Category: Web Fraud 2.0

Feb 12 2018

Krebs on Security 2018-02-12 09:41:53

Newtek Business Services Corp. [NASDAQ:NEWT], a Web services conglomerate that operates more than 100,000 business Web sites and some 40,000 managed technology accounts, had several of its core domain names stolen over the weekend. The theft shut off email and stranded Web sites for many of Newtek’s customers.

An email blast Newtek sent to customers late Saturday evening made no mention of a breach or incident, saying only that the company was changing domains due to “increased” security. A copy of that message can be read here (PDF).

In reality, three of their core domains were hijacked by a Vietnamese hacker, who replaced the login page many Newtek customers used to remotely manage their Web sites (webcontrolcenter[dot]com) with a live Web chat service. As a result, Newtek customers seeking answers to why their Web sites no longer resolved correctly ended up chatting with the hijacker instead.

The PHP Web chat client that the intruder installed on Webcontrolcenter[dot]com, a domain that many Newtek customers used to manage their Web sites with the company. The perpetrator can be seen in this chat using the name “admin.” Click to enlarge.

In a follow-up email sent to customers 10 hours later (PDF), Newtek acknowledged the outage was the result of a “dispute” over three domains, webcontrolcenter[dot]com, thesba[dot]com, and crystaltech[dot]com.

“We strongly request that you eliminate these domain names from all your corporate or personal browsers, and avoid clicking on them,” the company warned its customers. “At this hour, it has become apparent that as a result over the dispute for these three domain names, we do not currently have control over the domains or email coming from them.”

The warning continued: “There is an unidentified third party that is attempting to chat and may engage with clients when visiting the three domains. It is imperative that you do not communicate or provide any sensitive data at these locations.”

Newtek did not respond to requests for comment.

Domain hijacking is not a new problem, but it can be potentially devastating to the victim organization. In control of a hijacked domain, a malicious attacker could seamlessly conduct phishing attacks to steal personal information, or use the domain to foist malicious software on visitors.

Newtek is not just a large Web hosting firm: It aims to be a one-stop shop for almost any online service a small business might need. As such, it’s a mix of very different business units rolled up into one since its founding in 1998, including lending solutions, HR, payroll, managed cloud solutions, group health insurance and disaster recovery solutions.

“NEWT’s tentacles go deep into their client’s businesses through providing data security, human resources, employee benefits, payments technology, web design and hosting, a multitude of insurance solutions, and a suite of IT services,” reads a Sept. 2017 profile of the company at SeekingAlpha, a crowdsourced market analysis publication.

Newtek’s various business lines. Source: Newtek.

Reached via the Web chat client he installed at webcontrolcenter[dot]com, the person who claimed responsibility for the hijack said he notified Newtek five days ago about a “bug” he found in the company’s online operations, but that he received no reply.

A Newtek customer who resells the company’s products to his clients said he had to spend much of the weekend helping clients regain access to email accounts and domains as a result of the incident. The customer, who asked to remain anonymous, said he was shocked that Newtek made little effort to convey the gravity of the hijack to its customers — noting that the company’s home page still makes no mention of the incident.

“They also fail to make it clear that any data sent to any host under the domain could be recorded (email passwords, web credentials, etc.) by the attacker,” he said. “I’m floored at how bad their communication was to their users. I’m not surprised, but concerned, that they didn’t publish the content in the emails directly on their website.”

The source said that at a minimum Newtek should have expired all passwords immediately and required resets through non-compromised hosts.

“And maybe put a notice about this on their home page instead of relying on email, because a lot of my customers can’t get email right now as a result of this,” the source said.

There are a few clues that suggest the perpetrator of these domain hijacks is indeed being truthful about both his nationality and that he located a bug in Newtek’s service. Two of the hijacked domains were moved to a Vietnamese domain registrar (inet.vn).

This individual gave me an email address to contact him at — hd2416@gmail.com — although he has so far not responded to questions beyond promising to reply in Vietenamese. The email is tied to two different Vietnamese-language social networking profiles.

