Login
When we published our 2020 Predictions report in December, we didn’t realize there was a global pandemic brewing that would give cybercriminals an almost daily news cycle to take advantage of in their attacks against people and organizations around the world. Malicious actors have always taken advantage of big news to use as lures for socially engineered threats, but these events tend to be fairly short news cycles.
When Covid-19 started making headlines in early 2020, we started seeing new threats using this in the attacks. As you see below, April was the peak month for email-based Covid-19 related threats.
The same was true for phishing URLs related to Covid-19, but for files using Covid-19 in their naming convention, the peak month in the first half was June.
Impact on Cybercrime
The constant 24×7 news around cases, cures and vaccines makes this pandemic unique for cybercriminals. Also, the shift to remote working and the challenges posed to supply chains all gave cybercriminals new content they could use as lures to entice victims into infecting themselves.
As we’ve seen for many years now, email-based threats were the most used threat vector by malicious actors, which makes sense as the number one infection vector to penetrate an organization’s network is to use a socially engineered email against an employee.
We even saw malicious mobile apps being developed using Covid-19 as a lure, as you see below.
In this case it was supporting potential cures for the virus, which many people would have wanted.
Other Highlights in 1H 2020
While Covid-19 dominated the threat landscape in the 1H 2020, it wasn’t the only thing that defined it. Ransomware actors continued their attacks against organizations, but as we’ve been seeing over the past year, they’ve become much more selective in their victims. The spray and pray model using spam has been shifted to a more targeted approach, similar to how nation-state actors and APT groups perform their attacks. Two things showcase this trend:
|
|
Home network attacks are another interesting aspect of the threat landscape in the first half of this year. We have millions of home routers around the world that give us threat data on events coming into and out of home networks.
Threat actors are taking advantage of more remote workers by launching more attacks against these home networks. As you see below, the first half of 2020 saw a marked increase in attacks.
Many of these attacks are brute force login attempts as actors try to obtain login credentials for routers and devices within the home network, which can allow them to do further damage.
The above are only a small number of security events and trends we saw in just six months of 2020. Our full roundup of the security landscape so far this year is detailed out in our security roundup report – Securing the Pandemic-Disrupted Workplace. You can read about all we found to help prepare for many of the threats we will continue to see for the rest of the year.
The post 1H 2020 Cyber Security Defined by Covid-19 Pandemic appeared first on .
Introduction to hash functions Hash functions are one of the most extensively-used cryptographic algorithms in blockchain technology. They are cryptographic (but not encryption) algorithms that are designed to protect data integrity. In a nutshell, a hash algorithm is a mathematical function that transforms any input into a fixed size output. To be cryptographically secure — […]
The post Hash Functions in Blockchain appeared first on Infosec Resources.
How public-key cryptography works Public-key or asymmetric cryptography is one of the two main types of encryption algorithms. Its names come from the fact that it uses two different encryption keys: a public one and a private one. Public and private keys The private key used in public-key cryptography is a random number with certain […]
The post Public-Key Cryptography in Blockchain appeared first on Infosec Resources.
The COVID-19 pandemic, when it struck earlier this year, ushered in an immediate period of adjustment for all of us. And just as the challenges posed by COVID-19 in 2020 have been truly unprecedented, Verisign’s mission – enabling the world to connect online with reliability and confidence, anytime, anywhere – has never been more relevant. We are grateful for the continued dedication of our workforce, which enables us to provide the building blocks people need for remote working and learning, and simply for keeping in contact with each other.
At Verisign we took early action to adopt a COVID-19 work posture to protect our people, their families, and our operations. This involved the majority of our employees working from home, and implementing new cleaning and health safety protocols to protect those employees and contractors for whom on-site presence was essential to maintain key functions.
Our steps to address the pandemic did not stop there. On March 25 we announced a series of measures to help the communities where we live and work, and the broader DNS community in which we operate. This included, under our Verisign Cares program, making contributions to organizations supporting key workers, first responders and medical personnel, and doubling the company’s matching program for employee giving so that employee donations to support the COVID-19 response could have a greater impact.
Today, while vaccines may offer signs of long term hope, the pandemic has plunged many families into economic hardship and has had a dramatic effect on food insecurity in the U.S., with an estimated 50 million people affected. With this hardship in mind, we have this week made contributions totaling $275,000 to food banks in the areas where we have our most substantial footprint: the Washington DC-Maryland-Virginia region; Delaware; and the canton of Fribourg, in Switzerland. This will help local families put food on their tables during what will be a difficult winter for many.
The pandemic has also had a disproportionate, and potentially permanent, impact on certain sectors of the economy. So today Verisign is embarking on a partnership with Virginia Ready, which helps people affected by COVID-19 access training and certification for in-demand jobs in sectors such as technology. We are making an initial contribution of $250,000 to Virginia Ready, and will look to establish further partnerships of this kind across the country in 2021.
The post Meeting the Evolving Challenges of COVID-19 appeared first on Verisign Blog.
As we begin a new year, it is important to look back and reflect on our accomplishments and how we can continue to improve. A significant positive the DNS community could appreciate from 2020 is the receptiveness and responsiveness of the Chromium team to address the large amount of DNS queries being sent to the root server system.
In a previous blog post, we quantified that upwards of 45.80% of total DNS traffic to the root servers was, at the time, the result of Chromium intranet redirection detection tests. Since then, the Chromium team has redesigned its code to disable the redirection test on Android systems and introduced a multi-state DNS interception policy that supports disabling the redirection test for desktop browsers. This functionality was released mid-November of 2020 for Android systems in Chromium 87 and, quickly thereafter, the root servers experienced a rapid decline of DNS queries.
The figure below highlights the significant decline of query volume to the root server system immediately after the Chromium 87 release. Prior to the software release, the root server system saw peaks of ~143 billion queries per day. Traffic volumes have since decreased to ~84 billion queries a day. This represents more than a 41% reduction of total query volume.
This type of broad root system measurement is facilitated by ICANN’s Root Server System Advisory Committee standards document RSSAC002, which establishes a set of baseline metrics for the root server system. These root server metrics are readily available to the public for analysis, monitoring, and research. These metrics represent another milestone the DNS community could appreciate and continue to support and refine going forward.
Rightly noted in ICANN’s Root Name Service Strategy and Implementation publication, the root server system currently “faces growing volumes of traffic” from legitimate users but also from misconfigurations, misuse, and malicious actors and that “the costs incurred by the operators of the root server system continue to climb to mitigate these attacks using the traditional approach”.
As we reflect on how Chromium’s large impact to root server traffic was identified and then resolved, we as a DNS community could consider how outreach and engagement should be incorporated into a traditional approach of addressing DNS security, stability, and resiliency. All too often, technologists solve problems by introducing additional layers of technology abstractions and disregarding simpler solutions, such as outreach and engagement.
We believe our efforts show how such outreach and community engagement can have significant impact both to the parties directly involved, and to the broader community. Chromium’s actions will directly aide and ease the operational costs to mitigate attacks at the root. Reducing the root server system load by 41%, with potential further reduction depending on future Chromium deployment decisions, will lighten operational costs incurred to mitigate attacks by relinquishing their computing and network resources.
In pursuit of maintaining a responsible and common-sense root hygiene regimen, Verisign will continue to analyze root telemetry data and engage with entities such as Chromium to highlight operational concerns, just as Verisign has done in the past to address name collisions problems. We’ll be sharing more information on this shortly.
This piece was co-authored by Matt Thomas and Duane Wessels, Distinguished Engineers at Verisign.
The post Chromium’s Reduction of Root DNS Traffic appeared first on Verisign Blog.
A name collision occurs when a user attempts to resolve a domain in one namespace, but it unexpectedly resolves in a different namespace. Name collision issues in the public global Domain Name System (DNS) cause billions of unnecessary and potentially unsafe DNS queries every day. A targeted outreach program that Verisign started in March 2020 has remediated one billion queries per day to the A and J root name servers, via 46 collision strings. After contacting several national internet service providers (ISPs), the outreach effort grew to include large search engines, social media companies, networking equipment manufacturers, national CERTs, security trust groups, commercial DNS providers, and financial institutions.
While this unilateral outreach effort resulted in significant and successful name collision remediation, it is broader DNS community engagement, education, and participation that offers the potential to address many of the remaining name collision problems. Verisign hopes its successes will encourage participation by other organizations in similar positions in the DNS community.
Verisign is proud to be the operator for two of the world’s 13 authoritative root servers. Being a root server operator carries with it many operational responsibilities. Ensuring the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS requires proactive efforts so that attacks against the root name servers do not disrupt DNS resolution, as well as the monitoring of DNS resolution patterns for misconfigurations, signaling telemetry, and unexpected or unintended uses that, without closer collaboration, could have unforeseen consequences (e.g. Chromium’s impact on root DNS traffic).
Monitoring may require various forms of responsible disclosure or notification to the underlying parties. Further, monitoring the root server system poses logistical challenges because any outreach and remediation programs must work at internet scale, and because root operators have no direct relationship with many of the involved entities.
Despite these challenges, Verisign has conducted several successful internet-scale outreach efforts to address various issues we have observed in the DNS.
In response to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Number (ICANN) proposal to mitigate name collision risks in 2013, Verisign conducted a focused study on the collision string .CBA. Our measurement study revealed evidence of a substantial internet-connected infrastructure in Japan that relied on the non-resolution of names that end in .CBA. Verisign informed the network operator, who subsequently reconfigured some of its internal systems, resulting in an immediate decline of queries for .CBA observed at A and J root servers.
Prior to the 2018 KSK rollover, several operators of DNSSEC-validating name servers appeared to be sending out-of-date RFC 8145 signals to root name servers. To ensure the KSK rollover did not disrupt internet name resolution functions for billions of end users, Verisign augmented ICANN’s outreach effort and conducted a multi-faceted technical outreach program by contacting and working with The United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) and other national CERTs, industry partners, various DNS operator groups and performing direct outreach to out-of-date signalers. The ultimate success of the KSK rollover was due in large part to outreach efforts by ICANN and Verisign.
In response to the ICANN Board’s request in resolutions 2017.11.02.29 – 2017.11.02.31, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) was asked to conduct studies, and to present data and points of view on collision strings, including specific advice on three higher risk strings: .CORP, .HOME and .MAIL. While Verisign is actively engaged in this Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP) developed by SSAC, we are also reviving and expanding our 2012 name collision outreach efforts.
Verisign’s name collision outreach program is based on the guidance we provided in several recent peer-reviewed name collision publications, which highlighted various name collision vulnerabilities and examined the root causes of leaked queries and made remediation recommendations. Verisign’s program uses A and J root name server traffic data to identify high-affinity strings related to particular networks, as well as high query volume strings that are contextually associated with device manufacturers, software, or platforms. We then attempt to contact the underlying parties and assist with remediation as appropriate.
While we partially rely on direct communication channel contact information, the key enabler of our outreach efforts has been Verisign’s relationships with the broader collective DNS community. Verisign’s active participation in various industry organizations within the ICANN and DNS communities, such as M3AAWG, FIRST, DNS-OARC, APWG, NANOG, RIPE NCC, APNIC, and IETF1, enables us to identify and communicate with a broad and diverse set of constituents. In many cases, participants operate infrastructure involved in name collisions. In others, they are able to put us in direct contact with the appropriate parties.
Through a combination of DNS traffic analysis and publicly accessible data, as well as the rolodexes of various industry partnerships, across 2020 we were able to achieve effective outreach to the anonymized entities listed in Table 1.
| Organization | Queries per Day to A & J | Status | Number of Collision Strings (TLDs) | Notes / Root Cause Analysis |
| Search Engine | 650M | Fixed | 1 string | Application not using FQDNs |
| Telecommunications Provider | 250M | Fixed | N/A | Prefetching bug |
| eCommerce Provider | 150M | Fixed | 25 strings | Application not using FQDNs |
| Networking Manufacturer | 70M | Pending | 3 strings | Suffix search list |
| Cloud Provider | 64M | Fixed | 15 strings | Suffix search list |
| Telecommunications Provider | 60M | Fixed | 2 strings | Remediated through device vendor |
| Networking Manufacturer | 45M | Pending | 2 strings | Suffix search list problem in router/modem device |
| Financial Corporation | 35M | Fixed | 2 strings | Typo / misconfiguration |
| Social Media Company | 30M | Pending | 9 strings | Application not using FQDNs |
| ISP | 20M | Fixed | 1 string | Suffix search list problem in router/modem device |
| Software Provider | 20M | Pending | 50+ strings | Acknowledged but still investigating |
| ISP | 5M | Pending | 1 string | At time of writing, still investigating but confirmed it is a router/modem device |
Many of the name collision problems encountered are the result of misconfigurations and not using fully qualified domain names. After operators deploy patches to their environments, as shown in Figure 1 below, Verisign often observes an immediate and dramatic traffic decrease at A and J root name servers. Although several networking equipment vendors and ISPs acknowledge their name collision problems, the development and deployment of firmware to a large userbase will take time.
Cumulatively, the operators who have deployed patches constitute a reduction of one billion queries per day to A and J root servers (roughly 3% of total traffic). Although root traffic is not evenly distributed among the 13 authoritative servers, we expect a similar impact at the other 11, resulting in a system-wide reduction of approximately 6.5 billion queries per day.
As the ICANN community prepares for Subsequent Procedures (the introduction of additional new TLDs) and the SSAC NCAP continues to work to answer the ICANN Board’s questions, we encourage the community to participate in our efforts to address name collisions through active outreach efforts. We believe our efforts show how outreach can have significant impact to both parties and the broader community. Verisign is committed to addressing name collision problems and will continue executing the outreach program to help minimize the attack surface exposed by name collisions and to be a responsible and hygienic root operator.
For additional information about name collisions and how to properly manage private-use TLDs, please see visit ICANN’s Name Collision Resource & Information website.
1. The Messaging, Malware and Mobile Anti-Abuse Working Group (M3AAWG), Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST), DNS Operations, Analysis, and Research Center (DNS-OARC), Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG), North American Network Operators’ Group (NANOG), Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC), Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC), Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
The post Verisign Outreach Program Remediates Billions of Name Collision Queries appeared first on Verisign Blog.
You get an email from bank0famerica@acc0unt.com claiming that they have found suspicious activity on your credit card statement and are requesting that you verify your financial information. What do you do? While you may be tempted to click on a link to immediately resolve the issue, this is likely the work of a cybercriminal. Phishing is a scam that tricks you into voluntarily providing important personal information. Protect yourself from phishing by reviewing some examples of phishing emails and learning more about this common online scam.
Phishing is a cybercrime that aims to steal your sensitive information. Scammers disguise themselves as major corporations or other trustworthy entities to trick you into willingly providing information like website login credentials or, even worse, your credit card number.
