#FactCheck - Fake Image Claiming Patanjali selling Beef Biryani Recipe mix is Misleading

Executive Summary:

QakBot, a particular kind of banking trojan virus, is capable of stealing personal data, banking passwords, and session data from a user's computer. Since its first discovery in 2009, Qakbot has had substantial modifications.

C2 Server commands infected devices and receives stolen data, which is essentially the brain behind Qakbot's operations.Qakbot employs PEDLL (Communication Files), a malicious program, to interact with the server in order to accomplish its main goals. Sensitive data, including passwords or personal information, is taken from the victims and sent to the C2 server. Referrer files start the main line of communication between Qakbot and the C2 server, such as phishing papers or malware droppers. WHOIS data includes registration details for this server, which helps to identify its ownership or place of origin.

This report specifically focuses on the C2 server infrastructure located in India, shedding light on its architecture, communication patterns, and threat landscape.

Introduction:

QakBot is also known as Pinkslipbot, QuakBot, and QBot, capable of stealing personal data, banking passwords, and session data from a user's computer. Malware is bad since it spreads very quickly to other networks, affecting them like a worm.,It employs contemporary methods like web injection to eavesdrop on customer online banking interactions. Qakbot is a member of a kind of malware that has robust persistence techniques, which are said to be the most advanced in order to gain access to compromised computers for extended periods of time.
‍

Technical Analysis: 

The following IP addresses have been confirmed as active C2 servers supporting Qbot malware activity:

‍

Sample IP's

• 123.201.40[.]112
• 117.198.151[.]182
• 103.250.38[.]115
• 49.33.237[.]65
• 202.134.178[.]157
• 124.123.42[.]115
• 115.96.64[.]9
• 123.201.44[.]86
• 117.202.161[.]73
• 136.232.254[.]46

These servers have been operational in the past 14 days (report created in the month of Nov) and are being leveraged to perpetuate malicious activities globally.

URL/IP: 123.201.40[.]112

• inetnum: 123.201.32[.]0 - 123.201.47[.]255
• netname: YOUTELE
• descr: YOU Telecom India Pvt Ltd
• country: IN
• admin-c: HA348-AP
• tech-c: NI23-AP
• status: ASSIGNED NON-PORTABLE 
• mnt-by: MAINT-IN-YOU
• last-modified: 2022-08-16T06:43:19Z
• mnt-irt: IRT-IN-YOU
• source: APNIC
• irt: IRT-IN-YOU
• address: YOU Broadband India Limited
• address: 2nd Floor, Millennium Arcade
• address: Opp. Samarth Park, Adajan-Hazira Road
• address: Surat-395009,Gujarat
• address: India
• e-mail: abuse@youbroadband.co.in
• abuse-mailbox: abuse@youbroadband.co.in 
• admin-c: HA348-AP
• tech-c: NI23-AP
• auth: # Filtered
• mnt-by: MAINT-IN-YOU
• last-modified: 2022-08-08T10:30:51Z
• source: APNIC
• person: Harindra Akbari
• nic-hdl: HA348-AP
• e-mail: harindra.akbari@youbroadband.co.in
• address: YOU Broadband India Limited
• address: 2nd Floor, Millennium Arcade
• address: Opp. Samarth Park, Adajan-Hazira Road
• address: Surat-395009,Gujarat
• address: India
• phone: +91-261-7113400
• fax-no: +91-261-2789501
• country: IN
• mnt-by: MAINT-IN-YOU
• last-modified: 2022-08-10T11:01:47Z
• source: APNIC
• person: NOC IQARA
• nic-hdl: NI23-AP
• e-mail: network@youbroadband.co.in
• address: YOU Broadband India Limited
• address: 2nd Floor, Millennium Arcade
• address: Opp. Samarth Park, Adajan-Hazira Road
• address: Surat-395009,Gujarat
• address: India
• phone: +91-261-7113400
• fax-no: +91-261-2789501
• country: IN
• mnt-by: MAINT-IN-YOU
• last-modified: 2022-08-08T10:18:09Z
• source: APNIC
• route: 123.201.40.0/24
• descr: YOU Broadband & Cable India Ltd.
• origin: AS18207
• mnt-lower: MAINT-IN-YOU
• mnt-routes: MAINT-IN-YOU
• mnt-by: MAINT-IN-YOU
• last-modified: 2012-01-25T11:25:55Z
• source: APNIC

IP 123.201.40[.]112 uses the requested URL-path to make a GET request on the IP-address at port 80. "NOT RESPONDED" is the response status code for the request "C:\PROGRAM FILES GOOGLE CHROME APPLICATION CHROME.EXE" that was started by the process. 