A search at Domaintools indicates that this address is linked to the registration records for four domains, including one (giakiemnew[dot]com) that was recently hosted on a dedicated server operated by Newtek’s legacy business unit Crystaltek [full disclosure: Domaintools is an advertiser on this site]. Recall that Crystaltek[dot]com was among the three hijacked domains.

In addition, the domain giakiemnew[dot]com was registered through Newtek Technology Services, a domain registration service offered by Newtek. This suggests that the perpetrator was in fact a customer of Newtek, and perhaps did discover a vulnerability while using the service.

Jan 09 2018

Krebs on Security 2018-01-09 14:48:04

Coinbase and Overstock.com just fixed a serious glitch that allowed Overstock customers to buy any item at a tiny fraction of the listed price. Potentially more punishing, the flaw let anyone paying with bitcoin reap many times the authorized bitcoin refund amount on any canceled Overstock orders.

In January 2014, Overstock.com partnered with Coinbase to let customers pay for merchandise using bitcoin, making it among the first of the largest e-commerce vendors to accept the virtual currency.

On December 19, 2017, as the price of bitcoin soared to more than $17,000 per coin, Coinbase added support for Bitcoin Cash — an offshoot (or “fork”) from bitcoin designed to address the cryptocurrency’s scalability challenges.

As a result of the change, Coinbase customers with balances of bitcoin at the time of the fork were given an equal amount of bitcoin cash stored by Coinbase. However, there is a significant price difference between the two currencies: A single bitcoin is worth almost $15,000 right now, whereas a unit of bitcoin cash is valued at around $2,400.

On Friday, Jan. 5, KrebsOnSecurity was contacted by JB Snyder, owner of North Carolina-based Bancsec, a company that gets paid to break into banks and test their security. An early adopter of bitcoin, Snyder said he was using some of his virtual currency to purchase an item at Overstock when he noticed something alarming.

During the checkout process for those paying by bitcoin, Overstock.com provides the customer a bitcoin wallet address that can be used to pay the invoice and complete the transaction. But Snyder discovered that Overstock’s site just as happily accepted bitcoin cash as payment, even though bitcoin cash is currently worth only about 15 percent of the value of bitcoin.

To confirm and replicate Snyder’s experience firsthand, KrebsOnSecurity purchased a set of three outdoor solar lamps from Overstock for a grand total of $78.27.

The solar lights I purchased from Overstock.com to test Snyder’s finding. They cost $78.27 in bitcoin, but because I was able to pay for them in bitcoin cash I only paid $12.02.

After indicating I wished to pay for the lamps in bitcoin, the site produced a payment invoice instructing me to send exactly 0.00475574 bitcoins to a specific address.

The payment invoice I received from Overstock.com.

Logging into Coinbase, I took the bitcoin address and pasted that into the “pay to:” field, and then told Coinbase to send 0.00475574 in bitcoin cash instead of bitcoin. The site responded that the payment was complete. Within a few seconds I received an email from Overstock congratulating me on my purchase and stating that the items would be shipped shortly.

I had just made a $78 purchase by sending approximately USD $12 worth of bitcoin cash. Crypto-currency alchemy at last!

But that wasn’t the worst part. I didn’t really want the solar lights, but also I had no interest in ripping off Overstock. So I cancelled the order. To my surprise, the system refunded my purchase in bitcoin, not bitcoin cash!

Consider the implications here: A dishonest customer could have used this bug to make ridiculous sums of bitcoin in a very short period of time. Let’s say I purchased one of the more expensive items for sale on Overstock, such as this $100,000, 3-carat platinum diamond ring. I then pay for it in Bitcoin cash, using an amount equivalent to approximately 1 bitcoin ($~15,000).

Then I simply cancel my order, and Overstock/Coinbase sends me almost $100,000 in bitcoin, netting me a tidy $85,000 profit. Rinse, wash, repeat.

Reached for comment, Overstock.com said the company changed no code in its site and that a fix implemented by Coinbase resolved the issue.

