Phishing

Alt-text and phishing warnings

For a long time one of the “best practices” for links in html content has been to avoid having anything that looks like a URL or hostname in the visible content of the link, as ISP phishing filters are very, very suspicious of links that seem to mislead recipients about where the link goes to. They’re a very common pattern in phishing emails.

ESP being phished is a Black Friday cataclysm

There is currently a phishing attack against a major ESP. The mail came through what I presume was a compromised account hosted at one of the providers. It’s just as possible this was a domain set up for the sole purpose of phishing, though.

DMARC doesn’t fix phishing

Over the last few weeks I’ve had a lot of discussions with folks about DMARC and the very slow adoption. A big upsurge and multiple Facebook discussions were triggered by the ZDNet article DMARCs abysmal adoption explains why email spoofing is still a thing.

There are a lot of reasons DMARC’s adoption has been slow, and I’m working on a more comprehensive discussion. But one of the absolute biggest reasons is that it doesn’t actually fix phishing.

Google Suspicious Link Warnings

A number of folks in the sender space are reporting intermittent “This link may be suspicious” warnings on their emails. I first heard about it a few weeks ago from some clients. One wasn’t sure what was going on, the other found a bunch of malware uploaded into their customer accounts.

Phishing and authentication

This morning I got a rather suspicious message from a colleague on LinkedIn.

What’s a suspicious domain?

The question came up on slack and I started bullet pointing what would make a domain suspicious. Seemed like a reasonable blog post. In no particular order, some features that make a domain suspicious to spam filters.

Thinking about filters

Much of the current deliverability advice focuses on a few key ideas:

Company responsibility and compliance

I blogged a few times recently about Zoho and their issues with malicious actors abusing their platform. They asked me to post the following statement from their CEO Sridhar Vembu.

2018 JD Falk Award … a mailing list

It’s M³AAWG time. Even though we’re not there, I’m getting regular updates from friends and colleagues who are there. Yesterday, was the presentation of the 2018 JD Falk award. The award recognises “a particularly meritorious project undertaken by a dedicated individual or group reflecting the spirit of volunteerism and community building.” In this case, the award went to a group of people on the “BEC mailing list.”

Complaints, contacts and consequences

Yesterday the CRM system Zoho suffered an unexpected outage when their registrar, TierraNet suspended their domain. According to TechCrunch, Zoho’s CEO says there was no notification to the company and that the company had only 3 complaints about phishing.

What is spearphishing?

As I’m writing this, I’m watching Deputy Atty General Rod Rosenstein discuss the indictments of 12 Russian military officers for hacking activities during the 2016 election cycle. One of the methods used to gain access to systems was spearphishing.
I think most of us know what phishing is, sending lots of emails to a wide range of people in an attempt to collect some credentials. These credentials are usually passwords to bank or email accounts, but can also be things like amazon or other accounts.
Spearphishing is an attempt to collect credentials from a specific person. The net isn’t thrown wide, to collect any credentials, rather individuals are targeted and researched. These attacks are planned. The targets are carefully researched and observed. The emails are crafted specifically for that target. If one set of emails doesn’t work, then they try again.
In terms of email marketing and deliverability, phishing is something detectable by many anti-spam filters. They’re sent in bulk, and they all look similar or identical to the filters. Spearphising isn’t as simple to detect with standard tools. What many organizations have done is try and combat this with warnings in the client. Like this one from gmail:

Security is becoming a bigger and bigger part of email filtering. I expect that as filters start addressing security more, we’ll see increased warnings like the above.
What can senders do?

GDPR and Whois data

For folks who aren’t following the discussion about whois records and GDPR compliance there’s a decent summary at vice.com: What Is Going to Happen With Whois?

Way to go Equifax

Earlier this month I wrote about how we can’t trust Equifax with our personal data. I’m not sure we can trust them with a cotton ball. Today, we discover Equifax has been sending consumers worried about their personal information leaking to the wrong site.

August 2017: The month in email

Hello! Hope all are keeping safe through Harvey, Irma, Katia and the aftermath. I know many people that have been affected and are currently out of their homes. I am proud to see so many of my fellow deliverability folks are helping our displaced colleagues with resources, places to stay and money to replace damaged property.
Here’s a mid-month late wrapup of our August blog posts. Our favorite part of August? The total eclipse, which was absolutely amazing. Let me show you some pictures.

