Posts byp1

Researcher, author, communications guy, teacher, security maven, management consultant, and general loudmouth Rob Slade. Also http://twitter.com/rslade

CyberSec Tips: Email – Spam – Fraud – example 3

This one is slightly interesting, in that it contains elements of both 419 and phishing.  It’s primarily an advance fee fraud message.  First off, the headers:

> Subject: Dear Winner!!!
> From: CHELPT <inf8@hotline.onmicrosoft.com>
> Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 17:45:06 +0530
> Reply-To: <morrluke@careceo.com>
> Message-ID: <XXX.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>

Again, we see different domains, in particular, a different address to reply to, as opposed to where it is supposed to be from.

> Corporate Headquarters
> Technical Office Chevrolet promotion unit
> 43/45 The Promenade…
> Head Office Chevrolet motors
> 43/45 The Promenade Cheltenham
> Ref: UK/9420X2/68
> Batch: 074/05/ZY369
> Chevrolet Canter, London, SE1 7NA – United Kingdom

My, my, my.  With all that addressing and reference numbers, it certainly looks official.  But isn’t.

> Dear Winner,
>
> Congratulations, you have just won a cash prize of £1,000, 000, 00. One million
> Great British Pounds Sterling (GBP) in the satellite software email lottery.
> On-line Sweepstakes International program held on this day Satur day 23rd
> November 2013 @05:42.PM London time. Conducted by CHEVROLET LOTTERY BOARD in
> which your e-mail address was pick randomly by software powered by the Internet
> send data’s to;
> ——————————————————————————–
> Tell: +44 701 423 4661             Email: morrluke@careceo.com Officer Name: Mr.
> Morrison Luke. CHEVROLET LOTTERY BOARD London UK
> ——————————————————————————–

As usual, you have supposedly won something.  If you reply, of course, there will start to be fees or taxes that you have to pay before the money is released to you.  The amounts will start out small (hey, who wouldn’t be willing to pay a hundred pound “processing fee” in order to get a million pounds, right?) but then get larger.  (Once you’ve paid something, then you would tend to be willing to pay more.  Protecting your investment, as it were.)  And, of course you will never see a cent of your winnings, inheritance, charity fund, etc, etc.

> Below is the claims and verifications form. You are expected to fill and return
> it immediately so we can start processing your claims:
>
> 1. Full Names:
> 2. Residential Address:
> 3. Direct Phone No:
> 4. Fax Number
> 5. Occupation:
> 6. Sex:
> 7. Age:
> 8. Nationality:
> 9. Annual Income:
> 10. Won Before:
> 11. Batch number: CHELPT1611201310542PM
> 12: Ticket Numbers: 69475600545-72113
> 13: Lucky numbers: 31-6-26-13-35-7

But here, they are starting to ask you for a lot of personal information.  This could be used for identity theft.  Ultimately, they might ask for your bank account information, in order to transfer your winnings.  Given enough other data on you, they could then empty your account.

> We wish you the best of luck as you spend your good fortune thank you for being
> part of our commemorative yearly Draws.
>
> Sincerely,
> Mrs. Susan Chris.
> CHEVROLET LOTTERY PROMOTION TEAM.

Oh, yeah.  Good luck on ever getting any of this money.

CyberSec Tips: Email – Spam – Phishing – example 2

Some of you may have a BarclayCard credit card.  You might receive a reminder message that looks like the one below.  (Actually, the only credit card company I know that actually sends email reminders is American Express, which I think is a black mark on their security record.)

> Subject: Barclaycard Payment is due
> From: “Barclaycard” <barclaycard@card.com>
> Received: from smtp.alltele.net

If you look at the message headers, you might note that this message doesn’t come from where it says it comes from, and that’s something of which to beware.

