Login
Millions of people likely just received an email or snail mail notice saying they’re eligible to claim a class action payment in connection with the 2017 megabreach at consumer credit bureau Equifax. Given the high volume of reader inquiries about this, it seemed worth pointing out that while this particular offer is legit (if paltry), scammers are likely to soon capitalize on public attention to the settlement money.
One reader’s copy of their Equifax Breach Settlement letter. They received a check for $6.97.
In 2017, Equifax disclosed a massive, extended data breach that led to the theft of Social Security Numbers, dates of birth, addresses and other personal information on nearly 150 million people. Following a public breach response perhaps best described as a giant dumpster fire, the big-three consumer credit reporting bureau was quickly hit with nearly two dozen class-action lawsuits.
In exchange for resolving all outstanding class action claims against it, Equifax in 2019 agreed to a settlement that includes up to $425 million to help people affected by the breach.
Affected consumers were eligible to apply for at least three years of credit monitoring via all three major bureaus simultaneously, including Equifax, Experian and TransUnion. Or, if you didn’t want to take advantage of the credit monitoring offers, you could opt for a cash payment of up to $125.
The settlement also offered reimbursement for the time you may have spent remedying identity theft or misuse of your personal information caused by the breach, or purchasing credit monitoring or credit reports. This was capped at 20 total hours at $25 per hour ($500), with total cash reimbursement payments not to exceed $20,000 per consumer.
Those who did file a claim probably started receiving emails or other communications earlier this year from the Equifax Breach Settlement Fund, which has been messaging class participants about methods of collecting their payments.
How much each recipient receives appears to vary quite a bit, but probably most people will have earned a payment on the smaller end of that $125 scale — like less than $10. Those who received higher amounts likely spent more time documenting actual losses and/or explaining how the breach affected them personally.
So far this week, KrebsOnSecurity has received at least 20 messages from readers seeking more information about these notices. Some readers shared copies of letters they got in the mail along with a paper check from the Equifax Breach Settlement Fund (see screenshot above).
Others said they got emails from the Equifax Breach Settlement domain that looked like an animated greeting card offering instructions on how to redeem a virtual prepaid card.
If you received one of these settlement emails and are wary about clicking the included links (good for you, by the way), copy the redemption code and paste it into the search box at myprepaidcenter.com/redeem. Successfully completing the card application requires accepting a prepaid MasterCard agreement (PDF).
The website for the settlement — equifaxbreachsettlement.com — also includes a lookup tool that lets visitors check whether they were affected by the breach; it requires your last name and the last six digits of your Social Security Number.
But be aware that phishers and other scammers are likely to take advantage of increased public awareness of the payouts to snooker people. Tim Helming, security evangelist at DomainTools.com, today flagged several new domains that mimic the name of the real Equifax Breach Settlement website and do not appear to be defensively registered by Equifax, including equifaxbreechsettlement[.]com, equifaxbreachsettlementbreach[.]com, and equifaxsettlements[.]co.
In February 2020, the U.S. Justice Department indicted four Chinese officers of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) for perpetrating the 2017 Equifax hack. DOJ officials said the four men were responsible for carrying out the largest theft of sensitive personal information by state-sponsored hackers ever recorded.
Equifax surpassed Wall Street’s expectations in its most recent quarterly earnings: The company reported revenues of $1.24 billion for the quarter ending September 2022.
Of course, most of those earnings come from Equifax’s continued legal ability to buy and sell eye-popping amounts of financial and personal data on U.S. consumers. As one of the three major credit bureaus, Equifax collects and packages information about your credit, salary, and employment history. It tracks how many credit cards you have, how much money you owe, and how you pay your bills. Each company creates a credit report about you, and then sells this report to businesses who are deciding whether to give you credit.
Americans currently have no legal right to opt out of this data collection and trade. But you can and also should freeze your credit, which by the way can make your credit profile less profitable for companies like Equifax — because they make money every time some potential creditor wants a peek inside your financial life. Also, it’s probably a good idea to freeze the credit of your children and/or dependents as well. It’s free on both counts.
Photo: BrandonKleinPhoto / Shutterstock.com
Two U.S. men have been charged with hacking into the Ring home security cameras of a dozen random people and then “swatting” them — falsely reporting a violent incident at the target’s address to trick local police into responding with force. Prosecutors say the duo used the compromised Ring devices to stream live video footage on social media of police raiding their targets’ homes, and to taunt authorities when they arrived.
Prosecutors in Los Angeles allege 20-year-old James Thomas Andrew McCarty, a.k.a. “Aspertaine,” of Charlotte, N.C., and Kya Christian Nelson, a.k.a. “ChumLul,” 22, of Racine, Wisc., conspired to hack into Yahoo email accounts belonging to victims in the United States. From there, the two allegedly would check how many of those Yahoo accounts were associated with Ring accounts, and then target people who used the same password for both accounts.
An indictment unsealed this week says that in the span of just one week in November 2020, McCarty and Nelson identified and swatted at least a dozen different victims across the country.
“The defendants then allegedly accessed without authorization the victims’ Ring devices and transmitted the audio and video from those devices on social media during the police response,” reads a statement from Martin Estrada, the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California. “They also allegedly verbally taunted responding police officers and victims through the Ring devices during several of the incidents.”
James Thomas Andrew McCarty.
The indictment charges that McCarty continued his swatting spree in 2021 from his hometown in Kayenta, Ariz., where he called in bomb threats or phony hostage situations on more than two dozen occasions.
The Telegram and Discord aliases allegedly used by McCarty — “Aspertaine” and “Couch,” among others — correspond to an identity that was active in certain channels dedicated to SIM-swapping, a crime that involves stealing wireless phone numbers and hijacking the online financial and social media accounts tied to those numbers.
Aspertaine bragged on Discord that he’d amassed more than $330,000 in virtual currency. On Telegram, the Aspertaine/Couch alias frequented several popular SIM-swapping channels, where they initially were active as a “holder” — a SIM-swapping group member who agrees to hold SIM cards used in the heist after an account takeover is completed. Aspertaine later claimed more direct involvement in individual SIM-swapping attacks.
In September, KrebsOnSecurity broke the news about a wide-ranging federal investigation into “violence-as-a-service” offerings on Telegram and other social media networks, wherein people can settle scores by hiring total strangers to carry out physical attacks such as brickings, shootings, and firebombings at a target’s address.
The story observed that SIM swappers were especially enamored of these “IRL” or “In Real Life” violence services, which they frequently used to target one another in response to disagreements over how stolen money should be divided amongst themselves. And a number of Aspertaine’s peers on these SIM-swapping channels claimed they’d been ripped off after Aspertaine took more than a fair share from them.
In August, a member of a popular SIM-swapping group on Telegram who was slighted by Aspertaine put out the word that he was looking for some physical violence to be visited on McCarty’s address in North Carolina. “Anyone live near here and wants to [do] a job for me,” the job ad with McCarty’s home address read. “Jobs range from $1k-$50k. Payment in BTC [bitcoin].” It’s unclear if anyone responded to that job offer.