Ok, back to email.
We’re proud of the enormous milestone we marked this month: ten years of near-daily posts to our Word to the Wise blog. Thanks for all of your attention and feedback over the past decade!
In other industry news, I pointed to some interesting findings from the Litmus report on the State of Email Deliverability, which is always a terrific resource.
I also wrote about the evolution of filters at web-based email providers, and noted that Gmail’s different approach may well be because it entered the market later than other providers.
In spam, spoofing, and other abuse-related news, I posted about how easy it is for someone to spoof a sender’s identity, even without any technical hacks. This recent incident with several members of the US presidential administration should remind us all to be more careful with making sure we pay attention to where messages come from. How else can you tell that someone might not be wholly legitimate and above-board? I talked about some of what I look at when I get a call from a prospective customer as well as some of the delightful conversations I’ve had with spammers over the years.
In the security arena, Steve noted the ongoing shift to TLS and Google’s announcement that they will label text and email form fields on pages without TLS as “NOT SECURE”. What is TLS, you ask? Steve answers all your questions in a comprehensive post about Transport Layer Security and Certificate Authority Authorization records.
Also worth reading, and not just for the picture of Paddington Bear: Steve’s extremely detailed post about local-part semantics, the chunk of information before the at sign in an email address. How do you choose your email addresses (assuming they are not assigned to you at work or school…)? An email address is an identity, both culturally and for security purposes.
In subscription best practices — or the lack thereof — Steve talked about what happens when someone doesn’t quite complete a user registration. Should you send them a reminder to finish their registration? Of course! Should you keep sending those reminders for 16 months after they’ve stopped engaging with you? THE SURPRISING ANSWER! (Ok, you know us. It wasn’t that surprising.)

Email pranks and spoofing

Earlier today a twitter user calling himself Email Prankster released copies of email conversations with various members of the current US administration. Based on his twitter feed, and articles from BBC News and CNN, it appears that the prankster forged “friendly from” names in emails to staffers.
A bunch of folks will jump on this bandwagon and start making all sorts of claims about how this kind of thing would be prevented if the Whitehouse and other government offices would just implement DMARC. Problem is, that’s not true. It wouldn’t have helped at all in this case. Looking at the email screenshots all of the mail seems to come from legitimately registered addresses at free email providers like mail.com, gmail.com, and yandex.com.
One image indicates that some spam filter noticed there may be a problem. But apparently SUSPECTED_SPAM in the subject line wasn’t enough to make recipients think twice about checking the email.

The thing is, this is not “hacking” and this isn’t “spear phishing” and it’s not even really spoofing. It’s social engineering, at best. Maybe.

People are the weakest link

All of the technical security in the world won’t fix the biggest security problem: people. Let’s face it, we are the weakest link. Adding more security doesn’t work, it only causes people to figure out ways to get around the security.

DMARC doesn't fix Phishing

Not a new thing, but a nice example just popped up in my inbox on my phone.

But FedEx solved their entire phishing problem when they published a strict p=reject DMARC record, right?
This didn’t come from fedex.com. It came from another domain that looks vaguely like fedex.com – what that domain is doesn’t matter, as the domain it’s sent from isn’t displayed to the user on my phone mail client. Nor is it displayed to the user by Mail.app on my desktop, unless you turn off Mail → Preferences … → Viewing → Use Smart Addresses.

That lookalike domain could pass SPF, it could be used as d= in DKIM signing, it could even be set up with DMARC p=reject. And the mail is pixel identical to real mail from fedex.com.
On my desktop client I can hover over the link and notice it looks suspicious – but it’s no more suspicious looking than a typical ESP link-tracking URL. And on mobile I don’t even get to do that.
SPF and DKIM and DMARC can temporarily inconvenience phishers to the extent that they have to change the domain they’re sending from, but it’ll have no effect on the vulnerability of most of your audience to being phished using your brand.

You're kidding me

All the authentication and DMARC in the world can’t save you from stupid.
I just got a survey request from my bank. Or, at least, it claimed to be from my bank.

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

Using unique addresses for signups gives me the ability to track how well companies are protecting customer data. If only one company ever had an address, and it’s now getting spam or phishing mail, then that company has had a data breach. The challenge then becomes getting the evidence and details to the right people inside the company.
In one case it was easy. I knew a number of people inside the company and knew they would take it seriously and pass it on to the folks in the best place to deal with it. I did. They did. They got their systems secured and notified customers and it was all taken care of.
Other cases aren’t as easy.
Many years ago I got mail from my credit card company to a unique address. This was long before SPF or DKIM and the mail contained links different from the company’s main domain. I called them up to see if this was real or not. They told me it wasn’t, because tier 1 support are trained to tell users everything is suspicious. Eventually, though, it became clear this wasn’t a phish, it was just bad marketing by the company.
A few years ago I reported a possible breach to representatives of a company while at a meeting. Coincidentally, the address only their company had started getting phishing and spam during the conference. I brought it up to them and followed their directions for reporting. They asserted the leak wasn’t on their end, but to this day I get multiple spams a day to that address. They claimed that the spammer was someone I was friends with on their website, but they could never quite demonstrate that to my satisfaction. I treat that site as only marginally secure and take care with the information I share.
After Target was breached they emailed me, out of the blue, to the address I use at Amazon. There was some level of partnership between Amazon and Target and it appears Amazon shared at least part of their database with Target. I talked with security folks at Amazon but they told me they had no comment.
Of course, on the flip side, I know how challenging it is to sort through reports and identify the ones that are valid and ones that aren’t. When I handled abuse@ we had a customer that provided a music sharing program. If a connection was interrupted the software would attempt to reconnect. Sometimes the connection was interrupted because the modem dropped and a new person would get the IP address while the software was trying to reconnect. This would cause a flood of requests to the new person’s computer. These requests would set off personal firewalls and they’d contact abuse to tell us of hacking. There wasn’t any hacking, of course, but they’d still argue with us. One of my co-workers had a nickname for these folks that was somewhat impolite.
We had to implement some barriers to complaints to sort out the home users with personal firewalls from the real security experts with real firewalls that were reporting actual security issues. So I get that you don’t always want or need to listen to J. Random Reporter about a security issue.
Sometimes, though, J. Random Reporter knows what they’re talking about.

