Cybercrimes, Internet Fraud Online Web Scams, Cyber Crime Consumer Fraud, Internet Crime, Website Spoofing Phishing Scams ~ Link
Showing posts with label cyber crime - beware of spyware. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cyber crime - beware of spyware. Show all posts
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Cybercrimes, Internet Fraud Online Web Scams, Cyber Crime Consumer Fraud, Internet Crime, Website Spoofing Phishing Scams
Cybercrimes, Internet Fraud Online Web Scams, Cyber Crime Consumer Fraud, Internet Crime, Website Spoofing Phishing Scams ~ Link
Monday, August 8, 2011
U.S. Agents, an Aerial Snoop and Teams of Hackers
"Hacker" used to be a bad word. Now, Hackers are being offered positions with the government to combat cyber crime. So, tell all your homies they could turn their lives around and go legit, roger that .. done deal.
August 7, 2011
U.S. Agents, an Aerial Snoop and Teams of Hackers
Defcon, a convention of computer hackers here, was crawling with hackers, digital security professionals and federal agents.
WHY are federal agents hobnobbing with hackers?
Defcon, a convention of computer hackers here, was crawling with them on Friday. They smiled, shook hands, handed out business cards, spoke on a panel called “Meet the Federal Agent 2.0” and were really, really nice.
Naturally, federal agents have been hanging out at hacker gatherings for years to snoop. “Cloak and dagger,” as one put it.
This time they came with another purpose: to schmooze, impress and, perhaps ultimately, lure. The United States Cyber Command, the Pentagon’s Internet defense arm, “has a work force issue,” said Daron Hartvigsen, special agent with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. “We have needs that some in this community can solve. We need folks with skills.”
Government agencies especially need computer professionals with cybersecurity skills. At Defcon, these skills were in ample supply — and they can alternately thrill and scare. There were hackers and lockpickers here, problem solvers and troublemakers. There were attendees with mohawks and blue hair, and some with blue mohawks. One wore a cape. A few wore kilts. Most, whether out of fear or conceit, insisted on using their digital names rather than their real ones: Lost, alien, Abstract.
In their midst were Internet crime investigators representing the Army, Navy, Air Force and NASA. The F.B.I. set up a recruiting table at Black Hat, a related conference of security professionals earlier in the week. A National Security Agency official was to speak to next-generation hackers at a two-day event called Defcon Kids on Saturday.
For the federal agents, it seemed less an aggressive recruiting drive than a public diplomacy mission. They took pains to describe themselves as lovable hackers under their crew cuts.
Ryan Pittman, an ex-cop who now works computer crime cases in the Army’s criminal investigations division, said the convention was an opportunity to whittle away the federal agents’ image as “jackbooted thugs.” Ahmed Saleh, a computer crime investigator with NASA, described a job that might be appealing “if you’re a geek and you want to catch the bad guys.”
There seemed to be plenty of receptive hackers. Christine Banek, 29, a software programmer with plum-colored hair, sidled up to Mr. Saleh after the panel and asked if his agency was still hiring. She said she had applied online and had not heard back. “If they were offering, I would totally take it,” she said. Later, she suggested aloud that the government legalize marijuana. Positive drug tests generally disqualify a candidate from a law enforcement position.
It flies. It spies. It is the color of sunshine, and it has googly eyes.
Meet WASP, the Wireless Aerial Surveillance Platform, one of the star attractions of this year’s Black Hat conference.
It’s a remote-controlled plane with a computer in its belly that can fly up to 400 feet above the ground, snoop quietly on wireless networks below and attack one if it wants to. It can also pretend to be a GSM cellphone tower, eavesdropping on calls and text messages that pass through.
The WASP was built by Richard Perkins and Mike Tassey using hobby materials, including a Styrofoam plane body, a plastic propeller and foam tires, along with circuit boards and wires. The materials are all off the shelf, costing $6,190 — a fraction of the cost of a spy plane, with cyberweapons included.
Its creators eschew the term “spy plane.” “There’s a negative connotation to a spy plane,” Mr. Tassey said. “This was done in an attempt to prove a concept.”
What concept?
“That it can be done,” he said.
His sentiment perfectly embodied the ethos of Black Hat, a spirited gathering of technologists who sometimes make scary things to show that they can be made, and at other times break things to show how badly they need to be fixed.
The bird conjured by Mr. Perkins and Mr. Tassey is barely four feet long and becomes an imperceptible, quietly humming little creature when it hovers overhead. It could be deployed over, say, an office building to sniff out information going across its wireless network. Or if the office network is well secured, the plane could follow an employee on a trip to a neighborhood Starbucks.
The WASP could mimic the cafe’s network, luring the unwitting employee and allowing access to a laptop or cellphone. As Mr. Tassey put it, “In Starbucks, no one can hear your laptop scream.”
They sat at tables along the perimeter of a ballroom in the Rio hotel. Lights were low. Laptops burned like campfires. Men and women hunched over the machines, their backs curved like question marks. Their fingers clicked away furiously.
“This is a spelling bee for hackers,” explained Giovanni Vigna, 42, a professor of computer science from the University of California, Santa Barbara. “It’s a way to prove your hacking skills.”
Each team, he said, was given the same type of virtual server, with the same strengths and weaknesses. The teams were charged with defending their servers and attacking those of others. Each time a weak spot was attacked, a flag was awarded. The team with the most flags won. Hence, the name of the contest: Capture the Flag. This was the final round.
Contests are a big deal at Defcon. But they’re not all on computers. Defcon is about celebrating tinkering.
There was a “lockpicking village” where interested parties did exactly that: pick locks. “Most of us see locks as puzzles,” Babak Javadi, 26, one of the organizers, explained. He has been taking apart locks since he was a kid, he said, and now runs a security business, specializing in high-security locks.
There was a barber offering mohawks. There were vendors selling “advanced gaming eyewear,” glasses that sell for up to $189 a pair, designed to reduce the glare of a computer screen and ease eye fatigue. There were vendors selling luggage tags that said “Geek on Board.”
In one hall, a competition was under way to invent a beer-cooling contraption. In another, teams were competing to tamper with so-called tamper-resistant materials.
“You’re doing something you’re not meant to do: That’s the essence of hacking,” said Chris Kuivenhoven, 34, a security engineer from Atlanta. “People can use it for good or bad.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/technology/scenes-from-hacker-gatherings-in-las-vegas.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
August 7, 2011
U.S. Agents, an Aerial Snoop and Teams of Hackers
Defcon, a convention of computer hackers here, was crawling with hackers, digital security professionals and federal agents.
WHY are federal agents hobnobbing with hackers?
Defcon, a convention of computer hackers here, was crawling with them on Friday. They smiled, shook hands, handed out business cards, spoke on a panel called “Meet the Federal Agent 2.0” and were really, really nice.
Naturally, federal agents have been hanging out at hacker gatherings for years to snoop. “Cloak and dagger,” as one put it.
This time they came with another purpose: to schmooze, impress and, perhaps ultimately, lure. The United States Cyber Command, the Pentagon’s Internet defense arm, “has a work force issue,” said Daron Hartvigsen, special agent with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. “We have needs that some in this community can solve. We need folks with skills.”
Government agencies especially need computer professionals with cybersecurity skills. At Defcon, these skills were in ample supply — and they can alternately thrill and scare. There were hackers and lockpickers here, problem solvers and troublemakers. There were attendees with mohawks and blue hair, and some with blue mohawks. One wore a cape. A few wore kilts. Most, whether out of fear or conceit, insisted on using their digital names rather than their real ones: Lost, alien, Abstract.
In their midst were Internet crime investigators representing the Army, Navy, Air Force and NASA. The F.B.I. set up a recruiting table at Black Hat, a related conference of security professionals earlier in the week. A National Security Agency official was to speak to next-generation hackers at a two-day event called Defcon Kids on Saturday.
For the federal agents, it seemed less an aggressive recruiting drive than a public diplomacy mission. They took pains to describe themselves as lovable hackers under their crew cuts.
Ryan Pittman, an ex-cop who now works computer crime cases in the Army’s criminal investigations division, said the convention was an opportunity to whittle away the federal agents’ image as “jackbooted thugs.” Ahmed Saleh, a computer crime investigator with NASA, described a job that might be appealing “if you’re a geek and you want to catch the bad guys.”
