Phishing increasingly sophisticated

Phishing is an online threat that’s been around for more than 20 years. I initially heard of it in relation to spammers taking over an AOL account to send out spam. These days phis is more dangerous and more sophisticated. Phishing is not just used to send spam. It’s used to take over elections; it’s used to steal millions of dollars. Experts estimate that globally phishing costs companies over 9 billion dollars a year.
Even in the last two weeks we’ve seen 2 major phishing incidents. One targeted Google Docs, one targeted Docusign. Reading the news reports these are different than many of the more common phishing attacks and, to me, represent an evolution in standard phishing techniques.

The Google attack in early May was an evolution in getting access to a Google account. Instead of directing users to a fake Gmail login page, the phish asked users to allow “Google Docs” (actually an app controlled by the phisher) to access to their Google account.
I’m sure all of you have used an app or website that lets you login with Facebook or Gmail or Twitter. This is all done with a protocol called OAuth. OAuth is also how you give access to mailbox management tools like I discussed a few weeks ago.  Basically, OAuth lets users grant access and permission to a site or application using a second site without revealing their username and password. (It’s more complicated than I want to discuss, but if you’re looking for some information check out some of the sites I’ve found: wikipedia, Varonis blog, Digital Ocean knowledge base, or just search google for oauth.)
The switch from asking for a password to asking for access is, to my mind, a significant change. Now we have to be aware of what we’re authorizing and make sure that app isn’t malicious.
The Docusign phish is another evolution.  As I was looking at the phish I received yesterday I realized that it was sent to a tagged address. A tagged address only Docusign had. None of my other, heavily phished, addresses received the phish. None of Steve’s addresses received the phish. This wasn’t a widespread spray and pray phishing attack. The phishers targeted Docusign users. Yesterday afternoon, Docusign confirmed that someone stole user addresses.
This is a switch from just randomly looking for victims to targeting users of a specific service.
Phishing attacks look for the weakest links to gain access to computers, information, and money. The weakest links are always humans. Phishers have adapted to security measures for the last 20 years. There is zero reason that they won’t continue to adapt.
 
 
 

Shibboleet
You're kidding me

Related Posts

Are you (accidentally) supporting phishing

One of the themes in some of my recent talks has been how some marketers teach their customers to become victims of phishing. Typically I’m talking about how companies register domains “just for email” and then use those for bulk messages. If customers get used to mail from company.ESP.com and companyemail.com they’re going to believe that company-email.com is also you.
There are other ways to train your customers to be phishing victims, too. Zeltzer security walks us through a couple emails that look so much like phishing that it fooled company representatives. Go take a read, they give a number of examples of both good and bad emails.
biohazardmail
I was a little frustrated that the examples don’t include headers so we could look at the authentication. But the reality is only a teeny, tiny fraction of folks even know how to check headers. They’re not very useful for the average user.
Security is something we should never forget. As more and more online accounts are tied to our email addresses those of us who market to email addresses need to think about what we’re teaching our recipients about our company. DMARC and other authentication technologies can help secure email, but marketers also need to pay attention to how they are communicating with recipients.

Read More

We're all targets

Last week, another email provider announced their systems had a security incident. Mandrill’s internal security team detected unusual activity and took the servers offline to investigate. While there’s no sign any data was compromised or servers infiltrated, Mandrill sent an email to their customers explaining the incident was due to a firewall rule change.
Email service providers are a high value target for hackers, even if all they have is email addresses. Selling the email addresses is extremely profitable for hackers who can either sell the list outright or sell access to the list. In addition to gaining access to the email addresses, hackers often use the ESP to send these messages essentially stealing the ESP’s reputation to deliver the spam.
It was just over four years ago when a number of major ESPs were targets of a large attack and multiple ESPs were compromised. Earlier this month, three people were arrested for their roles in the attack. While the attacks four years ago were primarily spear phishing attacks, the security incident at Mandrill shows that hackers and botnets are actively probing the ESP’s network looking for access or known vulnerabilities. Spear phishing is an attempt to gain unauthorized access to a system by specifically targeting an individual, group, or organization. The scam attempts to have the user to click a link to infect their computer and network or capture their user id and password via a fake website. The scam email may appear to be sent from the company’s security or human resources department, but the email is either forged or another user’s account has been compromised.
Just because recent arrests have been made does not mean the threat is over. Systems often change, are upgraded, and are integrated with many additional services and systems can become vulnerable.  Security will never be a set and forget policy. In the last 12 months there has been two significant vulnerabilities discovered, first Heartbleed and second was POODLE. Security professionals from all industries had to react quickly to secure their systems and hackers immediately began probing for systems that were unpatched. GFI reports there were over 7,000 vulnerabilities discovered in 2014 with 24% of them being rated as high severity. Security must not only cover servers, but the transmission of the data internally and with third-party vendors, and the workstations of employees.
IT and security professionals must be ever vigilant in protecting their network and their customers data. SANS Institute provides a number of security control best practices including a document on Data Protection. The control recommendations range from quick wins to advanced considerations such as monitoring all traffic leaving the organization and being able to detect any unauthorized or unusual transfer of data, blocking access to file transfer protocols and file sharing websites, performing annual reviews of all keys, certifications, and security procedures.
One of the best ways to help the entire industry to be secure is to be transparent and open when incidents happen. Mandrill has published a blog post with the results of their investigation.

Read More

Aetna, phishing and security

We’ve just gotten home from M3AAWG and I’m catching up with a lot of the administrative stuff that’s gotten ignored while we were soaking up the tons of information from some of the smartest Internet security folks around. One of the tasks I’m working on is checking on our recent bills from our health insurance provider. Their website seems to be down, so I called them up and asked them if it was down or if something was broken on my end.
They did confirm there was a problem with the site “earlier today” but then started asking me for my account information. They’ve promised to email me a new password because of reasons.
One of the things about M3AAWG is that concentrated discussions about spam and online criminals and security can make everything feel so fragile and security so inadequate to protect us against criminals. I start thinking that everything is compromised. It doesn’t help that websites fail just at the time when I start trying to figure out if my personal information leaked out.
In the course of trying to figure out if there is something wrong at Aetna and if my personal information is safe, I find an article about how poor security is for health companies. “Health companies flunked an email security survey—except Aetna.” Apparently, out of all the health companies out there, Aetna are the only ones fully implementing DMARC on all their mail streams.
The problem is that for the mail I received from Aetna, the visible From: address is AetnaeBilling@aetnagroupbilling.com. This is one of the major vulnerabilities of DMARC. How can I, as a recipient, tell that this is officially mail from Aetna? Any phisher could register “aetnabilling.com” or “aetnagoupbilling.com” or “aetnaebilling.com” and publish DMARC records and use those records to phish customers. Even worse, aetnagroupbilling.com isn’t a SSL registered website.
This is exactly the type of setup a phisher would use to gain access to people’s health insurance accounts. And Aetna offers the ability to draft payments directly from a business checking account, so breaking into the billing account also offers some level of access to the business money.
Do I think this is a phish? No.
Do I think the average person would be able to tell that? No.
There’s got to be a better way to secure folks online.

Read More