STE WILLIAMS

Broadband network plagued by wheezy old cryptomining gadget

Cryptocoin mining, how do you ruin our day?

Let us count the ways, because hastening global warming and hoovering up all the graphics processing units (GPUs) apparently isn’t enough.

Now, we have method #1583: a mining device with halitosis, breathing out interference emissions that befogged T-Mobile’s broadband network in Brooklyn.

Knock it off, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) told Brooklyn resident Victor Rosario on Thursday. The FCC’s letter said that if Rosario didn’t turn off the mining device, and if the interference kept up, he’d be in danger of incurring “severe penalties,” including, but not limited to, stiff fines, seizure of the offending radio equipment, and potentially jail time.

How did they test whether the device in question was really screwing up T-Mobile’s broadband? They either turned it off or told Rosario to turn it off. Presto! No more “spurious emissions” were found when the gadget was powered down, the FCC said.

David C. Dombrowski, regional director of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau, said that agents had used direction-finding techniques to trace radio emissions in the 700 MHz band and found they were emanating from Rosario’s home in Brooklyn, New York.

The guilty device was an Antminer S5 Bitcoin Miner: a geriatric 2014 model that, as one reviewer said, has zero chance of making anything worthwhile on its own or even with a few S5s hooked up; you would need to join a pool to have a chance of making a block, which is the term for a Bitcoin transaction that’s permanently recorded.

The FCC gave Rosario 20 days to tell the agency if he’s still using the Antminer; its manufacturer, model, serial number and whether it has FCC labelling identification; how he intends to keep the device from polluting the spectrum again; and where he bought the thing.

While you’re at it, please provide the receipt, the FCC said.


Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nakedsecurity/~3/A4fthHEXV3k/

Australia’s new insta-pay scheme has insta-lookup of any user’s phone number

Updated The brand-new app implementing Australia’s New Payment Platform (NPP) system has a user enumeration flaw, but the organisation responsible for it considers it to be a feature.

The NPP is an instant-money-transfer scheme implemented by Australia’s banks to give customers an app that can transfer money between account-holders, even if they’re customers of different banks. Instead of logging into Internet banking and providing the payee’s account details (name, BSB number and account number), the NPP uses its own identifiers for payment processing.

One of those identifiers is a telephone number, and that’s where software developer @anthonycr0 noticed a problem.

The PayID app created by Australian banks checks that the payer has entered the right phone number for the payee, by displaying the name of the person who owns an entered phone number – whoever that might be.

If a user provides the wrong phone number, they can see the name of the owner of that number (and then make a reasonable guess about their gender). With many online services now accepting phone numbers as a user ID, Reg columnist Mark Pesce has noted that PayID therefore has all sorts of interesting possibilities.

NPP Australia Limited, which operates the NPP, told The Register the feature is necessary and isn’t viewed as a bug. It issued this statement [PDF] that said, in part:

“The payee confirmation step is aimed at reducing the number of mistaken payments, as well as some cases of fraud, which is why it is has been, or is currently being, adopted in other countries around the world with real-time payments systems. For instance, the UK system Paym was launched in April 2014, although it only supports the use of mobile phone numbers rather than other alternatives like email and ABN/ACN.”

“We are aware that a person on Twitter has performed a small number of PayID look-ups and tweeted these details publicly in a bid to start a discussion about PayID and privacy issues. While unfortunate for the individuals involved, the discussion highlights the choice and benefits to be considered by users when they opt in to create a PayID.”

It’s reasonable that users are offered a way to verify that they’re sending funds to the right person – but as HaveIBeenPwned.com operator Troy Hunt told Vulture South, this could be done without exposing details of people who aren’t party to a transaction.

“I appreciate their sentiment. It sounds to me like they’re trying to show personal information about the recipient, which would then give the payer confidence that the money’s going to the right person. To that extent, that’s a feature.

“People are increasingly conscious of their privacy … when something looks like a source of scraping someone’s personal data, that sets off alarm bells,” he added.

He noted that other means of identity verification are almost certainly feasible, even if marginally less convenient – a recipient using a shared secret with the payer, for example.

At this stage, PayID has not said it will change how the system operates, since if you’re not comfortable using your phone number, it offers using e-mail instead, or simply not using PayID.

The Register contacted the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner for comment. ®

Update: The NPP organisation has told The Register there is a limit to how many lookup attempts are permitted in any given session, but for security reasons declined to say how many attempts would trigger a lockout.

In an e-mail to The Register, it also said:

Participating financial institutions are required to have measures in place to ensure PayID is not used by customers or applications to mine data for fraudulent purposes. This includes fraud detection technology that monitors and responds to the number of times a person conducts a PayID look-up without completing the payment. Once a person, or application, reaches a threshold they are locked out of their banking session. Banks continually monitor for this activity and adjust their thresholds depending on an assessment of current threat levels.