Ring, Inc., which is owned by Amazon, said it learned bad actors used stolen customer email credentials obtained from external (non-Ring) services to access other accounts, and took immediate steps to help those customers secure their Ring accounts.
“We also supported the FBI in identifying the individuals responsible,” the company said in a written statement. “We take the security of our customers extremely seriously — that’s why we made two-step verification mandatory, conduct regular scans for Ring passwords compromised in non-Ring breaches, and continually invest in new security protections to harden our systems. We are committed to continuing to protect our customers and vigorously going after those who seek to harm them.”
KrebsOnSecurity recently published The Wages of Password ReUse: Your Money or Your Life, which noted that when normal computer users fall into the nasty habit of recycling passwords, the result is most often some type of financial loss. Whereas, when cybercriminals reuse passwords, it often costs them their freedom.
But perhaps that story should be updated, because it’s now clear that password reuse can also put you in mortal danger. Swatting attacks are dangerous, expensive hoaxes that sometimes end in tragedy.
In June 2021, an 18-year-old serial swatter from Tennessee was sentenced to five years in prison for his role in a fraudulent swatting attack that led to the death of a 60-year-old man.
In 2019, prosecutors handed down a 20-year sentence to Tyler Barriss, a then 26-year-old serial swatter from California who admitted making a phony emergency call to police in late 2017 that led to the shooting death of an innocent Kansas man.
McCarty was arrested last week, and charged with conspiracy to intentionally access computers without authorization. Prosecutors said Nelson is currently incarcerated in Kentucky in connection with unrelated investigation.
If convicted on the conspiracy charge, both defendants would face a statutory maximum penalty of five years in federal prison. The charge of intentionally accessing without authorization a computer carries a maximum possible sentence of five years. A conviction on the additional charge against Nelson — aggravated identity theft — carries a mandatory two-year consecutive sentence.
Update, 11:48 a.m., Dec. 20: Added statement from Ring. Modified description of a “holder” in the SIM-swapping parlance.
Attackers specifically craft business email compromise (BEC) and phishing emails using a combination of malicious techniques, expertly selected from an ever-evolving bag of tricks. They’ll use these techniques to impersonate a person or business that’s well-known to the targeted recipient and hide their true intentions, while attempting to avoid detection by security controls.
As a result of the requisite expertise needed to combat these complex attacks, email security has traditionally been siloed away in disparate teams and security controls. Practitioners are buried under an ever-growing pile of RFCs, requiring extensive domain-specific knowledge, unending vigilance, and meticulous manual interventions, such as tweaking trust levels and cultivating allow/block lists with IPs, domains, senders, and vendors.
Cisco Secure Email Threat Defense is leading the industry forward with a major shift, elevating email security into a new era; where administration will consist of merely associating specific business risks with the appropriate due diligence response required to remediate against them.
Email Threat Defense has introduced a new Threat Profile that provides the customer with deep insights into the specific business risks of individual email threats and the confidence to act quickly. This new visualization is powered by a new patent-pending threat detection engine. This engine leverages intelligence distilled from Talos global-scale threat research across a massive volume of email traffic into machine learning, behavioral modeling, and natural language understanding.
The detection engine granularly identifies specific underlying threat techniques utilized in the message by the attacker. The identified techniques provide the full context of the threat message as the supporting foundation for the engine to determine threat categorization and the specific risk to the business. These malicious Techniques, together with the threat category and specific business risk, are used to populate the Threat Profile.
Each message’s Threat Profile is identified in real-time, automatically remediated per policy, and surfaced directly to the operator in the message detail views, providing deep contextual insights into the attacker’s intent and the associated risks to the business. As part of a larger Extended Detection and Response (XDR) strategy, the actionable intelligence in Email Threat Defense is integrated with the wider enterprise orchestration of security controls via SecureX, easing the operational burden by decreasing your mean time to remediation (MTTR).
Email Threat Defense delivers a distinct understanding of malicious messages, the most vulnerable targets within the organization, and the most effective means of protecting them from phishing, scams, and BEC attacks. With a clean design and core focus on simplifying administration, Email Threat Defense deploys in minutes to strengthen protection of your existing Microsoft 365 Exchange Online platform against the most advanced email threats.
For more information, visit the Cisco Secure Email product pages, read the Email Threat Defense data sheet, and view the demo video below.
We’d love to hear what you think. Ask a Question, Comment Below, and Stay Connected with Cisco Secure on social!
Cisco Secure Social Channels
InfraGard, a program run by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to build cyber and physical threat information sharing partnerships with the private sector, this week saw its database of contact information on more than 80,000 members go up for sale on an English-language cybercrime forum. Meanwhile, the hackers responsible are communicating directly with members through the InfraGard portal online — using a new account under the assumed identity of a financial industry CEO that was vetted by the FBI itself.
On Dec. 10, 2022, the relatively new cybercrime forum Breached featured a bombshell new sales thread: The user database for InfraGard, including names and contact information for tens of thousands of InfraGard members.
The FBI’s InfraGard program is supposed to be a vetted Who’s Who of key people in private sector roles involving both cyber and physical security at companies that manage most of the nation’s critical infrastructures — including drinking water and power utilities, communications and financial services firms, transportation and manufacturing companies, healthcare providers, and nuclear energy firms.
“InfraGard connects critical infrastructure owners, operators, and stakeholders with the FBI to provide education, networking, and information-sharing on security threats and risks,” the FBI’s InfraGard fact sheet reads.
In response to information shared by KrebsOnSecurity, the FBI said it is aware of a potential false account associated with the InfraGard Portal and that it is actively looking into the matter.
“This is an ongoing situation, and we are not able to provide any additional information at this time,” the FBI said in a written statement.
KrebsOnSecurity contacted the seller of the InfraGard database, a Breached forum member who uses the handle “USDoD” and whose avatar is the seal of the U.S. Department of Defense.
USDoD’s InfraGard sales thread on Breached.
USDoD said they gained access to the FBI’s InfraGard system by applying for a new account using the name, Social Security Number, date of birth and other personal details of a chief executive officer at a company that was highly likely to be granted InfraGard membership.
The CEO in question — currently the head of a major U.S. financial corporation that has a direct impact on the creditworthiness of most Americans — told KrebsOnSecurity they were never contacted by the FBI seeking to vet an InfraGard application.
USDoD told KrebsOnSecurity their phony application was submitted in November in the CEO’s name, and that the application included a contact email address that they controlled — but also the CEO’s real mobile phone number.
“When you register they said that to be approved can take at least three months,” USDoD said. “I wasn’t expected to be approve[d].”
But USDoD said that in early December, their email address in the name of the CEO received a reply saying the application had been approved (see redacted screenshot to the right). While the FBI’s InfraGard system requires multi-factor authentication by default, users can choose between receiving a one-time code via SMS or email.