There seemed to be plenty of receptive hackers. Christine Banek, 29, a software programmer with plum-colored hair, sidled up to Mr. Saleh after the panel and asked if his agency was still hiring. She said she had applied online and had not heard back. “If they were offering, I would totally take it,” she said. Later, she suggested aloud that the government legalize marijuana. Positive drug tests generally disqualify a candidate from a law enforcement position.
It flies. It spies. It is the color of sunshine, and it has googly eyes.
Meet WASP, the Wireless Aerial Surveillance Platform, one of the star attractions of this year’s Black Hat conference.
It’s a remote-controlled plane with a computer in its belly that can fly up to 400 feet above the ground, snoop quietly on wireless networks below and attack one if it wants to. It can also pretend to be a GSM cellphone tower, eavesdropping on calls and text messages that pass through.
The WASP was built by Richard Perkins and Mike Tassey using hobby materials, including a Styrofoam plane body, a plastic propeller and foam tires, along with circuit boards and wires. The materials are all off the shelf, costing $6,190 — a fraction of the cost of a spy plane, with cyberweapons included.
Its creators eschew the term “spy plane.” “There’s a negative connotation to a spy plane,” Mr. Tassey said. “This was done in an attempt to prove a concept.”
What concept?
“That it can be done,” he said.
His sentiment perfectly embodied the ethos of Black Hat, a spirited gathering of technologists who sometimes make scary things to show that they can be made, and at other times break things to show how badly they need to be fixed.
The bird conjured by Mr. Perkins and Mr. Tassey is barely four feet long and becomes an imperceptible, quietly humming little creature when it hovers overhead. It could be deployed over, say, an office building to sniff out information going across its wireless network. Or if the office network is well secured, the plane could follow an employee on a trip to a neighborhood Starbucks.
The WASP could mimic the cafe’s network, luring the unwitting employee and allowing access to a laptop or cellphone. As Mr. Tassey put it, “In Starbucks, no one can hear your laptop scream.”
They sat at tables along the perimeter of a ballroom in the Rio hotel. Lights were low. Laptops burned like campfires. Men and women hunched over the machines, their backs curved like question marks. Their fingers clicked away furiously.
“This is a spelling bee for hackers,” explained Giovanni Vigna, 42, a professor of computer science from the University of California, Santa Barbara. “It’s a way to prove your hacking skills.”
Each team, he said, was given the same type of virtual server, with the same strengths and weaknesses. The teams were charged with defending their servers and attacking those of others. Each time a weak spot was attacked, a flag was awarded. The team with the most flags won. Hence, the name of the contest: Capture the Flag. This was the final round.
Contests are a big deal at Defcon. But they’re not all on computers. Defcon is about celebrating tinkering.
There was a “lockpicking village” where interested parties did exactly that: pick locks. “Most of us see locks as puzzles,” Babak Javadi, 26, one of the organizers, explained. He has been taking apart locks since he was a kid, he said, and now runs a security business, specializing in high-security locks.
There was a barber offering mohawks. There were vendors selling “advanced gaming eyewear,” glasses that sell for up to $189 a pair, designed to reduce the glare of a computer screen and ease eye fatigue. There were vendors selling luggage tags that said “Geek on Board.”
In one hall, a competition was under way to invent a beer-cooling contraption. In another, teams were competing to tamper with so-called tamper-resistant materials.
“You’re doing something you’re not meant to do: That’s the essence of hacking,” said Chris Kuivenhoven, 34, a security engineer from Atlanta. “People can use it for good or bad.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/technology/scenes-from-hacker-gatherings-in-las-vegas.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Friday, April 15, 2011
Germany to Roll Out ID cards with Embedded RFID; They Will Also Be Used for Establishing Identity Online
Germany to Roll Out ID cards with Embedded RFID; They Will Also Be Used for Establishing Identity Online
Via: International Business Times:
The production of the RFID chips, an integral element of the new generation of German identity cards, has started after the government gave a 10 year contract to the chipmaker NXP in the Netherlands. Citizens will receive the mandatory new ID cards from the first of November.
The new ID card will contain all personal data on the security chip that can be accessed over a wireless connection.
The new card allows German authorities to identify people with speed and accuracy, the government said. These authorities include the police, customs and tax authorities and of course the local registration and passport granting authorities.
German companies like Infineon and the Dutch NXP, which operates a large scale development and manufacturing base in Hamburg, Germany are global leaders in making RFID security chips. The new electronic ID card, which will gradually replace the old mandatory German ID cards, is one of the largest scale roll-outs of RFID cards with extended official and identification functionality.
The card will also have extended functionality, including the ability to enable citizens to identify themselves in the internet by using the ID card with a reading device at home. After registering an online account bonded to the ID card, are able to do secure online shopping, downloading music and most importantly interact with government authorities online, for example.
august 2010 @ http://cryptogon.com/?p=17169
__________
22 September 2010
CCC reveals security problems with German electronic IDs
The Chaos Computer Club (CCC) has repeated its criticism of Germany's new electronic IDs (eIDs). They claim that the system used with the basic scanner, 1 million of which are to be handed out for free, is inherently unsafe.
The electronic identity cards with their integrated RFID chips are being introduced in Germany to allow the authorities to quickly and reliably identify citizens. Card holders can, by using the basic reader, also use the card to identify themselves online and lock accounts on government web sites to the eID on the identity card. The mandatory electronic identity cards are being issued from the start of November.
But, back in August, CCC members demonstrated on German TV news show "Plusminus" how attackers can use malicious software on a PC to sniff the input of the eID's PIN. The basic scanner does not have a keyboard that would allow the PIN to be entered manually and prevent sniffing.
Tonight, another German news show, "Bericht aus Brüssel"(German language link), will be broadcasting a similar demonstration by the CCC starting at 8:55 PM GMT. The show will demonstrate that software freely available to everyone on the Internet can be used to remotely control the electronic ID using the stolen PIN. The CCC said in a press release(German language link) that once an attacker has the PIN, they can use the eID for anything, as long as the identity card is inserted in a scanner. Attackers could hide in the background and act as the holder of the ID without even having to access the transmitted data. It's even possible, say the CCC, for attackers to change the ID's ‘secret’ PIN”.
Tricks like virtual keyboards operated via a mouse apparently do not provide additional security, and even scanners with their own PIN keyboards only offer limited protection. Man-in-the-browser attacks can be conducted to modify the content of transactions without the knowledge of users. Users can only see what transactions they are conducting if the scanner displays the most important transaction data, such as the recipient account and the amount for online banking, before the PIN is input.
The CCC also criticises the new electronic identity card's optional signature function, which provides a legally binding signature for digital documents. Attackers have reportedly already managed to use Switzerland's SuisseID card to put a legally binding signature on a foreign identity. The CCC says the German ID card has similar vulnerabilities.
In particular, the CCC complains that there are no guidelines for how documents to be signed must be set up. They argue that it is generally a bad idea to put digital signatures into complex document formats because users cannot be certain that the document will always be displayed the same way in different applications.
For example, the "SwissSigner" program can sign a PDF file containing active JavaScript even though the application cannot correctly display the document and the document has a different appearance in the widely used Acrobat Reader. Nonetheless, under certain conditions, it has been shown that the qualified signature can remain intact.
An expert from the BSI, Jens Bender noted the criticism of the CCC and acknowledged that users would be making "a big mistake" if the identity card was left in a reader for longer than necessary. But apart from services such as age verification, it would be impossible for online criminals to carry out fraudulent financial transactions on the Internet because a separate signature feature would need to be activated. This signature, he says, is protected by a second PIN which can only be entered into a reader with an integrated keypad.
Under no circumstances, Bender says, would an attacker gain access to the personal data of the eID card holder as this would be transmitted in an encrypted form. He did concede that it was possible to change the PIN number but regarded that as an improbable scenario as the owner would immediately realise that something was wrong. The BSI stresses that even with the known weaknesses of the basic readers, the authentication procedure is significantly safer than the combination of user name and password that is in use now.
sept. 2010 @ http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/CCC-reveals-security-problems-with-German-electronic-IDs-1094577.html
Via: International Business Times:
The production of the RFID chips, an integral element of the new generation of German identity cards, has started after the government gave a 10 year contract to the chipmaker NXP in the Netherlands. Citizens will receive the mandatory new ID cards from the first of November.
The new ID card will contain all personal data on the security chip that can be accessed over a wireless connection.
