How a Telegram bot helps scammers target victims – Week in security with Tony Anscombe

ESET researchers uncover a Telegram bot that enables even less tech-savvy scammers to defraud people out of their money

/by

Telekopye: Hunting Mammoths using Telegram bot

Analysis of Telegram bot that helps cybercriminals scam people on online marketplaces

/by

Scarabs colon-izing vulnerable servers

Analysis of Spacecolon, a toolset used to deploy Scarab ransomware on vulnerable servers, and its operators, CosmicBeetle

/by

A Bard’s Tale – how fake AI bots try to install malware

The AI race is on! It’s easy to lose track of the latest developments and possibilities, and yet everyone wants to see firsthand what the hype is about. Heydays for cybercriminals!

/by

Evacuation of 30,000 hackers – Week in security with Tony Anscombe

DEF CON, the annual hacker’s convention in Las Vegas, was interrupted on Saturday evening when authorities evacuated the convention due to a bomb threat.

/by

DEF CON 31: US DoD urges hackers to go and hack ‘AI’

The limits of current AI need to be tested before we can rely on their output

/by

Mass-spreading campaign targeting Zimbra users

ESET researchers have observed a new phishing campaign targeting users of the Zimbra Collaboration email server.

/by

AI-Powered Fuzzing: Breaking the Bug Hunting Barrier

Dongge Liu, Jonathan Metzman, Oliver Chang, Google Open Source Security Team 

Since 2016, OSS-Fuzz has been at the forefront of automated vulnerability discovery for open source projects. Vulnerability discovery is an important part of keeping software supply chains secure, so our team is constantly working to improve OSS-Fuzz. For the last few months, we’ve tested whether we could boost OSS-Fuzz’s performance using Google’s Large Language Models (LLM). 



This blog post shares our experience of successfully applying the generative power of LLMs to improve the automated vulnerability detection technique known as fuzz testing (“fuzzing”). By using LLMs, we’re able to increase the code coverage for critical projects using our OSS-Fuzz service without manually writing additional code. Using LLMs is a promising new way to scale security improvements across the over 1,000 projects currently fuzzed by OSS-Fuzz and to remove barriers to future projects adopting fuzzing. 



LLM-aided fuzzing

We created the OSS-Fuzz service to help open source developers find bugs in their code at scale—especially bugs that indicate security vulnerabilities. After more than six years of running OSS-Fuzz, we now support over 1,000 open source projects with continuous fuzzing, free of charge. As the Heartbleed vulnerability showed us, bugs that could be easily found with automated fuzzing can have devastating effects. For most open source developers, setting up their own fuzzing solution could cost time and resources. With OSS-Fuzz, developers are able to integrate their project for free, automated bug discovery at scale.  



Since 2016, we’ve found and verified a fix for over 10,000 security vulnerabilities. We also believe that OSS-Fuzz could likely find even more bugs with increased code coverage. The fuzzing service covers only around 30% of an open source project’s code on average, meaning that a large portion of our users’ code remains untouched by fuzzing. Recent research suggests that the most effective way to increase this is by adding additional fuzz targets for every project—one of the few parts of the fuzzing workflow that isn’t yet automated.



When an open source project onboards to OSS-Fuzz, maintainers make an initial time investment to integrate their projects into the infrastructure and then add fuzz targets. The fuzz targets are functions that use randomized input to test the targeted code. Writing fuzz targets is a project-specific and manual process that is similar to writing unit tests. The ongoing security benefits from fuzzing make this initial investment of time worth it for maintainers, but writing a comprehensive set of fuzz targets is an tough expectation for project maintainers, who are often volunteers. 



But what if LLMs could write additional fuzz targets for maintainers?



“Hey LLM, fuzz this project for me”

To discover whether an LLM could successfully write new fuzz targets, we built an evaluation framework that connects OSS-Fuzz to the LLM, conducts the experiment, and evaluates the results. The steps look like this:  



  1. OSS-Fuzz’s Fuzz Introspector tool identifies an under-fuzzed, high-potential portion of the sample project’s code and passes the code to the evaluation framework. 

