Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.


08:00 AM
Connect Directly

Researchers Expose 'Stupid Phisher Tricks'

Researchers discover that phishers aren't so good at covering their tracks and protecting their 'booty'

That slick phishing email posing as your bank -- identical logo and all -- may not be as sophisticated as it looks: Many phishers behind these schemes are actually careless, and even clueless, about protecting the data they steal.

A pair of researchers recently went undercover and got a first-hand glimpse of some of the phishing world's tactics and were surprised how easy it was for them to discover how phishers share stolen Social Security numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, debit card PINs, and other sensitive data, as well as how simple it was to trace phishing servers. They'll share some of their findings on the surprisingly crude techniques they witnessed being used by phishers, next month at Black Hat DC.

Nitesh Dhanjani -- who along with fellow researcher Billy Rios will disclose what they learned after infiltrating the phisher universe -- says that in one case, he was able to trace the phisher behind a scam by accessing the back-end PHP script that takes information the phishing victim provides and emails it to the phisher. He then Googled the string, which he found in a directory listing.

"We Googled it and found 15 message boards, mostly in foreign countries," Dhanjani says. These phishers were basically sharing freshly phished SSNs, ATM card numbers, mother's maiden names, and other data on the message boards.

"They were not covering their tracks," he says. "These are what I call 'charitable' phishers, who want to share their [stolen data] with others" for political reasons or to gain respect in the phishing community.

It only took about 15 minutes to get to the bottom of that phish. "That's when we realized this is big. This information is everywhere," he says.

And many of the phishers the researchers studied had never bothered to patch the servers they compromised, he says. "A lot of this is based on brute-force. They want to install their phishing sites on 50 or 60 servers a day, so there's not much time to patch."

They also often use widely available plug-and-play phishing kits, which contain templates containing the look and feel and logos of the banks and other companies for use in phishing exploits, he says. All the phisher needs is the emails of his or her potential victims. Some phishers are craftier than others, too: The researchers discovered that some of these kits come with a nasty payload of their own -- backdoors that allow the author of the kit to phish his "customer's" phished data. (That's basically a phisher phishing a phisher).

So what about the conventional wisdom that cybercriminals are becoming more sophisticated and professional, backed by organized crime groups? While that may be true for some forms of cybercrime, Dhanjani says, it's not so with phishing. "We found in all levels that this [phishing] is anything but sophisticated," he says. "It's an illusion that it's a high-end, sophisticated group."

Although he notes that his research lasted only about one month, he says he learned the profile of the typical phisher is somewhere between a brute-force spammer and a script kiddie. "This is not someone who's doing spamming, but at the same time, I've seen some script kiddies who are more sophisticated than these phishers."

Many are overseas, in countries far out of reach of U.S. authorities. "These are people who have nothing to lose." Some convene on old message boards that have been overrun by spam, so that they are less conspicuous. But it doesn't take long to drill down and find phishers on these boards discussing identities they've stolen and are selling or sharing, he says.

Dhanjani says although he and Rios posed as phishers looking to purchase identities, they never actually conducted any transactions. "We asked how much they wanted, the currency, and how to do this. E-gold was their currency of choice."

And ironically, if you're phished, you'd better hope that your phisher is actually one of the smarter and more sophisticated ones, Dhanjani says. "Then at least when your information is stolen, it's only going to one person. If a phisher is sloppy, other people can get access to your information, too."

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Discuss" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.

Kelly Jackson Higgins is the Executive Editor of Dark Reading. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Inside the Ransomware Campaigns Targeting Exchange Servers
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  4/2/2021
Beyond MITRE ATT&CK: The Case for a New Cyber Kill Chain
Rik Turner, Principal Analyst, Infrastructure Solutions, Omdia,  3/30/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.2.0, BinaryHeap is not panic-safe. The binary heap is left in an inconsistent state when the comparison of generic elements inside sift_up or sift_down_range panics. This bug leads to a drop of zeroed memory as an arbitrary type, which can result in a memory ...
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.49.0, String::retain() function has a panic safety problem. It allows creation of a non-UTF-8 Rust string when the provided closure panics. This bug could result in a memory safety violation when other string APIs assume that UTF-8 encoding is used on the sam...
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.49.0, VecDeque::make_contiguous has a bug that pops the same element more than once under certain condition. This bug could result in a use-after-free or double free.
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.50.0, read_to_end() does not validate the return value from Read in an unsafe context. This bug could lead to a buffer overflow.
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.52.0, the Zip implementation has a panic safety issue. It calls __iterator_get_unchecked() more than once for the same index when the underlying iterator panics (in certain conditions). This bug could lead to a memory safety violation due to an unmet safety r...