What Wicked Webs We Un-weave

15 March 2022

What Wicked Webs We Un-weave: Wizard Spider once again proving it isn’t you, it isn’t me; we search for things that you can’t see

Authored by: Matt Stafford and Sherman Smith

Executive summary:

In late January 2022, Prevailion’s Adversarial Counterintelligence Team (PACT) identified extensive phishing activity designed to harvest credentials for Naver. Naver is a popular South Korean online platform comparable to Google, that offers a variety of services (e.g., email, news, and search, among many others). For this reason, a large cache of valid credentials for Naver is potentially very valuable: it can provide access to the personal Naver accounts of a wide variety of victims while also providing access to several other enterprise logins as a result of password reuse. Two intriguing facets of this investigation quickly became apparent to PACT’s analysts: the sheer volume and focus of malicious activity by a single entity, focused exclusively on harvesting Naver credentials (more than 500 domains), and substantiated overlaps with infrastructure historically associated with WIZARD SPIDER (a Russia-based, financially-motivated threat actor involved in initial access and ransomware operations). This overlap is significant because it may indicate a current geographic targeting preference by one of the most active cyber crime groups in existence and would provide valuable insight into that group’s operational workflow. However, PACT’s analysis unearthed additional circumstantial evidence supporting previous assessments that posit an emerging, top-tier “infrastructure as a service for cybercriminals”. This potential service, if it exists, would explain the WIZARD SPIDER overlap as well as PACT’s additional findings.

Update: 30 MAR 2022
Google’s Threat Analysis Group (TAG) published a report on 24 Mar 2022 titled, Countering threats from North Korea.  In this report, TAG details the operations of North Korean state-backed threat actors engaged in active exploitation of a RCE vulnerability in Google Chrome.  TAG lists several domains they assess are owned by the threat actors, one of which is “disneycareers[.]net”.  This domain immediately caught PACT’s attention, as it was one of the anomalous findings we documented in our initial report (below).  To quickly summarize: PACT identified this (apparently unrelated) domain hosted on dedicated infrastructure that was primarily being used to host extensive Naver-themed phishing activity.  Two weeks ago (see update to this blog on 18 Mar 2022), Google TAG published their assessment that an Initial Access Broker (IAB) with ties to the Conti ransomware gang was using this infrastructure as well.  Prior to that, RiskIQ and Microsoft had identified at least three distinct clusters of activity (WIZARD SPIDER, zero-day exploitation used to deploy unique Cobalt Strike BEACON payloads, and initial access tooling like BazarLoader and Emotet).  PACT considers it notable and highly unusual that multiple research teams have observed such a wide spectrum of activity occurring on this infrastructure: phishing, initial access operations, targeted ransomware, and state-backed espionage have all been well documented.
TAG’s disclosure of additional domains allowed PACT’s analysts to conduct additional pivots. Further overlaps were indeed observed, but generally amounted to additional “ancillary evidence” (to borrow a phrase from RiskIQ): 5 domains published by TAG were linked to PACT’s previous findings via pDNS, but all these previous resolutions were part of shared hosting infrastructure that cannot be definitively tied to a single actor or customer.  However, PACT found the level of overlap noteworthy: over 80 domains listed as part of the Cobalt Strike infrastructure documented by RiskIQ were linked to the following 5 domains from TAG’s report: chainnews-star[.]com, ​​gbclabs[.]com,blockchainnews[.]vip, giantblock[.]org, ziprecruiters[.]org.  The pDNS overlaps formed by these domains is in addition to the current overlap seen with disneycareers[.]net, which TAG assesses is part of the recent North Korean-backed Chrome exploitation activity and hosted on what multiple vendors have assessed to be non-public IP “172.93.201[.]253”.  This same IP was the first critical node identified in PACT’s investigation, as a large number of Naver-themed phishing pages with a common registrant resolved to this IP.
Additional feedback from the information security community (hat tip to Zetalytics) turned PACT onto what we assess to be an additional node in this dedicated infrastructure: “23.82.19[.]179”.  PACT identified 38 new*/previously-unknown Naver-themed phishing domains after identifying this IP address.  21 previously-known Naver-themed domains were seen resolving to both this IP as well as “23.81.246[.]131”, which formed the initial link between the Naver credential phishing activity and the reported WIZARD SPIDER infrastructure.  Further strengthening PACT’s assessment that “23.82.19[.]179” is a part of this cluster of malicious infrastructure is the fact that registrant persona “gameproducters@outlook[.]com” registered all newly-identified domains; this same registrant was identified in PACT’s original reporting.  Threat Actor TTP overlaps were also observed and provided added confidence: IP “23.82.19[.]179” serves HTTP/302 redirects to Naver-themed phishing pages hosted on 000webhostapp.com, which was a technique PACT observed previously.  Furthermore, this IP is part of Leaseweb, Inc.’s US-based dedicated hosting infrastructure, which PACT identified as the actor’s preferred vendor and geographic location.
*note: PACT included these 38 newly-identified domains in the IOC annex of our report, below.
In summary, the publication of additional information surrounding this infrastructure has led to further uncertainty.  The only assessment of near certainty that can be made in light of recent research is that there is a definite nexus of malicious use around this infrastructure.  Recent reporting has not altered PACT’s initial assessment of moderate confidence: an as-yet unreported criminal hosting service exists on this infrastructure.  The wide variety of malicious activity and distinct operational goals, initially observed by Microsoft and RiskIQ, deserve special attention and analysis.
Update: 18 MAR 2022
Google’s Threat Analysis Group (TAG) published a blog on 17 Mar 2022 titled, Exposing initial access broker with ties to Conti.  In this report, TAG references the findings of both Microsoft’s MSTIC and RiskIQ’s Team Atlas that PACT also references below, and builds on the hypotheses and findings of all firms involved in the tracking and analysis of the criminal enterprise unfolding across the infrastructure that PACT details in our report.  TAG identifies and names a Threat Actor (EXOTIC LILY) operating as an Initial Access Broker (IAB) on this infrastructure.  They also corroborate many previous findings: use of this infrastructure to deploy common tooling centered around a financially-motivated nexus and an association with WIZARD SPIDER.  To quote TAG: “Initial access brokers are the opportunistic locksmiths of the security world, and it’s a full-time job.”
PACT used the indicators that TAG published to identify additional overlaps in an effort to provide further value to the security community.  PACT analysts found circumstantial evidence and TTP overlaps that, taken together, serve to reinforce previous research and strengthen the common intelligence picture.  Overlaps such as the threat actor’s hosting provider preference (Leaseweb USA, Inc): several IPs from this hosting provider’s network appeared as critical nodes in PACT’s investigation. There was also CDN hosting overlap seen via pDNS sources: TAG identified “modernmeadow[.]co” as one of the “recent domains used in email campaigns,” and PACT identified that it shared resolutions with Akamai IPs along with “yeruje[.]com”.  RiskIQ had previously identified this domain as a C2 for the unique Cobalt Strike Malleable C2 Profile that they fingerprinted and tracked as part of the activity cluster exploiting CVE-2021-40444. Additional TTP overlaps were seen in how the threat actor’s core infrastructure does not appear to be commercial shared web hosting, as there are no historic resolutions; and in how they use self-signed certificates.  The threat actor’s predilection for avoiding WHOIS Privacy services, leaving unredacted registrant information available for researchers, was also observed in some of the domains that TAG provided.  These observable TTPs were noted by PACT in our initial publication.
When overlaid with PACT’s pre-existing research, TAG’s findings reinforce our own: the operations of EXOTIC LILY “appear to be closely linked” with the deployment of Conti ransomware.  The operational requirements of an IAB would certainly explain the activity that PACT observed: the robust domain name buildup targeting Naver.  An IAB would need to send many emails and design spear-phishing messages that seemed convincing and credible to potential victims; they would also be required to maintain the level of resilience required to sustain operations in the face of domain attrition caused by phishing protection services.  TAG’s assessment that EXOTIC LILY appears to operate as a distinct entity that utilizes shared infrastructure reinforces PACT’s assessment that “this infrastructure appears to support separate, discrete campaigns; it also supports operational mechanisms along multiple links of the killchain.”  PACT lacks the visibility to confirm that EXOTIC LILY is the group operating the Naver-themed phishing on this infrastructure, but the criminal nexus of the infrastructure itself is now well documented. This infrastructure, and its intended use, certainly match the needs of an initial access broker; when paired with the overlap to known WIZARD SPIDER infrastructure, it supports the hypothesis that this may be the same threat actor.