“We were made aware of an issue affecting cryptocurrency transactions and refunds by an independent researcher. After working with the researcher to confirm the finding, that method of payment was disabled while we worked with our cryptocurrency integration partner, Coinbase, to ensure they resolved the issue. We have since confirmed that the issue described in the finding has been resolved, and the cryptocurrency payment option has been re-enabled.”

Coinbase said “the issue was caused by the merchant partner improperly using the return values in our merchant integration API. No other Coinbase customer had this problem.”Coinbase told me the bug only existed for approximately three weeks.”

“After being made aware of an issue in our joint refund processing code on SaturdayCoinbase and Overstock worked together to deploy a fix within hours,” The Coinbase statement continued. “While a patch was being developed and tested, orders were proactively disabled to protect customers. To our knowledge, a very small number of transactions were impacted by this issue. Coinbase actively works with merchant partners to identify and solve issues like this in an ongoing, collaborative manner and since being made aware of this have ensured that no other partners are affected.”

Bancsec’s Snyder and I both checked for the presence of this glitch at multiple other merchants that work directly with Coinbase in their checkout process, but we found no other examples of this flaw.

The snafu comes as many businesses that have long accepted bitcoin are now distancing themselves from the currency thanks to the recent volatility in bitcoin prices and associated fees.

Earlier this week, it emerged that Microsoft had ceased accepting payments in Bitcoin, citing volatility concerns. In December, online game giant Steam said it was dropping support for bitcoin payments for the same reason.

And, as KrebsOnSecurity noted last month, even cybercriminals who run online stores that sell stolen identities and credit cards are urging their customers to transact in something other than bitcoin.

Interestingly, bitcoin is thought to have been behind a huge jump in Overstock’s stock price in 2017. In December, Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne reportedly stoked the cryptocurrency fires when he said that he might want to sell Overstock’s e-tailing operations and pour the extra cash into accelerating his blockchain-based business ideas instead.

In case anyone is wondering what I did with the “profit” I made from this scheme, I offered to send it back to Overstock, but they told me to keep it. Instead, I donated it to archive.org, a site that has come in handy for many stories published here.

Update, 3:15 p.m. ET: A previous version of this story stated that neither Coinbase nor Overstock would say which of the two was responsible for this issue. The modified story above resolves that ambiguity.

Dec 26 2017

Krebs on Security 2017-12-26 10:55:14

Critics of unregulated virtual currencies like Bitcoin have long argued that the core utility of these payment systems lies in facilitating illicit commerce, such as buying drugs or stolen credit cards and identities. But recent spikes in the price of Bitcoin — and the fees associated with moving funds into and out of it — have conspired to make Bitcoin a less useful and desirable payment method for many crooks engaged in these activities.

Bitcoin’s creator(s) envisioned a currency that could far more quickly and cheaply facilitate payments, with tiny transaction fees compared to more established and regulated forms of payment (such as credit cards). And indeed, until the beginning of 2017 those fees were well below $1, frequently less than 10 cents per transaction.

But as the price of Bitcoin has soared over the past few months to more than $15,000 per coin, so have the Bitcoin fees per transaction. This has made Bitcoin far less attractive for conducting small-dollar transactions (for more on this shift, see this Dec. 19 story from Ars Technica).

As a result, several major underground markets that traffic in stolen digital goods are now urging customers to deposit funds in alternative virtual currencies, such as Litecoin. Those who continue to pay for these commodities in Bitcoin not only face far higher fees, but also are held to higher minimum deposit amounts.

“Due to the drastic increase in the Bitcoin price, we faced some difficulties,” reads the welcome message for customers after they log in to Carder’s Paradise, a Dark Web marketplace that KrebsOnSecurity featured in a story last week.

“The problem is that we send all your deposited funds to our suppliers which attracts an additional Bitcoin transaction fee (the same fee you pay when you make a deposit),” Carder’s Paradise explains. “Sometimes we have to pay as much as 5$ from every 1$ you deposited.”

