Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday April 10 2021, @06:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the gold-digger dept.

A newly discovered cryptomining worm is stepping up its targeting of Windows and Linux devices with a batch of new exploits and capabilities, a researcher said.

Research company Juniper started monitoring what it's calling the Sysrv botnet in December. One of the botnet's malware components was a worm that spread from one vulnerable device to another without requiring any user action. It did this by scanning the Internet for vulnerable devices and, when found, infecting them using a list of exploits that has increased over time.

The malware also included a cryptominer that uses infected devices to create the Monero digital currency. There was a separate binary file for each component.
"Based on the binaries we have seen and the time when we have seen them, we found that the threat actor is constantly updating its exploit arsenal," Juniper researcher Paul Kimayong said in a Thursday blog post.

Straight from the above blog post, the malware's exploits include:

Exploit Software
CVE-2021-3129 Laravel
CVE-2020-14882 Oracle Weblogic
CVE-2019-3396 Widget Connector macro in Atlassian Confluence Server
CVE-2019-10758 Mongo Express
CVE-2019-0193 Apache Solr
CVE-2017-9841 PHPUnit
CVE-2017-12149 Jboss Application Server
CVE-2017-11610 Supervisor (XML-RPC)
Apache Hadoop Unauthenticated Command Execution via YARN ResourceManager (No CVE) Apache Hadoop
Brute force Jenkins Jenkins
Jupyter Notebook Command Execution (No CVE) Jupyter Notebook Server
CVE-2019-7238 Sonatype Nexus Repository Manager
Tomcat Manager Unauth Upload Command Execution (No CVE) Tomcat Manager
WordPress Bruteforce WordPress

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Sunday April 11 2021, @11:43AM (2 children)

    by Unixnut (5779) on Sunday April 11 2021, @11:43AM (#1135997)

    > Or are you banking on the malware having a nice benchmarking test before running that goes "Oh, this machine is kinda lame. Better not attempt any mining here to avoid detection!"?

    I don't know, I'm not a malware developer, but it sounds like a decent idea. Each machine you infect increases the chances of being noticed and shut down, so if your goal is to make money, you want to keep your profile low.

    This means not impacting the machines you infect. Even in nature, a parasite that kills its host is out competed by those that don't. So logically a malware dev wants their malware to infect and run on machines that can provide decent compute power without impacting the machine enough so that the admins/owners notice.

    They also would want to concentrate on fewer more powerful machines, as it reduces the chance of people noticing machines becoming crippled and investigating.

    So yes, doing a quick benchmark and deciding that the machine would take 6 months to generate 0.00001 of some crypto coin, all while cripping it to the point it gets rebuilt or someone notices and busts your botnet, is a risk not worth the effort, seems like not a bad idea.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @02:31AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @02:31AM (#1136812)
    There's no need to do a benchmark. The crypto miners could just add some "sleeps" or throttling to not max out the CPU.
  • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday April 13 2021, @11:57AM

    by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday April 13 2021, @11:57AM (#1136949) Journal

    So yes, doing a quick benchmark and deciding that the machine would take 6 months to generate 0.00001 of some crypto coin

    That's not really how it works. The 'mining' is probabilistic. If you're trying a lot fewer hashes per second than another machine, you may still find the right one early, you're just a lot less likely to. If you're not paying for power, it's always worth adding more compute, even if it's only a small amount.

    It's also not clear to me that you'd be more likely to be noticed on slower machines. People with slow machines already expect things to be slow, people who buy fast machines are likely to notice if they're not getting what they paid for.

    All of that said, normally this kind of malware cloaks itself so that it doesn't show up in process monitors and runs at the equivalent of idle priority, so it shouldn't actually slow things down except by maybe making thermal throttling kick in earlier.

    sudo mod me up