Login
Until earlier this week, the support website for networking equipment vendor Juniper Networks was exposing potentially sensitive information tied to customer products, including which devices customers bought, as well as each product’s warranty status, service contracts and serial numbers. Juniper said it has since fixed the problem, and that the inadvertent data exposure stemmed from a recent upgrade to its support portal.
Sunnyvale, Calif. based Juniper Networks makes high-powered Internet routers and switches, and its products are used in some of the world’s largest organizations. Earlier this week KrebsOnSecurity heard from a reader responsible for managing several Juniper devices, who found he could use Juniper’s customer support portal to find device and support contract information for other Juniper customers.
Logan George is a 17-year-old intern working for an organization that uses Juniper products. George said he found the data exposure earlier this week by accident while searching for support information on a particular Juniper product.
George discovered that after logging in with a regular customer account, Juniper’s support website allowed him to list detailed information about virtually any Juniper device purchased by other customers. Searching on Amazon.com in the Juniper portal, for example, returned tens of thousands of records. Each record included the device’s model and serial number, the approximate location where it is installed, as well as the device’s status and associated support contract information.
Information exposed by the Juniper support portal. Columns not pictured include Serial Number, Software Support Reference number, Product, Warranty Expiration Date and Contract ID.
George said the exposed support contract information is potentially sensitive because it shows which Juniper products are most likely to be lacking critical security updates.
“If you don’t have a support contract you don’t get updates, it’s as simple as that,” George said. “Using serial numbers, I could see which products aren’t under support contracts. And then I could narrow down where each device was sent through their serial number tracking system, and potentially see all of what was sent to the same location. A lot of companies don’t update their switches very often, and knowing what they use allows someone to know what attack vectors are possible.”
In a written statement, Juniper said the data exposure was the result of a recent upgrade to its support portal.
“We were made aware of an inadvertent issue that allowed registered users to our system to access serial numbers that were not associated with their account,” the statement reads. “We acted promptly to resolve this issue and have no reason to believe at this time that any identifiable or personal customer data was exposed in any way. We take these matters seriously and always use these experiences to prevent further similar incidents. We are actively working to determine the root cause of this defect and thank the researcher for bringing this to our attention.”
The company has not yet responded to requests for information about exactly when those overly permissive user rights were introduced. However, the changes may date back to September 2023, when Juniper announced it had rebuilt its customer support portal.
George told KrebsOnSecurity the back-end for Juniper’s support website appears to be supported by Salesforce, and that Juniper likely did not have the proper user permissions established on its Salesforce assets. In April 2023, KrebsOnSecurity published research showing that a shocking number of organizations — including banks, healthcare providers and state and local governments — were leaking private and sensitive data thanks to misconfigured Salesforce installations.
Nicholas Weaver, a researcher at University of California, Berkeley’s International Computer Science Institute (ICSI) and lecturer at UC Davis, said the complexity layered into modern tech support portals leaves much room for error.
“This is a reminder of how hard it is to build these large systems like support portals, where you need to be able to manage gazillions of users with distinct access roles,” Weaver said. “One minor screw up there can produce hilarious results.”
Last month, computer maker Hewlett Packard Enterprise announced it would buy Juniper Networks for $14 billion, reportedly to help beef up the 100-year-old technology company’s artificial intelligence offerings.
Update, 11:01 a.m. ET: An earlier version of this story quoted George as saying he was able to see support information for the U.S. Department of Defense. George has since clarified that while one block of device records he found was labeled “Department of Defense,” that record appears to belong to a different country.
When U.S. consumers have their online bank accounts hijacked and plundered by hackers, U.S. financial institutions are legally obligated to reverse any unauthorized transactions as long as the victim reports the fraud in a timely manner. But new data released this week suggests that for some of the nation’s largest banks, reimbursing account takeover victims has become more the exception than the rule.
The findings came in a report released by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who in April 2022 opened an investigation into fraud tied to Zelle, the “peer-to-peer” digital payment service used by many financial institutions that allows customers to quickly send cash to friends and family.
Zelle is run by Early Warning Services LLC (EWS), a private financial services company which is jointly owned by Bank of America, Capital One, JPMorgan Chase, PNC Bank, Truist, U.S. Bank, and Wells Fargo. Zelle is enabled by default for customers at over 1,000 different financial institutions, even if a great many customers still don’t know it’s there.
Sen. Warren said several of the EWS owner banks — including Capital One, JPMorgan and Wells Fargo — failed to provide all of the requested data. But Warren did get the requested information from PNC, Truist and U.S. Bank.
“Overall, the three banks that provided complete data sets reported 35,848 cases of scams, involving over $25.9 million of payments in 2021 and the first half of 2022,” the report summarized. “In the vast majority of these cases, the banks did not repay the customers that reported being scammed. Overall these three banks reported repaying customers in only 3,473 cases (representing nearly 10% of scam claims) and repaid only $2.9 million.”
