Entries Tagged "scams"
Page 10 of 12
Remember pretexting? It’s the cute name given to…well…fraud. It’s when you call someone and pretend to be someone else, in order to get information. Or when you go online and pretend to be someone else, in order to get something. There’s no question in my mind that it’s fraud and illegal, but it seems to be a gray area.
California is considering a bill that would make this kind of thing illegal, and allow victims to sue for damages.
Who could be opposed to this? The MPAA, that’s who:
The bill won approval in three committees and sailed through the state Senate with a 30-0 vote. Then, according to Lenny Goldberg, a lobbyist for the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, the measure encountered unexpected, last-minute resistance from the Motion Picture Association of America.
“The MPAA has a tremendous amount of clout and they told legislators, ‘We need to pose as someone other than who we are to stop illegal downloading,'” Goldberg said.
These people are looking more and more like a criminal organization every day.
EDITED TO ADD (12/11): Congress has outlawed pretexting. The law doesn’t go as far as some of the state laws — which it pre-empts — but it’s still a good thing.
Consider two different security problems. In the first, you store your valuables in a safe in your basement. The threat is burglars, of course. But the safe is yours, and the house is yours, too. You control access to the safe, and probably have an alarm system.
The second security problem is similar, but you store your valuables in someone else’s safe. Even worse, it’s someone you don’t trust. He doesn’t know the combination, but he controls access to the safe. He can try to break in at his leisure. He can transport the safe anyplace he needs to. He can use whatever tools he wants. In the first case, the safe needs to be secure, but it’s still just a part of your overall home security. In the second case, the safe is the only security device you have.
This second security problem might seem contrived, but it happens regularly in our information society: Data controlled by one person is stored on a device controlled by another. Think of a stored-value smart card: If the person owning the card can break the security, he can add money to the card. Think of a DRM system: Its security depends on the person owning the computer not being able to get at the insides of the DRM security. Think of the RFID chip on a passport. Or a postage meter. Or SSL traffic being sent over a public network.
These systems are difficult to secure, and not just because you give your attacker the device and let him utilize whatever time, equipment and expertise he needs to break it. It’s difficult to secure because breaks are generally “class breaks.” The expert who figures out how to do it can build hardware — or write software — to do it automatically. Only one person needs to break a given DRM system; the software can break every other device in the same class.
This means that the security needs to be secure not against the average attacker, but against the smartest, most motivated and best funded attacker.
I was reminded of this problem earlier this month, when researchers announced a new attack (.pdf) against implementations of the RSA cryptosystem. The attack exploits the fact that different operations take different times on modern CPUs. By closely monitoring — and actually affecting — the CPU during an RSA operation, an attacker can recover the key. The most obvious applications for this attack are DRM systems that try to use a protected partition in the CPU to prevent the computer’s owner from learning the DRM system’s cryptographic keys.
These sorts of attacks are not new. In 1995, researchers discovered they could recover cryptographic keys by comparing relative timings on chips. In later years, both power and radiation were used to break cryptosystems. I called these “side-channel attacks,” because they made use of information other than the plaintext and ciphertext. And where are they most useful? To recover secrets from smart cards.
Whenever I see security systems with this data/device separation, I try to solve the security problem by removing the separation. This means completely redesigning the system and the security assumptions behind it.
Compare a stored-value card with a debit card. In the former case, the card owner can create money by changing the value on the card. For this system to be secure, the card needs to be protected by a variety of security countermeasures. In the latter case, there aren’t any secrets on the card. Your bank doesn’t care that you can read the account number off the front of the card, or the data off the magnetic stripe off the back — the real data, and the security, are in the bank’s databases.
Or compare a DRM system with a financial model that doesn’t care about copying. The former is impossible to secure, the latter easy.
While common in digital systems, this kind of security problem isn’t limited to them. Last month, the province of Ontario started investigating insider fraud in their scratch-and-win lottery systems, after the CBC aired allegations that people selling the tickets are able to figure out which tickets are winners, and not sell them. It’s the same problem: the owners of the data on the tickets — the lottery commission — tried to keep that data secret from those who had physical control of the tickets. And they failed.
Compare that with a traditional drawing-at-the-end-of-the-week lottery system. The attack isn’t possible, because there are no secrets on the tickets for an attacker to learn.
Separating data ownership and device ownership doesn’t mean that security is impossible, only much more difficult. You can buy a safe so strong that you can lock your valuables in it and give it to your attacker — with confidence. I’m not so sure you can design a smart card that keeps secrets from its owner, or a DRM system that works on a general-purpose computer — especially because of the problem of class breaks. But in all cases, the best way to solve the security problem is not to have it in the first place.
This essay originally appeared on Wired.com.
EDITED TO ADD (12/1): I completely misunderstood the lottery problem in Ontario. The frauds reported were perpetrated by lottery machine operators at convenience stores and the like stealing end-of-week draw tickets from unsuspecting customers. The customer would hand their ticket over the counter to be scanned to see if it was a winner. The clerk (knowing what the winning numbers actually were) would palm a non-winning ticket into the machine, inform the customer “sorry better luck next time” and claim the prize on their own at a later date.
