Login
The data privacy company Onerep.com bills itself as a Virginia-based service for helping people remove their personal information from almost 200 people-search websites. However, an investigation into the history of onerep.com finds this company is operating out of Belarus and Cyprus, and that its founder has launched dozens of people-search services over the years.
Onerep’s “Protect” service starts at $8.33 per month for individuals and $15/mo for families, and promises to remove your personal information from nearly 200 people-search sites. Onerep also markets its service to companies seeking to offer their employees the ability to have their data continuously removed from people-search sites.
A testimonial on onerep.com.
Customer case studies published on onerep.com state that it struck a deal to offer the service to employees of Permanente Medicine, which represents the doctors within the health insurance giant Kaiser Permanente. Onerep also says it has made inroads among police departments in the United States.
But a review of Onerep’s domain registration records and that of its founder reveal a different side to this company. Onerep.com says its founder and CEO is Dimitri Shelest from Minsk, Belarus, as does Shelest’s profile on LinkedIn. Historic registration records indexed by DomainTools.com say Mr. Shelest was a registrant of onerep.com who used the email address dmitrcox2@gmail.com.
A search in the data breach tracking service Constella Intelligence for the name Dimitri Shelest brings up the email address dimitri.shelest@onerep.com. Constella also finds that Dimitri Shelest from Belarus used the email address d.sh@nuwber.com, and the Belarus phone number +375-292-702786.
Nuwber.com is a people search service whose employees all appear to be from Belarus, and it is one of dozens of people-search companies that Onerep claims to target with its data-removal service. Onerep.com’s website disavows any relationship to Nuwber.com, stating quite clearly, “Please note that OneRep is not associated with Nuwber.com.”
However, there is an abundance of evidence suggesting Mr. Shelest is in fact the founder of Nuwber. Constella found that Minsk telephone number (375-292-702786) has been used multiple times in connection with the email address dmitrcox@gmail.com. Recall that Onerep.com’s domain registration records in 2018 list the email address dmitrcox2@gmail.com.
It appears Mr. Shelest sought to reinvent his online identity in 2015 by adding a “2” to his email address. The Belarus phone number tied to Nuwber.com shows up in the domain records for comversus.com, and DomainTools says this domain is tied to both dmitrcox@gmail.com and dmitrcox2@gmail.com. Other domains that mention both email addresses in their WHOIS records include careon.me, docvsdoc.com, dotcomsvdot.com, namevname.com, okanyway.com and tapanyapp.com.
Onerep.com CEO and founder Dimitri Shelest, as pictured on the “about” page of onerep.com.
A search in DomainTools for the email address dmitrcox@gmail.com shows it is associated with the registration of at least 179 domain names, including dozens of mostly now-defunct people-search companies targeting citizens of Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia and Mexico, among others.
Those include nuwber.fr, a site registered in 2016 which was identical to the homepage of Nuwber.com at the time. DomainTools shows the same email and Belarus phone number are in historic registration records for nuwber.at, nuwber.ch, and nuwber.dk (all domains linked here are to their cached copies at archive.org, where available).
Nuwber.com, circa 2015. Image: Archive.org.
Update, March 21, 11:15 a.m. ET: Mr. Shelest has provided a lengthy response to the findings in this story. In summary, Shelest acknowledged maintaining an ownership stake in Nuwber, but said there was “zero cross-over or information-sharing with OneRep.” Mr. Shelest said any other old domains that may be found and associated with his name are no longer being operated by him.
“I get it,” Shelest wrote. “My affiliation with a people search business may look odd from the outside. In truth, if I hadn’t taken that initial path with a deep dive into how people search sites work, Onerep wouldn’t have the best tech and team in the space. Still, I now appreciate that we did not make this more clear in the past and I’m aiming to do better in the future.” The full statement is available here (PDF).
Original story:
Historic WHOIS records for onerep.com show it was registered for many years to a resident of Sioux Falls, SD for a completely unrelated site. But around Sept. 2015 the domain switched from the registrar GoDaddy.com to eNom, and the registration records were hidden behind privacy protection services. DomainTools indicates around this time onerep.com started using domain name servers from DNS provider constellix.com. Likewise, Nuwber.com first appeared in late 2015, was also registered through eNom, and also started using constellix.com for DNS at nearly the same time.
Listed on LinkedIn as a former product manager at OneRep.com between 2015 and 2018 is Dimitri Bukuyazau, who says their hometown is Warsaw, Poland. While this LinkedIn profile (linkedin.com/in/dzmitrybukuyazau) does not mention Nuwber, a search on this name in Google turns up a 2017 blog post from privacyduck.com, which laid out a number of reasons to support a conclusion that OneRep and Nuwber.com were the same company.
“Any people search profiles containing your Personally Identifiable Information that were on Nuwber.com were also mirrored identically on OneRep.com, down to the relatives’ names and address histories,” Privacyduck.com wrote. The post continued:
“Both sites offered the same immediate opt-out process. Both sites had the same generic contact and support structure. They were – and remain – the same company (even PissedConsumer.com advocates this fact: https://nuwber.pissedconsumer.com/nuwber-and-onerep-20160707878520.html).”
“Things changed in early 2016 when OneRep.com began offering privacy removal services right alongside their own open displays of your personal information. At this point when you found yourself on Nuwber.com OR OneRep.com, you would be provided with the option of opting-out your data on their site for free – but also be highly encouraged to pay them to remove it from a slew of other sites (and part of that payment was removing you from their own site, Nuwber.com, as a benefit of their service).”
Reached via LinkedIn, Mr. Bukuyazau declined to answer questions, such as whether he ever worked at Nuwber.com. However, Constella Intelligence finds two interesting email addresses for employees at nuwber.com: d.bu@nuwber.com, and d.bu+figure-eight.com@nuwber.com, which was registered under the name “Dzmitry.”