Importantly, the report distinguishes between cases that involve straight up bank account takeovers and unauthorized transfers (fraud), and those losses that stem from “fraudulently induced payments,” where the victim is tricked into authorizing the transfer of funds to scammers (scams).
A common example of the latter is the Zelle Fraud Scam, which uses an ever-shifting set of come-ons to trick people into transferring money to fraudsters. The Zelle Fraud Scam often employs text messages and phone calls spoofed to look like they came from your bank, and the scam usually relates to fooling the customer into thinking they’re sending money to themselves when they’re really sending it to the crooks.
Here’s the rub: When a customer issues a payment order to their bank, the bank is obligated to honor that order so long as it passes a two-stage test. The first question asks, Did the request actually come from an authorized owner or signer on the account? In the case of Zelle scams, the answer is yes.
Trace Fooshee, a strategic advisor in the anti money laundering practice at Aite-Novarica, said the second stage requires banks to give the customer’s transfer order a kind of “sniff test” using “commercially reasonable” fraud controls that generally are not designed to detect patterns involving social engineering.
Fooshee said the legal phrase “commercially reasonable” is the primary reason why no bank has much — if anything — in the way of controlling for scam detection.
“In order for them to deploy something that would detect a good chunk of fraud on something so hard to detect they would generate egregiously high rates of false positives which would also make consumers (and, then, regulators) very unhappy,” Fooshee said. “This would tank the business case for the service as a whole rendering it something that the bank can claim to NOT be commercially reasonable.”
Sen. Warren’s report makes clear that banks generally do not pay consumers back if they are fraudulently induced into making Zelle payments.
“In simple terms, Zelle indicated that it would provide redress for users in cases of unauthorized transfers in which a user’s account is accessed by a bad actor and used to transfer a payment,” the report continued. “However, EWS’ response also indicated that neither Zelle nor its parent bank owners would reimburse users fraudulently induced by a bad actor into making a payment on the platform.”
Still, the data suggest banks did repay at least some of the funds stolen from scam victims about 10 percent of the time. Fooshee said he’s surprised that number is so high.
“That banks are paying victims of authorized payment fraud scams anything at all is noteworthy,” he said. “That’s money that they’re paying for out of pocket almost entirely for goodwill. You could argue that repaying all victims is a sound strategy especially in the climate we’re in but to say that it should be what all banks do remains an opinion until Congress changes the law.”
However, when it comes to reimbursing victims of fraud and account takeovers, the report suggests banks are stiffing their customers whenever they can get away with it. “Overall, the four banks that provided complete data sets indicated that they reimbursed only 47% of the dollar amount of fraud claims they received,” the report notes.
How did the banks behave individually? From the report:
-In 2021 and the first six months of 2022, PNC Bank indicated that its customers reported 10,683 cases of unauthorized payments totaling over $10.6 million, of which only 1,495 cases totaling $1.46 were refunded to consumers. PNC Bank left 86% of its customers that reported cases of fraud without recourse for fraudulent activity that occurred on Zelle.
-Over this same time period, U.S. Bank customers reported a total of 28,642 cases of unauthorized transactions totaling over $16.2 million, while only refunding 8,242 cases totaling less than $4.7 million.
-In the period between January 2021 and September 2022, Bank of America customers reported 81,797 cases of unauthorized transactions, totaling $125 million. Bank of America refunded only $56.1 million in fraud claims – less than 45% of the overall dollar value of claims made in that time.
–Truist indicated that the bank had a much better record of reimbursing defrauded customers over this same time period. During 2021 and the first half of 2022, Truist customers filed 24,752 unauthorized transaction claims amounting to $24.4 million. Truist reimbursed 20,349 of those claims, totaling $20.8 million – 82% of Truist claims were reimbursed over this period. Overall, however, the four banks that provided complete data sets indicated that they reimbursed only 47% of the dollar amount of fraud claims they received.
Fooshee said there has long been a great deal of inconsistency in how banks reimburse unauthorized fraud claims — even after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CPFB) came out with guidance on what qualifies as an unauthorized fraud claim.
“Many banks reported that they were still not living up to those standards,” he said. “As a result, I imagine that the CFPB will come down hard on those with fines and we’ll see a correction.”
Fooshee said many banks have recently adjusted their reimbursement policies to bring them more into line with the CFPB’s guidance from last year.
“So this is heading in the right direction but not with sufficient vigor and speed to satisfy critics,” he said.
Seth Ruden is a payments fraud expert who serves as director of global advisory for digital identity company BioCatch. Ruden said Zelle has recently made “significant changes to its fraud program oversight because of consumer influence.”
“It is clear to me that despite sensational headlines, progress has been made to improve outcomes,” Ruden said. “Presently, losses in the network on a volume-adjusted basis are lower than those typical of credit cards.”
But he said any failure to reimburse victims of fraud and account takeovers only adds to pressure on Congress to do more to help victims of those scammed into authorizing Zelle payments.
