The Daily Beast explained how Microsoft fights cyber criminals and spies, some of whom with alleged ties to the Kremlin:
"Last year attorneys for the software maker quietly sued the hacker group known as Fancy Bear in a federal court outside Washington DC, accusing it of computer intrusion, cybersquatting, and infringing on Microsoft’s trademarks. The action, though, is not about dragging the hackers into court. The lawsuit is a tool for Microsoft to target what it calls “the most vulnerable point” in Fancy Bear’s espionage operations: the command-and-control servers the hackers use to covertly direct malware on victim computers. These servers can be thought of as the spymasters in Russia's cyber espionage, waiting patiently for contact from their malware agents in the field, then issuing encrypted instructions and accepting stolen documents.
Since August, Microsoft has used the lawsuit to wrest control of 70 different command-and-control points from Fancy Bear. The company’s approach is indirect, but effective. Rather than getting physical custody of the servers, which Fancy Bear rents from data centers around the world, Microsoft has been taking over the Internet domain names that route to them. These are addresses like “livemicrosoft[.]net” or “rsshotmail[.]com” that Fancy Bear registers under aliases for about $10 each. Once under Microsoft’s control, the domains get redirected from Russia’s servers to the company’s, cutting off the hackers from their victims, and giving Microsoft a omniscient view of that servers’ network of automated spies."
[Editor's Note: Today's guest post is by Arkady Bukh of Bukh & Associates, PLLC which specializes in criminal law, family law, and several areas of civil law. Aware consumers know how to recognize scams.]
A man in Nigeria died recently. When the coroner went to the home for the body, he found $25 BILLION dollars. Apparently, the decedent had been trying to give away his money for years, but no one answered his email.
If you've been on the Internet for over, say, one-hour, you recognize the source for that joke. The Nigerian email scam is so infamous it's been given its own, easily recognizable, name: The Nigerian Email Scam.
Despite scams and cons being popular online, they're not confined to the virtual world. They crop up in the real world, too. Often, in unexpected ways.
Pennsylvania Teen Tries to Scam and It Doesn’t Go Well at Home Police in Westtown Township nabbed a teenage boy in March after linking the kid to a scam involving fake traffic tickets. The fraudulent fines were placed in mailboxes at four homes. Each fake ticket claimed the homeowners' vehicle was captured on camera speeding in nearby West Chester. An accompanying note asked for $96 to be left in the mailbox.
"It does look real," said Jackie McGlone, a West Chester resident.
Detectives have found the photographs of the vehicle's' plates were taken while the car was parked in their owner's' driveway and unoccupied.
Police tracked the 16-year old boy, who lives in the area, by a tip phoned in by the teenager's dad.
The teen's father found some notifications waiting to be mailed and called the police. Charges are pending.
Truckers Lose Big Money in Oregon In 2013, an Oregon-based scam dug into the pockets of truck drivers with automated calls telling them to pay their unpaid traffic tickets using re-loadable debit cards — or face a penalty.
The caller identified himself as, "Alex James Murphy of the Oregon State Police," and informed drivers of a bench warrant for an outstanding speeding ticket. To pay, the drivers were told to buy re-loadable prepaid cards through Green Dot MoneyPak, put $154 on the card, and then call a second phone number to provide the card information.
If the driver does all that, they'll find out there was never an unpaid speeding ticket and their $154 has hit the road. The scam, which occasionally crops up in difference places, first appeared on the radar in November 2012 and had gone through a few variations since.
An offshoot which also relies on confusing the lines between a con artist and legitimate law enforcement agencies is the “Support Your Sheriff” sticker scam. The Federal Trade Commission's website has a page warning consumers about cons which play on citizens' desire to help support local law enforcement.
Fake Police A vehicle which appears to be an unmarked police car pulls you over. The ‘officer' says you are about to be handed a large fine and see points added to your driver's license. "However," says the supposed-cop, "you can avoid this by paying a smaller fee, up front, in cash."
That's not a tactic used by legitimate law enforcement agencies anywhere. Real cops want to make sure the law is obeyed and not about a discount if a speeder pays on the front end. Legitimate cops will issue a real ticket that must be paid in person, or mail, at the department.
If in doubt, request another officer to come to the scene. It's your right.
Phishing Scam Someone receives an e-mail message claiming them they are guilty of a traffic violation. A wise person will delete the email immediately. Any email saying you owe money for traffic tickets is a phishing scam.
Usually, the email says the person needs to pay for the traffic citation right now. The e-mail includes a link where the individual to find details. The link often contains a computer virus, and can redirect the user to a phishing page meant to request personal information from the user.
Buy a Sticker and Get Out of Jail Free Scammers have called individuals at work and home at claiming the local Department of Public Safety (DPS) offers decals for autos with the DPS logo to waive their next traffic ticket.
The caller instructs the person to place the sticker next to the car's license plate. To get the sticker, the vehicle owner must pay $10. Many persons fall for the scam as $10 is smaller than any traffic ticket issued after 1946.
If you get a traffic citation, you broke the law. You will pay for that. There is no such thing as a law enforcement sticker which gets you one free traffic ticket.
Cyber attacks upon electoral systems in the United States are wider than originally thought. The attacks occurred in at least 39 states. The Bloomberg report described online attacks in Illinois as an example:
"... investigators found evidence that cyber intruders tried to delete or alter voter data. The hackers accessed software designed to be used by poll workers on Election Day, and in at least one state accessed a campaign finance database. Details of the wave of attacks, in the summer and fall of 2016... In early July 2016, a contractor who works two or three days a week at the state board of elections detected unauthorized data leaving the network, according to Ken Menzel, general counsel for the Illinois board of elections. The hackers had gained access to the state’s voter database, which contained information such as names, dates of birth, genders, driver’s licenses and partial Social Security numbers on 15 million people, half of whom were active voters. As many as 90,000 records were ultimately compromised..."
Politicians have emphasized that the point of the disclosures isn't to embarrass any specific state, but to alert the public to past activities and to the ongoing threat. The Intercept reported:
"Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election, according to a highly classified intelligence report obtained by The Intercept.