A phishing email or text (also known as SMiShing) is a fraudulent message made to look legitimate, and typically asks you to provide sensitive personal information in various ways. If you don’t look carefully at the emails or texts, however, you might not be able to tell the difference between a regular message and a phishing message. Scammers work hard to make phishing messages closely resemble emails and texts sent by trusted companies, which is why you need to be cautious when you open these messages and click the links they contain.
Phishing scammers often undo their own plans by making simple mistakes that are easy to spot once you know how to recognize them. Check for the following signs of phishing every time you open an email or text:
Even the biggest companies sometimes make minor errors in their communications. Phishing messages often contain grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, and other blatant errors that major corporations wouldn’t make. If you see multiple, glaring grammatical errors in an email or text that asks for your personal information, you might be a target of a phishing scam.
To enhance their edibility, phishing scammers often steal the logos of who they’re impersonating. In many cases, however, they don’t steal corporate logos correctly. The logo in a phishing email or text might have the wrong aspect ratio or low-resolution. If you have to squint to make out the logo in a message, the chances are that it’s phishing.
Phishing always centers around links that you’re supposed to click. Here are a few ways to check whether a link someone sent you is legitimate:
If the URL you discover doesn’t match up with the entity that supposedly sent you the message, you probably received a phishing email.
Phishing messages come in all shapes and sizes, but there are a few types of phishing emails and texts that are more common than others. Let’s review some examples of the most frequently sent phishing scams:
Some phishing emails appear to notify you that your bank temporarily suspended your account due to unusual activity. If you receive an account suspension email from a bank that you haven’t opened an account with, delete it immediately, and don’t look back. Suspended account phishing emails from banks you do business with, however, are harder to spot. Use the methods we listed above to check the email’s integrity, and if all else fails, contact your bank directly instead of opening any links within the email you received.
Two-factor authentication scam
Two-factor authentication (2FA) has become common, so you’re probably used to receiving emails that ask you to confirm your login information with six-digit numerical codes. Phishing scammers also know how standard 2FA has become, and they could take advantage of this service that’s supposed to protect your identity. If you receive an email asking you to log in to an account to confirm your identity, use the criteria we listed above to verify the message’s authenticity. Be especially wary if someone asks you to provide 2FA for an account you haven’t accessed for a while.
We all know how important tax season is. That’s what phishing scammers are counting on when they send you phony IRS refund emails. Be careful when an email informs you that you’ve received a windfall of cash and be especially dubious of emails that the IRS supposedly sent since this government agency only contacts taxpayers via snail mail. Tax refund phishing scams can do serious harm since they usually ask for your social security number as well as your bank account information.
Sometimes, cybercriminals will try to tick you by sending emails with fake order confirmations. These messages often contain “receipts” attached to the email or links claiming to contain more information on your order. However, criminals often use these attachments and links to spread malware to the victim’s device.
You need to be wary of phishing when you’re using your work email as well. One popular phishing scam involves emails designed to look like someone in the C-suite of your company sent them. They ask workers to wire funds to supposed clients, but this cash actually goes to scammers. Use the tips we listed above to spot these phony emails.
Often, hackers look for ways to update old schemes so that they go undetected by users already aware of certain cyberthreats. Such is the case with the latest phishing evasion technique, which detects virtual machines to fly under the radar. Cybersecurity firms often use headless devices or virtual machines (a computer file that behaves like an actual computer) to determine if a website is actually a phishing page. But now, some phishing kits contain JavaScript — a programming language that allows you to implement complex features on web pages — that checks whether a virtual machine is analyzing the page. If it detects any analysis attempts, the phishing kit will show a blank page instead of the phishing page, allowing the scam to evade detection. To help ensure that you don’t fall for the latest phishing scams, stay updated on the most recent phishing techniques so you can stay one step ahead of cybercriminals.
Never click links in suspicious emails. If you click a link you suspect a phishing scammer sent, the link will take you to a web page with a form where you can enter sensitive data such as your Social Security number, credit card information, or login credentials. Do not enter any data on this page.
If you accidentally enter data in a webpage linked to a suspicious email, perform a full malware scan on your device. Once the scan is complete, backup all of your files and change your passwords. Even if you only provided a phishing scammer with the data from one account, you may have also opened the door to other personal data, so it’s important to change all the passwords you use online in the wake of a suspected phishing attack.
Let’s wrap things up with some summarized tips on how to avoid phishing emails:
Phishing emails only work on the unaware. Now that you know how to spot phishing emails and what to do if you suspect scammers are targeting you, you’re far less likely to fall for these schemes. Remember to be careful with your personal information when you use the internet and err on the side of caution whenever anybody asks you to divulge sensitive details about your identity, finances, or login information.
To stay updated on all things McAfee and on top of the latest consumer and mobile security threats, follow @McAfee_Home on Twitter, subscribe to our email, listen to our podcast Hackable?, and ‘Like’ us on Facebook.
The post Phishing Email Examples: How to Recognize a Phishing Email appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
Forecasts predict that roughly 80 million votes will get cast by mail-in ballots—double the number cast by mail in the 2016 election. Here are a couple tips to make sure your vote counts for the 2020 election.
Smart use of the internet will help you cast a mail-in ballot that counts.
Projections abound, yet forecasts predict that roughly 80 million votes will get cast by mail-in ballots—double the number cast by mail in the 2016 election. While we’ll only know the final tally of mail-in voters sometime after election day, what we know right now is that nearly 75% of U.S. voters will be able to vote by mail in the 2020 election
If you’re one of those voters, or know someone who is, this quick five-point primer of online resources should help.
Pew Research found that Americans are split 50/50 as to whether voting in the 2020 election will be “easy” or “hard.” Compare that to the 2018 figures where 85% said that voting would be “easy” in that election. We can chalk that up to several factors this year, most notably the effect of the pandemic on voting, which I touched on in my blog last week.
However, there are other concerns at play. We’ve seen concerns about mail-in ballot fraud, along with confusion about how to get a mail-in ballot, and yet further confusion as to who is eligible to get a mail-in ballot in the first place… just to name a few.
These concerns all share a common remedy: the facts.
Good information, direct from your state election officials, will point the way. Skip social media altogether. It is not a trusted resource. In all, it’s a mistake to get any election information on social media, according to F.B.I. Director, Christopher Wray. Instead, let’s point ourselves in the right direction.
To stay updated on all things McAfee and for more resources on staying secure from home, follow @McAfee_Home on Twitter, listen to our podcast Hackable?, and ‘Like’ us on Facebook.
The post Election 2020 – Five Tips to Secure a Mail-In Ballot That Counts appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
Election 2020: Make Sure Your Voice is Heard with These Tips & Best Practices
Last year, India exercised one of the greatest feats of democracy, trying to enable over 900 million people to vote in their general election. My mom lives in India, and I remember talking with her about their ambitious plans to reach every voter, no matter how remote their location. They sent poll workers deep into the jungle, and across rivers, to reach just a handful of voters. The result: a record turnout at over 67%.
In the United States, we too have an opportunity to fulfill our civic duties, with various options available to us to make sure our votes are heard. While many people choosing to mail in their votes for the very first time, there’s also a lot of confusion around election rules and security, not to mention a flood of misinformation online to be wary of.
Here at McAfee, we want to help you vote with confidence in this critical election. That’s why we’ve put together a number of tools, resources, and best practices to empower voters. Our hope is that every voice can be heard.
Demystifying Mail-In Voting
Let’s start with some questions you may have around mail-in voting, since twice as many people plan to mail in their ballots this year, compared to 2016. Of course, with the COVID-19 pandemic still active, it’s understandable that many people, especially the vulnerable, would prefer to mail their ballot, rather than go to a polling station. I personally got my mail-in ballot and am ready to mail it this week. If you haven’t decided on how to vote, you still have time to decide.
To get accurate information on mail-in voting, go directly to your state and local websites for guidance, including how to fill out your ballot, and when to turn it in. Rules vary state to state, but one thing we do know is that mail-in voting has proven to be a reliable and secure way to have your voice heard.
It’s great to see long lines to vote in some states already. If you are still concerned about election security and online scams, my colleague Judith Bitterli has written a great guide for locating reliable sources and protecting your vote (Key tip: always look for a .gov domain name).
She also has advice for making sure that your mail-in ballot counts.
Safe Election Surfing
When looking online for election resources, be aware that scammers and cybercriminals are always trying to take advantage of trending topics to misdirect users to dangerous websites and links. In fact, the FBI recently warned that bad actors have been setting up fake election websites, in an attempt to steal voters’ personal information, or get them to download dangerous files.
The Bureau suggests that you visit the U.S. Election Assistance Commission website for accurate information in a variety of languages. If you are concerned about clicking on risky links during the election or year-round, one smart action you can take is to install McAfee WebAdvisor, which warns you of risky sites before you click on them.
Although it can be tempting to believe election information posted on social media, especially by friends and family members, know that business school MIT Sloan says “fake news is at its peak” during online presidential years, and even your loved ones can be fooled.
But whether information is clickbait, or legitimate, it can still be posted to risky websites designed to steal your information, or download malware. That’s why McAfee released a new social media protection tool as part of WebAdvisor. Using color codes, the tool shows you which links are safe or risky right in your social feed, and can be used across all six major social media platforms. This makes it easier to avoid dangerous links posted on social channels. Given the increase in phishing we’ve observed in the last few months across PC and mobile platforms, a comprehensive security solution like McAfee® Total Protection can help keep your personal information and devices safe.
In-Person Voting
If you still plan to vote in person, or even better, volunteer as a poll worker, make sure that you have reliable information on voting times and locations. You’ll probably also want to look into local rules on health and safety precautions, so you are well prepared.
False and misleading information about COVID 19 has been swirling since the start of the pandemic, so it’s important that you seek verified information about the virus. Here again are some great tips from Judith on how to keep COVID misinformation from suppressing your vote.
Exercise Your Right
Now that you know how to sidestep misinformation, find trusted resources, and plan your vote — either through the mail or in person— I hope that you will exercise your right, with confidence.
The post Election 2020: Make Sure Your Voice is Heard with These Tips appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
Spooky season is among us, and ghosts and goblins aren’t the only things hiding in the shadows. Online threats are also lurking in the darkness, preparing to haunt devices and cause some hocus pocus for unsuspecting users. This Halloween season, researchers have found virtual zombies and witches among us – a new trojan that rises from the dead no matter how many times it’s deleted and malicious code that casts an evil spell to steal users’ credit card data.
Let’s unlock the mystery of these threats so you can avoid cyber-scares and continue to live your online life free from worry.
Just like zombies, malware can be a challenge to destroy. Oftentimes, it requires a user to completely wipe their device by backing up files, reinstalling the operating system, and starting from scratch. But what if this isn’t enough to stop the digital walking dead from wreaking havoc on your device?
Recently, a new type of Trojan has risen from the dead to haunt users no matter how many times it’s deleted. This zombie-like malware attaches itself to a user’s Windows 10 startup system, making it immune to system wipes since the malware can’t be found on the device’s hard drive. This stealthy malware hides on the device’s motherboard and creates a Trojan file that reinstalls the malware if the user tries to remove it. Once it sets itself up in the darkness, the malware scans for users’ private documents and sends them to an unknown host, leaving the user’s device in a ghoulish state.
A malware misfortune isn’t the only thing that users should beware of this Halloween. Cybercriminals have also managed to inject malicious code into a wireless provider’s web platform, casting an evil spell to steal users’ credit card data. The witches and warlocks allegedly responsible for casting this evil spell are part of a Magecart spin-off group that’s known for its phishing prowess. To pull off this attack, they plated a credit card skimmer onto the wireless provider’s checkout page. This allowed the hackers to exfiltrate users’ credit card data whenever they made a purchase – a spell that’s difficult to break.
While these threats might seem like just another Halloween trick, there are other forces at play. According to McAfee’s Quarterly Threats Report from July 2020, threats like malware phishing and trojans have proven opportunistic for cybercriminals as users spend more and more time online – whether it be working from home, distance learning, or connecting with friends and loved ones. In fact, McAfee Labs observed 375 threats per minute in Q1 2020 alone.
So, as hackers continue to adapt their techniques to take advantage of users spending more time online, it’s important that people educate themselves on emerging threats so they can take necessary precautions and live their digital lives free from worry.
Fortunately, there are a number of steps you can take to prevent these threats from haunting your digital life. Follow these tips to keep cybersecurity tricks at bay this spooky season:
Zombie malware is easily spread by phishing, which is when scammers try to trick you out of your private information or money. If you receive an email from an unknown user, it’s best to proceed with caution. Don’t click on any links or open any attachments in the email and delete the message altogether.
Look over your credit card accounts and bank statements often to check whether someone is fraudulently using your financial data – you can even sign up for transaction alerts that your bank or credit card company may provide. If you see any charges that you did not make, report it to the authorities immediately.
Add an extra layer of protection with a security solution like McAfee® Total Protection to help safeguard your digital life from malware and other threats. McAfee Total Protection also includes McAfee® WebAdvisor – web protection that enables users to sidestep attacks before they happen with clear warnings of risky websites, links, and files.
To stay updated on all things McAfee and on top of the latest consumer and mobile security threats, follow @McAfee_Home on Twitter, listen to our podcast Hackable?, and ‘Like’ us on Facebook.
The post Trick or Treat: Avoid These Spooky Threats This Halloween appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
I’ve had such a busy morning! I’ve hunted down my favourite foundation, bought a puzzle mat, stocked up on special dog food for our naughty new puppy, ordered the groceries, made a few appointments and chatted with several friends. And guess what? I haven’t left my study – or changed out of my pyjamas!! Ssshhh!! Because it’s all happened online…
Of course, some of us embraced the benefits of the online world long before 2020 but the Pandemic forced almost everyone to replace our in-person activities and routines with online ones. New research from McAfee in their 2021 Consumer Security Mindset Report shows that 72% of Aussies made changes in their online activities last year out of convenience which makes complete sense!
But what’s so interesting is that now we have these super handy new online routines in place – we aren’t that keen to give them up! McAfee’s report shows that 76% of Aussies are planning on continuing with online banking, 59% of us want to keep connecting with friends and family online and 55% of us remain totally committed to online shopping! Hear, hear, I say! I am absolutely staying that course too!!
There’s no doubt that there is a lot of upside to managing our lives online but unfortunately there is also a downside – increased risk! The more time spent online, the greater the chance that we will be exposed to potential risks and threats such as phishing attacks, entering details into malicious websites or even becoming a victim of fraud.
McAfee’s research shows that we are aware of the risks of being online. In fact, 66% of us are concerned about the potential dangers of living our lives online with losing control of our financial data top of the list for the majority of us. And almost 2/3 (65%) of us are also worried about having our social media accounts hacked.
