Kansas Man Killed In ‘SWATting’ Attack

A 28-year-old Kansas man was shot and killed by police officers on the evening of Dec. 28 after someone fraudulently reported a hostage situation ongoing at his home. The false report was the latest in a dangerous hoax known as “swatting,” wherein the perpetrator falsely reports a dangerous situation at an address with the goal of prompting authorities to respond to that address with deadly force. This particular swatting reportedly originated over a $1.50 wagered match in the online game Call of Duty. Compounding the tragedy is that the man killed was an innocent party who had no part in the dispute.

The following is an analysis of what is known so far about the incident, as well as a brief interview with the alleged and self-professed perpetrator of this crime.

It appears that the dispute and subsequent taunting originated on Twitter. One of the parties to that dispute — allegedly using the Twitter handle “SWauTistic” — threatened to swat another user who goes by the nickname “7aLeNT“. @7aLeNT dared someone to swat him, but then tweeted an address that was not his own.

Swautistic responded by falsely reporting to the Kansas police a domestic dispute at the address 7aLenT posted, telling the authorities that one person had already been murdered there and that several family members were being held hostage.

Image courtesey @mattcarries

A story in the Wichita Eagle says officers responded the 1000 block of McCormick and got into position, preparing for a hostage situation.

“A male came to the front door,” Livingston said. “As he came to the front door, one of our officers discharged his weapon.”

“Livingston didn’t say if the man, who was 28, had a weapon when he came to the door, or what caused the officer to shoot the man. Police don’t think the man fired at officers, but the incident is still under investigation, he said. The man, who has not been identified by police, died at a local hospital.

“A family member identified that man who was shot by police as Andrew Finch. One of Finch’s cousins said Finch didn’t play video games.”

Not long after that, Swautistic was back on Twitter saying he could see on television that the police had fallen for his swatting attack. When it became apparent that a man had been killed as a result of the swatting, Swautistic tweeted that he didn’t get anyone killed because he didn’t pull the trigger (see image above).

Swautistic soon changed his Twitter handle to @GoredTutor36, but KrebsOnSecurity managed to obtain several weeks’ worth of tweets from Swautistic before his account was renamed. Those tweets indicate that Swautistic is a serial swatter — meaning he has claimed responsibility for a number of other recent false reports to the police.

Among the recent hoaxes he’s taken credit for include a false report of a bomb threat at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that disrupted a high-profile public meeting on the net neutrality debate. Swautistic also has claimed responsibility for a hoax bomb threat that forced the evacuation of the Dallas Convention Center, and another bomb threat at a high school in Panama City, Fla, among others.

After tweeting about the incident extensively this afternoon, KrebsOnSecurity was contacted by someone in control of the @GoredTutor36 Twitter account. GoredTutor36 said he’s been the victim of swatting attempts himself, and that this was the reason he decided to start swatting others.

He said the thrill of it “comes from having to hide from police via net connections.” Asked about the FCC incident, @GoredTutor36 acknowledged it was his bomb threat. “Yep. Raped em,” he wrote.

“Bomb threats are more fun and cooler than swats in my opinion and I should have just stuck to that,” he wrote. “But I began making $ doing some swat requests.”

Asked whether he feels remorse about the Kansas man’s death, he responded “of course I do.”

But evidently not enough to make him turn himself in.

“I won’t disclose my identity until it happens on its own,” the user said in a long series of direct messages on Twitter. “People will eventually (most likely those who know me) tell me to turn myself in or something. I can’t do that; though I know its [sic] morally right. I’m too scared admittedly.”

ANALYSIS

As a victim of my own swatting attack back in 2013, I’ve been horrified to watch these crimes only increase in frequency ever since — usually with little or no repercussions on the part of the person or persons involved in setting the schemes in motion. Given that the apparent perpetrator of this crime seems eager for media attention, it seems likely he will be apprehended soon. My guess is that he is a minor and will be treated with kid gloves as a result, although I hope I’m wrong on both counts.

Let me be crystal clear on a couple of points. First off, there is no question that police officers and first responders across the country need a great deal more training to bring the number of police shootings way down. That is undoubtedly a giant contributor to the swatting epidemic.

Also, all police officers and dispatchers need to be trained on what swatting is, how to spot the signs of a hoax, and how to minimize the risk of anyone getting harmed when responding to reports about hostage situations or bomb threats. Finally, officers of the peace who are sworn to protect and serve should use deadly force only in situations where there is a clear and immediate threat. Those who jump the gun need to be held accountable as well.

But that kind of reform isn’t going to happen overnight. Meanwhile, knowingly and falsely making a police report that results in a SWAT unit or else heavily armed police response at an address is an invitation for someone to get badly hurt or killed. These are high-pressure situations and in most cases — as in this incident — the person opening the door has no idea what’s going on. Heaven protect everyone at the scene if the object of the swatting attack is someone who is already heavily armed and confused enough about the situation to shoot anything that comes near his door.

In some states, filing a false police report is just a misdemeanor and is mainly punishable by fines. However, in other jurisdictions filing a false police report is a felony, and I’m afraid it’s long past time for these false reports about dangerous situations to become a felony offense in every state. Here’s why.

If making a fraudulent report about a hostage situation or bomb threat is a felony, then if anyone dies as a result of that phony report they can legally then be charged with felony murder. Under the doctrine of felony murder, when an offender causes the death of another (regardless of intent) in the commission of a dangerous crime, he or she is guilty of murder.

Too often, however, the perpetrators of these crimes are minors, and even when they’re caught they are frequently given a slap on the wrist. Swatting needs to stop, and unfortunately as long as there are few consequences for swatting someone, it will continue to be a potentially deadly means for gaining e-fame and for settling childish and pointless ego squabbles.

from
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/12/kansas-man-killed-in-swatting-attack/

Happy 8th Birthday, KrebsOnSecurity!

Eight years ago today I set aside my Washington Post press badge and became an independent here at KrebsOnSecurity.com. What a wild ride it has been. Thank you all, Dear Readers, for sticking with me and for helping to build a terrific community.

This past year KrebsOnSecurity published nearly 160 stories, generating more than 11,000 reader comments. The pace of publications here slowed down in 2017, but then again I have been trying to focus on quality over quantity, and many of these stories took weeks or months to report and write.

As always, a big Thank You to readers who sent in tips and personal experiences that helped spark stories here. For anyone who wishes to get in touch, I can always be reached via this site’s contact form, or via email at krebsonsecurity @ gmail dot com.

Here are some other ways to reach out:

Twitter (open DMs)

Facebook

via Wickr at “krebswickr”

Protonmail: krebsonsecurity at protonmail dot com

Keybase

Below are the Top 10 most-read stories of 2017, as decided by views and sorted in reverse chronological order:

The Market for Stolen Account Credentials

Phishers are Upping Their Game: So Should You

Equifax Breach Fallout: Your Salary History

USPS’ Informed Delivery is a Stalker’s Dream

The Equifax Breach: What You Should Know

Got Robocalled? Don’t Get Mad, Get Busy

Why So Many Top Hackers Hail from Russia

Post-FCC Privacy Rules: Should You VPN?

If Your iPhone is Stolen, These Guys May Try to iPhish You

Who is Anna-Senpai, the Mirai Worm Author?

from
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/12/happy-8th-birthday-krebsonsecurity/

4 Years After Target, the Little Guy is the Target

Dec. 18 marked the fourth anniversary of this site breaking the news about a breach at Target involving some 40 million customer credit and debit cards. It has been fascinating in the years since that epic intrusion to see how organized cyber thieves have shifted from targeting big box retailers to hacking a broad swath of small to mid-sized merchants.

