Enhanced Nigerian scam – linkedin style

Want to get paid for a vulnerability similar to this one?
Contact us at: sxsxdx@xbxexyxoxnxdxsxexcxuxrxixtxy.xcom

Linkedin is a much better platform for Nigerian scammers: They now have my first and last name, information about me, etc. So they can craft the following letter (sent by this guy):

Hello Aviram Jenik,

I am Dr Sherif Akande, a citizen of Ghana, i work with Barclay’s Bank Ltd, Ghana. I have in my bank Existence of the Amount of money valued at $8.400,000.00, the big hurt Belongs to the customer, Peter B.Jenik, who Happen To Have The Same name as yours. The fund is now without any Claim Because, Peter B.Jenik, in a deadly earthquake in China in 2008. I want your cooperation so that bank will send you the fund as the beneficiary and located next of kin to the fund.

This transaction will be of a great mutual assistance to us. Send me your reply of interest so that i will give you the details. Strictly send it to my private email account {sherifakande48@gmail.com} or send me your email address to send you details of this transaction.

At the receipt of your reply, I will give you details of the transaction.I look forward to hear from you. I will send you a scan copy of the deposit certificate.

Send me an email to my private email account {sherifakande48@gmail.com}for more details of the transaction.

Best Regard’s
Dr Sherif Akande.
Here is my number +233548598269

Cyberbullying, anonymity, and censorship

Want to get paid for a vulnerability similar to this one?
Contact us at: sxsxdx@xbxexyxoxnxdxsxexcxuxrxixtxy.xcom

Michael Den Tandt’s recent column in the Vancouver Sun is rather a melange, and deserves to have a number of points addressed separately.

First, it is true that the behaviours the “cyberbullying” bill address, those of spreading malicious and false information widely, generally using anonymous or misleading identities, do sound suspiciously close to those behaviours in which politicians engage themselves.  It might be ironic if the politicians got charged under the act.

Secondly, whether bill C-13 is just a thinly veiled re-introduction of the reviled C-30 is an open question.  (As one who works with forensic linguistics, I’d tend to side with those who say that the changes in the bill are primarily cosmetic: minimal changes intended to address the most vociferous objections, without seriously modifying the underlying intent.)

However, Den Tandt closes with an insistence that we need to address the issue of online anonymity.  Removing anonymity from the net has both good points and bad, and it may be that the evil consequences would outweigh the benefits.  (I would have thought that a journalist would have been aware of the importance of anonymous sources of reporting.)

More importantly, this appeal for the banning of anonymity betrays an ignorance of the inherent nature of networked communitcation.  The Internet, and related technologies, have so great an influence on our lives that it is important to know what can, and can’t, be done with it.

The Internet is not a telephone company, where the central office installs all the wires and knows at least where (and therefore likely who) a call came from.  The net is based on technology whish is designed, from the ground up, in such a way that anyone, with any device, can connect to the nearest available source, and have the network, automatically, pass information to or from the relevant person or site.

The fundamental technology that connects the Internet, the Web, social media, and pretty much everything else that is seen as “digital” these days, is not a simple lookup table at a central office.  It is a complex interrelationship of prototcols, servers, and programs that are built to allow anyone to communicate with anyone, without needing to prove your identity or authorization.  Therefore, nobody has the ability to prevent any communication.

There are, currently, a number of proposals to “require” all communications to be identified, or all users to have an identity, or prevent anyone without an authenticated identity from using the Internet.  Any such proposals will ultimately fail, since they ignore the inherent foundational nature of the net.  People can voluntarily participate in such programs–but those people probably wouldn’t have engaged in cyberbullying in any case.

John Gilmore, one of the people who built the basics of the Internet, famously stated that “the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.”  This fact allows those under oppressive regimes to communicate with the rest of the world–but it also means that pornography and hate speech can’t be prevented.  The price of reasonable commuincations is constant vigilance and taking the time to build awareness.  A wish for a technical or legal shortcut that will be a magic pill and “fix” everything is doomed to fail.

CyberSec Tips: E-Commerce – tip details 2 – fake sites

Want to get paid for a vulnerability similar to this one?
Contact us at: sxsxdx@xbxexyxoxnxdxsxexcxuxrxixtxy.xcom

Following on with some more of the tips from an earlier post, originally published here:

The next three tips are pretty straightforward, and should be followed:
Don’t click on offers in email.
If it sounds too good to be true, don’t fall for it.
Don’t fall for fake eBay or PayPal sites.

Good advice all around.  In terms of fake eBay or PayPal sites, check the URLs, if you can see them, or the places you end up.  Often fraudsters will try and register sites with odd variations on the name, such as replacing the lower case letter l in PayPal with a digit 1, which can look similar: paypal.com vs paypa1.com.  Or they will send you to a subdirectory on either a legitimate site (for example, googledocs.com/paypal) or on a straight scam site (frauds.ru/paypal).  Or sometimes the URL is simply a mess of characters.  If the site isn’t pretty clearly the one you want, get out of there.

Source Disclosure vulnerability in Joomla – the dreaded single quote

Want to get paid for a vulnerability similar to this one?
Contact us at: sxsxdx@xbxexyxoxnxdxsxexcxuxrxixtxy.xcom

We have started receiving reports from Joomla users that our ScanMyServer service is picking up an unknown and undocumented vulnerability on their web site.

The scanner is showing that they have one or more source disclosure/path disclosure vulnerabilities. Since they were using the latest and most up to date version of Joomla their reports looked odd and we started to investigate the matter.

We found out that the vulnerability is “hard” to trigger, as Firefox and Internet Explorer will escape the single quote in a URL to its encoded form, while Chrome will not. So while sending it under Chrome will show something like:
Fatal error: Uncaught exception 'InvalidArgumentException' with message 'Invalid URI detected.' in /home/content/41/9236541/html/libraries/joomla/environment/uri.php:194 Stack trace: #0 /home/content/41/9236541/html/libraries/joomla/application/application.php(248): JURI::getInstance() #1 /home/content/41/9236541/html/includes/application.php(135): JApplication->route() #2 /home/content/41/9236541/html/index.php(36): JSite->route() #3 {main} thrown in /home/content/41/9236541/html/libraries/joomla/environment/uri.php on line 194

The same URL under Firefox and Internet Explorer, will return:
404 - Article not found

Of course, the vulnerability is not in Chrome, but is a real issue caused by Joomla not properly escaping the URL.

The problem has been already spotted in a different section of Joomla, the search option, as can be seen by this post: http://joomlacode.org/gf/../?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=31036&start=0

So the problem isn’t just in the search, it also spans to other sections of the Joomla framework.

We will keep you posted when a fix is provided, or we have a workaround for this issue.