never come forward to report the crimes. As such, a number of the task force’s recommendations focus on ways to encourage more victims to report the crimes to their national authorities, such as requiring victims and incident response firms who pay a ransomware demand to report the matter to law enforcement and possibly regulators at the U.S. Treasury Department.

Last year, Treasury issued a controversial memo warning that ransomware victims who end up sending digital payments to people already being sanctioned by the U.S. government for money laundering and other illegal activities could result in hefty fines.

Philip Reiner, CEO of the Institute for Security and Technology and executive director of the industry task force, said the reporting recommendations are one of several areas where federal agencies will likely need to dedicate more employees. For example, he said, expecting victims to clear ransomware payments with the Treasury Department first assumes the agency has the staff to respond in any kind of timeframe that might be useful for a victim undergoing a ransomware attack.

“That’s why we were so dead set in putting forward comprehensive framework,” Reiner said. “That way, Department of Homeland Security can do what they need to do, the State Department, Treasury gets involved, and it all needs to be synchronized for going after the bad guys with the same alacrity.”

Some have argued that making it illegal to pay a ransom is one way to decrease the number of victims who acquiesce to their tormentors’ demands. But the task force report says we’re nowhere near ready for that yet.

“Ransomware attackers require little risk or effort to launch attacks, so a prohibition on ransom payments would not necessarily lead them to move into other areas,” the report observes. “Rather, they would likely continue to mount attacks and test the resolve of both victim organizations and their regulatory authorities. To apply additional pressure, they would target organizations considered more essential to society, such as healthcare providers, local governments, and other custodians of critical infrastructure.”

“As such, any intent to prohibit payments must first consider how to build organizational cybersecurity maturity, and how to provide an appropriate backstop to enable organizations to weather the initial period of extreme testing,” the authors concluded in the report. “Ideally, such an approach would also be coordinated internationally to avoid giving ransomware attackers other avenues to pursue.”

The task force’s report comes as federal agencies have been under increased pressure to respond to a series of ransomware attacks that were mass-deployed as attackers began exploiting four zero-day vulnerabilities in Microsoft Exchange Server email products to install malicious backdoors. Earlier this month, the DOJ announced the FBI had conducted a first-of-its-kind operation to remove those backdoors from hundreds of Exchange servers at state and local government facilities.

Many of the recommendations in the Ransomware Task Force report are what you might expect, such as encouraging voluntary information sharing on ransomware attacks; launching public awareness campaigns on ransomware threats; exerting pressure on countries that operate as safe havens for ransomware operators; and incentivizing the adoption of security best practices through tax breaks.

A few of the more interesting recommendations (at least to me) included:

-Limit legal liability for ISPs that act in good faith trying to help clients secure their systems.

-Create a federal “cyber response and recovery fund” to help state and local governments or critical infrastructure companies respond to ransomware attacks.

-Require cryptocurrency exchanges to follow the same “know your customer” (KYC) and anti-money laundering rules as financial institutions, and aggressively targeting exchanges that do not.

-Have insurance companies measure and assert their aggregated ransomware losses and establish a common “war chest” subrogation fund “to evaluate and pursue strategies aimed at restitution, recovery, or civil asset seizures, on behalf of victims and in conjunction with law enforcement efforts.”

-Centralize expertise in cryptocurrency seizure, and scaling criminal seizure processes.

-Create a standard format for reporting ransomware incidents.

-Establish a ransomware incident response network.

What was the best news you heard so far this month? Mine was learning that KrebsOnSecurity is listed as a restricted competitor by Gartner Inc. [NYSE:IT] — a $4 billion technology goliath whose analyst reports can move markets and shape the IT industry.

Earlier this month, a reader pointed my attention to the following notice from Gartner to clients who are seeking to promote Gartner reports about technology products and services:

What that notice says is that KrebsOnSecurity is somehow on Gartner’s “non exhaustive list of competitors,” i.e., online venues where technology companies are not allowed to promote Gartner reports about their products and services.

The bulk of Gartner’s revenue comes from subscription-based IT market research. As the largest organization dedicated to the analysis of software, Gartner’s network of analysts are well connected to the technology and software industries. Some have argued that Gartner is a kind of private social network, in that a significant portion of Gartner’s competitive position is based on its interaction with an extensive network of software vendors and buyers.

Either way, the company regularly serves as a virtual kingmaker with their trademark “Magic Quadrant” designations, which rate technology vendors and industries “based on proprietary qualitative data analysis methods to demonstrate market trends, such as direction, maturity and participants.”