In many ways, not much has changed: The biggest underground shops that sell stolen cards still index most of their cards by ZIP code. Only, the ZIP code corresponds not to the legitimate cardholder’s billing address but to the address of the hacked store at which the card in question was physically swiped (the reason for this is that buyers of these cards tend to prefer cards used by people who live in their geographic area, as the subsequent fraudulent use of those cards tends to set off fewer alarm bells at the issuing bank).

Last week I was researching a story published here this week on how a steep increase in transaction fees associated with Bitcoin is causing many carding shops to recommend alternate virtual currencies like Litecoin. And I noticed that popular carding store Joker’s Stash had just posted a new batch of cards dubbed “Dynamittte,” which boasted some 7 million cards advertised as “100 percent” valid — meaning the cards were so fresh that even the major credit card issuers probably didn’t yet know which retail or restaurant breach caused this particular breach.

An advertisement for a large new batch of stolen credit card accounts for sale at the Joker’s Stash Dark Web market.

Translation: These stolen cards were far more likely to still be active and useable after fraudsters encode the account numbers onto fake plastic and use the counterfeits to go shopping in big box stores.

I pinged a couple of sources who track when huge new batches of stolen cards hit the market, and both said the test cards they’d purchased from the Joker’s Stash Dynamittte batch mapped back to customers who all had one thing in common: They’d all recently eaten at a Jason’s Deli location.

Jason’s Deli is a fast casual restaurant chain based in Beaumont, Texas, with approximately 266 locations in 28 states. Seeking additional evidence as to the source of the breach, I turned to the Jason’s Deli Web site and scraped the ZIP codes for their various stores across the country. Then I began comparing those ZIPs with the ZIPs tied to this new Dynamittte batch of cards at Joker’s Stash.

Checking my work were the folks at Mindwise.io, a threat intelligence startup in California that monitors Dark Web marketplaces and tries to extract useful information from them. Mindwise found a nearly 100 percent overlap between the ZIP codes on the “Blasttt-US” unit of the Dynamittte cards for sale and the ZIP codes for Jason’s Deli locations.

Reached for comment, Jason’s Deli released the following statement:

“On Friday, Dec. 22, 2017, our company was notified by payment processors – the organizations that manage the electronic connections between Jason’s Deli locations and payment card issuers – that MasterCard security personnel had informed it that a large quantity of payment card information had appeared for sale on the ‘dark web,’ and that an analysis of the data indicated that at least a portion of the data may have come from various Jason’s Deli locations.”

“Jason’s Deli’s management immediately activated our response plan, including engagement of a leading threat response team, involvement of other forensic experts, and cooperation with law enforcement. Among the questions that investigators are working to determine is whether in fact a breach took place, and if so, to determine its scope, the method employed, and whether there is any continuing breach or vulnerability.”

“The investigation is in its early stages and, as is typical in such situations, we expect it will take some time to determine exactly what happened. Jason’s Deli will provide as much information as possible as the inquiry progresses, bearing in mind that security and law enforcement considerations may limit the amount of detail we can provide.”

It’s important to note that the apparent breach at Jason’s Deli almost certainly does not correspond to 7 million cards; typically, carding shop owners will mix cards stolen from multiple breaches into one much larger batch (Dynamittte), and often further subdivide the cards by region (US vs. European cards).

As run-of-the-mill as these card breaches have become, it’s still remarkable even in smaller batches of cards like those apparently stolen from Jason’s Deli customers just how many financial institutions are impacted with each breach.

Banks impacted by the apparent breach at Jason’s Deli, sorted by Bank ID Number (BIN) — i.e. the issuer identified by the first six digits in the card number.

Mindwise said it was comfortable concluding that at least 170,000 of the cards for put up for sale this past week on Joker’s Stash map back to Jason’s Deli locations. That may seem like a drop in the bucket compared to the 40 million cards that thieves hauled away from Target four years ago, but the cards stolen from Jason’s Deli customers were issued by more than 250 banks and credit unions, most of which will adopt differing strategies on how to manage fraud on those cards.

In other words, by moving down the food chain to smaller but far more plentiful and probably less secure merchants (either by choice or because the larger stores became a harder target) — and by mixing cards stolen from multiple breaches — the fraudsters have made it less likely that breaches at chain stores will be detected and remediated quickly, thereby prolonging the value and use of the stolen cards put up for sale in underground marketplaces.

All that said, it’s really not worth it to spend time worrying about where your card number may have been breached, since it’s almost always impossible to say for sure and because it’s common for the same card to be breached at multiple establishments during the same time period.

Just remember that although consumers are not liable for fraudulent charges, it may still fall to you the consumer to spot and report any suspicious charges. So keep a close eye on your statements, and consider signing up for text message notifications of new charges if your card issuer offers this service. Most of these services also can be set to alert you if you’re about to miss an upcoming payment, so they can also be handy for avoiding late fees and other costly charges.

Related reading (i.e., other breach stories confirmed with ZIP code analysis):

Breach at Sonic Drive-in May Have Impacted Millions of Credit, Debit Cards

Zip Codes Show Extent of Sally Beauty Breach

Data: Nearly All U.S. Home Depot Stores Hit

Cards Stolen in Target Breach Flood Underground Markets

from
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/12/4-years-after-target-the-little-guy-is-the-target/

Skyrocketing Bitcoin Fees Hit Carders in Wallet

Critics of unregulated virtual currencies like Bitcoin have long argued that the core utility of these payment systems lies in facilitating illicit commerce, such as buying drugs or stolen credit cards and identities. But recent spikes in the price of Bitcoin — and the fees associated with moving funds into and out of it — have conspired to make Bitcoin a less useful and desirable payment method for many crooks engaged in these activities.

Bitcoin’s creator(s) envisioned a currency that could far more quickly and cheaply facilitate payments, with tiny transaction fees compared to other, more established and regulated forms of payment (such as credit cards). And indeed, until the beginning of 2017 those fees were well below $1, frequently less than 10 cents per transaction.

But as the price of Bitcoin has soared over the past few months to more than $15,000 per coin, so have the Bitcoin fees per transaction. This has made Bitcoin far less attractive for conducting small-dollar transactions (for more on this shift, see this Dec. 19 story from Ars Technica).

As a result, several major underground markets that traffic in stolen digital goods are now urging customers to deposit funds in alternative virtual currencies, such as Litecoin. Those who continue to pay for these commodities in Bitcoin not only face far higher fees, but also are held to higher minimum deposit amounts.

“Due to the drastic increase in the Bitcoin price, we faced some difficulties,” reads the welcome message for customers after they log in to Carder’s Paradise, a Dark Web marketplace that KrebsOnSecurity featured in a story last week.

“The problem is that we send all your deposited funds to our suppliers which attracts an additional Bitcoin transaction fee (the same fee you pay when you make a deposit),” Carder’s Paradise explains. “Sometimes we have to pay as much as 5$ from every 1$ you deposited.”

The shop continues:

“We have to take additionally a ‘Deposit fee’ from all users who deposit in Bitcoins. This is the amount we spent on transferring your funds to our suppliers. To compensate your costs, we are going to reduce our prices, including credit cards for all users and offer you the better bitcoin exchange rate.”

“The amount of the Deposit Fee depends on the load on the Bitcoin network. However, it stays the same regardless of the amount deposited. Deposits of 10$ and 1000$ attract the same deposit fee.”

“If the Bitcoin price continues increasing, this business is not going to be profitable for us anymore because all our revenue is going to be spent on the Bitcoin fees. We are no longer in possession of additional funds to improve the store.”