PrivacyDuck’s claims about how onerep.com appeared and behaved in the early days are not readily verifiable because the domain onerep.com has been completely excluded from the Wayback Machine at archive.org. The Wayback Machine will honor such requests if they come directly from the owner of the domain in question.
Still, Mr. Shelest’s name, phone number and email also appear in the domain registration records for a truly dizzying number of country-specific people-search services, including pplcrwlr.in, pplcrwlr.fr, pplcrwlr.dk, pplcrwlr.jp, peeepl.br.com, peeepl.in, peeepl.it and peeepl.co.uk.
The same details appear in the WHOIS registration records for the now-defunct people-search sites waatpp.de, waatp1.fr, azersab.com, and ahavoila.com, a people-search service for French citizens.
The German people-search site waatp.de.
A search on the email address dmitrcox@gmail.com suggests Mr. Shelest was previously involved in rather aggressive email marketing campaigns. In 2010, an anonymous source leaked to KrebsOnSecurity the financial and organizational records of Spamit, which at the time was easily the largest Russian-language pharmacy spam affiliate program in the world.
Spamit paid spammers a hefty commission every time someone bought male enhancement drugs from any of their spam-advertised websites. Mr. Shelest’s email address stood out because immediately after the Spamit database was leaked, KrebsOnSecurity searched all of the Spamit affiliate email addresses to determine if any of them corresponded to social media accounts at Facebook.com (at the time, Facebook allowed users to search profiles by email address).
That mapping, which was done mainly by generous graduate students at my alma mater George Mason University, revealed that dmitrcox@gmail.com was used by a Spamit affiliate, albeit not a very profitable one. That same Facebook profile for Mr. Shelest is still active, and it says he is married and living in Minsk [Update, Mar. 16: Mr. Shelest’s Facebook account is no longer active].
The Italian people-search website peeepl.it.
Scrolling down Mr. Shelest’s Facebook page to posts made more than ten years ago show him liking the Facebook profile pages for a large number of other people-search sites, including findita.com, findmedo.com, folkscan.com, huntize.com, ifindy.com, jupery.com, look2man.com, lookerun.com, manyp.com, peepull.com, perserch.com, persuer.com, pervent.com, piplenter.com, piplfind.com, piplscan.com, popopke.com, pplsorce.com, qimeo.com, scoutu2.com, search64.com, searchay.com, seekmi.com, selfabc.com, socsee.com, srching.com, toolooks.com, upearch.com, webmeek.com, and many country-code variations of viadin.ca (e.g. viadin.hk, viadin.com and viadin.de).
The people-search website popopke.com.
Domaintools.com finds that all of the domains mentioned in the last paragraph were registered to the email address dmitrcox@gmail.com.
Mr. Shelest has not responded to multiple requests for comment. KrebsOnSecurity also sought comment from onerep.com, which likewise has not responded to inquiries about its founder’s many apparent conflicts of interest. In any event, these practices would seem to contradict the goal Onerep has stated on its site: “We believe that no one should compromise personal online security and get a profit from it.”
The people-search website findmedo.com.
Max Anderson is chief growth officer at 360 Privacy, a legitimate privacy company that works to keep its clients’ data off of more than 400 data broker and people-search sites. Anderson said it is concerning to see a direct link between between a data removal service and data broker websites.
“I would consider it unethical to run a company that sells people’s information, and then charge those same people to have their information removed,” Anderson said.
Last week, KrebsOnSecurity published an analysis of the people-search data broker giant Radaris, whose consumer profiles are deep enough to rival those of far more guarded data broker resources available to U.S. police departments and other law enforcement personnel.
That story revealed that the co-founders of Radaris are two native Russian brothers who operate multiple Russian-language dating services and affiliate programs. It also appears many of the Radaris founders’ businesses have ties to a California marketing firm that works with a Russian state-run media conglomerate currently sanctioned by the U.S. government.
KrebsOnSecurity will continue investigating the history of various consumer data brokers and people-search providers. If any readers have inside knowledge of this industry or key players within it, please consider reaching out to krebsonsecurity at gmail.com.
Update, March 15, 11:35 a.m. ET: Many readers have pointed out something that was somehow overlooked amid all this research: The Mozilla Foundation, the company that runs the Firefox Web browser, has launched a data removal service called Mozilla Monitor that bundles OneRep. That notice says Mozilla Monitor is offered as a free or paid subscription service.
“The free data breach notification service is a partnership with Have I Been Pwned (“HIBP”),” the Mozilla Foundation explains. “The automated data deletion service is a partnership with OneRep to remove personal information published on publicly available online directories and other aggregators of information about individuals (“Data Broker Sites”).”
In a statement shared with KrebsOnSecurity.com, Mozilla said they did assess OneRep’s data removal service to confirm it acts according to privacy principles advocated at Mozilla.
“We were aware of the past affiliations with the entities named in the article and were assured they had ended prior to our work together,” the statement reads. “We’re now looking into this further. We will always put the privacy and security of our customers first and will provide updates as needed.”
Related tags
The U.S. government today announced a coordinated crackdown against QakBot, a complex malware family used by multiple cybercrime groups to lay the groundwork for ransomware infections. The international law enforcement operation involved seizing control over the botnet’s online infrastructure, and quietly removing the Qakbot malware from tens of thousands of infected Microsoft Windows computers.
Dutch authorities inside a data center with servers tied to the botnet. Image: Dutch National Police.
In an international operation announced today dubbed “Duck Hunt,” the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) said they obtained court orders to remove Qakbot from infected devices, and to seize servers used to control the botnet.
“This is the most significant technological and financial operation ever led by the Department of Justice against a botnet,” said Martin Estrada, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California, at a press conference this morning in Los Angeles.