The top-secret National Security Agency document, which was provided anonymously to The Intercept and independently authenticated, analyzes intelligence very recently acquired by the agency about a months-long Russian intelligence cyber effort against elements of the U.S. election and voting infrastructure. The report, dated May 5, 2017, is the most detailed U.S. government account of Russian interference in the election that has yet come to light."
Spear-fishing is the tactic criminals use by sending malware-laden e-mail messages to targeted individuals, whose names and demographic details may have been collected from social networking sites and other sources. The spam e-mail uses those details to pretend to be valid e-mail from a coworker, business associate, or friend. When the target opens the e-mail attachment, their computer and network are often infected with malware to collect and transmit log-in credentials to the criminals; or to remotely take over the targets' computers (e.g., ransomware) and demand ransom payments. Stolen log-in credentials are how criminals steal consumers' money by breaking into online bank accounts.
The Intercept report explained how the elections systems hackers adopted this tactic:
"... the Russian plan was simple: pose as an e-voting vendor and trick local government employees into opening Microsoft Word documents invisibly tainted with potent malware that could give hackers full control over the infected computers. But in order to dupe the local officials, the hackers needed access to an election software vendor’s internal systems to put together a convincing disguise. So on August 24, 2016, the Russian hackers sent spoofed emails purporting to be from Google to employees of an unnamed U.S. election software company... The spear-phishing email contained a link directing the employees to a malicious, faux-Google website that would request their login credentials and then hand them over to the hackers. The NSA identified seven “potential victims” at the company. While malicious emails targeting three of the potential victims were rejected by an email server, at least one of the employee accounts was likely compromised, the agency concluded..."
Experts believe the voting equipment company targeted was VR Systems, based in Florida. Reportedly, it's electronic voting services and equipment are used in eight states. VR Systems posted online a Frequently Asked Questions document (adobe PDF) about the cyber attacks against elections systems:
"Recent reports indicate that cyber actors impersonated VR Systems and other elections companies. Cyber actors sent an email from a fake account to election officials in an unknown number of districts just days before the 2016 general election. The fraudulent email asked recipients to open an attachment, which would then infect their computer, providing a gateway for more mischief... Because the spear-phishing email did not originate from VR Systems, we do not know how many jurisdictions were potentially impacted. Many election offices report that they never received the email or it was caught by their spam filters before it could reach recipients. It is our understanding that all jurisdictions, including VR Systems customers, have been notified by law enforcement agencies if they were a target of this spear-phishing attack... In August, a small number of phishing emails were sent to VR Systems. These emails were captured by our security protocols and the threat was neutralized. No VR Systems employee’s email was compromised. This prevented the cyber actors from accessing a genuine VR Systems email account. As such, the cyber actors, as part of their late October spear-phishing attack, resorted to creating a fake account to use in that spear-phishing campaign."
It is good news that VR Systems protected its employees' e-mail accounts. Let's hope that those employees were equally diligent about protecting their personal e-mail accounts and home computers, networks, and phones. We all know employees that often work from home.
The Intercept report highlighted a fact about life on the internet, which all internet users should know: stolen log-in credentials are highly valued by criminals:
"Jake Williams, founder of computer security firm Rendition Infosec and formerly of the NSA’s Tailored Access Operations hacking team, said stolen logins can be even more dangerous than an infected computer. “I’ll take credentials most days over malware,” he said, since an employee’s login information can be used to penetrate “corporate VPNs, email, or cloud services,” allowing access to internal corporate data. The risk is particularly heightened given how common it is to use the same password for multiple services. Phishing, as the name implies, doesn’t require everyone to take the bait in order to be a success — though Williams stressed that hackers “never want just one” set of stolen credentials."
So, a word to the wise for all internet users: don't use the same log-in credentials at multiple site. Don't open e-mail attachments from strangers. If you weren't expecting an e-mail attachment from a coworker/friend/business associate, call them on the phone first and verify that they indeed sent an attachment to you. The internet has become a dangerous place.
"Beginning on Sunday night at midnight, our analysis reveals that the FCC was subject to multiple distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDos). These were deliberate attempts by external actors to bombard the FCC’s comment system with a high amount of traffic to our commercial cloud host. These actors were not attempting to file comments themselves; rather they made it difficult for legitimate commenters to access and file with the FCC. While the comment system remained up and running the entire time, these DDoS events tied up the servers and prevented them from responding to people attempting to submit comments. We have worked with our commercial partners to address this situation and will continue to monitor developments going forward."
The FCC’s , Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) is the site the public users to submit and review feedback about proposed changes. Bray's statement did not identify the "bad actors" responsible for the DDoS attack, did not state the countries or locations of the illegitimate site traffic, nor offer much in the way of any substantial details.
A DDoS attack is when hundreds or thousands of internet-connected devices, often coordinated by malware and/or criminals, overwhelm a targeted website by trying to access it simultaneously. This type of attack prevents legitimate users from accessing the targeted site to perform desired tasks (view/buy products, register for services, view videos, get help, contact representatives, etc.). This can easily disable the targeted website for hours, days, or weeks. It can also disrupt businesses, and cause financial losses.
Generally, security experts are concerned about botnets, collections of internet-connected devices used to perform DDoS attacks. These devices can include home WiFi routers, security cameras, and unprotected computers infected with malware. Often, home devices are used without consumers' knowledge nor consent.
"Fight for the Future is calling on the FCC to release logs on the attack to an independent third party—a security researcher or media outlet—to independently verify the attack. "The agency has a responsibility to maintain a functioning website to receive large numbers of comments and feedback from the public," said Evan Greer campaign director for Fight for the Future. "They can't blame DDoS attacks without proof, they need to fix this problem and ensure that comments on this important issue are not lost."
"Senators Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Brain Schatz (D-Hawaii) are also seeking answers from the FCC. "As you know, it is critical to the rulemaking and regulatory process that the public be able to take part without unnecessary technical or administrative burdens," the lawmakers write. "Any potentially hostile cyber activities that prevent Americans from being able to participate in a fair and transparent process must be treated as a serious issue."