“The bottom line is that regulations have not kept up with the speed of payment technology in the United States, and we’re not alone,” Ruden said. “For the first time in the UK, authorized payment scam losses have outpaced credit card losses and a regulatory response is now on the table. Banks have the choice right now to take action and increase controls or await regulators to impose a new regulatory environment.”
Sen. Warren’s report is available here (PDF).
There are, of course, some versions of the Zelle fraud scam that may be confusing financial institutions as to what constitutes “authorized” payment instructions. For example, the variant I wrote about earlier this year began with a text message that spoofed the target’s bank and warned of a pending suspicious transfer.
Those who responded at all received a call from a number spoofed to make it look like the victim’s bank calling, and were asked to validate their identities by reading back a one-time password sent via SMS. In reality, the thieves had simply asked the bank’s website to reset the victim’s password, and that one-time code sent via text by the bank’s site was the only thing the crooks needed to reset the target’s password and drain the account using Zelle.
None of the above discussion involves the risks affecting businesses that bank online. Businesses in the United States do not enjoy the same fraud liability protection afforded to consumers, and if a banking trojan or clever phishing site results in a business account getting drained, most banks will not reimburse that loss.
This is why I have always and will continue to urge small business owners to conduct their online banking affairs only from a dedicated, access restricted and security-hardened device — and preferably a non-Windows machine.
For consumers, the same old advice remains the best: Watch your bank statements like a hawk, and immediately report and contest any charges that appear fraudulent or unauthorized.
There’s a person behind every cybercrime. That’s easy to lose sight of. After all, cybercrime can feel a little anonymous, like a computer is doing the attacking instead of a person. Yet people are indeed behind these attacks, and over the years they’ve been getting organized—where cybercriminals structure and run their operations in ways that darkly mirror the workings of a real business.
Funny, the notion of hackers running an illegal business just like a regular business. But there you go. What works, apparently works. So, let’s take a closer look at how organized crime goes about its business—and get a little more insight into how we can protect ourselves in the process.
A classic notion of the cybercriminal is that of a lone hacker, donning a hoodie in a dimly lit room and chipping away at the networks and devices of a business or household. That does happen, such as in the case of the former engineer accused of. Yet increasingly, attacks are orchestrated efforts.
More and more of today’s cybercrime is a distributed, international affair that relies on several bad actors to see it through. This takes the form of organized crime groups with ringleaders located in one country and developers in others, further supported by operations, marketing, finance, and call center teams in yet other locations—just like a legitimate business, strange as it seems.
What does that look like in real life? Consider a practical example: an identity theft ring sets up a series of phony websites to hijack personal information. There’s a lot of work that goes into putting up those websites, so let’s start there and see who could be involved. From there, we can work our way up the chain of cybercrime organizations. For starters:
And that’s just for starters. There’s plenty of activity that follows once victims share their personal info on that phony site, spanning yet more business roles:
Stepping back and looking at this example, you can see how there are several distinct skillsets at play here. While small groups of hackers could pull off something similar, the most effective of these scams will have a relatively large staff in place to ensure it runs effectively. This is just one broad example, yet it does serve to remind us that sophisticated cybercrime can have a sophisticated organization behind it.
Other examples include tech support scams that run their own call support centers, corporate ransomware attacks where scammers hijack the company’s social media accounts and shame them into paying. There are yet more examples of bogus call centers, like the ones that will walk individual victims through the process of paying off a ransomware attack with cryptocurrency. Once again, quite an operation.
Back to the lone hacker in a hoodie for a moment. They’re still out there. In fact, many of them are enabled by larger cybercrime organizations. This can happen in several ways:
It’s a marketplace out there, where our data acts as a kind of currency that’s traded and sold by operators large and small.
So yes, there’s a person behind every cybercrime. And then there’s you. Along with all things you can do to stop them.
Earlier this year, I shared how McAfee now solely focuses on people. Organized cybercrime is just one of the many reasons why. While different devices may come and go in our lives, our data always follows us—the very things cybercriminals are after. It’s people who need protection. By protecting you, your identity, and your privacy, along with your devices, we protect you from threats like these, whether they stem from a small-time crook or an organized crime gang. Even lone hackers in hoodies.
To me, the solution looks something like this: you’re out there enjoying the internet without having to look over your shoulder. You’re just safe. And living your life.
So as cybercrime becomes more sophisticated, we’re becoming yet more sophisticated at McAfee. And it’s you entirely with you in mind. Online protection should come naturally and give you the confidence to go about your day—protection that is personalized, intelligent, and easier to use so that it adapts based on what you’re doing and what you need at any given moment. That’s our aim. Ease. Freedom. Particularly in a time when criminals are trying their hardest to make you their business as you go about yours.
The post Organized Cybercrime: The Big Business Behind Hacks and Attacks appeared first on McAfee Blog.
FreshRSS 