Voice Phishing Hits PayPal 191
Chai Vanilla writes "The latest social engineering phishing attack is now using phones instead of fake web sites. Identity thieves have spammed fake PayPal account compromise warnings to lure users into dialing a phone number and giving up credit card information. Unlike normal phishing e-mails, there is no URL or response address. Instead, the e-mail urges the recipient to call a phone number and verify account details."
Tracability? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not in the VoIP era (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, just to clarify (Score:2)
Re:Tracability? (Score:5, Informative)
Haha ! Welcome to the world of Phreaking [wikipedia.org]... You might not know it but the telephone network is as easily hackable, vulnerable and exploitable as the Internet is today. Good luck tracing the bad guy who impersonated your credit card company you supposedly called on 1-800-XXX-YYYY, when he might have penetrated voicemail systems, set up temporary forwarding, hacked telephone switches, etc...
Re:Tracability? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Tracability? (Score:2)
I know there have been articles about peer based communities who harvest all these scam mails by posing as idiots on the internet, and allow authorities to q
Re:Tracability? (Score:4, Informative)
The SS7 network is certainly not built with security in mind - once you've gained access to a system connected to the SS7 net you've got a pretty free reign. Pretty much any large VoIP gateway will have an SS7 connection on one side and an internet connection on the other so crack one of them and you're sorted. Not to mention all the SIGTRAN enabled equipment that some moron has decided to plug into an unfirewalled internet connection.
That said, I suspect the worst you'd be able to do is spoof a few calls, send a few SMS messages and add a few records to the billing systems.
Besides, there are much easier ways of getting an anonymous DDI - just use one of the many PSTN-%gt;SIP gateways.
Re:Tracability? (Score:2)
Security is a process. There are always other ways than cracking to subvert it.
Re:Tracability? (Score:2)
So in the end it's a win win for the scammer
Re:Tracability? (Score:2)
fortunately, the time of trace to the time of shutting down those accounts is limited only by the proactive reporting of such fraud by end users. so usually, it should only take a few minutes to shut down the assets of such an account. a scammer would need ungogly luck to keep an
Re:Tracability? (Score:2)
It's awesome technology, and it's the reason why phishing and identity theft accounts are frozen and almost 99% of all stolen funds are recovered.
Re:Passwords (Score:3, Interesting)
One guy up here was convicted for "hacking" into the local police squad's voicemail system.
Everyone's password was (and I'm not making this up, and its NOT a Spaceballs reference) "1" "2" "3" "4" "5"
For months he listened into all sorts of messages for the detectives, including from informants, wives and girlfriends (nice to be able to blackmail a cop by threatening to tell his wife about his action on the side), etc.
You KNOW most systems have an easy password (or still have the default password).
C
Re:Tracability? (Score:3, Informative)
You think the phone company would just tell you who a line belonged to if you called them up?
Nope. Even if the other party is calling you and harrassing you repeatedly you would have to file a police report and get the information sopenaed. The telco doesn't want to be named in any lawsuit if someone goes vigilante after getting the info.
You can use reverse di
Re:Tracability? (Score:4, Insightful)
You've got to admit it *seems* reasonable. After all they handed over the information on every call made in the country to the government without even blinking. Why not tell a customer about one little number?
Re:Tracability? (Score:2)
Because you can't pardon them for anything they might do illegally in helping you. The President can.
Re:Tracability? (Score:2)
I know, seriously... If you want that kind of data you have to give them some money first.
Of course, if you do give them some money, they'll give you just about anything you want.
Re:Tracability? (Score:2)
Actually, if you're using Sprint, they've even got an automated system to do it for you! [boingboing.net]
Re:Tracability? (Score:2)
Re:Tracability? (Score:2)
Internet crime gets a lot of press, but receives little attention from crime prevention teams? Interesting. Do you have anything to support that claim?
How many 419 and other scams do you get in the mail EVERY DAY? I get more con mails every month than ALL the scam artists who have ever been jailed over phishing since the birth of the Internet.
Re:Tracability? (Score:2)
Re:Tracability? (Score:3, Interesting)
You're confusing number with proportion. How many people EVER go to jail for phishing? Try reporting it to your local cop shop - you'll get the "we don't handle that here" bit. Then you're told to post your complaint to such-and-such a web site ... and nothing happens, because they're after the easy-to-bust ones - they guys running boiler-rooms going "You've just won a vacation, just send us the money for the taxes and duties."
They HAVE the tools to deal with that, so that's what they do. They DON'T hav
Re:Tracability? (Score:2)
Re:Tracability? (Score:2)
Look at the conviction rates. As close to zero as you can get. Heck, look at the number of people charged. Not all that many, are there. Phishing is profitable, and almost punishment-free.