“We urge you to start using Litecoin as much as possible. Litecoin is a very fast and cheap way of depositing funds into the store. We are not going to charge any additional fees if you deposit Litecoins.”

On Carder’s Paradise, the current minimum deposit amount is 0.0066 BTCs, or approximately USD $100. The deposit fee for each transaction is $15.14. That means that anyone who deposits just the minimum amount into this shop is losing more than 15 percent of their deposit in transaction fees.

Incredibly, the administrators of Carder’s Paradise apparently received so much pushback from crooks using their service that they decided to lower the price of stolen credit cards to make potential buyers feel better about higher transaction fees.

“Our team made a decision to adjust the previous announcement and provide a fair solution for everyone by reducing the credit cards [sic] prices,” the message concludes.

Mainstream merchants that accept credit card payments have long griped about the high cost of transaction fees, which average $2.50 to $3.00 on a $100 charge. What’s fascinating about the spike in Bitcoin transaction fees is that crooks could end up paying five times as much in fees just to purchase the same amount in stolen credit card accounts!

from
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/12/skyrocketing-bitcoin-fees-hit-carders-in-wallet/

U.K. Man Avoids Jail Time in vDOS Case

A U.K. man who pleaded guilty to launching more than 2,000 cyberattacks against some of the world’s largest companies has avoided jail time for his role in the attacks. The judge in the case reportedly was moved by pleas for leniency that cited the man’s youth at the time of the attacks and a diagnosis of autism.

In early July 2017, the West Midlands Police in the U.K. arrested 19-year-old Stockport resident Jack Chappell and charged him with using a now-defunct attack-for-hire service called vDOS to launch attacks against the Web sites of Amazon, BBC, BT, Netflix, T-Mobile, Virgin Media, and Vodafone, between May 1, 2015 and April 30, 2016.

One of several taunting tweets Chappell sent to his DDoS victims.

Chappell also helped launder money for vDOS, which until its demise in September 2016 was by far the most popular and powerful attack-for-hire service — allowing even completely unskilled Internet users to launch crippling assaults capable of knocking most Web sites offline.

Using the Twitter handle @fractal_warrior, Chappell would taunt his victims while  launching attacks against them. The tweet below was among several sent to the Jisc Janet educational support network and Manchester College, where Chappell was a student. In total, Chappell attacked his school at least 21 times, prosecutors showed.

Another taunting Chappell tweet.

Chappell was arrested in April 2016 after investigators traced his Internet address to his home in the U.K. For more on the clues that likely led to his arrest, check out this story.

Nevertheless, the judge in the case was moved by pleas from Chappell’s lawyer, who argued that his client was just an impressionable youth at the time who has autism, a range of conditions characterized by challenges with social skills, repetitive behaviors, speech and nonverbal communication.

The defense called on an expert who reportedly testified that Chappell was “one of the most talented people with a computer he had ever seen.”

“He is in some ways as much of a victim, he has been exploited and used,” Chappell’s attorney Stuart Kaufman told the court, according to the Manchester Evening News. “He is not malicious, he is mischievous.”

The same publication quoted Judge Maurice Greene at Chappell’s sentencing this week, saying to the young man: “You were undoubtedly taken advantage of by those more criminally sophisticated than yourself. You would be extremely vulnerable in a custodial element.”

Judge Greene decided to suspend a sentence of 16 months at a young offenders institution; Chappell will instead “undertake 20 days rehabilitation activity,” although it’s unclear exactly what that will entail.

ANALYSIS/RANT

It’s remarkable when someone so willingly and gleefully involved in a crime spree such as this can emerge from it looking like the victim. “Autistic Hacker Had Been Exploited,” declared a headline about the sentence in the U.K. newspaper The Times.

After reading the coverage of this case in the press, I half expected to see another story saying someone had pinned a medal on Chappell or offered him a job.

Jack Chappell, outside of a court hearing in the U.K. earlier this year.

Yes, Chappell will have the stain of a criminal conviction on his record, and yes autism can be a very serious and often debilitating illness. Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that offenders like this young man should be tossed in jail with violent criminals.

But courts around the world continue to send a clear message that young men essentially can do whatever they like when it comes to DDoS attacks and that there will be no serious consequences as a result.

Chappell launched his attacks via vDOS, which provided a simple, point-and-click service that allowed even completely unskilled Internet users to launch massive DDoS attacks. vDOS made more than $600,000 in just two of the four years it was in operation, launching more than 150,000 attacks against thousands of victims (including this site).

In September 2016, vDOS was taken offline and its alleged co-creators — two Israeli man who created the business when they were 14 and 15 years old — were arrested and briefly detained by Israeli authorities. But despite assurances that the men (now adults) would be tried for their crimes, neither has been prosecuted.

In July 2017, a court in Germany issued a suspended sentence for Daniel Kaye, a 29-year-old man who allegedly launched extortionist DDoS attacks against several bank Web sites.

After the source code for the Mirai botnet malware was released in September 2016, Kaye built his own Mirai botnet and used it in several high-profile attacks, including a fumbled assault that knocked out Internet service to more than 900,000 Deutsche Telekom customers.

In his trial, Kaye admitted that a customer of his paid him $10,000 to attack the Liberian ISP Lonestar. He’s also thought to have launched DDoS attacks on Lloyds Banking Group and Barclays banks in January 2017. Kaye is now facing related cybercrime charges in the U.K.

Last week, the U.S. Justice Department unsealed the cases of two young men in the United States who have pleaded guilty to co-authoring Mirai, an “Internet of Things” (IoT) malware strain that has been used to create dozens of copycat Mirai botnets responsible for countless DDoS attacks over the past 15 months. Jha and his co-defendants in that case launched highly disruptive and extortionist attacks against a number of Web sites and used their creation to conduct lucrative click fraud schemes.

Like Chappell, the core author of Mirai — 21-year-old Fanwood, N.J. resident Paras Jha — launched countless DDoS attacks against his school, costing Rutgers University between $3.5 million and $9 million to defend against and clean up after the assaults (the actual damages will be decided at Jha’s sentencing in March 2018).

Time will tell if Kaye or Jha and his co-defendants receive any real punishment for their crimes. But I would submit that if we don’t have the stomach to put these “talented young hackers” in jail when they’re ultimately found guilty, perhaps we should consider harnessing their skills in less draconian but still meaningfully punitive ways, such as requiring them to serve several years participating in programs designed to keep other kids from following in their footsteps.

Doing anything less smacks of a disservice to justice, glorifies DDoS as an essentially victimless crime, and serves little deterrent that might otherwise make it less likely that we will see fewer such cases going forward.

from
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/12/u-k-man-avoids-jail-time-in-vdos-case/

Buyers Beware of Tampered Gift Cards

Prepaid gift cards make popular presents and no-brainer stocking stuffers, but before you purchase one be on the lookout for signs that someone may have tampered with it. A perennial scam that picks up around the holidays involves thieves who pull back and then replace the decals that obscure the card’s redemption code, allowing them to redeem or transfer the card’s balance online after the card is purchased by an unwitting customer.

Last week KrebsOnSecurity heard from Colorado reader Flint Gatrell, who reached out after finding that a bunch of Sam’s Club gift cards he pulled off the display rack at Wal-Mart showed signs of compromise. The redemption code was obscured by a watermarked sticker that is supposed to make it obvious if it has been tampered with, and many of the cards he looked at clearly had stickers that had been peeled back and then replaced.