They are asking the FCC to provide details about any malicious traffic, including how many devices sent malicious traffic to the agency. The lawmakers also have asked the FCC whether it requested investigatory assistance from other federal agencies, and whether it uses any commercial protection services."
A reasonable demand for the FCC to provide proof. If the DDoS attack was a new form of 21st-centry censorship to stop concerned citizens (e.g., voters) from submitting feedback in support of net neutrality, then we all need to know. And, we need to know what the FCC is doing to protect its systems.
Got an Android phone or tablet? Considering an Android phone? Then, pay close attention. Researchers have found that more than 20,000 pairs of Android apps work together to spy on users: collect, track, and share information without notice nor consent. The Atlantic magazine explained:
"Security researchers don’t have much trouble figuring out if a single app is gathering sensitive data and secretly sending it off to a server somewhere. But when two apps team up, neither may show definitive signs of thievery alone... A study released this week developed a new way to tackle this problem—and found more than 20,000 app pairings that leak data... Their system—DIALDroid—then couples apps to simulate how they’d interact, and whether they could potentially work together to leak sensitive information. When the researchers set DIALDroid loose on the 100,206 most downloaded Android apps, they turned up nearly 23,500 app pairs that leak data..."
The vulnerabilities the researchers found seem three-fold. First, there is the stealth collusion described above. Second, how the data collected and where it is sent are problematic. The Atlantic article explained:
"When they analyzed the the final destination for leaked data, the Virginia Tech researchers found that nearly half of the receivers in leaky app pairs sent the sensitive data to a log file. Generally, logged information is only available to the app that created it—but some cyberattacks can extract data from log files, which means the leak could still be dangerous. Other more immediately dangerous app pairings send data away from the phone over the internet, or even over SMS."
Third, the vulnerabilities apply to apps operating on corporate networks. The researchers warned in their technical report:
"User Applications. Although DIALDroid is for marketplace owners, Android users can also benefit from this tool. For example, enterprise users can check possible inter-app collusions using DI-ALDroid before allowing certain apps to be installed on the devices of their employees. Moreover, a large-scale public database similar to ours, when regularly updated, can be queried by users to find out possible inter-app communications to or from a particular app."
"Marketplace owners" refers to organizations running online app stores. "Enterprise users" refers to information technology (I.T.) professionals managing (and securing) internal organization networks containing highly sensitive, confidential, and/or proprietary information. Corporate, government, health care organizations, and law firms immediately come to mind.
Prior blog posts and firmware reports have identified numerous vulnerabilities with Android devices. Now, we know a little more about how some apps work together secretly. Add this new item to the list of vulnerabilities.
Android phones may be cheaper than other brands, but that comes at a very steep cost. What are your opinions?
ZDNet reported about a group performing multiple online espionage campaigns which targeted:
"... Mac users with malware designed to steal passwords, take screenshots, and steal backed-up iPhone data. This malware, discovered by cybersecurity researchers at Bitdefender, is thought to be linked to the APT28 group, which was accused of interferring in the United States presidential election. Bitdefender notes a number of similarities between the malware attacks against Macs -- which have been taking place since September 2016 -- and previous campaigns by the group, believed to be closely linked to Russia military intelligence and also dubbed Fancy Bear. Known as Xagent, the new form of malware targets victims running Mac OS X and installs a modular backdoor onto the system which enables the perpetrators to carry out cyberespionage activities... Xagent is also capable of stealing iPhone backups stored on a compromised Mac, an action which opens up even more capabilities for conducting cyberespionage, providing the perpetrators with access to additional files..."
A recent survey of information technology (IT) professionals by Pwnie Express, an information security vendor, found that connected devices bring risks into corporate networks and IT professionals are not keeping up. 90 percent of IT professionals surveyed view connected devices as a security threat to their corporate systems and networks. 66 percent aren't sure how many connected devices are in their organizations.
These findings have huge implications as the installed base of connected devices (a/k/a the "Internet of things" or ioT) takes off. Experts forecast 8.4 billion connected devices in use worldwide in 2017, up 31 percent from 2016. Total spending for those devices will reach almost $2 trillion in 2017, and $20.4 billion by 2020. The regions that will drive this growth include North America, Western Europe, and China; which already comprise 67 percent of the installed base.
Key results from the latest survey by Pwnie Express:
"One in five of the survey respondents (20%) said their IoT devices were hit with ransomware attacks last year. 16 percent of respondents say they experienced Man-in-the-middle attacks through IoT devices. Devices continue to lend themselves to problematic configurations. The default network from common routers “linksys” and “Netgear” were two of the top 10 most common “open default” wireless SSID’s (named networks), and the hotspot network built-in for the configuration and setup of HP printers - “hpsetup”- is #2."
An SSID, or Service Set Identifier, is the name a wireless network broadcasts. Manufacturers ship them with default names, which the bad guys often look for to find open, unprotected networks. While businesses purchase and deploy a variety of connected devices (e.g., smart meters, manufacturing field devices, process sensors for electrical generating plants, real-time location devices for healthcare) and some for "smart buildings" (e.g., LED lighting, HVAC sensors, security systems), other devices are brought into the workplace by workers.
Most companies have Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policies allowing employees to bring and use in the workplace personal devices (e.g., phones, tablets, smart watches, fitness bands). The risk for corporate IT professionals is that when employees, contractors, and consultants bring their personal devices into the workplace, and connect to corporate networks. A mobile device infected with malware from a wireless home network, or from a public hot-spot (e.g., airport, restaurant) can easily introduce that malware into office networks.
Consumers connect a wide variety of items to their wireless home networks: laptops, tablets, smartphones, printers, lighting and temperature controls, televisions, home security systems, fitness bands, smart watches, toys, smart wine bottles, and home appliances (e.g., refrigerators, hot water heaters, coffee makers, crock pots, etc.). Devices with poor security features don't allow operating system and security software updates, don't encrypt key information such as PIN numbers and passwords, and build the software into the firmware where it cannot be upgraded. Last month, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against a modem/router maker alleging poor security in its products.