Programs that retrieve their server data using a GET request are considered legitimate. The Google Chrome browser, a fully functional application widely used for web browsing, was used to make the actual request. It asks to get access to the server with IP 123.201.40[.]112 in order to collect its data and other resources. 

Malware uses GET requests to retrieve more commands or to send data back to the command and control servers. In this instance, it may be an attack server making the request to a known IP address with a known port number. Since the server has not replied to the request, the response status "NOT RESPONDED" may indicate that the activity was carried out with malicious intent.

This graph illustrates how the Qakbot virus operates and interacts with its C2 server, located in India and with the IP address 123.201.40[.]112. 

Impact

Qbot is a kind of malware that is typically distributed through hacked websites, malicious email attachments, and phishing operations. It targets private user information, including corporate logins or banking passwords. The deployment of ransomware: Payloads from organizations such as ProLock and Egregor ransomware are delivered by Qbot, a predecessor. Network Vulnerability: Within corporate networks, compromised systems will act as gateways for more lateral movement.

Proposed Recommendations for Mitigation

• Quick Action: To stop any incoming or outgoing traffic, the discovered IP addresses will be added to intrusion detection/prevention systems and firewalls.
• Network monitoring: Examining network log information for any attempts to get in touch with these IPs
• Email security: Give permission for anti-phishing programs.
• Endpoint Protection: To identify and stop Qbot infestations, update antivirus definitions.,Install tools for endpoint detection and response.
• Patch management: To reduce vulnerabilities that Qbot exploits, update all operating systems and software on a regular basis.
• Incident Response: Immediately isolate compromised computers.
• Awareness: Dissemination of this information to block the IP addresses of active C2 servers supporting Qbot malware activity has to be carried out.

Conclusion:

The discovery of these C2 servers reveals the growing danger scenario that Indian networks must contend with. To protect its infrastructure from future abuse, organizations are urged to act quickly and put the aforementioned precautions into place. 

Reference: 

• Threat Intelligence - ANY.RUN
• https://www.virustotal.com/gui
• https://www.virustotal.com/gui/ip-address/123.201.40.112/relations

‍

Introduction

Recently the attackers employed the CVE-2017-0199 vulnerability in Microsoft Office to deliver a fileless form of the Remcos RAT. The Remcos RAT makes the attacker have full control of the systems that have been infected by this malware. This research will give a detailed technical description of the identified vulnerability, attack vector, and tactics together with the practical steps to counter the identified risks.

The Targeted Malware: Remcos RAT

Remcos RAT (Remote Control & Surveillance) is a commercially available remote access tool designed for legitimate administrative use. However, it has been widely adopted by cybercriminals for its stealth and extensive control capabilities, enabling:

• System control and monitoring
• Keylogging
• Data exfiltration
• Execution of arbitrary commands

The fileless variant utilised in this campaign makes detection even more challenging by running entirely in system memory, leaving minimal forensic traces.

Attack Vector: Phishing with Malicious Excel Attachments

The phishing email will be sent which appears as legitimate business communication, such as a purchase order or invoice. This email contains an Excel attachment that is weaponized to exploit the CVE-2017-0199 vulnerability.

Technical Analysis: CVE-2017-0199 Exploitation

Vulnerability Assessment

• CVE-2017-0199 is a Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in Microsoft Office which uses Object Linking and Embedding (OLE) objects.
• Affected Components:some text
  • Microsoft Word
  • Microsoft Excel
  • WordPad
• CVSS Score: 7.8 (High Severity)

Mechanism of Exploitation

The vulnerability enables attackers to craft a malicious document when opened, it fetches and executes an external payload via an HTML Application (HTA) file. The execution process occurs without requiring user interaction beyond opening the document.