Yeah, I spent the morning trying to get support at a company to connect me to security or pass a message along. Too bad there isn’t a security shibboleet.

Happy New Year!

Well, we mostly survived 2016. A year ago I was making predictions about how 2016 would be the year of email security. I was thinking of things like TLS and authentication and access to the inbox. It wasn’t out of the question, Gmail said they’d be turning on p=reject sometime mid-year. They also were suggesting that they would be putting more value on messages that aligned, even in the absence of a DMARC signature. The first still hasn’t happened, and the second doesn’t appear to be in place, either.

That doesn’t mean email security wasn’t a hot topic in 2016. In fact, the use of a private email server was a major topic during the US elections. We also had spear-phishing play a major role in the compromise of campaign systems. I didn’t talk much about that here when it happened, but news reports make it clear that Chairman Podesta and others were targeted for compromise. The NY Times has a more in depth article with broader context around the attacks and how emails were used to infiltrate a major political party.
The irony is with all the time spent talking about how insecure the private server was, that server wasn’t compromised. Instead, the compromise was at Gmail.
We all need to pay attention to our email and how we use it. It also means when we’re sending bulk and marketing email we need to consider the private and personal information we’re putting in messages. Do you send PII? Is there a way you don’t have to? What can we do to protect our brand and our users?
It’s not just bulk email we need to think about, either. Personal email can contain PII, or personal information. A common saying among some of my security friends is “never put in email anything you wouldn’t want to see on the front page of the Washington Post or NY Times.” That’s an easy thing to say, but the convenience of email makes it easy to share information that we may not want on the front page of either paper. Many of us aren’t actually targets of malicious activity so we don’t have to worry about being targeted the way elected and other officials are. But that doesn’t mean we are not at risk. It just means we’re at less risk than others.
Email is a frequent vector for malicious actors to access computers. Most, if not all of the major breeches in the last few years have started with a phishing attack of some sort. The attacks are planned out and sophisticated. This is not going to get better. The phishers are smart and plan the attacks. We also need to be more personally aware of security given the current political climate. We need to take steps to protect ourselves more than we have in the past.
Security is more important than ever and we all need to protect ourselves.

Anatomy of a successful phishing attempt

Earlier this year the Exploratorium was the victim of a phishing attack. They’ve posted an article on what happened and how they discovered and dealt with the issue.
But they didn’t just report on the attack, they dissected it. And, as is appropriate for a organization with a mission of education, they mapped out what they discovered during the investigation.

There are a couple of things that stand out to me about this attack. One is that of the more interesting pieces to me is that there was a delay between the compromise and the start of the attack. The Exploratorium calls it “the pivot” and describes it as the hacker deciding what to do next. The second is that the phisher actively interacted with the victim’s account. All new mail was sent to the trash automatically so she wouldn’t see incoming mail. Some mail was actively replied to so more people would click on the message. The phisher took steps to retain access to the account for as long as possible.
One thing that the Exploratorium didn’t see was any actual access to Exploratorium files or information. That may be because the Exploratorium itself wasn’t the target. Once a phisher / hacker has access to the email account, they have access to almost everything in your online life: calendars, bank accounts, credit accounts, the list goes on. Email addresses are our online identity and getting access to the address can open access to so much more.
Quite frankly it can happen to any of us. Earlier this week we received a phishing message that looked very plausible. It came from a law firm, mentioned a subpoena and even had an attachment personalized to our company. The attachment wasn’t opened so we were fine, but I can see how that kind of email might trick someone into getting infected.
We all need to be careful online. Email is a wonderful thing, but it’s insecure. It’s a great way for criminals to get into our space and wreck havoc on our computers and our lives.

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.

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.

November 2015: The month in email

As we head into the last month of the year, we look back at our November adventures. I spoke twice this month, first at Message Systems Insight in Monterey (my wrap-up post is here) and then with Ken Magill at the at the 2015 All About eMail Virtual Conference & Expo (a short follow-up here, and a longer post on filters that came out of that discussion here.). Both were fun and engaging — it’s always great to get a direct sense of what challenges are hitting people in the email world, and to help clear up myths and misconceptions about what works and doesn’t work in email marketing and delivery. I’m putting together my conference and speaking schedule for 2016 — if you know of anything interesting that should be on my radar, please add it in the comments, thanks!
In industry news, we noted a sharp uptick in CBL listings, and then posted about the explanation for the false positives. Steve wrote about an interesting new Certificate Authority (CA) called Let’s Encrypt, which looks to be a wonderful (and much-needed) alternative for certificates, and I put together some thoughts on SenderScore.
Steve and I did a few posts in parallel this month. First, Steve posted an interesting exercise in SPF debugging. Are you seeing mail from legitimate senders flagged as spam? This might be why. My investigative post was about ISP rejections, and how you can figure out where the block is occurring. In each case, you’ll get a glimpse of how we go about identifying and troubleshooting issues, even when we don’t have much to go on.
We each also wrote a bit about phishing. Steve posted a timely warning about spear phishing — malware attacks disguised as legitimate email from within your organization — and reminds all of us to be careful about attachments. With all of the more secure options for document sharing these days, it’s a lot easier to avoid the risk by maintaining a no-attachments policy in your company. And I wrote about how the Department of Defense breaking HTML links in email to help combat phishing. If your lists include military addresses (.mil), you may want to come up with a strategy for marketing to those recipients that relies less on a clickthrough call to action.
We amused ourselves a bit with a game of Deliverability Bingo, then followed up with a more serious look at the thing we hear all the time — “I’m sure they’ll unblock me if I can just explain my business model.” While an ESP abuse desk is unlikely to be swayed by this strategy, it is actually at the core of how we think about deliverability at Word to the Wise. Legitimate senders have many kinds of lists, many kinds of recipients, many kinds of marketing strategies, and many kinds of business goals. For us to help marketers craft sustainable email programs, we need to understand exactly what matters most to our clients.