“If it was only the phone I will be in [a] bad situation,” USDoD said. “Because I used the person[‘s] phone that I’m impersonating.”
USDoD said the InfraGard user data was made easily available via an Application Programming Interface (API) that is built into several key components of the website that help InfraGard members connect and communicate with each other.
USDoD said after their InfraGard membership was approved, they asked a friend to code a script in Python to query that API and retrieve all available InfraGard user data.
“InfraGard is a social media intelligence hub for high profile persons,” USDoD said. “They even got [a] forum to discuss things.”
To prove they still had access to InfraGard as of publication time Tuesday evening, USDoD sent a direct note through InfraGard’s messaging system to an InfraGard member whose personal details were initially published as a teaser on the database sales thread.
That InfraGard member, who is head of security at a major U.S. technology firm, confirmed receipt of USDoD’s message but asked to remain anonymous for this story.
USDoD acknowledged that their $50,000 asking price for the InfraGard database may be a tad high, given that it is a fairly basic list of people who are already very security-conscious. Also, only about half of the user accounts contain an email address, and most of the other database fields — like Social Security Number and Date of Birth — are completely empty.
“I don’t think someone will pay that price, but I have to [price it] a bit higher to [negotiate] the price that I want,” they explained.
While the data exposed by the infiltration at InfraGard may be minimal, the user data might not have been the true end game for the intruders.
USDoD said they were hoping the imposter account would last long enough for them to finish sending direct messages as the CEO to other executives using the InfraGuard messaging portal. USDoD shared the following redacted screenshot from what they claimed was one such message, although they provided no additional context about it.
A screenshot shared by USDoD showing a message thread in the FBI’s InfraGard system.
USDoD said in their sales thread that the guarantor for the transaction would be Pompompurin, the administrator of the cybercrime forum Breached. By purchasing the database through the forum administrator’s escrow service, would-be buyers can theoretically avoid getting ripped off and ensure the transaction will be consummated to the satisfaction of both parties before money exchanges hands.
Pompompurin has been a thorn in the side of the FBI for years. Their Breached forum is widely considered to be the second incarnation of RaidForums, a remarkably similar English-language cybercrime forum shuttered by the U.S. Department of Justice in April. Prior to its infiltration by the FBI, RaidForums sold access to more than 10 billion consumer records stolen in some of the world’s largest data breaches.
In November 2021, KrebsOnSecurity detailed how Pompompurin abused a vulnerability in an FBI online portal designed to share information with state and local law enforcement authorities, and how that access was used to blast out thousands of hoax email messages — all sent from an FBI email and Internet address.
Update, 10:58 p.m. ET: Updated the story after hearing from the financial company CEO whose identity was used to fool the FBI into approving an InfraGard membership. That CEO said they were never contacted by the FBI.
Update, 11:15 p.m. ET: The FBI just confirmed that it is aware of a potential false account associated with the InfraGard portal. The story now includes their full statement.
This is a developing story. Updates will be noted here with timestamps.
ind-1200
Payment applications make splitting restaurant bills, taxi fares, and household expenses so much easier. Without having to tally totals at the table or fumble with crumpled bills, you and your companions can spend less stress and more time on the fun at hand.
There are various payment apps available, and the company that may first come to mind is PayPal. PayPal is regarded as a safe platform where security and strong encryption are a priority; however, a recent and advanced phishing scam is putting PayPal users at risk of giving up large sums of money and their personally identifiable information (PII).1
Let’s look at this “triple-pronged” PayPal phishing scam and review some tips to help you identify and proceed should you encounter it.
The typical part of this three-sided scam is the phishing email component. According to one source, the phishing email comes from a legitimate-looking PayPal service email address. Luckily, the typos, odd punctuation, extra spaces, and grammar errors in the body of the email give away that it is a phishing attempt. Remember, phishing emails are often worded poorly or have errors. Large companies, especially ones like PayPal, have teams of content experts vetting all automated messages for such mistakes, so several mistakes in an email should set off your alarm bells. Proceed with caution and do not click on any links in the message.
The email also included wording that encouraged the user to act quickly or be charged a lot of money. That’s another trademark of phishing emails: urgency. Take a deep breath and make sure to reread carefully all emails that “require” a quick response. Don’t be scared by dire consequences. Phishers rely on people to rush and not give themselves time to listen to their better judgement.
The PayPal phishing email included a support phone number that claimed it was toll free. In actuality, it was an international phone number. So, if the recipient of the phishing email didn’t quite believe the message but wanted to follow up, the scam could catch them with what’s called a one-ring phone scam.2 This occurs when someone unknowingly calls an international phone number and then gets charged by their phone company for the long-distance call.
The best way to avoid one-ring phone scams is to never call a number you don’t recognize. Always go to an organization’s official website to find their contact information.
The third dimension of this PayPal scam was the international phone number in the phishing email connected the caller directly with the scammer who posed as the PayPal fraud department. The “customer service representative” then asked prying personal and financial questions to glean enough PII to break into a PayPal account or compromise the caller’s identity. This is the most damaging part of the scam. An excellent customer support team may be able to reimburse you your lost money; however, once your personal details are in nefarious hands, you can’t take them back.
In addition to never calling numbers you haven’t verified, never give out passwords and never give out more personal information than you need to. Even in legitimate customer service calls, it’s not rude to ask why the representative requires the information they’re asking for. In a fake call, questions like that may fluster the scammer, so keep an ear tuned to their tone.
Overall, our best advice for handling suspicious emails is to delete them. If it’s truly important, the sender will contact you again. And if a thief somehow stole money from one of your payment apps, the customer service team should be able to walk you through the steps to recover it.
The transfer and handling of large sums of money would make anyone nervous. To give you peace of mind, consider partnering with a service that can help you recover should you ever fall for a scheme and compromise your PII. McAfee+ Ultimate helps you live your best life in private, and the service includes credit monitoring with all three credit bureaus, security freeze, and expert online support to help you navigate any scams you encounter.
Having McAfee+ can protect you from email phishing scams like this. Here are some of the top agencies to report this scam to, if it happens to you: Paypal Fraud Department, Federal Trade Commision , Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency USA.gov IC3
“Report it. Forward phishing emails to reportphishing@apwg.org (an address used by the Anti-Phishing Working Group, which includes ISPs, security vendors, financial institutions, and law enforcement agencies). Let the company or person that was impersonated know about the phishing scheme.” – FTC.gov
1ZDNET, “Watch out for this triple-pronged PayPal phishing and fraud scam.”
2Federal Communications Commission, “‘One Ring’ Phone Scam.”
The post A PayPal Email Scam Is Making the Rounds: Here’s How to Identify and Avoid It appeared first on McAfee Blog.
