Espionage, the art of covert information gathering, is an ancient practice that has evolved with each generation. The core drivers of espionage stem from various motives, including national interests, corporate competition, and technological advancements. Here’s a closer look at why espionage is so persistent across different domains and how it has adapted to the digital age.
1. Nation-State Espionage
Nation-states engage in espionage to gain strategic advantages in military and political arenas. National intelligence agencies like the CIA (U.S.) and the former KGB (Soviet Union) serve as prime examples of state-sponsored espionage. These agencies aim to collect sensitive information about other countries to improve national security, economic strength, and influence in global negotiations.
For example, knowing the negotiation strategies or weaknesses of an adversary can significantly influence outcomes, whether in trade, diplomacy, or even military strategy. Cyber-espionage has become a key component, as demonstrated by groups like Sandstorm, which have targeted critical infrastructure in adversarial nations, including the Ukrainian power grid in 2015.
2. Industrial Espionage
Corporate espionage, or industrial spying, involves companies spying on one another to gain competitive advantages. Research and development (R&D) is costly, time-intensive, and uncertain, yet essential for innovation. Some corporations, unwilling to bear these costs, opt to obtain proprietary information or trade secrets from competitors. While this is illegal in most countries, the financial gain can outweigh the legal risks, prompting corporations to factor in potential fines or penalties as a cost of doing business. High-profile cases like China’s involvement in corporate espionage against American tech firms exemplify how these operations are conducted on a global scale, often to advance a country's economic goals alongside those of specific corporations.
3. Technology and Cyber Espionage
Modern espionage is tightly interwoven with technological advancements. As technology becomes more embedded in society, espionage actors have adapted, employing cutting-edge tools to exploit digital vulnerabilities. Cyber-espionage tools such as malware, social engineering, and zero-day exploits enable spies to access sensitive data remotely. Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) groups, often linked to nation-states, have increasingly used sophisticated malware to infiltrate government and corporate networks, targeting sensitive data stored on digital devices.
Case Study: Turla (Uroburos/Snake)
The Turla cyber-espionage campaign exemplifies the complexity of modern espionage operations. Known for its advanced malware toolkit, Turla has targeted Western government and military networks since at least 2008. Security researchers have linked Turla to Russia, with early instances of its malware (Agent.BTZ) surfacing during an attack on the U.S.
Department of Defense in 2008. Notable characteristics of the Turla group’s approach include:
Innovative Persistence Techniques: Turla utilizes techniques like COM object hijacking to maintain long-term access within compromised systems.
Sophisticated Command and Control (C2) Strategies: Turla has adopted unique C2 techniques, such as using satellite-based communication to mask C2 servers, steganography to embed commands in images on social media, and custom backdoors in popular platforms like Outlook and Exchange.
Social Engineering and Limited Zero-Day Use: Turla typically relies on social engineering tactics like phishing emails and watering hole attacks for initial access rather than frequent use of zero-day exploits.
Turla’s Advanced Espionage Techniques: A Closer Look
Turla, an APT group believed to be linked to Russian intelligence, is known for its complex and persistent cyber-espionage campaigns. The group has carried out a range of sophisticated techniques to maintain stealth, evade detection, and establish reliable communication channels with infected devices. Here are some of their hallmark methods.
1. COM Object Hijacking for Persistence
COM (Component Object Model) hijacking is one of Turla’s primary techniques for maintaining persistence. This Windows-based tactic allows Turla to load malicious code by exploiting the COM objects that manage communication between Windows applications. By hijacking these objects, Turla can run payloads within trusted processes, such as explorer.exe or svchost.exe, making detection more challenging for security tools that often look for obvious code injection attempts.
Two commonly used methods in COM hijacking include:
Phantom COM Objects: Turla places references in the registry for COM objects that don’t have a corresponding file. When a process tries to access these phantom objects, the Turla malware creates the necessary files to initiate malicious behavior.
COM Search Order Hijacking: Turla hijacks the search order of COM objects in the registry, prioritizing user-specific objects (under HKCU) over system-wide objects (HKLM). This allows them to override trusted system objects with user-specific (and therefore malicious) versions.
Source: Cyberbit
2. Satellite Connectivity for C2 Evasion
Turla’s use of satellite connections as a command-and-control (C2) mechanism is particularly notable. By leveraging satellite internet, Turla makes it extremely difficult for law enforcement or security researchers to track the actual C2 server location. Here’s how the satellite C2 works:
The infected machine connects to an IP using satellite internet.