DOD breaks links in .mil clients

The Department of Defense is breaking HTML links in mail to .mil domains. This is part of the DoD’s attempt to curtail phishing.

ESP attacks, again. Be wary.

There seems to be an uptick in phishing attacks that have an impact on ESPs recently.
Your CEO
The most critical one is targeted spear-phishing attacks that claim to be internal documents sent by senior staff within the company, e.g. from the company CEO.
It’s likely that the attached documents will compromise and backdoor your machine, and from their most of your internal network, using an infected document to load a remote administration tool (RAT) such as Netwire.
Be very, very wary of document attachments, especially in generic looking emails that you weren’t expecting, from senior people. Making sure your antivirus signatures are up to date is a great idea, but nothing will protect you as effectively as not opening the infected documents.
Your domain registrar
The other campaign I’m aware of is emails that claim to be abuse reports from registrars (e.g. opensrs, tucows, etc) aimed at domain registration contacts, claiming that a domain has been suspended and that the recipient should click on a link to “download a copy of complaints received”.
e.g.

Compromises and phishing and email

Earlier this month, Sendgrid reported that a customer account was compromised and used for phishing. At the time Sendgrid thought that it was only a single compromise. However, they did undertake a full investigation to make sure that their systems were secure.
Today they released more information about the compromise. It wasn’t simply a customer account, a Sendgrid employee’s credentials were hacked. These credentials allowed the criminals to access customer data, and mailing lists. Sendgrid has a blog post listing things customers should do and describing the changes they’re making to their systems.
Last month it was Mandrill. Today it’s Sendgrid. It could be anyone tomorrow.
Security is hard, there’s no question about it. Users have to have access. Data has to be transferred. Every user, every API, every open port is a way for a bad actor to attempt access.
While it wasn’t said directly in the Sendgrid post, it’s highly likely that the employee compromise was through email. Most compromises go back to a phish or virus email that lets the attacker access the recipient’s computer. Users must be ever vigilant.
We, the email industry, haven’t made it easy for users to be vigilant. Just this weekend my best friend contacted me asking if the email she received from her bank was a phishing email. She’s smart and she’s vigilant, and she still called the number in the email and started the process without verifying that it was really from the bank. She hung up in the transaction and then contacted me to verify the email.
She sent me headers, and there was a valid DMARC record. But, before I could tell her it wasn’t a phishing email, I had to go check the whois record for the domain in question to make sure it was the bank. It could have been a DMARC authenticated email, but not from the bank. The whois records did check out, and the mail got the all clear.
There’s no way normal people can do all this checking on every email. I can’t do it, I rely on my tagged addresses to verify the mail is legitimate. If the mail comes into an address I didn’t give the sender, then it’s not legitimate – no matter what DMARC or any other type of authentication tells me. But most people don’t have access to tagged or disposable addresses.
I don’t know what the answers are. We really can’t expect people to always be vigilant and not fall for phishing. We’re just not all present and vigilant every minute of every day.
For all of you who are going to tell me that every domain should just publish a p=reject statement I’ll point out DMARC doesn’t solve the phishing problem. As many of us predicted, phishers just move to cousin and look alike domains. DMARC may protect citi.com, but citimarketingemail.com or citi.phisher.com isn’t.
We’ve got to do better, though. We’ve got to protect our own data and our customer’s data better. Email is the gateway and that means that ESPs, with their good reputations and authentication, are prime targets for criminals.

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.

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.

