Airline Threat Hoaxes: Preventing the Spread of Misinformation

Pretext

On 20th October 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,337.76 crores on Google for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in the Android Mobile device ecosystem, apart from issuing cease and desist orders. The CCI also directed Google to modify its conduct within a defined timeline.  Smart mobile devices need an operating system (OS) to run applications (apps) and programs. Android is one such mobile operating system that Google acquired in 2005. In the instant matter, the CCI examined various practices of Google w.r.t. licensing of this Android mobile operating system and various proprietary mobile applications of Google (e.g., Play Store, Google Search, Google Chrome, YouTube, etc.).

The Issue

Google was found to be misusing its dominant position in the tech market, and the same was the reason behind the penalty. Google argued about the competitive constraints being faced from Apple. In relation to understanding the extent of competition between Google’s Android ecosystem and Apple’s iOS ecosystem, the CCI noted the differences in the two business models, which affect the underlying incentives of business decisions. Apple’s business is primarily based on a vertically integrated smart device ecosystem that focuses on the sale of high-end smart devices with state-of-the-art software components. In contrast, Google’s business was found to be driven by the ultimate intent of increasing users on its platforms so that they interact with its revenue-earning service, i.e., online searches, which directly affects the sale of online advertising services by Google. It was seen that google had created a dominant position among the android phone manufacturers as they were made to have a set of google apps preinstalled in the device to increase the user’s dependency on google services. The CCI felt that Google had created a dominant position to which they replied that the same operations are done by Apple as well, to which the commission responded that apple is a phone and app manufacturer and they have Apple-owned apps in Apple devices only, but Google here in had made a pseudo mandate for android manufactures to have the google apps pre-installed which is, in turn, a possible way of disrupting the market equilibrium and violative of market practices. The CCI imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,337.76 for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in India, CCI delineated the following five relevant markets in the present matter –

• The market for licensable OS for smart mobile devices in India
• The market for app store for Android smart mobile OS in India
• The market for general web search services in India
• The market for non-OS specific mobile web browsers in India
• The market for online video hosting platforms (OVHP) in India.

Supreme Courts Opinion

In October 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) ruled that Google, owned by Alphabet Inc, exploited its dominant position in Android and told it to remove restrictions on device makers, including those related to the pre-installation of apps and ensuring exclusivity of its search. Google lost a challenge in the Supreme Court to block the directives, as the learned court refused to put a stay on the imposed penalty, further giving seven days to comply. The Supreme Court has said a lower tribunal—where Google first challenged the Android directives—can continue to hear the company’s appeal and must rule by March 31.

Counterpoint Research estimates that about 97% of 600 million smartphones in India run on Android. Apple has just a 3% share. Hoping to block the implementation of the CCI directives, Google challenged the CCI order in the Supreme Court by warning it could stall the growth of the Android ecosystem. It also said it would be forced to alter arrangements with more than 1,100 device manufacturers and thousands of app developers if the directives kick in. Google has been concerned about India’s decision as the steps are seen as more sweeping than those imposed in the European Commission’s 2018 ruling. There it was fined for putting in place what the Commission called unlawful restrictions on Android mobile device makers. Google is still challenging the record $4.3 billion fine in that case. In Europe, Google made changes later, including letting Android device users pick their default search engine, and said device makers would be able to license the Google mobile application suite separately from the Google Search App or the Chrome browser.

‍

Conclusion

As the world goes deeper into cyberspace, the big tech companies have more control over the industry and the markets, but the same should not turn into anarchy in the global markets. The Tech giants need to be made aware that compliance is the utmost duty for all companies, and enforcement of the law of the land will be maintained no matter what. Earlier India lacked policies and legislation to govern cyberspace, but in the recent proactive stance by the govt, a lot of new bills have been tabled, one of them being the Intermediary Rules 2021, which has laid down the obligations nand duties of the companies by setting up an intermediary in the country. Such bills coupled with such crucial judgments on tech giants will act as a test and barrier for other tech companies who try to flaunt the rules and avoid compliance.