Today, we released the latest issue of The Domain Name Industry Brief, which shows that the third quarter of 2022 closed with 349.9 million domain name registrations across all top-level domains, a decrease of 1.6 million domain name registrations, or 0.4%, compared to the second quarter of 2022.1,2 Domain name registrations have increased by 11.5 million, or 3.4%, year over year.1,2
Check out the latest issue of The Domain Name Industry Brief to see domain name stats from the third quarter of 2022, including:
• Top 10 Largest TLDs by Number of Reported Domain Names
• Top 10 Largest ccTLDs by Number of Reported Domain Names
• ngTLDs as Percentage of Total TLDs
• Geographical ngTLDs as Percentage of Total Corresponding Geographical TLDs
To see past issues of The Domain Name Industry Brief, please visit verisign.com/dnibarchives.
The post Verisign Domain Name Industry Brief: 349.9 Million Domain Name Registrations in the Third Quarter of 2022 appeared first on Verisign Blog.
Watch ThreatWise TV: Explorations in the spam folder
The spam folder: that dark and disregarded corner of every email account, full of too-good-to-be-true offers, unexpected shipments, and supposedly free giveaways.
You’re right to ignore this folder; few good things come from exploring it. But every once in a while one of these misleading, and sometimes malicious, emails manages to evade the filters that normally siphon them off, landing them in your inbox instead.
Fortunately, it’s easy enough to spot these emails if you know what to look for. We’ve investigated this folder once before, showcasing a variety of scams. With the holiday season in full swing, we thought this would be a good time to revisit how scammers are trying to trick unsuspecting users.
The holiday season is traditionally a time when this type of activity increases, and this year is no different. According to research published by credit reporting agency TransUnion, the average daily number of suspected digital fraud attempts was up 82 percent globally between Thanksgiving and Cyber Monday (Nov 24–Nov 28) compared to the rest of the year (Jan 1–Nov 23) and 127 percent higher for transactions originating in the US.
This level of activity makes it all the more important to be aware of these scams. With that in mind, let’s dive into the spam folder to get a picture of the types of campaigns currently circulating.
While much of the spam circulating is innocuous, many emails are phishing attempts, and some are indeed malicious. To explore these scams, we used a dedicated computer, segmented from the rest of the network, and leveraged Cisco Secure Malware Analytics to safely open the emails before clicking on links or opening attachments. The point being, we do not recommend doing this at home.
By far, the largest category of spam we saw were surveys scams. According to these emails, if you fill out a simple survey you’ll receive “exclusive offers” such as gift cards, smartphones, smart watches, power drills, or even pots and pans.
There are even some campaigns that specifically target the holiday shopping season.
Clicking the links in these emails takes the recipient to sites where they are asked to fill out a survey.
These pages often include fake testimonials that say how easy the survey is and what they did with their free gift.
The surveys are straightforward, comprising 10-20 simple questions that cover demographic information and shopping habits.
After the survey is completed, these sites offer the choice of a handful of rewards. All the recipient must do is pay for shipping. They are then brought to a page where they can fill out shipping and payment information, and the reward is supposedly shipped.
However, the attempts to make payment often appear to fail, or the recipient is informed that the prize is no longer available.
An unsuspecting user may simply give up at this point, disappointed that they won’t be getting their free gift. What they may not be aware of, is that they have just given their credit card details away in a phishing scam.
In their 2021 Internet Crime Report, the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) said that Non-Payment / Non-Delivery scams such as these led to more than $337 million in losses, up from $265 million in 2020. Credit card fraud amounted to $172 million in 2021 and has been climbing continuously at a conservative rate of 15-20 percent since 2019.
According to Cisco Umbrella, many of the sites asking for credit card details are known phishing sites, or worse, host malware.
Another topic that we covered the last time we explored these types of scams was package delivery spam. These continue to circulate today. There are a variety of shipping companies impersonated in these campaigns, and some generic ones as well.
Many of these campaigns claim that a package could not be delivered. If the recipient clicks on a link in an email, they’re brought to a web page that explains that there are outstanding delivery fees that need to be paid.
The recipient is further enticed by suggestions that the package contains a big-ticket item, such as an iPhone or iPad Pro. All the recipient is required to do is enter their credit card details to cover the shipping.
While no outright malicious activity was detected while examining these emails in Secure Malware Analytics, several suspicious behaviors were flagged. Chances are the bad actors behind these campaigns are phishing for credit card details.
Sometimes the simplest approaches can work just as well as the flashiest. This certainly holds true with spam campaigns, given the prominence of plain-text messages.
The topics covered in such emails run the gamut, including medical cures, 419 scams, romance and dating, pharmaceuticals, weight loss, and many of the scam types we’ve already covered. Many of these link to phishing sites, though some attempt to establish a dialog with the recipient, tricking them into sending the scammers money.
The IC3 report says that victims of confidence fraud and romance scams lost $956 million collectively, which is up from $600 million in 2020. Healthcare fraud, such as the miracle pills and prescriptions scams, resulted in $7 million in losses in 2021, but nearly $30 million in 2020. While these types of scams seem generic and easily spotted, they still work, and so it’s important to be aware and avoid them.
Many emails hitting the spam box attempt to trick users of various services into believing that there is a problem with their account. The problems cover all sorts of services, including streaming platforms, email providers, antivirus subscriptions, and even public records.
If the links are clicked, the recipient is presented with landing pages that mimic the respective services. Any details that are entered will likely be phished, leading to account takeover and/or access to personal records. However, some domains encountered in these cases may do more than just steal information, they could deliver malware too.
Another frequently encountered scam surrounds billing. Many of these appear to be unexpected bills for services the recipient never purchased.
These emails include attachments that are designed to look like official invoices. Interestingly, most of the attachments that we looked at this time were harmless. The goal is to get the recipient to call what appears to be a toll-free number.
While we haven’t called any of these numbers, the experience usually unfolds like a standard customer service call. In the end the “agents” simply claim the charges—which never existed in the first place—have been removed. Meanwhile the scammers steal any personal or financial information provided during the call.
While most billing scams we encountered played out as described above, a few did indeed contain malware.
In this example, the email appears to come from an internet service provider, informing us that our monthly bill is ready.
An invoice appears to be attached, stored within a .zip file. If the recipient opens it and double clicks the file within, a command prompt appears.
This may seem unusual to the recipient, especially since no invoice appears, but by this point it’s too late. The file contains a script that launches PowerShell and attempts to download a remote file.
While the remote file was no longer available at the time of analysis, there is a high likelihood it was malicious. But even though we were unable to determine its contents, Secure Malware Analytics flagged the script execution as malicious.
Knowing about prevalent scams, especially during the holiday season, is a first step in guarding against them. Granted the bad actors who distribute these spam campaigns do everything they can to make their scams look legitimate.
Fortunately, there are several things that you can do to identify scams and defend against them:
But even the best of us can be fooled, and when overseeing a large operation it’s more a matter of when, rather than if, someone clicks on the wrong link. There are elements of the Cisco Secure portfolio that can help for when the inevitable happens.