The survey respondents identified the top connected device threats:
"1. Misconfigured healthcare, security, and IoT devices will provide another route for ransomware and malware to cause harm and affect organizations.
2. Unresolved vulnerabilities or the misconfiguration of popular connected devices, spurred by the vulnerabilities being publicized by botnets, including Mirai and newer, “improved” versions, in the hands of rogue actors will compromise the security of organizations purchasing these devices.
3. Mobile phones will be the attack vector of the future, becoming an extra attack surface and another mode of rogue access points taking advantage of unencrypted Netgear, AT&T, and hpsetup wireless networks to set up man-in-the-middle attacks."
The survey included more than 800 IT security professionals in several industries: financial services, hospitality, retail, manufacturing, professional services, technology, healthcare, energy and more. Download the "2017 Internet of Evil Things Report" by Pwnie.
Security researchers at Check Point Software Technologies have identified malware infecting an average of 13,000 Android phones daily. More than 1 million Android phones have already been infected. Researchers named the new malware "Gooligan." Check Point explained in a blog post:
"Our research exposes how the malware roots infected devices and steals authentication tokens that can be used to access data from Google Play, Gmail, Google Photos, Google Docs, G Suite, Google Drive, and more. Gooligan is a new variant of the Android malware campaign found by our researchers in the SnapPea app last year... Gooligan potentially affects devices on Android 4 (Jelly Bean, KitKat) and 5 (Lollipop), which is over 74% of in-market devices today. About 57% of these devices are located in Asia and about 9% are in Europe... We found traces of the Gooligan malware code in dozens of legitimate-looking apps on third-party Android app stores. These stores are an attractive alternative to Google Play because many of their apps are free, or offer free versions of paid apps. However, the security of these stores and the apps they sell aren’t always verified... Logs collected by Check Point researchers show that every day Gooligan installs at least 30,000 apps fraudulently on breached devices or over 2 million apps since the campaign began..."
This Telegraph UK news story listed 24 device manufacturers affected: Archos, Broadcom, Bullitt, CloudProject, Gigaset, HTC, Huaqin, Huawei, Intel, Lenovo, Pantech, Positivio, Samsung, Unitech, and others.The Check Point announcement listed more than 80 fake mobile apps infected with the Gooligan malware: Billiards, Daily Racing, Fingerprint unlock, Hip Good, Hot Photo, Memory Booster, Multifunction Flashlight, Music Cloud, Perfect Cleaner, PornClub, Puzzle Bubble-Pet Paradise, Sex Photo, Slots Mania, StopWatch, Touch Beauty, WiFi Enhancer, WiFi Master, and many more.
Check Point is working closely with the security team at Google. Adrian Ludwig, Google’s director of Android security, issued a statement:
"Since 2014, the Android security team has been tracking a family of malware called 'Ghost Push,' a vast collection of 'Potentially Harmful Apps' (PHAs) that generally fall into the category of 'hostile downloaders.' These apps are most often downloaded outside of Google Play and after they are installed, Ghost Push apps try to download other apps. For over two years, we’ve used Verify Apps to notify users before they install one of these PHAs and let them know if they’ve been affected by this family of malware... Several Ghost Push variants use publicly known vulnerabilities that are unpatched on older devices to gain privileges that allow them to install applications without user consent. In the last few weeks, we've worked closely with Check Point... to investigate and protect users from one of these variants. Nicknamed ‘Gooligan’, this variant used Google credentials on older versions of Android to generate fraudulent installs of other apps... Because Ghost Push only uses publicly known vulnerabilities, devices with up-to-date security patches have not been affected... We’ve taken multiple steps to protect devices and user accounts, and to disrupt the behavior of the malware as well. Verified Boot [https://source.android.com/security/verifiedboot/], which is enabled on newer devices including those that are compatible with Android 6.0, prevents modification of the system partition. Adopted from ChromeOS, Verified Boot makes it easy to remove Ghost Push... We’ve removed apps associated with the Ghost Push family from Google Play. We also removed apps that benefited from installs delivered by Ghost Push to reduce the incentive for this type of abuse in the future."
Android device users can also have their devices infected by phishing scams where criminals send text and email messages containing links to infected mobile apps. News about this latest malware comes at a time when some consumers are already worried about the security of Android devices.
For the Gooligan malware, Check Point has develop a web site for consumers to determine if their Google account has already been compromised: https://gooligan.checkpoint.com/. Check Point advised consumers with compromised accounts:
"1. A clean installation of an operating system on your mobile device is required (a process called “flashing”). As this is a complex process, we recommend powering off your device and approaching a certified technician, or your mobile service provider, to request that your device be “re-flashed.”
2. Change your Google account passwords immediately after this process."
A word to the wise: a) shop for apps only at trustworthy, reputable sites; b) download and install all operating-system security patches to protect your devices and your information; and c) avoid buying cheap phones that lack operating system software updates and security patches.
Researchers have found a security flaws that could place as many as 900 million Android operating system (OS) phones and tablets at risk. The four vulnerabilities, called "Quadrooter," allows attackers to take complete control of phones which use the Qualcomm chip. Which phones are affected? C/Net reported:
"QuadRooter is a set of four vulnerabilities affecting Android devices built using Qualcomm chipsets. Qualcomm is the world’s leading designer of LTE chipsets with a 65% share of the LTE modem baseband market. If any one of the four vulnerabilities is exploited, an attacker can trigger privilege escalations for the purpose of gaining root access to a device... Since the vulnerable drivers are pre-installed on devices at the point of manufacture, they can only be fixed by installing a patch from the distributor or carrier. Distributors and carriers issuing patches can only do so after receiving fixed driver packs from Qualcomm..."