Executive Summary:

A new threat being uncovered in today’s threat landscape is that while threat actors took an average of one hour and seven minutes to leverage Proof-of-Concept(PoC) exploits after they went public, now the time is at a record low of 22 minutes. This incredibly fast exploitation means that there is very limited time for organizations’ IT departments to address these issues and close the leaks before they are exploited. Cloudflare released the Application Security report which shows that the attack percentage is more often higher than the rate at which individuals invent and develop security countermeasures like the WAF rules and software patches. In one case, Cloudflare noted an attacker using a PoC-based attack within a mere 22 minutes from the moment it was released, leaving almost no time for a remediation window. 

Despite the constant growth of vulnerabilities in various applications and systems, the share of exploited vulnerabilities, which are accompanied by some level of public exploit or PoC code, has remained relatively stable over the past several years and fluctuates around 50%. These vulnerabilities with publicly known exploit code, 41% was initially attacked in the zero-day mode while of those with no known code, 84% was first attacked in the same mode. 

Modus Operandi:

The modus operandi of the attack involving the rapid weaponization of proof-of-concept (PoC) exploits is characterized by the following steps:

• Vulnerability Identification: Threat actors bring together the exploitation of a system vulnerability that may be in the software or hardware of the system; this may be a code error, design failure, or a configuration error. This is normally achieved using vulnerability scanners and test procedures that have to be performed manually. 

• Vulnerability Analysis: After the vulnerability is identified, the attackers study how it operates to determine when and how it can be triggered and what consequences that action will have. This means that one needs to analyze the details of the PoC code or system to find out the connection sequence that leads to vulnerability exploitation. 

• Exploit Code Development: Being aware of the weakness, the attackers develop a small program or script denoted as the PoC that addresses exclusively the identified vulnerability and manipulates it in a moderated manner. This particular code is meant to be utilized in showing a particular penalty, which could be unauthorized access or alteration of data. 

• Public Disclosure and Weaponization: The PoC exploit is released which is frequently done shortly after the vulnerability has been announced to the public. This makes it easier for the attackers to exploit it while waiting for the software developer to release the patch. To illustrate, Cloudflare has spotted an attacker using the PoC-based exploit 22 minutes after the publication only. 

• Attack Execution: The attackers then use the weaponized PoC exploit to attack systems which are known to be vulnerable to it. Some of the actions that are tried in this context are attempts at running remote code, unauthorized access and so on. The pace at which it happens is often much faster than the pace at which humans put in place proper security defense mechanisms, such as the WAF rules or software application fixes. 

• Targeted Operations: Sometimes, they act as if it’s a planned operation, where the attackers are selective in the system or organization to attack. For example, exploitation of CVE-2022-47966 in ManageEngine software was used during the espionage subprocess, where to perform such activity, the attackers used the mentioned vulnerability to install tools and malware connected with espionage. 

Precautions: Mitigation

Following are the mitigating measures against the PoC Exploits: 

1. Fast Patching and New Vulnerability Handling 

• Introduce proper patching procedures to address quickly the security released updates and disclosed vulnerabilities. 

• Focus should be made on the patching of those vulnerabilities that are observed to be having available PoC exploits, which often risks being exploited almost immediately.

• It is necessary to frequently check for the new vulnerability disclosures and PoC releases and have a prepared incident response plan for this purpose. 

2. Leverage AI-Powered Security Tools 

•  Employ intelligent security applications which can easily generate desirable protection rules and signatures as attackers ramp up the weaponization of PoC exploits. 

• Step up use of artificial intelligence (AI) - fueled endpoint detection and response (EDR) applications to quickly detect and mitigate the attempts. 

• Integrate Artificial Intelligence based SIEM tools to Detect & analyze Indicators of compromise to form faster reaction. 

 3. Network Segmentation and Hardening 

• Use strong networking segregation to prevent the attacker’s movement across the network and also restrict the effects of successful attacks. 

• Secure any that are accessible from the internet, and service or protocols such as RDP, CIFS, or Active directory. 

• Limit the usage of native scripting applications as much as possible because cyber attackers may exploit them. 

4. Vulnerability Disclosure and PoC Management 

• Inform the vendors of the bugs and PoC exploits and make sure there is a common understanding of when they are reported, to ensure fast response and mitigation. 

• It is suggested to incorporate mechanisms like digital signing and encryption for managing and distributing PoC exploits to prevent them from being accessed by unauthorized persons. 