> Your barclaycard payment is due
>
> Visit your card service section below to proceed
> hxxp://www.equivalente.it/rss/re.html

You might also note that, it you do have a BarclayCard, it’s probably because you live in the UK.  And the server they want you to visit is in Italy: .it

CyberSec Tips: Email – Spam – Phishing – example 1

Phishing is pretty constant these days.  One of the tips to identify phishing messages is if you don’t have an account at that particular bank.  Unfortunately, a lot of people who are online have accounts with Paypal, so Paypal is becoming a favourite with phishers.  You’ll probably get a message something like this:

Subject: Your account access has been limited
From: service@paypal.co.uk <notice@paypal6.co.uk>

(You might think twice if you have an account with Paypal in the United States, but this domain is in the UK.)

> PayPal is constantly working to ensure security by regularly screening the
>accounts in our system. We recently reviewed your account, and we need more
>information to help us provide you with secure service. Until we can
> collect  this information, your access to sensitive account features will be
> limited. We would like to restore your access as soon as possible, and we
> apologize     for the inconvenience.

>    Why is my account access limited?

>    Your account access has been limited for the following reason(s):

> November 27, 2013: We would like to ensure that your account was not
> accessed by an unauthorized third party. Because protecting the security of
> your account is our primary concern, we have limited access to sensitive
> PayPal account features. We understand that this may be an inconvenience but
> please understand that this temporary limitation is for your protection.

>    Case ID Number: PP-197-849-152

>You must click the link below and enter your password for email on the following page to review your account. hxxp://dponsk.ru/wp-admins/.pay/

> Please visit the hxxp://dponsk.ru/wp-admins/.pay Resolution Center and
> complete the Steps to Remove Limitations.

Sounds official, right?  But notice that the URLs given have nothing to do with Paypal.  Also notice, given the .ru domain, that they are in Russia.  Don’t click on those links.  Neither Paypal of anybody else is going to send you these type of messages these days.

CyberSec Tips: Email – Spam – Fraud – example 2

Another advance fee/419 fraud is the lottery.

> Subject: Dear User
> To: Recipients <info@notizia348.onmicrosoft.com>
> From: Alexander brown <info@notizia348.onmicrosoft.com>

Again, your email address, which supposedly “won” this lottery, is missing: this message is being sent to many people.  (If you really had won millions, don’t you think they’d take a bit more care getting it to you?)

> Dear Internet User,
>  We are pleased to inform you again of the result of the Internet Promotional
>  Draws. All email addresses entered for this promotional draws were randomly
>  inputted from an internet resource database using the Synchronized
> Data Collective Balloting Program.

Sounds impressive.  But it really doesn’t mean anything.  In the first place, you never entered.  And why would anyone set up a lottery based simply on random email sent around the net?  There is no benefit to anyone in that, not even as a promotion.

>  This is our second letter to you. After this automated computer ballot,your
>  email address was selected in Category A with Ref Number: GTL03-2013 and
>  E-Ticket Number: EUB/8974IT,this qualifies you to be the recipient of t
> he grand prize award sum of (US$2,500,000.00) Two Million, Five Hundred Thousand
> United States Dollars.

This is interesting: it presents still more impressive stuff–that really has no meaning.  It starts by saying this is the second message to you, implying that you missed the first.  This is intended to make you anxious, and probably a bit less questioning about things.  Watch out for anything that tries to rush or push you.

The numbers, of course, are meant to sound official, but are meaningless.

>  The payout of this cash prize to you will be subject to the final validations
>  and satisfactory report that you are the bona fide owner of the winning email
>  address. In line with the governing rules of claim, you are requ
> ired to establish contact with your designated claims agent via email or
> telephone with the particulars below:
>  Enquiry Officer: Mr. Samuel Trotti
> Phone: +39 3888146161
> Email: trottioffice@aim.com

Again, note that the person you are to contact is not the one (or even the same domain) as sent the message.

>  You may establish contact with the Enquiry Officer via the e-mail address above
>  with the information’s necessary: Name:, Address:, Phone:, Cell Phone:, Email:,
>  Alternative Email:, Occupation:, Ref Number and E-Ticket Number. All winnings
>  must be claimed within 14 days from today. After this date all unclaimed funds
>  would be included in the next stake. Remember to quote your reference
>  information in all correspondence with your claims agent.

