Cliff notes: Phishing “tests” at best are a waste of time, and at worst, disruptive and weaken your ability to defend against real phishing.
Last week, the FBI announced it had busted a business email compromise (BEC) racket that raked in millions of dollars in fraudulent wire transfers secured through email-based cyberattacks. The Bureau, along with federal and overseas partners, arrested 74 people, seized over $2M, and disrupted and recovered another $14M in phony wire payments.
On February 27th 2007, while on the phone with my friend and co-founder Rohyt Belani, I typed the name phishme.com into GoDaddy™. We couldn’t believe our good luck and immediately registered it. As the co-founder who named this company PhishMe®, the emotional attachment is real. Somewhere in the pile of entrepreneurial startup books, I have a branding book that suggested your name is a vessel that should be big enough to carry your future products and services. We outgrew that boat quite some time ago.
According to internet sources, Eugene Pupov is not a student at Coventry University.
Since the campaign’s recent widespread launch, security experts and internet sleuths have been scouring the internet to discover the actor responsible for yesterday’s “Google Doc” phishing worm. As parties continued their investigations into the phishing scam, the name “Eugene Popov” has consistently popped up across various blogs that may be tied to this campaign.
A blog post published yesterday by endpoint security vendor Sophos featured an interesting screenshot containing a string of tweets from the @EugenePupov Twitter handle claiming the Google Docs phishing campaign was not a scam, but rather a Coventry University graduate student’s final project gone awry.
Several folks on Twitter, including Twitter verified Henry Williams (@Digitalhen) have pointed out a serious flaw in the @EugenePupov profile.
This twitter account, which fraudulently used a profile image portraying molecular biologist Danil Vladimirovich Pupov from the Institute of Molecular Genetics at the Russian Academy of Sciences, has since been deactivated.
Coventry University’s communications team quickly responded on social media denying all claims that anyone named Eugene Pupov is a current or former student.
Something clearly is “phishy” about this situation.
Despite the university’s recent announcement discrediting claims of enrollment for a Eugene Popov, I would like to hypothetically explore the theory that yesterday’s campaign was a result of a student phishing research project that went terribly viral. Our PhishMe Intelligence teams identified and obtained the campaign source code and noticed that the most notable aspect of this phishing campaign was its uncanny ability to self-replicate and spread. From our vantage, there is no outward evidence indicating data was stolen or manipulated as previously alleged.
The list of domains created for this alleged “student demonstration” stinks like rotten phish.
As a career-wide security researcher and current leader of phishing intelligence research teams, this list of domains is concerning. Typically, when a researcher is creating proof-of-concept code for a white paper or presentation, the naming conventions adjust the URLs to showcase their malicious or fraudulent nature for education purposes, examples being:
If the party responsible intended to showcase educational materials that had any potential to unintentionally mislead a victim, they would typically create one, possibly two, examples to help avoid such scenario. A similar example of this would be the puny code phishing sample recently covered in WIRED where the researcher created one puny code example domain.
What’s most concerning here is the number of googledoc look-alike domains. In most best practice scenarios, a legitimate security researcher would not typically register 9 domains to illustrate a point or to educate on a threat vector. This behavior pattern is most noticeably tied to malicious actors with real nefarious motivations behind their actions.
It may be some time before the true motives of the phishing worm author are revealed, however we are inclined to believe there is a very good chance that malicious intent was in development during this campaign, the execution of which snowballed quickly beyond the author’s desired scope.
Problems arise when we use the terms Spam and Phishing interchangeably. At the risk of sounding persnickety, I’m going to try to build the case of why we need to stop confusing Spam and Phishing.
Any hopes, however remote, that 2016 might bring relief from the troubling phishing trends prevalent in 2015 have been conclusively dashed by a thorough analysis of malware threats in the first quarter of this year. Not only has phishing intensified, but it’s also increasingly used to deliver ransomware.
When people refer to PhishMe as the awareness company, we smile and nod. I want to correct them, but the label ‘security awareness’ is comfortable and relatable. One of the activities that organizations commonly believe will help reduce risk is mandatory security awareness computer-based training (CBT) lessons. The hope is that if we enroll our humans in online courses about how the bad guys hack us, they will walk away with a wealth of new-found awareness and avoid being victimized. (Try to visualize how far in the back of my head my eyes are rolling…)
(VIDEO UPDATE LINK: Defending Against Phishing Attacks: Case Studies and Human Defenses by Jim Hansen
• A human centric method of defense
• Attack case studies & attacker technique analysis
• Proactive simulation methods: educating workforces & detecting / thwarting attacks)
(^ say that title ten time fast)
Every year PhishMe Simulator sends millions of phishing emails to its 500+ enterprise customers’ employees worldwide. PhishMe is hands down the most robust and sophisticated phishing platform in existence. To say that we are a little obsessive about Phishing is a bit of an understatement. In fact, we are sitting on innovations in phishing that the bad guys have yet to figure out.
The difference in PhishMe emails versus the bad guys, is that ours are carefully crafted to deliver a memorable experience. Our experiences are masterfully designed to change human behavior to avoid phishing. So what happens when one of our own employees is on the receiving end of a wire fraud phish? Read on…
For those who may have lost track of time, it’s 2015, and phishing is still a thing. Hackers are breaking into networks, stealing millions of dollars, and the current state of the Internet is pretty grim.
We are surrounded with large-scale attacks, and as incident responders, we are often overwhelmed, which creates the perception that the attackers are one step ahead of us. This is how most folks see the attackers, as being a super villain who only knows evil, breathes evil, and only does new evil things to trump the last evil thing.
This perception leads to us receiving lots of questions about the latest attack methods. Portraying our adversaries as being extremely sophisticated, powerful foes makes for a juicy narrative, but the reality is that attackers are not as advanced as they are made out to be.