“I just identified five fraudulent gift cards on display at my local Wal-Mart,” Gatrell said. “They each had their stickers covering their codes peeled back and replaced. I can only guess that the thieves call the service number to monitor the balances, and try to consume them before the victims can.  I’m just glad I thought to check!”

In the picture below, Gatrell is holding up three of the Sam’s Club cards. The top two showed signs of tampering, but the one on the bottom appeared to be intact.

The top two gift cards show signs that someone previously peeled back the protective sticker covering the redemption code. Image: Flint Gatrell.

Kevin Morrison, a senior analyst on the retail banking and payments team at market analysis firm Aite Group, said the gift card scheme is not new but that it does tend to increase in frequency around the holidays, when demand for the cards is far higher.

“Store employees are instructed to look for abnormalities at the [register] but this happens [more] around the holiday season as attention spans tend to shorten,” he said. “While gift card packaging has improved and some safe-guards put in place, fraudsters look for the weakest link and hit hard when they find one.”

Gift cards make great last-minute gifts, but don’t let your guard down in your haste to wrap up your holiday shopping. There are so many variations on the above-described scheme that many stores have taken to keeping gift cards at or behind the register, where cashiers can more easily spot customers trying to tamper with the cards. As a result, stores that take this basic precaution may be the safest place to purchase gift cards.

from
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/12/buyers-beware-of-tampered-gift-cards/

The Market for Stolen Account Credentials

Past stories here have explored the myriad criminal uses of a hacked computer, the various ways that your inbox can be spliced and diced to help cybercrooks ply their trade, and the value of a hacked company. Today’s post looks at the price of stolen credentials for just about any e-commerce, bank site or popular online service, and provides a glimpse into the fortunes that an enterprising credential thief can earn selling these accounts on consignment.

Not long ago in Internet time, your typical cybercriminal looking for access to a specific password-protected Web site would most likely visit an underground forum and ping one of several miscreants who routinely leased access to their “bot logs.”

These bot log sellers were essentially criminals who ran large botnets (collections of hacked PCs) powered by malware that can snarf any passwords stored in the victim’s Web browser or credentials submitted into a Web-based login form. For a few dollars in virtual currency, a ne’er-do-well could buy access to these logs, or else he and the botmaster would agree in advance upon a price for any specific account credentials sought by the buyer.

Back then, most of the stolen credentials that a botmaster might have in his possession typically went unused or unsold (aside from the occasional bank login that led to a juicy high-value account). Indeed, these plentiful commodities held by the botmaster for the most part were simply not a super profitable line of business and so went largely wasted, like bits of digital detritus left on the cutting room floor.

But oh, how times have changed! With dozens of sites in the underground now competing to purchase and resell credentials for a variety of online locations, it has never been easier for a botmaster to earn a handsome living based solely on the sale of stolen usernames and passwords alone.

If the old adage about a picture being worth a thousand words is true, the one directly below is priceless because it illustrates just how profitable the credential resale business has become.

This screen shot shows the earnings panel of a crook who sells stolen credentials for hundreds of Web sites to a dark web service that resells them. This botmaster only gets paid when someone buys one of his credentials. So far this year, customers of this service have purchased more than 35,000 credentials he’s sold to this service, earning him more than $288,000 in just a few months.

The image shown above is the wholesaler division of “Carder’s Paradise,” a bustling dark web service that sells credentials for hundreds of popular Web destinations. The screen shot above is an earnings panel akin to what you would see if you were a seller of stolen credentials to this service — hence the designation “Seller’s Paradise” in the upper left hand corner of the screen shot.

This screen shot was taken from the logged-in account belonging to one of the more successful vendors at Carder’s Paradise. We can see that in just the first seven months of 2017, this botmaster sold approximately 35,000 credential pairs via the Carder’s Paradise market, earning him more than $288,000. That’s an average of $8.19 cents for each credential sold through the service.

Bear in mind that this botmaster only makes money based on consignment: Regardless of how much he uploads to Seller’s Paradise, he doesn’t get paid for any of it unless a Seller’s Paradise customer chooses to buy what he’s selling.

Fortunately for this guy, almost 9,000 different customers of Seller’s Paradise chose to purchase one or more of his username and password pairs. It was not possible to tell from this seller’s account how many credential pairs total that he has contributed to this service which went unsold, but it’s a safe bet that it was far more than 35,000.

[A side note is in order here because there is some delicious irony in the backstory behind the screenshot above: The only reason a source of mine was able to share it with me was because this particular seller re-used the same email address and password across multiple unrelated cybercrime services].

Based on the prices advertised at Carder’s Paradise (again, Carder’s Paradise is the retail/customer side of Seller’s Paradise) we can see that the service on average pays its suppliers about half what it charges customers for each credential. The average price of a credential for more than 200 different e-commerce and banking sites sold through this service is approximately $15.

Part of the price list for credentials sold at this dark web ID theft site.

Indeed, fifteen bucks is exactly what it costs to buy stolen logins for airbnb.com, comcast.com, creditkarma.com, logmein.com and uber.com. A credential pair from AT&T Wireless — combined with access to the victim’s email inbox — sells for $30.

The most expensive credentials for sale via this service are those for the electronics store frys.com ($190). I’m not sure why these credentials are so much more expensive than the rest, but it may be because thieves have figured out a reliable and very profitable way to convert stolen frys.com customer credentials into cash.

Usernames and passwords to active accounts at military personnel-only credit union NavyFederal.com fetch $60 apiece, while credentials to various legal and data aggregation services from Thomson Reuters properties command a $50 price tag.

The full price list of credentials for sale by this dark web service is available in this PDF. For CSV format, see this link. Both lists are sorted alphabetically by Web site name.

This service doesn’t just sell credentials: It also peddles entire identities — indexed and priced according to the unwitting victim’s FICO score. An identity with a perfect credit score (850) can demand as much as $150.

Stolen identities with high credit scores fetch higher prices.

And of course this service also offers the ability to pull full credit reports on virtually any American — from all three major credit bureaus — for just $35 per bureau.

It costs $35 through this service to pull someone’s credit file from the three major credit bureaus.

Plenty of people began freaking out earlier this year after a breach at big-three credit bureau Equifax jeopardized the Social Security Numbers, dates of birth and other sensitive date on more than 145 million Americans. But as I have been trying to tell readers for many years, this data is broadly available for sale in the cybercrime underground on a significant portion of the American populace.

If the threat of identity theft has you spooked, place a freeze on your credit file and on the file of your spouse (you may even be able to do this for your kids). Credit monitoring is useful for letting you know when someone has stolen your identity, but these services can’t be counted on to stop an ID thief from opening new lines of credit in your name.

They are, however, useful for helping to clean up identity theft after-the-fact. This story is already too long to go into the pros and cons of credit monitoring vs. freezes, so I’ll instead point to a recent primer on the topic and urge readers to check it out.

Finally, it’s a super bad idea to re-use passwords across multiple sites. KrebsOnSecurity this year has written about multiple, competing services that sell or sold access to billions of usernames and passwords exposed in high profile data breaches at places like Linkedin, Dropbox and Myspace. Crooks pay for access to these stolen credential services because they know that a decent percentage of Internet users recycle the same password at multiple sites.

One alternative to creating and remembering strong, lengthy and complex passwords for every important site you deal with is to outsource this headache to a password manager.  If the online account in question allows 2-factor authentication (2FA), be sure to take advantage of that.