Estrada said Qakbot has been implicated in 40 different ransomware attacks over the past 18 months, intrusions that collectively cost victims more than $58 million in losses.
Emerging in 2007 as a banking trojan, QakBot (a.k.a. Qbot and Pinkslipbot) has morphed into an advanced malware strain now used by multiple cybercriminal groups to prepare newly compromised networks for ransomware infestations. QakBot is most commonly delivered via email phishing lures disguised as something legitimate and time-sensitive, such as invoices or work orders.
Don Alway, assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles field office, said federal investigators gained access to an online panel that allowed cybercrooks to monitor and control the actions of the botnet. From there, investigators obtained court-ordered approval to instruct all infected systems to uninstall Qakbot and to disconnect themselves from the botnet, Alway said.
The DOJ says their access to the botnet’s control panel revealed that Qakbot had been used to infect more than 700,000 machines in the past year alone, including 200,000 systems in the United States.
Working with law enforcement partners in France, Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands, Romania and the United Kingdom, the DOJ said it was able to seize more than 50 Internet servers tied to the malware network, and nearly $9 million in ill-gotten cryptocurrency from QakBot’s cybercriminal overlords. The DOJ declined to say whether any suspects were questioned or arrested in connection with Qakbot, citing an ongoing investigation.
According to recent figures from the managed security firm Reliaquest, QakBot is by far the most prevalent malware “loader” — malicious software used to secure access to a hacked network and help drop additional malware payloads. Reliaquest says QakBot infections accounted for nearly one-third of all loaders observed in the wild during the first six months of this year.
Qakbot/Qbot was once again the top malware loader observed in the wild in the first six months of 2023. Source: Reliaquest.com.
Researchers at AT&T Alien Labs say the crooks responsible for maintaining the QakBot botnet have rented their creation to various cybercrime groups over the years. More recently, however, QakBot has been closely associated with ransomware attacks from Black Basta, a prolific Russian-language criminal group that was thought to have spun off from the Conti ransomware gang in early 2022.
Today’s operation is not the first time the U.S. government has used court orders to remotely disinfect systems compromised with malware. In May 2023, the DOJ quietly removed malware from computers around the world infected by the “Snake” malware, an even older malware family that has been tied to Russian intelligence agencies.
Documents published by the DOJ in support of today’s takedown state that beginning on Aug. 25, 2023, law enforcement gained access to the Qakbot botnet, redirected botnet traffic to and through servers controlled by law enforcement, and instructed Qakbot-infected computers to download a Qakbot Uninstall file that uninstalled Qakbot malware from the infected computer.
“The Qakbot Uninstall file did not remediate other malware that was already installed on infected computers,” the government explained. “Instead, it was designed to prevent additional Qakbot malware from being installed on the infected computer by untethering the victim computer from the Qakbot botnet.”
The DOJ said it also recovered more than 6.5 million stolen passwords and other credentials, and that it has shared this information with two websites that let users check to see if their credentials were exposed: Have I Been Pwned, and a “Check Your Hack” website erected by the Dutch National Police.
Further reading:
–The DOJ’s application for a search warrant application tied to Qakbot uninstall file (PDF)
–The search warrant application connected to QakBot server infrastructure in the United States (PDF)
–The government’s application for a warrant to seize virtual currency from the QakBot operators (PDF)
–A technical breakdown from SecureWorks
It’s not often that a zero-day vulnerability causes a network security vendor to urge customers to physically remove and decommission an entire line of affected hardware — as opposed to just applying software updates. But experts say that is exactly what transpired this week with Barracuda Networks, as the company struggled to combat a sprawling malware threat which appears to have undermined its email security appliances in such a fundamental way that they can no longer be safely updated with software fixes.
The Barracuda Email Security Gateway (ESG) 900 appliance.
Campbell, Calif. based Barracuda said it hired incident response firm Mandiant on May 18 after receiving reports about unusual traffic originating from its Email Security Gateway (ESG) devices, which are designed to sit at the edge of an organization’s network and scan all incoming and outgoing email for malware.
On May 19, Barracuda identified that the malicious traffic was taking advantage of a previously unknown vulnerability in its ESG appliances, and on May 20 the company pushed a patch for the flaw to all affected appliances (CVE-2023-2868).
In its security advisory, Barracuda said the vulnerability existed in the Barracuda software component responsible for screening attachments for malware. More alarmingly, the company said it appears attackers first started exploiting the flaw in October 2022.
But on June 6, Barracuda suddenly began urging its ESG customers to wholesale rip out and replace — not patch — affected appliances.
“Impacted ESG appliances must be immediately replaced regardless of patch version level,” the company’s advisory warned. “Barracuda’s recommendation at this time is full replacement of the impacted ESG.”
In a statement, Barracuda said it will be providing the replacement product to impacted customers at no cost, and that not all ESG appliances were compromised.
“No other Barracuda product, including our SaaS email solutions, were impacted by this vulnerability,” the company said. “If an ESG appliance is displaying a notification in the User Interface, the ESG appliance had indicators of compromise. If no notification is displayed, we have no reason to believe that the appliance has been compromised at this time.”
Nevertheless, the statement says that “out of an abundance of caution and in furtherance of our containment strategy, we recommend impacted customers replace their compromised appliance.”
“As of June 8, 2023, approximately 5% of active ESG appliances worldwide have shown any evidence of known indicators of compromise due to the vulnerability,” the statement continues. “Despite deployment of additional patches based on known IOCs, we continue to see evidence of ongoing malware activity on a subset of the compromised appliances. Therefore, we would like customers to replace any compromised appliance with a new unaffected device.”
Rapid7‘s Caitlin Condon called this remarkable turn of events “fairly stunning,” and said there appear to be roughly 11,000 vulnerable ESG devices still connected to the Internet worldwide.