Sponsored:
Minds Mastering Machines – Call for papers now open

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/19/payid_accidental_reverse_telephone_number_lookup/

Crims pull another SWIFT-ie, Indian bank stung for nearly US$2m

A year after the SWIFT international bank transfer system enhanced its security, another breach has emerged: an Indian bank has confirmed that criminals gained access to its systems and made transfers totalling US$1.8 million.

The Kumbakonam-based City Union Bank issued a statement [PDF] on Sunday February 18, in response to local media speculation that three unauthorised transactions were initiated by staff. In it, the bank says it suffered an attack by “international cyber-criminals and there is no evidence of internal staff involvement”.

The statement says the transactions took place on or before February 7, when its reconciliation processes identified the three fraudulent transactions.

A transfer of $500,000 through Standard Chartered to a Dubai bank was blocked at the source. That’s good news, of a sort, because SWIFT launched a scanning service designed to spot fraudulent transactions in April 2017, as part of its response to the 2016 incident that saw second hand security kit at Bangladesh Bank let attackers into the international funds transfer system. On that occasion, $81 million was transferred. The attackers would tried to steal over $1bn, but were thwarted by a typo in one of their attempted transfers.

SWIFT later warned banks to tighten their security.

It remained a plum target, however, and in October 2017, a Taiwanese bank had $60 million pinched. Those funds were recovered, and the attackers arrested.

It appears that SWIFT’s dodgy-deal-detectors worked for the transfer to Dubai. But a second made it to a Turkish bank and $1m is still missing after being transferred through a Bank of America account to a Chinese destination and withdrawn by an unknown beneficiary.

The Indian consulate in Istanbul is assisting with efforts to recover funds frm the Turkish transfer.

City Union Bank added that its SWIFT system is back in operation with “adequate enhanced security”.

Just how the alleged criminals exploited the Bank’s previous security regime has not been revealed, so it is unknown if SWIFT or Union Bank is the source of the problem.

What is clear is that attacks that allow access to authorised SWIFT users clearly remain temptingly lucrative. ®

Sponsored:
Minds Mastering Machines – Call for papers now open

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/19/crims_pull_another_swiftie_indian_bank_stung_for_nearly_us2m/

Global security crackdown, a host of code nasties, Brit cops mocked, and more

Roundup Here’s a summary of this week’s security news beyond what we’ve already reported.

At the Munich Security Conference in Germany, major companies, including Siemens, Airbus, Allianz, Daimler Group, IBM, NXP, SGS and Deutsche Telekom, signed a Charter of Trust for cybersecurity. The signatories were joined by Elżbieta Bieńkowska, the EU Commissioner for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and Small- and Medium-sized Enterprises, and Canada’s foreign minister and G7 representative Chrystia Freeland.

The charter has ten rules that signatories – both commercial and governmental – must follow, including having a chief information officer, getting independent third-party security testing of critical infrastructure, sharing of threat data and building in not only security but also patching and upgrading capabilities to all Internet of Things devices.

“We’re eating our own dog food on this,” said Siemens president and CEO Joe Kaeser. “Siemens is in the top ten programming companies in the world and we will be adhering to the charter in all areas.”

Kaeser floated the idea at the World Economic Forum in Davos this year, and said the response from companies and governments had been very promising. But that it was clear that something had to be done on security, he said.

Part of the problem is that regulators are always playing catch-up with technology, he said. Bitcoin was a perfect example, with Kaeser calling it “the biggest money laundering scheme ever invented.”

How well the charter will work depends entirely on how many people sign up and whether or not the big players take part. In particular, the Chinese government needs to be on board, and that could be a stretch.

Spectre, coin theft and scammers oh my!

The industry is still sorting out the kerfuffle of the Spectre processor flaws and there was more movement this week.

Microsoft added Spectre tools to Windows Analytics, which will be welcomed by admins, and some boffins made weaponized exploit code to exploit the weakness (don’t worry – the code is under wraps).

Now virtual machines are also getting their act in order. The latest build (2.11.1) of the QEMU hypervisor will protect against a Spectre attack for x86 KVM guests, pseries and s390x guests. The work was pushed up the priority list to allow for safer virtualization.

“What is being addressed here is enabling a guest operating system to enable the same (or similar) mitigations to protect itself from unprivileged guest processes running under the guest operating system,” the advisory states.

“Thus, the patches/requirements listed here are specific to that goal and should not be regarded as the full set of requirements to enable mitigations on the host side (though in some cases there is some overlap between the two with regard to required patches/etc).”

While digital currency prices continue to go up and down like the Assyrian empire, it’s clear that the scummier parts of the internet are taking note. Cisco’s Talos security team found an interesting piece of malware that may have netted its operators many millions in virtual currency.

