Mergers and Acquisitions: When Two Companies and APT Groups Come Together

With Apple’s purchase of Beats, Pfizer’s failed bids for AstraZeneca, and financial experts pointing to a rally in the M&A market, the last month was a busy one for mergers and acquisitions. Of course, when we first see headlines of a high profile company’s plans for a merger or acquisition, we rush to think of the strategic and industry implications of such a deal. But underneath the “what ifs” and “visions for the future,” is a darker side of M&A that doesn’t make the headlines: the routineness with which companies are breached and crucial data is stolen when two high-profile organizations look to join together.

Over the last few years, concerns over economic espionage have led to greater scrutiny of mergers and acquisitions involving foreign companies – particularly in industries with sensitive technologies and operations that could pose broader economic and security threats. However, entering into a merger or acquisition with a foreign company is not the only way nation-states conduct economic espionage via cyber means, nor are nation-states the only perpetrators of intellectual property theft.

From our experience responding to these breaches, we’ve seen targeted threat actors actively pursuing companies involved in mergers and acquisitions in two ways:

  • Breaching one of the merging or acquired company’s subsidiaries’ and/or partners’ networks to ultimately gain access to the targeted company’s environment and information
  • Compromising and stealing information from a company involved in business talks with a foreign enterprise in order to provide the other side with an insider advantage in the negotiations

From One Friend to Another: Taking Advantage of Trusted Relationships Between Companies

Some threat groups compromise an organization’s environment and then move laterally over a connected network to a partner or subsidiary, while others rely on social engineering tactics, such as the use of phishing emails that appear to be from employees at the partner company. We have seen China-based threat groups previously compromise targets by taking advantage of trusted relationships and bridged networks between companies. Regardless of their method of entry, these actors are often in search of the same thing: intellectual property and proprietary information that can provide their own constituents with a business advantage, whether through adopting a rival’s technology and products, securing advantageous prices, or any other tactic that could give them a leg up.

We investigated one incident in which two threat groups compromised a company shortly after it acquired a subsidiary. The threat actors used their access to the initial company’s network to move laterally to the subsidiary, which had recently developed a proprietary process for a significant new healthcare product. Once inside the subsidiary’s network, the threat groups stole data that included details on the product’s test results. We believe the threat groups sought to give that data to Chinese state-owned companies in that industry for fast-tracking the development of their own version of the groundbreaking product.

Cheating the System: Insider Advantages in Negotiations

We have also seen threat groups compromising organizations involved in merger or acquisition talks with Chinese entities, likely in an effort to steal data that could give negotiators and decision makers valuable insider information with which to manipulate the outcome of the proposed transaction. Unlike other types of economic espionage operations, the threat groups in this type of scenario are generally not in search of a company’s intellectual property. Instead, these actors look for data such as executive emails, negotiation terms, and business plans and information; all of which could benefit the negotiators by giving them insight into the victim company’s financial situation and negotiation strategy.

During one investigation, we found that a China-based threat group had compromised a company that was in the process of acquiring a Chinese subsidiary – a move that would have significantly increased the victim company’s manufacturing and retail capacity in the Chinese market. The threat actors accessed the email accounts of multiple employees involved in the negotiations in what was likely a search for information pertaining to the proceedings. We believe that the threat group then used the stolen information to inform Chinese decision makers involved in the acquisition process, as the Chinese government terminated the talks shortly after the data theft occurred.

What can we expect?

Companies involved in mergers and acquisitions need to be aware of the risks they face from threat actors intent on conducting economic espionage. Entering into a merger or acquisition with an organization that has unidentified intrusions and unaudited networks places a company at risk of compromise from threat actors who may be waiting to move laterally to the newly integrated target.

Similarly, companies, and the law firms representing them, involved in negotiations with Chinese enterprises face risks from threat groups seeking to provide the Chinese entity with an advantage in negotiations. Compromise and economic espionage can have profound impacts on a company’s finances and reputation at any time, but particularly when they are risking hundreds of millions to billions of dollars on M&A.