“The pivot from patch to total replacement of affected devices is fairly stunning and implies the malware the threat actors deployed somehow achieves persistence at a low enough level that even wiping the device wouldn’t eradicate attacker access,” Condon wrote.
Barracuda said the malware was identified on a subset of appliances that allowed the attackers persistent backdoor access to the devices, and that evidence of data exfiltration was identified on some systems.
Rapid7 said it has seen no evidence that attackers are using the flaw to move laterally within victim networks. But that may be small consolation for Barracuda customers now coming to terms with the notion that foreign cyberspies probably have been hoovering up all their email for months.
Nicholas Weaver, a researcher at University of California, Berkeley’s International Computer Science Institute (ICSI), said it is likely that the malware was able to corrupt the underlying firmware that powers the ESG devices in some irreparable way.
“One of the goals of malware is to be hard to remove, and this suggests the malware compromised the firmware itself to make it really hard to remove and really stealthy,” Weaver said. “That’s not a ransomware actor, that’s a state actor. Why? Because a ransomware actor doesn’t care about that level of access. They don’t need it. If they’re going for data extortion, it’s more like a smash-and-grab. If they’re going for data ransoming, they’re encrypting the data itself — not the machines.”
In addition to replacing devices, Barracuda says ESG customers should also rotate any credentials connected to the appliance(s), and check for signs of compromise dating back to at least October 2022 using the network and endpoint indicators the company has released publicly.
Update, June 9, 11:55 a.m. ET: Barracuda has issued an updated statement about the incident, portions of which are now excerpted above.
Email scammers sent an Uber to the home of an 80-year-old woman who responded to a well-timed email scam, in a bid to make sure she went to the bank and wired money to the fraudsters. In this case, the woman figured out she was being scammed before embarking for the bank, but her story is a chilling reminder of how far crooks will go these days to rip people off.
Travis Hardaway is a former music teacher turned app developer from Towson, Md. Hardaway said his mother last month replied to an email she received regarding an appliance installation from BestBuy/GeekSquad. Hardaway said the timing of the scam email couldn’t have been worse: His mom’s dishwasher had just died, and she’d paid to have a new one delivered and installed.
“I think that’s where she got confused, because she thought the email was about her dishwasher installation,” Hardaway told KrebsOnSecurity.
Hardaway said his mom initiated a call to the phone number listed in the phony BestBuy email, and that the scammers told her she owed $160 for the installation, which seemed right at the time. Then the scammers asked her to install remote administration software on her computer so that they could control the machine from afar and assist her in making the payment.
After she logged into her bank and savings accounts with scammers watching her screen, the fraudster on the phone claimed that instead of pulling $160 out of her account, they accidentally transferred $160,000 to her account. They said they they needed her help to make sure the money was “returned.”
“They took control of her screen and said they had accidentally transferred $160,000 into her account,” Hardaway said. “The person on the phone told her he was going to lose his job over this transfer error, that he didn’t know what to do. So they sent her some information about where to wire the money, and asked her to go to the bank. But she told them, ‘I don’t drive,’ and they told her, “No problem, we’re sending an Uber to come help you to the bank.'”
Hardaway said he was out of town when all this happened, and that thankfully his mom eventually grew exasperated and gave up trying to help the scammers.
“They told her they were sending an Uber to pick her up and that it was on its way,” Hardaway said. “I don’t know if the Uber ever got there. But my mom went over to the neighbor’s house and they saw it for what it was — a scam.”
Hardaway said he has since wiped her computer, reinstalled the operating system and changed her passwords. But he says the incident has left his mom rattled.
“She’s really second-guessing herself now,” Hardaway said. “She’s not computer-savvy, and just moved down here from Boston during COVID to be near us, but she’s living by herself and feeling isolated and vulnerable, and stuff like this doesn’t help.”
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), seniors are often targeted because they tend to be trusting and polite. More importantly, they also usually have financial savings, own a home, and have good credit—all of which make them attractive to scammers.
“Additionally, seniors may be less inclined to report fraud because they don’t know how, or they may be too ashamed of having been scammed,” the FBI warned in May. “They might also be concerned that their relatives will lose confidence in their abilities to manage their own financial affairs. And when an elderly victim does report a crime, they may be unable to supply detailed information to investigators.”
In 2021, more than 92,000 victims over the age of 60 reported losses of $1.7 billion to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). The FBI says that represents a 74 percent increase in losses over losses reported in 2020.
The abuse of ride-sharing services to scam the elderly is not exactly new. Authorities in Tampa, Fla. say they’re investigating an incident from December 2021 where fraudsters who’d stolen $700,000 from elderly grandparents used Uber rides to pick up bundles of cash from their victims.
At the outset of their federal criminal trial for hijacking vast swaths of Internet addresses for use in large-scale email spam campaigns, three current or former executives at online advertising firm Adconion Direct (now Amobee) have pleaded guilty to lesser misdemeanor charges of fraud and misrepresentation via email.
In October 2018, prosecutors in the Southern District of California named four Adconion employees — Jacob Bychak, Mark Manoogian, Petr Pacas, and Mohammed Abdul Qayyum — in a ten-count indictment (PDF) on felony charges of conspiracy, wire fraud, and electronic mail fraud.
The government alleged that between December 2010 and September 2014, the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to identify or pay to identify blocks of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses that were registered to others but which were otherwise inactive.
Prosecutors said the men also sent forged letters to an Internet hosting firm claiming they had been authorized by the registrants of the inactive IP addresses to use that space for their own purposes.
All four defendants pleaded not guilty when they were charged back in 2018, but this week Bychak, Manoogian and Qayyum each entered a plea deal.
“The defendants’ jobs with Adconion were to acquire fresh IP addresses and employ other measures to circumvent the spam filters,” reads a statement released today by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California, which said the defendants would pay $100,000 in fines each and perform 100 hours of community service.