The new card allows German authorities to identify people with speed and accuracy, the government said. These authorities include the police, customs and tax authorities and of course the local registration and passport granting authorities.
German companies like Infineon and the Dutch NXP, which operates a large scale development and manufacturing base in Hamburg, Germany are global leaders in making RFID security chips. The new electronic ID card, which will gradually replace the old mandatory German ID cards, is one of the largest scale roll-outs of RFID cards with extended official and identification functionality.
The card will also have extended functionality, including the ability to enable citizens to identify themselves in the internet by using the ID card with a reading device at home. After registering an online account bonded to the ID card, are able to do secure online shopping, downloading music and most importantly interact with government authorities online, for example.
august 2010 @ http://cryptogon.com/?p=17169
__________
22 September 2010
CCC reveals security problems with German electronic IDs
The Chaos Computer Club (CCC) has repeated its criticism of Germany's new electronic IDs (eIDs). They claim that the system used with the basic scanner, 1 million of which are to be handed out for free, is inherently unsafe.
The electronic identity cards with their integrated RFID chips are being introduced in Germany to allow the authorities to quickly and reliably identify citizens. Card holders can, by using the basic reader, also use the card to identify themselves online and lock accounts on government web sites to the eID on the identity card. The mandatory electronic identity cards are being issued from the start of November.
But, back in August, CCC members demonstrated on German TV news show "Plusminus" how attackers can use malicious software on a PC to sniff the input of the eID's PIN. The basic scanner does not have a keyboard that would allow the PIN to be entered manually and prevent sniffing.
Tonight, another German news show, "Bericht aus Brüssel"(German language link), will be broadcasting a similar demonstration by the CCC starting at 8:55 PM GMT. The show will demonstrate that software freely available to everyone on the Internet can be used to remotely control the electronic ID using the stolen PIN. The CCC said in a press release(German language link) that once an attacker has the PIN, they can use the eID for anything, as long as the identity card is inserted in a scanner. Attackers could hide in the background and act as the holder of the ID without even having to access the transmitted data. It's even possible, say the CCC, for attackers to change the ID's ‘secret’ PIN”.
Tricks like virtual keyboards operated via a mouse apparently do not provide additional security, and even scanners with their own PIN keyboards only offer limited protection. Man-in-the-browser attacks can be conducted to modify the content of transactions without the knowledge of users. Users can only see what transactions they are conducting if the scanner displays the most important transaction data, such as the recipient account and the amount for online banking, before the PIN is input.
The CCC also criticises the new electronic identity card's optional signature function, which provides a legally binding signature for digital documents. Attackers have reportedly already managed to use Switzerland's SuisseID card to put a legally binding signature on a foreign identity. The CCC says the German ID card has similar vulnerabilities.
In particular, the CCC complains that there are no guidelines for how documents to be signed must be set up. They argue that it is generally a bad idea to put digital signatures into complex document formats because users cannot be certain that the document will always be displayed the same way in different applications.
For example, the "SwissSigner" program can sign a PDF file containing active JavaScript even though the application cannot correctly display the document and the document has a different appearance in the widely used Acrobat Reader. Nonetheless, under certain conditions, it has been shown that the qualified signature can remain intact.
An expert from the BSI, Jens Bender noted the criticism of the CCC and acknowledged that users would be making "a big mistake" if the identity card was left in a reader for longer than necessary. But apart from services such as age verification, it would be impossible for online criminals to carry out fraudulent financial transactions on the Internet because a separate signature feature would need to be activated. This signature, he says, is protected by a second PIN which can only be entered into a reader with an integrated keypad.
Under no circumstances, Bender says, would an attacker gain access to the personal data of the eID card holder as this would be transmitted in an encrypted form. He did concede that it was possible to change the PIN number but regarded that as an improbable scenario as the owner would immediately realise that something was wrong. The BSI stresses that even with the known weaknesses of the basic readers, the authentication procedure is significantly safer than the combination of user name and password that is in use now.
sept. 2010 @ http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/CCC-reveals-security-problems-with-German-electronic-IDs-1094577.html
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
U.S. Shuts Down Massive Cyber Theft Ring "frankly speaking, this is just the beginning" ...
April 13, 2011 U.S. shuts down massive cyber theft ring
U.S. authorities claimed one of their biggest victories against cyber crime as they shut down a ring they said used malicious software to take control of more than 2 million PCs around the world, and may have led to theft of more than $100 million.
A computer virus, dubbed Coreflood, infected more than 2 million PCs, enslaving them into a "botnet" that grabbed banking credentials and other sensitive data its masters used to steal funds via fraudulent banking and wire transactions, the U.S. Department of Justice said on Wednesday.
The government shuttered that botnet, which had operated for a decade, by seizing hard drives used to run it after a federal court in Connecticut gave the go-ahead. "This was big money stolen on a large scale by foreign criminals. The FBI wanted to stop it and they did an incredibly good job at it," said Alan Paller, director of research at the SAN Institute, a nonprofit group that helps fight cyber crime.
The vast majority of the infected machines were in the United States, but the criminal gang was likely overseas. "We're pretty sure a Russian crime group was behind it," said Paller. Paller and other security experts said it was hard to know how much money the gang stole.
It could easily be tens of millions of dollars and could go above $100 million, said Dave Marcus, McAfee Labs research and communications director. A civil complaint against 13 unnamed foreign nationals was also filed by the U.S. district attorney in Connecticut. It accused them of wire and bank fraud.
The Justice Department said it had an ongoing criminal investigation. The malicious Coreflood software was used to infect computers with keylogging software that stole user names, passwords, financial data and other information, the Justice Department said. "The seizure of the Coreflood servers and Internet domain names is expected to prevent criminals from using Coreflood or computers infected by Coreflood for their nefarious purposes," U.S. Attorney David Fein said in a statement.
In March, law enforcement raids on servers used by a Rustock botnet were shut down after legal action against them by Microsoft Corp. Authorities severed the Rustock IP addresses, effectively disabling the botnet. Rustock had been one of the biggest producers of spam e-mail, with some tech security experts estimating they produced half the spam that fills people's junk mail bins.
A botnet is essentially one or more servers that spread malicious software and use the software to send spam or to steal personal information or data that can be used to empty a victim's bank account. U.S. government programmers shut down the Coreflood botnet on Tuesday. They also instructed the computers enslaved in the botnet to stop sending stolen data and to shut down.
A similar tactic was used in a Dutch case, but it was the first time U.S. authorities had used this method to shut down a botnet, according to court documents. Victims of the botnet included a real estate company in Michigan that lost $115,771, a South Carolina law firm that lost $78,421 and a Tennessee defense contractor that lost $241,866, according to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
The government plans to work with Internet service providers around the country to identify other victims.
U.S. authorities claimed one of their biggest victories against cyber crime as they shut down a ring they said used malicious software to take control of more than 2 million PCs around the world, and may have led to theft of more than $100 million.
A computer virus, dubbed Coreflood, infected more than 2 million PCs, enslaving them into a "botnet" that grabbed banking credentials and other sensitive data its masters used to steal funds via fraudulent banking and wire transactions, the U.S. Department of Justice said on Wednesday.
The government shuttered that botnet, which had operated for a decade, by seizing hard drives used to run it after a federal court in Connecticut gave the go-ahead. "This was big money stolen on a large scale by foreign criminals. The FBI wanted to stop it and they did an incredibly good job at it," said Alan Paller, director of research at the SAN Institute, a nonprofit group that helps fight cyber crime.
The vast majority of the infected machines were in the United States, but the criminal gang was likely overseas. "We're pretty sure a Russian crime group was behind it," said Paller. Paller and other security experts said it was hard to know how much money the gang stole.
It could easily be tens of millions of dollars and could go above $100 million, said Dave Marcus, McAfee Labs research and communications director. A civil complaint against 13 unnamed foreign nationals was also filed by the U.S. district attorney in Connecticut. It accused them of wire and bank fraud.
The Justice Department said it had an ongoing criminal investigation. The malicious Coreflood software was used to infect computers with keylogging software that stole user names, passwords, financial data and other information, the Justice Department said. "The seizure of the Coreflood servers and Internet domain names is expected to prevent criminals from using Coreflood or computers infected by Coreflood for their nefarious purposes," U.S. Attorney David Fein said in a statement.