The Check Point blog listed affected phones and tablets. It also emphasized:
"This situation highlights the inherent risks in the Android security model. Critical security updates must pass through the entire supply chain before they can be made available to end users. Once available, the end users must then be sure to install these updates to protect their devices and data."
Recently, I received a phone call offering "discounts on my Eversource bill." The caller identified himself as "Kevin." I have no idea if that is his real name. Kevin explained that I could get discounts by giving him some simple personal information. His then asked for my ZIP Code.
Right. I was born at night, but not last night.
I told Kevin that I don't share my personal information over the phone without knowing who the caller is. I asked him to provide four items: a) his full name, b) his company name, c) his company's phone number, and d) his company's website address.
Kevin replied, "okay." The next thing I heard was a loud click as he hung up.
"1. Always verify whether these callers are legitimate by asking for some basic information about your account. Our representatives will always be able to provide the name on the account, the account address, and the exact past due balance.
2. Never immediately pay, regardless of what the caller knows about your account. If they request an immediate payment using a third-party service, at another location or via a prepaid debit card, hang up immediately and contact us directly to verify your account status.
3. If you are suspicious, hang up and call us at 800-592-2000. Also, please report this to your local law enforcement.
4. Never wire money to someone you don’t know – regardless of the situation. Once you wire money, you cannot get it back.
5. Do not accept offers from anyone, including those claiming to be Eversource employees, to pay your bill or provide any other service for a fee.
6. Do not click on links or call numbers that appear in unexpected emails or text messages – especially those asking for your account information. If you click on a link, your computer could become infected with malware, including viruses that can steal your information and compromise your computer."
So, it seems appropriate to revisit the definitions. From the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) website:
Hate Crime: "A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties."
International Terrorism: "... means activities with the following three characteristics: 1) Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; 2) Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and 3) Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
Domestic Terrorism: "... means activities with the following three characteristics: 1) Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; 2) Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and 3) Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."
"The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), once the force for open standards that kept browsers from locking publishers to their proprietary capabilities, has changed its mission. Since 2013, the organization has provided a forum where today's dominant browser companies and the dominant entertainment companies can collaborate on a system to let our browsers control our behavior, rather than the other way.
This system, "Encrypted Media Extensions" (EME) uses standards-defined code to funnel video into a proprietary container called a "Content Decryption Module." For a new browser to support this new video streaming standard -- which major studios and cable operators are pushing for -- it would have to convince those entertainment companies or one of their partners to let them have a CDM, or this part of the "open" Web would not display in their new browser.
This is the opposite of every W3C standard to date: once, all you needed to do to render content sent by a server was follow the standard, not get permission. If browsers had needed permission to render a page at the launch of Mozilla, the publishers would have frozen out this new, pop-up-blocking upstart. Kiss Firefox goodbye, in other words.
The W3C didn't have to do this. No copyright law says that making a video gives you the right to tell people who legally watch it how they must configure their equipment. But because of the design of EME, copyright holders will be able to use the law to shut down any new browser that tries to render the video without their permission."
An EFF blog post explained the related threat from vague online language:
"A team of researchers from UC Berkeley and Case Western have published a study showing that customers think they are getting traditional ownership rights when they buy digital media online, even when a vendor’s site includes legal terms (often buried in click-wrap agreements) purporting to limit those rights.
In the study, customers purchased digital media from a fictional website with either a “Buy Now” button, a “License Now” button... Customers clicking “Buy Now” overwhelmingly believed for that they would “own” both digital and hard copy media, and have the right to keep it indefinitely and use it on a device of their choice. Little did they realize that their digital copy could be taken away or simply be discontinued when a vendor went out of business or stopped supporting the product... When the button was changed to read “License Now,” customers’ expectations did not significantly change (they were less likely to say they "owned" the product, but just as likely to believe they had the rights that come with ownership). When, however, customers were presented with a plainly-written summary of the rights that were and were not granted, this did cause a corresponding change in people’s expectations. The paper reinforces the truism that no one reads fine print online terms, even in a research study. If vendors really wanted customers to understand what’s in their terms, they could easily craft informative summaries as the researchers did."
So, when you visit a website with "Buy It Now" buttons or "Own it Now" ads, you now know what really matters is what the fine print states. Some Apple Music and iTunes customers are learning this the hard way. Subscribing to music online may be convenient, but the downside is loss of control over music files that can also affect files users do own.
Publishers have every right to protect their property from theft, and the old adage is true: the devil is in the details. Read the fine print. When publishers use digital rights management (DRM) to drive web browser standards and both the hardware and software consumers can buy, then the tail wagging the dog.
So, it's not only about saving the Firefox web browser. It's about ensuring competition; that publishers build content to open standards and any web browser can display content built to those standards. Read the entire EFF article. Standards are standards. They should be open to everyone; not driven by publisher's needs.
What are you thoughts or opinions about the new standard?
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently released a report about debt collection scams. The report is based upon more than 834,00 complaints filed by consumers nationally with the CFPB about financial products and services: checking and savings accounts, mortgages, credit cards, prepaid cards, consumer loans, student loans, money transfers, payday loans, debt settlement, credit repair, and credit reports. Complaints about debt collection scams accounted for 26 percent of all complaints.
The most frequent scam are attempts to collect money from consumers for debts they don't owe. This accounted for 38 percent of all debt-collection-scam complaints submitted. This included harassment:
"Consumers complained about receiving multiple calls weekly and sometimes daily from debt collectors. Consumers often complained that the collector continued to call even after being repeatedly told that the alleged debtor could not be contacted at the dialed number. Consumers also complained about debt collectors calling their places of employment... Consumers complained that they were not given enough information to verify whether or not they owed the debt that someone was attempting to collect. "
The two companies with the most complaints:
"... were Encore Capital Group and Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc. Both companies, which are among the largest debt buyers in the country, averaged over 100 complaints submitted to the Bureau each month between October and December 2015. In 2015, the CFPB took enforcement actions against these two large debt buyers for using deceptive tactics to collect bad debts."