“To conceal Adconion’s ties to the stolen IP addresses and the spam sent from these IP addresses, the defendants used a host of DBAs, virtual addresses, and fake names provided by the company,” the statement continues. “While defendants touted ties to well-known name brands, the email marketing campaigns associated with the hijacked IP addresses included advertisements such as ‘BigBeautifulWomen,’ ‘iPhone4S Promos,’ and ‘LatinLove[Cost-per-Click].'”
None of the three plea agreements are currently available on PACER, the online federal court document clearinghouse. However, PACER does show that on June 7 — the same day the pleas were entered by the defendants — the government submitted to the court a superseding set of just two misdemeanor charges (PDF) of fraud in connection with email.
Another document filed in the case says the fourth defendant — Pacas — accepted a deferred prosecution deal, which includes a probationary period and a required $50,000 “donation” to a federal “crime victims fund.”
There are fewer than four billion so-called “Internet Protocol version 4” or IPv4 addresses available for use, but the vast majority of them have already been allocated. The global dearth of available IP addresses has turned them into a commodity wherein each IP can fetch between $15-$25 on the open market.
This has led to boom times for those engaged in the acquisition and sale of IP address blocks, but it has likewise emboldened those who specialize in absconding with and spamming from dormant IP address blocks without permission from the rightful owners.
In May, prosecutors published information about the source of some IP address ranges from which the Adconion employees allegedly spammed. For example, the government found the men leased some of their IP address ranges from a Dutch company that’s been tied to a scandal involving more than four million addresses siphoned from the African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC), the nonprofit responsible for overseeing IP address allocation for African organizations.
In 2019, AFRINIC fired a top employee after it emerged that in 2013 he quietly commandeered millions of IPs from defunct African entities or from those that were long ago acquired by other firms, and then conspired to sell an estimated $50 million worth of the IPs to marketers based outside Africa.
“Exhibit A” in a recent government court filing shows that in 2013 Adconion leased more than 65,000 IP addresses from Inspiring Networks, a Dutch network services company. In 2020, Inspiring Networks and its director Maikel Uerlings were named in a dogged, multi-part investigation by South African news outlet MyBroadband.co.za and researcher Ron Guilmette as one of two major beneficiaries of the four million IP addresses looted from AFRINIC by its former employee.
Exhibit A, from a May 2022 filing by U.S. federal prosecutors.
The address block in the above image — 196.246.0.0/16 — was reportedly later reclaimed by AFRINIC following an investigation. Inspiring Networks has not responded to requests for comment.
Prosecutors allege the Adconion employees also obtained hijacked IP address blocks from Daniel Dye, another man tied to this case who was charged separately. For many years, Dye was a system administrator for Optinrealbig, a Colorado company that relentlessly pimped all manner of junk email, from mortgage leads and adult-related services to counterfeit products and Viagra. In 2018, Dye pleaded guilty to violations of the CAN-SPAM Act.
Optinrealbig’s CEO was the spam king Scott Richter, who changed the name of the company to Media Breakaway after being successfully sued for spamming by AOL, Microsoft, MySpace, and the New York Attorney General Office, among others. In 2008, this author penned a column for The Washington Post detailing how Media Breakaway had hijacked tens of thousands of IP addresses from a defunct San Francisco company for use in its spamming operations.
The last-minute plea deals by the Adconion employees were reminiscent of another recent federal criminal prosecution for IP address sleight-of-hand. In November 2021, the CEO of South Carolina technology firm Micfo pleaded guilty just two days into his trial, admitting 20 counts of wire fraud in connection with an elaborate network of phony companies set up to obtain more than 700,000 IPs from the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) — AFRINIC’s counterpart in North America.
Adconion was acquired in June 2014 by Amobee, a Redwood City, Calif. online ad platform that has catered to some of the world’s biggest brands. Amobee’s parent firm — Singapore-based communications giant Singtel — bought Amobee for $321 million in March 2012.
But as Reuters reported in 2021, Amobee cost Singtel nearly twice as much in the last year alone — $589 million — in a “non-cash impairment charge” Singtel disclosed to investors. Marketing industry blog Digiday.com reported in February that Singtel was seeking to part ways with its ad tech subsidiary.
One final note about Amobee: In response to my 2019 story on the criminal charges against the Adconion executives, Amobee issued a statement saying “Amobee has fully cooperated with the government’s investigation of this 2017 matter which pertains to alleged activities that occurred years prior to Amobee’s acquisition of the company.”
Yet as the government’s indictment points out, the alleged hijacking activities took place up until September 2014, which was after Amobee’s acquisition of Adconion Direct in June 2014. Also, the IP address ranges that the Adconion executives were prosecuted for hijacking were all related to incidents in 2013 and 2014, which is hardly “years prior to Amobee’s acquisition of the company.”
Amobee has not yet responded to requests for comment.
So is your smart speaker really listening in on your conversations?
That’s the crux of a popular privacy topic. Namely, are we giving up some of our privacy in exchange for the convenience of a smart speaker that does our bidding with the sound of our voice? After all, you’re using it to do everything from search for music, order online, and control the lights and temperature in your home.
What is your smart speaker really hearing—and recording?
Let’s take a look at what’s going on inside of your smart speaker, how it processes your requests, and what companies do with the recordings and transcripts of your voice.
More or less, smart speakers are listening to all the time. Each smart speaker has its own “wake word” that it listens for, like Alexa, Siri, or Google. When the device hears that wake word or thinks it hears it, it begins recording and awaits your verbal commands. Unless you have the microphone or listening feature turned off, your device indeed actively listens for that wake word all the time.