But pandemic life has meant that we are now a lot more comfortable with sharing information online. Whether it’s paperless transaction records, text and email notifications, opting to stay logged in or auto-populating forms with our credit card, this level of online sharing does make life so convenient but it can be a risky business! Why, I hear you ask? Because these conveniences usually only work when you share multiple pieces of your contact details. And the more you share, the greater your chance of being hacked or compromised. But the report was very clear – if we can make our online life more seamless then we are only too happy to share our key contact information! Oh dear!!
In addition to confessing that they don’t always take the necessary security precautions, Aussie consumers in McAfee’s report also admitted that they haven’t thought about why hackers might want their data. I don’t know how many people tell me that they don’t need to really bother with a lot of online precautions because they live a pretty boring life and don’t spend that much time online.
But this is a very dangerous way to think. Your online data is like a pot of gold to hackers. Not only can they use it to possibly steal your identity and try to empty your bank accounts but they can also on-sell it for a profit. But the majority of Aussies don’t stop to consider this with the research showing that 64% of Aussies have never considered just how valuable their online data is worth.
Hackers are ALWAYS on the lookout for new ‘up-to-date’ ways to exploit others for money. Don’t forget how quick they were to conjure up scams around COVID in early 2020 – it was just a matter of weeks before Aussies received phishing emails and malicious text messages with the aim of extracting personal information from vulnerable consumers.
But, encouragingly, 85% of Aussies said they would be far more proactive about managing their data if it could be traded as a currency.
The good news is that there are ways to secure your online life and minimise the risk of being hacked. Here are my top tips:
Yes, it might take a minute or 2 more, but using multi-factor authentication is an easy way to add an additional layer of security to protect your personal data and information. Commit to using it wherever it is offered!
If you live your life out & about like I do then you’ll be very tempted to use Wi-Fi. Using public Wi-Fi to conduct transactions, particularly financial ones is a big no-no! It takes keen hackers minimal effort to set up a fraudulent wi-fi service which could easily fool a busy person into connecting. Using a Virtual Private Network (or VPN) like McAfee® Safe Connect, is the best way of ensuring everything you share over Wi-Fi is safe and secure.
Browsing the internet with a tool like the McAfee WebAdvisor is a great way of ensuring dangerous malware is blocked if you click on a malicious link in a phishing email. You’ll have real peace of mind knowing you can manage your online life while someone looks out for you!
With 4 kids, 3 pets, 2 jobs – I know I could never get to the bottom of my ‘to-do’ lists without managing the bulk of it online. I often think I should send the internet an e-card at Christmas!! Of course, I understand why corners are cut and precautions are overlooked when we all feel so stretched for time. But just think about how much more time it would take if you were hacked and had to spend hours on the phone to your bank or if you had to reconfigure all your online accounts and social media platforms!!
So, you know what you need to do! Stay safe online everyone!
The post How 2020 Has Shaped The Way We Live Our Lives appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
Today, we released the latest issue of the Domain Name Industry Brief, which shows that the fourth quarter of 2020 closed with 366.3 million domain name registrations across all top-level domains (TLDs), a decrease of 4.4 million domain name registrations, or 1.2 percent, compared to the third quarter of 2020.1,2 Domain name registrations have grown by 4.0 million, or 1.1 percent, year over year.1,2
Check out the latest issue of the Domain Name Industry Brief to see domain name stats from the fourth quarter of 2020, including:
This quarter’s Domain Name Industry Brief also includes a closer look at encryption and what new DNS capabilities may be possible with a “minimize at the root and top-level domain, encrypt when needed elsewhere” approach to DNS encryption.
To see past issues of the Domain Name Industry Brief, please visit Verisign.com/DNIBArchives.
1. The figure(s) includes domain names in the .tk ccTLD. .tk is a ccTLD that provides free domain names to individuals and businesses. Revenue is generated by monetizing expired domain names. Domain names no longer in use by the registrant or expired are taken back by the registry and the residual traffic is sold to advertising networks. As such, there are no deleted .tk domain names. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20131216006048/en/Freenom-Closes-3M-Series-Funding#.UxeUGNJDv9s.
2. The generic top-level domain (gTLD), new gTLD (ngTLD) and ccTLD data cited in the brief: (i) includes ccTLD Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), (ii) is an estimate as of the time this brief was developed and (iii) is subject to change as more complete data is received. Some numbers in the brief may reflect standard rounding.
The post Verisign Q4 2020 Domain Name Industry Brief: 366.3 Million Domain Name Registrations in the Fourth Quarter of 2020 appeared first on Verisign Blog.
At Verisign we have a commitment to making a positive and lasting impact on the global internet community, and on the communities in which we live and work.
This commitment guided our initial efforts to help these communities respond to and recover from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, over a year ago. And at the end of 2020, our sense of partnership with our local communities helped shape our efforts to alleviate COVID-related food insecurity in the areas where we have our most substantial footprint. This same sense of community is reflected in our partnership with Virginia Ready, which aims to help individuals in our home State of Virginia access training and certification to pivot to new careers in the technology sector.
We also believe that our team is one of our most important assets. We particularly value the diverse origins of our people; we have colleagues from all over the world who, in turn, are closely connected to their own communities both in the United States and elsewhere. A significant proportion of our staff are of either Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) or South Asian origin, and today we are pleased to announce two charitable contributions, via our Verisign Cares program, directly related to these two communities.
First, Verisign is pleased to associate ourselves with the Stand with Asian Americans initiative, launched by AAPI business leaders in response to recent and upsetting episodes of aggression toward their community. Verisign supports this initiative and the pledge for which it stands, and has made a substantial contribution to the initiative’s partner, the Asian Pacific Fund, to help uplift the AAPI community.
Second, and after consultation with our staff, we have directed significant charitable contributions to organizations helping to fight the worsening wave of COVID-19 in India. Through Direct Relief we will be helping to provide oxygen and other medical equipment to hospitals, while through GiveIndia we will be supporting families in India impacted by COVID-19.
The ‘extended Verisign family’ of our employees, and their families and their communities, means a tremendous amount to us – it is only thanks to our talented and dedicated people that we are able to continue to fulfill our mission of enabling the world to connect online with reliability and confidence, anytime, anywhere.
The post Verisign Support for AAPI Communities and COVID Relief in India appeared first on Verisign Blog.
On Thursday, May 20, a final decision was issued in the Independent Review Process (IRP) brought by Afilias against the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), rejecting Afilias’ petition to nullify the results of the July 27, 2016 public auction for the .WEB new generic top level domain (gTLD) and to award .WEB to Afilias at a substantially lower, non-competitive price. Nu Dotco, LLC (NDC) submitted the highest bid at the auction and was declared the winner, over Afilias’ lower, losing bid. Despite Afilias’ repeated objections to participation by NDC or Verisign in the IRP, the Panel ordered that NDC and Verisign could participate in the IRP in a limited way each as amicus curiae.
Consistent with NDC, Verisign and ICANN’s position in the IRP, the Order dismisses “the Claimant’s [Afilias’] request that Respondent [ICANN] be ordered by the Panel to disqualify NDC’s bid for .WEB, proceed with contracting the Registry Agreement for .WEB with the Claimant in accordance with the New gTLD Program Rules, and specify the bid price to be paid by the Claimant.” Contrary to Afilias’ position, all objections to the auction are referred to ICANN for determination. This includes Afilias’ objections as well as objections by NDC that Afilias violated the auction rules by engaging in secret discussions during the Blackout Period under the Program Rules.
Afilias’ claims for relief were based on its allegation that NDC violated the New gTLD Program Rules by entering into an agreement with Verisign, under which Verisign provided funds for NDC’s participation in the .WEB auction in exchange for NDC’s commitment, if it prevailed at the auction and entered into a registry agreement with ICANN, to assign its .WEB registry agreement to Verisign upon ICANN’s consent to the assignment. As the Panel determined, the relief requested by Afilias far exceeded the scope of proper IRP relief provided for in ICANN’s Bylaws, which limit an IRP to a determination whether or not ICANN has exceeded its mission or otherwise failed to comply with its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws.
Issued two and a half years after Afilias initiated its IRP, the Panel’s decision unequivocally rejects Afilias’ attempt to misuse the IRP to rule on claims of NDC or Verisign misconduct or obtain the .WEB gTLD for itself despite its losing bid. The Panel held that it is for ICANN, which has the requisite knowledge, expertise, and experience, to determine whether NDC’s contract with Verisign violated ICANN’s Program Rules. The Panel further determined that it would be improper for the Panel to dictate what should be the consequences of an alleged violation of the rules contained in the gTLD Applicant Guidebook, if any took place. The Panel therefore denied Afilias’ requests for a binding declaration that ICANN must disqualify NDC’s bid for violating the Guidebook rules and award .WEB to Afilias.
Despite pursuing its claims in the IRP for over two years — at a cost of millions of dollars — Afilias failed to offer any evidence to support its allegations that NDC improperly failed to update its application and/or assigned its application to Verisign. Instead, the evidence was to the contrary. Indeed, Afilias failed to offer testimony from a single Afilias witness during the hearing on the merits, including witnesses with direct knowledge of relevant events and industry practices. It is apparent that Afilias failed to call as witnesses any of its own officers or employees because, testifying under penalty of perjury, they would have been forced to contradict the false allegations advanced by Afilias during the IRP. By contrast, ICANN, NDC and Verisign each supported their respective positions appropriately by calling witnesses to testify and be subject to cross-examination by the three-arbitrator panel and Afilias, under oath, with respect to the facts refuting Afilias’ claims.
Afilias also argued in the IRP that ICANN is a competition regulator and that ICANN’s commitment, contained in its Bylaws, to promote competition required ICANN to disqualify NDC’s bid for the .WEB gTLD because NDC’s contract with Verisign may lead to Verisign’s operation of .WEB. The Panel rejected Afilias’ claim, agreeing with ICANN and Verisign that “ICANN does not have the power, authority, or expertise to act as a competition regulator by challenging or policing anticompetitive transactions or conduct.” The Panel found ICANN’s evidence “compelling” that it fulfills its mission to promote competition through the expansion of the domain name space and facilitation of innovative approaches to the delivery of domain name registry services, not by acting as an antitrust regulator. The Panel quoted Afilias’ own statements to this effect, which were made outside of the IRP proceedings when Afilias had different interests.
Although the Panel rejected Afilias’ Guidebook and competition claims, it did find that the manner in which ICANN addressed complaints about the .WEB matter did not meet all of the commitments in its Bylaws. But even so, Afilias was awarded only a small portion of the legal fees it hoped to recover from ICANN.
It is now up to ICANN to move forward expeditiously to determine, consistent with its Bylaws, the validity of any objections under the New gTLD Program Rules in connection with the .WEB auction, including NDC and Verisign’s position that Afilias should be disqualified from making any further objections to NDC’s application.
As Verisign and NDC pointed out in 2016, the evidence during the IRP establishes that collusive conduct by Afilias in connection with the auction violated the Guidebook. The Guidebook and Auction Rules both prohibit applicants within a contention set from discussing “bidding strategies” or “settlement” during a designated Blackout Period in advance of an auction. Violation of the Blackout Period is a “serious violation” of ICANN’s rules and may result in forfeiture of an applicant’s application. The evidence adduced in the IRP proves that Afilias committed such violations and should be disqualified. On July 22, just four days before the public ICANN auction for .WEB, Afilias contacted NDC, following Afilias’ discussions with other applicants, to try to negotiate a private auction if ICANN would delay the public auction. Afilias knew the Blackout Period was in effect, but nonetheless violated it in an attempt to persuade NDC to participate in a private auction. Under the settlement Afilias proposed, Afilias would make millions of dollars even if it lost the auction, rather than auction proceeds being used for the internet community through the investment of such proceeds by ICANN as determined by the community.
All of the issues raised during the IRP were the subject of extensive briefing, evidentiary submissions and live testimony during the hearing on the merits, providing ICANN with a substantial record on which to render a determination with respect to .WEB and proceed forward with delegation of the new gTLD. Verisign stands ready to assist ICANN in any way we can to quickly resolve this matter so that domain names within the .WEB gTLD can finally be made available to businesses and consumers.
As a final observation: Afilias no longer operates a registry business, and has neither the platform, organization, nor necessary consents from ICANN, to support one. Inconsistent with Afilias’ claims in the IRP, Afilias transferred its entire registry business to Donuts during the pendency of the IRP. Although long in the works, the sale was not disclosed by Afilias either before or during the IRP hearings, nor, remarkably, did Afilias produce any company witness for examination who might have disclosed the sale to the panel of arbitrators or others. Based on a necessary public disclosure of the Donuts sale after the hearings and before entry of the Panel’s Order, the Panel included in its final Order a determination that it is for ICANN to determine whether the Afilias’ sale is itself a basis for a denial of Afilias’ claims with respect to .WEB.
The post IRP Panel Dismisses Afilias’ Claims to Reverse .WEB Auction and Award .WEB to Afilias appeared first on Verisign Blog.
There are more online users now than ever before, thanks to the availability of network-capable devices and online services. The internet population in Canada is the highest it has been, topping the charts at 33 million. That number is only expected to increase through the upcoming years. However, this growing number and continued adoption of online services pose increasing cybersecurity risks as cybercriminals take advantage of more online users and exploit vulnerabilities in online infrastructure. This is why we need AI-backed software to provide advanced protection for online users.
The nature of these online threats is ever-changing, making it difficult for legacy threat detection systems to monitor threat behavior and detect new malicious code. Fortunately, threat detection systems such as McAfee’s Antivirus and Threat Detection Defense adapt to incorporate the latest threat intelligence and artificial intelligence (AI) driven behavioral analysis. Here’s how AI impacts cybersecurity to go beyond traditional methods to protect online users.
Most of today’s antivirus and threat detection software leverages behavioral heuristic-based detection based on machine learning models to detect known malicious behavior. Traditional methods rely on data analytics to detect known threat signatures or footprints with incredible accuracy. However, these conventional methods do not account for new malicious code, otherwise known as zero-day malware, for which there is no known information available. AI is mission-critical to cybersecurity since it enables security software and providers to take a more intelligent approach to virus and malware detection. Unlike AI–backed software, traditional methods rely solely on signature-based software and data analytics.
Similar to human-like reasoning, machine learning models follow a three-stage process to gather input, process it, and generate an output in the form of threat leads. Threat detection software can gather information from threat intelligence to understand known malware using these models. It then processes this data, stores it, and uses it to draw inferences and make decisions and predictions. Behavioral heuristic-based detection leverages multiple facets of machine learning, one of which is deep learning.