  2. The evaluation framework creates a prompt that the LLM will use to write the new fuzz target. The prompt includes project-specific information.

  3. The evaluation framework takes the fuzz target generated by the LLM and runs the new target. 

  4. The evaluation framework observes the run for any change in code coverage.

  5. In the event that the fuzz target fails to compile, the evaluation framework prompts the LLM to write a revised fuzz target that addresses the compilation errors.


Experiment overview: The experiment pictured above is a fully automated process, from identifying target code to evaluating the change in code coverage.





At first, the code generated from our prompts wouldn’t compile; however, after several rounds of  prompt engineering and trying out the new fuzz targets, we saw projects gain between 1.5% and 31% code coverage. One of our sample projects, tinyxml2, went from 38% line coverage to 69% without any interventions from our team. The case of tinyxml2 taught us: when LLM-generated fuzz targets are added, tinyxml2 has the majority of its code covered. 



Example fuzz targets for tinyxml2: Each of the five fuzz targets shown is associated with a different part of the code and adds to the overall coverage improvement. 





To replicate tinyxml2’s results manually would have required at least a day’s worth of work—which would mean several years of work to manually cover all OSS-Fuzz projects. Given tinyxml2’s promising results, we want to implement them in production and to extend similar, automatic coverage to other OSS-Fuzz projects. 



Additionally, in the OpenSSL project, our LLM was able to automatically generate a working target that rediscovered CVE-2022-3602, which was in an area of code that previously did not have fuzzing coverage. Though this is not a new vulnerability, it suggests that as code coverage increases, we will find more vulnerabilities that are currently missed by fuzzing. 



Learn more about our results through our example prompts and outputs or through our experiment report. 



The goal: fully automated fuzzing

In the next few months, we’ll open source our evaluation framework to allow researchers to test their own automatic fuzz target generation. We’ll continue to optimize our use of LLMs for fuzzing target generation through more model finetuning, prompt engineering, and improvements to our infrastructure. We’re also collaborating closely with the Assured OSS team on this research in order to secure even more open source software used by Google Cloud customers.   



Our longer term goals include:


  • Adding LLM fuzz target generation as a fully integrated feature in OSS-Fuzz, with continuous generation of new targets for OSS-fuzz projects and zero manual involvement.

  • Extending support from C/C++ projects to additional language ecosystems, like Python and Java. 

  • Automating the process of onboarding a project into OSS-Fuzz to eliminate any need to write even initial fuzz targets. 



We’re working towards a future of personalized vulnerability detection with little manual effort from developers. With the addition of LLM generated fuzz targets, OSS-Fuzz can help improve open source security for everyone. 

/by

Toward Quantum Resilient Security Keys

Elie Bursztein, cybersecurity and AI research director, Fabian Kaczmarczyck, software engineer

As part of our effort to deploy quantum resistant cryptography, we are happy to announce the release of the first quantum resilient FIDO2 security key implementation as part of OpenSK, our open source security key firmware. This open-source hardware optimized implementation uses a novel ECC/Dilithium hybrid signature schema that benefits from the security of ECC against standard attacks and Dilithium’s resilience against quantum attacks. This schema was co-developed in partnership with the ETH Zürich and won the ACNS secure cryptographic implementation workshop best paper.



Quantum processor

Quantum processor



As progress toward practical quantum computers is accelerating, preparing for their advent is becoming a more pressing issue as time passes. In particular, standard public key cryptography which was designed to protect against traditional computers, will not be able to withstand quantum attacks. Fortunately, with the recent standardization of public key quantum resilient cryptography including the Dilithium algorithm, we now have a clear path to secure security keys against quantum attacks.



While quantum attacks are still in the distant future, deploying cryptography at Internet scale is a massive undertaking which is why doing it as early as possible is vital. In particular, for security keys this process is expected to be gradual as users will have to acquire new ones once FIDO has standardized post quantum cryptography resilient cryptography and this new standard is supported by major browser vendors.