In March, law enforcement raids on servers used by a Rustock botnet were shut down after legal action against them by Microsoft Corp. Authorities severed the Rustock IP addresses, effectively disabling the botnet. Rustock had been one of the biggest producers of spam e-mail, with some tech security experts estimating they produced half the spam that fills people's junk mail bins.
A botnet is essentially one or more servers that spread malicious software and use the software to send spam or to steal personal information or data that can be used to empty a victim's bank account. U.S. government programmers shut down the Coreflood botnet on Tuesday. They also instructed the computers enslaved in the botnet to stop sending stolen data and to shut down.
A similar tactic was used in a Dutch case, but it was the first time U.S. authorities had used this method to shut down a botnet, according to court documents. Victims of the botnet included a real estate company in Michigan that lost $115,771, a South Carolina law firm that lost $78,421 and a Tennessee defense contractor that lost $241,866, according to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
The government plans to work with Internet service providers around the country to identify other victims.
Also, Frankly speaking .. internet crime in the U.S. continues to climb ...
Monday, April 11, 2011
What is Pagejacking?
What is Pagejacking?
Pagejacking is a technique used to siphon Internet traffic from intended websites to unintended sites, usually containing bogus content. Once at the site, surfers might find it difficult to leave, as clicking the “back” button of the browser might only redirect them to another related site (owned by the same company).
Pagejacking is unlawful, under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), falling under the purview of a deceptive practice that interferes with commerce.
To set up pagejacking, an unscrupulous vendor copies a popular webpage from a legitimate site along with its underlying HTML code. HTML stands for HyperText Markup Language, and is what Web browsers process into the visual graphics we see when we visit sites. You can view the source code, or HTML of a webpage by right-clicking on a site and choosing “View Page Source” from the popup menu.
The source code of a webpage includes meta tag. Meta tag are keywords and key phrases that describe page content. Search engines use the meta tag section to classify and rate the page. High-rated webpages are presented first by search engines, making it easier for surfers to find good information fast.
Pagejackers steal the coding of a highly rated webpage to trick search engines into listing the copied page. The pagejacker then adds a small bit of code to the copied page, causing it to redirect surfers to a completely different website. For example, a surfer might enter “party supplies” in a search engine, and of the many returned links, the copied site will be one of them. Clicking on this seemingly legitimate link will reroute the surfer to the offending site.
Once pagejacked, it’s often difficult to leave the pornographic site. Clicking the “back,” “forward” or even “close” buttons might redirect the surfer to even more objectionable sites with windows popping open like fireworks. This is referred to as mousetrapping, commonly accomplished using JavaScript or other coding. Disabling JavaScript can prevent it in most cases, but JavaScript is also used to enhance legitimate websites, so many people prefer it enabled.
Traffic is the basis for revenue on the Internet and pagejacking increases traffic to websites through illegitimate means. With every click to leave, a redirect to another offending site boosts that site’s traffic statistics and earns the pagejacker a small revenue for funneling traffic. Pagejacking is also used to increase advertising revenue and can be utilized to boost the selling price of a domain by presenting bloated traffic statistics to the buyer.
If you find yourself pagejacked, manually enter a legitimate address in the URL (address) field of the browser, or click on a bookmark. Check for lingering open windows that might be behind the main window, or minimized to the task bar. If concerned about minors, consider a filtering program that will block pornography, preventing a browser from redirecting to offending sites.
You can also report pagejacking to the FTC.
Pagejacking - identifying and dealing with pagejackers ...
Pagejacking - identifying and dealing with pagejackers
What is pagejacking?
In essence, pagejacking is the copying of a page by unauthorized parties in order to filter off traffic to another site. The copying doesn't include just the wording - it's the whole box and dice. Traffic to the illegitimate page is then usually redirected to a competing, or at times, totally unrelated offer.
Why do people pagejack?
When you have the good fortune of having a page that ranks highly in the SERP's (Search Engine Results Pages); it brings you both good and bad attention. Some unscrupulous individuals make take copies of your pages in an attempt to get equally high, or higher rankings and therefore capturing some of the traffic that really should have gone to your site.
In the instance where the pagejacker is also well versed in search engine optimization; it can be the case that the *majority* of search engine traffic that usually arrives on your site is redirected to the pagejacker. As you can imagine, this can be very costly to your online business.
How is pagejacking executed?
The "newbie" pagejacker simply copies your page in it's entirety and pastes it into another page on his own site. They may add some of their own offers to the page and adjust the links in your content to point to other pages on their site. Only the most stupid of pagejackers use this process.
The more advanced pagejacking strategy is quite clever. First, a copy of your page is taken. A page is then created on the pagejackers site that is basically a carbon copy of your content - including meta-tags. The pagejacker then adds extra scripting to allow only search engine robots to be able to read the content of the page. A 302 .htaccess redirect or meta-refresh is then used to automatically redirect human viewers to a totally different page - they never see your content.
How do I detect pagejacking?
You can detect pagejacking quite easily as most pagejackers will only bother with pages that have decent search engine rankings. Use the following process:
Identify a couple of phrases that are rather uncommon in a popular page on your site.
Run these phrases through a query on the most popular search engines such as Google, Yahoo and MSN. When querying the engines, ensure your encapsulate your query with quotes; e.g. "the flomble is pink with black stripes"
In the results that come back, as long as the phrase you have used is uncommon, you'll probably only see your page and instances of pagejacking. Even if you're not able to use an uncommon phrase as the basis of your search criteria, or you allow the reproduction of some of your content on other sites and you wind up with 100 results, go through all the results pages anyway. Yahoo, Google and MSN always show extended snippets from the page which will make it easier to identify a site that is using pagejacked content.
To confirm that the suspect listing is in fact pagejacked content, instead of clicking on the link to the page in the search engine results, click on the "cached" option. It will display the page as it appeared to the search engine robot the last time it was crawled. High ranking pages are usually crawled quite regularly, so the cached copy should be reasonably fresh.
How do I deal with pagejacking
Pagejackers by nature are a snivelling, cowardly breed and easy to deal with if you go about it in the right way.
If you have identified pagejacked content, the first thing you need to do is to save the cached copy of the page - this is very important as it is solid evidence.
One of the great features of Google is that when it displays cached copies of pages, it adds a box to the top of it with identifying information, including the URL and the date the cached copy was taken.
If you are using Internet Explorer, to save a copy of the cached page, simply go to "File", select "Save as" and in the "Save as type" dropdown option, choose "Web archive, single file (*.mht)".
This option will download everything, including images and the Google info box into a single file.
Having a single file makes it easier to transmit to other parties during the follow up process.
Once you have the archive file safely stored on your own computer, it's time to swing into action.
The first thing you should do is to contact the owner of the site. There is no need to be overly polite in the notification, but also do not be abusive.
Bear in mind that in some cases, the pagejacker may *not* be the actual site owner. The owner of the site may have employed an unethical optimization company who used the pagejacking technique. Regardless, it is the site owners' responsibility to deal with the situation.
I recommend writing a brief note along these lines: Subject = "Copyright infringement - (Domain Name)" Body =
"It has come to my attention that you have made an unauthorized use of my copyrighted work located here; (copyrighted work URL), by reproducing it on your site (their URL with infringing copy). At no time have I given permission for you to reproduce my original content in such a way.
A cached copy from Google of the illegally copied content on your site is attached, along with details as to its location on your site and the date it was gathered. It appears that my content is being used on your site as part of a pagejacking strategy and is visible only to search engines.
As the legal owner of this copyrighted content, I demand that you remove my property from your site immediately.
You have 72 hours to remove this content. If the content is not removed within this time frame, then I will find it necessary to take further action; including contacting Google, your hosting service and any other legal avenues I have at my disposal.
Sincerely - Your name - Your contact details
Ensure you flag the email as urgent and select the read receipt option in your email software. If after 72 hours, the content is not removed, you should first contact the company hosting the site.
These details, as well as the domain name registrant, can usually be found on the WHOIS record for the domain name by looking at the nameserver information, or by running a trace on the domain name.
If you do find it necessary to contact the hosting service, check the host's site first for guidelines for copyright complaints. Each company may differ slightly in terms of copyright infringement complaints processes and it's important that you follow their submission guidelines carefully - usually a US company will direct you to follow a process as laid out in the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act).
If the infringement has caused you a major loss in profit, then it is advisable that you contact your lawyer before taking any sort of action if it is within your means to do so.