Part I: Introduction & Context

In September of 2021, RiskIQ’s Team Atlas and Microsoft’s Threat Intelligence Center (MSTIC) jointly published technical reports on a cluster of malicious activity that exploited CVE-2021-40444, a vulnerability in MSHTML that allows remote code execution on a victimized Windows system. The operational roots of this activity reportedly began in February of 2021. Both RiskIQ and Microsoft observed significant overlap in the network infrastructure used in this campaign with network infrastructure associated with WIZARD SPIDER. WIZARD SPIDER (aka UNC1878) is a large, Russia-based, criminal enterprise that has operated the Trickbot, Bazar, and Anchor families of malicious Remote Access Trojans (RATs) and has been observed deploying the Conti and Ryuk ransomware families in “Big-Game Hunting” campaigns that target large enterprises.(1,2,3) The overlaps that Microsoft and RiskIQ observed were related to supporting infrastructure, in the form of non-public IP addresses, used by WIZARD SPIDER as Command and Control (C2) nodes for Cobalt Strike, which the group used as a post-intrusion tool prior to the deployment of Ryuk and Conti ransomware. Additional overlap was seen via domain registrant information (specifically the registrant email address) provided when purchasing the domains used to create TLS certificates (thus enabling TLS encryption for the Cobalt Strike C2 traffic between victim and attacker).

RiskIQ’s Team Atlas provided an exhaustive list of IP addresses and TLS certificates (and their associated domain names) that were attributed to WIZARD SPIDER’s C2 infrastructure here.

This list provided PACT with the ability to cross reference and corroborate the Naver-themed phishing activity that PACT observed with WIZARD SPIDER’s operations.

It is important to note, however, that both research teams observed anomalies during their investigations that indicate this overlap may not be indicative of an operation by WIZARD SPIDER, but may instead be indicative of multiple actors using the same network infrastructure. This overlap could be caused by multiple operators exploiting known compromised hosts, a “form of command-and-control infrastructure as a service for cybercriminals”, or some other shared resource not owned by a single threat actor4.

