New Linux-Based Ransomware Targets VMware Servers (csoonline.com) 36
"Researchers at Trend Micro have discovered some new Linux-based ransomware that's being used to attack VMware ESXi servers," reports CSO Online. (They describe the ESXi servers as "a bare-metal hypervisor for creating and running several virtual machines that share the same hard drive storage.")
Called Cheerscrypt, the bad app is following in the footsteps of other ransomware programs — such as LockBit, Hive and RansomEXX — that have found ESXi an efficient way to infect many computers at once with malicious payloads.
Roger Grimes, a defense evangelist with security awareness training provider KnowBe4, explains that most of the world's organizations operate using VMware virtual machines. "It makes the job of ransomware attackers far easier because they can encrypt one server — the VMware server — and then encrypt every guest VM it contains. One compromise and encryption command can easily encrypt dozens to hundreds of other virtually run computers all at once."
"Most VM shops use some sort of VM backup product to back up all guest servers, so finding and deleting or corrupting one backup repository kills the backup image for all the hosted guest servers all at once," Grimes adds....
The gang behind Cheerscrypt uses a "double extortion" technique to extract money from its targets, the researchers explain. "Security Alert!!!" the attackers' ransom message declares. "We hacked your company successfully. All files have been stolen and encrypted by us. If you want to restore your files or avoid file leaks, please contact us."
Roger Grimes, a defense evangelist with security awareness training provider KnowBe4, explains that most of the world's organizations operate using VMware virtual machines. "It makes the job of ransomware attackers far easier because they can encrypt one server — the VMware server — and then encrypt every guest VM it contains. One compromise and encryption command can easily encrypt dozens to hundreds of other virtually run computers all at once."
"Most VM shops use some sort of VM backup product to back up all guest servers, so finding and deleting or corrupting one backup repository kills the backup image for all the hosted guest servers all at once," Grimes adds....
The gang behind Cheerscrypt uses a "double extortion" technique to extract money from its targets, the researchers explain. "Security Alert!!!" the attackers' ransom message declares. "We hacked your company successfully. All files have been stolen and encrypted by us. If you want to restore your files or avoid file leaks, please contact us."
We use VMware for snapshots, but⦠(Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
backups need to link into VMware to do snapshots / (Score:2)
backups need to link into VMware to do snapshots / diff backups. You don't want to do FULL IMAGE BACKUP's each night.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like GP's storage assets are not in the VMWare realm, and presumably snapshotted from the storage realm. I always thought that had risks compared to the hypervisor snapshots.
Re:backups need to link into VMware to do snapshot (Score:4, Informative)
The only think we really treat differently is databases. Those are snapshotted in a consistent way with all servers across an application, so we can recover the entire stack as needed. To do the snapshots, we have a small server that curls the MOB in vCenter to get all VMs and in a foreach, we call the snapshot feature, without memory. This kicks off a task that is non-blocking, so we can call for a lot of snapshots very quick (200 or so VMs in under a minute). For most VMs we just delete the snapshots the following day, and that seems to work just fine. There are handful where we have custom timers to delete the snapshots during known luls in activity, but we only did that in a precaution against merge operations that can be intense on disk iops at times. Overall, it works really well, and the replica that the entire system syncs to in a remote location is totally isolated, save for the port needed to ncat send / receive the storage systems' incremental snapshots. Those we consider sacred because all else can be recreated, but that is our last-line of defense before having to go to its' tape copy, at the remote location.
This scheme has saved us a lot of grief and heartache. Ransomware attacks on VMs that users dial into are easily recovered and then mitigated. So are malicious file deletions by exiting employees.
Re: backups need to link into VMware to do snapsho (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Unless your backups are WORM or offline, you are at risk here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A server that does not allow changes or overwrites once a file has been transferred qualifies as WORM in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
I've learned the hard way that nothing is really "backed up" unless there are 3 copies and at least of those is offsite (preferably two).
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Does BSD still have useful mass? (Score:1)
Linux in my book is just about mainstream. I've been using it just about exclusively for anything mission-critical for about 2 decades now. However, 10-12 years ago there was a nice little fight/competition going on between BSD and Linux about who's the coolest kid on the block. Ever since Linux got into the epic SystemD controversy I haven't heard much from BSD. With Linux becoming more mainstream and perhaps an easyer target for stacks built around it, I'm always tracking alternatives.
Which has me wonderi
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Can’t speak on a professional level but my personal firewall/server has always been OpenBSD. Disk i/o isn’t great but I love how minimal the install is. You only add what you need. The documentation is top notch and always up to date. Stable as ever and only ever reboot for updates.
Re: (Score:2)
The xBSDs are sort-of low-key but they are far from gone or dying. They are dependent on donations AFAIK, but this seems to work. Also, by now with some of the mess going on with Linux, they provide a fallback in case we have to abandon Linux. Does not seem to be very likely, but definitely possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Could I switch from my webdev system of choice - LAMP - to BAMP and not miss anything?
This I can answer, and the answer is yes. Frankly you don't miss much even moving to WAMP as far as the server stuff goes.
However FreeBSD doesn't actually have anything over Linux any more really, so it's hard to make a case for it. OpenBSD may be more secure, so if what you want is a very classic server you might think about that and see if it supports your hardware. Linux is however the modern feature and performance champ in pretty much all areas.