How do I prevent pagejacking
In short - It gets to a point where you can spend so much time in trying to protect your online business from parasites and copycats that you may as well not bother with having a site at all. Monitoring is the key in relation to pagejacking.
Other possible negative effects of pagejacking
I've read a number of reports on the subject of pagejacking that appear to indicate that some search engines will favor the pagejacked page over the original one to the point that the original page will be dropped from the SERPs altogether. The reason for this is that most search engines employ duplicate content filters - and the way some work is that the higher ranking page is usually the one that is kept.
One very important negative effect of pagejacking is damage to your brand. For instance, a pagejacker may copy a page that contains multiple instances of your business or product name. If the pagejacker is successful in achieving consistently higher rankings than your own content, unsuspecting surfers may begin to associate the brand with misleading content and steer clear of it altogether.
Protecting your site from online parasites is an ongoing battle; I hope this article has assisted you in dealing with one aspect of this multi-faceted war.
Related learning resources
Pay per click fraud - ppc anti-fraud strategies and tools
Michael BlochTaming the Beast http://www.tamingthebeast.net/
Tutorials, web content, tools and software.Web Marketing, Internet Development & Ecommerce Resources__________Copyright information....
This article is free for reproduction but must be reproduced in its entirety, including live links & this copyright statement must be included. Visit http://www.tamingthebeast.net/ for free Internet marketing and web development articles, tutorials and tools!
Thursday, December 16, 2010
CYBER CRIME - BE SMART - BE SAFE - AND - LOOKOUT FOR WEB SITES THAT PREY ON UNSUSPECTING, POTENTIAL VICTIMS ...
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/cyberKey Priorities- Computer Intrusions- Innocent Images: Online Predators- Anti-Piracy/Intellectual Property Rights- Fraud: Internet Crime Complaint Center
Initiatives & Partnerships- Cyber Action Teams- Computer Crimes Task Forces- Identity Theft- InfraGard: Protecting Infrastructure- National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force- National Cyber-Forensics & Training Alliance- Strategic Alliance Cyber Crime Working Group
Cyber Threats & Scams- Threat Overview: Speech- E-Scams & Warnings- Common Internet Frauds- Internet Crime Reports- National Cyber Alert System- Peer-to-Peer Networks - Social Networking Sites
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Search Engine Abusers and Offenders Three-Way Linking, Pagejacking and Cloaking ...
Like French pigs trained to hunt the most elusive truffles, new generation search-engine ranking programs can usually sniff out even the most cleverly concealed scheme of this type and instantly punish offenders.
Cloaking a practice done by black hat SEO's to display key word stuffed pages to Search Engines and a different page to actual users.
Pagejacking is referred as to copy others web page and put forward it to the illegal search engines by telling it as your own. To a certain extent pagejacking includes page cloaking.
Pagejacking is almost as the pinching copyrighted contents.
You have two websites, redwebsite.com and bluewebsite.com. I have one site, qrs.com. You offer to link bluewebsite.com to qrs.com in return for me linking qrs.com to redwebsite.com.
Sounds like a pretty good idea, true or false?
Sadly, false. We say sadly, because so-called three-way (3 way) links can frequently make a lot of sense from a marketing perspective. Unfortunately, from the point of view of a search-engine ranking program, especially Google's, they frequently look like nothing more than an attempt to spam the system and skew the page rankings.
The problem is that three-way linking has become an increasingly popular ploy among search engine cheaters. In fact, the number of three-ways implemented solely in an attempt to unfairly hype site rankings has become such a high percentage of all three ways that companies like Google have been virtually forced to take steps to end the abuse and protect the integrity of their returns. Why have many webmasters trying to play fast and loose with search-engine rules turned to three-way linking? Primarily because the search engines - particularly Google, have caught up with their abusive reciprocal-linking practices.
Since the earliest days of the Web, legitimate, ethical and relevant reciprocal links have been - and still are - the most powerful way to generate traffic to a website. Good links generate direct qualified traffic from compatible linked sites and can also improve your site's search-engine ranking to bring in even more hits.
The problem is that first-generation search-engine analysis programs simply counted the number of links on a site and gave a better rating to those with the most links. The results of early search engine programs lack of sophistication included the link farm, full duplex automated linking networks, free for all links pages, and other bad practices designed to flood a site with random links having nothing to do with the site's content and of absolutely zero value to the site's visitors.
Responding to this abuse, search engine crawlers were re-programmed to actually analyze links - to follow them and see if they are relevant, to pay attention to whether buckets of two-way links are being poured into a site all at once, to check whether link content is fresh or stale. Stymied in their attempts to beat the ranking odds with phony two-way linking schemes, some operators have turned to three-way linking to generate bogus one-way links. Here's how they work it.
Scenario One: A person with an e-commerce site they want to promote, let's call it UpTheSearchEngines.com, buys a bunch of domain names and erects websites for all of them. He than creates one-way links from the more or less bogus sites to UpTheSearchEngines.com, the site he's trying to spam Google with. In theory, Google's analysis program will see all the links from these supposedly independent sites to UpTheSearchEngines.com and think "Wow, something good must really be happening at UpTheSearchEngines.com, I'd better give it a top-ten ranking." In practice, the analysis program will deduce that most of the sites pointing to UpTheSearchEngines.com are part of an incestuously linked in-house network of sites running off a single domain address and controlled by the same person. Having determined this, the ranking program will usually punish the offender with a reduced ranking.
Scenario Two: Someone approaches you and says, "Let's do some reciprocal linking, you put up a link to my UpTheSearchEngines.com site and I'll give you one link on each of my three other sites, ILoveSearchEngines.com, IHateSearchEngines.com and WhoNeedsSearchEngines.com." This sounds enticing, here's a person offering you three links for the "price" of one. What's really going on here? What's probably going on is that the generous webmaster with the three-for-one proposition is trying to create links to UpTheSearchEngines.com without putting up any reciprocal links from UpTheSearchEngines.com to your site or other partner sites. Again, the goal is to trick searches engines into thinking UpTheSearchEngine.com has a degree of popularity and importance far beyond that indicated by its legitimate links, keywords, metatags, and traffic statistics.
The reasoning goes like this: If all these other sites are linking to UpTheSearchEngines.com without getting anything - even a link - in return, UpTheSearchEngines.com must be a fantastic site and should get a high rank. Scenario Two, like Scenario One, works a lot better in theory than it does in practice.
continues ...Search Engine Abusers and Offenders Three-Way Linking, Pagejacking and Cloaking ...page 2
Search Engine Abusers and Offenders Three-Way Linking and Pagejacking and Cloaking
Cloaking a practice done by black hat SEO's to display key word stuffed pages to Search Engines and a different page to actual users.
Pagejacking is referred as to copy others web page and put forward it to the illegal search engines by telling it as your own. To a certain extent pagejacking includes page cloaking.
Pagejacking is almost as the pinching copyrighted contents.
You have two websites, redwebsite.com and bluewebsite.com. I have one site, qrs.com. You offer to link bluewebsite.com to qrs.com in return for me linking qrs.com to redwebsite.com.
Sounds like a pretty good idea, true or false?
Sadly, false. We say sadly, because so-called three-way (3 way) links can frequently make a lot of sense from a marketing perspective. Unfortunately, from the point of view of a search-engine ranking program, especially Google's, they frequently look like nothing more than an attempt to spam the system and skew the page rankings.
The problem is that three-way linking has become an increasingly popular ploy among search engine cheaters. In fact, the number of three-ways implemented solely in an attempt to unfairly hype site rankings has become such a high percentage of all three ways that companies like Google have been virtually forced to take steps to end the abuse and protect the integrity of their returns. Why have many webmasters trying to play fast and loose with search-engine rules turned to three-way linking? Primarily because the search engines - particularly Google, have caught up with their abusive reciprocal-linking practices.
Since the earliest days of the Web, legitimate, ethical and relevant reciprocal links have been - and still are - the most powerful way to generate traffic to a website. Good links generate direct qualified traffic from compatible linked sites and can also improve your site's search-engine ranking to bring in even more hits.
The problem is that first-generation search-engine analysis programs simply counted the number of links on a site and gave a better rating to those with the most links. The results of early search engine programs lack of sophistication included the link farm, full duplex automated linking networks, free for all links pages, and other bad practices designed to flood a site with random links having nothing to do with the site's content and of absolutely zero value to the site's visitors.