The two main subjective criteria upon which Gartner bases those rankings are “the ability to execute” and “completeness of vision.” They also break companies out into categories such as “challengers,” “leaders,” “visionaries” and “niche players.”

Gartner’s 2020 “Magic Quadrant” for companies that provide “contact center as a service” offerings.

So when Gartner issues a public report forecasting that worldwide semiconductor revenue will fall, or that worldwide public cloud revenue will grow, those reports very often move markets.

Being listed by Gartner as a competitor has had no discernable financial impact on KrebsOnSecurity, or on its reporting. But I find this designation both flattering and remarkable given that this site seldom promotes technological solutions.

Nor have I ever offered paid consulting or custom market research (although I did give a paid keynote speech at Gartner’s 2015 conference in Orlando, which is still by far the largest crowd I’ve ever addressed).

Rather, KrebsOnSecurity has sought to spread cybersecurity awareness primarily by highlighting the “who” of cybercrime — stories told from the perspectives of both attackers and victims. What’s more, my research and content is available to everyone at the same time, and for free.

I rarely do market predictions (or prognostications of any kind), but in deference to Gartner allow me to posit a scenario in which major analyst firms start to become a less exclusive and perhaps less relevant voice as both an influencer and social network.

For years I have tried to corrupt more of my journalist colleagues into going it alone, noting that solo blogs and newsletters can not only provide a hefty boost from newsroom income, but they also can produce journalism that is just as timely, relevant and impactful.

Those enticements have mostly fallen on deaf ears. Recently, however, an increasing number of journalists from major publications have struck out on their own, some in reportorial roles, others as professional researchers and analysts in their own right.

If Gartner considers a one-man blogging operation as competition, I wonder what they’ll think of the coming collective output from an entire industry of newly emancipated reporters seeking more remuneration and freedom offered by independent publishing platforms like Substack, Patreon and Medium.

Oh, I doubt any group of independent journalists would seek to promulgate their own Non-Exclusive List of Competitors at Whom Thou Shalt Not Publish. But why should they? One’s ability to execute does not impair another’s completeness of vision, nor vice versa. According to Gartner, it takes all kinds, including visionaries, niche players, leaders and challengers.

Microsoft today released updates to plug at least 110 security holes in its Windows operating systems and other products. The patches include four security fixes for Microsoft Exchange Server — the same systems that have been besieged by attacks on four separate (and zero-day) bugs in the email software over the past month. Redmond also patched a Windows flaw that is actively being exploited in the wild.

Nineteen of the vulnerabilities fixed this month earned Microsoft’s most-dire “Critical” label, meaning they could be used by malware or malcontents to seize remote control over vulnerable Windows systems without any help from users.

Microsoft released updates to fix four more flaws in Exchange Server versions 2013-2019 (CVE-2021-28480, CVE-2021-28481, CVE-2021-28482, CVE-2021-28483). Interestingly, all four were reported by the U.S. National Security Agency, although Microsoft says it also found two of the bugs internally. A Microsoft blog post published along with today’s patches urges Exchange Server users to make patching their systems a top priority.

Satnam Narang, staff research engineer at Tenable, said these vulnerabilities have been rated ‘Exploitation More Likely’ using Microsoft’s Exploitability Index.

“Two of the four vulnerabilities (CVE-2021-28480, CVE-2021-28481) are pre-authentication, meaning an attacker does not need to authenticate to the vulnerable Exchange server to exploit the flaw,” Narang said. “With the intense interest in Exchange Server since last month, it is crucial that organizations apply these Exchange Server patches immediately.”

Also patched today was a vulnerability in Windows (CVE-2021-28310) that’s being exploited in active attacks already. The flaw allows an attacker to elevate their privileges on a target system.

“This does mean that they will either need to log on to a system or trick a legitimate user into running the code on their behalf,” said Dustin Childs of Trend Micro. “Considering who is listed as discovering this bug, it is probably being used in malware. Bugs of this nature are typically combined with other bugs, such as browser bug of PDF exploit, to take over a system.”

In a technical writeup on what they’ve observed since finding and reporting attacks on CVE-2021-28310, researchers at Kaspersky Lab noted the exploit they saw was likely used together with other browser exploits to escape “sandbox” protections of the browser.

“Unfortunately, we weren’t able to capture a full chain, so we don’t know if the exploit is used with another browser zero-day, or coupled with known, patched vulnerabilities,” Kaspersky’s researchers wrote.