If all you care about is to avoid systemd on a server, ins
Re: (Score:2)
However FreeBSD doesn't actually have anything over Linux any more really, so it's hard to make a case for it.
So it's your opinion that Linux has finally caught up to FreeBSD so drop FreeBSD?
I've used both for around 30 years so far so I don't particularly favor one over the other in general. Each has it's pluses and minuses. One thing about the BSDs is that they are consistent. Many an upgrade has broken some of my Linux installations. I haven't had one BSD upgrade that broke. I moved one system from bare metal to a VM then to a jail and then back to bare metal. This system has been upgraded since 2004. I haven't
Re: (Score:2)
I've done lots of successful upgrades of Debian and Ubuntu, not so much others. I had one Ubuntu system go through around five or six successful successive upgrades.
I do think systemd is crap. I find it usually doesn't cause too many problems when the use case is very simple, but that's not much comfort as the whole point of it was supposed to be to make the complex stuff simple.
Re: (Score:1)
However FreeBSD doesn't actually have anything over Linux any more really, so it's hard to make a case for it.
So it's your opinion that Linux has finally caught up to FreeBSD so drop FreeBSD?
I've used both for around 30 years so far so I don't particularly favor one over the other in general. Each has it's pluses and minuses. One thing about the BSDs is that they are consistent. Many an upgrade has broken some of my Linux installations. I haven't had one BSD upgrade that broke. I moved one system from bare metal to a VM then to a jail and then back to bare metal. This system has been upgraded since 2004. I haven't had a linux distro upgrade successfully past the lifespan of the hardware.
One negative thing about Linux is systemd. You never know if an upgrade will break something. Every time I start getting comfortable along comes an update and services fails to start. But that's just my $.02.
BSD has to catch up to Linux, not the other way around. It's almost two decades behind now. Just consider mandatory access controls. That's selinux. BSD has nothing like that. That's a major problem for BSD and one I don't think they'll ever catch up on.
Let me be to the point. BSD is still a nice operating system for beginners. I learned a lot from it back when it was released in the late 1980s. Someone that wants to hack around with the kernel. Create a new driver. Things like that. It allows you to do thi
https://esxi-patches.v-front.de (Score:2)
https://esxi-patches.v-front.d... [v-front.de]
ESXi is a customeized Linux (Score:2)
Just in case anybody was wondering. There is basically no actual "bare metal" Hypervisor out there these days.
That said, backup needs to be ransomware-proof these days. That means WORM functionality and 2FA and a separate credential for logging into the backup storage servers. Professional backup software should support WORM these days and you can also roll your own, e.g. by using sftp and a demon that moves files after transfer or changes user and sets them read-only. Not that hard. Does save your beacon w
WORM? We all hope for WORMTBIAPNR (Score:2)
Well, you hope your backups are "write once, readABLE many times but in actual practice, never read.*"
In other words, you hope you never need to use your backups.
* except of course for the mandatory read-after-write verification(s).
ESXi is NOT Linux (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not linux. If it was, Linux is GPL licensed and would require release of the ESXi source code. And ESXi source is not out there.
The drivers are based on Linux drivers. They had to be modified to work with ESXi. That makes them derivative of the GPL drivers and the code is out there.
If ESXi seems Linuxy to you, so would Cygwin and MacOSX which run on Windows and a BSD kernel on top of MACH.
Re: (Score:2)
ESXi had been using the Linux kernel and VMware was sued over it [slashdot.org].
Today VMware claims a project is underway to create a bespoke kernel. It sure still seems to look and feel like Linux thus far.
Re: (Score:2)
There is basically no actual "bare metal" Hypervisor out there these days.
Microsoft Hyper-V Server has entered the chat.
Content-Free Article? (Score:3)
I was in a hurry, so maybe I missed it, but there seems to be no indicator of how an attacker gets into the Linux system to begin with. The article strongly implies that an attacker has to already have shell access, and that the encryption program runs with the permissions of the user that owns the shell. But there is no mention of any exploit that gets the initial required shell access to begin with.
That's the only interesting part of the entire story, and there seems to be zero information about it. Barring that, the entire story can be summed as as: local user runs program.
Broadcom offer now "on hold"? (Score:3)
Let me guess (Score:2)
These VMWARE instances, which are running Linux, are hosted on Microsoft Windows?
Or is it just that VMWARE or the backup system for it, while hosted on Linux, are Swiss cheese?
What is the method of infection? (Score:2)
How does this Linux-based ransomware get onto the computer in the first place.
link [trendmicro.com]: “The ransomware requires an input parameter specifying the path to encrypt so that it can proceed to its Infection routine.”
Nope, still not any wiser.
Re: (Score:1)
If you VMWare host can be compromised ... (Score:2)
...Then it can be by this, if not then you are OK ...
In other news if it can be compromised then it can be compromised by a long list of ransomware and other hackware so....perhaps you should secure it anyway
Sounds like lax admins (Score:1)
They talk about 2FA as being the solution to this. As usual I'm not finding any remote vulnerability for this problem other than a password that was compromised and that allowed access to the esxi host. So no hack, it's a normal authenticated access. Did I miss the wide open door?