This is interesting: the amount of information they ask from you means that this might not simply be advance fee fraud, but they might be doing phishing and identity theft, as well.

CyberSec Tips: Email – Spam – Fraud – example 1

A lot of the advance fee fraud (also called 419 or Nigerian scams) these days say you’ve been named in a will:

> Subject: WILL EXECUTION!!!
> To: Recipients <clifordchance08@cliffordchance854.onmicrosoft.com>
> From: Clifford Chance <clifordchance08@cliffordchance854.onmicrosoft.com>

Note in this case that the message is sent “to” the person who sent it.  This is often an indication that many people have been sent the same message by being “blind” copied on it.  In any case, it wasn’t sent specifically to you.

> Late Mr.Robert Adler bequeathed US$20,500,000.00 USD, to you in his will.More
> info,contact your attorney(Clifford Chance Esq) via email
> address:clf.chance@hotmail.com  Tell+44-871-974-9198

This message doesn’t tell you very much: sometimes they have a reference to a recent tragic event.

Note also that the email address you are supposed to contact is not the same address that sent the message.  This is always suspicious.  (So is giving a phone number.)

If you look into the headers, there are more oddities:

> From: Clifford Chance <clifordchance08@cliffordchance854.onmicrosoft.com>
> Reply-To: <clf.chance@hotmail.com>
> Message-ID: <XXXX@SINPR02MB153.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com>

There are not only three different email addresses, but three different domains.  Microsoft owns Hotmail, and Hotmail became Outlook, so it’s possible, but it’s still a bit odd.

REVIEW: “Debug It: Find, Repair, and Prevent Bugs in Your Code”, Paul Butcher

BKDEBGIT.RVW   20130122

“Debug It: Find, Repair, and Prevent Bugs in Your Code”, Paul Butcher, 2009, U$34.95/C$43.95, 978-1-93435-628-9
%A   Paul Butcher paul@paulbutcher.com
%C   2831 El Dorado Pkwy, #103-381 Frisco, TX 75033
%D   2009
%G   978-1-93435-628-9 1-93435-628-X
%I   Pragmatic Bookshelf
%O   U$34.95/C$43.95 sales@pragmaticprogrammer.com 800-699-7764
%O  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/193435628X/robsladesinterne
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/193435628X/robsladesinte-21
%O   http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/193435628X/robsladesin03-20
%O   Audience n- Tech 2 Writing 1 (see revfaq.htm for explanation)
%P   214 p.
%T   “Debug It: Find, Repair, and Prevent Bugs in Your Code”

The preface states that there are lots of books in the market that teach development and few that teach debugging.  (In my experience, a great many development books include debugging advice, so I’m not sure where the author’s perception comes from.)  The work is structured around a core method for debugging: reproduce, diagnose, fix, and reflect.

Part one presents the basic technique.  Chapter one repeats the description of this core method.  Chapter two encourages the reproduction of the bug.  (This can be more complex than the author lets on.  I have a netbook with some bug in the hibernation function.  Despite constant observation over a period of three and a half years, I’ve yet to find a combination of conditions that reproduces the failure, nor one that prevents it.)  Some of the suggestions given are useful, if pedestrian, while others are pretty pointless.  (Butcher does not address the rather thorny issue of using “real” data for testing.)  In terms of diagnosis, in chapter three, there is limited description of process, but lots of good tips.  The same is true of fixing, in chapter four.  (I most definitely agree with the recommendation to fix underlying causes, rather than effects.)  Reflection, the topic of chapter five, is limited to advice that the problem be considered even after you’ve fixed it.

Part two explores the larger picture.  Chapter six examines bug tracking systems, and eliciting feedback from users and support staff.  Chapter seven advises on trying to address the bugs, but concentrates on “fix early,” with little discussion of priorities or ranking systems.

