Refine Search
Threat Signal Report
Latest Joint Technical Alert from Multiple Agencies - “FASTCash 2.0: North Korea's BeagleBoyz Robbing Banks.”
Description
Today, the United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in conjunction with the Department of the Treasury (TREASURY), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) released a joint Technical Alert that have attributed malicious cyber activity to the North Korean government.
The Technical Alert provides detailed analysis of North Korean government activity in an automated teller machine (ATM) cash-out scheme-referred to by the U.S. Government as "FASTCash 2.0: North Korea's BeagleBoyz Robbing Banks." "BeagleBoyz" is a newly identified group that is a subset of activity by the threat actors known as HIDDEN COBRA/LAZARUS/APT 38. In addition to the release of the joint Technical Alert, three Malware Analysis Reports (MAR) were released as well and they are:
MAR-10301706.-1.v1 - 4 samples (ECCENTRICBANDWAGON)
MAR-10301706.-2..v1 - 6 samples (VIVACIOUSGIFT)
MAR-10257062.-1.v2 - 3 samples (FASTCASH)
Why is Hidden Cobra Significant? Also, is this Hidden Cobra Renamed?
HIDDEN COBRA has been linked to multiple high-profile, financially-motivated attacks in various parts of the world - some of which have caused massive infrastructure disruptions. Notable attacks include the 2014 attack on a major entertainment company and a 2016 Bangladeshi financial institution heist that almost netted nearly $1 Billion (USD) for the attackers. Had it not been for a misspelling in an instruction that caused a bank to flag and block thirty transactions, HIDDEN COBRA would have pulled off a heist unlike any other. Although HIDDEN COBRA failed in their attempt, they were still able to net around 81 million dollars in total.
The most recent and most notable attack attributed to HIDDEN COBRA was the Wannacry Ransomware attack, which resulted in massive disruption and damage worldwide to numerous organizations, especially manufacturers. Various estimates of the impact were in the hundreds of millions of dollars, with some estimates claiming billions. Other verticals which this group has targeted include critical infrastructures, entertainment, finance, healthcare, and telecommunication sectors across multiple countries.
According to the Technical Alert, the BeagleBoyz are now attributed by the United States government as being behind the $81 million heist from the financial institution in Bangladesh; whereas past reports linked it to HIDDEN COBRA/LAZARUS activity.
What is the Severity of Impact?
The severity should be regarded as MEDIUM, due to the fact that these campaigns have been observed in limited to targeted attacks.
It Appears that Some Malware Variants have Been Reported Before. Is this Correct?
Yes. Some of the malware variants in this report, such as CROWDEDFLOUNDER, HOPLIGHT, and ELECTRICFISH were previously reported back in February of this year, as well as in 2019.
What is the status of AV/IPS and Web Filtering coverage?
FortiGuard Labs deployed coverage to ensure protections were in place immediately after the announcement by the United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). CISA in coordination with the Cyber Threat Alliance (CTA), shared the samples ahead of the announcement with CTA partners to ensure that customers of CTA members were immediately protected.
Customers running the latest definition sets are protected by the following (AV) signatures:
W32/Alreay.BG!tr
W32/KeyLogger.BHFC!tr
W32/Banker.ADRO!tr.spy
W32/Alreay.A!tr
W32/Agent.0D36!tr
W64/Agent.AP!tr
W32/Generic!tr
W64/Banker.AX!tr.spy
W32/Banker.ADRO!tr.bdr
W64/Agent.AP!tr
W32/Alreay.BB!tr
Customers running the latest definition sets are protected by the following (IPS) signatures:
ElectricFish.Tunneling.Tool
Definitions
Traffic Light Protocol
| Color | When Should it Be used? | How may it be shared? |
|---|---|---|
TLP: REDNot for disclosure, restricted to participants only. |
Sources may use TLP:RED when information cannot be effectively acted upon by additional parties, and could lead to impacts on a party's privacy, reputation, or operations if misused. | Recipients may not share TLP:RED information with any parties outside of the specific exchange, meeting, or conversation in which it was originally disclosed. In the context of a meeting, for example, TLP:RED information is limited to those present at the meeting. In most circumstances, TLP:RED should be exchanged verbally or in person. |
TLP: AMBERLimited disclosure, restricted to participants’ organizations. |
Sources may use TLP:AMBER when information requires support to be effectively acted upon, yet carries risks to privacy, reputation, or operations if shared outside of the organizations involved. | Recipients may only share TLP:AMBER information with members of their own organization, and with clients or customers who need to know the information to protect themselves or prevent further harm. Sources are at liberty to specify additional intended limits of the sharing: these must be adhered to. |
TLP: GREENLimited disclosure, restricted to the community. |
Sources may use TLP:GREEN when information is useful for the awareness of all participating organizations as well as with peers within the broader community or sector. | Recipients may share TLP:GREEN information with peers and partner organizations within their sector or community, but not via publicly accessible channels. Information in this category can be circulated widely within a particular community. TLP:GREEN information may not be released outside of the community. |
TLP: WHITEDisclosure is not limited. |
Sources may use TLP:WHITE when information carries minimal or no foreseeable risk of misuse, in accordance with applicable rules and procedures for public release. | Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. |