Deep learning employs neural networks to emulate the function of neurons in the human brain. This architecture uses validation algorithms for crosschecking data and complex mathematical equations, which applies an “if this, then that” approach to reasoning. It looks at what occurred in the past and analyzes current and predictive data to reach a conclusion. As the numerous layers in this framework process more data, the more accurate the prediction becomes.
Many antivirus and detection systems also use ensemble learning. This process takes a layered approach by applying multiple learning models to create one that is more robust and comprehensive. Ensemble learning can boost detection performance with fewer errors for a more accurate conclusion.
Additionally, today’s detection software leverages supervised learning techniques by taking a “learn by example” approach. This process strives to develop an algorithm by understanding the relationship between a given input and the desired output.
Machine learning is only a piece of an effective antivirus and threat detection framework. A proper framework combines new data types with machine learning and cognitive reasoning to develop a highly advanced analytical framework. This framework will allow for advanced threat detection, prevention, and remediation.
Online threats are increasing at a staggering pace. McAfee Labs observed an average of 588 malware threats per minute. These risks exist and are often exacerbated for several reasons, one of which is the complexity and connectivity of today’s world. Threat detection analysts are unable to detect new malware manually due to their high volume. However, AI can identify and categorize new malware based on malicious behavior before they get a chance to affect online users. AI–enabled software can also detect mutated malware that attempts to avoid detection by legacy antivirus systems.
Today, there are more interconnected devices and online usage ingrained into people’s everyday lives. However, the growing number of digital devices creates a broader attack surface. In other words, hackers will have a higher chance of infiltrating a device and those connected to it.
Additionally, mobile usage is putting online users at significant risk. Over 85% of the Canadian population owns a smartphone. Hackers are noticing the rising number of mobile users and are rapidly taking advantage of the fact to target users with mobile-specific malware.
The increased online connectivity through various devices also means that more information is being stored and processed online. Nowadays, more people are placing their data and privacy in the hands of corporations that have a critical responsibility to safeguard their users’ data. The fact of the matter is that not all companies can guarantee the safeguards required to uphold this promise, ultimately resulting in data and privacy breaches.
In response to these risks and the rising sophistication of the online landscape, security companies combine AI, threat intelligence, and data science to analyze and resolve new and complex cyber threats. AI-backed threat protection identifies and learns about new malware using machine learning models. This enables AI-backed antivirus software to protect online users more efficiently and reliably than ever before.
AI addresses numerous challenges posed by increasing malware complexity and volume, making it critical for online security and privacy protection. Here are the top 3 ways AI enhances cybersecurity to better protect online users.
The most significant difference between traditional signature-based threat detection methods and advanced AI-backed methods is the capability to detect zero-day malware. Functioning exclusively from either of these two methods will not result in an adequate level of protection. However, combining them results in a greater probability of detecting more threats with higher precision. Each method will ultimately play on the other’s strengths for a maximum level of protection.
AI enables threat detection software to think like a hacker. It can help software identify vulnerabilities that cybercriminals would typically exploit and flag them to the user. It also enables threat detection software to better pinpoint weaknesses in user devices before a threat has even occurred, unlike conventional methods. AI-backed security advances past traditional methods to better predict what a hacker would consider a vulnerability.
AI can help users understand the risks they face daily. An advanced threat detection software backed by AI can provide a more prescriptive solution to identifying risks and how to handle them. A better explanation results in a better understanding of the issue. As a result, users are more aware of how to mitigate the incident or vulnerability in the future.
AI and machine learning are only a piece of an effective threat detection framework. A proper threat detection framework combines new data types with the latest machine learning capabilities to develop a highly advanced analytical framework. This framework will allow for better threat cyber threat detection, prevention, and remediation.
The post The What, Why, and How of AI and Threat Detection appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
Today, we released the latest issue of the Domain Name Industry Brief, which shows that the first quarter of 2021 closed with 363.5 million domain name registrations across all top-level domains (TLDs), a decrease of 2.8 million domain name registrations, or 0.8%, compared to the fourth quarter of 2020.1,2 Domain name registrations have decreased by 3.3 million, or 0.9%, year over year.1,2
Check out the latest issue of the Domain Name Industry Brief to see domain name stats from the first quarter of 2021, including:
This quarter’s Domain Name Industry Brief also includes a look at a recent collaboration between Verisign, ICANN and industry partners to combat botnets.
To see past issues of the Domain Name Industry Brief, please visit verisign.com/dnibarchives.
1. The figure(s) includes domain names in the .tk ccTLD. .tk is a ccTLD that provides free domain names to individuals and businesses. Revenue is generated by monetizing expired domain names. Domain names no longer in use by the registrant or expired are taken back by the registry and the residual traffic is sold to advertising networks. As such, there are no deleted .tk domain names. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20131216006048/en/Freenom-Closes-3M-Series-Funding#.UxeUGNJDv9s.
2. The generic top-level domain (gTLD), new gTLD (ngTLD) and ccTLD data cited in the brief: (i) includes ccTLD Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), (ii) is an estimate as of the time this brief was developed and (iii) is subject to change as more complete data is received. Some numbers in the brief may reflect standard rounding.
The post Verisign Q1 2021 Domain Name Industry Brief: 363.5 Million Domain Name Registrations in the First Quarter of 2021 appeared first on Verisign Blog.
Note: This article originally appeared in Verisign’s Q1 2021 Domain Name Industry Brief.
This article expands on observations of a botnet traffic group at various levels of the Domain Name System (DNS) hierarchy, presented at DNS-OARC 35.
Addressing DNS abuse and maintaining a healthy DNS ecosystem are important components of Verisign’s commitment to being a responsible steward of the internet. We continuously engage with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and other industry partners to help ensure the secure, stable and resilient operation of the DNS.
Based on recent telemetry data from Verisign’s authoritative top-level domain (TLD) name servers, Verisign observed a widespread botnet responsible for a disproportionate amount of total global DNS queries – and, in coordination with several registrars, registries and ICANN, acted expeditiously to remediate it.
Just prior to Verisign taking action to remediate the botnet, upwards of 27.5 billion queries per day were being sent to Verisign’s authoritative TLD name servers, accounting for roughly 10% of Verisign’s total DNS traffic. That amount of query volume in most DNS environments would be considered a sustained distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack.
These queries were associated with a particular piece of malware that emerged in 2018, spreading throughout the internet to create a global botnet infrastructure. Botnets provide a substrate for malicious actors to theoretically perform all manner of malicious activity – executing DDoS attacks, exfiltrating data, sending spam, conducting phishing campaigns or even installing ransomware. This is the result of the malware’s ability to download and execute any other type of payload the malicious actor desires.
Malware authors often apply various forms of evasion techniques to protect their botnets from being detected and remediated. A Domain Generation Algorithm (DGA) is an example of such an evasion technique.
DGAs are seen in various families of malware that periodically generate a number of domain names, which can be used as rendezvous points for botnet command-and-control servers. By using a DGA to build the list of domain names, the malicious actor makes it more difficult for security practitioners to identify what domain names will be used and when. Only by exhaustively reverse-engineering a piece of malware can the definitive set of domain names be ascertained.
The choices made by miscreants to tailor malware DGAs directly influences the DGAs’ ability to evade detection. For instance, electing to use more TLDs and a large number of domain names in a given time period makes the malware’s operation more difficult to disrupt; however, this approach also increases the amount of network noise, making it easier to identify anomalous traffic patterns by security and network teams. Likewise, a DGA that uses a limited number of TLDs and domain names will generate significantly less network noise but is more fragile and susceptible to remediation.
Botnets that implement DGA algorithms or utilize domain names clearly represent an “abuse of the DNS,” opposed to other types of abuse that are executed “via the DNS,” such as phishing. This is an important distinction the DNS community should consider as it continues to refine the scope of DNS abuse and how remediation of the various abuses can be effectuated.
The remediation of domain names used by botnets as rendezvous points poses numerous operational challenges and insights. The set of domain names needs to be identified and investigated to determine their current registration status. Risk assessments must be evaluated on registered domain names to determine if additional actions should be performed, such as sending registrar notifications, issuing requests to transfer domain names, adding Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) hold statuses, altering delegation records, etc. There are also timing and coordination elements that must be balanced with external entities, such as ICANN, law enforcement, Computer Emergency Readiness Teams (CERTs) and contracted parties, including registrars and registries. Other technical decisions also need to be considered, designed and deployed to achieve the desired remediation goal.
After coordinating with ICANN, and several registrars and registries, Verisign registered the remaining available botnet domain names and began a three-phase plan to sinkhole those domain names. Ultimately, this remediation effort would reduce the traffic sent to Verisign authoritative name servers and effectively eliminate the botnet’s ability to use command-and-control domain names within Verisign-operated TLDs.
Figure 1 below shows the amount of botnet traffic Verisign authoritative name servers received prior to intervention, and throughout the process of registering, delegating and sinkholing the botnet domain names.
Phase one was executed on Dec. 21, 2020, in which 100 .cc domain names were configured to resolve to Verisign-operated sinkhole servers. Subsequently, traffic at Verisign authoritative name servers quickly decreased. The second group of domain names contained 500 .com and .net domain names, which were sinkholed on Jan. 7, 2021. Again, traffic volume at Verisign authoritative name servers quickly decreased. The final group of 879 .com and .net domain names were sinkholed on Jan. 13, 2021. By the end of phase three, the cumulative DNS traffic reduction surpassed 25 billion queries per day. Verisign reserved approximately 10 percent of the botnet domain names to remain on serverHold as a placebo/control-group to better understand sinkholing effects as they relate to query volume at the child and parent zones. Verisign believes that sinkholing the remaining domain names would further reduce authoritative name server traffic by an additional one billion queries.
This botnet highlights the remarkable Pareto-like distribution of DNS query traffic, in which a few thousand domain names that span namespaces containing more than 165 million domain names, demand a vastly disproportionate amount of DNS resources.
What causes the amplification of DNS traffic volume for non-existent domain names to occur at the upper levels of the DNS hierarchy? Verisign is conducting a variety of measurements on the sinkholed botnet domain names to better understand the caching behavior of the resolver population. We are observing some interesting traffic changes at the TLD and root name servers when time to live (TTL) and response codes are altered at the sinkhole servers. Stay tuned.
In addition to remediating this botnet in late 2020 and into early 2021, Verisign extended its already four-year endeavor to combat the Avalanche botnet family. Since 2016, the Avalanche botnet had been significantly impacted due to actions taken by Verisign and an international consortium of law enforcement, academic and private organizations. However, many of the underlying Avalanche-compromised machines are still not remediated, and the threat from Avalanche could increase again if additional actions are not taken. To prevent this from happening, Verisign, in coordination with ICANN and other industry partners, is using a variety of tools to ensure Avalanche command-and-control domain names cannot be used in Verisign-operated TLDs.
Botnets are a persistent issue. And as long as they exist as a threat to the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS, cross-industry coordination and collaboration will continue to lie at the core of combating them.
This piece was co-authored by Matt Thomas and Duane Wessels, distinguished engineers at Verisign.
The post Industry Insights: Verisign, ICANN and Industry Partners Collaborate to Combat Botnets appeared first on Verisign Blog.
What do Burger King and the popular “Doge” meme have in common? They both have cryptocurrencies named after their likeliness. WhopperCoin and Dogecoin are just two examples of the thousands of types of cryptocurrencies that have caught users’ attention over the past few years. Cryptocurrencies are digital tokens generated by a computer after solving complex mathematical functions. These functions are used to verify the authenticity of a ledger, or blockchain.
Bitcoin is the most popular cryptocurrency today, increasing its value by almost 300% in 2020. Today, almost 46 million Americans own at least one share of Bitcoin, illustrating how these cryptocurrencies are the future of tomorrow’s digital payment system — or are they? The same benefits that make them a popular choice with online users have also made them popular amongst online thieves, sparking a wave of ransomware attacks and other cyberattacks more recently. This begs the question: do the benefits of Bitcoin outweigh the risks?
Every rose has its thorn, and several Bitcoin benefits seem to be hitched to online security risks. Here are some cryptocurrency characteristics that may seem appealing to users, but also provide cybercriminals with an opportunity to exploit:
As previously mentioned, cryptocurrency exchanges take place on an online public ledger, or blockchain, to secure online transactions. This means that anybody can observe the exchange online. However, the parties making the transactions are anonymous, disguised with a random number. Bitcoin users can make purchases that are never associated with their identity, similar to a cash transaction.
While the purchase discretion provided by Bitcoin may be appealing to users who want to remain private, this characteristic could also aid cybercriminals in malicious activity. Due to the anonymity of Bitcoin transactions, there is no way for someone to associate a person with a certain cryptocurrency wallet. Furthermore, a user could have multiple wallets, allowing them to spread their currency from one address to another.
For a cybercriminal looking to target an individual with ransomware, the purchase discretion and anonymity of Bitcoin provide a favorable solution. In fact, Bitcoin accounts for approximately 98% of ransomware payments today. Say a hacker carries out a ransomware attack and demands that the user pay a large sum in Bitcoin. If the user completes the payment, the hacker can keep moving the currency from one anonymous account to another. That makes it very difficult — though not impossible — to trace if the individual decides to investigate the case and tries to get their money back.
Another characteristic that Bitcoin users find appealing is the autonomy offered by digital currencies. In theory, they allow users more autonomy over their own money than government-regulated currencies do. With Bitcoin, users can control how they spend their money without dealing with an intermediary authority like a bank or government.
This lack of intermediary authority also opens a door for hackers to exploit. Say a user decides that they want to manage their finances using Bitcoin to bypass banking fees and send money to friends and family in different parts of the world. As previously mentioned, a Bitcoin user is assigned an anonymous private key that acts as their security credential. This key is generated and maintained by the user instead of a third-party agency. But what happens if the key isn’t random enough? An attacker could steal the user’s private key, and they will not be able to recover it since the Bitcoin blockchain is not dependent on any centralized third-party institutions. Therefore, it will be very difficult to track the attacker’s behaviors and recover lost funds.
It is safe to say that Bitcoin has caused a lot of buzz. But do the benefits outweigh the risks? Due to the nature of Bitcoin and most other public blockchains, anyone in the world can perform transactions or cryptographic computations — including cybercriminals. That’s why it is crucial for current cryptocurrency users and those considering cryptocurrency investment to do their research and know what vulnerabilities lie within the world of Bitcoin.
Follow these tips to help protect yourself from common threats that leverage cryptocurrency:
With blockchain, cryptocurrency, and any new and emerging technology, make sure you always remain a bit skeptical. Do your homework before you embrace the technology — research your options and make note of any known security issues and what you can do to mitigate known risks.
