Bride of Stuxnet / Webcraft as spycraft (WEEKLY STANDARD) BY JONATHAN V. LAST 06/11/12)
Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/bride-stuxnet_646424.html
WEEKLY STANDARD
WEEKLY STANDARD Articles-Index-Top
Publishers-Index-Top
Last April, the Iranian Oil Ministry and the National Iranian Oil
Company noticed a problem with some of their computers: A small
number of machines were spontaneously erasing themselves. Spooked by
the recent Stuxnet attack, which had wrecked centrifuges in their
nuclear labs, the Iranians suspected a piece of computer malware was
to blame. They went to the United Nations’ International
Telecommunications Union and asked for help. After an initial
investigation, it was determined that the Iranians had been hit with
a new piece of malicious software; it was temporarily labeled Wiper.
Or Viper. After translating the moniker into different languages, no
one is quite sure what the original nickname was.
The experts from Turtle Bay quickly realized they were out of their
depth with Wiper/Viper and contracted a Russian computer security
firm, Kaspersky Lab, to help. As the techs at Kaspersky investigated,
they began to find bits and pieces of a much bigger program. What
they eventually uncovered forced them to put aside Wiper/Viper and
send out an all-hands call to the tech community: a cyber-weapon that
made Stuxnet look primitive. They called it Flame.
Stuxnet was like a guided missile with a targeted payload. It was
created to spread rapidly, but always to be seeking a particular set
of computers—machines made by Siemens and used to control centrifuge
operations at a uranium enrichment plant. Once Stuxnet reached its
destination, it had very precise instructions: It altered the speed
of the centrifuges in such a manner as to slowly degrade the
equipment and destroy the uranium they contained—all while sending
false readings back to the operating console so that neither the
computer nor the human supervisors would notice the damage being done.
If Stuxnet was like a missile, then Flame is more like a surveillance
satellite.
Once a computer is infected by Flame, the program begins a process of
taking over the entire machine. Flame records every keystroke by the
user, creating a perfect log of all activity. It takes pictures of
the screen every 60 seconds—and every 15 seconds when instant message
or email programs are in use. It records all administrative action on
the computer—taking note of network passwords, for instance. And it
rummages through the computer’s hard drive copying documents and
files.
But that’s not all. Flame also takes control of the machine’s
Bluetooth capability and turns it into a hub for a small wireless
network, bonding with other Bluetooth-enabled devices in the
vicinity, such as cell phones. It then uses the Bluetooth connection
to case whatever information is on the remote device—say, an address
book, calendar, or email list. Most spectacularly, Flame is able to
turn on the computer’s built-in microphone and record the user, or
anyone else who happens to be chatting in the vicinity.
Flame then compiles all of this information—the passwords, the
documents, the keystroke logs, the screenshots, and the audio
recordings—encrypts it, and secretly uploads it to a command-and-
control server (C&C), where someone is waiting to analyze it.
The first thing the white hats noticed about Flame was its size. Most
malware is designed to be tiny—the smaller the package of code, the
harder it is for your computer’s constantly updating security
protocols to intercept it. It took half a megabyte of code to build
Stuxnet, which was a remarkably large footprint by the standards of
malware. When completely deployed, Flame takes up 20 megabytes. Which
is positively gargantuan.
But Flame is deployed in stages. When it works its way onto a new
machine, Flame comes in an initial package of six megabytes. After
the worm takes control of the box, it inventories the machine and the
surrounding networks, and then begins communicating with a remote
C&C server. On the other end of the line, a team takes in the data
being sent by Flame, makes a determination of the new host’s value,
and then returns instructions to the waiting worm. Depending on what
the C&C team see, they might instruct Flame to install any of 14
additional modules—mini add-on programs which, for instance, would
give Flame the ability to take over the computer’s microphone, or
Bluetooth functionality. One module, named “browse32,” is a kill
module. When activated by the C&C, browse32 systematically moves
through the computer, deleting every trace of Flame’s existence. Its
wipe is so thorough that once it’s been triggered, no one—not even
computer security techs—can tell if Flame was ever there in the first
place.
No one is sure how long Flame has been operational. There is evidence
of its existence in the wild dating to March 2010, but Flame may be
older than that. (Stuxnet was discovered in June 2010 and is believed
to have been released 12 months before then.) It’s difficult to date
Flame because its makers went to some trouble to disguise its age.