Fast forward 4 months: during the conduct of routine investigation and analysis of malicious web-based infrastructure, PACT identified a domain of interest (mailmangecorp[.]us) via a tweet by Joe Slowik. With this initial finding, PACT analysts began methodically illuminating a network of targeted phishing infrastructure designed to harvest valid login credentials for Naver. The Naver Corporation operates a large, regional, and popular online platform that provides dozens of customer-facing services (e.g., email, search, social, payment) and can be compared to a South Korean Google. While investigating the hosting infrastructure being used to serve the Naver-themed phishing pages, PACT analysts identified overlaps with the WIZARD SPIDER infrastructure, mentioned above, from RiskIQ’s and Microsoft’s joint reporting. This blog will detail PACT’s findings and methodology, the noted overlaps with WIZARD SPIDER infrastructure, as well as key takeaways that may shed new light on the alternate hypotheses put forward by both Microsoft and RiskIQ.

Part II: Findings

IIa: Naver-themed Phishing Activity

By the end of PACT’s investigation, 542 unique domains had been identified as part of this malicious cluster of web infrastructure, 532 of which were assessed with high confidence to be part of the ongoing phishing campaign targeting Naver logins; the oldest domain identified by PACT was registered in August of 2021, other registrations are as recent as February of 2022. The remaining domains were of unknown provenance, part of previously reported historic malicious infrastructure that PACT tracked as part of this cluster, or were otherwise anomalous but related via linkages in hosting or registration. The full list of 532 Naver-themed phishing domains are included in the annex to this report.

The “critical nodes*” of PACT’s investigation turned out to be IP addresses and, when available, domain registrant personas (identified and tracked by the registration email address used to register the domain). The first critical node identified was IP 172.93.201[.]253; it quickly became apparent to PACT’s analysis that a large number of Naver-themed phishing pages with a common registrant (mouraesse@gmail[.]com) resolved to this IP.

Image 1: Numerous domains registered by mouraesse@gmail[.]com resolved to 172.93.201[.]253

*note: PACT defines “critical nodes” as entities on a graphical link analysis chart that were instrumental in identifying connections between several, otherwise distinct, clusters of entities and activity.

This IP also provided the first glimpse of a recurring TTP (tactic, technique, or procedure) that PACT identified as an indicator to strengthen confidence in clustering this activity together: HTTP/302 redirects to spoofed Naver login pages on Hostinger’s web hosting platform “000webhostapp[.]com”, as seen below –

Image 2: Naver-themed domain hosted on IP 172.93.201[.]253 displaying an HTTP/302 redirect to a spoofed Naver login page on “000webhostapp[.]com”:

Pivoting on the registrant email “mouraesse@gmail[.]com” allowed PACT to identify that several domains registered with this email address were seen resolving to another IP address, 23.81.246[.]131. This IP address became a critical node in PACT’s investigation and formed the initial link between the Naver credential phishing activity with the alleged WIZARD SPIDER infrastructure. However, before we detail our findings on these observed overlaps, there are additional critical nodes that are wholly within the distinct cluster of Naver-themed phishing activity:

  • Registrant email addresses “peterstewart0326@gmail[.]com” and “kimkl0222@hotmail[.]com”, which appear to have been used jointly and by the same actor, registered over 100 Naver-themed phishing domains.
  • Registrant email addresses “tree99111@hotmail[.]com” and “jhonsteven0001@hotmail[.]com”, which also appear to have been used jointly and by the same actor, registered 69 domains, some of which had previously resolved to critical node 23.81.246[.]131.

Image 3: Persona behind email addresses “peterstewart0326@gmail[.]com” and “kimkl0222@hotmail[.]com” shown along with Naver-themed domain registrations and the associated resolutions.

  • IP addresses:
    • 23.83.133[.]196:
      • Part of ASN 19148 (LeaseWeb USA, Inc.), along with critical node 23.81.246[.]131
      • Linked via pDNS resolutions to many domains registered by the “kimkl0222@hotmail[.]com / peterstewart0326@gmail[.]com” actor
    • 198.244.135[.]244:
      • Part of ASN 16276 (OVH SAS), along with critical node “15.235.132[.]77”, seen below
      • Linked via pDNS resolutions to many domains registered by the “kimkl0222@hotmail[.]com / peterstewart0326@gmail[.]com” actor
      • Displayed TTP overlap (IP seen serving HTTP/302 redirects to Naver phishing pages):

Image 4: critical node IP address 198.244.135[.]244 observed serving HTTP/302 redirects, a TTP overlap with the Naver-phishing actor

  • 15.235.132[.]77
    • Part of ASN 16276 (OVH Singapore PTE. LTD), along with critical node “198.244.135[.]244”, seen above
    • Provided overlap with domains registered by the “kimkl0222@hotmail[.]com / peterstewart0326@gmail[.]com” actor that allowed PACT to identify additional WHOIS domain registrant “gameproducters@outlook[.]com”
  • 108.177.235[.]15
    • Part of ASN 395954 (Leaseweb USA, Inc.)
    • Provided overlap with domains registered by the “kimkl0222@hotmail[.]com / peterstewart0326@gmail[.]com” actor
    • Displayed TTP overlap (IP seen serving HTTP/302 redirects, notably to the legitimate Naver login page):

Notably, all the IP addresses listed above as critical nodes, including 23.81.246[.]131, do not appear to be commercial shared web hosting (as historic resolutions only include the Naver phishing activity). Additionally, despite all 5 IP addresses having little information available in public scan data, they all appear to be Windows machines running self-issued TLS certificates.