If a hacker does target you with ransomware demanding Bitcoin payment, it’s best not to pay the ransom. Although you may feel in the moment that this is the only way to get your encrypted files back, there is no guarantee that the ransomware developers will send a decryption tool once they receive the payment. Paying the ransom also contributes to the development of more ransomware families, so it is best to hold off on making any payments. Furthermore, a recent study found that 80% of businesses that choose to pay a ransom experience a subsequent ransomware attack. While it may feel like your only option in the moment, paying a ransom could show attackers that you’re willing to make the payment, therefore positioning you as an ideal target for yet another attack.
If you are targeted with ransomware, it’s crucial that you always have backup copies of your files, preferably in the cloud and on an external hard drive. This way, if you do get a ransomware infection, you can wipe your computer or device and reinstall your files from the backup. Backups protect your data, and you won’t be tempted to reward the hackers by paying a ransom. Backups won’t prevent ransomware, but they can mitigate the risks.
Large organizations often fall prey to ransomware attacks, so take necessary precautions if a company you’ve interacted with becomes compromised from a data leak or a ransomware attack. Immediately change your passwords for all your accounts, ensuring they are strong and unique. You can also employ a password manager to keep track of your credentials and generate secure login keys.
Add an extra layer of security with a solution such as McAfee® Total Protection, which includes Ransom Guard, to help protect your devices from these cyberthreats and ensure your digital wellness online.
The emergence of Bitcoin has indeed facilitated a wave of cybercrime that was previously difficult to perceive. In this new age of digital payments, blockchain, and cryptocurrencies, make sure that you do your research and stay vigilant when it comes to protecting your online safety. Remember: Bitcoin worth will continue to fluctuate, but your personal security will always remain invaluable.
To stay updated on all things McAfee and on top of the latest consumer and mobile security threats, follow @McAfee_Home on Twitter, subscribe to our newsletter, listen to our podcast Hackable?, and ‘Like’ us on Facebook.
The post Do the Benefits of Bitcoin Outweigh the Risks? appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
The global internet, from the perspective of its billions of users, has often been envisioned as a cloud — a shapeless structure that connects users to applications and to one another, with the internal details left up to the infrastructure operators inside.
From the perspective of the infrastructure operators, however, the global internet is a network of networks. It’s a complex set of connections among network operators, application platforms, content providers and other parties.
And just as the total amount of global internet traffic continues to grow, so too does the shape and structure of the internet — the internal details of the cloud — continue to evolve.
At the Association for Computing Machinery’s Special Interest Group on Data Communications (ACM SIGCOMM) conference in 2010, researchers at Arbor Networks and the University of Michigan, including Danny McPherson, now executive vice president and chief security officer at Verisign, published one of the first papers to analyze the internal structure of the internet in detail.
The study, entitled “Internet Inter-Domain Traffic,” drew from two years of measurements involving more than 200 exabytes of data.
One of the paper’s key observations was the emergence of a “global internet core” of a relatively small number of large application and content providers that had become responsible for the majority of the traffic between different parts of the internet — in contrast to the previous topology where large network operators were the primary source.
The authors’ conclusion: “we expect the trend towards internet inter-domain traffic consolidation to continue and even accelerate.”
The paper’s predictions of internet traffic and topology trends proved out over the past decade, as confirmed by one of the paper’s authors, Craig Labovitz, in a 2019 presentation that reiterated the paper’s main findings: the internet is “getting bigger by traffic volume” while also “rapidly getting smaller by concentration of content sources.”
This week, the ACM SIGCOMM 2021 conference series recognized the enduring value of the research with the prestigious Test of Time Paper Award, given to a paper that “deemed to be an outstanding paper whose contents are still a vibrant and useful contribution today.”
Internet measurement research is particularly relevant to Domain Name System (DNS) operators such as Verisign. To optimize the deployment of their services, DNS operators need to know where DNS query traffic is most likely to be exchanged in the coming years. Insights into the internal structure of the internet can help DNS operators ensure the ongoing security, stability and resiliency of their services, for the benefit both of other infrastructure operators who depend on DNS, and the billions of users who connect online every day.
Congratulations to Danny and co-authors Craig Labovitz, Scott Iekel-Johnson, Jon Oberheide and Farnam Jahanian on receiving this award, and thanks to ACM SIGCOMM for its recognition of the research. If you’re curious about what evolutionary developments Danny and others at Verisign are envisioning today about the internet of the future, subscribe to the Verisign blog, and follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn.
The post The Test of Time at Internet Scale: Verisign’s Danny McPherson Recognized with ACM SIGCOMM Award appeared first on Verisign Blog.
You open your laptop and see an email from a healthcare organization that you don’t recognize. The subject line reads “URGENT – PROOF OF VACCINATION NEEDED.” Impulsively, you open the email and click on the link. You’re redirected to a website that asks you to enter your name, date of birth, Social Security Number, and a photo of your vaccine card. Scrambling, you enter the information and click “Submit.”
As you continue to adapt your lifestyle to the ongoing public health precautions, it’s important to consider how these precautions can affect your digital health as well. According to the Washington Post, pandemic-related email scams are on the rise, especially with the delta variant surging. McAfee Labs’ April 2021 Threats Report found that COVID-19-themed cyber-attack detections increased 114% in Q3 and Q4 of 2020. Research also shows that COVID-19 phishing attempts in June 2021 increased 33%. With confusion around proof of vaccination and booster shots emerging, it’s likely that cybercriminals will take advantage.
As employers re-evaluate their return-to-office plans, some are requiring proof of vaccination or negative COVID-19 test results. This creates a new opportunity for cybercriminals to exploit. Researchers have uncovered phishing emails disguised as human resources departments asking recipients to submit personally identifiable information about their vaccination status. Many of these types of emails contain links to fake login pages. If the recipient proceeds with entering their credentials and personal data, cybercriminals can use the consumer’s data to conduct credential stuffing attacks and hack their online profiles. This could lead to credit card fraud, data extraction, wire transfers, identity theft, and more.
With various organizations contacting individuals about potential virus exposure, testing and vaccination information, and other public health news, it’s important to remember that some of these organizations may not be what they say they are. That email from the healthcare company you’ve never heard of? It’s probably a cybercriminal in disguise. Some hackers are impersonating public health and government organizations, sending phishing emails in the hopes of collecting users’ names, Social Security Numbers, birthdates, and other valuable data. Criminals tend to sell this information on the dark web, making a profit while the recipients’ online safety is put in jeopardy.
As more news and recommendations for dealing with the pandemic continues to emerge, it’s important that you stay vigilant when it comes to protecting your digital wellness. After all, it’s just as important as your physical wellness! In addition to staying updated on the latest COVID-19-related scams, follow these tips to keep yourself secure from online threats like phishing scams:
If you receive an email or text message from an organization that you’re unfamiliar with, do some sleuthing. Verify that the organization is legitimate. The same goes if you receive a message from an entity that you recognize. If your “HR department” or a “doctor’s office” contacts you and asks for personal information, reach out to them directly instead of replying directly or clicking on any links in the message. This can prevent you from interacting with a hacker in disguise.
Oftentimes, hackers will use a URL for their spoofed website that is just one character off from the legitimate site. Before clicking on any website from an email asking you to act, hover over the link with your cursor. This will allow you to preview the URL and identify any suspicious misspellings or grammatical errors before navigating to a potentially dangerous website.
Multi-factor authentication requires that users confirm a collection of things to verify their identity—usually something they have, and a factor unique to their physical being—such as a retina or fingerprint scan. This can prevent a cybercriminal from using credential-stuffing tactics (where they will use email and password combinations to hack into online profiles) to access your network or account if your login details were ever exposed during a data breach and sold on the dark web.
An identity theft alert service warns you about suspicious activity surrounding your personal information, allowing you to jump to action before irreparable damage is done. McAfee Total Protection not only keeps your devices safe from viruses but gives you the added peace of mind that your identity is secure, as well.
The post How Fraudsters Are Fooling Users With This Proof of Vaccination Phishing Scam appeared first on McAfee Blog.
Today, we released the latest issue of The Domain Name Industry Brief, which shows that the second quarter of 2021 closed with 367.3 million domain name registrations across all top-level domains (TLDs), an increase of 3.8 million domain name registrations, or 1.0%, compared to the first quarter of 2021.1,2 Domain name registrations have decreased by 2.8 million, or 0.7%, year over year.1,2
Check out the latest issue of The Domain Name Industry Brief to see domain name stats from the second quarter of 2021, including:
This quarter’s The Domain Name Industry Brief also includes an overview of how Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) improves upon the legacy WHOIS protocol.
To see past issues of The Domain Name Industry Brief, please visit verisign.com/dnibarchives.
1. The figure(s) includes domain names in the .tk ccTLD. .tk is a ccTLD that provides free domain names to individuals and businesses. Revenue is generated by monetizing expired domain names. Domain names no longer in use by the registrant or expired are taken back by the registry and the residual traffic is sold to advertising networks. As such, there are no deleted .tk domain names. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20131216006048/en/Freenom-Closes-3M-Series-Funding#.UxeUGNJDv9s.
2. The generic top-level domain (gTLD), new gTLD (ngTLD) and ccTLD data cited in the brief: (i) includes ccTLD Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), (ii) is an estimate as of the time this brief was developed and (iii) is subject to change as more complete data is received. Some numbers in the brief may reflect standard rounding.
The post Verisign Q2 2021 The Domain Name Industry Brief: 367.3 Million Domain Name Registrations in the Second Quarter of 2021 appeared first on Verisign Blog.
Businesses today have many options for interacting with customers online. The findings of our independent survey of online consumers suggest that websites and branded email continue to be critical components of many businesses’ online presence, essential to supporting consumer confidence and enabling effective interaction with customers.
The quantitative study, commissioned by Verisign and conducted in December 2019 and January 2020 by 451 Research, now a part of S&P Global Market Intelligence, surveyed 5,450 online consumers across key markets in North America, Latin America, Europe and Asia to help understand their sentiments on interacting with businesses online.
The survey was designed to arm service providers and registrars with an understanding of how the resources they provide to businesses can help create trust and deliver value to their customers.
Among those surveyed, approximately two-thirds (66%) agreed that a business with its own website is more credible than one without. Likewise, a majority indicated that they would expect it to be more difficult to verify the identity of (56%), find online (55%) and contact (54%) a business that does not have its own website.
Certainly, this doesn’t suggest that businesses should abandon other online channels, such as social media and search engine efforts, to focus on a website-only approach. Instead, 64% of respondents said that a business with many points of online presence is more credible than a business with few.
Still, the study suggests that other online resources should complement, rather than replace, a small business’s own website. Respondents identified a business’s own website as being one of the most popular online methods for learning about (69%) and conducting transactions with (57%) businesses. Further, 71% of respondents reported being more likely to recommend a business with a professional website.
Taken together, these findings suggest that a website can help add credibility and drive new business.
Trust is central to the relationship between a business and customers. This may be particularly true for online transactions (95% of survey respondents said they actively make purchases online), which require consumers to trust not only that the business will deliver the product or service for which they have paid, but also that it will not misuse payment or personal information.
A branded email address may be able to help, as an overwhelming number of respondents (85%) agreed that a business with a branded email address is more credible than one that uses a free email account. Respondents were more likely to have used a business’s branded email address (67%), than the telephone (56%) or social media (40%), to communicate with a business during the prior 12 months.
For a small business, failing to be perceived as credible online could mean lost business not just today, but also in the future. A website and branded email address can help businesses add credibility and more effectively engage with consumers online.
Service providers offer a variety of website-building tools, email hosting solutions, and domain name registration services that can help businesses – whether just starting or well-established – to have a website and use a branded email.
Detailed survey results are available in 451 Research’s Black & White Paper Websites, Branded Email Remain Key to SMB Internet Services.
Verisign is a global wholesale provider of some of the world’s most recognized top-level domains, including .com and .net. For website building tools and email hosting solutions, contact a registrar. You can find a registrar here.
The post Websites, Branded Email Remain Key to SMB Internet Services appeared first on Verisign Blog.
As I noted on May 26, the final decision issued on May 20 in the Independent Review Process (IRP) brought by Afilias against the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) rejected Afilias’ petition to nullify the results of the public auction for .WEB, and it further rejected Afilias’ demand to have it be awarded .WEB (at a price substantially lower than the winning bid). Instead, as we urged, the IRP Panel determined that the ICANN Board should move forward with reviewing the objections made about .WEB, and to make a decision on delegation thereafter.
Afilias and its counsel both issued press releases claiming victory in an attempt to put a positive spin on the decision. In contrast to this public position, Afilias then quickly filed a 68-page application asking the Panel to reverse its decision. This application is, however, not permitted by the arbitration rules – which expressly prohibit such requests for “do overs.”
In addition to Afilias’ facially improper application, there is an even more serious instance of rule-breaking now described in a July 23 letter from Nu Dot Co (NDC) to ICANN. This letter sets out in considerable detail how Afilias engaged in prohibited conduct during the blackout period immediately before the .WEB auction in 2016, in violation of the auction rules. The letter shows how this rule violation is more than just a technicality; it was part of a broader scheme to rig the auction. The attachments to the letter shed light on how, during the blackout period, Afilias offered NDC money to stop ICANN’s public auction in favor of a private process – which would in turn deny the broader internet community the benefit of the proceeds of a public auction.
Afilias’ latest application to reverse the Panel’s decision, like its pre-auction misconduct 5 years ago, has only led to unnecessary delay of the delegation of .WEB. It is long past time for this multi-year campaign to come to an end. The Panel’s unanimous ruling makes clear that it strongly agrees.
The post Afilias’ Rule Violations Continue to Delay .WEB appeared first on Verisign Blog.
This article originally appeared in The Domain Name Industry Brief (Volume 18, Issue 3)
Earlier this year, the Internet Engineering Task Force’s (IETF’s) Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) announced that several Proposed Standards related to the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP), including three that I co-authored, were being promoted to the prestigious designation of Internet Standard. Initially accepted as proposed standards six years ago, RFC 7480, RFC 7481, RFC 9082 and RFC 9083 now comprise the new Standard 95. RDAP allows users to access domain registration data and could one day replace its predecessor the WHOIS protocol. RDAP is designed to address some widely recognized deficiencies in the WHOIS protocol and can help improve the registration data chain of custody.
In the discussion that follows, I’ll look back at the registry data model, given the evolution from WHOIS to the RDAP protocol, and examine how the RDAP protocol can help improve upon the more traditional, WHOIS-based registry models.
In 1998, Network Solutions was responsible for providing both consumer-facing registrar and back-end registry functions for the legacy .com, .net and .org generic top-level domains (gTLDs). Network Solutions collected information from domain name registrants, used that information to process domain name registration requests, and published both collected data and data derived from processing registration requests (such as expiration dates and status values) in a public-facing directory service known as WHOIS.