Computer code typically has meta-data describing its “compilation
date”—that is, the time and date it was assembled in final form.
Flame’s 20 modules all have compilation dates set in 1994 and 1995.
Which is impossible, because they’re written in a language that was
released just a few years ago.
Neither are analysts certain exactly how Flame spreads. It has the
ability to move from one computer to another by piggybacking onto a
USB flash drive (just like Stuxnet). Alternately, it can migrate
across a local network by exploiting a shared printer (again, like
Stuxnet). But Flame is also able to spread across a network without a
printer if it finds itself on a computer that has administrative
privileges. When that happens, the worm is smart enough to create
backdoor accounts for all the other computers on the network and copy
itself into those machines.
As for the question of security—how does Flame talk its way past the
computer’s antivirus protections? No one knows. The techs at
Kaspersky Lab watched Flame attack a PC running the fully updated
Windows 7 security suite. The worm took over the computer
effortlessly. This suggests that the worm’s designers have access to
one or more vulnerabilities in the operating system that even the
people who designed the OS don’t know about. (Stuxnet utilized four
of these so-called zero-day exploits.)
Engineers are only two weeks into the teardown, but they already
believe that Flame and Stuxnet were created by different development
teams. The code and workings are dissimilar. And besides, the
timelines on the two projects are too close. It is estimated that
coding Stuxnet required 10,000 man-hours. For a team of 30 to 50
programmers, that’s a year or two of work. The same squad simply
would not have had the time to build both Stuxnet and the much larger
Flame.
That said, Kaspersky Lab notes that the worms do share two
interesting similarities: They use the same rootkit-based exploit to
hijack USB drives and the same print-spooler vulnerability to spread
over a network’s shared printer. There are three possible
explanations for this: (1) The teams that developed Flame and Stuxnet
discovered these identical mechanisms independently; (2) the team
which developed Flame learned about them from analyzing an early
version of Stuxnet; (3) the teams that developed the two worms were
working in parallel, for the same organization(s), and thus were able
to share information about these mechanisms.
Yet the most interesting aspect of Flame is the strategic ways it
differs from Stuxnet. As a weapon, Stuxnet was a tool conceived in
urgency. Every piece of malware has to balance virulence with
stealth. The more aggressively a worm propagates, the more likely it
is to be caught. Stuxnet was designed to spread at a fairly robust
rate. Its creators wanted it to get on lots of different computers
and they were willing to risk quicker discovery on the chance that
the worm would find its way to the very specific system it was meant
for and deliver its payload. In the end, Stuxnet’s engineers made a
good trade. Because it eventually spread to 100,000 computers,
Stuxnet was caught reasonably quickly. Yet this aggressive approach
got it to its target—Iran’s Natanz refinery—where it wrecked at least
a year’s worth of work.
Flame, on the other hand, is a study in stealth and patience. Unlike
Stuxnet, with its single-minded search for a specific computer
system, Flame seems to have wandered in many directions: onto
computers used by governments, universities, and private companies.
It moved slowly, and the overall number of infected systems seems to
be quite low. Current estimates put it at 1,000 computers, nearly all
of them located in Iran, the Palestinian territories, Sudan, Syria,
and Lebanon. Flame kept the number of infections low because it never
moved from one computer to another without explicit instructions from
its C&C. According to Kaspersky Lab, the method went something like
this:
[T]hey infect several dozen [machines], then conduct analysis of the
data of the victim, [and] uninstall Flame from the systems that
aren’t interesting, leaving the most important ones in place. After
which they start a new series of infections.
It was a detailed, deliberate process of identifying and exploiting
targets that must have required significant manpower and intelligence
capability on the C&C side. In other words, the design and deployment
of Flame was only half of the job. Another team, with a different
skill set, was needed to run the operation once it was in the field.
But once Flame was running, it was like something out of science
fiction. Flame could watch a target even when he was completely
alone. It could listen to every word he said on the telephone, or
through Skype, or to a colleague walking past his desk. It could
rifle through his computer files and find any document. Or peek into
a cell phone sitting in someone’s pocket in the next room. It never
had to worry about getting caught in the act. And on a moment’s
notice, it could erase any sign that it was ever there. It kept up
constant communication with its handlers, even when they were
thousands of miles away, and it always followed orders.
Whoever engineered Flame didn’t just build the most spectacular
computer worm ever made. They created the perfect spy.
Return to Top
MATERIAL REPRODUCED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY