- Why Cleafy
- ResourcesgDocumentsInsightsCleafy LabsEventsWebinarResources
- Get in touch
Here we go with another episode about our (not so) old friend, BRATA. In almost one year, threat actors (TAs) have further improved the capabilities of this malware. In our previous blog post  we defined three main BRATA variants, which appeared during two different waves detected by our telemetries at the very end of 2021. However, during the last months we have observed a change in the attack pattern commonly used.
In fact, the modus operandi now fits into an Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) activity pattern. This term is used to describe an attack campaign in which criminals establish a long-term presence on a targeted network to steal sensitive information.
Threat Actors behind BRATA, now target a specific financial institution at a time, and change their focus only once the targeted victim starts to implement consistent countermeasures against them. Then, they move away from the spotlight, to come out with a different target and strategies of infections. At first glance, it seems to be a good strategy with a relevant pay off. However, it’s important to point out also the struggles and the plan needed to apply this pattern.
As we highlighted through our metrics, when a new release comes out there are also new features that make it more dangerous. During the last months, a new BRATA.A variant has been spotted in EU territory posing as specific bank applications, including some internal changes, such as:
In this article, we give an overview of these new features in order to figure out their purposes and forecast new evolutions.
As we already mentioned in the previous paragraph, TAs are modifying their code in order to tailor their malware on specific banking institutions. This code refractory is actually doing small changes compared to old versions of BRATA, as there are a bunch of classes that have been added for very specific purposes.
Nevertheless, before proceeding with a deep dive into BRATA’s features, in Figure 2 we have highlighted all new functions that we observed in the last month. Most of them are very specific and their purpose is crystal clear.
Speaking about examples, we could observe a login class that disguises a classic login page in order to harvest credentials from unaware users, as well as classes like startactdevmang, startactgpper, startactoverlay and startsmspermnew have been introduced to request additional permissions for later fraud phases (e.g., device administration, gps, overlay, SMS, etc. ).
Investigation on this sample has led our researchers to discover that BRATA has been equipped with a phishing page that recreates a login page of a famous Italian bank. In this way, TAs are trying to steal sensitive information from their victims to perform some sort of social engineering in a later stage of the fraud. As shown in Figure 3, the victim is lured to type Numero Cliente and PIN. This information is the foundation of the authentication process commonly used by banks.
It’s worth mentioning that, at the time of writing, this information seems to be under development. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that there is no data exchange between the victim device and the TA infrastructure. Moreover, log information and local databases did not show evidence that these information are stored somewhere on the device. Another technique is related to the usage of screen recording functionality that could avoid storing this information, however, adopting this strategy requires additional alerting mechanisms in order to properly see all codes typed.
Furthermore, the current version of BRATA has introduced two new permissions inside the AndroidManifest file, the RECEIVE_SMS and SEND_SMS. The combination of the phishing page with the possibility to receive and read the victim’s sms could be used to perform a complete Account Takeover (ATO) attack.
As we already mentioned above, after being correctly installed on the victim’s phone, this BRATA version is going to download a .zip file from its C2. This file contains a jar file named unrar.jar.
From the information retrieved, this plugin seems to be in charge of monitoring events that are generated from applications. More specifically, each time there is a change in a text view, it stores within a local database a pair of Event Text and a Date when the event occurred.
At the time of writing, this feature seems to be under development too. However, our hypothesis is that TAs are trying to extend the functionality of the malware to get data from other applications, abusing the Accessibility Service.
During our analysis of the last BRATA campaign, we found a suspicious app connected to the same BRATA C2 infrastructure.
Analyzing the suspicious app, we observed that the developer(s) of the app used the same framework used in BRATA malware and also the same names for different classes (Figure 9).
Thanks to a deeper analysis, it is possible to say that the TAs have used some portions of BRATA code’s to create this new malicious app. Our hypothesis is that TAs are trying to develop new types of malware or they are just making some simple experiments to create new types of attacks, like contacts harvesting or SMS sniffers in order to stay undetected.
The malicious app seems to target three different countries: Great Britain, Italy and Spain. During the installation phases, in fact, it requires you to choose the language of the app.
Once installed, the pattern of the attack is similar to other SMS stealers. This consists in the malicious app asking the user to change the default messaging app with the malicious one to intercept all incoming messages, typically used by banks in PSD2 area for sending authorization codes (2FA/OTP).
The similarities between the SMS stealer and BRATA can be found in the network communication since both use the following two different ports and the endpoint "/rdc":
Starting from June 2021, when we first intercepted the BRATA campaigns in Italy, we observed an uninterrupted evolution of both the malware and the attack methodologies used by the TAs. The first campaigns of malware were distributed through fake antivirus or other common apps, while during the campaigns the malware is taking the turn of an APT attack against the customer of a specific Italian bank.
The latter trend, the so-called “Advanced Persistent Threat”, seems to be the attack pattern that TAs are going to use in the coming year.. They usually focus on delivering malicious applications targeted to a specific bank for a couple of months, and then moving to another target.