From Network Solution’s perspective as the registry, the chain of custody for domain name registration data involved only two parties: the registrant (or their agent) and Network Solutions. With the introduction of a Shared Registration System (SRS) in 1999, multiple registrars began to compete for domain name registration business by using the registry services operated by Network Solutions. The introduction of additional registrars and the separation of registry and registrar functions added parties to the chain of custody of domain name registration data. Information flowed from the registrant, to the registrar, and then to the registry, typically crossing multiple networks and jurisdictions, as depicted in Figure 1.
Over time, new gTLDs and new registries came into existence, new WHOIS services (with different output formats) were launched, and countries adopted new laws and regulations focused on protecting the personal information associated with domain name registration data. As time progressed, it became clear that WHOIS lacked several needed features, such as:
The IETF made multiple attempts to add features to WHOIS to address some of these issues, but none of them were widely adopted. A possible replacement protocol known as the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) was standardized in 2005, but it was not widely adopted. Something else was needed, and the IETF went back to work to produce what became known as RDAP.
RDAP was specified in a series of five IETF Proposed Standard RFC documents, including the following, all of which were published in March 2015:
Only when RDAP was standardized did we start to see broad deployment of a possible WHOIS successor by domain name registries, domain name registrars and address registries.
The broad deployment of RDAP led to RFCs 7480 and 7481 becoming Internet Standard RFCs (part of Internet Standard 95) without modification in March 2021. As operators of registration data directory services implemented and deployed RDAP, they found places in the other specifications where minor corrections and clarifications were needed without changing the protocol itself. RFC 7482 was updated to become Internet Standard RFC 9082, which was published in June 2021. RFC 7483 was updated to become Internet Standard RFC 9083, which was also published in June 2021. All were added to Standard 95. As of the writing of this article, RFC 7484 is in the process of being reviewed and updated for elevation to Internet Standard status.
Operators of registration data directory services who implemented RDAP can take advantage of key features not available in the WHOIS protocol. I’ve highlighted some of these important features in the table below.
| RDAP Feature | Benefit |
| Standard, well-understood, and widely available HTTP transport | Relatively easy to implement, deploy and operate using common web service tools, infrastructure and applications. |
| Securable via HTTPS | Helps provide confidentiality for RDAP queries and responses, reducing the amount of information that is disclosed to monitors. |
| Structured output in JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) | JSON is well-understood and tool friendly, which makes it easier for clients to parse and format responses from all servers without the need for software that’s customized for different service providers. |
| Easily extensible | Designed to support the addition of new features without breaking existing implementations. This makes it easier to address future function needs with less risk of implementation incompatibility. |
| Internationalized output, with full support for Unicode character sets | Allows implementations to provide human-readable inputs and outputs that are represented in a language appropriate to the local operating environment. |
| Referral capability, leveraging HTTP constructs | Provides information to software clients that allow the client to retrieve additional information from other RDAP servers. This can be used to hide complexity from human users. |
| Support of standardized authentication | RDAP can take full advantage of all of the client identification, authentication and authorization methods that are available to web services. This means that RDAP can be used to provide the basic framework for differentiated access to registration data based on attributes associated with the user and the user’s query. |
Verisign’s RDAP service, which was originally launched as an experimental implementation several years before gaining widespread adoption, allows users to look up records in the registry database for all registered .com, .net, .name, .cc and .tv domain names. It also supports Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs).
We at Verisign were pleased not only to see the IETF recognize the importance of RDAP by elevating it to an Internet Standard, but also that the protocol became a requirement for ICANN-accredited registrars and registries as of August 2019. Widespread implementation of the RDAP protocol makes registration data more secure, stable and resilient, and we are hopeful that the community will evolve the prescribed implementation of RDAP such that the full power of this rich protocol will be deployed.
You can learn more in the RDAP Help section of the Verisign website, and access helpful documents such as the RDAP technical implementation guide and the RDAP response profile.
The post Industry Insights: RDAP Becomes Internet Standard appeared first on Verisign Blog.
When you’re online, the world is at your fingertips. You can do amazing things like stream the latest movies while they’re still in theaters! Or you can enjoy the convenience of online shopping and avoiding the DMV by renewing your driver’s license remotely. This is possible because we’re able to communicate with these organizations through many different channels and we trust them. Unfortunately, many bad actors have taken advantage of this trust and the ease of communication to up their game when it comes to social engineering.
What is social engineering? One of the more famous examples of social engineering was the Nigerian Prince email scam. In this example, hackers relied on a novel, too-good-to-be-true story of a prince looking to transfer some of his fortune if only he could use your bank account number. The Nigerian Prince is a running joke these days, the internet version of “if you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you,” but its original success made scammers realize they were onto something big.
Modern social engineering campaigns closely resemble communications from legitimate organizations. They’re carefully designed, may be grammatically correct, and appear in completely plausible scenarios. However, they’re all after the same thing – information to gain access to an organization or individual’s accounts.
Phishing is a type of social engineering that uses email or websites to convince people to give up their personal information, under the guise of a plausible reason. Instead of a Nigerian prince asking for a bank account number, an email posing as your bank may ask for you to confirm your account information. Often these emails are tied to circumstances that demand your attention and reflect a sense of urgency. Needless to say, many recent phishing scams have played into COVID-19 pandemic fears and economic concerns. Here are a few other scams related to phishing to watch out for:
First, does the message you’ve received contain any of the following:
If so, check for these tell-tale signs used by phishing scams
If the email you’re suspicious of has several of the above warning signs, chances are you’ve spotted a phishing email. Still not sure what we’re talking about? Check in your email’s spam and you’ll probably see some obvious examples of phishing right away. Spam doesn’t catch everything though, and the best phishing scams can be very difficult to separate from the legitimate emails. With that in mind, we’ve pulled together some safety precautions that will help keep you safer, from phishing emails.
The post Staying safer online from phishing and other attacks appeared first on McAfee Blog.
You consider yourself a responsible person when it comes to taking care of your physical possessions. You’ve never left your wallet in a taxi or lost an expensive ring down the drain. You never let your smartphone out of your sight, yet one day you notice it’s acting oddly.
Did you know that your device can fall into cybercriminals’ hands without ever leaving yours? SIM swapping is a method that allows criminals to take control of your smartphone and break into your online accounts.
Don’t worry: there are a few easy steps you can take to safeguard your smartphone from prying eyes and get back to using your devices confidently.
First off, what exactly is a SIM card? SIM stands for subscriber identity module, and it is a memory chip that makes your phone truly yours. It stores your phone plan and phone number, as well as all your photos, texts, contacts, and apps. In most cases, you can pop your SIM card out of an old phone and into a new one to transfer your photos, apps, etc.
Unlike what the name suggests, SIM swapping doesn’t require a cybercriminal to get access to your physical phone and steal your SIM card. SIM swapping can happen remotely. A cybercriminal, with a few important details about your life in hand, can answer security questions correctly, impersonate you, and convince your mobile carrier to reassign your phone number to a new SIM card. At that point, the criminal can get access to your phone’s data and start changing your account passwords to lock you out of your online banking profile, email, and more.
SIM swapping was especially relevant right after the T-Mobile data breach.1 Cybercriminals stole millions of phone numbers and the users’ associated personal details. Criminals could later use these details to SIM swap, allowing them to receive users’ text or email two-factor authentication codes and gain access to their personal accounts.
The most glaring sign that your phone number was reassigned to a new SIM card is that your current phone no longer connects to the cell network. That means you won’t be able to make calls, send texts, or surf the internet when you’re not connected to Wi-Fi. Since most people use their smartphones every day, you’ll likely find out quickly that your phone isn’t functioning as it should.
Additionally, when a SIM card is no longer active, the carrier will often send a notification text. If you receive one of these texts but didn’t deactivate your SIM card, use someone else’s phone or landline to contact your wireless provider.
Check out these tips to keep your device and personal information safe from SIM swapping.
With just a few simple steps, you can feel better about the security of your smartphone, cellphone number, and online accounts. If you’d like extra peace of mind, consider signing up for an identity theft protection service like McAfee Identity Protection Service. McAfee, on average, detects suspicious activity ten months earlier than similar monitoring services. Time is of the essence in cases of SIM swapping and other identity theft schemes. An identity protection partner can restore your confidence in your online activities.
1“T-Mobile data breach and SIM-swap scam: How to protect your identity”
The post What Is SIM Swapping? 3 Ways to Protect Your Smartphone appeared first on McAfee Blog.
For over a decade, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and its multi-stakeholder community have engaged in an extended dialogue on the topic of DNS abuse, and the need to define, measure and mitigate DNS-related security threats. With increasing global reliance on the internet and DNS for communication, connectivity and commerce, the members of this community have important parts to play in identifying, reporting and mitigating illegal or harmful behavior, within their respective roles and capabilities.
As we consider the path forward on necessary and appropriate steps to improve mitigation of DNS abuse, it’s helpful to reflect briefly on the origins of this issue within ICANN, and to recognize the various and relevant community inputs to our ongoing work.
As a starting point, it’s important to understand ICANN’s central role in preserving the security, stability, resiliency and global interoperability of the internet’s unique identifier system, and also the limitations established within ICANN’s bylaws. ICANN’s primary mission is to ensure the stable and secure operation of the internet’s unique identifier systems, but as expressly stated in its bylaws, ICANN “shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a).” As such, ICANN’s role is important, but limited, when considering the full range of possible definitions of “DNS Abuse,” and developing a comprehensive understanding of security threat categories and the roles and responsibilities of various players in the internet infrastructure ecosystem is required.
In support of this important work, ICANN’s generic top-level domain (gTLD) contracted parties (registries and registrars) continue to engage with ICANN, and with other stakeholders and community interest groups, to address key factors related to effective and appropriate DNS security threat mitigation, including:
To better understand the various roles, responsibilities and processes, it’s important to first define illegal and abusive online activity. While perspectives may vary across our wide range of interest groups, the emerging consensus on definitions and terminology is that these activities can be categorized as DNS Security Threats, Infrastructure Abuse, Illegal Content, or Abusive Content, with ICANN’s remit generally limited to the first two categories.
Behavior within each of these categories constitutes abuse, and it is incumbent on members of the community to actively work to combat and mitigate these behaviors where they have the capability, expertise and responsibility to do so. We recognize the benefit of coordination with other entities, including ICANN within its bylaw-mandated remit, across their respective areas of responsibility.
The ICANN Organization has been actively involved in advancing work on DNS abuse, including the 2017 initiation of the Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR) system by the Office of the Chief Technology Officer. DAAR is a system for studying and reporting on domain name registration and security threats across top-level domain (TLD) registries, with an overarching purpose to develop a robust, reliable, and reproducible methodology for analyzing security threat activity, which the ICANN community may use to make informed policy decisions. The first DAAR reports were issued in January 2018 and they are updated monthly. Also in 2017, ICANN published its “Framework for Registry Operators to Address Security Threats,” which provides helpful guidance to registries seeking to improve their own DNS security posture.
The ICANN Organization also plays an important role in enforcing gTLD contract compliance and implementing policies developed by the community via its bottom-up, multi-stakeholder processes. For example, over the last several years, it has conducted registry and registrar audits of the anti-abuse provisions in the relevant agreements.
The ICANN Organization has also been a catalyst for increased community attention and action on DNS abuse, including initiating the DNS Security Facilitation Initiative Technical Study Group, which was formed to investigate mechanisms to strengthen collaboration and communication on security and stability issues related to the DNS. Over the last two years, there have also been multiple ICANN cross-community meeting sessions dedicated to the topic, including the most recent session hosted by the ICANN Board during its Annual General Meeting in October 2021. Also, in 2021, ICANN formalized its work on DNS abuse into a dedicated program within the ICANN Organization. These enforcement and compliance responsibilities are very important to ensure that all of ICANN’s contracted parties are living up to their obligations, and that any so-called “bad actors” are identified and remediated or de-accredited and removed from serving the gTLD registry or registrar markets.
The ICANN Organization continues to develop new initiatives to help mitigate DNS security threats, including: (1) expanding DAAR to integrate some country code TLDs, and to eventually include registrar-level reporting; (2) work on COVID domain names; (3) contributions to the development of a Domain Generating Algorithms Framework and facilitating waivers to allow registries and registrars to act on imminent security threats, including botnets at scale; and (4) plans for the ICANN Board to establish a DNS abuse caucus.
As early as 2009, the ICANN community began to identify the need for additional safeguards to help address DNS abuse and security threats, and those community inputs increased over time and have reached a crescendo over the last two years. In the early stages of this community dialogue, the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee, via its Public Safety Working Group, identified the need for additional mechanisms to address “criminal activity in the registration of domain names.” In the context of renegotiation of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement between ICANN and accredited registrars, and the development of the New gTLD Base Registry Agreement, the GAC played an important and influential role in highlighting this need, providing formal advice to the ICANN Board, which resulted in new requirements for gTLD registry and registrar operators, and new contractual compliance requirements for ICANN.
Following the launch of the 2012 round of new gTLDs, and the finalization of the 2013 amendments to the RAA, several ICANN bylaw-mandated review teams engaged further on the issue of DNS Abuse. These included the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT), and the second Security, Stability and Resiliency Review Team (SSR2-RT). Both final reports identified and reinforced the need for additional tools to help measure and combat DNS abuse. Also, during this timeframe, the GAC, along with the At-Large Advisory Committee and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, issued their own respective communiques and formal advice to the ICANN Board reiterating or reinforcing past statements, and providing support for recommendations in the various Review Team reports. Most recently, the SSAC issued SAC 115 titled “SSAC Report on an Interoperable Approach to Addressing Abuse Handling in the DNS.” These ICANN community group inputs have been instrumental in bringing additional focus and/or clarity to the topic of DNS abuse, and have encouraged ICANN and its gTLD registries and registrars to look for improved mechanisms to address the types of abuse within our respective remits.
During 2020 and 2021, ICANN’s gTLD contracted parties have been constructively engaged with other parts of the ICANN community, and with ICANN Org, to advance improved understanding on the topic of DNS security threats, and to identify new and improved mechanisms to enhance the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name registration and resolution systems. Collectively, the registries and registrars have engaged with nearly all groups represented in the ICANN community, and we have produced important documents related to DNS abuse definitions, registry actions, registrar abuse reporting, domain generating algorithms, and trusted notifiers. These all represent significant steps forward in framing the context of the roles, responsibilities and capabilities of ICANN’s gTLD contracted parties, and, consistent with our Letter of Intent commitments, Verisign has been an important contributor, along with our partners, in these Contracted Party House initiatives.
In addition, the gTLD contracted parties and ICANN Organization continue to engage constructively on a number of fronts, including upcoming work on standardized registry reporting, which will help result in better data on abuse mitigation practices that will help to inform community work, future reviews, and provide better visibility into the DNS security landscape.