Detailed Exploitation Steps

1. Phishing Email and Malicious Document some text
   • The email contains an Excel file designed to make use of CVE-2017-0199.
   • When the email gets opened, the document automatically connects to a remote server (e.g., 192.3.220[.]22) to download an HTA file (cookienetbookinetcache.hta).
2. Execution via mshta.exe some text
   • The downloaded HTA file is executed using mshta.exe, a legitimate Windows process for running HTML Applications.
   • This execution is seamless and does not prompt the user, making the attack stealthy.
3. Multi-Layer Obfuscation some text
   • The HTA file is wrapped in several layers of scripting, including: some text
     • JavaScript
     • VBScript
     • PowerShell
   • This obfuscation helps evade static analysis by traditional antivirus solutions.
4. Fileless Payload Deployment some text
   • The downloaded executable leverages process hollowing to inject malicious code into legitimate system processes.
   • The Remcos RAT payload is loaded directly into memory, avoiding the creation of files on disk.

Fileless Malware Techniques

1. Process Hollowing
The attack replaces the memory of a legitimate process (e.g., explorer.exe) with the malicious Remcos RAT payload. This allows the malware to:

• Evade detection by blending into normal system activity.
• Run with the privileges of the hijacked process.

2. Anti-Analysis Techniques

• Anti-Debugging: Detects the presence of debugging tools and terminates malicious processes if found.
• Anti-VM and Sandbox Evasion: Ensures execution only on real systems to avoid detection during security analysis.

3. In-Memory Execution

• By running entirely in system memory, the malware avoids leaving artifacts on the disk, making forensic analysis and detection more challenging.

Capabilities of Remcos RAT

Once deployed, Remcos RAT provides attackers with a comprehensive suite of functionalities, including:

• Data Exfiltration: some text
  • Stealing system information, files, and credentials.
• Remote Execution: some text
  • Running arbitrary commands, scripts, and additional payloads.
• Surveillance: some text
  • Enabling the camera and microphone.
  • Capturing screen activity and clipboard contents.
• System Manipulation: some text
  • Modifying Windows Registry entries.
  • Controlling system services and processes.
  • Disabling user input devices (keyboard and mouse).

Advanced Phishing Techniques in Parallel Campaigns

1. DocuSign Abuse
Attackers exploit legitimate DocuSign APIs to create authentic-looking phishing invoices. These invoices can trick users into authorising payments or signing malicious documents, bypassing traditional email security systems.

2. ZIP File Concatenation
By appending multiple ZIP archives into a single file, attackers exploit inconsistencies in how different tools handle these files. This allows them to embed malware that evades detection by certain archive managers.

Broader Implications of Fileless Malware

Fileless malware like Remcos RAT poses significant challenges:

• Detection Difficulties: Traditional signature-based antivirus systems struggle to detect fileless malware, as there are no static files to scan.
• Forensic Limitations: The lack of disk artifacts complicates post-incident analysis, making it harder to trace the attack's origin and scope.
• Increased Sophistication: These campaigns demonstrate the growing technical prowess of cybercriminals, leveraging legitimate tools and services for malicious purposes.

Mitigation Strategies

1. Patch Management some text
   • It is important to regularly update software to address known vulnerabilities like CVE-2017-0199. Microsoft released a patch for this vulnerability in April 2017.
2. Advanced Email Security some text
   • It is important to implement email filtering solutions that can detect phishing attempts, even those using legitimate services like DocuSign.
3. Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR)some text
   • Always use EDR solutions to monitor for suspicious behavior, such as unauthorized use of mshta.exe or process hollowing.
4. User Awareness and Training some text
   • Educate users about phishing techniques and the risks of opening unexpected attachments.
5. Behavioral Analysis some text
   • Deploy security solutions capable of detecting anomalous activity, even if no malicious files are present.

Conclusion

The attack via CVE-2017-0199 further led to the injection of a new fileless variant of Remcos RAT, proving how threats are getting more and more sophisticated. Thanks to the improved obfuscation and the lack of files, the attackers eliminate all traditional antiviral protection and gain full control over the infected computers. It is real and organisations have to make sure that they apply patches on time, that they build better technologies for detection and that the users themselves are more wary of the threats.

References

• Fortinet FortiGuard Labs: Analysis by Xiaopeng Zhang
• Perception Point: Research on ZIP File Concatenation
• Wallarm: DocuSign Phishing Analysis
• Microsoft Security Advisory: CVE-2017-0199

‍

Introduction

Big Tech has been pushing back against regulatory measures, particularly regarding data handling practices. X Corp (formerly Twitter) has taken a prominent stance in India. The platform has filed a petition against the Central and State governments, challenging content-blocking orders and opposing the Center’s newly launched Sahyog portal.  The X Corp has furthermore labelled the Sahyog Portal as a 'censorship portal' that enables government agencies to issue blocking orders using a standardized template.