It is also important for the reader to note the common usage of the HTTP 302 Redirect in order to funnel victims to the intended page.  PACT observed HTTP 302 Redirects to both additional Naver-themed phishing domains (seen in Image 4, above) and also to several Naver-themed phishing subdomains on Hostinger’s web hosting platform “000webhostapp[.]com”.  An example appears below on critical node IP address 23.81.246[.]131 (alongside an expired, self-signed TLS certificate):


Image 5: HTTP/302 redirect to 000webhostapp[.]com (a TTP overlap) identified on critical IP 23.81.246[.]131

This screenshot of Shodan’s ‘host’ page for 23.81.246[.]131 (last seen date: 2022-02-15) provides insight into how the phishing infrastructure can be set up, independent of the final phishing URL hosted on “000webhostapp[.]com”: 

  1. Victim clicks or otherwise navigates to one of the 500+ Naver-themed domain names
  2. The DNS A-record for an arbitrary number of them is set to an IP address with a web server configured similar to the way that 23.81.246[.]131 is set up (with a generic, catchall HTTP 302 Redirect) to a subdomain of  “000webhostapp[.]com”
  3. Victim’s browser redirects them to the “000webhostapp[.]com” domain, where they are served a convincing replica of the Naver login page.
  4. Victim enters their credentials, which are captured and now compromised.

This setup is designed to withstand the domain attrition commonly suffered by widely-disseminated phishing campaigns, which is generally caused by the phishing domains being identified, reported, and taken down or blocklisted. By disconnecting the final phishing URL from the initial victim-facing URL, the threat actor’s infrastructure becomes more resilient. Additionally, this increases the odds that the final URLs hosting the phishkit will be “allowlisted” or not closely inspected (due to the fact that they’re being hosted on a legitimate hosting platform).

Phishing for Naver credentials appears to be common, which may indicate the relative value of valid logins.  AhnLab’s ASEC reported on Naver phishing activity as well, but the cluster they observed appears distinct as the threat actor’s TTPs differed: they didn’t use tech-themed domains, they didn’t use HTTP 302 Redirects to funnel victims to the final credential-gathering page, and the one-time-use number and QR code functionality weren’t configured.  The Naver-themed phishing pages that PACT analyzed had working one-time-use number and QR code functionality, although we were unable to verify if users were successfully compromised using these methods.


Images 6 & 7: the Naver phishing pages PACT analyzed supported one-time-password and QR code functionality

The subdomains that PACT was able to identify on “000webhostapp[.]com” serving spoofed-Naver phishing pages are included in the annex at the end of this report.  Due to the ease with which the operator can create new subdomains on this hosting platform, this list is likely outdated and/or incomplete.

IIb: Overlaps with Reported WIZARD SPIDER Infrastructure

In section ‘IIa: Naver-themed Phishing Activity’, PACT stated that overlaps were observed between the network infrastructure supporting the Naver phishing activity, and that of historic network infrastructure used by WIZARD SPIDER.  This overlap was initially identified via IP 23.81.246[.]131 (seen in Image 5, above, displaying TTP overlap).  

This IP address was initially discovered by PACT’s analysts during attempts to identify which of the 58 phishing domains registered by “mouraesse@gmail[.]com” were currently resolving, if any.  At the time of initial analysis, the domain “navermailcorp[.]com” was resolving to “23.81.246[.]131”, which PACT further identified resulted in the HTTP Redirect to a spoofed Naver login page on “*.000webhostapp[.]com”.

Additional investigation yielded two malware samples, as identified on VirusTotal, that were associated with IP 23.81.246[.]131:

Image 8: Malicious files seen communicating with IP of interest 23.81.246[.]131

Open source reporting identified and corroborated these malicious samples as Cobalt Strike: the extracted Cobalt Strike Beacon (post-exploitation payload) configuration for one of the samples displays the same watermark identified by a security researcher on Twitter who identified these samples as part of a cluster of activity exploiting CVE-2021-40444.  Additionally, the network behavior displayed by the other sample shows HTTP connections to  “hubojo[.]com” and “bideluw[.]com”.  These two domains are important: they match the extracted Beacon configuration from the first sample, and they both also represent additional, discrete links to 23.81.246[.]131:

  • “bideluw[.]com” was observed resolving to this IP via pDNS
  • RiskIQ reported that this IP previously served the certificate for “hubojo[.]com”, tying it to a Cobalt Strike C2 server (validating the extracted Beacon configuration from VirusTotal).

These observations all serve to bolster the previous reports of an actor using this infrastructure to support a campaign exploiting CVE-2021-40444 and to host Cobalt Strike.

With these historic findings in mind, PACT found it notable that more than 40 of the Naver-themed phishing domains had resolved to IP 23.81.246[.]131.  PACT identified numerous emergent resolutions during the course of the investigation, which suggests that this activity is ongoing and this infrastructure is currently in use. PACT’s analysis continued throughout the pre-publication pipeline, identifying numerous domains registered in March 2022.  We will update this report as our investigation progresses and yields additional findings.