• Exploits used in PoC should be simple and independent with clear and meaningful variable and function names that help reduce time spent on triage and remediation. 

5. Risk Assessment and Response to Incidents 

• Maintain constant supervision of the environment with an intention of identifying signs of a compromise, as well as, attempts of exploitation. 

• Support a frequent detection, analysis and fighting of threats, which use PoC exploits into the system and its components. 

• Regularly communicate with security researchers and vendors to understand the existing threats and how to prevent them.

Conclusion:

The rapid process of monetization of Proof of Concept (POC) exploits is one of the most innovative and constantly expanding global threats to cybersecurity at the present moment. Cyber security experts must react quickly while applying a patch, incorporate AI to their security tools, efficiently subdivide their networks and always heed their vulnerability announcements. Stronger incident response plan would aid in handling these kinds of menaces. Hence, applying measures mentioned above, the organizations will be able to prevent the acceleration of turning PoC exploits into weapons and the probability of neutral affecting cyber attacks. 

Reference:

https://www.mayrhofer.eu.org/post/vulnerability-disclosure-is-positive/

https://www.uptycs.com/blog/new-poc-exploit-backdoor-malware

https://www.balbix.com/insights/attack-vectors-and-breach-methods/

https://blog.cloudflare.com/application-security-report-2024-update

‍

Executive Summary:

Recently, CyberPeace faced a case involving a fraudulent Android application imitating the Punjab National Bank (PNB). The victim was tricked into downloading an APK file named "PNB.apk" via WhatsApp. After the victim installed the apk file, it resulted in unauthorized multiple transactions on multiple credit cards.

Case Study: The Attack: Social Engineering Meets Malware

The incident started when the victim clicked on a Facebook ad for a PNB credit card. After submitting basic personal information, the victim receives a WhatsApp call from a profile displaying the PNB logo. The attacker, posing as a bank representative, fakes the benefits and features of the Credit Card and convinces the victim to install an application named PNB.apk.  The so called bank representative sent the app through WhatsApp, claiming it would expedite the credit card application. The application was installed in the mobile device as a customer care application. It asks for permissions such as  to send or view SMS messages. The application opens only if the user provides this permission. 

‍

It extracts the credit card details from the user such as Full Name, Mobile Number, complain, on further pages irrespective of  Refund, Pay or Other. On further processing, it asks for other information such as credit card number, expiry date and cvv number. 

‍

Now the scammer has access to all the details of the credit card information, access to read or view the sms to intercept OTPs. 

The victim, thinking they were securely navigating the official PNB website, was unaware that the malware was granting the hacker remote access to their phone. This led to ₹4 lakhs worth of 11 unauthorized transactions across three credit cards.

The Investigation & Analysis:

Upon receiving the case through CyberPeace helpline, the CyberPeace Research Team acted swiftly to neutralize the threat and secure the victim’s device. Using a secure remote access tool, we gained control of the phone with the victim’s consent. Our first step was identifying and removing the malicious "PNB.apk" file, ensuring no residual malware was left behind. 

Next, we implemented crucial cyber hygiene practices:

1. Revoking unnecessary permissions – to prevent further unauthorized access.
2. Running antivirus scans – to detect any remaining threats.
3. Clearing sensitive data caches – to remove stored credentials and tokens.

The CyberPeace Helpline team assisted the victim to report the fraud to the National Cybercrime Portal and helpline (1930) and promptly blocked the compromised credit cards.

The technical analysis for the app was taken ahead and by using the md5 hash file id. This app was marked as malware in virustotal and it has all the permissions such as Send/Receive/Read SMS, System Alert Window.  

‍

In the similar way, we have found another application in the name of “Axis Bank” which is circulated through whatsapp which is having similar permission access and the details found in virus total are as follows:

‍

‍

‍

Recommendations:

This case study implies the increasingly sophisticated methods used by cybercriminals, blending social engineering with advanced malware. Key lessons include:

• Be vigilant when downloading the applications, even if they appear to be from legitimate sources. It is advised to install any application after checking through an application store and not through any social media. 
• Always review app permissions before granting access.
• Verify the identity of anyone claiming to represent financial institutions.
• Use remote access tools responsibly for effective intervention during a cyber incident.

By acting quickly and following the proper protocols, we successfully secured the victim’s device and prevented further financial loss.

‍