Two-factor authentication makes it much harder for password thieves (or their customers) to hack into your account just by stealing or buying your password: If you have 2FA enabled, they also would need to hack that second factor (usually your mobile device) before being able to access your account. For a list of sites that support 2FA, check out twofactorauth.org.

from
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/12/the-market-for-stolen-account-credentials/

Former Botmaster, ‘Darkode’ Founder is CTO of Hacked Bitcoin Mining Firm ‘NiceHash’

On Dec. 6, 2017, approximately USD $52 million worth of Bitcoin mysteriously disappeared from the coffers of NiceHash, a Slovenian company that lets users sell their computing power to help others mine virtual currencies. As the investigation into the heist nears the end of its second week, many Nice-Hash users have expressed surprise to learn that the company’s chief technology officer recently served several years in prison for operating and reselling a massive botnet, and for creating and running ‘Darkode,” until recently the world’s most bustling English-language cybercrime forum.

In December 2013, NiceHash CTO Matjaž Škorjanc was sentenced to four years, ten months in prison for creating the malware that powered the ‘Mariposa‘ botnet. Spanish for “Butterfly,” Mariposa was a potent crime machine first spotted in 2008. Very soon after, Mariposa was estimated to have infected more than 1 million hacked computers — making it one of the largest botnets ever created.

An advertisement for the ButterFly Flooder, a crimeware product based on the ButterFly Bot.

ButterFly Bot, as it was more commonly known to users, was a plug-and-play malware strain that allowed even the most novice of would-be cybercriminals to set up a global operation capable of harvesting data from thousands of infected PCs, and using the enslaved systems for crippling attacks on Web sites. The ButterFly Bot kit sold for prices ranging from $500 to $2,000.

Prior to his initial arrest in Slovenia on cybercrime charges in 2010, Škorjanc was best known to his associates as “Iserdo,” the administrator and founder of the exclusive cybercrime forum Darkode.

A message from Iserdo warning Butterfly Bot subscribers not to try to reverse his code.

On Darkode, Iserdo sold his Butterfly Bot to dozens of other members, who used it for a variety of illicit purposes, from stealing passwords and credit card numbers from infected machines to blasting spam emails and hijacking victim search results. Microsoft Windows PCs infected with the bot would then try to spread the disease over MSN Instant Messenger and peer-to-peer file sharing networks.

In July 2015, authorities in the United States and elsewhere conducted a global takedown of the Darkode crime forum, arresting several of its top members in the process. The U.S. Justice Department at the time said that out of 800 or so crime forums worldwide, Darkode represented “one of the gravest threats to the integrity of data on computers in the United States and around the world and was the most sophisticated English-speaking forum for criminal computer hackers in the world.”

Following Škorjanc’s arrest, Slovenian media reported that his mother Zdenka Škorjanc was accused of money laundering; prosecutors found that several thousand euros were sent to her bank account by her son. That case was dismissed in May of this year after prosecutors conceded she probably didn’t know how her son had obtained the money.

Matjaž Škorjanc did not respond to requests for comment. But local media reports state that he has vehemently denied any involvement in the disappearance of the NiceHash stash of Bitcoins.

In an interview with Slovenian news outlet Delo.si, the NiceHash CTO described the theft “as if his kid was kidnapped and his extremities would be cut off in front of his eyes.” A roughly-translated English version of that interview has been posted to Reddit.

According to media reports, the intruders were able to execute their heist after stealing the credentials of a user with administrator privileges at NiceHash. Less than an hour after breaking into the NiceHash servers, approximately 4,465 Bitcoins were transferred out of the company’s accounts.

NiceHash CTO Matjaž Škorjanc, as pictured on the front page of a recent edition of the Slovenian daily Delo.si

A source close to the investigation told KrebsOnSecurity that the NiceHash hackers used a virtual private network (VPN) connection with a Korean Internet address, although the source said Slovenian investigators were reluctant to say whether that meant South Korea or North Korea because they did not want to spook the perpetrators into further covering their tracks.

CNN, Bloomberg and a number of other Western media outlets reported this week that North Korean hackers have recently doubled down on efforts to steal, phish and extort Bitcoins as the price of the currency has surged in recent weeks.

“North Korean hackers targeted four different exchanges that trade bitcoin and other digital currencies in South Korea in July and August, sending malicious emails to employees, according to police,” CNN reported.

Bitcoin’s blockchain ledger system makes it easy to see when funds are moved, and NiceHash customers who lost money in the theft have been keeping a close eye on the Bitcoin payment address that received the stolen funds ever since. On Dec. 13, someone in control of that account began transferring the stolen bitcoins to other accounts, according to this transaction record.

The NiceHash theft occurred as the price of Bitcoin was skyrocketing to new highs. On January 1, 2017, a single Bitcoin was worth approximately $976. On December 6, the day of the NiceHash hack, had ballooned to $11,831.

Today, a single Bitcoin can be sold for more than $17,700, meaning whoever is responsible for the NiceHash hack has seen their loot increase in value by roughly $27 million since the theft.

In a post on its homepage, NiceHash said it was in the final stages of re-launching the surrogate mining service.

“Your bitcoins were stolen and we are working with international law enforcement agencies to identify the attackers and recover the stolen funds. We understand it may take some time and we are working on a solution for all users that were affected.

“If you have any information about the attack, please email us at [email protected]. We are giving BTC rewards for the best information received. You can also join our community page about the attack on reddit.“

However, many followers of NiceHash’s Twitter account said they would not be returning to the service unless and until their stolen Bitcoins were returned.

from
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/12/former-botmaster-darkode-founder-is-cto-of-hacked-bitcoin-mining-firm-nicehash/

Mirai IoT Botnet Co-Authors Plead Guilty

The U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday unsealed the guilty pleas of two men first identified in January 2017 by KrebsOnSecurity as the likely co-authors of Mirai, a malware strain that remotely enslaves so-called “Internet of Things” devices such as security cameras, routers, and digital video recorders for use in large scale attacks designed to knock Web sites and entire networks offline (including multiple major attacks against this site).

Entering guilty pleas for their roles in developing and using Mirai are 21-year-old Paras Jha from Fanwood, N.J. and Josiah White, 20, from Washington, Pennsylvania.

Jha and White were co-founders of Protraf Solutions LLC, a company that specialized in mitigating large-scale DDoS attacks. Like firemen getting paid to put out the fires they started, Jha and White would target organizations with DDoS attacks and then either extort them for money to call off the attacks, or try to sell those companies services they claimed could uniquely help fend off the attacks.

CLICK FRAUD BOTNET

In addition, the Mirai co-creators pleaded guilty to charges of using their botnet to conduct click fraud — a form of online advertising fraud that will cost Internet advertisers more than $16 billion this year, according to estimates from ad verification company Adloox. 

The plea agreements state that Jha, White and another person who also pleaded guilty to click fraud conspiracy charges — a New Orleans man named Dalton Norman — leased access to their botnet for the purposes of earning fraudulent advertising revenue through click fraud activity and renting out their botnet to other cybercriminals.

As part of this scheme, victim devices were used to transmit high volumes of requests to view web addresses associated with affiliate advertising content. Because the victim activity resembled legitimate views of these websites, the activity generated fraudulent profits through the sites hosting the advertising content, at the expense of online advertising companies.

Jha and his co-conspirators admitted receiving as part of the click fraud scheme approximately two hundred bitcoin, valued on January 29, 2017 at over $180,000.

Prosecutors say Norman personally earned over 30 bitcoin, valued on January 29, 2017 at approximately $27,000. The documents show that Norman helped Jha and White discover new, previously unknown vulnerabilities in IoT devices that could be used to beef up their Mirai botnet, which at its height grew to more than 300,000 hacked devices.