In addition to the linkages provided by 23.81.246[.]131, another overlap was observed via IP 23.19.227[.]176.  This IP had previously been associated with “naverservice[.]host” (part of the Naver phishing cluster); however, it was also detailed in RiskIQ’s report as part of the same Cobalt Strike C2 infrastructure used by the actor exploiting CVE-2021-40444.  In this case, it was tied to “pawbug[.]com”, which PACT independently confirmed via pDNS.

IP 23.106.215[.]141 forms another link to the infrastructure detailed in RiskIQ’s report, via a link between “naverncorp[.]com” and “maloxob[.]com”.  The domain “maloxob[.]com” was also identified as a Cobalt Strike C2 server.  This IP address also led PACT’s analysts to another domain, cebuwu[.]com, which will be mentioned later in this report.

Image 9: Critical overlaps between RiskIQ’s previous findings & the Naver-themed phishing activity.

Further overlaps were identified with two additional IP addresses that are likely to be shared resources**:

  1. 184.168.221[.]39: ties together “mailhelp[.]online” (part of the cluster targeting Naver) with “jumpbill[.]com” and “raills[.]com” (reported as Cobalt Strike C2s by RiskIQ).
  2. 195.186.208[.]193: ties together at least two of the domains seen in the Naver phishing activity (“navrcorp[.]site” & “navercorps[.]online”) and dozens of the Cobalt Strike domains reported by RiskIQ

**Given the number of (apparently unrelated) resolutions recorded on these IPs, it is likely they are, or were, legitimate shared hosting or another pooled resource being abused by a small number of malicious actors.  Nevertheless, the many links they formed helped increase PACT’s confidence in assessing this activity as related; therefore, PACT included them in this report.

Part III: Closing Thoughts & Key Takeaways

IIIa. Analytic Gaps & Anomalous Findings

While analyzing and processing the information uncovered in this investigation, PACT identified a number of outliers and anomalies.  They appear below in no particular order:

  1. The majority of the domains identified within the Naver-phishing cluster of activity were registered without privacy protection; i.e., it was trivial for analysts to search for other domains registered with the same registrant information (e.g., email address).  WHOIS Privacy and GDPR have made privacy a de facto standard during the domain registration process. It is uncommon to find a cluster of activity, especially one that is attributable to a named threat group like WIZARD SPIDER, wherein all the domain-based infrastructure is unobscured by privacy protection services. 
  2.  RiskIQ’s analysis provided insight into the domain-generation algorithm and other TTPs of the Threat Actor operating the Cobalt Strike infrastructure.  This insight led PACT to make note of two domains that aligned with RiskIQ’s assessment of the actor’s TTPs: cebuwu[.]com and lertwo[.]com.  These two domains overlapped with previous reporting in the following ways:
    • They are between six to eight alphabetic characters in length, which aligns with the Domain Generation Algorithm (DGA) likely used by the threat actor(s). 
    • They utilize the “.COM” top level domain (TLD). 
    • The domain cebuwu[.]com used the legitimate Certificate Authority “Sectigo”.
    • The domain cebuwu[.]com was identified via 23.106.215[.]141, which also links another Cobalt Strike C2 domain reported by RiskIQ (maloxob[.]com) and the Naver-themed activity (via naverncorp[.]com).
    • Likewise, past resolutions link the domain lertwo[.]com to both the Cobalt Strike C2 activity (195.186.208[.]193, 195.186.210[.]241) as well as the naver activity (navrcorp[.]site, navercorps[.]online, navertechp[.]online).  It is likely that these resolutions are the result of shared hosting or a pooled resource with many customers but the overlap is notable nonetheless, as it may indicate an operator preference or behavioral TTP.
  3. Investigation of critical node IP 172.93.201[.]253 lead to the discovery of the domain disneycareers[.]net; which appears to be a convincingly crafted mockup of Disney’s legitimate careers page: jobs.disneycareers[.]com.  The mock site, in addition to being flagged as malicious by Google’s Safebrowsing service, is notably not served on Akamai’s network, nor is it registered with CSC CORPORATE DOMAINS, INC. (as Disney’s legitimate site is) but by Namecheap.  During the course of investigation the mock site’s appearance changed notably, possibly indicating active development.  Additionally, the TLS certificate was issued by Sectigo, which matches the behavior noted above regarding the Certificate Authority of choice for the Cobalt Strike C2 domains.  The purpose of this mockup domain is unknown, but the criminal nexus around the rest of the connected infrastructure should be enough to warrant additional scrutiny and could perhaps indicate specific targeting.

IIIb. Takeaways

PACT concludes it is highly likely that the Naver-themed phishing activity is operationally linked to the Cobalt Strike infrastructure identified by RiskIQ (and mentioned by Microsoft).  Additionally, PACT wishes to reiterate that these findings may not necessarily mean that WIZARD SPIDER is conducting the discrete clusters of activity that have been identified on this infrastructure.  The fact that this infrastructure has been used to close several different links in the killchain across multiple campaigns (and perhaps by separate actors), coupled with the observations detailed by RiskIQ and Microsoft, may lend additional credence to the hypotheses they put forth.  It is worth quoting both firms at some length.