Hybrid signature scheme

Hybrid signature: Strong nesting with classical and PQC scheme



Our proposed implementation relies on a hybrid approach that combines the battle tested ECDSA signature algorithm and the recently standardized quantum resistant signature algorithm, Dilithium. In collaboration with ETH, we developed this novel hybrid signature schema that offers the best of both worlds. Relying on a hybrid signature is critical as the security of Dilithium and other recently standardized quantum resistant algorithms haven’t yet stood the test of time and recent attacks on Rainbow (another quantum resilient algorithm) demonstrate the need for caution. This cautiousness is particularly warranted for security keys as most can’t be upgraded – although we are working toward it for OpenSK. The hybrid approach is also used in other post-quantum efforts like Chrome’s support for TLS.



On the technical side, a large challenge was to create a Dilithium implementation small enough to run on security keys’ constrained hardware. Through careful optimization, we were able to develop a Rust memory optimized implementation that only required 20 KB of memory, which was sufficiently small enough. We also spent time ensuring that our implementation signature speed was well within the expected security keys specification. That said, we believe improving signature speed further by leveraging hardware acceleration would allow for keys to be more responsive.



Moving forward, we are hoping  to see this implementation (or a variant of it), being standardized as part of the FIDO2 key specification and supported by major web browsers so that users’ credentials can be protected against quantum attacks. If you are interested in testing this algorithm or contributing to security key research, head to our open source implementation OpenSK.

/by

Making Chrome more secure by bringing Key Pinning to Android

Posted by David Adrian, Joe DeBlasio and Carlos Joan Rafael Ibarra Lopez, Chrome Security

Chrome 106 added support for enforcing key pins on Android by default, bringing Android to parity with Chrome on desktop platforms. But what is key pinning anyway?

One of the reasons Chrome implements key pinning is the “rule of two”. This rule is part of Chrome’s holistic secure development process. It says that when you are writing code for Chrome, you can pick no more than two of: code written in an unsafe language, processing untrustworthy inputs, and running without a sandbox. This blog post explains how key pinning and the rule of two are related.

The Rule of Two

Chrome is primarily written in the C and C++ languages, which are vulnerable to memory safety bugs. Mistakes with pointers in these languages can lead to memory being misinterpreted. Chrome invests in an ever-stronger multi-process architecture built on sandboxing and site isolation to help defend against memory safety problems. Android-specific features can be written in Java or Kotlin. These languages are memory-safe in the common case. Similarly, we’re working on adding support to write Chrome code in Rust, which is also memory-safe.

Much of Chrome is sandboxed, but the sandbox still requires a core high-privilege “broker” process to coordinate communication and launch sandboxed processes. In Chrome, the broker is the browser process. The browser process is the source of truth that allows the rest of Chrome to be sandboxed and coordinates communication between the rest of the processes.

If an attacker is able to craft a malicious input to the browser process that exploits a bug and allows the attacker to achieve remote code execution (RCE) in the browser process, that would effectively give the attacker full control of the victim’s Chrome browser and potentially the rest of the device. Conversely, if an attacker achieves RCE in a sandboxed process, such as a renderer, the attacker’s capabilities are extremely limited. The attacker cannot reach outside of the sandbox unless they can additionally exploit the sandbox itself.

Without sandboxing, which limits the actions an attacker can take, and without memory safety, which removes the ability of a bug to disrupt the intended control flow of the program, the rule of two requires that the browser process does not handle untrustworthy inputs. The relative risks between sandboxed processes and the browser process are why the browser process is only allowed to parse trustworthy inputs and specific IPC messages.

Trustworthy inputs are defined extremely strictly: A “trustworthy source” means that Chrome can prove that the data comes from Google. Effectively, this means that in situations where the browser process needs access to data from external sources, it must be read from Google servers. We can cryptographically prove that data came from Google servers if that data comes from:

The component updater and the variations framework are services specific to Chrome used to ship data-only updates and configuration information. These services both use asymmetric cryptography to authenticate their data, and the public key used to verify data sent by these services is shipped in Chrome.