Allan Laska, senior security architect at Recorded Future, notes that there are several remote code execution vulnerabilities in Microsoft Office products released this month as well. CVE-2021-28454 and CVE-2021-28451 involve Excel, while CVE-2021-28453 is in Microsoft Word and CVE-2021-28449 is in Microsoft Office. All four vulnerabilities are labeled by Microsoft as “Important” (not quite as bad as “Critical”). These vulnerabilities impact all versions of their respective products, including Office 365.

Other Microsoft products that got security updates this month include Edge (Chromium-based), Azure and Azure DevOps Server, SharePoint Server, Hyper-V, Team Foundation Server, and Visual Studio.

Separately, Adobe has released security updates for Photoshop, Digital Editions, RoboHelp, and Bridge.

It’s a good idea for Windows users to get in the habit of updating at least once a month, but for regular users (read: not enterprises) it’s usually safe to wait a few days until after the patches are released, so that Microsoft has time to iron out any kinks in the new armor.

But before you update, please make sure you have backed up your system and/or important files. It’s not uncommon for a Windows update package to hose one’s system or prevent it from booting properly, and some updates have been known to erase or corrupt files.

So do yourself a favor and backup before installing any patches. Windows 10 even has some built-in tools to help you do that, either on a per-file/folder basis or by making a complete and bootable copy of your hard drive all at once.

And if you wish to ensure Windows has been set to pause updating so you can back up your files and/or system before the operating system decides to reboot and install patches on its own schedule, see this guide.

As always, if you experience glitches or problems installing any of these patches this month, please consider leaving a comment about it below; there’s a better-than-even chance other readers have experienced the same and may chime in here with some helpful tips.

Ne’er-do-wells leaked personal data — including phone numbers — for some 553 million Facebook users this week. Facebook says the data was collected before 2020 when it changed things to prevent such information from being scraped from profiles. To my mind, this just reinforces the need to remove mobile phone numbers from all of your online accounts wherever feasible. Meanwhile, if you’re a Facebook product user and want to learn if your data was leaked, there are easy ways to find out.

The HaveIBeenPwned project, which collects and analyzes hundreds of database dumps containing information about billions of leaked accounts, has incorporated the data into his service. Facebook users can enter the mobile number (in international format) associated with their account and see if those digits were exposed in the new data dump (HIBP doesn’t show you any data, just gives you a yes/no on whether your data shows up).

The phone number associated with my late Facebook account (which I deleted in Jan. 2020) was not in HaveIBeenPwned, but then again Facebook claims to have more than 2.7 billion active monthly users.

It appears much of this database has been kicking around the cybercrime underground in one form or another since last summer at least. According to a Jan. 14, 2021 Twitter post from Under the Breach’s Alon Gal, the 533 million Facebook accounts database was first put up for sale back in June 2020, offering Facebook profile data from 100 countries, including name, mobile number, gender, occupation, city, country, and marital status.

Under The Breach also said back in January that someone had created a Telegram bot allowing users to query the database for a low fee, and enabling people to find the phone numbers linked to a large number of Facebook accounts.

A cybercrime forum ad from June 2020 selling a database of 533 Million Facebook users. Image: @UnderTheBreach

Many people may not consider their mobile phone number to be private information, but there is a world of misery that bad guys, stalkers and creeps can visit on your life just by knowing your mobile number. Sure they could call you and harass you that way, but more likely they will see how many of your other accounts — at major email providers and social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, e.g. — rely on that number for password resets.

From there, the target is primed for a SIM-swapping attack, where thieves trick or bribe employees at mobile phone stores into transferring ownership of the target’s phone number to a mobile device controlled by the attackers. From there, the bad guys can reset the password of any account to which that mobile number is tied, and of course intercept any one-time tokens sent to that number for the purposes of multi-factor authentication.

Or the attackers take advantage of some other privacy and security wrinkle in the way SMS text messages are handled. Last month, a security researcher showed how easy it was to abuse services aimed at helping celebrities manage their social media profiles to intercept SMS messages for any mobile user. That weakness has supposedly been patched for all the major wireless carriers now, but it really makes you question the ongoing sanity of relying on the Internet equivalent of postcards (SMS) to securely handle quite sensitive information.

In case readers want to get in touch for any reason, my email here is krebsonsecurity at gmail dot com, or krebsonsecurity at protonmail.com. I also respond at Krebswickr on the encrypted messaging platform Wickr.

For four days this past week, Internet-of-Things giant Ubiquiti did not respond to requests for comment on a whistleblower’s allegations the company had massively downplayed a “catastrophic” two-month breach ending in January to save its stock price, and that Ubiquiti’s insinuation that a third-party was to blame was a fabrication. I was happy to add their eventual public response to the top of Tuesday’s story on the whistleblower’s claims, but their statement deserves a post of its own because it actually confirms and reinforces those claims.