Let them start with paypal and eBay - then I'll believe they're gonna do something.
Re:Tracability? (Score:2)
Which brings me back to my original question: interesting, but do you have any evidence of this?
Re:Tracability? (Score:2)
You said:
When was the last time you saw ANY type of anti-phishing crime prevention initiative from ANY level of law enforcement. Sticking a few warnings on a web site that nobody looks at until its too late is NOT crime prevention. A real anti=phishing crime prevention program would work the same as the "don't drink and drive programs:
Re:Tracability? (Score:2)
Well, this isn't the evidence I was hoping for (I was hoping for some actual statistics you'd used in forming your opinion - it turns out you just hadn't seen the drastic measures you were hoping to see.)
Re:Tracability? (Score:2)
Again, read your quote. Yo specified "crime prevention teams".
Mozilla and Apple are not "crime prevention teams". Neither is the FTC. Law enforcement (your local and state police, the fbi) are unable to handle phishing. The FBI says unless cybercirme results in damages of more than $10k, go fuck yourself - they won't do anything except to file it.
Wrong. These are people who KNOW their computer i
Re:Tracability? (Score:2)
Re:Tracability? (Score:2)
Just shift-click or ctrl-click the link and it'll appear in a new window or tab. Failing that in FireFox you can right click -> this frame -> view frame info to see the URL. But yes, it's pretty dumb putting this stuff in a frame so you can't see the URL. Also if the framed page was encrypted with SSL, you wouldn't see the
Re:Tracability? (Score:2)
Ever since Bank One converted to chase, the online bill-payment system for them makes you enter your logon and password. But the entire page isn't marked "secure" by firefox. Want to see for yourself? Look at chase.com.
Anyways, in the upper left hand, you log into your account. I haven't figured out a way to "log in" and have firefox show me it is secure, so I am just forced to be content with the way the site is designed. Of course, the chase site shows a pret
Re:Tracability? (Score:2)
Seriously, it's because the home page isn't requested over https. If you type some false details in the username/password fields and hit return the page comes back over https. Or you can go straight to https://chaseonline.chase.com/colappmgr/colportal / prospect?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=page_logonform [chase.com]
Easier to track? (Score:2, Redundant)
Got that yesterday... (Score:5, Interesting)
Where can one complain about such fraudulent 1-8xx numbers to get them shut down? Additionally, how much does calling a 1-805 cost in the US, and is any part of the cost passed to the operator?
Re:Got that yesterday... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Got that yesterday... (Score:2)
Obviously the FBI don't watch "The Bill" [thebill.com]. IC3 [police.uk] is the abbreviation used by London police for a black person (e.g. "IC3 male").
Do they call the Terrorism Complaint Center www.ic6.gov?
Re:Got that yesterday... (Score:3, Informative)
From 411.com reverse lookup:
(805) 214-4801 is a land line based in Newbury Park, CA
The registered service provider is Pacific Bell**.
Detailed listing information is not available.
**Due to number portability, some numbers have been transferred to a new service provider
So what duped you? (Score:2)
Did you check the email headers, were they faked?
You now know that you been had and that it was stupid, you are, judging from your ID, a fairly recent slashdot user but the mere fact that you are here probably means you have heard about phishing
Re:So what duped you? (Score:2)
Besides, paranoia is not required, 24/7 or otherwise. It's very simple
Re:So what duped you? (Score:2)
This is how a usual phone call goes:
Bank: Good afternoon, I'm calling from Abc123 Bank, please can you confirm your date of birth and address.
Me: Err, are you kidding. Which department are you in and what's your name and I'll call you back.
Bank: I'm sorry, I can't go any further unless you confirm your date of birth and address.
Me:
Re:So what duped you? (Score:2)
That's an absurd system, and UK banking regulators should be ashamed. To require a bank to behave in the same fashion as identity thieves is a gigantic and wholly unnessecary risk.
Back here in civilization, we have these things called "passcodes." We also have a setup where the bank gives *you* a password which they'll replace on
Re:So what duped you? (Score:2)
When I told the g
Re:So what duped you? (Score:2)
Re:So what duped you? (Score:3, Informative)
No, I wasn't scammed. Which part of my posting misled you into believing that I could possibly have entered my real credit card number?
Re:Got that yesterday... (Score:2)
Re:Got that yesterday... (Score:2)
Re:Got that yesterday... (Score:2)
I got that one too this morning. It traces to 01 Communications in Davis California. when I contacted them they told me the 6000 block is owned by CommPartners California. - the number is a VolP number. Sent an email to them and the Davis police.