Compared to a year ago, debt collection complaints increased the most in Indiana (38 percent), Arizona (27 percent), and New Hampshire (26 percent) during December 2015 through February 2016. Debt collection complaints decreased the most in Maine (-34 percent), Wyoming (-26 percent), and North Dakota (-23 percent). And:
"Of the five most populated states, California (10 percent) experienced the greatest percentage increase and Illinois (-4 percent) experienced the greatest percentage decrease in debt collection complaints..."
The report lists 20 companies with the most debt-collection complaints during October through December 2015. The top five companies with with average monthly complaints about debt collection are Encore Capital Group (139.3), Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc. (112.3), Enhanced recovery Company, LLC (65.7), Transworld Systems Inc. (63.7), and Citibank (54.7). This top-20 list also includes several banks: Synchrony Bank, Capital One, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo.
While the March Monthly Complaint Report by the CFPB focused upon debt collection complaints, it also provides plenty of detailed information about all categories of complaints. From December 2015 through February 2016, the CFPB received on average every month about 6,856 debt collection complaints, 4,211 mortgage complaints, 3,556 credit reporting complaints, 2,021 complaints about bank accounts or services, and 1,995 complaints about credit cards. Most categories showed increased complaint volumes compared to the same period a year ago. Only two categories showed a decline in average monthly complaints: credit reporting and payday loans. Debt collection complaints were up 6 percent.
Compared to a year ago, average monthly complaint volume (all categories) increased in 40 states and decreased in 11 states. The top five states with the largest increases (all categories) included Connecticut (31 percent), Kansas (30 percent), Georgia (25 percent), Louisiana (25 percent), and Indiana (24 percent). The top five states with the largest decreases (all categories) included Hawaii (-25 percent), Maine (-19 percent), South Dakota (-14 percent), District of Columbia (-8 percent), and Idaho (-6 percent). Also:
"Of the five most populated states, New York (12 percent) experienced the greatest complaint volume percentage increase, and Texas (-8 percent) experienced the greatest complaint volume percentage decrease from December 2014 to February 2015 to December 2015 to February 2016."
The chart below lists the 10 companies with the most complaints (all categories) during October through December, 2015:
The "Other" category includes consumer loans, student loans, prepaid cards, payday loans, prepaid cards, money transfers, and more. During this three-month period, complaints about these companies totaled 46 percent of all complaints. Consumers submit complaints about the national big banks covering several categories. According to the CFPB March complaints report (links added):
"By average monthly complaint volume, Equifax (988), Experian (841), and TransUnion (810) were the most-complained-about companies for October - December 2015. Equifax experienced the greatest percentage increase in average monthly complaint volume (32 percent)... Ocwen experienced the greatest percentage decrease in average monthly complaint volume (-18 percent)... Empowerment Ventures (parent company of RushCard) debuted as the 10th most-complained-about company..."
To learn more about the CFPB, there are plenty of posts in this blog. Simply enter "CFPB" in the search box in the right column.
Maybe you've seen the advertisements on late-night television and cable. SimpliSafe offers a wireless, do-it-yourself home security system that is cheaper than traditional wired systems. IOActive Labs examined the SimpliSafe system and found it was pretty easy to hack and record the alarm disable code, making the system not very secure. Plus the hacker could return in the future at any time and easily disable the system:
"This attack is very inexpensive to implement – it requires a one-time investment of about $250 for a commodity microcontroller board, SimpliSafe keypad, and SimpliSafe base station to build the attack device. The attacker can hide the device anywhere within about a hundred feet of the target’s keypad until the alarm is disarmed once and the code recorded. Then the attacker retrieves the device. The code can then be played back at any time to disable the alarm and enable an undetected burglary, or worse..."
Unfortunately, the bad news gets worse because:
"... there is no easy workaround for the issue since the keypad happily sends unencrypted PINs out to anyone listening. Normally, the vendor would fix the vulnerability in a new firmware version by adding cryptography to the protocol. However, this is not an option for the affected SimpliSafe products because the microcontrollers in currently shipped hardware are one-time programmable. This means that field upgrades of existing systems are not possible; all existing keypads and base stations will need to be replaced."
Unencrypted PINs sent? Wow! Not good.
IOActive first discovered this vulnerability in August, 2015. The IOActive Labs Security Advisory (Adobe PDF) reported a timeline with the number of instances IOActive labs attempted to contact the vendor without an response. SimpliSafe is not alone. InfoSecurity reported:
"SimpliSafe is not the only home security system in the spotlight of late. Earlier in the year, a vulnerability was discovered in Comcast XFINITY’s Home Security System that could open the door—literally—to intruders."
"The Internet of Things has the potential to transform the way we live and work. A network not just of mobile phones, PCs and laptops but billions of connected smart devices – from fridge-freezers to kettles, cars and medical devices. But this potential will never be realized unless manufacturers are able to respond to consumer privacy and security concerns... it’s perhaps no surprise that everyone wants to rush their products out before their competitors. But fail to understand and respect the significant privacy and security concerns of consumers in your region and you’re in danger of falling at the first hurdle."
Manufacturers: don't fall at the first hurdle. Get security right.
"Camtasia, uTorrent, and a large number of other Mac apps are susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks that install malicious code, thanks to a vulnerability in Sparkle, the third-party software framework the apps use to receive updates. The vulnerability is the result of apps that use a vulnerable version of Sparkle along with an unencrypted HTTP channel to receive data from update servers..."
"People who aren't sure if an app on their Mac is safe should consider avoiding unsecured Wi-Fi networks or using a virtual private network when doing so. Even then, it will still be possible to exploit vulnerable apps, but the attackers would have to be government spies or rogue telecom employees with access to a phone network or Internet backbone."
If your computer runs the Linux operating system (OS), or you use Android phone, then today's blog post is for you. On Tuesday, ZD Net reported about a vulnerability that affects devices running either group of OS software:
"A new, previously undiscovered flaw that allows an attacker to escalate local user privileges to the highest "root" level is said to hit "tens of millions" of Linux PCs and servers. Because some of the code is shared, the zero-day flaw also affects more than two-thirds of all Android devices."