Dubbed Coinhoarder, the attack uses a fake blockchain.info login page to harvest credentials and drain virtual wallets. What made this unusual is that the phishers are using Google Adwords to promote their products in specific locations, primarily Eastern Europe.

“While working with Ukraine law enforcement, we were able to identify the attackers’ Bitcoin wallet addresses and thus, we could track their activity for the period of time between September 2017 to December 2017,” the Talos team said. “In this period alone, we quantified around $10m was stolen. In one specific run, they made $2m within 3.5 week period.”

The team thinks the gang behind the phishing attack has been operating for at least three years. Back when Bitcoin wasn’t worth much, it would have provided some income. But the rising price of Bitcoin seems to have given the crooks more money to play with and ply their wares.

Brit plod rocked

Finally, British police were left red-faced after the ringleader of a card skimming operation fled his trial the UK and has begun uploading the blueprints for his devices to mock his former captors. Alexandru Sovu, 39, was sentenced to 11 years in prison in absentia and is believed to be in Romania or China.

“He has released the methods he used on the internet. This will allow fraudsters to build their own scams,” said Judge Rajeev Shetty. “He has shown breathtaking arrogance and put two fingers up to law and order.”

Sovu came to the UK from Romania as a software engineer but was laid off in 2008. He then developed hardware to install in ATMs and grab card data and PINs and the card creating machinery to exploit the accounts of his victims.

The kit he developed was of very high quality, the court heard, and was easy to install. With the blueprints now out there, be very careful when using your cards. ®

Sponsored:
Minds Mastering Machines – Call for papers now open

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/17/security_roundup/

Mueller bombshell: 13 Russian ‘troll factory’ staffers charged with allegedly meddling in US presidential election

Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor investigating foreign agents tampering with the 2016 US presidential election, has criminally charged 13 Russian nationals with conspiring against the United States.

A 37-page grand jury indictment, revealed today, named staff at the Internet Research Agency troll factory as conspirators in a plan to “sow discord,” and tip the White House race in favor of Donald Trump.

The Russians are accused of stealing or fabricating Americans’ identities to open PayPal accounts to purchase controversial attack ads. The agency also created online profiles with hundreds of thousands of followers to spread divisive messages, and coordinated political protests and campaign events, all while posing as legit Americans, it is alleged.

The trolls would use email addresses such as [email protected] in organizing their efforts to tear the people of the United States apart, it is claimed.

The baker’s dozen of charged individuals are: Mikhail Ivanovich Bystrov, Mikhail Leonidovich Burchik, Aleksandra Yuryevna Krylova, Anna Vladislavovna Bogacheva, Sergey Pavlovich Polozov, Maria Anatolyevna Bovda, Robert Sergeyevich Bovda, Dzheykhun Nasimi Ogly, Vadim Vladimirovich Podkopaev, Gleb Igorevitch Vasilchenko, Irina Viktorovna Kaverzina, Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin, and Vladimir Venkov.

(Oligarch Prigozhin is so close to the Kremlin, he is nicknamed “Putin’s cook,” we note.)

The indictment alleged the Ruskies interacted with “unwitting individuals” within the Trump campaign, although no Americans are named in this indictment. In a separate announcement, Mueller revealed a Florida man, Richard Pinedo, had pled guilty to identity fraud related to payment processing, though that plea deal makes no mention of the Russian indictments.

In short, Internet Research Agency, based in St Petersburg, Russia, is said to have concocted a number of shell companies in the US and hijacked Americans’ identities to sabotage Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid in an attempt to sway the election result. The troll factory pumped out messages pillorying Hillary while lauding Trump, it is claimed.

The organization is believed to have employed hundreds of operatives, and given with a monthly budget in excess of $1.2m.

“In order to carry out their activities to interfere in US political and electoral processes without detection of their Russian affiliation, the Defendants conspired to obstruct the lawful functions of the United States government through fraud and deceit, including by making expenditures in connection with the 2016 US presidential election without proper regulatory disclosure; failing to register as foreign agents carrying out political activities within the United States; and obtaining visas through false and fraudulent statements,” Mueller’s indictment read.

According to the indictment, the 13 individuals mastered Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to reach American voters with messages like “Donald wants to defeat terrorism… Hillary wants to sponsor it,” “Trump is our only hope for a better future!” and “Hillary is Satan, and her crimes and lies had proved just how evil she is.”

Among the accounts run by the Russian troll factory was @Ten_GOP, a right-wing Twitter account that amassed more than 130,000 followers, it is claimed.

The Russians allegedly muddied the waters by sponsoring a handful of anti-Trump groups – including backing post-election “Trump is not my President” rallies in New York and Charlotte – as well as setting up and directing anti-Clinton operations. For example, the Russians would pay US citizens to dress up as a jailed Hillary Clinton and march on America’s streets, according to today’s charges. In at least once instance, it is claimed, the Russians scheduled pro and anti Trump rallies to kick off on the same day in the same city.

