The Port of Seattle and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport have corroborated that the major system outages which took place late August were caused by a ransomware attack. On August 24, a cyberattack partially disrupted the critical operations at the airport with websites, emails, and phone services down and even affected some services at the airport. The attack was immediately detected and in response, the IT team decided to shut the entire system in order to prevent further damage.
Ransomware attack, by the criminal group, Rhysida, into the computer systems at the airport accessed unauthorised and encrypted some parts of their data. The spokesperson to the airport, Perry Cooper said that IT noticed some malicious activities in the system on the day of the attack and took immediate actions to stop the spread of malware. The Port of Seattle said the measures by its staff, including forensic experts and law enforcement, were effective in thwarting the attack since no further unauthorised activity was detected following the breach.
Operational Disruptions
Even with these measures being put into place, the attack had a great impact on the day-to-day running of Sea-Tac Airport. Passengers were denied the luxury of getting information on arrival and departure flight schedules from the reader boards for the past several days. The airlines at the airport could not use the digital systems and had to revert back to the old method of pen and paper for marking baggage. In addition to the others, critical services such as check-in kiosks, lost and found, Wi-Fi, and reserved parking were affected too, leaving many of both airline customers and employees greatly inconvenienced.
Its official website, portofseattle.org, is still unavailable, leaving travellers to rely on an alternate website, washingtonports.org, for information and updates. These services have been returning to normal gradually, but the attack affected a number of different parts of airport and port operations across the board.
Port of Seattle Refuses to Pay Ransom
Even at this advanced stage, the Port of Seattle has categorically rejected the ransom demands from the attackers. The executive director of the Port Steve Metruck stated in a public statement that to grant the ransom demand would go against the very purpose of the values of the Port and add nothing to its responsibility to protect the money that the taxpayer entrusts to the Port. The Port is alert to the fact that Rhysida may upload all the stolen data on the dark web in the name of retaliation, but it has been faithfully committed to not paying any ransom to criminals.
Although the nature and extent of the stolen data remain unknown, the Port has vowed to inform any employee or passenger whose personal data may have been compromised that their data was stolen.
Securing a Brighter Tomorrow
Over the past few months, other than trying to regain its systems following an attack, the Port of Seattle is also fortifying its defences against future attacks. On its part, the organisation has taken further actions to fortify its cybersecurity to prevent a future version of such attacks. Metruck says, "This has been a learning experience for us and lessons derived from this attack will be instrumental in building on a more resilient IT infrastructure." Apart from that, Port is working with partners to secure business and critical infrastructure.
Despite the hold-up caused by the attack, Port of Seattle officials assured the public that it is still safe to travel from Sea-Tac Airport and to make use of its maritime facilities. This shows commitment to maintaining the safety and the efficiency of its operations, including response and continued recovery.
The North Korean cyberespionage group has targeted Mashinostroyeniya, a rocket design based in Reutov, Moscow. The hackers group, code-named ScarCruft and Lazarus installed covert digital backdoors into the system at NPO Mashinostroyeniya and was located by Reuters’ James Pearson and Christopher Bing.
However, it has not been made clear as to what data was acquired in the breach. In the following month, the digital break-in Pyongyang introduced several new developments in its banned ballistic missile program, while is not clear if this was in any regards to the breach.
Moreover, no official confirmation has been provided of the espionage by NPO Mashinostroyeniya officials.
The company, commonly known as NPO Mash, specialized in developing hypersonic missiles, satellite technologies and new-generation ballistic armaments. The company was prominent in the Cold War as a premier satellite maker for Russia's space program and as a provider of cruise missiles.
According to experts, the hackers garnered interest in the company after it underlined its mission to develop an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), capable of bringing catastrophe to the mainland United States.
Apparently, the hackers acquired access to the company’s documents and leaked them between 2021, and May 2022. Following this, the IT engineers detected the cybercrime activities, the news agency reported.
According to Tom Hegel, a security researcher with U.S. cybersecurity firm SentinelOne, following the hack, the hackers gained access to the company’s IT environment, which enabled them to read email traffic, jump between networks, and extract data. "These findings provide rare insight into the clandestine cyber operations that traditionally remain concealed from public scrutiny or are simply never caught by such victims," Hegel said.
Digging further into the findings, Hegel’s team of security analysts discovered that one of the NPO Mash IT employees unintentionally exposed his company's internal communications while attempting to investigate the North Korean attack by uploading evidence to a secret portal used by cybersecurity researchers worldwide.
Experts speculate that the data stolen by the hacker group is of great importance, however, it will take a lot more information, effort and expertise for them to actually develop a missile.
"That's movie stuff[…]Getting plans won't help you much in building these things, there is a lot more to it than some drawings," Hegel further added.
The prediction accuracy decreased to 93% when Zoom was used to train the sound classification algorithm, still exceedingly good and a record for that medium.
Such an attack has a significantly adverse impact on the users’ data security since it is capable of exposing users' passwords, conversations, messages, and other sensitive information to nefarious outsiders.
When compared to the other side attacks that need specific circumstances and are susceptible to data rate and distance restrictions, these acoustic attacks are easier to operate because of the popularity of devices that are now equipped with high-end microphones.
This makes sound-based side-channel attacks achievable and far more hazardous than previously thought, especially given the rapid advances in machine learning.
The attack is initiated in order to acquire keystrokes on the victim’s keyboard, since the data is required for the prediction algorithm to work. This can be done via a nearby microphone or by accessing the microphone on the target's phone, which may have been compromised by malware.
Additionally, keystrokes can also be recorded via Zoom call, in which, rogue meeting attendee compares the messages entered by the target with the auditory recording of that person.
The researchers acquired training data by pressing 36 keys on a modern MacBook Pro, 25 times each, further recording the sounds produced on each press.
The spectrogram images were used to train the image classifier "CoAtNet," and it took some trials and errors with the epoch, learning rate, and data splitting parameters to get the best prediction accuracy outcomes.
The same laptop, whose keyboard has been present in all Apple laptops over the past two years, an iPhone 13 mini positioned 17 cm from the target, and Zoom were utilized in the researchers' tests.
The CoatNet classifier gained 95% accuracy in the smartphone recordings and 93% from the content captured via Zoom. Skype, on the other, produced comparatively lower accuracy, i.e. 91.7%.
In order to protect oneself from side-channel attacks, users are advised to try “altering typing styles,” or generating passwords with randomized keys.
Another safety measure includes utilizing software in order to generate keystroke sounds, white noise, or software-based keystroke audio filters.
Moreover, since the attack model proved highly efficient even against a very silent keyboard, installing sound dampeners to mechanical keyboards or shifting to membrane-based keyboards is unlikely to help in any way.
Finally, using password managers to avoid manually entering sensitive information and using biometric authentication whenever possible also serve as mitigating factors.