Slashdot Mirror


Phishing Site Using Valid SSL Certificates

UnderAttack writes to tell us the Washington Post SecurityFix blog has an interesting article about a new and rather sophisticated phishing scheme. The email not only used the first few digits of the users card number to look more plausible (even though the first part of the number is the same for all cards), but it also used a valid SSL certificate for its domain name."

13 of 368 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Revoke SSL cert? by EvilMonkeySlayer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The problem with that is, in order for the revocation to take effect the user needs to download the root certs update which will be provided by their browser vendor (which in this case will more than likely mean MS) and lets face facts the majority of users never even bother updating, the fickle masses that they are.

    A revoked cert isn't the solution, the solution is fixing the process by which people can get SSL certificates in the first place. There need to be more checks and balances. The current process is essentially; give us your money please, ok here's your certificate.. Enjoy!

  2. Also written up at SANS/ISC by Kelson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Internet Storm Center did a write-up on this case inclusing a hypothetical tale of Joe Sixpack trying to verify the phish, doing (almost) everything right -- typing in the address instead of clicking on the link, checking for an SSL certificate, checking who the cert is registered to, etc, and still getting caught.

    The fatal flaw in the hypothetical course of action is trusting the non-standard domain name...but you can hardly blame Joe Sixpack for that one when so many financial institutions actually use one-off domains or partner sites. I was working on some phishing rules last year and counted something like 5 domains that Citibank used alone.

  3. Sophisticated Phishing by Kelson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No, but a lot of people still have the silly idea that phishing is only as sophisticated as it was 2 years ago, back when it was plaintext, full of misspellings, and sent you to an IP or a GeoCities page.

    Back then, it was hard to imagine people getting fooled by the crude "Send me yore passwerd" level of "attacks" -- and yet people fell victim to it just the same. These days, they're polished enough that you basically have to assume any email that claims to be from your bank is forged, then examine it and try to prove otherwise.

  4. Banks should protect the money, not us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It amazes me that people forget that a banks job is to protect your money.

    The phisher in the end shouldn't be able to get any money from this.

    The banks should have in place a system that secures your money much better than this. It reminds me of the wild west where banks were robbed all the time.

    Like, why do the retailers have to protect the banks? Why do they have to ask for ID when you already presented a valid banking card to them? Is this system insecure? Yes, and that's why they ask for ID. WTF?

    People should consider this the same as a bank getting robbed over and over. If the banks got enough bad press from this then maybe they would do something about it.

    But never forget, this is not money, it's currency backed by nothing of value and could become wortless in a day. People have been trying to tell you this for years, but you people won't read any simple banker history, it's too booring.

    http://www.apfn.net/Doc-100_bankruptcy13.htm
    http://www.federal-reserve.net/
    http://www.converge.org.nz/pirm/fr_paul.htm
    http://batr.org/verity/id6.html

  5. Re:Revoke SSL cert? by Vellmont · · Score: 3, Interesting


    the solution is fixing the process by which people can get SSL certificates in the first place. There need to be more checks and balances. The current process is essentially; give us your money please, ok here's your certificate.. Enjoy!


    How is any cert provider going to know that a phisher is going to use a cert for a similarly named website? If I go and buy the domain mountain-america.com, setup a website that looks like I'm going to sell vacations to the mountains on that URL, get my signed cert, then turn around the next day and make it look like the mtnamerica.org website, how is the cert issuer going to read my mind and know that?

    No, the answer is that banks need to be issueing some kind of security device that does all the verification. I'm fairly certain all of this is technically possible via everyday encryption.

    --
    AccountKiller
  6. Re:un-possible! by mgh02114 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously. I remember in the early 90s, tv ads for banks that ended with "...and remember, our staff will never ask for your credit card number over the phone." I think people *eventually* got the message on that one.


    They do this all the time. Just last week, Discover called and left a message on my machine "This is the security department, we have a question about the activity on your account, please call 800-###-#### to ensure continued service." When I called that number, they started off saying "Please tell me your card number, your mother's maiden name, etc." all to "confirm my identity" I of course refused, hung up, and called the 800 number printed on my credit card. They were understanding, but never acknowledged that they were essentially asking me to give all my personal information to a random person who called my home phone number.