Here’s where things get interesting, though. There’s a difference between “listening” and “recording.” The act of listening is passive. Your smart speaker is waiting to hear its name. That’s it. Once it does hear its name, it begins recording for a few seconds to record your command. From there, your spoken command goes into the company’s cloud for processing by way of an encrypted connection.
There are exceptions to when your command may go to the company’s cloud for processing, like Siri on iPhones, which according to Apple, “You don’t sign in with your Apple ID to use Siri, and the audio of your requests is processed entirely on your iPhone.” Also, Google Assistant may process some requests without going to the cloud, like “When a user triggers a smart home Action that has a local fulfillment path, Assistant sends the EXECUTE intent or QUERY intent to the Google Home or Google Nest device rather than the cloud fulfillment.”
In the cases where information does go to the cloud, processing entails a few things. First, it makes sure that the wake word was heard. If it’s determined that the wake word was indeed spoken (or something close enough to it—more on that in a minute), the speaker follows through on the request or command. Depending on your settings, that activity may get stored in your account history, whether as a voice recording, transcript, or both. If the wake word was not detected, processing ends at that point.
Enter the issue of mistaken wake words. While language models and processing technologies used by smart speakers are constantly evolving, there are occasions where a smart speaker acts as if a wake word was heard when it simply wasn’t said. Several studies on the topic have been published in recent years. In the case of research from Northeastern University, it was found that dialogue from popular television shows could be interpreted as wake words that trigger recording. For example, their findings cite:
“We then looked at other shows with a similarly high dialogue density (such as Gilmore Girls and The Office) and found that they also have a high number of activations, which suggests that the number of activations is at least in part related to the density of dialogue. However, we have also noticed that if we consider just the amount of dialogue (in a number of words), Narcos is the one that triggers the most activations, even if it has the lowest dialogue density.”
Of interest is not just the volume of dialogue, but the pronunciation of the dialogue:
“We investigated the actual dialogue that produced Narcos‘ activations and we have seen that it was mostly Spanish dialogue and poorly pronounced English dialogue. This suggests that, in general, words that are not pronounced clearly may lead to more unwanted activations.”
Research such as this suggests that smart speakers at the time had room for improvement when it comes to properly detect wake words, thus leading to parts of conversation being recorded without the owner intending it. If you own a smart speaker, I wouldn’t be too surprised to hear that you’ve had some issues like that from time to time yourself.
As mentioned above, the makers of smart speakers make constant improvements to their devices and services, which may include the review of commands from users to make sure they are interpreted correctly. There are typically two types of review—machine and human. As the names suggest, a machine review is a digital analysis and human reviews entail someone listening to and evaluating a recorded command or reading and evaluating a transcript of a written command.
However, several manufacturers let you exercise some control over that. In fact, you’ll find that they post a fair share of articles about this collection and review process, along with your choices for opting in or out as you wish:
The quickest way to ensure a more private experience with your smart speaker is to disable listening—or turn it off entirely. Depending on the device, you may be able to do this with the push of a button, a voice command, or some combination of the two. This will keep the device from listening for its wake word. Likewise, this makes your smart speaker unresponsive to voice commands until you enable them again. This approach works well if you decide there are certain stretches of the day where your smart speaker doesn’t need to be on call.
Yet let’s face it, the whole idea of a smart speaker is to have it on and ready to take your requests. For those stretches where you leave it on, there’s another step you can take to shore up your privacy.
In addition to making sure you’re opted out of the review process mentioned above, you can also delete your recordings associated with your voice commands.
Managing your voice history like this gives you yet one more way you can take control of your privacy. In many ways, it’s like deleting your search history from your browser. And when you consider just how much activity and how many queries your smart speaker may see over the course of days, weeks, and months, you can imagine just how much information that captures about you and your family. Some of it is undoubtedly personal. Deleting that history can help protect your privacy in the event that information ever gets breached or somehow ends up in the hands of a bad actor.
Lastly, above and beyond these privacy tips for your smart speakers, comprehensive online protection will help you look out for your privacy overall. In the case of ours, we provide a full range of privacy and device protection, along with identity theft protection that includes $1M identity theft coverage, identity monitoring, and identity restoration assistance from recovery pros—and antivirus too, of course. Together, they can make your time spent online far more secure.
You’re the smart one in this relationship
With privacy becoming an increasingly hot topic (rightfully so!), several companies have been taking steps to make the process of managing yours easier and a more prevalent part of their digital experience. As you can see, there are several ways you can take charge of how your smart speaker uses, and doesn’t use, your voice.
It used to be that many of these settings were tucked away deep in menus, rather than something companies would tout on web pages dedicated to privacy. So as far as smart speakers go, the information is out there, and I hope this article helps make the experience with yours more private and secure.
The post Smarter Homes & Gardens: Smart Speaker Privacy appeared first on McAfee Blog.
If you’re thinking about crypto, one of the first things you’ll want to do is get yourself a good wallet.
Topping the several important things a new cryptocurrency investor needs to think about is security. Rightfully so. Cryptocurrency is indeed subject to all kinds of fraud, theft, and phishing attacks, just like the credentials and accounts we keep online.
But here’s the catch. Lost or stolen cryptocurrency is terrifically difficult to recover. By and large, it doesn’t enjoy the same protections and regulations as traditional currency and financial transactions. For example, you can always call your bank or credit card company to report theft or contest a fraudulent charge. Not the case with crypto. With that, you’ll absolutely need a safe place to secure it. Likewise, in the U.S. many banks are FDIC insured, which protects depositors if the bank fails. Again, not so with crypto.
So, when it comes to cryptocurrency, security is everything.
Cryptocurrency theft offers hackers an immediate payoff. It’s altogether different from, say, hacking the database of a Fortune 500 company. With a data breach, a hacker may round up armloads of personal data and information, yet it takes additional steps for them to translate those stolen records into money. With cryptocurrency theft, the dollars shift from the victim to the crook in milliseconds. It’s like digital pickpocketing. As you can guess, that makes cryptocurrency a big target.