This is important because many consumers use Android phones:
"A patch is expected to be released on January 19 for most Linux machines... It is not known if Google was aware of the bug before Perception Point published its findings. The Android maker will likely fix the bug as part of its scheduled monthly security updates in February. A Google spokesperson did not comment."
This raises several questions. Why wait until February? Will all Android phone users receive the OS software updates that fix the vulnerability? And when? What role does your mobile service provider have in the OS update process?
You Probably paid $200 or $300 when you bought your phone and committed to a two-year contract with your mobile service provider. So, it's reasonable to expect OS software updates. Sadly, not all Android phone users get software updates. Why? How? This is not new. Android Central explained the software update process way back in 2012:
"This vicious cycle is a product of Google’s approach to its OS, combined with a mess of other factors including carriers, manufacturers and users’ own expectations. It’s one of the platform’s most significant issues, and one that’s all but impossible to solve..."
Some of the messy, ugly details in the software update process:
"But when the [updated] code is pushed out, it's not necessarily ready for every device out there. Getting a new version of Android up and running on any device with different hardware requires a significant amount of additional work, and even more effort is needed to bring across proprietary code from chip-makers... The task isn’t limited to code, though. There are often design changes to be considered... Updating an Android device isn't easy, and there's much more to it than dropping in the new code from Google and hoping for the best. It’s a hell of a lot of work... If radio changes have been made, the new code must be certified by regional authorities, as well bodies like the Bluetooth SIG and Wifi Alliance. That all takes precious time... mobile operators have great influence into what goes out on their networks, especially in markets like the U.S. and Japan. That power includes the requirement that manufacturers submit updates for approval before they’re pushed out. The carrier certification process can be lightning-fast or arduously long-winded... Carriers are generally slow moving, and they’ll always err on the side of caution. They also have limited resources when it comes to certifying smartphone software, and the priority, naturally, will always be given to approving new devices ready to go on sale... If a phone hasn’t sold well, or it's a budget model, it might just not be worth the time and money to develop and certify an update..."
What are your opinions of the Android software update process? Let us know if you received the latest OS software update that fixed this vulnerability.
During his review of the book, "Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few" by Robert B. Reich, Paul Krugman discussed "market power." This is how monopolies (and oligopolies) affect the prices consumers pay for products and services in the marketplace. Mr. Krugman cited several examples of monopolies (and near monopolies) which consumers (and labor unions) should be aware of. First some background:
"Market power has a precise definition: it’s what happens whenever individual economic actors are able to affect the prices they receive or pay, as opposed to facing prices determined anonymously by the invisible hand. Monopolists get to set the price of their product; monopsonists—sole purchasers in a market—get to set the price of things they buy. Oligopoly, where there are a few sellers, is more complicated than monopoly, but also involves substantial market power."
How economists approached the concept of market power:
"Milton Friedman, in a deeply influential 1953 essay, argued that monopoly mattered only to the extent that actual market behavior differed from the predictions of simple supply-and-demand analysis—and that in fact there was little evidence that monopoly had important effects.Friedman’s view largely prevailed within the economics profession... It’s increasingly clear, however, that this was both an intellectual and a policy error. There’s growing evidence that market power does indeed have large implications..."
Some examples of market power to the detriment of consumers:
"... most Americans seeking Internet access are more or less at the mercy of their local cable company; the result is that broadband is both slower and far more expensive in the US than in other countries. Another striking example involves agriculture, usually considered the very model of a perfectly competitive sector... Monsanto, now dominates much of the sector as the sole supplier of genetically modified soybeans and corn. A recent article in The American Prospect points out that other examples of such dominance are easy to find, ranging from sunglasses to syringes to cat food."
If you're feeling squeezed by high prices, you are. Middle-class workers are being squeezed where companies with market power both charge higher prices than otherwise for products and service, and offer lower wages (bold added):
"Other evidence points indirectly to a strong role of market power... there is an extensive empirical literature on the effects of changes in the minimum wage. Conventional supply-and-demand analysis says that raising the minimum wage should reduce employment, but as Reich notes, we now have a number of what amount to controlled experiments, in which employment in counties whose states have hiked the minimum wage can be compared with employment in neighboring counties across the state line. And there is no hint in the data of the supposed negative employment effect. Why not? One leading hypothesis is that firms employing low-wage workers—such as fast-food chains—have significant monopsony power in the labor market; that is, they are the principal purchasers of low-wage labor in a particular job market."
Yet, many politicians claim that raising the minimum wage raises unemployment. Now you know that, a) these politicians are protecting the oligarchs and monopolists; and b) why that isn't true. Think of it this way: in a free country, labor unions are a right by employees to band together to gain some power in the marketplace; just as corporations band together in industry associations employing lobbyists. No wonder most corporations (and their bought politicians) oppose unions.
It doesn't have to be this way. Most people:
"... tend to think of the drastic decline in unions as an inevitable consequence of technological change and globalization, but one need look no further than Canada to see that this isn’t true. Once upon a time, around a third of workers in both the US and Canada were union members; today, US unionization is down to 11 percent, while it’s still 27 percent north of the border. The difference was politics: US policy turned hostile toward unions in the 1980s, while Canadian policy didn’t..."
Hopefully, this has connected the dots for people wanting to understand what is happening in the economy and why. Thanks to both Mr. Reich and Mr. Krugman. What are your thoughts about market power? About Mr. Reich's book? About Mr. Krugman's book review?
You've probably heard about it, or read some of the initial news reports. The New York Post broke the story about a teenager hacking into the e-mail account of John Brennan, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The methods the hacker used are a good example of pretexting: when a criminal pretends to be somebody they aren't in order to acquire sensitive information about the target(s).
The hacker did a reverse number lookup of Brennan's mobile phone number. Several websites provide this feature. From that, the hacker learned that Verizon was Brennan's provider of phone services.
