{"id":97524,"date":"2021-09-27T10:00:13","date_gmt":"2021-09-27T17:00:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.microsoft.com\/en-us\/security\/blog\/?p=97524"},"modified":"2023-08-10T14:47:18","modified_gmt":"2023-08-10T21:47:18","slug":"a-guide-to-combatting-human-operated-ransomware-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.microsoft.com\/en-us\/security\/blog\/2021\/09\/27\/a-guide-to-combatting-human-operated-ransomware-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"A guide to combatting human-operated ransomware: Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"
This blog is part two of a two-part series focused on how Microsoft DART helps customers with human-operated ransomware. For more guidance on human-operated ransomware and how to defend against these extortion-based attacks, refer to our human-operated ransomware docs page<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n In part one<\/a> of this blog series, we described the process and execution used in our customer engagements to provide perspective on the unique issues and challenges regarding human-operated ransomware. We also explained how Microsoft\u2019s Detection and Response Team (DART) leverages Microsoft solutions to help combat this threat. In this post, we will tackle the risks of human-operated ransomware and detail DART\u2019s security recommendations for tactical containment actions and post-incident activities in the event of an attack.<\/p>\n Beyond the immediate threat of file encryption, there are several additional risks associated with human-operated ransomware events, some of which may be observed well after an investigation and the removal of the threat from the network. These risks include:<\/p>\n Immediate actions need to be taken to reduce the blast radius of a ransomware event. In these cases, disabling portions of the network may feel like a self-inflicted denial of service, but they are necessary to counter the ransomware spread. The resulting business disruption may become public. If any affected systems are public-facing, it may require crisis communications.<\/p>\n Most attackers are highly motivated to monetize their access to your network. In several cases investigated by DART, an attacker has performed reconnaissance for sensitive files (like contracts, financial documents, and internal communications), copied this data, and exfiltrated it before any ransomware was dropped. Taking this information before ransomware is deployed allows the attacker to have data to sell, leak, or simply show as proof that the attacker has had access to sensitive files.<\/p>\n Data theft by ransomware operators opens an organization to extortion. It is not uncommon for threat actors to demand payment to prevent the leak of stolen data. These threats are typically sent via email with sample stolen documents attached as proof of possession. In some cases where DART has observed this activity, a threat actor accessed a cloud-based email account that was not protected by multifactor authentication<\/a> (MFA) and sent threatening emails to the board of directors. The threat of extortion is still high, even when the threat actors are unsuccessful at deploying ransomware.<\/p>\n At DART, we often get asked, \u201cCan you tell us which data was stolen?\u201d To prove this requires concrete evidence, which would be either:<\/p>\n Or<\/p>\n To further their monetization efforts, attackers are also often observed deploying coin miners in compromised networks. This is a low-effort method to generate additional income from a victim organization when data theft or extortion are insufficient for the attacker. Depending on the attacker\u2019s motivation, additional malware may be deployed that would allow other criminals to gain access to the environment. This access is monetized, and the sale of compromised network access is common in most human-operated ransomware cases, performed after the primary attacker has obtained what they initially sought.<\/p>\n The risk of brand damage reputation is difficult to assess in the aftermath of a human-operated ransomware event. The reputation of an organization\u2019s brand may include lost customer and shareholder trust and loyalty, as well as current and future business. The risk of brand damage reputation is difficult to assess in the aftermath of a human-operated ransomware event. Reputational damage may be more costly and require longer-term solutions than the response to the human-operated ransomware event.<\/p>\n Potential reporting requirements are another organizational risk depending on the industry or affiliation. This may include compliance or regulatory reporting in cases where sensitive financial information or personally identifiable information (PII) is stolen. Fines and loss of accreditation may further damage an organization\u2019s reputation.<\/p>\n Containment can only happen once we determine what needs to be contained. In the case of ransomware, the adversary\u2019s goal is to obtain credentials that allow administrative control over a highly available server and then deploy the ransomware. In some cases, the threat actor identifies sensitive data and exfiltrates it to a location they control.