Disposable addresses

Both Steve and I have blogged about how we use tagged addresses to monitor and manage our incoming mail. This is not something unique to our system, but rather a feature that’s existed in many mail systems for a long time. Many unix systems support tagged addresses out of the box, but there are also commercial MTAs and even some webmail services that support tags.
Gmail offers “+ addressing” where users can use unique tags after their username. This gives every gmail use an unlimited number of addresses to use. Any address gets leaked or compromised, and you can set filters to ignore future mail to that particular tagged address.
Yahoo offers up to 500 unique addresses per account. Initially this was a service provided by OtherInbox, now owned by Return Path, but it’s not clear if that’s still the case.
Spamgourmet has been offering disposable addresses since 2000. Their system has a built in limit on the number of emails a particular email will receive, which can help control the incoming volume.
Spamex is another provider of disposable addresses that’s been around for years and is providing services that allow recipients to control their incoming mail.
New on the scene is MeAndMyID.com who popped up in the comments here today. They are offering disposable addresses, free for a lifetime, if you sign up soon.
There are also the “short term” or “open inbox” disposable addresses like Malinator or 10 Minute Mail
I find disposable addresses invaluable for sorting through the mail coming into my account. A bank email to an address I didn’t give the bank? It’s a phish. A pizza hut email to an untagged address? Not real. Target emails to an address only given to Amazon? Amazon is selling or giving addresses away in violation of their privacy policy. Unexpected email from a vendor, but to a tagged address? Time to unsubscribe as I’ve lived this long without their mail.

Massive new phishing run

It seems while the experts are meeting to figure out how to stop spam, the spammers are exploiting new ways to spam. This morning my mailbox had over 100 messages with either the subject “market report” or “eviction notice.” What headers I checked showed this was from a botnet, sent to dozens of addresses at my domains.

Target breach started from email

According to Brian Krebs the compromise of Target’s POS system probably originated with a phishing attack against one of Target’s vendors. This attack compromised credentials of the HVAC vendor and possibly allowed the hackers entrance into Target’s systems.
Interestingly, Brian mentions Ariba, a company I’ve been forced to deal by a large customer of ours. I’m not sure if there really is an attack vector where a vendor can get access through Ariba to the internal systems of the customers. However, my experience with Ariba has been frustrating and problematic, so I’ll be happy to believe their security is as broken as their email.
Email is a great way to interact with people and companies. It’s great for growing communities and businesses. But it is also a way for attackers to get access to your computer and the websites you interact with. Protect yourself, and your company, by running security software. And, please, don’t open attachments or click on links in emails and provide usernames and passwords.

Is it real or is it spam?

The wanted but unexpected email is one of the major challenges facing ISPs and filter developers. If there was never any need or desire for people to receive email from someone they don’t know, then mail clients could be locked down to only accept mail from addresses on a whitelist. It wouldn’t completely solve the spam problem, for a number of reasons, but it would lessen the problem, particularly for average email users.
But, we don’t live in a world where we know beforehand who will be sending us mail, so we can’t just whitelist correspondents and reject everything else. I think this is a good thing. Email can be used to meet new people, develop new relationships and introduce new opportunities.
While the “cold call” email isn’t much talked about I think it’s worth some discussion. What makes a good cold email? What makes a bad one? We can use two recent emails I received as examples.
Example 1:

Flush your DNS cache (again)

This time it appears that DNS for major websites, including the NY Times, has been compromised. Attackers put in DNS entries that redirected visitors to a malware site. The compromise has been fixed and the fake DNS entries corrected.
However, people may still have the old data in their DNS caches and security experts are suggesting everyone flush their DNS cache to make sure the fake data is gone.
The Washington Post has an article explaining DNS hijacking.

Address leak leads to phishing

A number of people in the industry are reporting getting phishing emails to addresses they used at DocuSign.
There were initial reports of a DocuSign data breach back in December. Now it appears DocuSign is being used as a phishing target.

Return Path partners with Symantec

Today Return Path announced a partnership with Symantec to improve their anti-phishing product. Return Path is incorporating the Symantec Trusted Domain List into their authentication and filtering product to help customers protect their brands. Press Release
Phishing scams affect everyone, and having a brand that is used in phishing can reduce consumer trust in that brand. Protecting brands in email has been one of the more difficult challenges facing the email community. With the adoption of DKIM and DMARC by major brands and ISPs it has become easier to track and address phishing.

AOL bounces and false positives

A number of people have been seeing an increase in AOL bounces over the last few days. Some of these are the new rejection 554/421 CON:B1 message. This is, basically, you’ve topped our thresholds, back off.
The other one is a bit more interesting. The error message a lot of people are seeing is 554/421 RLY:SN. Senders should only be getting this error message when they are sending email from a banned address.

Phishing and trust

Tom Sather has a great post up on the RP Email marketing blog discussing phishing. His point is that phishing lowers the overall trust in email marketing. He lists a number of things marketers should consider doing to counteract that loss of trust.
I rely heavily on the use of tagged addresses to deal with phishing in my own mailbox. If an email doesn’t come to the right address, then it’s immediately tossed as a phish. Unfortunately, as data leaks increase this is becoming less effective as a strategy.

