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.

Endpoint

7/27/2017
10:20 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

The Lazy Habits of Phishing Attackers

Most hackers who phish accounts do little to hide their tracks or even mine all of the data they can from phished accounts, mostly because they can afford to be lazy.

The next time a crisis communication manager states that their organization suffered from a "highly sophisticated" attack, someone may want to cross-check that with how most attacks are actually carried out.

According to new research out this week culled from an extensive honeypot operation, most attackers using phishing to initiate attacks are the opposite of sophisticated. They're lax with their opsec-- most don't go through much effort at all to hide their attacks. Considering that some estimates peg 91% of all cyberattacks starting with phishing emails, that tells you that the vast majority of attacks are noisy and very identifiable. Yet the bad guys still manage to do a ton of damage because the resistance they face is paper thin.

The recent report was released by researchers at Imperva, who maintained close to 90 personal accounts on various online and email services over the course of nine months. These "honey accounts" were planted with various traps within them to collect data about how long it took for attackers to exploit stolen passwords and compromise accounts, how and when attackers explored and collected data, and how attackers tried to muffle their malicious activity from detection by the account owner. 

"One of the more interesting areas of the research was uncovering which practices attackers used to cover their tracks, destroy evidence of their presence and activities in the account, and evade detection," says Luda Lazar, security researcher for Imperva. "Our research also showed that not all attackers take equal care in covering their tracks. We were surprised to find that only 17% made any attempt to cover their tracks."

For example, only 15% of attackers deleted sign-in alerts from the inbox and just 13% deleted sent emails and failure notification messages. And a measly 2% went through the trouble to permanently delete sign-in alerts.

What's more, attackers frequently take their sweet time taking advantage of stolen login credentials. Over half of attackers in this experiment took 24 hours or more to access honey accounts after the credential theft. Additionally, nearly three-quarters of attackers explore account content manually rather than through automated tools. 

The lesson here is that most of these attacks are leaving tons of evidence behind for users and defenders alike to start detecting attacks before well before the bad guys have owned the account for the months-long time-period that is today's average industry dwell time. What's more there is a workable window between credential theft and account takeover where it's possible to mitigate the attack before it even starts to sink its fangs into systems.

Unfortunately, statistics indicate that phishing continues to flourish worldwide. According to a report out last week from Kaspersky Lab, in Q1 of 2017 alone, the company blocked over 51 million attempts by users to open a phishing page.

Related Content:

 

Ericka Chickowski specializes in coverage of information technology and business innovation. She has focused on information security for the better part of a decade and regularly writes about the security industry as a contributor to Dark Reading.  View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
RetiredUser
50%
50%
RetiredUser,
User Rank: Ninja
7/31/2017 | 1:45:51 PM
Lazy Hackers, Lazy Architecture
I've often equated to level of sophistication of a hack to the complexity of the infrastructure used in the hack, or penetrated by the hack.  With millions of would be techies out there, the number of one-off domains with shopping carts, emails and PayPal accounts is in the multi-millions.  The number of those that are sophisticated (look like Amazon.com for instance) is incredibly low.  The reason for this, and the reason so many hackers - in this case, phishers - are lazy is that the architecture behind the infrastructure is old and lazy; time to market pushes sophistication out the door in some cases and leaves users vulnerable.  We in tech should never expect our users to be sophisticated.  Instead we need to be, and to make use of tech easy and highly secure.  Yet in most cases when it comes to domains, email and websites we simply don't.  No, these cyber criminals are lazy because they know the tech behind the platforms they exploit are also lazy.  We can't blame the users who fall for phishing scams.  They are not the ones tasked with providing a secure product.
Data Privacy Protections for the Most Vulnerable -- Children
Dimitri Sirota, Founder & CEO of BigID,  10/17/2019
Sodinokibi Ransomware: Where Attackers' Money Goes
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  10/15/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
Flash Poll
2019 Online Malware and Threats
2019 Online Malware and Threats
As cyberattacks become more frequent and more sophisticated, enterprise security teams are under unprecedented pressure to respond. Is your organization ready?
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-18216
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-20
** DISPUTED ** The BIOS configuration design on ASUS ROG Zephyrus M GM501GS laptops with BIOS 313 relies on the main battery instead of using a CMOS battery, which reduces the value of a protection mechanism in which booting from a USB device is prohibited. Attackers who have physical laptop access ...
CVE-2019-18214
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-19
The Video_Converter app 0.1.0 for Nextcloud allows denial of service (CPU and memory consumption) via multiple concurrent conversions because many FFmpeg processes may be running at once. (The workload is not queued for serial execution.)
CVE-2019-18202
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-19
Information Disclosure is possible on WAGO Series PFC100 and PFC200 devices before FW12 due to improper access control. A remote attacker can check for the existence of paths and file names via crafted HTTP requests.
CVE-2019-18209
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-19
templates/pad.html in Etherpad-Lite 1.7.5 has XSS when the browser does not encode the path of the URL, as demonstrated by Internet Explorer.
CVE-2019-18198
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-18
In the Linux kernel before 5.3.4, a reference count usage error in the fib6_rule_suppress() function in the fib6 suppression feature of net/ipv6/fib6_rules.c, when handling the FIB_LOOKUP_NOREF flag, can be exploited by a local attacker to corrupt memory, aka CID-ca7a03c41753.