These efforts, online and in the real world, were bankrolled by cash from PayPal accounts created using stolen or fake American identities. The origin of the campaigns was further obscured by running all of the activity through a US-based VPN.

Photo by MediaGroupBestForYou / Shutterstock

‘I told him to cut it out’ – Obama is convinced Putin’s hackers swung the election for Trump

READ MORE

The indictment goes on to describe how even after a probe was launched, the group continued to operate while also seeking to cover its tracks. One of the defendants, Irina Kaverzina, was said to have written an email to her family saying: “We had a slight crisis here at work: the FBI busted our activity (not a joke). So, I got preoccupied with covering tracks together with the colleagues. I created all these pictures and posts, and the Americans believed that it was written by their people.”

Investigators believe the US election meddling was part of a much larger effort, called “Projeckt Lahkta” Internet Research Agency was running to manipulate political systems and public opinion around the globe.

The charges are the first formal acknowledgement from Mueller of what many had already come to suspect and accept: that troll factories in Russia, with the Kremlin’s blessing, had formed in the run-up to the 2016 elections to sow chaos in the US and stir up fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

Both Facebook and Twitter fessed up to taking money from the groups to run ads and promoted content, and Twitter has since admitted that thousands of Russian-controlled bot accounts were spreading propaganda aimed at Americans. ®

PS: Twitter deleted 200,000 tweets posted by Russian trolls, although you can now read them here.

Sponsored:
Minds Mastering Machines – Call for papers now open

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/16/mueller_russians_election_indictment/

Hands up who HASN’T sued Intel over Spectre, Meltdown chip flaws

Intel says it is facing 32 separate class-action lawsuits following the revelations it shipped millions of processors with security design flaws dubbed Meltdown and Spectre.

The figure was slipped into its annual 10-K financial filing, submitted earlier this week to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Speaking to the risks Intel faced as a company, the form outlined the bevy of legal complaints that have arisen following reports the bugs can be exploited by malware to extract passwords and other secrets from a computer’s memory.

Shocked couple scream and clutch their hair

Meltdown, Spectre: The password theft bugs at the heart of Intel CPUs

READ MORE

Shortly after the bugs were disclosed, talk began of filing lawsuits on the behalf of both customers who purchased the vulnerable chips and investors who noted that Intel execs including CEO Brian Krzanich sold off shares around the time Intel began spreading word of the flaws.

Now, Intel says, the lawsuits number more than two dozen.

“As of February 15, 2018, 30 customer class action lawsuits and two securities class action lawsuits have been filed. The customer class action plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes of end users of our products, generally claim to have been harmed by Intel’s actions and/or omissions in connection with the security vulnerabilities and assert a variety of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages and equitable relief,” Intel writes on the form.

“The securities class action plaintiffs, who purport to represent classes of acquirers of Intel stock between July 27, 2017 and January 4, 2018, generally allege that Intel and certain officers violated securities laws by making statements about Intel’s products and internal controls that were revealed to be false or misleading by the disclosure of the security vulnerabilities.”

If Intel ends up having to settle the complaints, it would add to what is already expected to be a substantial cost incurred in the clean-up effort from the two flaws.

In addition to the class action suits, Intel says it also faces a trio of individual complaints from shareholders that were filed in California Superior Court.

“The complaints allege that the defendants breached their duties to Intel in connection with the disclosure of the security vulnerabilities and the failure to take action in relation to alleged insider trading.”

Intel goes on to say that it disputes the claims, and plans to defend itself against the charges in court. ®

Sponsored:
Minds Mastering Machines – Call for papers now open

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/17/intel_says_32_suits_filed/

Google’s big plans for email will give it even more power

Email has been around for nearly half a century and there are some things about it that are looking decidedly dated. In particular, its approach to privacy and security are decidedly mid-twentieth century.

In the beginning it was OK because nobody knew to care about that kind of thing and almost nobody used email anyway. In the blink of an eye though, everybody was using it and email had become an indispensable technological pillar of the world. And then it really did matter that email was broken but it was too difficult to fix and too entrenched to replace.

For most of its working life then, three intractable problems have hovered close to the top of our collective “things we wish somebody else would hurry up and fix about email” list:

  • A lack of TLS encryption makes it too easy to read and modify emails as they move around the globe. According to Google’s transparency report about 10% of the emails sent and received by Gmail are going to, or coming from, mail servers that don’t encrypt. Now. In 2018.
  • It’s easy to fake who an email seems to have come from so – in spite of anti-spoofing measures like DANE, DKIM and SPF – cybercriminals continue to fool users with low cost, low effort scams and phishing tactics which barely change from one decade to the next.
  • There is no usable end-to-end encryption to protect emails at rest, as they sit on servers. Sure, you could use GPG but you don’t, just like you don’t let Clippy help you if it looks like you’re trying to write a letter or drive to work on a Sinclair C5.