Responding to this abuse, search engine crawlers were re-programmed to actually analyze links - to follow them and see if they are relevant, to pay attention to whether buckets of two-way links are being poured into a site all at once, to check whether link content is fresh or stale. Stymied in their attempts to beat the ranking odds with phony two-way linking schemes, some operators have turned to three-way linking to generate bogus one-way links. Here's how they work it.
Scenario One: A person with an e-commerce site they want to promote, let's call it UpTheSearchEngines.com, buys a bunch of domain names and erects websites for all of them. He than creates one-way links from the more or less bogus sites to UpTheSearchEngines.com, the site he's trying to spam Google with. In theory, Google's analysis program will see all the links from these supposedly independent sites to UpTheSearchEngines.com and think "Wow, something good must really be happening at UpTheSearchEngines.com, I'd better give it a top-ten ranking." In practice, the analysis program will deduce that most of the sites pointing to UpTheSearchEngines.com are part of an incestuously linked in-house network of sites running off a single domain address and controlled by the same person. Having determined this, the ranking program will usually punish the offender with a reduced ranking.
Scenario Two: Someone approaches you and says, "Let's do some reciprocal linking, you put up a link to my UpTheSearchEngines.com site and I'll give you one link on each of my three other sites, ILoveSearchEngines.com, IHateSearchEngines.com and WhoNeedsSearchEngines.com." This sounds enticing, here's a person offering you three links for the "price" of one. What's really going on here? What's probably going on is that the generous webmaster with the three-for-one proposition is trying to create links to UpTheSearchEngines.com without putting up any reciprocal links from UpTheSearchEngines.com to your site or other partner sites. Again, the goal is to trick searches engines into thinking UpTheSearchEngine.com has a degree of popularity and importance far beyond that indicated by its legitimate links, keywords, metatags, and traffic statistics.
The reasoning goes like this: If all these other sites are linking to UpTheSearchEngines.com without getting anything - even a link - in return, UpTheSearchEngines.com must be a fantastic site and should get a high rank. Scenario Two, like Scenario One, works a lot better in theory than it does in practice.
Like French pigs trained to hunt the most elusive truffles, new generation search-engine ranking programs can usually sniff out even the most cleverly concealed scheme of this type and instantly punish offenders.
As with so many issues relating to search engine rankings, what we really know about how Google and other engines handle both legitimate three-way linking and deliberate three-way abuse attempts is more a matter of conjecture, circumstantial evidence and anecdotal tales of horror than it is of hard facts. In particular, little is known about the direct effect of three-way linking on those sites at the reciprocal ends of the triangle - in the above example, that's "you" the person who "bought" the three-for-one linking deal.
According to some search engine optimization experts, search engines only take punitive action against sites benefiting from the one-way links, others contend that even the sites providing the links can be down-rated at least slightly by participating in the practice.
As with so many issues relating to search engine rankings, what we really know about how Google and other engines handle both legitimate three-way linking and deliberate three-way abuse attempts is more a matter of conjecture, circumstantial evidence and anecdotal tales of horror than it is of hard facts. In particular, little is known about the direct effect of three-way linking on those sites at the reciprocal ends of the triangle - in the above example, that's "you" the person who "bought" the three-for-one linking deal.
According to some search engine optimization experts, search engines only take punitive action against sites benefiting from the one-way links, others contend that even the sites providing the links can be down-rated at least slightly by participating in the practice.
Frankly, it probably doesn't matter. Three-way linking of the types described above is almost certainly going to diminish your Google page ranking at least slightly because it invariably produces both forward and backward links that have little or no relevance to the content on your site. And content, relevant content, is, especially as far as Google is concerned, king. In fact, there is only one place in which good quality, highly relevant onsite and linked content is more important than it is in Google's virtual brain and that is in the flesh, blood and neural pathways of your customers' and potential customers' hearts and minds.
Considering the heavy opaque veil cloaking so many search-engine operations, it's probably best to view three-way linking with the same degree of skepticism you'd apply to any new strategy alleged to produce substantial search engine gain without any of the pain associated with upgrading your site and its contents.
Considering the heavy opaque veil cloaking so many search-engine operations, it's probably best to view three-way linking with the same degree of skepticism you'd apply to any new strategy alleged to produce substantial search engine gain without any of the pain associated with upgrading your site and its contents.
The reason to be skeptical is evident: When it comes to linking and search-engine rankings, discretion is by far the better path of valor. Getting away with cheating is not nearly as easy today as it once was and getting caught can be very expensive in terms of reduced search engine-generated traffic.
continues ...Search Engine Abusers and Offenders Three-Way Linking, Pagejacking and Cloaking ...page 2
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Knowledge is Power ~ Protect yourself from cyber crime ~ Educate yourself ...
Over the last 18 months, an ominous change has swept across the Internet. The threat landscape once dominated by the worms and viruses unleashed by irresponsible hackers is now ruled by a new breed of cybercriminals.Cybercrime is motivated by fraud, typified by the bogus emails sent by "phishers" that aim to steal personal information. The tools driving their attacks and fueling the blackmarket are crimeware - bots, Trojan horses, and spyware. Introduction to Cybercrime & Crimeware Podcast (mp3 / xml) Download Cybercrime Booklet (PDF)
The Internet is a big part of our lives nowadays. As part of an average day, we log onto the Internet for shopping, banking, social and business networking, applying for jobs, researching genealogy, finding old friends, downloading music, taking a course, you name it, if we need to receive or send information, the Internet offers some avenue to help you do the task.
As usage of the Internet becomes more widespread, Internet crime has also risen. It's become incredibly important we take preventative measures to protect our safety. Identity theft is on the rise and this is another important factor we must consider. With each piece of information transmitted or stored online, there is a risk of falling victim to a crime. Currently some of the biggest trends we have to protect ourselves against are hacking, stalking, fraud, phishing, social engineering, theft, spreading Malware and harassment.
There are several ways you can proactively safeguard yourself from falling prey to cyber crime. Here are a few tips:
*Get educated. When arming yourself against cyber crime, it's important to become aware of the risks. By educating yourself on current illegal trends, you can better understand ways you can reduce the risk of becoming a target. Awareness is the strongest weapon you can obtain to protect yourself against cyber crime.
*Use vigilance. It's a good idea to always be vigilant when sharing personal information over the Internet. It's important to make sure you only share minimal, if any, personal information with people you do not know. Be conscientious of what information share even if you think you are being careful. Often criminals will talk with their victims for long periods of time, piecing together bits of personal information until they have a complete profile. People you associate with or meet online may not appear to be who they say they are, after all one never knows who is really sitting at the other end of a network connection.
*Be careful with passwords. Do not ever enter passwords or personal information on links you received in email since emails can be spoofed and/or used to "phish" for information. Always go to the business or organizations website directly by using the URL and make sure the web page has been secured; if it has been, it will indicate "HTTPS" instead of "HTTP" in the URL and you will see a small padlock icon on the lower left hand side of your screen. Never give out your password to anyone online or even by a telephone request. Valid organizations have policies which state a member of their agency will never ask for a password. Also change your password frequently and make sure it's a strong one, a strong password contains both letters and numbers; it's a good idea to create one which is easy for you to remember but hard for someone else to guess and/or use a software program to try and crack.
*Protect your computer. It's also important you invest in installation of anti-virus, spy-ware and firewall software. There are many programs available that you can download for free, or you can purchase a proprietary one. There are several good websites available that can advise you on how to select the right one for you.
One well-known website is C-Net.com, and can be accessed at: http://www.download.com/Antivi rus-Firewall-Spyware/?tag=dir.
*Use caution with e-mail. Be careful of downloading attachments from email. Many viruses, Trojans, and other damaging files can be included in e-mail attachments. Before downloading a file, try to verify the person who sent it to you has indeed sent you a file, as often Malware is sent via an infected persons address book and the person has no idea they've sent you an infected file if they've fallen victim to Malware. Also, do not download files or click on links to websites from people you do not know.
*Read privacy policies. Another tip is to read privacy policies of any online entity you conduct business with. Be aware of what is done with your personal information once you do share it with a company or organization. While most of the businesses you work with are legit, occasionally a partnering organization may sell data to a third party undesirable business you may not want your information shared with. Most of the time you can opt-out of your information being shared if you take the time to read privacy policies.
