U.S. Treasury office that administers economic sanctions has admitted that they were pwned by a “Chinese threat actor”:
Chinese government hackers breached the U.S. Treasury office that administers economic sanctions, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday, identifying targets of a cyberattack Treasury disclosed earlier this week.
Citing unnamed U.S. officials, the Washington Post said hackers compromised the Office of Foreign Assets Control and the Office of Financial Research and also targeted the office of U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.
The department earlier this week disclosed in a letter to lawmakers that hackers stole unclassified documents in a “major incident.” It did not specify which users or departments were affected.
Asked about the paper’s report, Liu Pengyu, spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said the “irrational” U.S. claim was “without any factual basis” and represented “smear attacks” against Beijing.
Yeah. Right. I don’t believe anything that the Chinese have to say at this point. More on that later. Avishai Aviva, CISO, SafeBreach had this to say:
“In this latest breach of the US Treasury workstation, neither the government nor BeyondTrust, the vendor involved, provided sufficient information to understand what happened fully. This is normal for such events. Let’s peel through the layers of obscurity and get a clearer picture of what happened in this breach.
First, looking at the letter from the Treasury to lawmakers, we find this:” “gained access to a key used by the vendor to secure a cloud-based service used to remotely provide technical support for Treasury Departmental Offices (DO) end users. With access to the stolen key, the threat actor could override the service’s security, remotely access certain Treasury DO user workstations, and access certain unclassified documents maintained by those users.” With all my years of experience, I was scratching my head at this narrative. When reading the BeyondTrust statement on their website – it became more apparent.
BeyondTrust, unironically, provides a secure method for Information Technology (IT) support personnel to provide remote support to end users. This method involves establishing a trusted connection between the support person and the end user. This trusted connection punches through traditional perimeter security controls and gives the support person full access and control over the end-user workstation.
Once inside, the support person can send documents back over that secure channel or masquerade as the end-user and send the same documents directly.
The security controls protecting the US Treasury network have no way of knowing something nefarious is happening, as the trusted connection is, well, trusted.
From the BeyondTrust website, the malicious actors used a critical vulnerability to gain unauthenticated (read as untrusted) access to the same support functionality that the authorized IT support personnel.
This incident boils down to what we refer to as a supply-chain vulnerability leading to a data breach. An Information and Communication Technology (ICT) vendor in the US Treasury supply chain had a vulnerability that was then used to extract data out of the US Treasury end-user workstations and network.
Now that we understand what happened, albeit at a high level, let’s focus on the following interesting detail – Attribution. The letter from the US Treasury indicates that this breach originated from China. It is unusual for an early notice, especially in case of such breaches, to be able to make such clear attributions. Looking through the technical details provided by BeyondTrust, we can see that the vulnerability was associated with four IP addresses. These addresses belong to DigitalOcean, a New Jersey Cloud Service Provider (CSP). This information indicates to me that the malicious actors used this cloud provider as a jumping-off point to infiltrate the BeyondTrust service and exploit the trusted connection to the US Treasury. The clear attribution suggests that the investigation was able to link these four addresses to accounts originating in China.
Last but not least, was there something that the US Treasury could have done to prevent this? The sad answer appears to be yes. Again, referring to the scant technical information BeyondTrust provided, the system administrators at the US Treasury, or the vendor likely to provide support services, failed to configure trusted locations from which the support agents could connect. We refer to this as IP Whitelisting. This failure is a critical risk with any such service. The same issue led to notable breaches in 2023 and 2024. This oversight is why we urge all service vendors, especially trusted ICT vendors, to follow the CISA Secure-by-Default guidance.”
The fact is that there appears to be enough evidence to tie China to this. Thus besides taking action to prevent these incidents from happening as this appears to be the latest attack that has been tied to China. Thus there needs to be action to make such activities something that China is less likely to carry out. And there needs to be action to make it way harder to get into supposedly secure networks.
UPDATE: Will Lin, CEO, AKA Identity adds this:
“This incident highlights two urgent, unsolved security issues today: third party vendor risk management and a lack of real-time visibility into identities. Because technology tools are built to trust valid credentials, the average identity-based breach takes over 200 days to detect.
Kudos to the US Treasury and BeyondTrust for detecting this incident and wishing the best in determining the investigation’s blast radius.”
HIPAA to Mandate MFA, Risk Analysis, Vulnerability Scanning Among Other Items In The Wake Of Breaches
Posted in Commentary with tags HIPPA on January 2, 2025 by itnerdTo better protect patient records, the Department of Health and Human Services’ HHS Office for Civil Rights is proposing substantial cybersecurity requirements for all covered entities and their business associates be added to the HIPAA Security Rule (enacted in 1996). The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Security Rule to Strengthen the Cybersecurity of Electronic Protected Health Information is set to be published on January 6, 2025.
A 300+ page working draft for public comment is currently in the Federal Register: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2024-30983.pdf
Ted Miracco, CEO, Approov had this to say:
“The proposed updates to HIPAA are an overdue response to the escalating cybersecurity attacks on the healthcare sector, especially with regards to mobile devices and API attacks. Enforcing stricter security measures such as encryption, MFA, attestation and network segmentation, is a strong start as HHS aims to enhance the protection of patient data significantly. However, for mobile app developers, this will mean adapting much more advanced security practices to meet these emerging standards. Rebuilding user trust and safety remain critical priorities, given the extensive number of data breaches that have occurred in recent years, and their devastating impacts.”
Lawrence Pingree, VP, Dispersive follows with this:
“For HIPAA/HITECH, this guides organizations to more prescriptive controls – e.g. not just “you need to protect your data and users” – it’s now bringing more specific controls around multi-factor authentication and data protection strategies. In security, the more prescriptive the controls, the better since this reduces the variance of approaches that might not adequately address current threats. The grand challenge is for prescriptive guidance not to become outdated, so much be continuously uplifted to address modern threats.”
Given how often the health care sector gets pwned by hackers, it’s about time that something like this has come down the pipe. Because if the health care sector wasn’t going to do protect themselves on their own, they need to forced to protect themselves.
Leave a comment »