Social Engineering, Part XIV

By | November 22, 2011

image

Further to my earlier piece about the scamming potential of Web 2.0, here are a couple more examples of why social engineering is a bigger problem than it might appear.

First off, governments and organisations are not as careful with your information as you might expect them to. There are plenty of examples of CD-ROMs and laptops going missing, but often even that doesn’t need to happen. Some governments openly publish such information on the Internet. Indonesia’s minsitry of education, for example, has published the names, addresses, age, date of birth, school and education number of 36 million Indonesian students in easily downloadable XLS format.

Who might use such information? The mind boggles at the possibilities. But one hint might be found in this Straits Times article from neighboring Singapore, which reports a growing wave of faux kidnappings: Gangs phone someone with enough information about their loved one—child, spouse, or whatever—to convince them they’ve been kidnapped and the mark must pay the ransom immediately. In the past six months employees at one bank alone have foiled 14 such attempts—merely by alerting the victims trying to withdraw large amounts of money that they’re being conned.

In the first half of this year, according to the newspaper, 21 people have been scammed out of S$322,000 ($216,000) in this way. Such scams rely on having access to just the kind of information contained in the ministry of education’s database: Knowing kids’ names, their class, their home address, their school chums—all would be invaluable in doing a scam like this. Or any other number of scams.

The point is that we need to think beyond the narrow confines of single channels of data. Scammers don’t: They use a combination of techniques to build up enough information about their mark to be able to either impersonate them or convince them of something. In the above case, it’s that they have kidnapped a relative. In this (still ongoing) Hong Kong-based scam, it’s that they are their bank.

I’m not suggesting Web 2.0 is going to breed a different kind of scam, it’s just going to breed a new kind of opportunity. Social engineering relies on gathering just the sort of data that social networking and presence tools base themselves on.

How to Remove Swear Words from Your Online Life

By | October 8, 2008

Here’s how, in an age when it’s impossible to view YouTube without encountering the profane and incoherent, to make surfing the web more palatable for grandma or the tykes.

Install Firefox.

Download the extension FoxReplace.

Once it’s installed (and Firefox reloaded), go to the options in Tools/FoxReplace:

image

Select FoxReplace options…

You’ll see a window with three columns: URL, replace and with.

image

Now enter those terms that you find offensive by clicking the Add button on the right.

image

The top half of the window lets you decide whether you want to ‘censor’ specific webpages. Leaving this blank means all pages you visit will be affected.

Add the word you want sanitized in the text box next to Replace. This may be the only time in your life you get to type these words without feeling bad about it, so savour it. If you find a particular expletive is used in different tenses, just use the root. The suffixes—ing, ed etc—won’t look so offensive once the root has been cleansed. So to speak.

If you want to replace the word with something more acceptable, enter it in the right hand column. Otherwise leave it blank. I use [charming expletive] but this is merely my taste.

When you’re done thinking up the worst words you can think of, click OK.

You’ll now be back in the Firefox browser. Try visiting a page you know is full of ribaldry. You should see the unacceptable words replaced with whatever words you chose.

image

image

You can set FoxReplace to replace these words automatically or manually. Select Auto-replace on page load from the Tools/FoxReplace menu.

I find this useful for when I’m browsing web-sites that have arresting content and slightly less arresting commenters. It’s odd how demoralizing it can be to read a page full of expletives and grammatical errors. Talking of which, I’ve also set FoxReplace to correct those annoying instances of “would of” and “could of” that aren’t exactly expletives, but have the same effect on my mood.

Beware of The Away Message

By | October 8, 2008

By Jeremy Wagstaff

There are few things more exhilarating, I suspect, than being able to set your email account to respond with an automated message that says: “I’m on holiday. I won’t be answering your email for a while. I’m going on holiday to Barbados, and Bob Loser, my colleague, is covering for me, so call him on +1–723–7893–782. Have a nice day.”

This may feel good but it’s not always a good thing to do. Here’s why.

These auto-respond messages will be sent to anyone—anyone—that sends you an email. And that means spammers, scammers and other people who may not be your friends. Do you tell everyone in your neighborhood that you’re going away? Probably not. So why would you tell anyone who happens to send you an email?

Let’s take a real world example: A security expert I know found himself on the receiving end of a revenge attack by scammers he’d been trying to put out of business. To get payback they put his name and email address on a forged email that itself looked like a scam. The expert’s email in-box was deluged with bounce-backs—emails sent to addresses that don’t exist, or don’t exist anymore—and angry emails from those who believed he had suddenly switched sides and was now in the scamming game.

But what he also found was that he was receiving dozens, if not hundreds, of emails from addresses where the recipients have automated some sort of response informing the sender they’re out of the office. A lot of those auto-responses contained surprisingly personal information that would be very handy to someone somewhere: Who to call, where that person will be, when they’ll be back.

And not just that: the person’s full-name and workplace, details of injuries incurred that are keeping the person in question at home and companies notifying senders that the person in question no longer works there. In one case the auto-respond said the intended recipient of the email had been fired for misconduct.

So why is this a problem? Two words: social engineering. Social engineering is when a scammer uses our social habits to engineer a way past our defenses: calling up the overworked tech department, say, pretending to be a staff member who’s forgotten his password, or calling the switchboard to find out the boss’ birthday—a clue, perhaps, to her password— pretending to be a boyfriend.