It is important to note that groups outside of ICANN’s immediate multi-stakeholder community have contributed significantly to the topic of DNS abuse mitigation:
Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network
The Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network is a multi-stakeholder organization addressing the tension between the cross-border internet and national jurisdictions. Its secretariat facilitates a global policy process engaging over 400 key entities from governments, the world’s largest internet companies, technical operators, civil society groups, academia and international organizations from over 70 countries. The I&JP has been instrumental in developing multi-stakeholder inputs on issues such as trusted notifier, and Verisign has been a long-time contributor to that work since the I&JP’s founding in 2012.
DNS Abuse Institute
The DNS Abuse Institute was formed in 2021 to develop “outcomes-based initiatives that will create recommended practices, foster collaboration and develop industry-shared solutions to combat the five areas of DNS Abuse: malware, botnets, phishing, pharming, and related spam.” The Institute was created by Public Interest Registry, the registry operator for the .org TLD.
Global Cyber Alliance
The Global Cyber Alliance is a nonprofit organization dedicated to making the internet a safer place by reducing cyber risk. The GCA builds programs, tools and partnerships to sustain a trustworthy internet to enable social and economic progress for all.
ECO “topDNS” DNS Abuse Initiative
Eco is the largest association of the internet industry in Europe. Eco is a long-standing advocate of an “Internet with Responsibility” and of self-regulatory approaches, such as the DNS Abuse Framework. The eco “topDNS” initiative will help bring together stakeholders with an interest in combating and mitigating DNS security threats, and Verisign is a supporter of this new effort.
Other Community Groups
Verisign contributes to the anti-abuse, technical and policy communities: We continuously engage with ICANN and an array of other industry partners to help ensure the continued safe and secure operation of the DNS. For example, Verisign is actively engaged in anti-abuse, technical and policy communities such as the Anti-Phishing and Messaging, Malware and Mobile Anti-Abuse Working Groups, FIRST and the Internet Engineering Task Force.
As a leader in the domain name industry and DNS ecosystem, Verisign supports and has contributed to the cross-community efforts enumerated above. In addition, Verisign also engages directly by:
An important concept and approach for mitigating illegal and abusive activity online is the ability to engage with and rely upon third-party “trusted notifiers” to identify and report such incidents at the appropriate level in the DNS ecosystem. Verisign has supported and been engaged in the good work of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network since its inception, and we’re encouraged by its recent progress on trusted notifier framing. As mentioned earlier, there are some key questions to be addressed as we consider the viability of engaging trusted notifiers or building trusting notifier entities, to help mitigate illegal and abusive online activity.
Verisign’s recent experience with the U.S. government (NTIA and FDA) in combating illegal online opioid sales has been very helpful in illuminating a possible approach for third-party trusted notifier engagement. As noted, we have also benefited from direct engagement with the Internet Watch Foundation and law enforcement in combating CSAM. These recent examples of third-party engagement have underscored the value of a well-formed and executed notification regime, supported by clear expectations, due diligence and due process.
Discussions around trusted notifiers and an appropriate framework for engagement are under way, and Verisign recently engaged with other registries and registrars to lead the development of such a framework for further discussion within the ICANN community. We have significant expertise and experience as an infrastructure provider within our areas of technical, legal and contractual responsibility, and we are aggressive in protecting our operations from bad actors. But in matters related to illegal or abusive content, we need and value contributions from third parties to appropriately identify such behavior when supported by necessary evidence and due diligence. Precisely how such third-party notifications can be formalized and supported at scale is an open question, but one that requires further exploration and work. Verisign is committed to continuing to contribute to these ongoing discussions as we work to mitigate illegal and abusive threats to the security, stability and resiliency of the internet.
Over the last several years, DNS abuse and DNS-related security threat mitigation has been a very important topic of discussion in and around the ICANN community. In cooperation with ICANN, contracted parties, and other groups within the ICANN community, the DNS ecosystem including Verisign has been constructively engaged in developing a common understanding and practical work to advance these efforts, with a goal of meaningfully reducing the level and impact of malicious activity in the DNS. In addition to its contractual compliance functions, ICANN’s contributions have been important in helping to advance this important work and it continues to have a critical coordination and facilitation function that brings the ICANN community together on this important topic. The ICANN community’s recent focus on DNS abuse has been helpful, significant progress has been made, and more work is needed to ensure continued progress in mitigating DNS security threats. As we look ahead to 2022, we are committed to collaborating constructively with ICANN and the ICANN community to deliver on these important goals.
The post Ongoing Community Work to Mitigate Domain Name System Security Threats appeared first on Verisign Blog.
Today, we released the latest issue of The Domain Name Industry Brief, which shows that the third quarter of 2021 closed with 364.6 million domain name registrations across all top-level domains, a decrease of 2.7 million domain name registrations, or 0.7%, compared to the second quarter of 2021.1,2 Domain name registrations have decreased by 6.1 million, or 1.6%, 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 2021, including:
The Domain Name Industry Brief this quarter also includes an overview of the ongoing community work to mitigate DNS security threats.
To see past issues of The Domain Name Industry Brief, please visit verisign.com/dnibarchives.
The post Verisign Q3 2021 The Domain Name Industry Brief: 364.6 Million Domain Name Registrations in the Third Quarter of 2021 appeared first on Verisign Blog.
The .web Independent Review Process (IRP) Panel issued a Final Decision six months ago, in May 2021. Immediately thereafter, the claimant, Afilias Domains No. 3 Limited (now a shell entity known as AltaNovo Domains Limited), filed an application seeking reconsideration of the Final Decision under Rule 33 of the arbitration rules. Rule 33 allows for the clarification of an ambiguous ruling and allows the Panel the opportunity to supplement its decision if it inadvertently failed to consider a claim or defense, but specifically does not permit wholesale reconsideration of a final decision. The problem for Afilias’ application, as we said at the time, was that it sought exactly that.
The Panel ruled on Afilias’ application on Dec. 21, 2021. In this latest ruling, the Panel not only rejected Afilias’ application in its entirety, but went further and sanctioned Afilias for having filed it in the first place. Quoting from the ruling:
In the opinion of the Panel, under the guise of seeking an additional decision, the Application is seeking reconsideration of core elements of the Final Decision. Likewise, under the guise of seeking interpretation, the Application is requesting additional declarations and advisory opinions on a number of questions, some of which had not been discussed in the proceedings leading to the Final Decision.
In such circumstances, the Panel cannot escape the conclusion that the Application is “frivolous” in the sense of it “having no sound basis (as in fact or law).” This finding suffices to entitle [ICANN] to the cost shifting decision it is seeking…the Panel hereby unanimously…Grants [ICANN’s] request that the Panel shift liability for the legal fees incurred by [ICANN] in connection with the Application, fixes at US $236,884.39 the amount of the legal fees to be reimbursed to [ICANN] by [Afilias]…and orders [Afilias] to pay this amount to [ICANN] within thirty (30) days….
In light of the Panel’s finding that Afililas’ Rule 33 application was so improper and frivolous as to be sanctionable, a serious question arises about the motives in filing it. Reading the history of the .web proceedings, one possible motivation is becoming more clear. The community will recall that, five years ago, Donuts (through its wholly-owned subsidiary Ruby Glen) failed in its bid to enjoin the .web auction when a federal court rejected false allegations that Nu Dot Co (NDC) had failed to disclose an ownership change. After the auction was conducted, Afilias then picked up the litigation baton from Donuts. Afilias’ IRP complaint demanded that the arbitration Panel nullify the auction results, and award .web to itself, thereby bypassing ICANN completely. In the May 2021 Final Decision the IRP Panel gave an unsurprising but firm “no” to Afilias’ request to supplant ICANN’s role, and instead directed ICANN’s Board to review the complaints about the conduct of the .web contention set members and then make a determination on delegation.
A result of this five-year battle has been to prevent ICANN from passing judgment on the .web situation. These proceedings have unsuccessfully sought to have courts and arbitrators stand in the shoes of ICANN, rather than letting ICANN discharge its mandated duty to determine what, if anything, should be done in response to the allegations regarding the pre-auction conduct of the contention set. This conduct includes Afilias’ own wrongdoing in violating the pre-auction communications blackout imposed in the Auction Rules. That misconduct is set forth in a July 23, 2021 letter by NDC to ICANN, since published by ICANN, containing written proof of Afilias’ violation of the auction rules. In its Dec. 21 ruling, the Panel made it unmistakably clear that it is ICANN – not a judge or a panel of arbitrators – who must first review all allegations of misconduct by the contention set, including the powerful evidence indicating that it is Afilias’ .web application, not NDC’s, that should be disqualified.
If Afilias’ motivation has been to avoid ICANN’s scrutiny of its own pre-auction misconduct, especially after exiting the registry business when it appears that its only significant asset is the .web application itself, then what we should expect to see next is for Afilias/AltaNovo to manufacture another delaying attack on the Final Decision. Perhaps this is why its litigation counsel has already written ICANN threatening to continue litigation “in all available fora whether within or outside of the United States of America.…”
It is long past time to put an end to this five-year campaign, which has interfered with ICANN’s duty to decide on the delegation of .web, harming the interests of the broader internet community. The new ruling obliges ICANN to take a decisive step in that direction.
The post IRP Panel Sanctions Afilias, Clears the Way for ICANN to Decide .web Disputes appeared first on Verisign Blog.
Today, we released the latest issue of The Domain Name Industry Brief, which shows that the fourth quarter of 2021 closed with 341.7 million domain name registrations across all top-level domains, an increase of 3.3 million domain name registrations, or 1.0%, compared to the third quarter of 2021.1,2 Domain name registrations have increased by 1.6 million, or 0.5%, year over year.1,2
Check out the latest issue of The Domain Name Industry Brief to see domain name stats from the fourth quarter of 2021, 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 Q4 2021 The Domain Name Industry Brief: 341.7 Million Domain Name Registrations in the Fourth Quarter of 2021 appeared first on Verisign Blog.
Image: Proxima Studios, via Shutterstock.
Faced with a brain drain of smart people fleeing the country following its invasion of Ukraine, the Russian Federation is floating a new strategy to address a worsening shortage of qualified information technology experts: Forcing tech-savvy people within the nation’s prison population to perform low-cost IT work for domestic companies.
Multiple Russian news outlets published stories on April 27 saying the Russian Federal Penitentiary Service had announced a plan to recruit IT specialists from Russian prisons to work remotely for domestic commercial companies.
Russians sentenced to forced labor will serve out their time at one of many correctional centers across dozens of Russian regions, usually at the center that is closest to their hometown. Alexander Khabarov, deputy head of Russia’s penitentiary service, said his agency had received proposals from businessmen in different regions to involve IT specialists serving sentences in correctional centers to work remotely for commercial companies.
Khabarov told Russian media outlets that under the proposal people with IT skills at these facilities would labor only in IT-related roles, but would not be limited to working with companies in their own region.
“We are approached with this initiative in a number of territories, in a number of subjects by entrepreneurs who work in this area,” Khabarov told Russian state media organization TASS. “We are only at the initial stage. If this is in demand, and this is most likely in demand, we think that we will not force specialists in this field to work in some other industries.”
According to Russian media site Lenta.ru, since March 21 nearly 95,000 vacancies in IT have remained unfilled in Russia. Lenta says the number unfilled job slots actually shrank 25 percent from the previous month, officially because “many Russian companies are currently reviewing their plans and budgets, and some projects have been postponed.” The story fails to even mention the recent economic sanctions that are currently affecting many Russian companies thanks to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in late February.
The Russian Association for Electronic Communications (RAEC) estimated recently that between 70,000 and 100,000 people will leave Russia as part of the second wave of emigration of IT specialists from Russia. “The study also notes that the number of IT people who want to leave Russia is growing. Experts consider the USA, Germany, Georgia, Cyprus and Canada to be the most attractive countries for moving,” Lenta reported of the RAEC survey.
It’s not clear how many “IT specialists” are currently serving prison time in Russia, or precisely what that might mean in terms of an inmate’s IT skills and knowledge. According to the BBC, about half of the world’s prison population is held in the United States, Russia or China. The BBC says Russia currently houses nearly 875,000 inmates, or about 615 inmates for every 100,000 citizens. The United States has an even higher incarceration rate (737/100,000), but also a far larger total prison population of nearly 2.2 million.
Sergei Boyarsky, deputy chairman of the Russian Duma’s Committee on Information Policy, said the idea was worth pursuing if indeed there are a significant number of IT specialists who are already incarcerated in Russia.
“I know that we have a need in general for IT specialists, this is a growing market,” said Boyarsky, who was among the Russian leaders sanctioned by the United States Treasury on Marc. 24, 2022 in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Boyarsky is head of the St. Petersburg branch of United Russia, a strongly pro-Putin political party that holds more than 70 percent of the seats in the Russian State Duma.
“Since they still work there, it would probably be right to give people with a profession that allows them to work remotely not to lose their qualifications,” Boyarsky was quoted as saying of potentially qualified inmates. “At a minimum, this proposal is worth attention and discussion if there are a lot of such specialists.”
According to Russia’s penitentiary service, the average salary of those sentenced to forced labor is about 20,000 rubles per month, or approximately USD $281. Russian news outlet RBC reports that businesses started using prison labor after the possibility of creating correctional centers in organizations appeared in 2020. RBC notes that Russia now has 117 such centers across 76 Russian regions.
ruby-1200
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) says it is investigating reports that hackers gained unauthorized access to an agency portal that taps into 16 different federal law enforcement databases. KrebsOnSecurity has learned the alleged compromise is tied to a cybercrime and online harassment community that routinely impersonates police and government officials to harvest personal information on their targets.
Unidentified hackers shared this screenshot of alleged access to the Drug Enforcement Administration’s intelligence sharing portal.
On May 8, KrebsOnSecurity received a tip that hackers obtained a username and password for an authorized user of esp.usdoj.gov, which is the Law Enforcement Inquiry and Alerts (LEIA) system managed by the DEA.
KrebsOnSecurity shared information about the allegedly hijacked account with the DEA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Department of Justice, which houses both agencies. The DEA declined to comment on the validity of the claims, issuing only a brief statement in response.
“DEA takes cyber security and information of intrusions seriously and investigates all such reports to the fullest extent,” the agency said in a statement shared via email.
According to this page at the Justice Department website, LEIA “provides federated search capabilities for both EPIC and external database repositories,” including data classified as “law enforcement sensitive” and “mission sensitive” to the DEA.
A document published by the Obama administration in May 2016 (PDF) says the DEA’s El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) systems in Texas are available for use by federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement, as well as the Department of Defense and intelligence community.
EPIC and LEIA also have access to the DEA’s National Seizure System (NSS), which the DEA uses to identify property thought to have been purchased with the proceeds of criminal activity (think fancy cars, boats and homes seized from drug kingpins).