Ubiquiti’s IoT gear includes things like WiFi routers, security cameras, and network video recorders. Their products have long been popular with security nerds and DIY types because they make it easy for users to build their own internal IoT networks without spending many thousands of dollars.

But some of that shine started to come off recently for Ubiquiti’s more security-conscious customers after the company began pushing everyone to use a unified authentication and access solution that makes it difficult to administer these devices without first authenticating to Ubiquiti’s cloud infrastructure.

All of a sudden, local-only networks were being connected to Ubiquiti’s cloud, giving rise to countless discussion threads on Ubiquiti’s user forums from customers upset over the potential for introducing new security risks.

And on Jan. 11, Ubiquiti gave weight to that angst: It told customers to reset their passwords and enable multifactor authentication, saying a breach involving a third-party cloud provider might have exposed user account data. Ubiquiti told customers they were “not currently aware of evidence of access to any databases that host user data, but we cannot be certain that user data has not been exposed.”

Ubiquiti’s notice on Jan. 12, 2021.

On Tuesday, KrebsOnSecurity reported that a source who participated in the response to the breach said Ubiquiti should have immediately invalidated all credentials because all of the company’s key administrator passwords had been compromised as well. The whistleblower also said Ubiquiti never kept any logs of who was accessing its databases.

The whistleblower, “Adam,” spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals from Ubiquiti. Adam said the place where those key administrator credentials were compromised — Ubiquiti’s presence on Amazon’s Web Services (AWS) cloud services — was in fact the “third party” blamed for the hack.

From Tuesday’s piece:

“In reality, Adam said, the attackers had gained administrative access to Ubiquiti’s servers at Amazon’s cloud service, which secures the underlying server hardware and software but requires the cloud tenant (client) to secure access to any data stored there.

“They were able to get cryptographic secrets for single sign-on cookies and remote access, full source code control contents, and signing keys exfiltration,” Adam said.

Adam says the attacker(s) had access to privileged credentials that were previously stored in the LastPass account of a Ubiquiti IT employee, and gained root administrator access to all Ubiquiti AWS accounts, including all S3 data buckets, all application logs, all databases, all user database credentials, and secrets required to forge single sign-on (SSO) cookies.

Such access could have allowed the intruders to remotely authenticate to countless Ubiquiti cloud-based devices around the world. According to its website, Ubiquiti has shipped more than 85 million devices that play a key role in networking infrastructure in over 200 countries and territories worldwide.

Ubiquiti finally responded on Mar. 31, in a post signed “Team UI” on the company’s community forum online.

“Nothing has changed with respect to our analysis of customer data and the security of our products since our notification on January 11. In response to this incident, we leveraged external incident response experts to conduct a thorough investigation to ensure the attacker was locked out of our systems.”

“These experts identified no evidence that customer information was accessed, or even targeted. The attacker, who unsuccessfully attempted to extort the company by threatening to release stolen source code and specific IT credentials, never claimed to have accessed any customer information. This, along with other evidence, is why we believe that customer data was not the target of, or otherwise accessed in connection with, the incident.”

Ubiquiti’s response this week on its user forum.

Ubiquiti also hinted it had an idea of who was behind the attack, saying it has “well-developed evidence that the perpetrator is an individual with intricate knowledge of our cloud infrastructure. As we are cooperating with law enforcement in an ongoing investigation, we cannot comment further.”

Ubiquiti’s statement largely confirmed the reporting here by not disputing any of the facts raised in the piece. And while it may seem that Ubiquiti is quibbling over whether data was in fact stolen, Adam said Ubiquiti can say there is no evidence that customer information was accessed because Ubiquiti failed to keep logs of who was accessing its databases.

“Ubiquiti had negligent logging (no access logging on databases) so it was unable to prove or disprove what they accessed, but the attacker targeted the credentials to the databases, and created Linux instances with networking connectivity to said databases,” Adam wrote in a whistleblower letter to European privacy regulators last month. “Legal overrode the repeated requests to force rotation of all customer credentials, and to revert any device access permission changes within the relevant period.”

It appears investors noticed the incongruity as well. Ubiquiti’s share price hardly blinked at the January breach disclosure. On the contrary, from Jan. 13 to Tuesday’s story its stock had soared from $243 to $370. By the end of trading day Mar. 30, UI had slipped to $349. By close of trading on Thursday (markets were closed Friday) the stock had fallen to $289.