Risk IQ states:

  • “Despite the historical connections [between WIZARD SPIDER and the Cobalt Strike C2 infrastructure], we cannot say with confidence that the threat actor behind the zero-day campaign is part of WIZARD SPIDER or its affiliates, or is even a criminal actor at all, though it is possible.”
  • “The overlap with known ransomware infrastructure in this case could mean one of several things. First, that the zero-day operators compromised the infrastructure of the ransomware operators. Second, that the criminal operators are allowing the zero-day operators to piggyback on their existing infrastructure. Third, that the zero-day and ransomware operators are one and the same but engaging in espionage instead of financial crime. Finally, it could mean that both entities could be utilizing the same third party providing Bulletproof Hosting services. There is strong ancillary evidence that suggests this is the case.” (emphasis PACT’s)

Furthermore, Microsoft states:

  • “The infrastructure we associate with DEV-0365 has several overlaps in behavior and unique identifying characteristics of Cobalt Strike infrastructure that suggest it was created or managed by a distinct set of operators. However, the follow-on activity from this infrastructure indicates multiple threat actors or clusters associated with human-operated ransomware attacks (including the deployment of Conti ransomware). One explanation is that DEV-0365 is involved in a form of command- and-control infrastructure as a service for cybercriminals.”

PACT’s findings reinforce these assessments: this infrastructure appears to support separate, discrete campaigns; it also supports operational mechanisms along multiple links of the killchain: it has hosted phishing domains, initial exploitation tools, and C2 servers. 

PACT found the latter especially notable, as the Naver-themed phishing activity that was initially discovered does not appear to be the work of a ransomware group directly. In many cases, pre-ransomware activity (such as mass phishing and credential gathering activity) is handled by affiliates or brokers who provide access to the ransomware operators, while post-compromise activities, ransomware development, and deployment/encryption are executed by yet other groups. This separation of duties is not uncommon within the Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) criminal business model.  Similar to what Microsoft and RiskIQ reported, PACT’s findings regarding the additional “uncertainty surrounding the nature of the shared qualities” of this infrastructure and the “significant variation in malicious activity” strengthen the hypotheses that both firms put forward: multiple entities could be utilizing the same third party providing “bulletproof hosting” services to conduct their operations.  PACT was unable to refute this hypothesis, and so assesses with moderate confidence that an as-yet unreported criminal hosting service exists on this infrastructure.  The only links that PACT was able to identify were hosting and DNS resolutions; no other operational mechanisms provided links to the reported WIZARD SPIDER activity (such as registrants, malicious samples, etc).  Therefore, a novel and emerging “infrastructure as a service for cybercriminals” fits the available evidence.

A third hypothesis, which PACT finds unlikely, is that multiple operators are leveraging a third party’s compromised infrastructure to support their own discrete and unrelated campaigns.  The relatively limited, publicly available information on the IP addresses that make up the core of the operational infrastructure seems to indicate an operator that adheres to strict operational security measures.  Legitimate entities rarely have so little publicly available or accessible information on their available services on a given IP address.  This fact, along with the historic overlaps in hosting combined with other observations, led PACT to find this final hypothesis improbable.

References:

  1. https://apt.etda.or.th/cgi-bin/showcard.cgi?g=Wizard%20Spider%2C%20Gold%20Blackburn&n=1
  2. https://attack.mitre.org/groups/G0102/
  3. https://adversary.crowdstrike.com/en-US/adversary/wizard-spider/
  4. https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2021/09/15/analyzing-attacks-that-exploit-the-mshtml-cve-2021-40444-vulnerability/

Annex: Detection Opportunities & Indicators of Compromise

New Naver-themed phishing domains, identified with 30 Mar 2022 update: 