Cisco Secure Malware Analytics is the malware analysis and malware threat intelligence engine behind all products across the Cisco Security Architecture. The system delivers enhanced, in-depth, advanced malware analysis and context-rich intelligence to help better understand and fight malware within your environments. Secure Malware Analytics is available as a standalone solution, as a component in other Cisco Security solutions, and through software-as-a-service (SaaS) in the cloud, on-premises, and hybrid delivery models.
Cisco Secure Email protects against fraudulent senders, malware, phishing links, and spam. Its advanced threat detection capabilities can uncover known, emerging, and targeted threats. In addition, it defends against phishing by using advance machine learning techniques, real time behavior analytics, relationship modeling, and telemetry that protects against identity deception–based threats.
Cisco Umbrella unifies multiple security functions in a single cloud service to secure internet access. By enforcing security at the DNS layer, Umbrella blocks requests to malware before a connection is even established—before they reach your network or endpoints. In addition, the secure web gateway logs and inspects all web traffic for greater transparency, control, and protection, while the cloud-delivered firewall helps to block unwanted traffic.
Cisco Secure Endpoint is a single-agent solution that provides comprehensive protection, detection, response, and user access coverage to defend against threats to your endpoints. The SecureX platform is built into Secure Endpoint, as are Extended Detection and Response (XDR) capabilities. With the introduction of Cisco Secure MDR for Endpoint, we have combined Secure Endpoint’s superior capabilities with security operations to create a comprehensive endpoint security solution that dramatically decreases the mean time to detect and respond to threats while offering the highest level of always-on endpoint protection.
We’d love to hear what you think. Ask a Question, Comment Below, and Stay Connected with Cisco Secure on social!
Cisco Secure Social Channels
As 2022 draws to a close, the Threat Research Team at McAfee Labs takes a look forward—offering their predictions for 2023 and how its threat landscape may take shape.
This year saw the continued evolution of scams, which is unlikely to slow down, as well as greater adoption of Chrome as an operating system. It also saw the introduction of AI tools that are easy and accessible to virtually anyone with a phone or laptop, which will continue to have significant implications, as will the fluctuating popularity of cryptocurrency and the emergence of “Web3.”
Advances such as these have set the stage for 2023, which will continue to reshape our interactions with technology—advances that bad actors will try to exploit, and in turn, us.
Yet as the threat landscape continues to evolve, so do the ways we can protect ourselves. With that, we share McAfee’s threat predictions for 2023, along with insights and advice that can help us enjoy the advances to come with confidence.
By Steve Grobman, Chief Technology Officer
Humans have been fascinated by artificial intelligence (AI) for almost as long as we’ve been using computers. And in some cases, even fearful of it. Depictions in pop culture range from HAL, the sentient computer from 2001: A Space Odyssey to Skynet, the self-aware neural network at the center of the Terminator franchise. The reality of current AI technologies is both more complicated and less autonomous than either of these. While AI is rapidly evolving, humans remain at the heart of it, and whether it’s put to beneficial or nefarious use.
Within the last few months, creating AI-generated images, videos, and even voices are no longer strictly left to professionals. Now anyone with a phone or computer can take advantage of the technology using publicly available applications like Open AI’s Dall-E or stability.ai’s Stable Diffusion. Google has even made creating AI-generated videos easier than ever.
What does this mean for the future? It means the next generation of content creation is becoming available to the masses and will only continue to evolve. People both at work and at home will have the ability to create the AI-generated content in minutes. Just as desktop publishing, photo editing, and inexpensive photorealistic home printers created major advances that empowered individuals to create content that previously required a professional designer, these technologies will enable sophisticated outputs with minimal expertise or effort.
Advances in desktop publishing and consumer printing also provided benefits to criminals, enabling better counterfeiting and more realistic manipulation of images. Similarly, these emerging next-generation content tools will also be used by a range of bad actors. From cybercriminals to those seeking to falsely influence public opinion, these tools will empower scammers and propagandists to take their tradecraft to the next level with more realistic results and significantly improved efficiency.
This is especially likely to ramp up in 2023 as the U.S. begins the 2024 presidential election cycle in earnest. Globally, the political environment is polarized. The confluence of the emergence of accessible next-generation generative AI tools and what is sure to be a highly contested 2024 election season is a perfect storm for creating and distributing disinformation for political and monetary gain.
We’ll all need to be more mindful of the content we consume and the sources that it originates from. Fact-checking images, videos, and news content, something that’s already on the rise, will continue to be a necessary and valuable part of media consumption.
By Oliver Devane, Security Researcher
Cryptocurrency scams
In 2022 we saw several online scams making use of existing content to make crypto scams more believable. One such example was the double your money cryptocurrency scam that used an old Elon Musk video as a lure. We expect such scams to evolve in 2023 and make use of deep fake videos, as well as audio, to trick victims into parting ways with their hard-earned money.
The financial outlook of 2023 remains uncertain for many people. During these times, people often look for ways to make some extra money and this can lead them vulnerable to social media messages and online ads that offer huge financial gains for little investment.
According to the IC3 2021 report, the losses for financial scams increased from $336,469,000 in 2020 to $1,455,943,193 in 2021, this shows that this type of scam is growing by an enormous amount, and we expect this to continue.
Unfortunately, scammers will often target the most vulnerable people. Fake loan scams are one such scam where the scammers know that the victims are desperate for the loan and therefore are less likely to react to warning signs such as asking for an upfront fee. McAfee predicts that there will be a large increase in these types of scams in 2023. When looking for a loan, always use a trusted provider and be careful of clicking on online ads.
Metaverses such as Facebook’s Horizon enable their users to explore an online world that was previously unimaginable. When these platforms are in the early stages, malicious actors will usually attempt to exploit the lack of understanding of how they work and use this to scam people. We have observed phishing campaigns targeting users of these platforms in 2022 and we expect this to increase dramatically in 2023 as more and more users sign up for the platforms.
By Craig Schmugar, McAfee Senior Principal Engineer
More than 25 years ago, Windows 95 became the platform of choice not just for millions of users around the globe, but for malware authors targeting those users. Over the years, Windows has evolved, as has the threat landscape. Today, Windows 10 and 11 make up the majority of the desktop PC market, but thanks to the rise of the mobile Internet, device diversity has greatly evolved since the advent of Windows 95.
Over five years ago, Android overtook Windows as the world’s most popular OS and with this shift bad actors have been pursing alternative methods of attack. The ultimate vectors are those which impact users across a spectrum of devices. Email and web-based scams (some of which are outlined in the blog above) are as prolific as ever as these technologies are ubiquitous across desktop and mobile devices.
Meanwhile, other technologies span across desktop and mobile experiences as well. For Google, such cross-platform capabilities are highlighted by increased adoption of ChromeOS and a few underlying technologies. This includes 270 million active Android users and a 270% increase in Progressive Web Application (PWA) installations [https://chromeos.dev]. ChromeOS’ ability to run Android applications, combined with its wide-spread adoption, provides the climate for increased attention by those with ill intentions.