“The EPIC System Portal (ESP) enables vetted users to remotely and securely share intelligence, access the National Seizure System, conduct data analytics, and obtain information in support of criminal investigations or law enforcement operations,” the 2016 White House document reads. “Law Enforcement Inquiry and Alerts (LEIA) allows for a federated search of 16 Federal law enforcement databases.”
The screenshots shared with this author indicate the hackers could use EPIC to look up a variety of records, including those for motor vehicles, boats, firearms, aircraft, and even drones.
Claims about the purloined DEA access were shared with this author by “KT,” the current administrator of the Doxbin — a highly toxic online community that provides a forum for digging up personal information on people and posting it publicly.
As KrebsOnSecurity reported earlier this year, the previous owner of the Doxbin has been identified as the leader of LAPSUS$, a data extortion group that hacked into some of the world’s largest tech companies this year — including Microsoft, NVIDIA, Okta, Samsung and T-Mobile.
That reporting also showed how the core members of LAPSUS$ were involved in selling a service offering fraudulent Emergency Data Requests (EDRs), wherein the hackers use compromised police and government email accounts to file warrantless data requests with social media firms, mobile telephony providers and other technology firms, attesting that the information being requested can’t wait for a warrant because it relates to an urgent matter of life and death.
From the standpoint of individuals involved in filing these phony EDRs, access to databases and user accounts within the Department of Justice would be a major coup. But the data in EPIC would probably be far more valuable to organized crime rings or drug cartels, said Nicholas Weaver, a researcher for the International Computer Science Institute at University of California, Berkeley.
Weaver said it’s clear from the screenshots shared by the hackers that they could use their access not only to view sensitive information, but also submit false records to law enforcement and intelligence agency databases.
“I don’t think these [people] realize what they got, how much money the cartels would pay for access to this,” Weaver said. “Especially because as a cartel you don’t search for yourself you search for your enemies, so that even if it’s discovered there is no loss to you of putting things ONTO the DEA’s radar.”
The DEA’s EPIC portal login page.
The login page for esp.usdoj.gov (above) suggests that authorized users can access the site using a “Personal Identity Verification” or PIV card, which is a fairly strong form of authentication used government-wide to control access to federal facilities and information systems at each user’s appropriate security level.
However, the EPIC portal also appears to accept just a username and password, which would seem to radically diminish the security value of requiring users to present (or prove possession of) an authorized PIV card. Indeed, KT said the hacker who obtained this illicit access was able to log in using the stolen credentials alone, and that at no time did the portal prompt for a second authentication factor.
It’s not clear why there are still sensitive government databases being protected by nothing more than a username and password, but I’m willing to bet big money that this DEA portal is not only offender here. The DEA portal esp.usdoj.gov is listed on Page 87 of a Justice Department “data inventory,” which catalogs all of the data repositories that correspond to DOJ agencies.
There are 3,330 results. Granted, only some of those results are login portals, but that’s just within the Department of Justice.
If we assume for the moment that state-sponsored foreign hacking groups can gain access to sensitive government intelligence in the same way as teenage hacker groups like LAPSUS$, then it is long past time for the U.S. federal government to perform a top-to-bottom review of authentication requirements tied to any government portals that traffic in sensitive or privileged information.
I’ll say it because it needs to be said: The United States government is in urgent need of leadership on cybersecurity at the executive branch level — preferably someone who has the authority and political will to eventually disconnect any federal government agency data portals that fail to enforce strong, multi-factor authentication.
I realize this may be far more complex than it sounds, particularly when it comes to authenticating law enforcement personnel who access these systems without the benefit of a PIV card or government-issued device (state and local authorities, for example). It’s not going to be as simple as just turning on multi-factor authentication for every user, thanks in part to a broad diversity of technologies being used across the law enforcement landscape.
But when hackers can plunder 16 law enforcement databases, arbitrarily send out law enforcement alerts for specific people or vehicles, or potentially disrupt ongoing law enforcement operations — all because someone stole, found or bought a username and password — it’s time for drastic measures.
Related tags
Millions of U.S. government employees and contractors have been issued a secure smart ID card that enables physical access to buildings and controlled spaces, and provides access to government computer networks and systems at the cardholder’s appropriate security level. But many government employees aren’t issued an approved card reader device that lets them use these cards at home or remotely, and so turn to low-cost readers they find online. What could go wrong? Here’s one example.
A sample Common Access Card (CAC). Image: Cac.mil.
KrebsOnSecurity recently heard from a reader — we’ll call him “Mark” because he wasn’t authorized to speak to the press — who works in IT for a major government defense contractor and was issued a Personal Identity Verification (PIV) government smart card designed for civilian employees. Not having a smart card reader at home and lacking any obvious guidance from his co-workers on how to get one, Mark opted to purchase a $15 reader from Amazon that said it was made to handle U.S. government smart cards.
The USB-based device Mark settled on is the first result that currently comes up one when searches on Amazon.com for “PIV card reader.” The card reader Mark bought was sold by a company called Saicoo, whose sponsored Amazon listing advertises a “DOD Military USB Common Access Card (CAC) Reader” and has more than 11,700 mostly positive ratings.
The Common Access Card (CAC) is the standard identification for active duty uniformed service personnel, selected reserve, DoD civilian employees, and eligible contractor personnel. It is the principal card used to enable physical access to buildings and controlled spaces, and provides access to DoD computer networks and systems.
Mark said when he received the reader and plugged it into his Windows 10 PC, the operating system complained that the device’s hardware drivers weren’t functioning properly. Windows suggested consulting the vendor’s website for newer drivers.
The Saicoo smart card reader that Mark purchased. Image: Amazon.com
So Mark went to the website mentioned on Saicoo’s packaging and found a ZIP file containing drivers for Linux, Mac OS and Windows:
Image: Saicoo
Out of an abundance of caution, Mark submitted Saicoo’s drivers file to Virustotal.com, which simultaneously scans any shared files with more than five dozen antivirus and security products. Virustotal reported that some 43 different security tools detected the Saicoo drivers as malicious. The consensus seems to be that the ZIP file currently harbors a malware threat known as Ramnit, a fairly common but dangerous trojan horse that spreads by appending itself to other files.
Image: Virustotal.com
Ramnit is a well-known and older threat — first surfacing more than a decade ago — but it has evolved over the years and is still employed in more sophisticated data exfiltration attacks. Amazon said in a written statement that it was investigating the reports.
“Seems like a potentially significant national security risk, considering that many end users might have elevated clearance levels who are using PIV cards for secure access,” Mark said.
Mark said he contacted Saicoo about their website serving up malware, and received a response saying the company’s newest hardware did not require any additional drivers. He said Saicoo did not address his concern that the driver package on its website was bundled with malware.
In response to KrebsOnSecurity’s request for comment, Saicoo sent a somewhat less reassuring reply.
“From the details you offered, issue may probably caused by your computer security defense system as it seems not recognized our rarely used driver & detected it as malicious or a virus,” Saicoo’s support team wrote in an email.
“Actually, it’s not carrying any virus as you can trust us, if you have our reader on hand, please just ignore it and continue the installation steps,” the message continued. “When driver installed, this message will vanish out of sight. Don’t worry.”
Saicoo’s response to KrebsOnSecurity.
The trouble with Saicoo’s apparently infected drivers may be little more than a case of a technology company having their site hacked and responding poorly. Will Dormann, a vulnerability analyst at CERT/CC, wrote on Twitter that the executable files (.exe) in the Saicoo drivers ZIP file were not altered by the Ramnit malware — only the included HTML files.
Dormann said it’s bad enough that searching for device drivers online is one of the riskiest activities one can undertake online.
“Doing a web search for drivers is a VERY dangerous (in terms of legit/malicious hit ratio) search to perform, based on results of any time I’ve tried to do it,” Dormann added. “Combine that with the apparent due diligence of the vendor outlined here, and well, it ain’t a pretty picture.”
But by all accounts, the potential attack surface here is enormous, as many federal employees clearly will purchase these readers from a myriad of online vendors when the need arises. Saicoo’s product listings, for example, are replete with comments from customers who self-state that they work at a federal agency (and several who reported problems installing drivers).
A thread about Mark’s experience on Twitter generated a strong response from some of my followers, many of whom apparently work for the U.S. government in some capacity and have government-issued CAC or PIV cards.
Two things emerged clearly from that conversation. The first was general confusion about whether the U.S. government has any sort of list of approved vendors. It does. The General Services Administration (GSA), the agency which handles procurement for federal civilian agencies, maintains a list of approved card reader vendors at idmanagement.gov (Saicoo is not on that list). [Thanks to @MetaBiometrics and @shugenja for the link!]
The other theme that ran through the Twitter discussion was the reality that many people find buying off-the-shelf readers more expedient than going through the GSA’s official procurement process, whether it’s because they were never issued one or the reader they were using simply no longer worked or was lost and they needed another one quickly.
“Almost every officer and NCO [non-commissioned officer] I know in the Reserve Component has a CAC reader they bought because they had to get to their DOD email at home and they’ve never been issued a laptop or a CAC reader,” said David Dixon, an Army veteran and author who lives in Northern Virginia. “When your boss tells you to check your email at home and you’re in the National Guard and you live 2 hours from the nearest [non-classified military network installation], what do you think is going to happen?”
Interestingly, anyone asking on Twitter about how to navigate purchasing the right smart card reader and getting it all to work properly is invariably steered toward militarycac.com. The website is maintained by Michael Danberry, a decorated and retired Army veteran who launched the site in 2008 (its text and link-heavy design very much takes one back to that era of the Internet and webpages in general). His site has even been officially recommended by the Army (PDF). Mark shared emails showing Saicoo itself recommends militarycac.com.
Image: Militarycac.com.
“The Army Reserve started using CAC logon in May 2006,” Danberry wrote on his “About” page. “I [once again] became the ‘Go to guy’ for my Army Reserve Center and Minnesota. I thought Why stop there? I could use my website and knowledge of CAC and share it with you.”
Danberry did not respond to requests for an interview — no doubt because he’s busy doing tech support for the federal government. The friendly message on Danberry’s voicemail instructs support-needing callers to leave detailed information about the issue they’re having with CAC/PIV card readers.
Dixon said Danberry has “done more to keep the Army running and connected than all the G6s [Army Chief Information Officers] put together.”
In many ways, Mr. Danberry is the equivalent of that little known software developer whose tiny open-sourced code project ends up becoming widely adopted and eventually folded into the fabric of the Internet. I wonder if he ever imagined 15 years ago that his website would one day become “critical infrastructure” for Uncle Sam?
In the age of the perpetual news cycle and digital media, the risks that stem from the fake news problem are all too real
The post Fake news – why do people believe it? appeared first on WeLiveSecurity
Some of more tech-savvy Democrats in the U.S. Senate are asking the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate identity-proofing company ID.me for “deceptive statements” the company and its founder allegedly made over how they handle facial recognition data collected on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service, which until recently required anyone seeking a new IRS account online to provide a live video selfie to ID.me.
In a letter to FTC Chair Lina Khan, the Senators charge that ID.me’s CEO Blake Hall has offered conflicting statements about how his company uses the facial scan data it collects on behalf of the federal government and many states that use the ID proofing technology to screen applicants for unemployment insurance.
The lawmakers say that in public statements and blog posts, ID.me has frequently emphasized the difference between two types of facial recognition: One-to-one, and one-to-many. In the one-to-one approach, a live video selfie is compared to the image on a driver’s license, for example. One-to-many facial recognition involves comparing a face against a database of other faces to find any potential matches.
Americans have particular reason to be concerned about the difference between these two types of facial recognition, says the letter to the FTC, signed by Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.):
“While one-to-one recognition involves a one-time comparison of two images in order to confirm an applicant’s identity, the use of one-to-many recognition means that millions of innocent people will have their photographs endlessly queried as part of a digital ‘line up.’ Not only does this violate individuals’ privacy, but the inevitable false matches associated with one-to-many recognition can result in applicants being wrongly denied desperately-needed services for weeks or even months as they try to get their case reviewed.”
“This risk is especially acute for people of color: NIST’s Facial Recognition Vendor Test found that many facial recognition algorithms have rates of false matches that are as much as 100 times higher for individuals from countries in West Africa, East Africa and East Asia than for individuals from Eastern European countries. This means Black and Asian Americans could be disproportionately likely to be denied benefits due to a false match in a one-to-many facial recognition system.”
The lawmakers say that throughout the latter half of 2021, ID.me published statements and blog posts stating it did not use one-to-many facial recognition and that the approach was “problematic” and “tied to surveillance operations.” But several days after a Jan. 16, 2022 post here about the IRS’s new facial ID requirement went viral and prompted a public backlash, Hall acknowledged in a LinkedIn posting that ID.me does use one-to-many facial recognition.
“Within days, the company edited the numerous blog posts and white papers on its website that previously stated the company did not use one-to-many to reflect the truth,” the letter alleges. “According to media reports, the company’s decision to correct its prior misleading statements came after mounting internal pressure from its employees.”
Cyberscoop’s Tonya Riley published excerpts from internal ID.me employee Slack messages wherein some expressed dread and unease with the company’s equivocation on its use of one-to-many facial recognition.
In February, the IRS announced it would no longer require facial scans or other biometric data from taxpayers seeking to create an account at the agency’s website. The agency also pledged that any biometric data shared with ID.me would be permanently deleted.
But the IRS still requires new account applicants to sign up with either ID.me or Login.gov, a single sign-on solution already used to access 200 websites run by 28 federal agencies. It also still offers the option of providing a live selfie for verification purposes, although the IRS says this data will be deleted automatically.
Asked to respond to concerns raised in the letter from Senate lawmakers, ID.me instead touted its successes in stopping fraud.
“Five state workforce agencies have publicly credited ID.me with helping to prevent $238 billion dollars in fraud,” the statement reads. “Conditions were so bad during the pandemic that the deputy assistant director of the FBI called the fraud ‘an economic attack on the United States.’ ID.me played a critical role in stopping that attack in more than 20 states where the service was rapidly adopted for its equally important ability to increase equity and verify individuals left behind by traditional options. We look forward to cooperating with all relevant government bodies to clear up any misunderstandings.”
As Cyberscoop reported on Apr. 14, the House Oversight and Reform Committee last month began an investigation into ID.me’s practices, with committee chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) saying the committee’s questions to the company would help shape policy on how the government wields facial recognition technology.
A copy of the letter the senators sent to the FTC is here (PDF).
ESET researchers spot an updated version of the malware loader used in the Industroyer2 and CaddyWiper attacks
The post Sandworm uses a new version of ArguePatch to attack targets in Ukraine appeared first on WeLiveSecurity
eleceye-1200
FreshRSS