navenidd[.]site navercomg[.]link naverbcom[.]link naveracom[.]link
navreplyg[.]site navreplyi[.]site navercomh[.]link navreplyb[.]live
navercomb[.]link naverbnid[.]live navernidc[.]link navenidb[.]live
navernidd[.]online navreplyk[.]site navenidc[.]live navernidb[.]link
navercome[.]link navreplye[.]live naverccom[.]link navernidc[.]tech
nidnavera[.]online navreplyf[.]site nidnavere[.]online navernidd[.]live
navreplyj[.]site navernida[.]link navercomc[.]link navreplyd[.]live
naveranid[.]link navercoma[.]link navercomf[.]link navercomd[.]link
navreplya[.]online navreplyh[.]site navercnid[.]link
navreplya[.]live navenida[.]live navernida[.]tech
acc-center.site naveewteam.site navermailservice.host navportal.online
acks.tech naveloga.online navermailservice.online navportalcenter.site
centersecurity.link navelosa.host navermailservice.site navportalcorp.site
cloudalarm.online naveoccorp.link navermailteam.online navportalsec.site
cloudalarm.site naveoccorp.online navermanage.com navportalsecs.site
cloudalarm.space naveocenter.link navermanage.live navportalservice.site
cloudalarm.tech naveocop.link navermanage.online navrcenter.site
cloudalarm.website naveocorp.link navermanage.space navrcorp.site
cloudalarm.xyz naveocorp.online navermanagecorp.online navrcorp.tech
cloudcentre.online naveocorp.site navermanagecorp.site navrcorp.xyz
cloudcentre.site naveocorp.tech navermanager.online navrpcenter.site
cloudcentre.space naveocorp.website navermanager.site navrrcorp.site
cloudcentre.store naveocorps.link navermanagerteam.site navrrcorp.tech
cloudcentre.tech naveoecorp.tech navermanageteam.com navsceteam.site
cloudcentre.website naveogains.tech navermcorp.com navseccenter.site
cloudcentre.xyz naveolink.online navermgr.site navseccorp.link
corpcenternav.site naveologs.online navermgr01.host navseccorp.online
corpnavcenter.site naveooccorp.online navermgr01.site navseccorp.site
corpnavsec.site naveoocorp.link navermgr02.site navsecncenter.site
corprsecurity.tech naveoocorp.online naverncorp.com navsecnet.online
corpseccenter.site naveoocorp.site navernidcorp.com navsecorg.tech
corpsecnav.site naveoocorp.xyz navernidcorp.online navsecportal.site
corpsecservice.site naveoorcorp.link navernidcorp.site navsecportal.tech
havcorp.site naveorcorp.host navernidlog.live navsecportals.tech
havecorp.link naveorcorp.link navernidmail.com navsecsite.tech
havecorp.tech naveorcorp.online navernidmail.online navsecteam.tech
haveecorp.site naveorcorp.site naverocenter.site navsecteam.website
haveorcorp.tech naveorcorp.tech naverocorp.link navsecuritycenter.site
havercorp.site naveorrcorp.online naverocorp.online navsecuritycenter.tech
havercorp.tech naveorrcorp.tech naverocorp.site navsecuritycorp.link
havercorps.site naveorseccorp.link naverocorp.tech navsecuritycorp.site
havercorpteam.site naveorteam.site naverocorpteam.site navsecurityportal.online
haverocorp.link naveoscorp.link naveronavteam.site navsecurityteam.tech
havoocorp.online naveoteam.online naveroocorp.link navsecvcorp.online
havoocorp.tech naveoteam.site naveroocorp.site navsecvteam.site
havorcorp.link naver-accounts.com naverooteam.site navserveportal.site
havorcorp.online naver-sec.net naverooteam.tech navservicecenter.site
havorcorp.site naver-sec.org naverorcorp.tech navservicescenter.online
havorcorp.tech naver-security.net naverorg.site navserviceteam.com
havorcorpsv.online naver-security.org naverorteam.link navserviceteam.site
mailcontactteam.online naver-services.com naverorteam.online navserviceucenter.site
mailcorp.site naveradmin.online naveroscope.tech navservicevcenter.site
mailcorpcenter.online naveradmin00.tech naveroteam.online navsite.online
mailcorpcenter.site naveradmin01.link naveroteam.tech navsvcorp.tech
mailcustomerservice.site naveradmin01.site naverovocorp.site navsvportal.tech
mailhelp.online naveradmin02.site naverovvcorp.tech navteam.online
mailmanagecorp.online naveradmin03.site naverrcorp.site navteamcorp.link
mailmanagecorp.site naveradmin04.tech naverreda.xyz navvccenter.online
mailmanageservice.com naveradmin05.site naverredb.xyz navvcorp.host
mailmanageteam.com naveradmin06.online naverredc.xyz navvcorp.link
mailmanageteam.site naveradmin07.site naverredd.xyz navvcorp.online
mailmangecorp.us naveradmina.tech naverrede.xyz navvcorp.site
mailportalcenter.online naveralert.link naverredirect.live navvctr.link
mailportalcenter.site naveranid.live naverrteam.site navvctr.site
mailscropcenter.site naverccorp.com naversec.site navvctr.tech
mailsecurity.email navercert.live naversecurity.site navvctvr.site
mailservice.digital navercert.online naversecurityservice.online navveoocorp.online
mailservice.host navercoa.store naversecurityteam.com navvocorp.online
mailservicecenter.site navercob.store naverservice.email navvocorp.site
mailservicecenters.site navercoc.store naverservice.host navvrcorp.site
mailservicecorp.online navercod.store naverservice.link navvsecurity.site
mailservicecorp.site navercoe.store naverservice.online navvtr.site
mailservicemanage.com navercoma.tech naverservice.site navvtrr.site
mailserviceteam.com navercomb.tech naverservicecorp.com navvtrs.site
mailserviceteam.email navercomc.tech naverservicecorp.online navvtrw.site
mailserviceteam.host navercomd.tech naverservicecorp.site nevercorp.online
mailserviceteam.online navercome.tech naverserviceteam.com nevercorp.site
mailserviceteam.site navercop.link naverserviceteam.email nevercorp.tech
mailteam.site navercop.online naverserviceteam.site neverrcorp.tech
msite.host navercorp.email navertcorp.com nidanaver.tech
naswsteam.site navercorp.live naverteam.live nidbnaver.tech
nauercorp.site navercorp.site naverteam.site nidcnaver.com
nauercorp.website navercorpa.tech naverteam01.site nidcnaver.tech
nauercorpa.online navercorpa.website naverteamcorp.com niddnaver.tech
nauercorpb.online navercorpb.online naverteamcorp.live nidinaver.com
nauercorpc.online navercorpb.tech naverteamcorp.site nidnavcenter.link
nauercorpd.online navercorpb.website navertecha.host nidnavcenter.online
nauercorpteam.website navercorpc.online navertechb.site nidnavcenter.site
nauermanager.website navercorpc.tech navertechc.email nidnavportal.site
navaccountcenter.online navercorpc.website navertechd.net nidnavscenter.xyz
navadmin.site navercorpd.online naverteche.link nidnavsecurity.tech
navadmin01.site navercorpd.tech navertechf.host nidpavsec.digital
navcen.site navercorpd.website navertechg.site nidportalnav.online
navcenter.xyz navercorpe.online navertechh.online nidseccenter.host
navcenterportal.site navercorpe.tech navertechi.link nidseccenter.site
navcopcenter.tech navercorpe.website navertechj.host nidsecuritycenter.online
navcorp.host navercorpf.online navertechk.site nidsecuritycorp.tech
navcorp.link navercorpf.tech navertechl.online noreplya.online
navcorp.space navercorpf.website navertechm.link noreplya.site
navcorp.website navercorpg.online navertechn.host noreplya.space
navcorpacenter.site navercorpg.tech navertecho.site noreplya.tech
navcorpcenter.site navercorpg.website navertechp.online noreplya.website
navcorpctr.online navercorph.online navertechq.link noreplya.xyz
navcorpctr.site navercorph.tech navertechr.host noreplyb.online
navcorpmanage.site navercorph.website navertechs.site noreplyb.site
navcorpmanager.site navercorpi.online navertecht.online noreplyb.space
navcorpmanager.website navercorpi.tech navertechu.link noreplyb.store
navcorpportal.xyz navercorpj.online naverurl.xyz noreplyb.tech
navcorps.site navercorpj.tech navervteam.site noreplyb.website
navcorps.website navercorpk.online naveservice.site noreplyb.xyz
navcorpscenter.site navercorpk.tech navevcorp.link novercorp.site
navcorpsecurity.site navercorpl.online navevcorp.online nvrcopa.link
navcorpserver.site navercorpl.tech navevcorp.site nvrcopb.link
navcorpservice.site navercorpm.online navevrcorp.online nvrcopc.link
navcorpservice.website navercorpmanager.online navhelp.online nvrcope.site
navcorpsite.online navercorpn.online navmailcenter.site nvrcopf.site
navcorpssec.tech navercorpo.online navmailcorp.site nvricop.online
navcorpsuppot.site navercorpp.online navmailserver.site nvrjcop.online
navcorpteam.online navercorpq.online navmanage.online nvscetr.site
navcorpteam.site navercorpr.online navmanager.site portalcorpsec.site
navcorpteam.website navercorps.online navmanager.website portalcorpteam.com
navcpcenter.site navercorpservice.com navocorp.link portalseccorps.site
navcrtr.online navercorpt.online navocorp.site portalserver.online
navctrv.site navercorpteam.com navocorp.tech scientisttest.digital
navcvcorp.online navercorpteam.online navoercorp.host seccenter.link
naveacorp.tech navercorpu.online navoercorp.link seccenter.online
naveccorp.link navercorpv.online navoercorp.site seccorp.link
navecorp.host navercorpw.online navoocorp.link secmanageteam.site
navecorp.online navercorpx.online navoocorp.online secnavportal.digital
navecorp.site navercorpy.online navoocorp.site secportal.digital
navecorp.website navercorpz.online navoorcorp.link secportal.link
naveeccorp.tech navercscorp.com navoorcorp.online secportalnav.site
naveecorp.link naverdoc.site navoorcorp.site secportals.digital
naveecorp.online naverhost.live navorcop.site secportalsnav.site
naveecorp.site naverkr.online navorcorp.link securityccenter.site
naveecorp.tech naverlogn.live navorcorp.online securitycenter.link
naveecorp.xyz navermail.site navorcorp.xyz securitycenter.space
naveeecorp.site navermailcorp.com navorcorpteam.site securitynavcenter.site
naveeocorp.xyz navermailcorp.host navovcorp.online securitynavcenter.tech
naveeoocorp.link navermailcorp.online navovcorp.site securityvcenter.site
naveeorcorp.tech navermailcorp.site navovcorp.tech sercureteam.site
naveeoteam.site navermailmanage.com navpcenter.online setcenter.store
naveercorp.online navermailservice.com navpcenter.site shtlink.online

