Instagram Launches “Data Download” Tool To Let You Leave

Two weeks ago users called on Instagram to build an equivalent to Facebook’s “Download Your Information feature so if you wanted to leave for another photo sharing network, you could. The next day it announced this tool would be coming and now is rolling out to users. Instagram’s  “Data Download” feature can be accessed here or through the app’s privacy settings. It lets users export their photos, videos, archived Stories, profile, info, comments, and non-ephemeral messages, though it can take a few hours to days for your download to be ready.

The download contains you profile info, photos, videos, archived Stories (those posted after December 2017), your post and story captions, your uploaded contacts, the usernames of your followers and people you follow, Direct messages, non-ephemeral Direct message photos and videos, comments, Likes, searches, and settings.

The tool’s launch is necessary for Instagram to comply with the data portability rule in European Union’s GDPR privacy law that goes into effect on May 25th. But it’s also a reasonable concession. Instagram has become the dominant image sharing social network with over 800 million users. It shouldn’t need to lock up users’ data in order to keep them around.

Hackers Behind Healthcare Espionage Infect X-Ray and MRI Machines

Security researchers have uncovered a new hacking group that is aggressively targeting healthcare organizations and related sectors across the globe to conduct corporate espionage.

Dubbed "Orangeworm," the hacking group has been found installing a wormable trojan on machines hosting software used for controlling high-tech imaging devices, such as X-Ray and MRI machines, as well as machines used to assist patients in completing consent forms.

After getting into the victim's network, attackers install a trojan, dubbed Kwampirs, which opens a backdoor on the compromised computers, allowing attackers to remotely access equipment and steal sensitive data.

While decrypting, the Kwampirs malware inserts a randomly generated string into its main DLL payload in an attempt to evade hash-based detection. The malware also starts a service on the compromised systems to persist and restart after the system reboots.

Kwampirs then collects some basic information about the compromised computers and send it to the attackers to a remote command-and-control server, using which the group determines whether the hacked system is used by a researcher or a high-value target.

Besides health-care providers and pharmaceutical companies that account for nearly 40% of targets, Orangeworm has also launched attacks against other industries including information technology and manufacturing sectors, agriculture, and logistics.

City of Atlanta Ransomware Attack Proves Disastrously Expensive

Over the course of the last week, it has become apparent that the City of Atlanta, Georgia, has paid out nearly $3 million dollars in contracts to help its recovery from a ransomware attack on March 22, 2018 -- which (at the time of writing) is still without resolution.

Precise details on the Atlanta contracts are confused and confusing -- but two consistent elements are that SecureWorks is being paid $650,000 for emergency incident response services, and Ernst & Young is being paid $600,000 for advisory services for cyber incident response. The total for all the contracts appears to total roughly $2.7 million. The eventual cost will likely be more, since it doesn't include lost staff productivity nor the billings of a law firm reportedly charging Atlanta $485 per hour for partners, and $300 per hour for associates. The ransom demand was for around $51,000.

The ransomware used in the attack was SamSam. In February this year, SecureWorks published a report on SamSam and attributes it to a group it knows as Gold Lowell. Gold Lowell is unusual in its ransomware attacks since it typically compromises its victim networks in advance of encrypting any files. 

SecureWorks makes two specific points about Gold Lowell that might be pertinent to the Atlanta incident. Firstly, "In some cases where the victim paid the initial ransom, GOLD LOWELL revised the demand, significantly increasing the cost to decrypt the organization's files in an apparent attempt to capitalize on a victim's willingness to pay a ransom." Atlanta officials have always declined to comment on whether they paid, or attempted to pay, the ransom

Secondly, "GOLD LOWELL is motivated by financial gain, and there is no evidence of the threat actors using network access for espionage or data theft." Atlanta officials were quick to claim that no personal data was lost in the attack.

Also worth considering is the SamSam attack on Hancock Health reported in January this year. Hancock chose to pay a ransom of around $55,000, and recovered its systems within a few days. It later admitted that it would not have been able to recover from backups since the attackers -- which sound like the Gold Lowell group -- had previously compromised them. 

The extended dwell time by the Gold Lowell group prior to encrypting files and making a ransom demand would explain the extreme difficulty that Atlanta is experiencing in trying to recover from the attack. The Hancock incident suggests that rapid payment might have resulted in file recovery, but SecureWorks also suggests it might have led to a further demand.

There are also indications that Gold Lowell's dwell time could have been extensive and effective. According to WSB-TV, Atlanta officials had been warned months in advance that at least one server was infected with malware, and that in February it contacted a blacklisted IP address associated with known ransomware attacks. Whether the incidents are directly connected will only come out with forensic analysis.

However, the few facts that are known raises a very complex ethical issue. Atlanta seems to have chosen to pay nearly $3 million of taxpayer money rather than just $51,000, possibly on a point of principle. That principle is supported by law enforcement agencies around the world who advise that ransoms should not be paid. In this case, the sheer disparity between the cost of the ransom and the ransomware restitution (more than 50-to-1 and growing), all of which must be paid with someone else's money, makes it reasonable to question the decision.

Former SunTrust Employee Steals Details on 1.5 Million Customers

The employee appears to have stolen data from some of the company's contact lists, the company says. SunTrust is already informing impacted clients and is working with outside experts and coordinating with law enforcement on investigations.

The stolen information includes names, addresses, and phone numbers, along with certain account balances, as this was the data included in the contact lists, the company confirmed.

Personally identifying information such as social security numbers, account numbers, PINs, User IDs, passwords, or driver's license information wasn’t included in the lists.

“We apologize to clients who may have been affected by this. We have heightened our monitoring of accounts and increased other security measures. While we have not identified significant fraudulent activity, we will reinforce our promise to clients that they will not be held responsible for any loss on their accounts as a result,” Bill Rogers, SunTrust chairman and CEO, said.

Rogers also underlined that the company is focused on protecting its customers and that it is determined to help all SunTrust clients to combat the increasing concern about identity theft and fraud. SunTrust is now offering Identity Protection for all current and new consumer clients, the company announced.

Millions of Chrome Users Have Installed Malware Posing as Ad Blockers

As if trying to navigate your online privacy wasn’t complicated enough, it turns out the adblocker you installed on your browser may actually be malware.

Andrey Meshkov, the cofounder of ad-blocker AdGuard, recently got curious about the number of knock-off ad blocking extensions available for Google’s popular browser Chrome. These extensions were deliberately styled to look like legitimate, well-known ad blockers, but Meshkov wondered why they existed at all, so he downloaded one and took a look at the code.

Meshkov discovered that the AdRemover extension for Chrome—which had over 10 million users—had code hidden inside an image that was loaded from the remote command server, giving the extension creator the ability to change its functions without updating. This alone is against Google’s policy, and after Meshkov wrote about a few examples on AdGuard’s blog, many of which had millions of downloads, Chrome removed the extensions from the store. I reached out to Google, and a spokesperson confirmed that these extensions had been removed.

Though Meshkov didn’t immediately see what the extension was collecting data for, he said having this link to a remote server is dangerous because it could change your browser behavior in many ways. Meshkov said it could alter the appearance of pages, scrape information from the user, or load additional extensions that a user hasn’t installed.

So what should you do when all the sketchy extensions look just like the real deal? Meshkov recommended looking up the developer website for the extension you want, and they’ll have a link to the store where you can install it. And just be careful about what you install on your browser.