Using the Internet is fun, educational and useful. Taking precautions while online will significantly reduce your risk of becoming a victim of cyber crime. Always remember that it's better to be proactive, hesitant and cautious than spontaneous, as impulsiveness on the Internet often leads to trouble. If something or someone seems or sounds too good to be true, it usually is!
http://us.norton.com/cybercrime/index.jsp
Lucy ~ You got some splainin to do ~ Interference with Commerce - Web techniques are damaging to the legitimate businesses ..
Digital Technology Law Journal
The Spider’s Stratagem on the Web: Hunting and Collecting Web Users
Morris Averill* Visiting Lecturer University of Western Sydney This article discusses: the traps for consumers browsing the World Wide Web or engaging in electronic commerce (ecommerce), including the privacy implications on being on the Web; the possible legal responses available to Web users or government regulators are considered; as well as Web site operators who consider that some Web techniques are damaging to their business.
Introduction
1. The so-called ‘tech-wreck’ of April 2000, (the ‘correction’ in share values of technology companies listed on the NASDAQ, and other stock exchanges), can be attributed to investors realising that profitable e-commerce would be more difficult that many had imagined. Several commentators have suggested that e-commerce business models based on the premise ‘build the Web site and users will come’ were little more than a modern day cargo cult mentality.[1] The difficulty of attracting visitors to Web sites, has resulted in World Wide Web technology evolving sophisticated techniques of attracting, even capturing, Web users. [2]
Introduction
1. The so-called ‘tech-wreck’ of April 2000, (the ‘correction’ in share values of technology companies listed on the NASDAQ, and other stock exchanges), can be attributed to investors realising that profitable e-commerce would be more difficult that many had imagined. Several commentators have suggested that e-commerce business models based on the premise ‘build the Web site and users will come’ were little more than a modern day cargo cult mentality.[1] The difficulty of attracting visitors to Web sites, has resulted in World Wide Web technology evolving sophisticated techniques of attracting, even capturing, Web users. [2]
2. The development of sophisticated Web site design techniques may have been pioneered by the developers of adult content and gambling sites, however mainstream e-commerce sites are adopting the techniques. At the benign end of the spectrum (but still irritating for some Web users) is the use of ‘pop-up ads’ - at the more aggressive end of the spectrum, is the use of ‘spawning’ and ‘mouse-trapping’ being used to capture Web users at a Web site.
3. Some techniques are criminally motivated scams to extract money from unsuspecting Web users by causing the Web user to incur an astronomically high telephone bill by re-routing their connection to an Internet Service Provider (ISP) via an international call rather than a local call or to send computer programs to the user’s computer in order to search for credit card and other banking information.
4. The legal implications of the exchange of data between the computers of the Web users and Web sites are considered in this article. In particular, the consumer privacy implications of the exchange of data between a Web user and a Web site.[3] The difference between ‘data’ and ‘personal information’ should be acknowledged when considering the exchange between the computer of a Web user and a Web site.
5. “Data” is defined as “information output by a sensing device or organ that includes both useful and irrelevant or redundant information and must be processed to be meaningful.”[4] In the context of an exchange between the computer of a Web user and a Web site, there is an exchange of digital data which is processed by the computer programs operating each computer resulting in the presentation of Web pages and interactive changes to screen display on the Web user’s computer as the user navigates through the Web site.
6. “Personal information”, as defined in the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)[5] is information or opinion that can identify a person. The exchange of data between the computer of the Web users and a Web site may not, of itself, identify an individual. However the Web has created the ability of Web sites to track users and profile their browsing behaviour
7. In the study by Cyveillance, Inc[6] dated December 2001, many of the techniques listed about are described in their list of 10 objectionable Web techniques.
1. Spawning & Mouse Trapping
8. ‘Spawning’ is a way of programming a Web site so that the new browser windows are automatically launched, faster than the user can close them, when a user attempts to exit a site.[7]
9. Poor Web design and coding can result in a re-directed page entering the browser history[8] resulting in the user being unable to retrace their recent browsing history. However, ‘mouse trapping’ is a deliberate choice of the programmer. ‘Mouse trapping’ is a way of programming a Web site so that the ‘Go To’ command shows only the URL of that site and every click on the ‘Back’ button and ‘Close’ command, still leaves the Web user at the same site.[9] The consequence of which the Web user is trapped at the Web site. The usual buttons to escape from a Web site do not function so that the Web user is prevented from leaving – except by shutting down the connection to the Internet.
10. ‘Spawning’ and ‘mouse trapping’ can be combined with the launch of advertisements that do not have visible controls so that the only way to exit, apart from shutting down the computer, is to click on the advertisement. These techniques are often associated with ‘page jacking’ and are a product of the online pornography industry.[10]
11. In 2001 the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) obtained injunctions against John Zuccarini[11] in respect of his practice of ‘domain name mimicry’ (obtaining domain name registrations for misspellings of well known names) and setting up Web sites using those domain names which using ‘mouse trapping’ to force viewers to see endless ad pages. The basis of the injunction being the practices of John Zuccarini amounting to unfair competition and unfair business practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act (US).[12]
2. Page-Jacking, Redirecting & Spoofing Pages
12. ‘Page-jacking’ results in users of World Wide Web sites being re-directed to other sites chosen by the page-jacker.[13] The reason ‘page-jacking’ is carried out is to increase the number of Web users ‘hitting’ the site to which the Web users are re-directed. This will have the effect of artificially inflating the number of ‘hits’ on the site with advertising being sold at a higher rate based on the false perception that the Web site attracts a high number of voluntary users. Web site owners may pay the page-jacker a fee for re-directing Web users to a Web site.
13. The page–jacker copies pages from a popular site and posts the copied pages on their own computer server. The copied pages are re-programmed to re- direct Web users to specific sites. The copied pages continue to be indexed on search engines using the same key words as used in the original site. A Web user making a search will have the fake site displayed in the search results. When the Web user ‘clicks’ to that site they are re-directed to the site chosen by the page-jacker.
14. The consequence of ‘page-jacking’ is that the owner of the legitimate site loses the potential customers and their reputation suffers as the kidnapped Web user assumes the content at the re-directed site is that of the owner of the legitimate site.
15. ‘Page jacking’ is a technique primarily used to increase traffic to the Web site to which the Web users are redirected. However more sophisticated Web design techniques have been developed with the use of ‘spoof pages’ which are ‘seeded’ with trade marks (‘metatagging’) for the purpose of maximising the likelihood that the ‘spoof page’ will appear high on a search engine’s list of results[14] . The ‘spoof page’ being combined with the use of ‘doorway’ or ‘re- direct’ techniques to take the user to some other site, often a pornographic site.[15]
16. The FTC, together with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC),[16] has taken action against persons involved in ‘page jacking’ in FTC v Carlos Periera d/b/a/ atariz.com.[17] Final settlement with one defendant, and default judgments against two others, were obtained on 12 February 2000.[18]
17. Techniques related to ‘page-jacking’ can be used to make a political statement; an example being the report by Robert Lemos[19] that Mr. Racine, the defendant, admitted to tricking VeriSign subsidiary Network Solutions into giving him ownership of the aljazeera.net domain. Racine then redirected visitors from that Internet address to another site. Technically known as a ‘redirect’, the Web users that wanted to go to www.aljazeera.net - as well as the English- language site, english.aljazeera.net - to be redirected to the content hosted on NetWorld's servers where the US flag was displayed.
3. Misleading Links
18. Mislabelling links is the false labelling of hyper links that send the Web user to an unintended destination.[20] A misleading link may be the result of poor Web design and coding. However if the mislabelling is intentional, liability may arise under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) for ‘misleading or deceptive’ conduct or under fair trading legislation.
4. Home-jacking - Changing Home Pages or Favourites List
19. ‘Home-jacking’ is the result of Web design techniques which allow the unauthorised substitution of the ‘home page’ so that when the user next launches their browser, instead of the user’s selected home page coming up on screen, the selected Web site appears.[21] A digital file can also be inserted into the user’s computer so that the selected Web page appears in the ‘favourites’ list in the Web browser program.[22]
20. The unauthorised inserting of data may be a criminal offence under sections 477 (1) or (2) of the Cybercrime Act 2001 (Cth)[23] or under section 308D of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).[24] That is, provided there is no consent of the Web user so that the insertion of the data which changes the ‘home page’ or ‘favourites’ is clearly unauthorised, with the necessary intention or recklessness as to the impairment of the functioning of the Web user’s computer browser software.