I know your customers' passwords

Go to your ESP customer login page and use “View Source” to look at the HTML (under “Page” on Internet Explorer, “Tools->Web Developer” on Firefox, and “View” on Safari).
Go on, I’ll wait.
Search for the word autocomplete. If it says something like autocomplete=”off” then your web developers have already thought about this security issue. If it doesn’t, then you might have a serious security problem.
What’s going on here? You’ve probably noticed that when you’re filling in a web form your browser will often offer to fill in data for you once you start typing. This feature is supported by most modern browsers and it’s very convenient for users – but it works by recording the contents of the form in the browser, including the username and password.
As a bad guy that’s very interesting data. I can take some off-the-shelf malware and configure it with the URLs of a bunch of ESP login pages. Then I just need to get that malware installed on your customers desktops somehow. A targeted web drive-by malware attack, maybe based on targeted hostile banner ads is one approach, but sending email to people likely to be ESP customers is probably more effective. Maybe I’ll use hostile email that infects the machine automatically, or – most likely – I’ll use a phishing attack, sending a plausible looking email with an attachment I’m hoping recipients will open.
Once the malware is installed it can rummage through the users browser files, looking for any data that matches the list of login pages I gave it. I just need to sit back and wait for the malware to phone home and give me a nicely packaged list of ESPs, usernames and passwords. Then I can steal that customer’s email lists and send my next phishing run through that ESP.
This isn’t a new issue – it’s been discussed since browsers started implementing autocompletion over a decade ago, and it’s been a best practice to include autocomplete=”off” for password fields or login forms for years.
How serious a risk is this for ESPs? Well, I looked at the customer login pages at several ESPs that have a history of being compromised and none of them are using autocomplete=”off”. I looked at several that haven’t been compromised that I know of, and they’re all using either autocomplete=”off” or a complex (and reasonably secure-looking) javascript approach to login. Correlation isn’t causation, but it’s fairly strong circumstantial evidence.
ESPs should fix this hole if they haven’t already. If any customers are upset about having to actually type in their password (really?) they can take a look at secure password management tools (e.g. 1Password, LastPass or KeePass).
Thanks to Tim at Silverpop for reminding me that this is a serious security hole that many ESPs haven’t plugged yet and pointing me at some of these resources.
More on passwords and application security tomorrow.

Are you ready for the next attack?

ESPs are under attack and being tested. But I’m not sure much progress in handling and responding to the attacks has been made since the Return Path warning or the Epsilon compromise.
Last week a number of email marketers became aware that attacks against ESPs and senders were ongoing. The shock and surprise many people exhibited prompted my Spear Phishing post on Friday.
The first round of phishing went out on Wednesday, by Friday they were coming from a different ESP. Whether this was a compromised ESP customer or employee it doesn’t matter. ESPs should have reaction plans in place to deal with these threats.
It’s been months since the first attacks. This is more than enough time to have implemented some response to reports of attacks. Yet, many people I talked to last week had no idea what they should or could be doing to protect themselves and their customers.
Last time the attacks were publicly discussed I was frustrated with many of the “how to respond” posts because few of them seemed to address the real issue. People seemed to be pushing agendas that had nothing to do with actually fixing the security holes. There were lots of recommendations to sign all mail with DKIM, implement 2 factor authentication, deploy validation certificates on web properties, or adhere to sender’s best practices.
None of those recommendations actually addressed the gaping security hole: Humans.

New blocklisting process

There is a new type of blocking designed to interrupt the ability of users to click and visit phishing sites.
DNS Response Policy Zones allows companies running recursive resolvers to create a zone that will not resolve specific domains. This is a second layer of filtering, if a spammer manages to get an email with a malicious link into the inbox then the ISP can still protect the user from becoming a victim from the scam. For more detailed information about RPZ, check out the helpful slides published by ISC.
Two blocklists announced this morning that they were publishing lists in RPZ format so ISPs can import the data into their DNS recursive resolver. SURBL is currently offering their list as RPZ. Spamhaus is currently running a beta for the DBL in a RPZ format. If you’re a current DBL user, talk to Spamhaus about checking out their new format.

Epsilon: Calm and Cool Tempered

Stefano over at emailmarketingblog.it translated our blog post about Epsilon into Italian: Epsilon e la sicurezza dei dati sensibili: calma e sangue freddo.

Epsilon – Keep Calm and Carry On

There’s been a lot of media coverage and online discussion about the Epsilon data breach, and how it should be a big wake-up call to email recipients to change their behavior.
There’s also been a lot of panic and finger-pointing within the email industry about What Must Be Done In The Future. Most of the “you must do X in response to the data loss” suggestions are coming from the same people and groups who’ve been saying “you must do X” for years, and are just trying to grab the coattails of the publicity about this particular incident, though.
Not many people seem to be talking honestly about what this will really mean to an individual recipient whose email address Epsilon lost, though. I’m going to try to answer some questions I’ve seen asked realistically, rather than with an eye to forwarding an agenda.
1. Who are Epsilon?
Epsilon are an Email Service Provider, or ESP. That means that they handle sending email on behalf of other companies. If you’re on a company’s mailing list – you’re getting regular newsletters or special offers or any sort of email advertising – the odds are very good that the company isn’t sending you that email themselves. Instead they’re probably contracting with one of hundreds of ESPs to send the email for them. This is a good thing, as sending email to a lot of people “properly” such that it’s delivered to them in a timely fashion, it’s sent only to people who want it and so on is quite difficult to do well and any ESP you choose is likely to be better at it than a typical company trying to start sending that bulk mail themselves.
2. What happened at Epsilon?
The what is pretty simple – somebody stole a list of names and email addresses of people who were being sent email via Epsilon. Nobody outside of Epsilon and law enforcement really know the details of how it was done, though lots of people are speculating about it.
3. Is this identity theft? Do I need to check my credit rating and so on?
No, it’s not something that’s going to lead to identity theft. All that was stolen was your name, your email address and some of the companies who send you email. Your postal address, credit card numbers, social security numbers and so on aren’t at risk, even if you’ve given those to the companies who are sending you email. The only information those companies passed to Epsilon were your name and email address, nothing more, so that’s all that was stolen.
4. Is this common?
Yes, it happens all the time. I use tagged email addresses when I give them to a company, and I’ve done so fairly consistently for the better part of two decades. That lets me track when email addresses are leaked, by who and to whom. Email addresses you give to a company leak to spammers all the time. That’s true for huge companies, tiny one-woman companies, tech-savvy companies, everyone.
5. How do email addresses leak from companies to spammers?
There are a lot of ways