And that’s where your wallet will come in, a place where you store the digital credentials associated with the cryptocurrency you own. The issue is doing it securely. Let’s take a look at the different wallets out there and then talk about how you can secure them.
Broadly, there are two general categories of wallets. First, let’s look at what these wallets store.
A wallet contains public and private “keys” that are used to conduct transactions. The public key often takes the form of an address, one that anyone can see and then use to send cryptocurrency. The private key is exactly that. Highly complex and taking many forms that range from multi-word phrases to strings of code, it’s your unique key that proves your ownership of your cryptocurrency and that allows you to spend and send crypto. Needless to say, never share your private key.
With that, there are two ways to store your keys—in a hot wallet or a cold wallet.
Hot Wallets:
|
Cold Wallets:
|
As you can see, the benefit of a hot wallet is that you can load it up with cryptocurrency, ready for spending. However, it’s the riskiest place to store cryptocurrency because it’s connected to the internet, making it a target for hacks and attacks.
In addition to that, a hot wallet is connected to a cryptocurrency exchange, which makes the transfer of cryptocurrencies possible. The issue with that is all cryptocurrency exchanges are not created equal, particularly when it comes to security. Some of the lesser-established exchanges may not utilize strong protocols, likely making a target for attack. Even the more established and trusted exchanges have fallen victim to attacks—where crooks have walked away with millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars.
While the funds in cold wallets are far less liquid, they’re far more secure because they’re not connected to the internet. In this way, cold wallets are more vault-like and suitable for long-term storage of larger sums of funds. But cold wallets place a great deal of responsibility on the holder. They must be stored in a physically secure place, and be backed up, because if you lose that one device or printout that contains your cryptocurrency info, you lose the cryptocurrency altogether. Within the cold wallet category, there are a few different types:
Several manufacturers make storage devices specifically designed to store cryptocurrency, complete with specific features for security, durability, and compatibility with many (yet not always all) of the different cryptocurrencies on the market. An online search will turn up several options, so doing your homework here will be very important—such as which devices have the best track record for security, which devices are the most reliable overall, and which ones are compatible with the crypto you wish to keep.
Storing cryptocurrency information on a computer or laptop that’s disconnected from the internet (also known as “air-gapped”) is a storage method that’s been in place for some time. However, because computers and laptops are complex devices, they may be less secure than a simpler, purpose-built cryptocurrency device. In short, there are more ways to compromise a computer or laptop with malware that a determined hacker can use to steal information in some rather surprising ways. (Like noise from a compromised computer fan passing information in a sort of Morse Code or generating electromagnetic signals on a compromised computer that nearby devices can use to skim information.)
Ah, good old paper. Write down a code and keep it secure. Simple, right? In truth, creating a paper wallet can be one of the most involved methods of all the cold storage options out there. Bitcoin offers a step-by-step walkthrough of the process that you can see for yourself. Once done, though, you’ll have a piece of paper with a public address for loading cryptocurrency into your paper cold wallet, along with a private key. One note: Bitcoin and others recommend never reusing a paper cold wallet once it’s connected to a hot wallet. You should go through the process of creating a new cold paper wallet each time.
Physical coins are a special case and are relatively new on the scene. They’re a physical coin minted with a tamper-resistant sticker that indicates the actual value of the coin. Like other methods of cold wallet storage, this calls for keeping it in a safe place, because it’s pretty much like a wad of cash. And like cash, if it’s stolen, it’s gone for good. Also note that a cryptocurrency holder must work with a third party to mint and deliver the coin, which has its own costs and risks involved.
With that look at wallets, let’s see what it takes to secure them. It may seem like there’s plenty to do here. That’s because there is, which goes to show just how much responsibility falls on the shoulders of the cryptocurrency holder. Of course, this is your money we’re talking about, so let’s dive into the details.
Whatever form your storage takes, back it up. And back it up again. Cryptocurrency holders should make multiple copies just in case one is lost, destroyed, or otherwise inaccessible. For example, one story that’s made the rounds is of a IT engineer in the UK who accidentally threw away an old hard drive with his cryptocurrency key on it, one that held 7,500 bitcoins, worth millions of dollars. Redundancy is key. Back up the entire wallet right away and then often after that.
With redundant backups in place, store them in places that are physically secure. It’s not uncommon for crypto holders to use fireproof safes and safe deposit boxes at banks for this purpose, which only highlights the earlier point that a wallet is as good as cash in many ways.
This will help prevent malware from stealing crypto, whether or not your device is connected to the internet. Comprehensive online protection software will give you plenty of other benefits as well, including identity theft monitoring and strong password management, two things that can help you protect your investments, and yourself, even further.
Updates often address security issues, ones that hackers will of course try to exploit. Keep everything current and set automatic updates wherever they are available so that you have the latest and greatest.
Just as your bank and other financial accounts offer MFA, do the same here with your crypto. Some extra security-conscious crypto investors will purchase a device for this specific purpose for yet greater protection, such as a separate phone with texting capability. This keeps their crypto transactions separate from the multitude of other things they do on their everyday smartphone, effectively putting up a wall between these two different digital worlds.
Two things fall under this category. One, the less you say about the crypto investments you make, the less word gets around, which can help keep hackers out of the loop. Particularly on social media! Two, consider setting up a unique email account that you only use for crypto. The less you associate your crypto accounts with other financial accounts like your banking and online payment apps, the more difficult it is to compromise several accounts in one fell swoop.
