Slashdot Mirror


Phishing For Bank Info Without Any Pesky Malware

Emb3rz writes "DarkReading.com brings us news of a new approach to phishing that targets online banking sites. Here's the novel part of it: it doesn't involve any of the typical attack vectors we all know and love. Instead, it uses JavaScript from a remote page to detect if you have a banking site open, and prompts you for info via popup if you do."

4 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Things to learn from this. by Fian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Perhaps it is time to have a dedicated banking browser? One that does not use cookies/cache data/allow more that one tab etc etc

  2. Re:XSS by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So let's say that instead it's on http://www.malware.lol/ - why would a script on a page from malware.lol be allowed access to a resource - in this case 'pinging' the 'lock.gif' - *on* https://www.mybank.com/ ?

    There's a great deal of internet history behind this one. Originally, there were no barriers what so ever. Anyone could link anything from any page. Of course, as Javascript entered the scene and grew in sophistication, this was soon realized to be a problem. In result, most browsers adopted security behaviors for the really powerful stuff like XMLHttpRequest and locked out scripting across frames.

    However, that still leaves a hole like this one. And it's not an easy hole to plug. Quite a few sites are actually structured around the idea of cross-site linking. (e.g. The HTML may be www.mainsite.com while the images come from the web server media.mainsite.com.) Interestingly, this sort of structure is actually a solution to the problem posed. So it's difficult to dispose of it out of hand.

    Some of the web standards are moving toward highly restrictive models for HTTPS sites. e.g. HTTPS resources can only be accessed by pages whose origin is the same HTTPS site. More likely though, I expect to see more explicit security configurations along the lines of what Flash does. Flash uses a crossdomain.xml file on the target site to broadcast if a resource can be accessed or not. This scheme allows for situations like a media server separate from the primary site, but it also allows for those cross domain accesses to be tightly restricted.

    Of course, the scheme is not without its problems. Nothing prevents an attacker from transmitting information he may have collected TO a server that he has configured with a permissive policy file. If he finds a vulnerability that allows him to collect the information in the first place, he's going to be able to make off with the info scott-free.

    In result, web security is an ongoing area of research. It's incredibly complex due to the nature and history of the web, but standards bodies are working hard to find more reliable solutions that don't negatively impact existing sites and current usage.

  3. Re:The Best Defense is Offense by Gerzel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Problem is with no-script you still have to decide if you trust or not-trust the site and if that level of trust you have is worth what the site is offering.

    If the site offers a useful service which requires scripts you have to decide if it is worth the risk.

    While in most cases it is easy to tell and block only those sites you trust. Those that you don't block may also allow third party scripts to be run such as in ads on the site.

  4. Re:The Best Defense is Offense by RonTheHurler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about this one-

    I got a letter in the mail (usps snailmail) from Bank of America asking for a lot of personal information that was missing from my account, and that if I didn't supply that information they'd have to report me to the IRS.

    The letter was spelled correctly, had proper grammar and even had the BofA logo printed in full color. The return address was a PO box in Dallas. Nothing fishy at all.

    Problem is, I don't have a BofA account. But I'm sure a LOT of other people do.

    Phishing - it's not just an on-line phenomenon.