In the case of the away message, all a bad guy would need to do is flood a company with emails, either guessing the email addresses, using a dictionary attack (where practically every word in the dictionary and English language is used) or else grabbing names from an online company directory. If a dozen people have auto-responds on, the information gained would be enough for a socially engineered attack on the company as a whole.

It needn’t be this sophisticated. If you send an auto-respond message saying you’re not going to be at work for the next few weeks, someone might decide that information is worth passing on to the local cat-burglar or someone at a rival company hoping to steal your customers.

Of course, this sort of lapse happens in the real world too, which should remind us how careless we tend to be. David Weinberger, a technology writer and consultant, pointed out on his blog recently that we’re quite happy about leaving signs on our hotel room door when we go out for the day:

“Often, on the back of a ‘Do Not Disturb’ sign is a ‘Make Up My Room Now’ message of some sort,” he wrote.  “But, now matter how they phrase it, isn’t it the same as an “I’m Out, So This Would Be a Good to Rob Me, Especially If You Are Squeamish about Violence” sign?”

This is part of a bigger problem we’re all going to have to wrestle with. As we use online services like Facebook and twitter more and more—updating our friends with our moods, our location, our activities—our privacy is going to be compromised.

Some of us don’t mind this. It’s nice to share information with friends. But what we tend to forget is that, once digital, this information is more readily accessible, and movable, than it was before. Clever scammers—and not so clever—can piece together these bits of information to use against us in ways we have not yet fully thought through.

Take twitter, for example. It’s a great service: free, and designed to allow those of us who want to share with our friends what we’re doing, in 140 character bursts. It’s very popular: According to a web-site called TwitDir (twitdir.com) which lists all twitter users who allow their updates to be public, there are more than three million users.

And that’s the thing. The default setting—the way things are configured when you sign up—your tweets, as your updates are called, can be seen by anyone. Anyone can ‘follow’ you—meaning they can track all your updates, without asking you permission first.  In short, anyone on the Internet can, in theory, stalk you.

OK, now I know that I’ve said twitter is a good thing. It is. And so is Facebook. All these services allow us to connect with people—friends in real life, friends we know only online. But we need to be smart about how we use them.

If you use twitter, check to see who is ‘following’ you and if you don’t recognize them, challenge them or block them. The same goes for things like Facebook. Don’t just accept anyone who asks as your ‘friend’, and if you can’t bring yourself to say no, limit what they can see of your details. (The default on Plurk, another popular service in Asia, allows only your friends can see your updates.)

And, lastly, be smart about what you put online—whether it’s a twitter update, a Facebook moan about your boss or in your email auto-respond message. If you can’t decide where to draw the line, just think of the sleaziest person you know, and ask yourself: Do I feel happy sharing this information with them?

I leave it to you to decide whether to boycott the “Please make up room” signs on your hotel room door.

Jeremy Wagstaff is a commentator on technology and appears regularly on the BBC World Service. He can be found online at loosewireblog.com or via email at jeremy@loose-wire.com.

 

The Thin Yellow Lines of Innovation

By | November 22, 2011

image

Maybe you’ve already noticed this, but I very much like this feature in Google Chrome that lets you see at a glance matches for a search term within a page. The matches appear as yellow lines within the scroll bar (see above) so you can easily access them by dragging the scroll bar itself.b

Another nice twist with Chrome is that it will tell you how many matches there are on a page, and tell you which one you’re currently viewing:

image 

Nice touch. I still think the Firefox search trick of being able to highlight all instances of a search term within the page is very helpful:

image

Which helps to make the matching words stand out on the page (along with the extra option of matching case:

image

What’s interesting here is the innovation in a feature that has, elsewhere, become largely moribund. Check out the search box in Microsoft Word 2007:

image

You can choose the Reading Highlight button to, well, highlight those terms you’re looking for, but frankly, I only just found that feature and I’ve been using Word for years. The features in Chrome and Firefox I found pretty much straightaway.

And the feature doesn’t really detract from the fact that the Find box itself is pretty poorly designed, and short of features. Surely in a program that is about processing words, this would be a feature you’d have a whole team working on to improve?

Bottom line: While old software stands still, we’re seeing a lot of incremental but valuable improvements in the new software—browsers, basically—and I think therein lies a lesson. Microsoft et al, you need to turn your attention to these small things, that may not be very belly or whistly (sorry, just wanted to use the word ‘belly’) but which we all use. A lot.

Loyalty to a program, whether it’s a browser or a word processor, may often come down to these small things.

The Scam Potential of Presence Messages

By | November 22, 2011

image

David Weinberger as ever hits nail upon head with dose of humor, but his point to me opens the gates to all sorts of thoughts, some of them Web 2.0ish:

Often, on the back of a ‘Do Not Disturb’ sign is a ‘Make Up My Room Now’ message of some sort. But, now matter how they phrase it, isn’t it the same as an “I’m Out, So This Would Be a Good to Rob Me, Especially If You Are Squeamish about Violence” sign?

My question is this: When will Web 2.0 presence tools start to create the same informational hazard? Whether it’s twitter, saying you’ve nipped out for coffee, or dopplr, saying you’re planning an overseas trip, at what point do scammers decide this information is useful to them? Or are they already doing so? I’ve long considered automatic Outlook away messages to be dangerous, but I wonder at what point do the scamsters start to pick up on the usefulness of this presence, or rather absence messages.

P.S. I’m off out for a coffee.

Joho the Blog » The opposite of Do Not Disturb

Photo credit: ores2k