The only way to get rid of these scams is for everyone to report them to the phone company or service provider they are associated to.
Re:Got that yesterday... (Score:2)
Re:Got that yesterday... (Score:2)
I just used a free reverse phone lookup. Just type that phrase into Google and it'll come up with several services. I always check several sources to make sure they come up with the same info.
Once I got the main provider and their location, an email to their abuse d
Re:Got that yesterday... (Score:2)
Re:Got that yesterday... (Score:2)
Re:Got that yesterday... (Score:2)
Re:Got that yesterday... (Score:2)
Re:Got that yesterday... (Score:2)
not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a small degree of higher risk, but if you get a new disposable cell phone every three days and move around all day you'd be a hard mark to hit.
Too many people are now aware of the "don't click the link" aspect of phishing, but I'm sure there are still pleanty of suckers that assume if they have your phone number you must be legit. I would not be surprised if they find a way to do this through US Mail in a way that hides their identity.
It would be interesting if one day, to get such an online account set up, they make you pass a short test, where they give you ten examples of people asking for your account information in various ways, and you have to answer "give them the information" or "report the incident to phishing.ebay.com". Anyone that answers "give them the information" on any of the questions doesn't get an account.
I wager that alone would eliminate 80% of successful phishes.
In school, not when signing up... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would dearly love to have a high-school level course in computer usage, which would be required for anyone to connect to the Internet. Not going to happen, I know...
Maybe just make it a part of the general education requirements?
Most people think I'm a snobbish bastard, like every other Linux user. Which is true, to some extent. But I do believe we have a right to call people stupid when they do things li
Re:In school, not when signing up... (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you know that 85% of dead televisions just have a blown fuse? Did you know the $120 transmission fluid replacement at Jiffy Lube is a twelve dollar bottle of green grease, and the opening and closing of one valve? Did you know that almost everything a plumber ever actually does is run a drain snake and a plunger?
I mean, we have Sex education, we have Driver's education, I don't think it's unreasonable that we know the computer equivalent of wearing a condom, stopping at red lights, buckling your seatbelt...
Here's the difference: one costs people their lives, the other costs them an hour at the local computer shop. I don't think it's unreasonable that we know how to maintain appliances; nonetheless, nobody requires it, because that's batshit retarded.
Most people think I'm a snobbish bastard, like every other Linux user.
It's got nothing to do with your being a Linux user. It's because you're condescending and because you can't fathom that some people don't have the time or the desire to learn to maintain their computers. Believe it or not, some people have better things to do with their lives.
Next time you pull into a jiffy lube, call a repair person, go to a barber shop, buy art tools, purchase clothes or engage in any service activity whatsoever, please remember that that's something you could learn to do and then spend your life doing, just like a seventy year old woman could spend a year reading tech sites and manuals and getting up to speed on jargon.
Guess what? You don't want to either. You're just too dense to tell the difference.
Re:In school, not when signing up... (Score:2)
I am one of the last of a dying breed; a draftsman that can take a clean sheet of paper and make it worth something using not much more than a pencil, straightedge and a piece of string.
Today, CAD operators need tens of thousands of dollars in hardware and software just to get started. Leonardo must be rolling in his grave.
Re:In school, not when signing up... (Score:2)
If people don't take the time to learn to maintain their car the engine will eventually lock up on them. I can't change my own oil (well I probably could if I felt like reading up on it, I don't want to though) but I know how often it's supposed to be changed and take my car to someone to have it changed for me at the appropriate times. I didn't have to
Re:not surprising (Score:2)
Re:not surprising (Score:2)
And, not so incidentally, 80% of PayPal's customers.
Re:not surprising (Score:2)
Why should ebay care? They don't bear the cost of phising, you do.
Re:not surprising (Score:2)
Nonsense. I've had someone attempt to take advantage of me through PayPal, and PayPal ate the cost. Know why? Because I actually read their instructions and followed the steps I'm required to follow in order to protect myself. The only people who bear the cost of phishing are the people who refuse to follow PayPal's protection rules. That you can't tell why they're the only ones you hear from is honestly pretty naïve.
Re:not surprising (Score:2)
Paypalsucks.com is a front for a group which claims to be a paypal competitor. Guess what? They're a scam quite like the one being discussed in the article. The difference? They're selling something real but useless: a merchant account that literally nobody accepts. So, when you try to go get your seven hundred dollars back, the bank tells you "well, they haven't actually done anything illegal, so, no."