Part three, entitled “Debug Fu,” turns to related and side issues.  The “Special Cases” in chapter eight seem to be fairly common: software already released, compatibility issues, and “heisenbugs” that disappear when you try to track them.  Chapter nine, on the ideal debugging environment, is about as practical as most such exercises.  “Teach Your Software to Debug Itself” in chapter ten seems confined to a few specific cases.  Chapter eleven notes some common problems in development teams and structures.

The advice in the book is good, and solid, but not surprising to anyone with experience.  Novices who have not considered debugging much will find it useful.

copyright, Robert M. Slade   2013   BKDEBGIT.RVW   20130122

BadBIOS

In recent days there has been much interest in the “BadBIOS” infection being reported by Dragos Ruiu.  (The best overview I’ve seen has been from Naked Security.)  But to someone who has lived through several viral myths and legends, parts of it sound strange.

  • It is said to infect the low-level system firmware of your computer, so it can’t be removed or disabled simply by rebooting.

These things, of course, have been around for a while, so that isn’t necessarily wrong.  However, BIOS infectors never became a major vector.

  • It is said to include components that work at the operating system level, so it affects the high-level operation of your computer, too.
  • It is said to be multi-platform, affecting at least Windows, OS X, and OpenBSD systems.

This sounds bit odd, but we’ve had cross-platform stuff before.  But they never became major problems either.

  • It is said to prevent infected systems being booted from CD drives.

Possible: we’ve seen similar effects over the years, both intentionally and un.

  • It is said to spread itself to new victim computers using Software Defined Radio (SDR) program code, even with all wireless hardware removed.

OK, it’s dangerous to go out on a limb when you haven’t seen details and say something can’t happen, but I’m calling bullshit on this one.  Not that I don’t think someone couldn’t create a communications channel without the hardware: anything the hardware guys can do the software guys can emulate, and vice versa.  However, I can’t see getting an infection channel this way, at least without some kind of minimal infection first.  (It is, of course, possible that the person doing the analysis may have made a mistake in what they observed, or in the reporting of it.)

  • It is said to spread itself to new victim computers using the speakers on an infected device to talk to the microphone on an uninfected one.

As above.

  • It is said to infect simply by plugging in a USB key, with no other action required.

We’ve seen that before.

  • It is said to infect the firmware on USB sticks.

Well, a friend has built a device to blow off dangerous firmware on USB sticks, so I don’t see that this would present any problem.

  • It is said to render USB sticks unusable if they aren’t ejected cleanly; these sticks work properly again if inserted into an infected computer.

Reminds me somewhat of the old “fast infectors” of the early 90s.  They had unintended effects that actually made the infections easy to remove.

  • It is said to use TTF (font) files, apparently in large numbers, as a vector when spreading.

Don’t know details of the internals of TTF files, but they should certainly have enough space.

  • It is said to block access to Russian websites that deal with reflashing software.

Possible, and irrelevant unless we find out what is actually true.

  • It is said to render any hardware used in researching the threat useless for further testing.

Well, anything that gets reflashed is likely to become unreliable and untrustworthy …

  • It is said to have first been seen more than three years ago on a Macbook.

And it’s taken three years to get these details?  Or get a sample to competent researchers?  Or ask for help?  This I find most unbelievable.

In sum, then, I think this might be possible, but I strongly suspect that it is either a promotion for PacSec, or a promo for some presentation on social engineering.

 

Risk management and security theatre

Bruce Schneier is often outrageous, these days, but generally worth reading.  In a piece for Forbes in late August, he made the point that, due to fear and the extra trouble casued by TSA regulations, more people were driving rather than flying, and, thus, more people were dying.

“The inconvenience of extra passenger screening and added costs at airports after 9/11 cause many short-haul passengers to drive to their destination instead, and, since airline travel is far safer than car travel, this has led to an increase of 500 U.S. traffic fatalities per year.”

So, by six years after the event, the TSA had killed more US citizens than had the terrorists.  And continues to kill them.

Given the recent NSA revelations, I suppose this will sound like more US-bashing, but I don’t see it that way.  It’s another example of the importance of *real* risk management, taking all factors into account.