June 12, 2015 By Jaikumar Vijayan 3 min read

The Duqu 2.0 malware tool used in the recently disclosed attack against security vendor Kaspersky Lab shows a level of sophistication rarely seen in malicious software, security researchers said.

Duqu 2.0: State-of-the-Art Malware

On June 10, Kaspersky Lab disclosed that it had recently discovered and mitigated what CEO Eugene Kaspersky described on Forbes as a very well-planned and sophisticated attack on its networks, possibly carried out by a state-sponsored group. The threat actors behind the attack managed to gain access to data on Kaspersky’s research and development projects and new technologies but did not cause any disruption to the company’s products or services.

Enterprises should take note of the enormous skills and resources that adversaries have begun putting into tools for breaking into networks and stealing data, or for spying, corporate espionage and other malicious purposes, researchers cautioned.

“It’s safe to say that Duqu 2.0 represents both the state-of-the-art and the minimum bar for cyber operations,” Tod Beardsley, engineering manager at Rapid7, told Infosecurity Magazine. The malware is “precisely where we should expect any serious national cyber offensive capability to be.”

Lateral Movement

A technical paper released by Kaspersky Lab said the initial attack began with the targeting of one of its employees in the Asia-Pacific region. The attackers appear to have used spear phishing to gain access to the employee’s computer and infect it through what was most likely a zero-day exploit.

They then exploited another zero-day vulnerability in several versions of Microsoft Windows Server software (CVE-2014-6324) to gain domain administrator privileges and infect other systems on the company’s networks using Windows Installer (MSI) files. MSI is typically used to distribute software on remote systems but in this case was used by the attackers to move laterally across Kaspersky’s network. The Microsoft vulnerability was patched in November 2014 but was unknown at the time of this attack.

The cyberattack did not leave behind any disk files, nor did it change any system settings. Instead, the malware, which was used to steal data, resided entirely in memory, making it almost impossible to detect, Kaspersky Lab noted in its report.

“Its ‘persistence mechanism’ (or, rather, its absence) is quite brilliant,” Kaspersky added in Forbes. The tactics used in the strike suggested that some very serious thinking, effort and funds were put into developing the Duqu 2.0 campaign, he said.

The espionage tool applied in the Kaspersky attack appears to have been used to assault several other organizations as well, security vendor Symantec said in a report. Symantec’s assessment of the malware aligns with Kaspersky’s analysis that Duqu 2.0 is an evolution of the older Duqu worm, the company said.

A Duqu Variant

Duqu, which some have compared to the Stuxnet worm used in the attack on Iran’s nuclear power plant in Natanz, was first discovered in 2011. The malware was used for highly targeted intelligence-gathering purposes and contained a lot of code from the original Stuxnet malware.

Both Duqu and its latest iteration share a lot of the same code, Kaspersky and Symantec noted in their respective analysis of the malware. But the new Duqu has two variants: One of them appears to be a basic back door that is designed to give attackers an initial foothold on a victim network; the second variant contains multiple modules that allow attackers to gather system information, steal data, do network discovery, infect other computers and communicate with command-and-control servers. It is this variant that is deployed on systems deemed of interest to the attackers, Symantec said.

The emergence of tools like the new Duqu 2.0 highlight the challenges companies face in defending against modern malware. If organizations don’t have the tools or response plans in place to respond to a long-term campaign similar to Duqu 2.0, they are setting themselves up for data breaches, compromises and other dangerous situations.

More from

Airplane cybersecurity: Past, present, future

4 min read - With most aviation processes now digitized, airlines and the aviation industry as a whole must prioritize cybersecurity. If a cyber criminal launches an attack that affects a system involved in aviation — either an airline’s system or a third-party vendor — the entire process, from safety to passenger comfort, may be impacted.To improve security in the aviation industry, the FAA recently proposed new rules to tighten cybersecurity on airplanes. These rules would “protect the equipment, systems and networks of transport…

Protecting your digital assets from non-human identity attacks

4 min read - Untethered data accessibility and workflow automation are now foundational elements of most digital infrastructures. With the right applications and protocols in place, businesses no longer need to feel restricted by their lack of manpower or technical capabilities — machines are now filling those gaps.The use of non-human identities (NHIs) to power business-critical applications — especially those used in cloud computing environments or when facilitating service-to-service connections — has opened the doors for seamless operational efficiency. Unfortunately, these doors aren’t the…

Communication platforms play a major role in data breach risks

4 min read - Every online activity or task brings at least some level of cybersecurity risk, but some have more risk than others. Kiteworks Sensitive Content Communications Report found that this is especially true when it comes to using communication tools.When it comes to cybersecurity, communicating means more than just talking to another person; it includes any activity where you are transferring data from one point online to another. Companies use a wide range of different types of tools to communicate, including email,…

Topic updates

Get email updates and stay ahead of the latest threats to the security landscape, thought leadership and research.
Subscribe today