Similarly, adoption of PWAs provide bad actors with additional incentive to deliver deceptive and imposter attacks through this multi-OS channel, including ChromeOS, iOS, MacOS, and Windows.
Finally, on the heels of COVID restrictions that impacted schools in various countries, Google reported 50 million students and educators worldwide [https://chromeos.dev] using ChromeOS. Many users will be unaware of malicious Chrome extensions lurking in the Chrome Web Store.
All of this means that the stage is set for a marked increase in threats impacting Chromebook in the year to come. In 2023, we can expect to see Chromebook users among millions of unsuspecting victims that download and run malicious content, whether from malicious Android Apps, Progressive Web Apps, or Chrome Web Store extensions, users should be leery of popups and push notifications urging them to install untrusted apps.
By Fernando Ruiz, Senior Security Researcher
Editor’s Note: Web3? FOMO? If you’re already lost, you’re not alone. Web3 is a term some use to encompass decentralized internet services, technologies like Bitcoin and Non-Fungible Tokens (digital art that collectors can purchase with cryptocurrency). Still confused? A lot of people are. This New York Times article is a good primer on what is currently considered Web3.
As for FOMO, that’s just an acronym meaning the “Fear of Missing Out.” That nagging feeling, most often felt by extroverts, that others are out there having more fun than them and that they’re missing the party.
Whether you invest in cryptocurrency or just see the headlines on Twitter, no doubt you’ve seen that the price of cryptocurrency has sharply declined during 2022. These fluctuations are becoming more normal as crypto becomes even more mainstream. It’s very likely that the value of crypto will rise again.
When the last upturn in valuation happened near the start of the pandemic, the hype about crypto also skyrocketed. Suddenly Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies were everywhere. Out of that, rose the concept of Web3, with more companies investing in new applications over blockchain (the technology that is the backbone of cryptocurrency).
McAfee predicts that the popularity of cryptocurrency will rise again, and consumers will hear much more about Web3 concepts like decentralized finance (DeFi), decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), self-sovereign identity (SSI) and more.
Some amateur investors, remembering the rapid rise of the value of Bitcoin earlier this decade, won’t want to miss out on what they think will be a great opportunity to get rich quick. It’s this group that bad actors will seek to exploit, offering up links or applications that play on these users’ crypto/Web3 FOMO.
As crypto bounces back and initial awareness of decentralization grows in the general population, consumers will begin to explore these Web3 offerings without fully understanding what they mean or what dangers they should be aware of, leaving them open to scams as they invest time and money into crypto or creating their own NFT content. These scams could entice users to click on a link or download an app that appears to legitimately interact with some blockchains, but in actuality:
Additionally, when consumers DO hold crypto, NFT, digital land, or other blockchain financial assets they are going to be targeted for more sophisticated threats that can drain their funds: smart contracts, exchanges, digital wallets, and synchronization services can all be associated with hidden authorizations that allow a third party (potentially a bad actor) to take control of the assets. It’s important that users read the terms and conditions of any app they download, especially those that will be accessing ANY type of financial institution or currency, whether traditional or crypto.
Social engineering will also continue to be a top entry point for cybercriminals. The complexity of the attacks will evolve as the technology does, which will require more preparation and understanding of how Web3 applications and tools work in order to safely interact with them.
What has emerged from the world of Web3 thus far, while exciting, has also expanded attack surfaces and vectors, which we expect to see grow throughout 2023 as Web3 evolves.
The post McAfee 2023 Threat Predictions: Evolution and Exploitation appeared first on McAfee Blog.
In December 2021, Google filed a civil lawsuit against two Russian men thought to be responsible for operating Glupteba, one of the Internet’s largest and oldest botnets. The defendants, who initially pursued a strategy of counter suing Google for interfering in their sprawling cybercrime business, later brazenly offered to dismantle the botnet in exchange for payment from Google. The judge in the case was not amused, found for the plaintiff, and ordered the defendants and their U.S. attorney to pay Google’s legal fees.
A slide from a talk given in Sept. 2022 by Google researcher Luca Nagy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Gz6_I-wl0E&t=6s
Glupteba is a rootkit that steals passwords and other access credentials, disables security software, and tries to compromise other devices on the victim network — such as Internet routers and media storage servers — for use in relaying spam or other malicious traffic.
Collectively, the tens of thousands of systems infected with Glupteba on any given day feed into a number of major cybercriminal businesses: The botnet’s proprietors sell the credential data they steal, use the botnet to place disruptive ads on the infected computers, and mine cryptocurrencies. Glupteba also rents out infected systems as “proxies,” directing third-party traffic through the infected devices to disguise the origin of the traffic.
In June 2022, KrebsOnSecurity showed how the malware proxy services RSOCKS and AWMProxy were entirely dependent on the Glupteba botnet for fresh proxies, and that the founder of AWMProxy was Dmitry Starovikov — one of the Russian men named in Google’s lawsuit.
Google sued Starovikov and 15 other “John Doe” defendants, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, trademark and unfair competition law, and unjust enrichment.
In June, Google and the named defendants agreed that the case would proceed as a nonjury action because Google had withdrawn its claim for damages — seeking only injunctive relief to halt the operations of the botnet.
The defendants, who worked for a Russian firm called “Valtron” that was also named in the lawsuit, told Google that they were interested in settling. The defendants said they could potentially help Google by taking the botnet offline.
Another slide from Google researcher Luca Nagy’s September 2022 talk on Glupteba.
But the court expressed frustration that the defendants were unwilling to consent to a permanent injunction, and at the same time were unable to articulate why an injunction forbidding them from engaging in unlawful activities would pose a problem.
“The Defendants insisted that they were not engaged in criminal activity, and that any alleged activity in which they were engaged was legitimate,” U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote wrote. “Nevertheless, the Defendants resisted entry of a permanent injunction, asserting that Google’s use of the preliminary injunction had disrupted their normal business operations.”
While the defendants represented that they had the ability to dismantle the Glupteba botnet, when it came time for discovery — the stage in a lawsuit where both parties can compel the production of documents and other information pertinent to their case — the attorney for the defendants told the court his clients had been fired by Valtron in late 2021, and thus no longer had access to their work laptops or the botnet.
The lawyer for the defendants — New York-based cybercrime defense attorney Igor Litvak — told the court he first learned about his clients’ termination from Valtron on May 20, a fact Judge Cote said she found “troubling” given statements he made to the court after that date representing that his clients still had access to the botnet.
The court ultimately suspended the discovery process against Google, saying there was reason to believe the defendants sought discovery only “to learn whether they could circumvent the steps Google has taken to block the malware.”
On September 6, Litvak emailed Google that his clients were willing to discuss settlement.
“The parties held a call on September 8, at which Litvak explained that the Defendants would be willing to provide Google with the private keys for Bitcoin addresses associated with the Glupteba botnet, and that they would promise not to engage in their alleged criminal activity in the future (without any admission of wrongdoing),” the judge wrote.