<\/p>\n Tactical recovery will be unique for each customer and tailored to the customer\u2019s environment, industry, and level of IT expertise and experience. The steps outlined below are recommended for short-term and tactical containment steps your organization can take. To learn more about securing privileged access<\/a> for long-term guidance, visit our securing privileged access docs page. For a comprehensive view of ransomware and extortion and how to protect your organization, you can refer to our human-operated ransomware docs page<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Figure 1. Containment steps that can be done concurrently as new vectors are discovered.<\/em><\/p>\n After the first step of containment (assessing the scope of the situation), the second step is to preserve existing systems:<\/p>\n These two steps can be done concurrently as new vectors are discovered. Disable those vectors and then try to find a known good system to isolate from the network.<\/p>\n Other tactical containment actions can be accomplished:<\/p>\n DART sometimes finds customers who are running mission critical systems on legacy operating systems (some as old as Windows NT 4) and applications, all on legacy hardware. This is one of the riskiest configurations possible\u2014not only are these operating systems and applications insecure, if that hardware fails, backups typically cannot be restored on modern hardware. Unless replacement legacy hardware is available, these applications will cease to function.<\/p>\n DART recommends implementing the following security recommendations and best practices after each incident.<\/p>\n Using the privileged access model<\/a> (formerly known as the tiered administration model) enhances Azure AD\u2019s security posture. This involves:<\/p>\n By default, Microsoft Windows and Active Directory have no centralized management of local administrative accounts on workstations and member servers. This usually results in a common password that is given for all these local accounts, or at the very least in groups of machines. This enables would-be attackers to compromise one local administrator account, and then use that account to gain access to other workstations or servers in the organization.<\/p>\n Microsoft\u2019s Local Administrator Password Solution<\/a> (LAPS) mitigates this by using a Group Policy client-side extension that changes the local administrative password at regular intervals on workstations and servers according to the policy set. Each of these passwords are different and stored as an attribute in the Active Directory computer object. This attribute can be retrieved from a simple client application, depending on the permissions assigned to that attribute.<\/p>\n LAPS requires the Active Directory schema to be extended to allow for the additional attribute, the LAPS Group Policy templates to be installed, and a small client-side extension to be installed on every workstation and member server to provide the client-side functionality.<\/p>\n Download LAPS from the official Microsoft Download Center<\/a>.<\/p>\n Each ransomware case is different and there is no one-size-fits-all approach. But there are things you can do now to harden your environment and prepare for a worst-case scenario. Although, these changes may impact how your organization currently works, consider the risk of not implementing them now versus dealing with a potential human-operated ransomware event. An organization that has fallen victim to a ransomware attack should keep the crucial human element in mind\u2014real people are responding to the incident at the end of the day.<\/p>\n Want to learn more about DART? Read our past blog posts<\/a>.<\/p>\n To learn more about Microsoft Security solutions, visit our website<\/a>. Bookmark the Security blog<\/a> to keep up with our expert coverage on security matters. Also, follow us at @MSFTSecurity<\/a> for the latest news and updates on cybersecurity.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In this post, we will tackle the risks of human-operated ransomware and detail DART\u2019s security recommendations for tactical containment actions and post-incident activities in the event of an attack. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":106,"featured_media":97659,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ep_exclude_from_search":false,"_classifai_error":"","footnotes":""},"content-type":[3663],"topic":[3674,3687],"products":[],"threat-intelligence":[3735],"tags":[3909,3776],"coauthors":[2064],"class_list":["post-97524","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","content-type-research","topic-incident-response","topic-threat-intelligence","threat-intelligence-ransomware","tag-extortion","tag-human-operated-ransomware"],"yoast_head":"\nUnderstanding the risks of human-operated ransomware<\/h2>\n
1. Disruption of business operations<\/h3>\n
2. Data theft<\/h3>\n
3. Extortion<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
4. Follow-on attacks<\/h3>\n
5. Reputational damage<\/h3>\n
6. Compliance and regulatory reporting<\/h3>\n
Recommendations and best practices<\/h2>\n
Containment<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
Post-incident activities<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
Privileged access model (PAM)<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Local Administrative Password Solution (LAPS)<\/h3>\n
Harden your environment<\/h2>\n
Learn more<\/h2>\n