Google, one of the major email providers through its Gmail platform, has done much to try and fix these difficult problems with projects like its transparency report and efforts to fix end-to-end encryption.

Despite its own travails (Android devices that can’t be patched, years-long Gmail lawsuits…) it has also never been shy of using its considerable bulk to bully others into adopting better privacy and security – from HTTPS on websites to 90-day responsible disclosure windows, and much else besides.

So when I heard that Google was planning to modernise email I hoped they’d dusted off The Great Email TODO List That’s Still Waiting To Be Fixed After Fifty Years and started at the top.

Nope.

Fixing the sun while the roof shines

Rather than announcing another swing at the things on the list above, Google pencilled in a few items of its own and then took to its blog to announce plans to put a big, fat tick next to them by making email “more engaging, interactive, and actionable“.

The blog post announcing the initiative shows an email containing a Pinterest board of recipes and a user opening a recipe, reading and then saving it, all without leaving Gmail.

AMP for emailAMP for email

Perhaps even more surprising then its choice of what to fix is how it’s going to be done.

Google is planning to add all this interaction with a new version of its much-maligned AMP (Accelerated Mobile Pages) technology, called AMP for Email:

For example, imagine you could complete tasks directly in email. With AMP for Email, you’ll be able to quickly take actions like submit an RSVP to an event, schedule an appointment, or fill out a questionnaire right from the email message.

AMP is a technology for making mobile web pages load quickly. It does this by taking the triumvirate of languages your browser can understand – HTML for page structure, CSS for design and JavaScript for interactivity – and putting them on a crash diet.

The language features you can use, and the ways you can use them, are all restricted to reduce the causes of slow page rendering.

In other words, it’s a speed fix, but “fix email loading times” isn’t on Google’s list or mine, or anyone else’s, so Google’s solution seems even more curious than their choice of problem.

Something of an explanation is implied by an issue on the AMP GitHub project. It looks like AMP was a pragmatic choice: Google wanted something that offered more features than the static HTML and CSS we use in email today but, for security reasons, many fewer features than are available on the web at large.

Although its restrictions are aimed at improving speed rather than security AMP already occupies that middle ground and probably requires fewer changes than anything else to deliver what Google’s looking for, so perhaps it’s not quite the “hammer in search of a nail” that it first appears.

Our goal is to enhance and modernize the email experience through added support for dynamic content and interactivity while keeping users safe.

Obviously Gmail will support AMP for Email but, because it’s an open standard, there is nothing stopping other email vendors from following Google’s lead.

How it works

Emails with with images, colours, fonts and other layout and design features are split into multiple parts. Typically, one part contains a plain text version of the message and the other part contains the same message again but with additional formatting in HTML and CSS.

Depending on what your email software supports, and the preferences you’ve set, you either see the no-frills plain text part or the fancy dan HTML part.

AMP for Email works by adding a third copy of the message to an email, identified by a text-x-amphtml MIME part. So, in order for you to see an email in AMP in all its whirly, interactive glory three things will have to happen:

  1. Somebody sends you an email with an AMP for Email part
  2. Your email software supports AMP for Email formatting
  3. You’ve allowed your email software to show you AMP formatting

If any of those things doesn’t happen then your email client will simply show the HTML or plain text versions of the message, depending on your preferences.

The AMP part of the email will support interactions you don’t normally see in emails via forms and data bindings, as well as animations and novel forms of presentation such as sidebars, carousels and accordions. A full list of the AMP features that will be allowed in email is available on GitHub.

Marketing departments take note: you may wish to put something heavy in your designers’ pockets to stop them running from the building screaming in frustration. The HTML rendering engines used to display formatted emails are famously buggy and disagreeable so there are few design jobs more difficult and frustrating than making a nicely formatted email.

Google isn’t fixing that problem either, in fact it’s making it much worse. You’ll always need an HTML version of your email as a fallback so your AMP for Email messages will have to be designed twice.

Sympathetic as I am to the plight of designers though, that isn’t why AMP for Email is a bad idea.

Embrace and Extend

There are three things about AMP for Email that give me serious pause for thought:

This isn’t a standard

Experienced web developers will remember the unfortunately named “browser wars” of the late nineties. Microsoft and Netscape were competing for control of the web and attempting to make themselves indispensable by getting websites to use proprietary features that only their browsers would support.

Superficially they were adding dynamic capabilities to slow-to-evolve open web standards. The United States v. Microsoft antitrust case revealed that Microsoft were in fact trying to kill those open standards using its doctrine of Embrace, Extend and Extinguish.

That era was followed by a period of innovation where Apple, Mozilla, Opera, Microsoft and Google sort of got along. They agreed that things worked better for them and for their users when everybody followed the same open web standards, even if it meant moving a little slower.

