Week 7.3 Semantic Attacks - Spear Phishing
•
1 like•562 views
Privacy and Security in Online Social Media. Course on NPTEL. Week 7.3: Semantic attacks: Spear Phishing.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (7)
Similar to Week 7.3 Semantic Attacks - Spear Phishing
Similar to Week 7.3 Semantic Attacks - Spear Phishing (20)
More from IIIT Hyderabad
More from IIIT Hyderabad (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (17)
Week 7.3 Semantic Attacks - Spear Phishing
- 3. Security attacks Physical Semantic Syntactic Phishing Mules Nigerian Verification Security alertUpdate info PaypalAmazon eBay BOA Mortgage Semantic attacks
- 4. Subject: eBay: Urgent Notification From Billing Department Features in the email
- 5. Features in the email We regret to inform you that you eBay account could be suspended if you don’t update your account information.
- 6. https://signin.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?SignIn&sid=verify&co_partnerid=2&sidteid=0 Features in the email
- 7. Website to collect information http://www.kusi.org/hcr/eBay/ws23/eBayISAPI.htm
- 9. Types of Phishing Attacks ⚫Phishing ⚫Context-aware phishing / spear phishing ⚫Whaling ⚫Vishing ⚫Smsishing ⚫Social Phishing? 37
- 10. Until now, work that we have seen? ⚫Using voters database ⚫Using Medical health database ⚫Using Pictures from FB 38
- 11. Goal ⚫To see how phishing attacks can be performed by collecting personal information from social networks -How easily or effectively can phisher use this information? 39
- 12. 40
- 13. Methodology ⚫Collected publicly available personal information using simple tools like Perl LWP library ⚫Correlated this data with IU’s address book database ⚫Launched in April 2005 ⚫Age between 18 – 24 41
- 14. 42
- 15. Control Vs. Experiment ⚫Control: The email from IU email ID, but, from an unknown person ⚫Experiment: From a friend in IU 43
- 16. Methodology ⚫ Blogging, social network, and other public data is harvested ⚫ Data is correlated and stored in a relational database ⚫ Heuristics are used to craft spoofed email message by Eve “as Alice” to Bob (a friend) ⚫ Message is sent to Bob ⚫ Bob follows the link contained within the email message and is sent to an unchecked redirect ⚫ Bob is sent to attacker whuffo.com site ⚫ Bob is prompted for his University credentials ⚫ Bob’s credentials are verified with the University authenticator ⚫ a. Bob is successfully phished b. Bob is not phished in this session; he could try again. 44
- 17. Victims ⚫Control group high – sender email ID was IU ⚫Experimental condition consistent with other studies 45
- 18. Success rate 46 ⚫70% authentications in first 12 hrs ⚫Takedown has to be successful
- 19. Repeated authentications 47 ⚫ Subject tried multiple times ⚫ Tried again because “overload” message was shown ⚫ Lower bound of users to fall, continued to be deceived ⚫ Some tried 80 times
- 20. Gender 48 ⚫18,294 Ms and 19,527 Fs ⚫Overall F more victims ⚫More successful if it came from opposite gender ⚫F to M (13%) was more effect than M to F (2%)
- 21. 49 ⚫Younger targets more vulnerable
- 22. 50 ⚫All majors significant difference between control and experimental ⚫Max difference in Science ⚫Technology lowest #satisfying ☺
- 23. Reactions ⚫Anger -Unethical, inappropriate, illegal, fraudulent -Researchers fired -Psychological cost ⚫Denial -Nobody accepted that they fell for it -Admitting our vulnerability is hard ⚫Misunderstanding over spoofing emails ⚫Underestimation of publicly available information 51
- 24. Conclusions ⚫Extensive educational campaigns ⚫Browser solutions ⚫Digitally signed emails ⚫OSM provides lot more information for making the attack successful 52