PIN-Stealing Android Malware

This is an old piece of malware—the Chameleon Android banking Trojan—that now disables biometric authentication in order to steal the PIN:

The second notable new feature is the ability to interrupt biometric operations on the device, like fingerprint and face unlock, by using the Accessibility service to force a fallback to PIN or password authentication.

The malware captures any PINs and passwords the victim enters to unlock their device and can later use them to unlock the device at will to perform malicious activities hidden from view.

Posted on January 9, 2024 at 7:03 AM5 Comments

Comments

Clive Robinson January 9, 2024 9:25 AM

@ ALL,

Apparently it attaches it’s self using the “Zombinder” service to legitimate “Android package files”(APK) a user downloads.

But –from the article– the Zombinder service developers / suppliers claim

“its malicious bundles are undetectable in runtime, bypassing Google Protect alerts and evading any anti-virus products running on the infected device.”

This suggests that things are maybe deficient on Googles side of the fence.

But then the “walk the user through” HTML page to bypass the security “restricted settings” is as they say yet another nice touch.

The real question though is,

“Is there anything Google can do to limit or stop this sort of attack, and still leave the OS viable?”

As the initial stages all appear to be done via misleading users (ie what was once seen as an extension to social engineering).

But it further suggests that “Walled Gardens” and “Code Signing” are alao deficient or at best quite fragile security mechanisms. With much more robust systems required as a minimum.

Many years ago people were asking if “Walled Gardens” were a way to steal user freedoms on the assumption the users were not susceptible to such attacks…

Can we actually provide systems that are secure against users?

I’d like to say yes, but the honest answer is probably no.

MDK January 9, 2024 11:43 AM

@Clive @ALL

I’m with you on probably not. At least not Google Android etc alone. SIEM integration would likely detect this activity.

lurker January 9, 2024 6:33 PM

@Clive Robinson

Can we actually provide systems that are secure against users?

There’s another saying that having physical possesion of the hardware means Game Over. So users must always be their own worst enemy. Not all users, not all the time, but having to mop up after self-inflicted damage was the least enjoyable part of tech support.

And my bank may be complicit while it continues to nag, why don’t I use their app on my phone and avoid the hassle of their version of 2FA login.

Clive Robinson January 10, 2024 7:53 AM

@ lurker,

Re : Some realy don’t get it…

As you note,

“So users must always be their own worst enemy”

But others are even worse… Take your example of,

“And my bank may be complicit while it continues to nag, why don’t I use their app…”

A short but true story of looking for a new bank.

All and I do mean all the high st banks I went to all have “online banking” of one form or another. And you probably know that as with “Secure Messaging Apps” they are only part of a system and as I’ve repeatedly said before by the way the total system works it can not be secure by any reasonable definition of the word.

When you tell the person you do not want their “plus point junk” and “would never use it” because “it can never be secure” they go into “I am a sales droid mode” and keep trying to push beyond the word “No”.

I’ve even found telling them it’s not just me I’m protecting but them as well… Because few of these droids realise that pushing “on line” is the psychos at the top of the bank trying to cut work force premises and other costs like “paying the droid” by “terminating their job”.

They kind of look at you as though you are mad… A few years later and my local small town that had five banks or equivalents “on the high st” now has only one and it’s days are numbered as most of the staff have gone…

Lets be honest, being a droid for a bank is of very limited prospects in other potential job markets.

If you follow the “close the high st” logic their prospects are kind of heading to Uber Driver or Amazon delivery… But as we know both Uber and Amazon don’t want “human cost” either which is why they are looking so hard at “Mechanical Drones not human Droids”…

If you tell the bank droids this and say that by not using “On-Line” I’m doing the little I can to stop them turning the droid into an unemployed they look at though as though you are nuts…

The truth though is I don’t want high streets to close and it’s for my own security in many ways. Yes I might pay a hefty price for that security in 15-50% higher prices… But the only time I tried OnLine with Amazon they stole my money… So 100% loss of money and no goods… Not exactly a good deal.

But using the high st, and paying cash gives you a form of anonymity but certificated.

If you use a payment card you can be “followed around” not just by location but by time and date. This can be all found without an legall oversight and increasingly automated systems to track people are being added to “Guard Labour” such as those with “Police powers”. You might have heard in the UK the Government has decreed that “the unemployed” will have their bank records made open for examination by the equivalent of “RoboDebt” systems designed to find people “guilty” by any way possible thus subject them to disproportianate sanctions. Well obviously payment cards will be next.

Getting cash and using cash only is a way to protect yourself from this sort of unwaranted and unlawfull surveillance because it rises the cost of surveillance beyond the investagatative bar.

You however have certificates of transactio that usually give place and time given to you by law called “sales recipts”. Thus if you keep them safely and securely you have a way to defend yourself in court.

Why “court” and not “Guard Labour questioning”? Well remember their job is not justice but to find somebody to be guilty.

As people here should know guard labour has fixed notions about guilty people that boil down to who it’s easiest to convict. It’s the primary reason you are told “Do Not Talk to the Police” because if you come up with an alibi, they will “invent a witness” or other method to break it…

So they want you to “commit to a time line” they can then fit evidence around or to break, likewise a position line.

It’s obviously to your disadvantage to “commit” to anything when they don’t have to untill you get to court.

The legal system is allegadly about “equity of arms”… Thus having you effectively denied arms or armour by “Rights Stripping” and similar is not justice in any way.

As any book on military strategy will tell you advance planning and tactics limits the opportunity of an agressor to gain advantage by ambush etc over you. As people say around here from time to time Politicians and the Government “see the citizens as the enemy” and logically that means any and all “Guard Labour” see you likewise.

Oh fun one, this is the UK “Caution” read it carefully and find the weasel words that try to strip you of all rights,

“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

Start by reading it in reverse order see that word “may”? It can be changed to “will only, if it makes you look guilty,”. Every one of those three sentances are in fact untruths ment to deceive you some in more than one way…

Leave a comment

Login

Allowed HTML <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre> Markdown Extra syntax via https://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.