Some Web sites overtly ask the Web user if they wish to change their home page, if this option is selected the user is clearly consenting to the change. However with a covert change it can be argued that the unauthorised inserting of a digital file into the Web user’s computer is a criminal act.
21. However the level of ‘impairment’ of functioning of the computer may be disputed, with a de minimus argument that changes to the ‘home page’ or ‘favourites’ falls below what could be considered to be damage to the functioning of the computer.
22. The need of the Web user to replace the ‘home page’ setting or remove files inserted into the ‘favourites’ file can be argued to be ‘damage’ to the computer. Causing damage when computer programs are removed from a computer or interfered with has been considered in Cox v Riley[25] & R v Whitley.[26] R v Whitley involves the prosecution of a ‘hacker’ under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (UK). The prosecution had to establish that the defendant had caused damage to tangible property contained on the computer disc. Counsel for the defendant argued that there was no damage to tangible property. However, in considering that argument, Lord Lane CJ stated that it contained a basic fallacy:
“What the Act requires to be proved is that tangible property has been damaged, not necessarily that the damage itself ‘should be tangible’… The fact that the alternation [to the metallic particles on the disk] could only be perceived by operating the computer did not make the alternations any the less real, for the damage, if the alternation amounted to damage, any the less within the ambit of the Act.”
5. Spyware - unauthorised, or unknown, software downloads
23. The development of ‘parasite’ business models[27] results in software programs being supplied as an ‘add on’ or ‘plug-in’ to a primary software program[28] . The developer of the primary software program (usually made available to the user without cost) has a business model of generating money from parasite software or generating income from advertising revenue from ‘pop-up ads’. The users of such a business model would naturally choose other descriptive phrases to describe their technology and may be aggrieved at the use of pejorative terms to describe their technology. The Gator Corporation, a developer of ‘pop-up’ widow technology,[29] has alleged trade libel, false advertising and tortuous interference claims, against others using the term "spyware" to describe the Gator technology.[30] The Gator Corporation prefer to describe their technology as providing “contextually relevant advertisement[s]”.
24. Legislatures are beginning to respond to public concern about intrusive Web techniques, with commentators suggesting that the legislatures are also responding to the conflicting results of litigation in US federal courts over whether Web techniques, such as ‘pop-up ad’ software infringes intellectual property rights or unfair trade practice legislation. [31]
25. The State of Utah enacted the Spyware Control Act (2004) which, as stated in the general description of the statute:
Prohibits spyware from delivering advertisements to a computer under certain circumstances;
Requires spyware to provide removal procedures;
Allows a website, trademark, or copyright owner to bring an action to enforce the requirements.
26. The Spyware Control Act[32] defines ‘spyware’ in a Subsection 4 beginning the extensive definition describing the ambit of the software techniques that are being regulated: monitoring software,[33] that reports back to a remote computer or delivers obtrusive ‘pop-up ads’ (without making appropriate disclosure to the Web user):
“Except as provided in Subsection (5), "spyware" means software residing on a computer that: (a) monitors the computer's usage; (b) (i) sends information about the computer's usage to a remote computer or server; or (ii) displays or causes to be displayed an advertisement in response to the computer's usage if the advertisement: (A) does not clearly identify the full legal name of the entity responsible for delivering the advertisement; (B) uses a federally registered trademark as a trigger for the display of the advertisement by a person other than: (I) the trademark owner; (II) an authorized agent or licensee of the trademark owner; or (III) a recognized Internet search engine; (C) uses a triggering mechanism to display the advertisement according to the Internet websites accessed by a user; or (D) uses a context based triggering mechanism to display the advertisement that partially or wholly covers or obscures paid advertising or other content on an Internet website in a way that interferes with a user's ability to view the Internet website”
read much more @ http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/DTLJ/2004/1.html
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Cyber Crime Justice - How and Who and Where to report a crime and DMCA Action ... cyber
What is a "ripper"? ~ with a bit of research and as suspected ... Using browser known as ripper. what is ripper? found this link with following comments ~
What is "Rippers 0" browser? Should I block them?
Comment from person 1. looked up site rippers on a search ... Not very nice things. I see the possibility that a site ripper could really mess up several things Also it appears to be something that would infinge on copyrights Bigtime. And these things are permitted? What kind of protection is there? The whole world is going crazy and evil ...
Comment from person 2. I've been searching and this is a good explantion of site rippers. "There are many dishonest webmasters that download the entire sites of their successful competitors, just change some images and texts and have "their" site up and running in less than a day without any effort " However, it looks like any preventative measures will cost you money. If your site has already been ripped "stolen" you have an uphill battle getting it removed if it has been duplicated elsewhere on the interenet. (not true see law below).
read more
Also came across this - DMCA Law
DMCA Action - A General Guide to Taking Action Against Site Rippers using DMCA Law!
Your website is up and business is good. Your traffic is steadily rising and people are starting to pass around your link in blog posts, via email, forums and other forms the global internet community use to pass around website information. Then one day, you encounter your first experience with a "site ripper". It normally happens by opening your email program and finding an unread message with the subject line of "Look what I found!" or "I think your site was stolen". You pray its spam as you move the mouse pointer to that bold title while the anxiety starts to kick in. You click and scan the body of the message, reading the sometimes helter-skelter details of how he or she found a site that looks identical to yours.
At the end of it all, you find two links: One is your website, the other leads to a near duplicate of your layout except the banner may have a few changes and the domain name in the browser link field is different. Guess what? You've been ripped, and your world will never be the same.So now what are you supposed to do? After the fits have subsided and you admit to yourself that spending thousands to track the offender down and beat them with a cudgel isn't very realistic, it's time to look at laws designed specifically for your protection, and best of all, the initial stages don't cost you a monetary penny.
The DMCA, or Digital Millennium Copyright Act, is an American Act created and passed by the US Congress on October 12th, 1998. A couple of weeks later on October 28th, our favorite cigar toting US President, Mr. Bill Clinton, signed the Act into law. So, does this mean that DMCA law is exclusive to the US? Yes and no. You see, the DMCA was designed to implement the treaties that were signed in December of 1996 at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Geneva conference, which of course is a global organization. The DMCA simply addresses additional issues with matters related to the WIPO treaties.
Here's an overview of what the DMCA does:
- Makes it a crime to circumvent anti-piracy measures built into most commercial software.- Outlaws the manufacture, sale, or distribution of code-cracking devices used to illegally copy software.- Does permit the cracking of copyright protection devices, however, to conduct encryption research, assess product interoperability, and test computer security systems.- Provides exemptions from anti-circumvention provisions for nonprofit libraries, archives, and educational institutions under certain circumstances.
In general, limits Internet service providers from copyright infringement liability for simply transmitting information over the Internet.- Service providers, however, are expected to remove material from users' web sites that appears to constitute copyright infringement.- Limits liability of nonprofit institutions of higher education -- when they serve as online service providers and under certain circumstances -- for copyright infringement by faculty members or graduate students.-
Requires that "webcasters" pay licensing fees to record companies.- Requires that the Register of Copyrights, after consultation with relevant parties, submit to Congress recommendations regarding how to promote distance education through digital technologies while "maintaining an appropriate balance between the rights of copyright owners and the needs of users."- States explicitly that "[n]othing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use..."
Did you catch what I pasted in bold? That's right folks... if you can prove that material you created is being used on a website that is not under your control, the company hosting the website is OBLIGATED BY LAW to remove that content. In fact, if the person who stole this content has profited in any way from your stolen property, you can even sue for damages and infringement, but that's getting ahead of ourselves. If you want to read the rest of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, you can find a full digital copy at The Library of Congress.
Read full article @
http://www.pixel2life.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=20185
http://www.pixel2life.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=20185
August 26, 2010 76.195.112.218 - Browser Rippers 0
Visit Length 59 mins 30 secs
______ 2nd time
7th December 2010
76-195-112-218.efw.com
IP Address
76.195.112.218 (moron Edit Label)
Country United States
Region Texas
City Arlington
ISP
Efw
Returning Visits 173
Visit Length
76-195-112-218.efw.com
IP Address
76.195.112.218 (moron Edit Label)
Country United States
Region Texas
City Arlington
ISP
Efw
Returning Visits 173
Visit Length
Browser
Rippers