  7. Re:Public school system by sqlrob · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Do browsers check revocation lists? I didn't think so

    Yes. At least IE does. It slows things down if you're on an isolated network, so it's one of the first things I turn off on those machines.

  8. has to be retired-- a rebuttal by way2trivial · · Score: 4, Interesting

    you say, eventually an old trick has to stop being used, I say read the following

    http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  9. Re:Clues for phishers from Geotrust by zacronos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think when it says "misspellings", it doesn't mean the "I trenslated this miself" kind of misspelling in the email body, but rather the "this looks almost like a legitimate URL, unless you notice that it's not spelled correctly" kind of mispelling, which is usually spelled correctly in the link text. Like, for instance, www.citibank.com (as a hypothetical example).

    This is why TFA goes on to say "[...] the technology did not flag the request because there was nothing in the Internet address to indicate the site was at all related to a financial institution." -- because they try to catch URLs that are similar to, but not quite the same as, legitimate URLs of financial institutions.

  10. Phishers have been using SSL since 2004 by miller60 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Phishing scams have been using SSL in attacks since 2004. Last year Netcraft identified more than 450 phishing attacks that used SSL certificates in one form or another. However, the tactics seen in the Mountain America attack are more sophisticated than previous attempts. In many previous attacks the phishing crews have used an https URL with an SSL cert they know will trigger a browser alert, banking on the likelihood that many users will trust the padlock and ignore the certificate. This one is designed to fool more sophisticated users who actually check the certificate.

  11. Re:un-possible! by gutnor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I got exactly the same here in the uk unless that instead of stopping immediatly I do like any joe user I called back the number, gave my credit card number, birth date but before answering for my mother maiden name, I just realised what I was saying and felt the little tickling in the belly meaning stress ...

    I asked the women on the other hand what was that about - why I need to give this info?
    She told me she need 'security check - blabla'
    I asked why they asked me to call and where I was exactly she just told me the name of the bank (thanks,easy) but she needed the security check to give the reason of the call (best excuse ever)...

    I hang up - ( I start to sweat ) - I went straight to the website to find the number I just called in the bank public phonebook but nada ... the number was not even close to any number used by the bank. I googled the number, nothing ... ( arghhhh )

    I called the bank, this time I have to give the security ID again ( after the previous experience, even if you pick the number yourself in your monthly statement, you really feel uneasy )
    I asked the girl what was this number I just called, and what I'm suppose to do know ... she took less than 2 min ( from my point of view, a very big value of 2 ) to find out that this number is not in the bank private directory either...

    Hopefuly the girl ring herself to the mysterious number and found out that it was only a number setup for the billing departement ( yeah I missed a payment :-) ) ...

    They had a valid reason to contact me, I had an urgent action to take but why in hell do they use the same trick the spammers use?
    They use an unknown number not even known from the bank employees ?
    If I did as we are told in the security leaflet given by the very same bank, I should have called the fraud departement of the bank to report the phishing attempt instead of ringing back!

  12. Re:That's why I don't click html links... by value_added · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...users are capable of doing it if they weren't ignorant. 10 years ago when GUI mail readers barely existed... Windows is to blame for dumbing down our computer users to the point of being completely incompetent when it comes to dealing with a non-clicky-clicky interface."

    Congratulations! You've earned extra Slashdot Coolness Points for 1) slamming Windows; 2) insulting the average user; and 3) being blissfully unaware that most normal people actually prefer a GUI interface!

    Perhaps, but more importantly, he offered a reminder that 1) the "Ease of Use" design of Windows and many Windows-based apps does encourage stupidity; 2) GUI apps, despite their added features, can often be inferior to terminal-based programs (in this particular case, even dangerous); and 3) terminal-based programs need not be difficult to use as ordinary people were once perfectly happy typing cryptic-looking commands on a bare screen.

    I'd say each of those is reminders is valuable, and the distinctions made are important.

    This isn't so different than refering to Windows-based viruses as worms as "computer viruses." Put another way, if everyone does indeed want clicky programs and text/html email as another poster suggested, it's perfectly appropriate that they have a clear understanding that any problems they encounter are mostly the result of their preferences. A few comparisons and a little background are always useful.

  13. Re:un-possible! by jacksonj04 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why can't banks use a similar system to the "mother's maiden name" to prove who they are? You tell them three pieces of information, and then when they call you can ask for any one of them (They may need to prompt you first).

    --
    How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?