The key regulations governing the tech space in India include the IT Act of 2000,  IT Rules 2021 and 2023 (which stress platform accountability and content moderation), and the DPDP Act 2023, which intersects with personal data governance. This petition by the X Corp raises concerns for digital freedom, platform accountability, and the evolving regulatory frameworks in India. 

Elon Musk vs Indian Government: Key Issues at Stake

The 2021 IT Rules, particularly Rule 3(1)(d) of Part II, outline intermediaries' obligations regarding ‘Content Takedowns’. Intermediaries must remove or disable access to unlawful content within 36 hours of receiving a court order or government notification. Notably, the rules do not require government takedown requests to be explicitly in writing, raising concerns about potential misuse. 

X’s petition also focuses on the Sahyog Portal, a government-run platform that allows various agencies and state police to request content removal directly. They contend that the failure to comply with such orders can expose intermediaries' officers to prosecution. This has sparked controversy, with platforms like Elon Musk’s X arguing that such provisions grant the government excessive control, potentially undermining free speech and fostering undue censorship.

The broader implications include geopolitical tensions, potential business risks for big tech companies, and significant effects on India's digital economy, user engagement, and platform governance. Balancing regulatory compliance with digital rights remains a crucial challenge in this evolving landscape.

The Global Context: Lessons from Other Jurisdictions

The ‘EU's Digital Services Act’ establishes a baseline 'notice and takedown' system. According to the Act, hosting providers, including online platforms, must enable third parties to notify them of illegal content, which they must promptly remove to retain their hosting defence. The DSA also mandates expedited removal processes for notifications from trusted flaggers, user suspension for those with frequent violations, and enhanced protections for minors. Additionally, hosting providers have to adhere to specific content removal obligations, including the elimination of terrorist content within one hour and deploying technology to detect known or new CSAM material and remove it.

In contrast to the EU, the US First Amendment protects speech from state interference but does not extend to private entities. Dominant digital platforms, however, significantly influence discourse by moderating content, shaping narratives, and controlling advertising markets. This dual role creates tension as these platforms balance free speech, platform safety, and profitability.

India has adopted a model closer to the EU's approach, emphasizing content moderation to curb misinformation, false narratives, and harmful content. Drawing from the EU's framework, India could establish third-party notification mechanisms, enforce clear content takedown guidelines, and implement detection measures for harmful content like terrorist material and CSAM within defined timelines. This would balance content regulation with platform accountability while aligning with global best practices.

Key Concerns and Policy Debates

As the issue stands, the main concerns that arise are:

1. The need for transparency in government orders for takedowns, the reasons and a clear framework for why they are needed and the guidelines for doing so. 
2. The need for balancing digital freedom with national security and the concerns that arise out of it for tech companies. Essentially, the role platforms play in safeguarding the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution of India. 
3. This court ruling by the Karnataka HC will have the potential to redefine the principles upon which the intermediary guidelines function under the Indian laws. 

Potential Outcomes and the Way Forward

While we wait for the Hon’ble Court’s directives and orders in response to the filed suit, while the court's decision could favour either side or lead to a negotiated resolution, the broader takeaway is the necessity of collaborative policymaking that balances governmental oversight with platform accountability. This debate underscores the pressing need for a structured and transparent regulatory framework for content moderation. Additionally, this case also highlights the importance of due process in content regulation and the need for legal clarity for tech companies operating in India. Ultimately, a consultative and principles-based approach will be key to ensuring a fair and open digital ecosystem.

References

• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/elon-musks-x-sues-union-government-over-alleged-censorship-and-it-act-violations/article69352961.ece
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/elon-musk-s-x-sues-union-government-over-alleged-censorship-and-it-act-violations-101742463516588.html
• https://www.financialexpress.com/life/technology-explainer-why-has-x-accused-govt-of-censorship-3788648/
• https://thelawreporters.com/elon-musk-s-x-sues-indian-government-over-alleged-censorship-and-it-act-violations ‍
• https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/blogs/digilinks/2023/february/the-eu-digital-services-act---a-new-era-for-online-harms-and-intermediary-liability