“In exchange, the Defendants would receive Google’s agreement not to report them to law enforcement, and a payment of $1 million per defendant, plus $110,000 in attorney’s fees,” Judge Cote continued. “The Defendants stated that, although they do not currently have access to the private keys, Valtron would be willing to provide them with the private keys if the case were settled. The Defendants also stated that they believe these keys would help Google shut down the Glupteba botnet.”
Google rejected the defendants’ offer as extortionate, and reported it to law enforcement. Judge Cote also found Litvak was complicit in the defendants’ efforts to mislead the court, and ordered him to join his clients in paying Google’s legal fees.
“It is now clear that the Defendants appeared in this Court not to proceed in good faith to defend against Google’s claims but with the intent to abuse the court system and discovery rules to reap a profit from Google,” Judge Cote wrote.
Litvak has filed a motion to reconsider (PDF), asking the court to vacate the sanctions against him. He said his goal is to get the case back into court.
“The judge was completely wrong to issue sanctions,” Litvak said in an interview with KrebsOnSecurity. “From the beginning of the case, she acted as if she needed to protect Google from something. If the court does not decide to vacate the sanctions, we will have to go to the Second Circuit (Court of Appeals) and get justice there.”
In a statement on the court’s decision, Google said it will have significant ramifications for online crime, and that since its technical and legal attacks on the botnet last year, Google has observed a 78 percent reduction in the number of hosts infected by Glupteba.
“While Glupteba operators have resumed activity on some non-Google platforms and IoT devices, shining a legal spotlight on the group makes it less appealing for other criminal operations to work with them,” reads a blog post from Google’s General Counsel Halimah DeLaine Prado and vice president of engineering Royal Hansen. “And the steps [Google] took last year to disrupt their operations have already had significant impact.”
A report from the Polish computer emergency response team (CERT Orange Polksa) found Glupteba was the biggest malware threat in 2021.
A recent scoop by Reuters revealed that mobile apps for the U.S. Army and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were integrating software that sends visitor data to a Russian company called Pushwoosh, which claims to be based in the United States. But that story omitted an important historical detail about Pushwoosh: In 2013, one of its developers admitted to authoring the Pincer Trojan, malware designed to surreptitiously intercept and forward text messages from Android mobile devices.
Pushwoosh says it is a U.S. based company that provides code for software developers to profile smartphone app users based on their online activity, allowing them to send tailor-made notifications. But a recent investigation by Reuters raised questions about the company’s real location and truthfulness.
The Army told Reuters it removed an app containing Pushwoosh in March, citing “security concerns.” The Army app was used by soldiers at one of the nation’s main combat training bases.
Reuters said the CDC likewise recently removed Pushwoosh code from its app over security concerns, after reporters informed the agency Pushwoosh was not based in the Washington D.C. area — as the company had represented — but was instead operated from Novosibirsk, Russia.
Pushwoosh’s software also was found in apps for “a wide array of international companies, influential nonprofits and government agencies from global consumer goods company Unilever and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) to the politically powerful U.S. gun lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA), and Britain’s Labour Party.”
The company’s founder Max Konev told Reuters Pushwoosh “has no connection with the Russian government of any kind” and that it stores its data in the United States and Germany.
But Reuters found that while Pushwoosh’s social media and U.S. regulatory filings present it as a U.S. company based variously in California, Maryland and Washington, D.C., the company’s employees are located in Novosibirsk, Russia.
Reuters also learned that the company’s address in California does not exist, and that two LinkedIn accounts for Pushwoosh employees in Washington, D.C. were fake.
“Pushwoosh never mentioned it was Russian-based in eight annual filings in the U.S. state of Delaware, where it is registered, an omission which could violate state law,” Reuters reported.
Pushwoosh admitted the LinkedIn profiles were fake, but said they were created by a marketing firm to drum up business for the company — not misrepresent its location.
Pushwoosh told Reuters it used addresses in the Washington, D.C. area to “receive business correspondence” during the coronavirus pandemic. A review of the Pushwoosh founder’s online presence via Constella Intelligence shows his Pushwoosh email address was tied to a phone number in Washington, D.C. that was also connected to email addresses and account profiles for over a dozen other Pushwoosh employees.
Pushwoosh was incorporated in Novosibirsk, Russia in 2016.
The dust-up over Pushwoosh came in part from data gathered by Zach Edwards, a security researcher who until recently worked for the Internet Safety Labs, a nonprofit organization that funds research into online threats.
Edwards said Pushwoosh began as Arello-Mobile, and for several years the two co-branded — appearing side by side at various technology expos. Around 2016, he said, the two companies both started using the Pushwoosh name.
A search on Pushwoosh’s code base shows that one of the company’s longtime developers is a 41-year-old from Novosibirsk named Yuri Shmakov. In 2013, KrebsOnSecurity interviewed Shmakov for the story, “Who Wrote the Pincer Android Trojan?” wherein Shmakov acknowledged writing the malware as a freelance project.
Shmakov told me that, based on the client’s specifications, he suspected it might ultimately be put to nefarious uses. Even so, he completed the job and signed his work by including his nickname in the app’s code.
“I was working on this app for some months, and I was hoping that it would be really helpful,” Shmakov wrote. “[The] idea of this app is that you can set it up as a spam filter…block some calls and SMS remotely, from a Web service. I hoped that this will be [some kind of] blacklist, with logging about blocked [messages/calls]. But of course, I understood that client [did] not really want this.”
Shmakov did not respond to requests for comment. His LinkedIn profile says he stopped working for Arello Mobile in 2016, and that he currently is employed full-time as the Android team leader at an online betting company.
In a blog post responding to the Reuters story, Pushwoosh said it is a privately held company incorporated under the state laws of Delaware, USA, and that Pushwoosh Inc. was never owned by any company registered in the Russian Federation.
“Pushwoosh Inc. used to outsource development parts of the product to the Russian company in Novosibirsk, mentioned in the article,” the company said. “However, in February 2022, Pushwoosh Inc. terminated the contract.”
However, Edwards noted that dozens of developer subdomains on Pushwoosh’s main domain still point to JSC Avantel, an Internet provider based in Novosibirsk, Russia.
Pushwoosh employees posing at a company laser tag event.
Edwards said the U.S. Army’s app had a custom Pushwoosh configuration that did not appear on any other customer implementation.
“It had an extremely custom setup that existed nowhere else,” Edwards said. “Originally, it was an in-app Web browser, where it integrated a Pushwoosh javascript so that any time a user clicked on links, data went out to Pushwoosh and they could push back whatever they wanted through the in-app browser.”
An Army Times article published the day after the Reuters story ran said at least 1,000 people downloaded the app, which “delivered updates for troops at the National Training Center on Fort Irwin, Calif., a critical waypoint for deploying units to test their battlefield prowess before heading overseas.”