Pretending to be a Verizon technician, the teenage hacker and his accomplices, called Verizon asking for details about Brennan's account. The Verizon phone rep asked for their Vcode, a unique number assigned to each Verizon technician. The hacker provided a fake Vcode which somehow passed Verizon's security. From that, the hacker learned Brennan’s account number, four-digit PIN, the backup mobile number on Brennan's account, Brennan’s AOL email address, and the last four digits on Brennan's bank card.
The hacker accessed Brennan's AOL e-mail account on October 12, and read several e-mail messages including messages forwarded from his work e-mail account. From that, the hacker learned Brennan's secure White House e-mail address, his security clearance application, topics discussed by Brennan and other intelligence officials, and work-related documents attached to several e-mail messages. One attachment included a spreadsheet with names and Social Security numbers of several persons, including intelligence officials.
The hackers posted photos of several documents online via a Twitter account they had set up. The hackers accessed Brennan's account for at least three days.
On October 16, the hacker posted via Twitter that Brennan had deleted his AOL e-mail account supposedly because the hackers had accessed it.
Brennan reset the password on his AOL account, which the hackers accessed again. This suggests that they called AOL customer service pretending to be Brennan and reset the password on his account so they could access it. Reportedly, the dueling password resets happened three times.
The hackers called Brennan's mobile phone number and told him his account had been hacked. After asking them what they wanted, the hackers reportedly answered, "We just want Palestine to be free and for you to stop killing innocent people."
What should consumers make of this incident? First, the incident provides a window into the hassles and inconveniences when your e-mail account is hacked and taken over by a criminal. The hackers could have sent out spam messages from Brennan's account to his friends, family, and coworkers. Second, the incident highlights the necessity of not using the same password on multiple accounts. When consumers do this, it makes it easy for criminals to access several of your online and financial accounts. Hackers will try the same stolen password at other online accounts to see where else they access.
Third, the incident is a reminder for consumers never to disclose sensitive personal and financial information over the phone. Why? Simply, the caller's identity is unknown and unverified. We consumers frequently receive calls from identity thieves from fake computer support vendors or bogus cardholder services.
Fourth, Verizon should improve its security processes. A fake Vcode should not allow access to customers' sensitive information. There should be consequences for Verizon for this breach. Fifth, the hackers' techniques provide a tiny view of the activities spies and counter-intelligence agencies perform, and why these entities want to hack into government agencies' websites, such as the Office of Personnel Management breach earlier this year.
Sixth, adding your mobile phone number to your social networking and e-mail accounts is not a data security cure-all. Smart hackers will target your mobile phone number so that they receive any notifications you've set up about changes to your account.
Seventh and perhaps most troubling, the Brennan and Clinton e-mail incidents suggest that many government officials highly value convenience (just as consumers do), by forwarding work-related e-mails and documents from secure work systems to less secure commercial systems. You could argue that this desire for convenience is a security weakness. Fifth, you can bet that spies will try to take advantage of this weakness by replicating pretexting attacks on other high-value executive targets, in both the public and private sectors. If a teenager can do it, then so can an experienced spy.
What are your opinions of the hacking incident? Of Verizon's role?
Step one includes an Internet-based robocall (e.g., an automated phone call using computers) from anywhere in the world -- usually offshore -- by scammers to verify your 10-digit phone number. With the multitude of corporate data breaches, the criminals may have acquired your name and phone number from hackers. Step two is another robocall pretending to be your bank, computer company, collection agency, or tax agency to trick you into revealing sensitive personal information (e.g., e-mail, address, age, bank name, bank account numbers, card numbers, etc.) over the phone.
Experts advise consumers not to disclose any personal information over the phone. Verify the caller first. Demand their name, company name, e-mail, phone number, website address, and how they acquired your phone number. (Most phone scammers will refuse or make excuses.) If the do provide contact information, check to see if matches the contact information you can verify independently (e.g., the phone numbers on the back of your bank card). If it doesn't match, then the caller is probably a scammer.
I always tell callers two things: a) I don't give out personal information over the phone, and b) I need to verify the caller first. If the caller provides a website address, I will check it during the phone call. If the site doesn't exist or looks crappy, that's a huge clue the caller is probably a scammer.
When you disclose personal information over the phone, the criminals' proceed with step three of the identity theft and fraud process. They will contact your bank or credit card company pretending to be you to takeover your account by changing the address on your account. How? The scammers will use the personal information you provided.
What should consumers do when you receive these robocalls? Experts advise that you simply hang up. Don't ask to be taken off their phone lists. Don't access their voicemail system to be removed from their calls. All that does it help the scammers verify your existence.
Parents: now you know what to teach your children about phone calls, privacy, and safety.
Readers of this blog are aware of the various versions of check scams criminal use to trick consumers. A new scam has emerged with social travel sites.
After paying for a valid stay, an Airbnb customer was tricked by criminals using an wire transfer scam. The Telegraph UK described how an Airbnb customer was tricked. After paying for for their valid rental with a valid credit card, the guest:
"... received an email from Airbnb saying that the card payment had been declined and I needed to arrange an international bank transfer within the next 24 hours to secure the apartment. Stupidly, I did as asked. I transferred the money straight away to someone I assumed was the host as they had all the details of my reservation."
Formed in 2008, Airbnb now operates in 34,000 cities in 190 countries.
After checking with their bank, the guest determined that the credit card payment had been processed correctly. So, the guest paid twice, with the second payment to the criminal. The guest believes that Airbnb experienced a data breach. According to one security expert:
"The fraud works by sending an email to a host that appears to come from Airbnb asking them to verify their account details. The host foolishly responds thus giving the fraudster access to their account and all the bookings correspondence. Even though the addresses are anonymised the fraudster can still send emails to the customers via Airbnb to try to extract a second payment by bank transfer."
What can consumers make of this? First, hosts should learn to recognize phishing e-mails. Don't respond to them. Second, guests need to remember that inattentive hosts can compromise their identity information. Third, guests should never make payments outside of Airbnb's system.
Criminals are creative, persistent, and knowledgeable. Consumers need to be, too. Read the Scams/Threats section of this blog.