The satellite broadcasts this request across its entire coverage area, which is ignored by legitimate users.
The C2 server, situated within the satellite’s coverage, intercepts the request and responds through a conventional internet connection.
This setup obscures the C2 server’s true location since it can be anywhere within the satellite’s broadcast range. The wide coverage area, along with the network behavior of satellite systems, makes it nearly impossible to pinpoint the adversary’s location.
Source: SecureList
3. Steganography on Social Media for C2
In a creative twist, Turla has used steganography within social media to send C2 commands.
One campaign involved embedding commands within comments on Instagram posts, specifically on popular accounts like Britney Spears’. Turla encodes URLs within these comments by using non-printable characters (such as the Zero Width Joiner, \200d) to avoid detection. The malware scans the comments, and if a specific hash matches, it decodes the message and follows the URL for additional commands or payloads.
This approach allows Turla to use public platforms for covert communication, bypassing conventional C2 detection methods by security software. The wide reach and popularity of platforms like Instagram also add a layer of anonymity, as commands can be posted from virtually any account, and the messages look like typical comments.
Source: SecureList
The Turla APT group, known for its sophisticated cyber-espionage tactics, expanded its toolset in 2018 and 2019 with specialized backdoors targeting Microsoft Outlook and Exchange. These campaigns reveal Turla’s focus on exploiting widely used email infrastructures to establish command and control (C2) channels, achieve persistence, and conduct covert operations.
1. Outlook Backdoor (2018)
The Outlook backdoor relies on Microsoft Outlook for persistence and C2. Key features include:
Command Execution and File Transfer: The backdoor supports stealth command execution and file upload/download, making it a versatile C2 channel and exfiltration method.
Steganography in PDFs: Commands and data are hidden within images in PDFs, allowing Turla to transmit information undetected within normal email communication.
COM Object Hijacking: Turla uses COM object hijacking to achieve persistence, exploiting Windows’ trusted mechanisms to remain unnoticed.
Targeting Eastern Europe: The backdoor was designed to infect Outlook and "The Bat!"—a popular Eastern European email client, suggesting a geographic focus in its deployment.
Source: ESET's detailed analysis
2. Exchange Backdoor (2019)
The following year, Turla extended its approach to target Microsoft Exchange servers with a backdoor that:
Code Execution and Email Manipulation: Turla could execute commands, intercept, alter, and delete emails directly on the server without reaching the end-user, making it a stealthier attack method than the Outlook backdoor.
Steganography in Images and PDFs: Similar to the Outlook backdoor, commands and exfiltrated data were hidden within image files embedded in PDF attachments.
Installation via DLL and PowerShell: The backdoor involved installing a malicious DLL as a Transport Agent using PowerShell (Install-TransportAgent and Enable-TransportAgent cmdlets), embedding itself deeply within the Exchange infrastructure.
Custom Rule Files: Turla utilized rule files with specific conditions for each email action, such as blocking, redirecting, or altering messages, enabling them to trigger actions based on precise sender-recipient pairs.
The Exchange backdoor is particularly stealthy since it operates entirely within the Exchange server environment, intercepting emails before they reach the inbox, which reduces the likelihood of detection by end-users.
Attribution Challenges and Resources
Attribution in cyber-espionage cases like Turla’s is difficult due to technical similarities across campaigns, reuse of tactics like COM object hijacking, and cross-border IP obfuscation. Several open-source resources provide extensive details on threat actor groups:
ThaiCERT’s Threat Actor Encyclopedia: A detailed resource with profiles on APT groups worldwide, continuously updated with contributions from cybersecurity researchers.
Florian Roth’s APT Groups and Operations Sheet: A Google Sheet offering a high-level overview of APT groups, correlating various naming conventions used across organizations.
MITRE ATT&CK Groups: This database maps known APT groups to specific techniques within the MITRE ATT&CK framework, helping security teams identify TTPs associated with different actors.
For a closer look, consult resources like ThaiCERT’s Threat Actor Encyclopedia and MITRE ATT&CK Groups.
Conclusion:
The Turla campaigns underscore the sophistication and persistence required to counter modern cyber-espionage threats. By using legitimate systems like Outlook and Exchange to disguise command-and-control activities, Turla showcases the evolving landscape of stealth tactics in state-sponsored cyber operations. Their approach demonstrates the critical need for vigilance and innovation in cybersecurity, as adversaries continually adapt, reusing effective methods and targeting widely used systems to ensure their persistence and impact.
Akash Patel
Comments