AMP’s embrace and extend approach to well-established web standards, first for websites and now for email, makes people like me uncomfortable. Whatever its motives, Google has turned its back on open web standards process that’s proven to work.

This isn’t how email works

I am not convinced that email needs to be dynamic and interactive. In fact it’s my opinion that the static and immutable nature of email is a feature. An email, like a letter, is a moment in time.

It works, it’s very well understood and it puts most of the power in the hands of the recipient.

What I receive by email is static and if I want to do anything with the information I receive – perhaps create a calendar entry or make a purchase – then I can go to an application or the web where different rules apply.

The cost of that healthy separation is normally a single click.

I would also feel more confident about interacting directly with my emails if I had even the slightest faith that I could trust who they’d come from. So long as it’s easy to fake who an email seems to have come from is on the email TODO list though, I can’t.

Spotting phishing attempts can be hard but I reckon I’ve more chance of spotting the fakes if the crooks have to put up a convincing website to go with their email.

This is too much Google

One of the major criticisms of AMP for the web is that Google has put carousels of pages using AMP at the very top of its mobile results. These pages are largely shorn of branding and navigation, use analytics approved by Google, JavaScript loaded from Google and sit in a cache owned by Google.

It turns Google Search from something you use to find your destination into the destination itself.

AMP for Email does the same thing to email.

Simple interactions that used to happen on an email sender’s website can now happen in the recipient’s inbox instead, which, for an enormous number of people, happens to be Gmail.


Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nakedsecurity/~3/YY9cUHVK2H0/

Telegram IM security flaw – what you see is NOT always what you get

Researchers at Kaspersky recently outed a bug in the popular Telegram instant messaging service.

Crooks had revived an old visual trick to disguise files that many users would otherwise recognise as unwanted right off the bat.

The flaw has been addressed by Telegram, so we’re OK to describe in here in detail: it’s a trick that is as simple as it is effective, and involves conning the app into displaying filenames backwards.

Sometimes, of course, the old tricks are the very best – ransomware first appeared in 1989, for instance; spam first showed up in the 1970s; and self-spreading network worms were already a significant problem in the 1980s.

Whether you’re a user or a programmer, it pays to be aware of the optical illusions that are available to the many cybercrooks out there.

The flaw we’ll be talking about in this article – which sort of isn’t a bug in theory, but can be abused as a bug in practice – comes about because not all languages write in the same direction.

English and French, for example, run left-to-right, top-to-bottom; Hebrew and Arabic run right-to-left, top-to-bottom.

Often, for example when printing a book, the text direction isn’t too much of a challenge because it’s consistent throughout.

But in a modern app in the modern world on a modern operating system, you often want to mix and match character sets, languages, writing styles and more.

For example, if I type into my favourite Mac editor the English word HELLO followed by the Hebrew word SHALOM, I type in the characters in the order they appear above when written out left-to-right, English style: H + E + L + L + O + Shin + Lamed + Vav + Mem.

Indeed, If I save the file as a 2-byte-per-character Unicode file (UTF-16), I get the characters in the order they were typed, shown left-to-right as is conventional in a hex editor:

But my editor “knows” (or, more precisely, the Unicode character set “knows”) that English and Hebrew are supposed to be displayed in different directions, so what I see when I open the file is:

Sometimes, however, leaving text direction to be determined algorithmically doesn’t give you the typographic result you were after, so Unicode provides some special characters (ones that don’t actually display, they merely control) for text direction, including LEFT-TO-RIGHT OVERRIDE (LRO) and RIGHT-TO-LEFT OVERRIDE (RLO).

If we insert these at the start of our HELLO SHALOM greeting, the LRO forces the Hebrew to come out backwards (this messes up the nikkud, or diacritical markings, so it doesn’t render simply as if the text were reversed), while the RLO will reverse the English text, moving it to what is the end of the line in English orthography:

You can see where this is going when it comes to filenames.

A RLO character is simply part of the name of the file when the operating system decides what to do with the file, but it is part of the instructions about how to display the name when the operating system decides how to represent it.

Sadly, as far as computer security is concerned, what actually happens when you click on the file is what matters, not what it looks like in a directory listing.

Software that displays filenames in order to ask you what to do with them needs to take care to prevent this difference from being exploited.

In the case documented by Kaspersky, the crooks used a filename that was processed by Windows as…

     photo_hi_re♦gnp.js

…which is, as you can tell from the .JS extension, a standalone JavaScript program. (We used the diamond shape to denote the position of the RLO character U+202E.)

Detached from your browser, JavaScript programs are essentially as unconstrained as those written in C, C++, C#, Assembler or any other traditional application software development language.

In other words, JavaScript programs you receive via email or IM, or download from the web, are often malware – anything from self-contained attacks like the RAA ransomware, written in 100% JavaScript, to downloader modules that go online and fetch yet more malware to take over your computer.