Real. Or. Phish?

After Epsilon lost a bunch of customer lists last week, I’ve been keeping an eye open to see if any of the vendors I work with had any of my email addresses stolen – not least because it’ll be interesting to see where this data ends up.
Yesterday I got mail from Marriott, telling me that “unauthorized third party gained access to a number of Epsilon’s accounts including Marriott’s email list.”. Great! Lets start looking for spam to my Marriott tagged address, or for phishing targeted at Marriott customers.
I hit what looks like paydirt this morning. Plausible looking mail with Marriott branding, nothing specific to me other than name and (tagged) email address.
It’s time to play Real. Or. Phish?
1. Branding and spelling is all good. It’s using decent stock photos, and what looks like a real Marriott logo.
All very easy to fake, but if it’s a phish it’s pretty well done. Then again, phishes often steal real content and just change out the links.
Conclusion? Real. Maybe.
2. The mail wasn’t sent from marriott.com, or any domain related to it. Instead, it came from “Marriott@marriott-email.com”.
This is classic phish behaviour – using a lookalike domain such as “paypal-billing.com” or “aolsecurity.com” so as to look as though you’re associated with a company, yet to be able to use a domain name you have full control of, so as to be able to host websites, receive email, sign with DKIM, all that sort of thing.
Conclusion? Phish.
3. SPF pass
Given that the mail was sent “from” marriott-email.com, and not from marriott.com, this is pretty meaningless. But it did pass an SPF check.
Conclusion? Neutral.
4. DKIM fail
Authentication-Results: m.wordtothewise.com; dkim=fail (verification failed; insecure key) header.i=@marriott-email.com;
As the mail was sent “from” marriott-email.com it should have been possible for the owner of that domain (presumably the phisher) to sign it with DKIM. That they didn’t isn’t a good sign at all.
Conclusion? Phish.
5. Badly obfuscated headers
From: =?iso-8859-1?B?TWFycmlvdHQgUmV3YXJkcw==?= <Marriott@marriott-email.com> Subject: =?iso-8859-1?B?WW91ciBBY2NvdW50IJYgVXAgdG8gJDEwMCBjb3Vwb24=?=
Base 64 encoding of headers is an old spammer trick used to make them more difficult for naive spam filters to handle. That doesn’t work well with more modern spam filters, but spammers and phishers still tend to do it so as to make it harder for abuse desks to read the content of phishes forwarded to them with complaints. There’s no legitimate reason to encode plain ascii fields in this way. Spamassassin didn’t like the message because of this.
Conclusion? Phish.
6. Well-crafted multipart/alternative mail, with valid, well-encoded (quoted-printable) plain text and html parts
Just like the branding and spelling, this is very well done for a phish. But again, it’s commonly something that’s stolen from legitimate email and modified slightly.
Conclusion? Real, probably.
7. Typical content links in the email
Most of the content links in the email are to things like “http://marriott-email.com/16433acf1layfousiaey2oniaaaaaalfqkc4qmz76deyaaaaa”, which is consistent with the from address, at least. This isn’t the sort of URL a real company website tends to use, but it’s not that unusual for click tracking software to do something like this.
Conclusion? Neutral
8. Atypical content links in the email
We also have other links:

Time for a real security response

I’ve seen a number of people and blogs address the recent breaches at some large ESPs make recommendations on how to fix things. Most of them are so far from right they’re not even wrong.
One group is pointing at consumers and insisting consumers be taught to secure their machines. But consumers weren’t compromised here.
Another group is pointing to senders and insisting senders start authenticating all their email. But the failure wasn’t in authentication and some of the mail is coming through the ESP systems and is authenticated.
Still others are claiming that ISPs need to step up their filtering. But the problem wasn’t with the ISPs letting too much email through.
The other thing that’s been interesting is to watch groups jump on this issue to promote their pet best practices. DKIM proponents are insisting everyone sign email with DKIM. Extended SSL proponents are insisting everyone use extended SSL. But the problem wasn’t with unsigned email or website trust.
All of these solutions fail to address the underlying issue:
ESPs do not have sufficient security in place to prevent hackers from getting into their systems and stealing their customers’ data.
ESPs must address real security issues. Not security issues with sending mail, but restricting the ability of hackers to get into their systems. This includes employee training as well as hardening of systems. These are valuable databases that can be compromised by getting someone inside support to click on a phish link.
Not everyone inside an ESP needs access to address lists. Not everyone inside an ESP customer needs full access to address lists. ESPs must implement controls on who can touch, modify, or download address lists. These controls must address technical attacks, spear phishing attacks and social engineering attacks.
What’s happening here actually looks a lot like the Comodo certificate attack or the RSA compromise.
It’s time for the ESP industry to step up and start taking system security seriously.

