Why hasn’t ICS-CERT or some other CERT or the security vendors issuing bulletins announced publicly the three ICS vendors that were distributing malware with their ICS software and the energy sector websites redirecting to a malware delivering site?
It’s baffling. Perhaps the security vendors have a valid profit motive for keeping it secret, but the CERT’s are largely in place to aggregate and spread this information. I’m told the information is in the US-CERT Secure Portal, but this is a terrible way of alerting the affected asset owners.
If the names of the vendors that unwittingly spread Havex were made public, the wide coverage would likely reach most of the affected asset owners.
It is also regrettable that most of the ICS vendors involved in the Havex distribution have not come clean on their web site to warn their customers, more on this below.
Next: The Hype
For these attacks to have a significant impact on the US or other countries’ energy sector the vendors distributing the software with malware would have to a good size client list in the sector. (And we would have to make the leap that asset owners actually update software)
A profile of the compromised vendors’ customers would help understand how widespread the impact is and perhaps what specific asset owner, sector or country is being targeted. So who are the compromised vendors?
MB Connect Line
Michael Toecker quickly identified MB Connect Line as one of the vendors by looking at some public malware samples.
This is likely company #3 in the Symantec post. The MB Connect Line site states wind turbines and biogas plants, along with other energy infrastructure systems are the applications for their products. Ironically they also highlight their mbEagle product, secure detection of Stuxnet and other manipulations, and mbSECBOX, security for S7 PLCs. We also have a few independent sources confirming MB Connect Line is the German company.
This is a very small company outside of Stuttgart trying to gain a foothold providing remote access solutions in tdistributed energy resources. The impact to the critical infrastructure of this company distributing malware along with their software would be minimal in Europe, and minuscule in the US.
I could not find any mention on the MB Connect Line site that they had unknowingly distributed Havex and what action customers should take.
Search for “VPN access to PLCs” and the first response was eWON in Belgium. Multiple other trusted sources independently told us or confirmed that #1 in the Symantec post was eWON.
We have never seen this company’s products in the US. Their impact to the US energy sector would be minimal. Perhaps they could have an impact in Europe. We will ask around with our European friends and find out more. It is clearly not one of the major vendors that would have a widespread impact.
eWON disclosed the website breach back on January 30th (note the 250 download number matches Symantec’s description), but they did not appear to know the OPC aspect of the Trojan and have not issued an update now that it is high profile.
The F-Secure article stated that the three vendors were in Germany, Belgium and Switzerland, so the last affected vendor is a Swiss “manufacturer of specialist PLC type devices”. We eventually found the name of the vendor, but not in a way that we can disclose at this time.
If our sources are correct, this company would have a smaller impact on energy sector than eWON or MB Connect Line. There is also no notice of the Havex distribution on their site.
Energy Related Site Redirects
Symantec describes the other avenue of infection as:
comprising a number of energy-related websites and injecting an iframe into each which redirected visitors to another compromised legitimate website hosting the Lightsout exploit kit.
Symantec provides a redacted list, on page 15 of their report, of five “energy control system” companies and six “energy” companies that were redirecting visitors to a compromised site. These companies were in France, India, Italy and Norway.
Again it would be helpful if these energy control system and energy sites were made public so asset owners could be alerted that they may have been compromised. We do not know these sites, but we have been told they are not big or even medium players in the energy sector. They are closer to a MB Connect Line or eWON rather than an ABB or Siemens.
A few sentences out of longer articles from Symantec and F-Secure, mixed with some selected quotes from ICSsec pundits, and combined with an absence of information on what software and sites were compromised has led to the hype in the press.
The three ICS vendors distributing software with Havex are terrible watering holes if you want to attack the US energy sector and not great watering holes even for European energy sector. A couple of possibilities:
- The attacker was going after a specific target that the attacker knew was going to use the compromised ICS software. Note I said going to use, not is using. The attacker needed the target to download the compromised software, and it is still rare for asset owners to update software.
- The attacker was trying a proof of concept attack. How effective could this software be at finding and enumerating OPC servers? An attacker might want to know this before they compromised more popular energy sector software being deployed in their actual target organizations.
- ??? who knows ??? The key is the customer base of these three companies. While small, perhaps they had significant penetration in a sector in a country. Take a look at the intersection of the MB Connect Line, eWON and Swiss company’s customer lists.
The ICS Portion of the Attack
The Havex code itself is highly interesting for the ICS community because it is only the second publicly acknowledged occurrence of an attack using the insecure by design ICS protocols as part of the attack. I’m wary of the early returns fully understanding the impact of the ICS code, but it is safe to say now that it is at least doing some identification and enumeration of OPC servers.
While OPC can be used for monitoring and control, it rarely is in critical infrastructure or any SCADA or DCS of any size for a variety of performance and historical reasons. Perhaps that will change with OPC UA in the future, but today you see it used primarily for passing data to and from systems from different manufacturers. For example, the OPC interface is used over 50% of the time to get data in and out of the very popular OSISoft PI Server even though OSIsoft has 100′s of interfaces.
Attacking OPC servers can be a good way to get through the corporate/ICS security perimeter and also to jump from ICS to ICS. It is a good target.
One last note … the ICS-CERT advisory states:
ICS-CERT testing has determined that the Havex payload has caused multiple common OPC platforms to intermittently crash. This could cause a denial of service effect on applications reliant on OPC communications.
This may be nothing more than poor code quality of the OPC servers they are testing. We have personal experience and seen multiple S4 talks that show how easy it is to crash an OPC server.
Image by James Marvin Philips