The Latest

IRONSCALES Cyber Security Heroes: The New Cyber Era Post Ukraine Invasion

What Wicked Webs We Un-weave

What Wicked Webs We Un-weave: Wizard Spider once again proving it isn’t you, it isn’t me; we search for things that you can’t see Authored by: Matt Stafford and Sherman Smith Executive summary: In late January 2022, Prevailion’s Adversarial Counterintelligence Team (PACT) identified extensive phishing activity designed to harvest credentials for Naver. Naver is a […]

Prevailion CEO, Karim Hijazi – Cheddar News- Discusses How Russia Is Using Cyberattacks Against Ukraine

Prevailion CEO, Karim Hijazi, discusses why the Russian cyberwarfare is concerning to other nations.

Copyright 2022 Prevailion, Inc. All rights reserved.    

Disclaimer: Gartner “Cool Vendors in Security Operations and Threat Intelligence,” Mitchell Schneider, Ruggero Contu, John Watts, Craig Lawson, October 13, 2020. GARTNER is a registered trademark and service mark of Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the U.S. and internationally and is used herein with permission. All rights reserved. Gartner Disclaimer: The GARTNER COOL VENDOR badge is a trademark and service mark of Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates and is used herein with permission. All rights reserved. Gartner does not endorse any vendor, product or service depicted in its research publications and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors with the highest ratings or other designation. Gartner research publications consist of the opinions of Gartner’s Research & Advisory organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. Gartner disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, with respect to this research, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.