MASSIVE ATTACKS

The Mirai malware is responsible for coordinating some of the largest and most disruptive online attacks the Internet has ever witnessed. The biggest and first to gain widespread media attention began on Sept. 20, 2016, when KrebsOnSecurity came under a sustained distributed denial-of-service attack from more than 175,000 IoT devices (the size estimates come from this Usenix paper (PDF) on the Mirai botnet evolution).

That September 2016 digital siege maxed out at 620 Gbps, almost twice the size of the next-largest attack that Akamai — my DDoS mitigation provider at the time — had ever seen.

The attack continued for several days, prompting Akamai to force my site off of their network (they were providing the service pro bono, and the attack was starting to cause real problems for their paying customers). For several frustrating days this Web site went dark, until it was brought under the auspices of Google’s Project Shield, a program that protects journalists, dissidents and others who might face withering DDoS attacks and other forms of digital censorship because of their publications.

At the end of September 2016, just days after the attack on this site, the authors of Mirai — who collectively used the nickname “Anna Senpai” — released the source code for their botnet. Within days of its release there were multiple Mirai botnets all competing for the same pool of vulnerable IoT devices.

The Hackforums post that includes links to the Mirai source code.

Some of those Mirai botnets grew quite large and were used to launch hugely damaging attacks, including the Oct. 21, 2016 assault against Internet infrastructure firm Dyn that disrupted Twitter, Netflix, Reddit and a host of other sites for much of that day.

A depiction of the outages caused by the Mirai attacks on Dyn, an Internet infrastructure company. Source: Downdetector.com.

The leak of the Mirai source code led to the creation of dozens of copycat Mirai botnets, all of which were competing to commandeer the same finite number of vulnerable IoT devices. One particularly disruptive Mirai variant was used in extortion attacks against a number of banks and Internet service providers in the United Kingdom and Germany.

In July 2017, KrebsOnSecurity published a story following digital clues that pointed to a U.K. man named Daniel Kaye as the apparent perpetrator of those Mirai attacks. Kaye, who went by the hacker nickname “Bestbuy,” was found guilty in Germany of launching failed Mirai attacks that nevertheless knocked out Internet service for almost a million Deutsche Telekom customers, for which he was given a suspended sentence. Kaye is now on trial in the U.K. for allegedly extorting banks in exchange for calling off targeted DDoS attacks against them.

Not long after the Mirai source code was leaked, I began scouring cybercrime forums and interviewing people to see if there were any clues that might point to the real-life identities of Mirai’s creators.

On Jan 18, 2017, KrebsOnSecurity published the results of that four-month inquiry, Who is Anna Senpai, the Mirai Worm Author? The story is easily the longest in this site’s history, and it cited a bounty of clues pointing back to Jha and White — two of the men whose guilty pleas were announced today.

A tweet from the founder and CTO of French hosting firm OVH, stating the intended target of the Sept. 2016 Mirai DDoS on his company.

According to my reporting, Jha and White primarily used their botnet to target online gaming servers — particularly those tied to the hugely popular game Minecraft. Around the same time as the attack on my site, French hosting provider OVH was hit with a much larger attack from the same Mirai botnet (see image above), and the CTO of OVH confirmed that the target of that attack was a Minecraft server hosted on his company’s network.

My January 2017 investigation also cited evidence and quotes from associates of Jha who said they suspected he was responsible for a series of DDoS attacks against Rutgers University: During the same year that Jha began studying at the university for a bachelor’s degree in computer science, the school’s servers came under repeated, massive attacks from Mirai.

With each DDoS against Rutgers, the attacker — using the nicknames “og_richard_stallman,” “exfocus” and “ogexfocus,” — would taunt the university in online posts and media interviews, encouraging the school to spend the money to purchase some kind of DDoS mitigation service.

It remains unclear if Jha (and possibly others) may face separate charges in New Jersey related to his apparent Mirai attacks on Rutgers. According to a sparsely-detailed press release issued Tuesday afternoon, the Justice Department is slated to hold a media conference at 2 p.m. today with officials from Alaska (where these cases originate) to “discuss significant cybercrime cases.”

Update: 11:43 a.m. ET: The New Jersey Ledger just published a story confirming that Jha also has pleaded guilty to the Rutgers DDoS attacks, as part of a separate case lodged by prosecutors in New Jersey.

PAYBACK

Under the terms of his guilty plea in the click fraud conspiracy, Jha agreed to give up 13 bitcoin, which at current market value of bitcoin (~$17,000 apiece) is nearly USD $225,000.

Jha will also waive all rights to appeal the conviction and whatever sentence gets imposed as a result of the plea. For the click fraud conspiracy charges, Jha, White and Norman each face up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

In connection with their roles in creating and ultimately unleashing the Mirai botnet code, Jha and White each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(5)(A). That is, to “causing intentional damage to a protected computer, to knowingly causing the transmission of a program, code, or command to a computer with the intention of impairing without authorization the integrity or availability of data, a program, system, or information.”

For the conspiracy charges related to their authorship and use of Mirai, Jha and White likewise face up to five years in prison, a $250,000 fine, and three years of supervised release.

This is a developing story. Check back later in the day for updates from the DOJ press conference, and later in the week for a follow-up piece on some of the lesser-known details of these investigations.

The Justice Department unsealed the documents related to these cases late in the day on Tuesday. Here they are:

Jha click fraud complaint (PDF)
Jha click fraud plea (PDF)
Jha DDoS/Mirai complaint (PDF)
Jha DDoS/Mirai plea (PDF)
White DDoS complaint (PDF)
White DDoS/Mirai Plea (PDF)
Norman click fraud complaint (PDF)
Norman click fraud plea (PDF)

from
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/12/mirai-iot-botnet-co-authors-plead-guilty/

Patch Tuesday, December 2017 Edition

The final Patch Tuesday of the year is upon us, with Adobe and Microsoft each issuing security updates for their software once again. Redmond fixed problems with various flavors of Windows, Microsoft Edge, Office, Exchange and its Malware Protection Engine. And of course Adobe’s got another security update available for its Flash Player software.

The December patch batch addresses more than 30 vulnerabilities in Windows and related software. As per usual, a huge chunk of the updates from Microsoft tackle security problems with the Web browsers built into Windows.

Also in the batch today is an out-of-band update that Microsoft first issued last week to fix a critical issue in its Malware Protection Engine, the component that drives the Windows Defender/Microsoft Security Essentials embedded in most modern versions of Windows, as well as Microsoft Endpoint Protection, and the Windows Intune Endpoint Protection anti-malware system.

Microsoft was reportedly made aware of the malware protection engine bug by the U.K.’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), a division of the Government Communications Headquarters — the United Kingdom’s main intelligence and security agency. As spooky as that sounds, Microsoft said it is not aware of active attacks exploiting this flaw.

Microsoft said the flaw could be exploited via a booby-trapped file that gets scanned by the Windows anti-malware engine, such as an email or document. The issue is fixed in version 1.1.14405.2 of the engine. According to Microsoft, Windows users should already have the latest version because the anti-malware engine updates itself constantly. In any case, for detailed instructions on how to check whether your system has this update installed, see this link.

The Microsoft updates released today are available in one big batch from Windows Update, or automagically via Automatic Updates. If you don’t have Automatic Updates enabled, please visit Windows Update sometime soon (click the Start/Windows button, then type Windows Update).

The newest Flash update from Adobe brings the player to v. 28.0.0.126 on Windows, Macintosh, Linux and Chrome OS. Windows users who browse the Web with anything other than Internet Explorer may need to apply the Flash patch twice, once with IE and again using the alternative browser (Firefox, Opera, e.g.).