The shop continues:

“We have to take additionally a ‘Deposit fee’ from all users who deposit in Bitcoins. This is the amount we spent on transferring your funds to our suppliers. To compensate your costs, we are going to reduce our prices, including credit cards for all users and offer you the better bitcoin exchange rate.”

“The amount of the Deposit Fee depends on the load on the Bitcoin network. However, it stays the same regardless of the amount deposited. Deposits of 10$ and 1000$ attract the same deposit fee.”

“If the Bitcoin price continues increasing, this business is not going to be profitable for us anymore because all our revenue is going to be spent on the Bitcoin fees. We are no longer in possession of additional funds to improve the store.”

“We urge you to start using Litecoin as much as possible. Litecoin is a very fast and cheap way of depositing funds into the store. We are not going to charge any additional fees if you deposit Litecoins.”

On Carder’s Paradise, the current minimum deposit amount is 0.0066 BTCs, or approximately USD $100. The deposit fee for each transaction is $15.14. That means that anyone who deposits just the minimum amount into this shop is losing more than 15 percent of their deposit in transaction fees.

Incredibly, the administrators of Carder’s Paradise apparently received so much pushback from crooks using their service that they decided to lower the price of stolen credit cards to make potential buyers feel better about higher transaction fees.

“Our team made a decision to adjust the previous announcement and provide a fair solution for everyone by reducing the credit cards [sic] prices,” the message concludes.

Mainstream merchants that accept credit card payments have long griped about the high cost of transaction fees, which average $2.50 to $3.00 on a $100 charge. What’s fascinating about the spike in Bitcoin transaction fees is that crooks could end up paying five times as much in fees just to purchase the same amount in stolen credit card accounts!

Dec 18 2017

Krebs on Security 2017-12-18 15:13:53

Past stories here have explored the myriad criminal uses of a hacked computer, the various ways that your inbox can be spliced and diced to help cybercrooks ply their trade, and the value of a hacked company. Today’s post looks at the price of stolen credentials for just about any e-commerce, bank site or popular online service, and provides a glimpse into the fortunes that an enterprising credential thief can earn selling these accounts on consignment.

Not long ago in Internet time, your typical cybercriminal looking for access to a specific password-protected Web site would most likely visit an underground forum and ping one of several miscreants who routinely leased access to their “bot logs.”

These bot log sellers were essentially criminals who ran large botnets (collections of hacked PCs) powered by malware that can snarf any passwords stored in the victim’s Web browser or credentials submitted into a Web-based login form. For a few dollars in virtual currency, a ne’er-do-well could buy access to these logs, or else he and the botmaster would agree in advance upon a price for any specific account credentials sought by the buyer.

Back then, most of the stolen credentials that a botmaster might have in his possession typically went unused or unsold (aside from the occasional bank login that led to a juicy high-value account). Indeed, these plentiful commodities held by the botmaster for the most part were simply not a super profitable line of business and so went largely wasted, like bits of digital detritus left on the cutting room floor.

But oh, how times have changed! With dozens of sites in the underground now competing to purchase and resell credentials for a variety of online locations, it has never been easier for a botmaster to earn a handsome living based solely on the sale of stolen usernames and passwords alone.

If the old adage about a picture being worth a thousand words is true, the one directly below is priceless because it illustrates just how profitable the credential resale business has become.

This screen shot shows the earnings panel of a crook who sells stolen credentials for hundreds of Web sites to a dark web service that resells them. This botmaster only gets paid when someone buys one of his credentials. So far this year, customers of this service have purchased more than 35,000 credentials he’s sold to this service, earning him more than $288,000 in just a few months.

The image shown above is the wholesaler division of “Carder’s Paradise,” a bustling dark web service that sells credentials for hundreds of popular Web destinations. The screen shot above is an earnings panel akin to what you would see if you were a seller of stolen credentials to this service — hence the designation “Seller’s Paradise” in the upper left hand corner of the screen shot.

This screen shot was taken from the logged-in account belonging to one of the more successful vendors at Carder’s Paradise. We can see that in just the first seven months of 2017, this botmaster sold approximately 35,000 credential pairs via the Carder’s Paradise market, earning him more than $288,000. That’s an average of $8.19 for each credential sold through the service.