But the file was displayed for download and launch as…

     photo_hi_resj.png

…which looks like an innocent image file. (The RLO character doesn’t take up space in the output, because it’s a control code, not a display glyph.)

There are may other combinations that could be used to disguise the true identity of the download, such as -1SP.MP4, which reverses to -4PM.PS1 (a Powershell file) and -TAB.JPG, which reverses to -GPJ.BAT (another sort of Windows script).

Even a rather obvious executable file (a regular program) can be made to look innocent if the entire filename is reversed, pushing the suspicious ending .EXE to the front, where it looks like a prefix:

     Filename for opening and launching: ♦fdp.61-10-8102-NOISICED.DRAOB.EVITUC.EXE
     Filename when rendered for display: EXE.CUTIVE.BOARD.DECISION-2018-01-16.pdf

What to do?

Technically, you can argue that this sort of trick isn’t really a bug or an exploit: the RLO character is supposed to flip around English text, so the filename ♦TAB.BET is supposed to look like TEB.BAT, and that’s that.

With this mind, our advice is:

  • Don’t use what you see as your sole judge of what you’ve got.

In the Telegram malware attack documented by Kaspersky, the pseudo-PNG file provoked a JavaScript security warning dialog from Windows, which processed the file by what it was, not what it seemed.

Assume the worst: if the name looks dodgy but the operating system doesn’t seme to mind, assume it’s dodgy.

If the name looks fine but the operating system says it might be dodgy, assume it’s dodgy.

  • If you’re a sysadmin, block by both form and function.

For example, Sophos email products let you block attachments by extension (extracted from the name), by true file type (determined by looking inside the file), or both – and we recommend using both, even if it sounds redundant.

After all, if you want to keep out (say) .MP3 audio files, it makes sense to block files that go out of their way to look like audio files, even if they aren’t, as well as to block files that go out of their way to look like they aren’t audio files, even when they are.

  • If you’re a programmer, be aware of known display-related tricks.

RLO characters are permitted in filenames, but in real life, this is a detail that both you and your users can do without.

A similar sort of problem exists with character sets (not just character direction), where letters in Russian or Greek can be used to trick you into thinking you’re looking at, say, facebook when you’re really seeing f𝝰cebook or facεbook.

There’s no law against writing English to the left, Hebrew to the right, or representing Greek words with Cyrillic letters – but if there are no good reasons for doing it, why let it through?


Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nakedsecurity/~3/cFoH25BHVnk/

PM urged to protect data flows post-Brexit ahead of Munich speech

Security experts have warned that Brexit could lead to data flows between the UK and European Union being “substantially curtailed”.

The community is amping up the pressure on government to ensure there is a legal basis for data transfer ahead of British Prime Minister Theresa May’s speech at the Munich security conference tomorrow.

In a briefing note, the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) said that it might be difficult to maintain current levels of cooperation on terrorism and organised crime without such agreements.

At the moment, police and intelligence services can share data – including personal data, passenger name records or arrest warrants – with their EU counterparts through real-time database access.

RUSI said that this real-time access is possible because of the unique nature of the union, security cooperation between members goes “far beyond” existing arrangements with so-called third countries like the US or Switzerland.

This means that once the UK leaves the bloc, there needs to be a new legal basis for data sharing – or “current levels of information sharing could be substantially curtailed”. The UK, meanwhile, would be “largely excluded from future developments in EU policy and practice”.

Central to the existing process, the think tank said, is that the EU has a single judicial system that is overseen by the European Court of Justice.

RUSI’s deputy director general Malcolm Chalmers said that, given the UK government is “clearly reluctant” for the ECJ to retain its authority after Brexit, it will need to come up with a new system.

Speaking on the Today programme this morning, Chalmers said that there might be a “third way” that allows the ECJ to have some oversight on data sharing, but that would be a matter of negotiation.

“That’s why the conversation has to be started at this stage, as the clock is beginning to run out,” he said.

Intelligence

RUSI’s views echo those of former MI6 boss John Sawers, who said this week that his main concern about intelligence and security was data exchange.

“Data is now central to the way in which security services in particular monitor threats and track people who might pose a threat to UK security. And the rules on exchange of data are going to be set in the EU,” he told Prospect magazine.

The European Commission has made it abundantly clear that once the UK leaves the bloc it will become a third country – unless there is a ratified withdrawal agreement in place.

The two options for such countries to carry on exchanging data are an adequacy deal – where the EU agrees the nation provides the right standards of protection – or appropriate safeguards, which have to be signed up to by individual organisations.

The UK has expressed its desire for an adequacy agreement, as this is an across-the-board deal, but this is reliant on more than just data protection regulations.

It also considers other data retention and surveillance measures – namely the controversial Investigatory Power’s Act, which the government has already had to admit doesn’t comply with European laws.