Just like hackers send phishing emails with an eye on accessing your bank accounts, credit cards, and so on, they’ll do much the same to get at your crypto accounts. The target may be different, that being your crypto, but the attack is very much the same. An email will direct you to a hacker’s website, using some sort of phony pretense, get-rich-quick-scheme, or scare tactic. Once there, they’ll ask for private key information and then simply steal the funds. And it’s not just email. Hackers have used online ads to phish for victims as well.
As you can see, these security measures rely almost exclusively on you. If something happens to you, that could make recovering your funds a real problem. Consider reaching out to someone you trust and let them know where you’re storing your wallets and information. That way, you’ll have some assistance ready in the event of an emergency or issue.
The very things that define cryptocurrency—the anonymity of ownership, the lack of banking institutions, the light or non-existent regulation—all have major security implications. Add in the fact that you’re your own safety net here and it’s easy to see that crypto is something that requires plenty of planning and careful through before diving into. Getting knowledgeable about security, how you’ll protect your crypto, should absolutely top your list before investing.
The post Cold Wallets, Hot Wallets: The Basics of Storing Your Crypto Securely appeared first on McAfee Blog.
Social media is a great place to connect with friends and family. Unfortunately, it is also a great place for misinformation to run rampant, and it is a virtual treasure chest for cybercriminals to steal personal information. Over 25 million Canadians own a social media account, and more than 80% of the Canadian population is expected to be on social media by 2025.
Check out this roundup of common social media scams so you can network intelligently, spot misinformation, and stop its spread.
The classic saying of “Don’t believe everything you see on TV” applies neatly to “Don’t believe everything you read on social media.” There is a resurgence of false news reports circulating on social media surrounding COVID-19 and the vaccine. For example, 5G aiding the spread of the virus and the preventive properties of garlic are just two of the rumors about COVID-19.
Misinformation leads to chaos and is a major threat to public health. Before you reshare a post or article, it is great to take a few minutes to digest the message, determine if it is true, and ask yourself if friends and family would genuinely benefit if they heard the news it carries.
There are a few tell-tale signs of fake news posts. First, they often try to inspire extreme emotions, such as rage and indignation, to prompt people to share immediately. Next, fake news reports are frequently poorly written and vague about where they received their information. Always try to find the primary source for “facts.” In the case of COVID-19 news, all health tips should be sourced from a licensed medical professional.
If you are ever in doubt about the facts, especially when they deal with public health, do not share the post. Instead, leave the reporting to trained medical professionals. Consult the World Health Organization and the Public Health Agency of Canada or direct your network to #ScienceUpFirst for the latest and most accurate reports about COVID-19 and the vaccine.
There was a recent data leak at Facebook, and the contents of about half a billion accounts were posted on a hacking website, including 3.49 million Canadian accounts. Hackers can get a lot of mileage out of just one social media profile because it contains all the greatest hits of information needed to verify an identity.
Most profiles list your real full name, birthday, your relationship status, your hometown, and contact information. Also, hackers can skim a user’s posting history to find even more personal details. Many social media users have posted at one time or another a “get to know you” post, where they list many revealing facts. These posts are a pot of gold to cybercriminals. They are basically lists of possible answers to security questions: Where did you go to primary school? What was the model of your first car? What is the name of your favorite stuffed animal?
Another recent trend that can make you vulnerable in case of a data leak is posting COVID-19 vaccine cards. Social media users are excited to share the big milestone of getting their first shot. What they might not realize is that vaccine cards contain vital personal information that could be used by malicious actors. There are alternative ways to share the happy news. Instead, post a picture of the fun bandage the nurse put on your arm or take a selfie outside of the vaccination center.
It is a shame that what you share on social media can be turned against you by cybercriminals, but that does not mean you have to stop sharing details about your life. Instead of posting personal details online that could be used maliciously in the event of a data leak, think about creating an exclusive email newsletter or secure group chat for your closest friends and family.
There is a major thrill when you think you have won something; however, if you receive a notification on social media that you have won a contest, reserve your excitement until you have confirmed its legitimacy. Be especially wary if you do not remember entering a contest.
Contest scams are a type of social engineering tactic used by cybercriminals. Social engineering relies on people’s tendency to trust others. Cybercriminals often capitalize upon extreme emotions, like fear, urgency, and in this case excitement, to trick unsuspecting people into hastily giving up sensitive information.
Phishing is also common in contest scams. Social media users may receive a message that they have won a giveaway and to click on a link to claim their prize. Luckily, easy-to-spot signs of a phishing message include poor grammar, misspellings, and a sense of urgency. Always approach these types of messages with caution. Instead of clicking on any of the links, hover your cursor over them to see where they redirect. If the redirect site URL is suspicious and contains misspellings, steer clear.
If you ever receive a notification on social media that you have won a prize, remain skeptical until you have verified the authenticity. Locate the organization’s official social media page (which you can likely find on their website), and direct message them for more details.
With all of these common scams floating about and waiting to strike, check out these tips to network safely.
The joy of social media is sharing your everyday life with your friends and family. It is fun to have dozens of people wish you a happy birthday on your profile, but consider removing the year of your birthday. Also, consider removing your phone number, home address, and email address from your profile. If a friend or family member wants to get in touch with you, they can personally direct message you. Cybercriminals can take your contact information and full birthday and use it to steal your identity, so it is best not to post it online.
While you may want to share the latest news with your networks, do not share information that you are not sure is true. According to Statistics Canada, only half of Canadians investigated the accuracy of COVID-19 social media posts before they reshared. Do your due diligence and be a part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Even if you are a diligent and intelligent social media user, there is a chance that you could accidentally click on a phishing link. In case this happens, you should have a backup plan to safeguard your devices and your personal information from viruses and malware. Protect your devices with a comprehensive antivirus program, such as McAfee Total Protection. You can rest assured that if you or a member of your family accidentally opens a malicious link, your devices will be safe.
The post Beware of Social Media Scams appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
FreshRSS