Chrome and IE should auto-install the latest Flash version on browser restart (users may need to manually check for updates and/or restart the browser to get the latest Flash version). Chrome users may need to restart the browser to install or automatically download the latest version.

When in doubt, click the vertical three dot icon to the right of the URL bar, select “Help,” then “About Chrome”: If there is an update available, Chrome should install it then. Chrome will replace that three dot icon with an up-arrow inside of a circle when updates are waiting to be installed.

Standard disclaimer: Because Flash remains such a security risk, I continue to encourage readers to remove or hobble Flash Player unless and until it is needed for a specific site or purpose. More on that approach (as well as slightly less radical solutions ) can be found in A Month Without Adobe Flash Player. The short version is that you can probably get by without Flash installed and not miss it at all.

For readers still unwilling to cut the cord, there are half-measures that work almost as well. Fortunately, disabling Flash in Chrome is simple enough. Paste “chrome://settings/content” into a Chrome browser bar and then select “Flash” from the list of items. By default it should be set to “Ask first” before running Flash, although users also can disable Flash entirely here or whitelist and blacklist specific sites.

Another, perhaps less elegant, solution is to keep Flash installed in a browser that you don’t normally use, and then to only use that browser on sites that require it.

from
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/12/patch-tuesday-december-2017-edition/

Phishers Are Upping Their Game. So Should You.

Not long ago, phishing attacks were fairly easy for the average Internet user to spot: Full of grammatical and spelling errors, and linking to phony bank or email logins at unencrypted (http:// vs. https://) Web pages. Increasingly, however, phishers are upping their game, polishing their copy and hosting scam pages over https:// connections — complete with the green lock icon in the browser address bar to make the fake sites appear more legitimate.

A brand new (and live) PayPal phishing page that uses SSL (https://) to appear more legitimate.

According to stats released this week by anti-phishing firm Phishlabs, nearly 25 percent of all phishing sites in the third quarter of this year were hosted on HTTPS domains — almost double the percentage seen in the previous quarter.

“A year ago, less than three percent of phish were hosted on websites using SSL certificates,” wrote Crane Hassold, the company’s threat intelligence manager. “Two years ago, this figure was less than one percent.”

A currently live Facebook phishing page that uses https.

As shown in the examples above (which KrebsOnSecurity found in just a few minutes of searching via phish site reporting service Phishtank.com), the most successful phishing sites tend to include not only their own SSL certificates but also a portion of the phished domain in the fake address.

Why are phishers more aggressively adopting HTTPS Web sites? Traditionally, many phishing pages are hosted on hacked, legitimate Web sites, in which case the attackers can leverage both the site’s good reputation and its SSL certificate.

Yet this, too, is changing, says Phishlabs’ Hassold.

“An analysis of Q3 HTTPS phishing attacks against PayPal and Apple, the two primary targets of these attacks, indicates that nearly three-quarters of HTTPS phishing sites targeting them were hosted on maliciously-registered domains rather than compromised websites, which is substantially higher than the overall global rate,” he wrote. “Based on data from 2016, slightly less than half of all phishing sites were hosted on domains registered by a threat actor.”

Hassold posits that more phishers are moving to HTTPS because it helps increase the likelihood that users will trust that the site is legitimate. After all, your average Internet user has been taught for years to simply “look for the lock icon” in the browser address bar as assurance that a site is safe.

Perhaps this once was useful advice, but if so its reliability has waned over the years. In November, Phishlabs conducted a poll to see how many people actually knew the meaning of the green padlock that is associated with HTTPS websites.

“More than 80% of the respondents believed the green lock indicated that a website was either legitimate and/or safe, neither of which is true,” he wrote.

What the green lock icon indicates is that the communication between your browser and the Web site in question is encrypted; it does little to ensure that you really are communicating with the site you believe you are visiting.

At a higher level, another reason phishers are more broadly adopting HTTPS is because more sites in general are using encryption: According to Let’s Encrypt, 65% of web pages loaded by Firefox in November used HTTPS, compared to 45% at the end of 2016.

Also, phishers no longer need to cough up a nominal fee each time they wish to obtain a new SSL certificate. Indeed, Let’s Encrypt now gives them away for free.

The major Web browser makers all work diligently to index and block known phishing sites, but you can’t count on the browser to save you:

So what can you do to make sure you’re not the next phishing victim?

Don’t take the bait: Most phishing attacks try to convince you that you need to act quickly to avoid some kind of loss, cost or pain, usually by clicking a link and “verifying” your account information, user name, password, etc. at a fake site. Emails that emphasize urgency should be always considered extremely suspect, and under no circumstances should you do anything suggested in the email.

Phishers count on spooking people into acting rashly because they know their scam sites have a finite lifetime; they may be shuttered at any moment. The best approach is to bookmark the sites that store your sensitive information; that way, if you receive an urgent communication that you’re unsure about, you can visit the site in question manually and log in that way. In general, it’s a bad idea to click on links in email.

Links Lie: You’re a sucker if you take links at face value. For example, this might look like a link to Bank of America, but I assure you it is not. To get an idea of where a link goes, hover over it with your mouse and then look in the bottom left corner of the browser window.

Yet, even this information often tells only part of the story, and some links can be trickier to decipher. For instance, many banks like to send links that include ridiculously long URLs which stretch far beyond the browser’s ability to show the entire thing when you hover over the link.

The most important part of a link is the “root” domain. To find that, look for the first slash (/) after the “http://” part, and then work backwards through the link until you reach the second dot; the part immediately to the right is the real domain to which that link will take you.

“From” Fields can be forged: Just because the message says in the “From:” field that it was sent by your bank doesn’t mean that it’s true. This information can be and frequently is forged.

If you want to discover who (or what) sent a message, you’ll need to examine the email’s “headers,” important data included in all email.  The headers contain a lot of information that can be overwhelming for the untrained eye, so they are often hidden by your email client or service provider, each of which may have different methods for letting users view or enable headers.

Describing succinctly how to read email headers with an eye toward thwarting spammers would require a separate tutorial, so I will link to a decent one already written at About.com. Just know that taking the time to learn how to read headers is a useful skill that is well worth the effort.

Keep in mind that phishing can take many forms: Why steal one set of login credentials for a single brand when you can steal them all? Increasingly, attackers are opting for approaches that allow them to install a password-snarfing Trojan that steals all of the sensitive data on victim PCs.

So be careful about clicking links, and don’t open attachments in emails you weren’t expecting, even if they appear to come from someone you know. Send a note back to the sender to verify the contents and that they really meant to send it. This step can be a pain, but I’m a stickler for it; I’ve been known to lecture people who send me press releases and other items as unrequested attachments.

If you didn’t go looking for it, don’t install it: Password stealing malware doesn’t only come via email; quite often, it is distributed as a Facebook video that claims you need a special “codec” to view the embedded content. There are tons of variations of this scam. The point to remember is: If it wasn’t your idea to install something from the get-go, don’t do it.

Lay traps: When you’ve mastered the basics above, consider setting traps for phishers, scammers and unscrupulous marketers. Some email providers — most notably Gmail — make this especially easy.

When you sign up at a site that requires an email address, think of a word or phrase that represents that site for you, and then add that with a “+” sign just to the left of the “@” sign in your email address. For example, if I were signing up at example.com, I might give my email address as krebsonsecurity+example@gmail.com. Then, I simply go back to Gmail and create a folder called “Example,” along with a new filter that sends any email addressed to that variation of my address to the Example folder.