Bear in mind that this botmaster only makes money based on consignment: Regardless of how much he uploads to Seller’s Paradise, he doesn’t get paid for any of it unless a Carder’s Paradise customer chooses to buy what he’s selling.

Fortunately for this guy, almost 9,000 different customers of Carder’s Paradise chose to purchase one or more of his username and password pairs. It was not possible to tell from this seller’s account how many credential pairs total that he has contributed to this service which went unsold, but it’s a safe bet that it was far more than 35,000.

[A side note is in order here because there is some delicious irony in the backstory behind the screenshot above: The only reason a source of mine was able to share it with me was because this particular seller re-used the same email address and password across multiple unrelated cybercrime services].

Based on the prices advertised at Carder’s Paradise (again, Carder’s Paradise is the retail/customer side of Seller’s Paradise) we can see that the service on average pays its suppliers about half what it charges customers for each credential. The average price of a credential for more than 200 different e-commerce and banking sites sold through this service is approximately $15.

Part of the price list for credentials sold at this dark web ID theft site.

Indeed, fifteen bucks is exactly what it costs to buy stolen logins for airbnb.com, comcast.com, creditkarma.com, logmein.com and uber.com. A credential pair from AT&T Wireless — combined with access to the victim’s email inbox — sells for $30.

The most expensive credentials for sale via this service are those for the electronics store frys.com ($190). I’m not sure why these credentials are so much more expensive than the rest, but it may be because thieves have figured out a reliable and very profitable way to convert stolen frys.com customer credentials into cash.

Usernames and passwords to active accounts at military personnel-only credit union NavyFederal.com fetch $60 apiece, while credentials to various legal and data aggregation services from Thomson Reuters properties command a $50 price tag.

The full price list of credentials for sale by this dark web service is available in this PDF. For CSV format, see this link. Both lists are sorted alphabetically by Web site name.

This service doesn’t just sell credentials: It also peddles entire identities — indexed and priced according to the unwitting victim’s FICO score. An identity with a perfect credit score (850) can demand as much as $150.

Stolen identities with high credit scores fetch higher prices.

And of course this service also offers the ability to pull full credit reports on virtually any American — from all three major credit bureaus — for just $35 per bureau.

It costs $35 through this service to pull someone’s credit file from the three major credit bureaus.

Plenty of people began freaking out earlier this year after a breach at big-three credit bureau Equifax jeopardized the Social Security Numbers, dates of birth and other sensitive date on more than 145 million Americans. But as I have been trying to tell readers for many years, this data is broadly available for sale in the cybercrime underground on a significant portion of the American populace.

If the threat of identity theft has you spooked, place a freeze on your credit file and on the file of your spouse (you may even be able to do this for your kids). Credit monitoring is useful for letting you know when someone has stolen your identity, but these services can’t be counted on to stop an ID thief from opening new lines of credit in your name.

They are, however, useful for helping to clean up identity theft after-the-fact. This story is already too long to go into the pros and cons of credit monitoring vs. freezes, so I’ll instead point to a recent primer on the topic and urge readers to check it out.

Finally, it’s a super bad idea to re-use passwords across multiple sites. KrebsOnSecurity this year has written about multiple, competing services that sell or sold access to billions of usernames and passwords exposed in high profile data breaches at places like Linkedin, Dropbox and Myspace. Crooks pay for access to these stolen credential services because they know that a decent percentage of Internet users recycle the same password at multiple sites.

One alternative to creating and remembering strong, lengthy and complex passwords for every important site you deal with is to outsource this headache to a password manager.  If the online account in question allows 2-factor authentication (2FA), be sure to take advantage of that.

Two-factor authentication makes it much harder for password thieves (or their customers) to hack into your account just by stealing or buying your password: If you have 2FA enabled, they also would need to hack that second factor (usually your mobile device) before being able to access your account. For a list of sites that support 2FA, check out twofactorauth.org.