Targeted attacks via email – phishing for WoW gold

You’re going to be seeing a lot of discussion about email addresses stolen from ESPs in the next few days, if you haven’t already. There are a lot of interesting things to discuss about that from an email perspective – from “Why two factor authentication isn’t a magic bullet.” to “And this is why corporate spam folders can be a major security risk.”
We could have fodder for blog content for weeks!
Right now I’m just going to look at one of the reasons why it’s worth stealing a list of email addresses from an ESP or a list owner, rather than just gathering them from other sources. That is, why the ESPs and list owners are high value targets beyond just “that’s where the email addresses are“.
If you steal a list of addresses from a list owner, or a bunch of lists from an ESP, you have one very useful extra piece of information about the recipients beyond the usual name-and-email-address. You know a company that the recipient is already expecting to receive email from.
That means that you know someone you can pretend to be in order to get a recipient to open and respond to a malicious email you send them – which will make an attempt to phish someones credentials or compromise their computer via email much more likely to be effective.
A good example of targeted phishing for credentials is the online game World of Warcraft. There’s a huge criminal underground that makes real world money by selling game money to players. The main thing the gold sellers need to have to be able to acquire game money, advertise their services to players and to give game money to players in return for dollars is an endless series of World of Warcraft accounts. Blizzard, the World of Warcraft owner, work reasonably hard to squash those accounts and make it slightly tricky for the gold sellers to sign up for them, so stealing account credentials from existing users is a great way to get them. And you can also strip those accounts bare of in-game possessions and gold in the process.
Some of the phishing is done in the game itself, where you know that everyone has an account you can steal if you can just get them to visit your website and compromise their machine…

Authentication and phishing

Yahoo announced today that they are releasing the Yahoo! Mail Anti-Phishing Platform (YMAP) that will help protect their users from phishing. They have a similar project in place for eBay and PayPal mail, but this will extend to a broader range of companies.

Phishing protection

Last week Return Path announced a new service: Domain Assurance. This service allows companies who send only authenticated email to protect their brand from phishing attacks. Participating ISPs will reject unauthenticated email from domains participating in this program.

Email attacks

Ken has an article up today about the ongoing attacks against ESPs and email marketers. In it he says:

Domain Assurance by Return Path

As often happens during MAAWG, email companies are announcing new products. One of the interesting ones is the new Domain Assurance product from Return Path.

How to disable a domain

Sometimes you might want to make it clear that a domain isn’t valid for email.
Perhaps it’s a domain or subdomain that’s just used for infrastructure, perhaps it’s a brand-specific domain you’re only using for a website. Or perhaps you’re a target for phishing and you’ve acquired some lookalike domains, either pre-emptively or after enforcement action against a phisher, and you want to make clear that the domain isn’t legitimate for email.
There are several things to check before disabling email.
1. Are you receiving email at the domain? Is anyone else?
Check the MX records for the domain, using “host -t mx example.com” from a unix commandline, or using an online DNS tool such as xnnd.com.
If they’re pointing at a mailserver you control, check to see where that mail goes. Has anything been sent there recently?
If they’re pointing at a mailserver that isn’t yours, try and find out why.
If there are no MX records, but there is an A record for the domain then mail will be delivered there instead. Check whether that machine receives email for the domain and, if so, what it does with it.
Try sending mail to postmaster@ the domain, for instance postmaster@example.com. If you don’t get a bounce within a few minutes then that mail may be being delivered somewhere.
2. Are you sending email from the domain? Is anyone else?
You’re more likely to know whether you’re sending mail using the domain, but there’s a special case that many people forget. If there’s a server that has as it’s hostname the domain you’re trying to shut down then any system software running no that server – monitoring software, security alerts, output from cron and so on – is probably using that hostname to send mail. If so, fix that before you go any further.
3. Will you need mail sent to that domain for retrieving passwords?
If there are any services that might have been set up using an email address at the domain then you might need a working email address there to retrieve lost passwords. Having to set email back up for the domain in the future to recover a password is time consuming and annoying.
The domain registration for the domain itself is a common case, but if there’s any dns or web hosting being used for the domain, check the contact information being used there.
4. How will people contact you about the domain?
Even if you’re not using the domain for email it’s quite possible that someone may need to contact you about the domain, and odds are good they’ll want to use email. Make sure that the domain registration includes valid contact information that identifies you as the owner and allows people to contact you easily.
If you’re hosting web content using the domain, make sure there’s some way to contact you listed there. If you’re not, consider putting a minimal webpage there explaining the ownership, with a link to your main corporate website.
5. Disabling email
The easiest way to disable email for a domain is to add three DNS records for the domain. In bind format, they look like: