Legitimate Chrome extensions are stealing Facebook passwords
Supply-chain attacks use trojanized legitimate Google Chrome extensions for data theft.
Right after Christmas, news broke of a multi-stage attack targeting developers of popular Chrome extensions. Ironically, the biggest-name target was a cybersecurity extension created by Cyberhaven — compromised just before the holidays (we’d previously warned about such risks). As the incident investigation unfolded, the list grew to include no fewer than 35 popular extensions, with a combined total of 2.5 million installations. The attackers’ goal was to steal data from the browsers of users who installed trojanized updates of these extensions. The focus of the campaign was on stealing credentials for Meta services to compromise business accounts and display ads at victims’ expense. However, that’s not the only data that malicious extensions can steal from browsers. We explain how the attack works, and what measures you can take to protect yourself against it at different stages.
Attacking developers: OAuth abuse
To inject trojan functionality into popular Chrome extensions, cybercriminals have developed an original phishing scheme. They send developers emails disguised as standard Google alerts claiming that their extension violates Chrome Web Store policies and needs a new description. The text and layout of the message mimic typical Google emails, so the victim is often convinced. Moreover, the email is often sent from a domain set up to attack a specific extension and containing the name of the extension in the actual domain name.
Clicking the link in the email takes the user to a legitimate Google authentication page. After that, the developer sees another standard Google screen prompting to sign in via OAuth to an app called “Privacy Policy Extension”, and to grant certain permissions to it as part of the authentication process. This standard procedure takes place on legitimate Google pages, except that the “Privacy Policy Extension” app requests permission to publish other extensions to the Chrome Web Store. If this permission is granted, the creators of “Privacy Policy Extension” are able to publish updates to the Chrome Web Store on behalf of the victim.
In this case, there’s no need for the attackers to steal the developer’s password or other credentials, or to bypass multi-factor authentication (MFA). They simply abuse Google’s system for granting permissions to trick developers into authorizing the publication of updates to their extensions. Judging by the long list of domains registered by the attackers, they attempted to attack far more than 35 extensions. In cases where the attack was successful, they released an updated version of the extension, adding two files for stealing Facebook cookies and other data (worker.js and content.js).
Attacking users
Chrome extensions typically receive updates automatically, so users who switched on their machines between December 25 and December 31, and opened Chrome, may have received an infected update of a previously installed extension.
In this event, a malicious script runs in the victim’s browser and sends data needed for compromising Facebook business accounts to the attackers’ server. In addition to Facebook identifiers and cookies, the malware steals information required to log in to the target’s advertising account, such as the user-agent data to identify the user’s browser. On facebook.com, even mouse-click data is intercepted to help the threat actors bypass CAPTCHA and two-factor authentication (2FA). If the victim manages ads for their company or private business on Meta, the cybercriminals get to spend their advertising budget on their own ads — typically promoting scams and malicious sites (malvertising). On top of the direct financial losses, the targeted organization faces legal and reputational risks, as the fake ads are published under its name.
The malware can conceivably steal data from other sites too, so it’s worth checking your browser even if you don’t manage Facebook ads for a company.
What to do if you installed an infected extension update
To stop the theft of information from your browser, the first thing you need to do is to uninstall the compromised extension or update it to a patched version. See here for a list of all known infected extensions with their current remediation status. Unfortunately, simply uninstalling or updating the infected extension is not enough. You should also reset any passwords and API keys that were stored in the browser or used during the incident period.
Then, check the available logs for signs of communication with the attackers’ servers. IoCs are available here and here. If communication with malicious servers was made, look for traces of unauthorized access in all services that were opened in the infected browser.
After that, if Meta or any other advertising accounts were accessed from the infected browser, manually check all running ads, and stop any unauthorized advertising activity you find. Lastly, deactivate any compromised Facebook account sessions on all devices (Log out all other devices), clear the browser cache and cookies, log in to Facebook again, and change the account password.
Incident takeaways
This incident is another example of supply-chain attacks. In the case of Chrome, it’s made worse by the fact that updates are installed automatically without notifying the user. While updates are usually a good thing, here the auto-update mechanism allowed malicious extensions to spread quickly. To mitigate the risks of this scenario, companies are advised to do the following:
- Use group policies or the Google Admin console to restrict the installation of browser extensions to a trusted list;
- Create a list of trusted extensions based on business needs and information security practices used by the developers of said extensions;
- Apply version pinning to disable automatic extension updates. At the same time, it’ll be necessary to put in place a procedure for update monitoring and centralized updating of approved extensions by administrators;
- Install an EDR solution on all devices in your organization to protect against malware and monitor suspicious events.
Companies that publish software, including web extensions, need to ensure that permission to publish is granted to the minimum number of employees necessary — ideally from a privileged workstation with additional layers of protection, including MFA and tightly configured application launch control and website access. Employees authorized to publish need to undergo regular information security training, and be familiar with the latest attacker tactics, including spear phishing.
Tags: #cybersecurity, #data_breaches, #infostealers, #linux, #malware, #privacy, #security, #siem, 1
Related Posts
New gadgets unveiled at CES 2025, and their impact on security | Kaspersky official blogTrusted-relationship cyberattacks and their preventionPredictions for cyberthreats and trends in 2025 from Kaspersky experts | Kaspersky official blogPasswords 101: don’t enter your passwords just anywhere they’re asked for | Kaspersky official blogHow vulnerable Ecovacs robot vacuums are being hacked | Kaspersky official blogBadRAM: attack using malicious RAM module | Kaspersky official blogReviewing the Attack Surface of the Autel MaxiCharger: Part TwoReviewing the Attack Surface of the Autel MaxiCharger: Part OneCVE-2025-23922 – iSpring Embedder CSRF Vulnerability – Web Shell UploadCVE-2025-23913 – WordPress Google Map Professional SQL InjectionCVE-2025-23912 – Typomedia Foundation WordPress Custom Sidebar SQL InjectionCVE-2025-23911 – Solidres SQL Injection VulnerabilityCVE-2025-23797 – Mike Selander WP Options Editor CSRF Privilege EscalationCVE-2025-23532 – MyAnime Widget CSRF Privilege EscalationCVE-2025-23530 – Social Ink Custom Post Type Lockdown CSRF Privilege EscalationCVE-2025-23528 – DD Roles Privilege Escalation perms VulnerabilityCVE-2025-23201 – Librenms Cross-Site Scripting VulnerabilityCVE-2025-23200 – Librenms Stored Cross-Site Scripting VulnerabilityCVE-2025-23199 – Librenms Stored XSS VulnerabilityCVE-2025-23198 – Librenms Stored XSS Vulnerability
CVE-2025-23198 - Librenms Stored XSS Vulnerability - Alireza Gharib Blog
CVE-2025-23198 - Librenms Stored XSS Vulnerability Alireza Gharib Blog From advanced cybersecurity strategies to Unix-based automation and infrastructure solutions, discover tools, tips, and resources for modern IT professionals.daud (Alireza Gharib Blog)
Trusted-relationship cyberattacks and their prevention
How to work with suppliers to reduce the risk of incidents related to supply-chain cyberattacks.The old saying, “A chain is only as strong as its weakest link”, directly applies to enterprise cybersecurity. Businesses these days often rely on dozens or even hundreds of suppliers and contractors, who, in turn, use the services and products of yet more contractors and suppliers. And when these chains involve not raw materials but complex IT products, ensuring their security becomes significantly more challenging. This fact is exploited by attackers, who compromise a link in the chain to reach its end — their main target. Accordingly, it’s essential for business leaders and the heads of IT and information security to understand the risks of supply-chain attacks in order to manage them effectively.
What is a supply-chain attack?
A supply-chain attack involves a malicious actor infiltrating an organization’s systems by compromising a trusted third-party software vendor or service provider. Types of this attack include the following:
- Compromising well-known software developed by a supplier and used by the target organization (or multiple organizations). The software is modified to perform malicious tasks for the attacker. Once the next update is installed, the software will contain undeclared functionality that allows the organization to be compromised. Well-known examples of such attacks include the compromise of the SolarWinds Orion and 3CX Last year, the to-date largest attempt at such an attack was discovered — XZ Utils. Fortunately, it was unsuccessful.
- Attackers find corporate accounts used by a service provider to work within the target organization’s systems. The attackers use these accounts to infiltrate the organization and carry out an attack. For example, the American retail giant Target was hacked through an account issued to an HVAC provider.
- Attackers compromise a cloud provider or exploit the features of a cloud provider’s infrastructure to access the targeted organization’s data. The most high-profile case last year involved the compromise of more than 150 clients of the Snowflake cloud service, leading to the data leak of hundreds of millions of users of Ticketmaster, Santander Bank, AT&T, and others. Another large-scale, big-impact attack was the hack of the authentication service provider Okta.
- Attackers exploit permissions delegated to a contractor in cloud systems, such as Office 365, to gain control over the target organization’s documents and correspondence.
- Attackers compromise specialized devices belonging to or administered by a contractor, but connected to the target organization’s network. Examples include smart-office air-conditioning systems, and video surveillance systems. For example, building automation systems became a foothold for a cyberattack on telecom providers in Pakistan.
- Attackers modify IT equipment purchased by the target organization, either by infecting pre-installed software or embedding hidden functionality into the devices’ firmware. Despite their complexity, such attacks have actually occurred in practice. Proven cases include Android device infections, and widely discussed server infections at the chip level.
All variations of this technique in the MITRE ATT&CK framework come under the name “Trusted Relationship” (T1199).
Benefits of supply-chain attacks for criminals
Supply-chain attacks offer several advantages for attackers. Firstly, compromising a supplier creates a uniquely stealthy and effective access channel — as demonstrated by the attack on SolarWinds Orion software, widely used in major U.S. corporations, and the compromise of Microsoft cloud systems, which led to email leaks from several U.S. government departments. For this reason, this type of attack is especially favored by criminals hunting for information. Secondly, the successful compromise of a single popular application or service instantly provides access to dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of organizations. Thus, this kind of attack also appeals to those motivated by financial gain, such as ransomware groups. One of the most high-profile breaches of this type was the attack on IT supplier Kaseya by the REvil group.A tactical advantage (to criminals) of attacks exploiting trusted relationships lies in the practical consequences of this trust: the applications and IP addresses of the compromised supplier are more likely to be on allowlists, actions performed using accounts issued to the supplier are less frequently flagged as suspicious by monitoring centers, and so on.
Damage from supply-chain attacks
Contractors are usually compromised in targeted attacks carried out by highly motivated and skilled attackers. Such attackers are typically aiming to obtain either a large ransom or valuable information — and in either case, the victim will inevitably face long-term negative consequences.These include the direct costs of investigating the incident and mitigating its impact, fines and expenses related to working with regulators, reputational damage, and potential compensation to clients. Operational disruptions caused by such attacks can also result in significant productivity losses, and threaten business continuity.
There are also cases that don’t technically qualify as supply-chain attacks — attacks on key technology providers within a specific industry — that nevertheless disrupt the supply chain. There were several examples of this in 2024 alone, the most striking being the cyberattack on Change Healthcare, a major company responsible for processing financial and insurance documents in the U.S. healthcare industry. Clients of Change Healthcare were not hacked, but while the compromised company spent a month restoring its systems, medical services in the U.S. were partially paralyzed, and it was recently revealed that confidential medical records of 100 million patients were exposed as a result of this attack. In this case, mass client dissatisfaction became a factor pressuring the company to pay the ransom.
Returning to the previously mentioned examples: Ticketmaster, which suffered a major data breach, faces several multi-billion-dollar lawsuits; criminals demanded $70 million to decrypt the data of victims of the Kaseya attack; and damage estimates from the SolarWinds attack range from $12 million per affected company to $100 billion in total.
Which teams and departments should be responsible for supply-chain-attack prevention?
While all the above may suggest that dealing with supply-chain attacks is entirely the responsibility of information security teams, in practice, minimizing these risks requires the coordinated efforts of multiple teams within the organization. Key departments that should be involved in this work include:
- Information security: responsible for implementing security measures and monitoring compliance with them, conducting vulnerability assessments, and responding to incidents.
- IT: ensures that the procedures and measures required by information security are followed when organizing contractors’ access to the organization’s infrastructure, uses monitoring tools to oversee compliance with these measures, and prevents the emergence of shadow or abandoned accounts and IT services.
- Procurement and vendor management: should work with information security and other departments to include trust and corporate information-security compliance criteria in supplier selection processes. Should also regularly check that supplier evaluations meet these criteria and ensure ongoing compliance with security standards throughout the contract period.
- Legal departments and risk management: ensure regulatory compliance and manage contractual obligations related to cybersecurity.
- Board of directors: should promote a security culture within the organization, and allocate resources for implementing the above measures.
Measures for minimizing the risk of supply-chain attacks
Organizations should take comprehensive measures to reduce the risks associated with supply-chain attacks:
- Thoroughly evaluate suppliers. It’s crucial to assess the security level of potential suppliers before beginning collaboration. This includes requesting a review of their cybersecurity policies, information about past incidents, and compliance with industry security standards. For software products and cloud services, it’s also recommended to collect data on vulnerabilities and pentests, and sometimes it’s advised to conduct dynamic application security testing (DAST).
- Implement contractual security requirements. Contracts with suppliers should include specific information security requirements, such as regular security audits, compliance with your organization’s relevant security policies, and incident notification protocols.
- Adopt preventive technological measures. The risk of serious damage from supplier compromise is significantly reduced if your organization implements security practices such as the principle of least privilege, zero trust, and mature identity management.
- Organize monitoring. We recommend using XDR or MDR solutions for real-time infrastructure monitoring and detecting anomalies in software and network traffic.
- Develop an incident response plan. It’s important to create a response plan that includes supply-chain attacks. The plan should ensure that breaches are quickly identified and contained — for example by disconnecting the supplier from company systems.
- Collaborate with suppliers on security issues. It’s vital to work closely with suppliers to improve their security measures — such collaboration strengthens mutual trust and makes mutual protection a shared priority.
Deep technological integration throughout the supply chain affords companies unique competitive advantages, but simultaneously creates systemic risks. Understanding these risks is critically important for business leaders: attacks on trusted relationships and supply chains are a growing threat, entailing significant damage. Only by implementing preventive measures across the organization and approaching partnerships with suppliers and contractors strategically can companies reduce these risks and ensure the resilience of their business.
Tags: #cybersecurity, #data_breaches, #infostealers, #linux, #malware, #privacy, #security, #siem, 02, comprehensive, Prevents, Technology
Related Posts
Passwords 101: don’t enter your passwords just anywhere they’re asked for | Kaspersky official blogBadRAM: attack using malicious RAM module | Kaspersky official blogPredictions for cyberthreats and trends in 2025 from Kaspersky experts | Kaspersky official blogHow vulnerable Ecovacs robot vacuums are being hacked | Kaspersky official blogDemonstrating reduction of vulnerability classes: a key step in CISA’s “Secure by Design” pledgeWeek in review: Exploited Ivanti Connect Secure zero-day, Patch Tuesday forecastThreat Actors Exploit a Critical Ivanti RCE Bug, AgainTheCyberThrone Security Weekly Review – January 11, 2025The Ripple Effect of API Breaches: Analyzing Business Consequences and Mitigation StrategiesThe January 2025 Security Update ReviewSimpleHelp Urgents to Patch Critical Security VulnerabilitiesReversing, Discovering, And Exploiting A TP-Link Router Vulnerability — CVE-2024–54887Microsoft’s January 2025 Patch Tuesday Fixes 159 Vulnerabilities, Including 10 Critical and 8 Zero-DaysMicrosoft: Happy 2025. Here’s 161 Security UpdatesMicrosoft Rings in 2025 With Record Security UpdateMicrosoft Patch Tuesday- January 2025Microsoft January 2025 Patch Tuesday: 8 Zero-Days, 3 Actively ExploitedMicrosoft fixes under-attack privilege-escalation holes in Hyper-VIvanti Endpoint Manager Patches Critical Security VulnerabilitiesIvanti Connect Secure Zero-Day Threat: 2,048 Vulnerable Devices and Critical Exploitation Details UnveiledIvanti Connect Secure Zero-Day Threat: 2,048 Vulnerable Devices and Critical Exploitation Details Unveiled - Alireza Gharib Blog
Ivanti Connect Secure Zero-Day Threat: 2,048 Vulnerable Devices and Critical Exploitation Details Unveiled Alireza Gharib Blog From advanced cybersecurity strategies to Unix-based automation and infrastructure solutions, discover tools, tips, and res…daud (Alireza Gharib Blog)