However, Chrome is a feature-filled browser with many different use cases, and many different features beyond just updating itself. Certain features, such as Sign-In and the Discover Feed, need to communicate with Google. For features like this, that communication can be considered trustworthy if it comes from a pinned HTTPS server.

When Chrome connects to an HTTPS server, the server says “a 3rd party you trust (a certification authority; CA) has vouched for my identity.” It does this by presenting a certificate issued by a trusted certification authority. Chrome verifies the certificate before continuing. The modern web necessarily has a lot of CAs, all of whom can provide authentication for any website. To further ensure that the Chrome browser process is communicating with a trustworthy Google server we want to verify something more: whether a specific CA is vouching for the server. We do this by building a map of sites → expected CAs directly into Chrome. We call this key pinning. We call the map the pin set.

What is Key Pinning?

Key pinning was born as a defense against real attacks seen in the wild: attackers who can trick a CA to issue a seemingly-valid certificate for a server, and then the attacker can impersonate that server. This happened to Google in 2011, when the DigiNotar certification authority was compromised and used to issue malicious certificates for Google services. To defend against this risk, Chrome contains a pin set for all Google properties, and we only consider an HTTPS input trustworthy if it’s authenticated using a key in this pin set. This protects against malicious certificate issuance by third parties.

Key pinning can be brittle, and is rarely worth the risks. Allowing the pin set to get out of date can lead to locking users out of a website or other services, potentially permanently. Whenever pinning, it’s important to have safety-valves such as not enforcing pinning (i.e. failing open) when the pins haven’t been updated recently, including a “backup” key pin, and having fallback mechanisms for bootstrapping. It’s hard for individual sites to manage all of these mechanisms, which is why dynamic pinning over HTTPS (HPKP) was deprecated. Key pinning is still an important tool for some use cases, however, where there’s high-privilege communication that needs to happen between a client and server that are operated by the same entity, such as web browsers, automatic software updates, and package managers.

Security Benefits of Key Pinning in Chrome, Now on Android

By pinning in Chrome, we can protect users from CA compromise. We take steps to prevent an out-of-date pinset from unnecessarily blocking users from accessing Google or Google’s services. As both a browser vendor and site operator, however, we have additional tools to ensure we keep our pin sets up to date—if we use a new key or a new domain, we can add it to the pin set in Chrome at the same time. In our original implementation of pinning, the pin set is directly compiled into Chrome and updating the pin set requires updating the entire Chrome binary. To make sure that users of old versions of Chrome can still talk to Google, pinning isn’t enforced if Chrome detects that it is more than 10 weeks old.

Historically, Chrome enforced the age limit by comparing the current time to the build timestamp in the Chrome binary. Chrome did not enforce pinning on Android because the build timestamp on Android wasn’t always reflective of the age of the Chrome pinset, which meant that the chance of a false positive pin mismatch was higher.

Without enforcing pins on Android, Chrome was limiting the ways engineers could build features that comply with the rule of two. To remove this limitation, we built an improved mechanism for distributing the built-in pin set to Chrome installs, including Android devices. Chrome still contains a built-in pin set compiled into the binary. However, we now additionally distribute the pin set via the component updater, which is a mechanism for Chrome to dynamically push out data-only updates to all Chrome installs without requiring a full Chrome update or restart. The component contains the latest version of the built-in pin set, as well as the certificate transparency log list and the contents of the Chrome Root Store. This means that even if Chrome is out of date, it can still receive updates to the pin set. The component also includes the timestamp the pin list was last updated, rather than relying on build timestamp. This drastically reduces the false positive risk of enabling key pinning on Android.

After we moved the pin set to component updater, we were able to do a slow rollout of pinning enforcement on Android. We determined that the false positive risk was now in line with desktop platforms, and enabled key pinning enforcement by default since Chrome 106, released in September 2022.

This change has been entirely invisible to users of Chrome. While not all of the changes we make in Chrome are flashy, we’re constantly working behind the scenes to keep Chrome as secure as possible and we’re excited to bring this protection to Android.

/by