Nice scam, but nothing to do with the point of this essay.
Someone goes door-to-door, soliciting contributions to a charity. He prefers a check — it’s safer for you, after all. But he offers his pen for you to sign your check, and the pen is filled with erasable ink. Later, he changes both the payee and the amount, and cashes the check.
This surely isn’t a new scam, but it’s happening in the UK right now. I’ve already written about attackers using different solvents to wash ink off checks, but this one is even more basic — the attacker gives the victim a bad pen to start with.
I thought checks were printed with ink that also erased, voiding the check. Why does this sort of attack still work?
Late on Monday, two thieves used a swipe card to drive a van up to Easynet’s Brick Lane headquarters. Once inside they began loading equipment into their van. They were watched by two security guards — one was doing his rounds and the other watched by CCTV — but both assumed the thieves, with their legitimate swipe cards also had a legitimate reason to take the kit, according to our sources.
EDITED TO ADD (11/25): Here’s another story (link in Turkish). The police receive an anonymous emergency call from someone claiming to have planted an explosive in the Haydarpasa Numune Hospital. They evaculate the hospital (100 patients plus doctors, staff, visitors, etc.) and search the place for two hours. They find nothing. When patients and visitors return, they realize that their valuables were stolen.
Cybercrime is getting organized:
Cyberscams are increasingly being committed by organized crime syndicates out to profit from sophisticated ruses rather than hackers keen to make an online name for themselves, according to a top U.S. official.
Christopher Painter, deputy chief of the computer crimes and intellectual property section at the Department of Justice, said there had been a distinct shift in recent years in the type of cybercriminals that online detectives now encounter.
“There has been a change in the people who attack computer networks, away from the ‘bragging hacker’ toward those driven by monetary motives,” Painter told Reuters in an interview this week.
Although media reports often focus on stories about teenage hackers tracked down in their bedroom, the greater danger lies in the more anonymous virtual interlopers.
“There are still instances of these ‘lone-gunman’ hackers but more and more we are seeing organized criminal groups, groups that are often organized online targeting victims via the internet,” said Painter, in London for a cybercrime conference.
I’ve been saying this sort of thing for years, and have long complained that cyberterrorism gets all the press while cybercrime is the real threat. I don’t think this article is fear and hype; it’s a real problem.
There seems to be a small epidemic of land title fraud in Ontario, Canada.
What happens is someone impersonates the homeowner, and then sells the house out from under him. The former owner is still liable for the mortgage, but can’t get in his former house. Cleaning up the problem takes a lot of time and energy.
The problem is one of economic incentives. If banks were held liable for fraudulent mortgages, then the problem would go away really quickly. But as long as they’re not, they have no incentive to ensure that this fraud doesn’t occur. (They have some incentive, because the fraud costs them money, but as long as the few fraud cases cost less than ensuring the validity of every mortgage, they’ll just ignore the problem and eat the losses when fraud occurs.)
EDITED TO ADD (9/8): Another article.
This is impressive:
A fraudster contacts an AT&T service rep and says he works at a pizza parlor and that the phone is having trouble. Until things get fixed, he requests that all incoming calls be forwarded to another number, which he provides.
Pizza orders are thus routed by AT&T to the fraudster’s line. When a call comes in, the fraudster pretends to take the customer’s order but says payment must be made in advance by credit card.
The unsuspecting customer gives his or her card number and expiration date, and before you can say “extra cheese,” the fraudster is ready to go on an Internet shopping spree using someone else’s money.
Those of us who know security have been telling people not to trust incoming phone calls — that you should call the company if you are going to divulge personal information to them. Seems like that advice isn’t foolproof.
The problem is the phone company, of course. They’re forwarding calls based on an unauthenticated request. AT&T doesn’t really want to talk about details:
He was reluctant to discuss the steps AT&T has taken to improve its call-forwarding system so this sort of thing doesn’t happen again. What, for example, is to prevent someone from convincing AT&T to forward all calls to a local flower store or some other business that takes orders by phone?
“We had some guidelines in place that we believe were effective,” Britton said. “Now we have extra precautions.”
It seems to me that AT&T would solve this problem more quickly if it were liable. Shouldn’t a pizza customer who has been scammed be allowed to sue AT&T? After all, the phone company didn’t route the customer’s calls properly. Does the credit card company have a basis for a suit? Certainly the pizza parlor does, but the effects of AT&T’s sloppy authentication are much greater than a few missed pizza orders.
In Australia, criminals are posing as census takers and harvesting personal data for fraudulent purposes.
EDITED TO ADD (8/21): I didn’t notice that this link is from 2001. Sorry about missing that, but it actually makes the story more interesting. This is the sort of identity-theft tactic that I would have expected to see this year, as criminals have gotten more and more sophisticated. It surprises me that they were doing this five years ago as well.
Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.