That way, if anyone other than the company I gave this custom address to starts spamming or phishing it, that may be a clue that example.com shared my address with others (or that it got hacked!). I should note two caveats here. First, although this functionality is part of the email standard, not all email providers will recognize address variations like these. Also, many commercial Web sites freak out if they see anything other than numerals or letters, and may not permit the inclusion of a “+” sign in the email address field.

from
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/12/phishers-are-upping-their-game-so-should-you/

Anti-Skimmer Detector for Skimmer Scammers

Crooks who make and deploy ATM skimmers are constantly engaged in a cat-and-mouse game with financial institutions, which deploy a variety of technological measures designed to defeat skimming devices. The latest innovation aimed at tipping the scales in favor of skimmer thieves is a small, battery powered device that provides crooks a digital readout indicating whether an ATM likely includes digital anti-skimming technology.

A well-known skimmer thief is marketing a product called “Smart Shield Detector” that claims to be able to detect a variety of electronic methods used by banks to foil ATM skimmers.

The device, which sells for $200, is called a “Smart Shield Detector,” and promises to detect “all kinds of noise shields, hidden shields, delayed shields and others!”

It appears to be a relatively simple machine that gives a digital numeric indicator of whether an ATM uses any of a variety of anti-skimming methods. One of the most common is known as “frequency jamming,” which uses electronic signals to scramble both the clock (timing) and the card data itself in a bid to confuse skimming devices.

“You will see current level within seconds!,” the seller enthuses in an online ad for the product, a snippet of which is shown above. “Available for sale after November 1st, market price 200usd. Preorders available at price 150usd/device. 2+ devices for your team – will give discounts.”

According to the individual selling the Smart Shield Detector, a readout of 15 or higher indicates the presence of some type of electronic shield or jamming technology — warning the skimmer thief to consider leaving that ATM alone and to find a less protected machine. In contrast, a score between 3-5 is meant to indicate “no shield,” i.e., that the ATM is ripe for compromise.

KrebsOnSecurity shared this video with Charlie Harrow, solutions manager for ATM maker NCR Corp. Harrow called the device “very interesting” but said NCR doesn’t try to hide which of is ATM include anti-skimming technologies — such as those that claim to be detectable by the Smart Shield Detector.

“We don’t hide the fact that our ATMs are protected against this type of external skimming attack,” Harrow said. “Our Anti-Skimming product uses a uniquely shaped bezel so you can tell just by looking at the ATM that it is protected (if you know what you are looking for).”

Harrow added that NCR doesn’t rely on secrecy of design to protect its ATMs.

“The bad guys are skilled, resourced and determined enough that sooner or later they will figure out exactly what we have done, so the ATM has to be safe against a knowledgeable attacker,” he said. “That said, a little secret sauce doesn’t hurt, and can often be very effective in stopping specific attack [methods] in the short term, but it can’t be relied on to provide any long term protection.”

The best method for protecting yourself against ATM skimmers doesn’t require any fancy gadgets or technology at all: It involves merely covering the PIN pad with your hand while you enter your PIN!

That’s because the vast majority of skimming attacks involve two components: A device that fits over or inside the card reader and steals data from the card’s magnetic stripe, and a tiny hidden camera aimed at the PIN pad. While thieves who have compromised an ATM you used can still replicate your ATM card, the real value rests in your PIN, without which the thieves cannot easily drain your checking or savings account of cash.

Also, be aware of your physical surroundings while using an ATM; you’re probably more apt to get mugged physically than virtually at a cash machine. Finally, try to stick to cash machines that are physically installed inside of banks, as these tend to be much more challenging for thieves to compromise than stand-alone machines like those commonly found at convenience stores.

KrebsOnSecurity would like to thank Alex Holden, founder of Milwaukee, Wisc. based Hold Security, for sharing the above video.

Are you fascinated by skimming devices? Then check out my series, All About Skimmers, which looks at all manner of skimming scams, from fake ATMs and cash claws to PIN pad overlays and gas pump skimmers.

from
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/12/anti-skimmer-detector-for-skimmer-scammers/

Hacked Password Service Leakbase Goes Dark

Leakbase, a Web site that indexed and sold access to billions of usernames and passwords stolen in some of the world largest data breaches, has closed up shop. A source close to the matter says the service was taken down in a law enforcement sting that may be tied to the Dutch police raid of the Hansa dark web market earlier this year.

Leakbase[dot]pw began selling memberships in September 2016, advertising more than two billion usernames and passwords that were stolen in high-profile breaches at sites like linkedin.com, myspace.com and dropbox.com.

But roughly two weeks ago KrebsOnSecurity began hearing from Leakbase users who were having trouble reaching the normally responsive and helpful support staff responsible for assisting customers with purchases and site issues.

Sometime this weekend, Leakbase began redirecting visitors to haveibeenpwned.com, a legitimate breach alerting service run by security researcher Troy Hunt (Hunt’s site lets visitors check if their email address has shown up in any public database leaks, but it does not store corresponding account passwords).

Leakbase reportedly came under new ownership after its hack in April. According to a source with knowledge of the matter but who asked to remain anonymous, the new owners of Leakbase dabbled in dealing illicit drugs at Hansa, a dark web marketplace that was dismantled in July by authorities in The Netherlands.

The Dutch police had secretly seized Hansa and operated it for a time in order to gather more information about and ultimately arrest many of Hansa’s top drug sellers and buyers. 

According to my source, information the Dutch cops gleaned from their Hansa takeover led authorities to identify and apprehend one of the owners of Leakbase. This information could not be confirmed, and the Dutch police have not yet responded to requests for comment. 

A message posted Dec. 2 to Leakbase’s Twitter account states that the service was being discontinued, and the final message posted to that account seems to offer paying customers some hope of recovering any unused balances stored with the site.

“We understand many of you may have lost some time, so in an effort to offer compensation please email, refund@leakbase.pw Send your LeakBase username and how much time you had left,” the message reads. “We will have a high influx of emails so be patient, this could take a while.”

My source noted that these last two messages are interesting because they are unlike every other update posted to the Leakbase Twitter account. Prior to the shutdown message on Dec. 2, all updates to that account were done via Twitter’s Web client; but the last two were sent via Mobile Web (M2).

Ironically, Leakbase was itself hacked back in April 2017 after a former administrator was found to be re-using a password from an account at x4b[dot]net, a service that Leakbase relied upon at the time to protect itself from distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks intended to knock the site offline.

X4B[dot]net was hacked just days before the Leakbase intrusion, and soon after cleartext passwords and usernames from hundreds of Leakbase users were posted online by the hacker group calling itself the Money Team.

Many readers have questioned how it could be illegal to resell passwords that were leaked online in the wake of major data breaches. The argument here is generally that in most cases this information is already in the public domain and thus it can’t be a crime to index and resell it.

However, many legal experts see things differently. In February 2017, I wrote about clues that tied back to a real-life identity for one of the alleged administrators of Leakedsource, a very similar service (it’s worth noting that the subject of that story also was found out because he re-used the same credentials across multiple sites).

In the Leakedsource story, I interviewed Orin Kerr, director of the Cybersecurity Law Initiative at The George Washington University. Kerr told me that owners of services like Leakbase and Leakedsource could face criminal charges if prosecutors could show these services intended for the passwords that are for sale on the site to be used in the furtherance of a crime.

Kerr said trafficking in passwords is clearly a crime under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

Specifically, Section A6 of the CFAA, which makes it a crime to “knowingly and with intent to defraud traffic in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if…such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce.”

“CFAA quite clearly punishes password trafficking,” Kerr said. “The statute says the [accused] must be trafficking in passwords knowingly and with intent to defraud, or trying to further unauthorized access.”

from
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/12/hacked-password-service-leakbase-goes-dark/