The pressure is mounting on the government ahead of the three-day Munich Security Conference, which starts today. It will hear from world leaders, security experts and tech bosses, including former Google chairman Eric Schmidt, Microsoft president Brad Smith and Facebook’s chief security officer Alex Stamos.

May is scheduled to give her speech tomorrow morning, and Chalmers said that, at the very least, he wanted it to acknowledge the problem of data.

“What I’m looking for from the Prime Minister on Saturday is a hint at least that she realises this is a problem and she needs to work with the EU to address it.” ®

Sponsored:
Minds Mastering Machines – Call for papers now open

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/16/may_pressure_data_transfer_security_services_munich/

Mueller bombshell: 13 Russians charged with allegedly meddling in US presidential election

Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor investigating foreign agents tampering in the 2016 US presidential election, has indicted 13 Russian nationals for conspiracy against the United States.

The 36-page grand jury indictment [PDF] named staff at the Internet Research Agency troll factory as conspirators in a plan to tip the White House race in favor of Donald Trump.

The group was also accused of stealing Americans’ identities, or fabricating new ones, to open PayPal accounts to purchase ads, create online profiles, and coordinate campaign events. The trolls would use email addresses such as [email protected] for their accounts.

The baker’s dozen charged are: Mikhail Ivanovich Bystrov, Mikhail Leonidovich Burchik, Aleksandra Yuryevna Krylova, Anna Vladislavovna Bogacheva, Sergey Pavlovich Polozov, Maria Anatolyevna Bovda, Robert Sergeyevich Bovda, Dzheykhun Nasimi Ogly, Vadim Vladimirovich Podkopaev, Gleb Igorevitch Vasilchenko, Irina Viktorovna Kaverzina, Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin, and Vladimir Venkov.

The indictment noted that the group interacted with “unwitting individuals” within the Trump campaign, and no Americans are named in this indictment. In a separate announcement, Mueller released a plea deal [PDF] with a Florida man, Richard Pinedo, on identity fraud charges related to payment processing, though that deal makes no mention of the Russian indictments.

Internet Research Agency, based in St Petersburg, Russia, is said to have fabricated a number of shell companies and fake identities to help serve as the front for its efforts to sabotage Hillary Clinton’s campaign and sway election results.

The organization is believed to have employed hundreds of operatives and operated with a monthly budget in excess of $1m.

“In order to to carry out their activities to interfere in US political and electoral processes without detection of their Russian affiliation, Defendants conspired to obstruct the lawfull functions of the United States government through fraud and deceit, including by making expenditures in connection with the 2016 US presidential election without proper regulatory disclosure; failing to register as foreign agents carrying out political activities within the United States; and obtaining visas through false and fraudulent statements,” the indictment read.

According to the indictment, the 13 individuals mastered social media platforms Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to reach Americans with messages like “Donald wants to defeat terrorism… Hillary wants to sponsor it,” “Trump is our only hope for a better future!” and “Hillary is Satan, and her crimes and lies had proved just how evil she is.”

Among the accounts run by the Russian troll factory was @Ten_GOP, a right-wing Twitter account that amassed more than 130,000 followers.

The group muddied the waters by sponsoring a handful of anti-Trump groups, including backing post-election “Trump is not my President” rallies in New York and Charlotte.

Those campaigns were pushed by a handful of fake companies the group set up in the US, as well as PayPal accounts they created under stolen or fake identities. Those accounts were then used to funnel money for both online and real-world campaigns and events, including political rallies. The origin of the campaigns was further obscured by running all of the activity through a US-based VPN.

Photo by MediaGroupBestForYou / Shutterstock

‘I told him to cut it out’ – Obama is convinced Putin’s hackers swung the election for Trump

READ MORE

The indictment goes on to describe how even after a probe was launched, the group continued to operate while also seeking to cover its tracks. One of the defendants, Irina Kaverzina, was said to have written an email to her family saying: “We had a slight crisis here at work: the FBI busted our activity (not a joke). So, I got preoccupied with covering tracks together with the Colleagues. I created all these pictures and posts, and the Americans believed that it was written by their people.”

Investigators believe the US campaign was only a part of a much larger effort, called “Projeckt Lahkta” Internet Research Agency was running to manipulate elections and public opinion around the globe.

The charges are the first formal acknowledgement from Mueller of what many had already come to suspect and accept: that “troll” groups in Russia, with the Kremlin’s blessing, had organized in the run-up to the 2016 elections to help sow chaos in the US and stir up controversy.

Both Facebook and Twitter fessed up to taking money from the groups to run ads and promoted content, and Twitter has since admitted that thousands of Russian-controlled bot accounts were spreading propaganda aimed at Americans. ®

PS: Twitter deleted 200,000 tweets posted by Russian trolls, although you can now read them here.

Sponsored:
Minds Mastering Machines – Call for papers now open

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/16/mueller_russians_election_indictment/