In April 2022, roughly 4,500 Army personnel converged on the National Training Center for a war games exercise on how to use lessons learned from Russia’s war against Ukraine to prepare for future fights against a major adversary such as Russia or China.
Edwards said despite Pushwoosh’s many prevarications, the company’s software doesn’t appear to have done anything untoward to its customers or users.
“Nothing they did has been seen to be malicious,” he said. “Other than completely lying about where they are, where their data is being hosted, and where they have infrastructure.”
Edwards also found Pushwoosh’s technology embedded in nearly two dozen mobile apps that were sold to cities and towns across Illinois as a way to help citizens access general information about their local communities and officials.
The Illinois apps that bundled Pushwoosh’s technology were produced by a company called Government 311, which is owned by Bill McCarty, the current director of the Springfield Office of Budget and Management. A 2014 story in The State Journal-Register said Gov 311’s pricing was based on population, and that the app would cost around $2,500 per year for a city with approximately 25,000 people.
McCarty told KrebsOnSecurity that his company stopped using Pushwoosh “years ago,” and that it now relies on its own technology to provide push notifications through its 311 apps.
But Edwards found some of the 311 apps still try to phone home to Pushwoosh, such as the 311 app for Riverton, Ill.
“Riverton ceased being a client several years ago, which [is] probably why their app was never updated to change out Pushwoosh,” McCarty explained. “We are in the process of updating all client apps and a website refresh. As part of that, old unused apps like Riverton 311 will be deleted.”
Edwards said it’s far from clear how many other state and local government apps and Web sites rely on technology that sends user data to U.S. adversaries overseas. In July, Congress introduced an amended version of the Intelligence Authorization Act for 2023, which included a new section focusing on data drawn from online ad auctions that could be used to geolocate individuals or gain other information about them.
Business Insider reports that if this section makes it into the final version — which the Senate also has to pass — the Office for the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) will have 60 days after the Act becomes law to produce a risk assessment. The assessment will look into “the counterintelligence risks of, and the exposure of intelligence community personnel to, tracking by foreign adversaries through advertising technology data,” the Act states.
Edwards says he’s hoping those changes pass, because what he found with Pushwoosh is likely just a drop in a bucket.
“I’m hoping that Congress acts on that,” he said. “If they were to put a requirement that there’s an annual audit of risks from foreign ad tech, that would at least force people to identify and document those connections.”
In 1987, CompuServe introduced GIF images, Steve Wozniak left Apple and IBM introduced the PS/2 personal computer with improved graphics and a 3.5-inch diskette drive. Behind the scenes, one more critical piece of internet infrastructure was quietly taking form to help establish the internet we know today.
November of 1987 saw the establishment of the Domain Name System protocol suite as internet standards. This was a development that not only would begin to open the internet to individuals and businesses globally, but also would arguably redefine communications, commerce and access to information for future generations.
Today, the DNS continues to be critical to the operation of the internet as a whole. It has a long and strong track record thanks to the work of the internet’s pioneers and the collaboration of different groups to create volunteer standards.
Let’s take a look back at the journey of the DNS over the years.
Prior to 1987, the internet was primarily used by government agencies and members of academia. Back then, the Network Information Center, managed by SRI International, manually maintained a directory of hosts and networks. While the early internet was transformative and forward-thinking, not everyone had access to it.
During that same time period, the U.S. Advanced Research Projects Agency Network, the forerunner to the internet we know now, was evolving into a growing network environment, and new naming and addressing schemes were being proposed. Seeing that there were thousands of interested institutions and companies wanting to explore the possibilities of networked computing, a group of ARPA networking researchers realized that a more modern, automated approach was needed to organize the network’s naming system for anticipated rapid growth.
Two Request for Comments documents, numbered RFC 1034 and RFC 1035, were published in 1987 by the informal Network Working Group, which soon after evolved into the Internet Engineering Task Force. Those RFCs, authored by computer scientist Paul V. Mockapetris, became the standards upon which DNS implementations have been built. It was Mockapetris, inducted into the Internet Hall of Fame in 2012, who specifically suggested a name space where database administration was distributed but could also evolve as needed.
In addition to allowing organizations to maintain their own databases, the DNS simplified the process of connecting a name that users could remember with a unique set of numbers – the Internet Protocol address – that web browsers needed to navigate to a website using a domain name. By not having to remember a seemingly random string of numbers, users could easily get to their intended destination, and more people could access the web. This has worked in a logical way for all internet users – from businesses large and small to everyday people – all around the globe.
With these two aspects of the DNS working together – wide distribution and name-to-address mapping – the DNS quickly took shape and developed into the system we know today.
Thirty-five years of DNS development and progress is attributable to the collaboration of multiple stakeholders and interest groups – academia, technical community, governments, law enforcement and civil society, plus commercial and intellectual property interests – who continue even today to bring crucial perspectives to the table as it relates to the evolution of the DNS and the internet. These perspectives have lent themselves to critical security developments in the DNS, from assuring protection of intellectual property rights to the more recent stakeholder collaborative efforts to address DNS abuse.
Other major collaborative achievements involve the IETF, which has no formal membership roster or requirements, and is responsible for the technical standards that comprise the internet protocol suite, and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which plays a central coordination role in the bottom-up multistakeholder system governing the global DNS. Without constructive and productive voluntary collaboration, the internet as we know it simply isn’t possible.
Indeed, these cooperative efforts marshaled a brand of collaboration known today as “rough consensus.” That term, originally “rough consensus and running code,” gave rise to a more dynamic collaboration process than the “100% consensus from everyone” model. In fact, the term was adopted by the IETF in the early days of establishing the DNS to describe the formation of the dominant view of the working group and the need to quickly implement new technologies, which doesn’t always allow for lengthy discussions and debates. This approach is still in use today, proving its usefulness and longevity.
As we look back on how the DNS came to be and the processes that have kept it reliably running, it’s important to recognize the work done by the organizations and individuals that make up this community. We must also remember that the efforts continue to be powered by voluntary collaborations.
Commemorating anniversaries such as 35 years of the DNS protocol allows the multiple stakeholders and communities to pause and reflect on the enormity of the work and responsibility before us. Thanks to the pioneering minds who conceived and built the early infrastructure of the internet, and in particular to Paul Mockapetris’s fundamental contribution of the DNS protocol suite, the world has been able to establish a robust global economy that few could ever have imagined so many years ago.
The 35th anniversary of the publication of RFCs 1034 and 1035 reminds us of the contributions that the DNS has made to the growth and scale of what we know today as “the internet.” That’s a moment worth celebrating.
The post Celebrating 35 Years of the DNS Protocol appeared first on Verisign Blog.
ESET researchers spot a new ransomware campaign that goes after Ukrainian organizations and has Sandworm's fingerprints all over it
The post RansomBoggs: New ransomware targeting Ukraine appeared first on WeLiveSecurity
puppi-car-1200
FreshRSS 