In many cases as well, there are broader issues of national security, so it’s imperative that companies seek to recognize and mitigate these risks as part of their M&A processes moving forward. Even governments sometimes attempt to mitigate these risks by conducting national security reviews and occasionally rejecting bids based on their findings.[i] Threat actors from many countries engage in economic espionage, making for a wide and varied threat landscape that cannot be handled by the government alone. For examples of just how diverse and crowded a space the targeted threat landscape is becoming, see our recent blog posts on Molerats, Saffron Rose, and Russia and Ukraine.


[i] “The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).” U.S. Department of the Treasury. 20 Dec. 2012. Web. 28 May 2014.

Just Released - FireEye Advanced Threat Report - 1H 2012

Advanced Threat Report 1H 2012

The third issue of the FireEye Advanced Threat Report was released today. We are excited to share this report which contains the latest advanced threat information and new insights into the continued evolution of the cyber threat landscape. Advanced malware continues to grow and in the first half of 2012 is up nearly 400% vs. the first half of 2011. On average, an organization is experiencing 643 advanced malware infections per week. Keep in mind that this is advanced malware, which are unknown threats that have not been seen before, and that bypass traditional signature-based security defenses such as next-generation firewalls, IPS, gateways, and AV. The report highlights five key findings, a few of which are included here.

Advanced threats come into organizations via several threat vectors—the Web, email, and files. While web-based threats are significant, the dangers of email-based threats are growing more severe. Links and attachments delivered via email have been the source of some of the high-profile advanced persistent threat (APT) attacks such as the RSA breach, GhostNet, and NightDragon. These targeted spear-phishing emails are up, because they work. But spear phishing emails are evolving with the use of malicious links becoming more prevalent than the use of malicious attachments.

Advanced threats are posing challenges to enterprises and government agencies across the board. Industries with intellectual property, customer information, or critical infrastructure to protect are particularly vulnerable to advanced threats. Notable increases in advanced threats have been seen in the healthcare, financial services, and energy/utility industries while the technology industry continues to experience a high level of advanced threats. No industry or government agency is immune.

We hope you find the report informative and useful. And, more importantly, we hope organizations and government agencies take action to protect themselves from advanced threats. Read more in the FireEye Advanced Threat Report by filling out the form below.

Grum—The Money Factor

As expected, the operators behind Grum are trying their best to reclaim their botnet. In the absence of any built-in fallback mechanisms, the bot herders used another fallback mechanism that is called money. Over the weekend we found that the Ukrainian ISP SteepHost removed the null route on three CnCs that were taken down last week. We suspect the bot herders must have paid a large amount of money in order to get access to these servers. We immediately noticed this change and contacted SteepHost once again. After hours of negotiations, they eventually shut down these CnCs once more. During this time there was a short burst of spam sent by Grum, but it has disappeared as of this morning. 

Grum.1d

Figure 1. Spam volume during this recovery attempt (Source: SpamHaus)

Continue reading »

Guest Blog: Former CIA CISO on Nation-State Security Challenges

There has been a growing realization by the global cyber security community that cybercriminals of all shapes, sizes, and motivations are getting a lot better at finding and exploiting zero-day attacks. Furthermore, while the bulk of these attacks still target the Microsoft family of operating systems, increasingly attacks are being targeted at the Unix/Linux family of operating systems. Correspondingly, there is also more recent awareness of the extent of Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) rootkits that were also previously unknown. So, many are asking what is the source of this very worrisome increase in sophisticated cyber attacks?

Continue reading »

FireEye Advanced Threat Report 2H 2011 Now Available

The new FireEye Advanced Threat Report for the second half of 2011, released today, is not your typical threat report. The threats we cover aren’t the known malware and spam you’ll find published in reports from traditional security vendors. Instead, what you’ll find is insight into advanced threats that have successfully evaded traditional lines of defense, including firewalls, IPS, gateways and antivirus.

Continue reading »