Caveat emptor.
why no phishing stings? (Score:2)
Re:why no phishing stings? (Score:2)
Re:why no phishing stings? (Score:2)
Re:why no phishing stings? (Score:2)
Re:why no phishing stings? (Score:2)
Then you're apparently not listening [google.com]. Why is it that stupid people think that just because they haven't heard about something means it isn't going on? You haven't heard about the new fashions in Milan. Does that mean fashion doesn't exist either? Or, Milan?
Re:why no phishing stings? (Score:2)
Paypal -- reachable by phone? Ha. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Paypal -- reachable by phone? Ha. (Score:2)
Re:Paypal -- reachable by phone? Ha. (Score:2)
So it actually isn't all that hard to get a phone number for Paypal. For
Re:Paypal -- reachable by phone? Ha. (Score:2)
It is trivially easy to contact PayPal by phone. I had a harder time reaching Sony than I did PayPal.
The first google hit for phone number site:paypal.com leads to a help page with a link. That link points to a second help page with the phone
Re:Paypal -- reachable by phone? Ha. (Score:2)
Things change, and apparently this is one of them, but the fact that people on the Internet can be assholes when completely uncalled for h
Re:Paypal -- reachable by phone? Ha. (Score:2)
No, I'm calling you dumb for announcing something you don't know as fact. There's a pretty big difference.
It's so easy to slam other people, isn't it
Yes. Like, one could call someone a fucking asshole for pointing out their stupidity. The difference between you doing it and my doing it is that I am pointing out you spreading di
Re:Paypal -- reachable by phone? Ha. (Score:2)
Re:Paypal -- reachable by phone? Ha. (Score:2)
But my first thought was how easy this would be to implement because of it being common for credit card companies to ask for CC numbers, and in fact just today I called my gas company because I didn't get/can't find this month's bill, and they
Use someone else (Score:2)
Perhaps losing customers might encourage companies to start signing official emails.
Re:Use someone else (Score:2)
AFAIK PayPal say they will never send you an email, so I'm not sure how signing the non-existant emails is going to help. Do you really think the average victim of a phishing scam is going to check the signature?
If signing becomes common place (Score:2)
Re:Use someone else (Score:2)
"Latest" attack? (Score:5, Informative)
[ring, ring]Hello? Hello, is this $TRUSTINGSENIORCITIZEN? I have wonderful news! Congratulations, you have just won a diamond ring in our marketing lottery! There are some shipping and insurance fees, so if you'll just give me your credit card number...".
Law enforcement and consumer groups said over and over not to give out sensitive information unless you placed the call yourself, which is really the same advice as "don't click on the link" if you think about it.
Re:"Latest" attack? (Score:2)
Unfortunately many companies assume that people will ignore this advice anyway - I have been phoned before now by my cellphone provider who ask me to authenticate myself by giving them my passphrase and date of birth when I pick up the call. Of course I refuse since there's no way for me to authenticate them first - and that leaves them a bit stumped.
Re:"Latest" attack? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:"Latest" attack? (Score:2)
Generally the easiest way to handle this is as follows:
"Yeah, I'd love to, but I don't give out personal data to incoming calls. If you'll give me your extension, I will happily call the 1-800 number on my card and ask to be transferred back to you, at which point I will know you really are an officer of the bank and give the information requested. Thanks for understanding."
Bank officers understa
Re:"Latest" attack? (Score:2)
I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop ... (Score:2)
Re:I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop ... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop ... (Score:2)
Woah, timely! (Score:4, Interesting)
(530) 204-6800 is a land line based in Davis, CA
The registered service provider is 01 Communications**.
Detailed listing information is not available.
I got one yesterday... (Score:3, Informative)
Regardless of the technicalities, because it didn't have the usual telltale signs it really made me wonder. I then checked into my account the usual way, noticed nothing was wrong and then forwarded the email to spoof@paypal.com, receiving a reply this morning that it was indeed a phishing attempt.
The thing is, on this site we always talk about how clueless people are, and I have participated myself on occasion. But after talking with my wife and in-laws yesterday I realize how *easy* it is to dupe 95% of the computer using population using these tactics. These are people that are educated, smart and generally not clueless in life... but when it comes to computers they are. I had to explain to my sister-in-law why my brother-in-law was receiving Cialis/Viagra emails shortly after posting their clean (well, it was) email address on petfinder.com. My point is, it may seem like there is a low percentage of willing responders to a phone phishing attempt, but I can say from my observation that this new technique should be more successful than ever!
I just wonder isn't it really easy to trace phone numbers?
"Long Distance" Number? (Score:2)
Even in today's day-and-age of Free Long Distance service via VOIP and Wireless carriers, 800 numbers are still quite popular, even small businesses that do business over the interne
Re:"Long Distance" Number? (Score:2)
No, they don't. PayPal's customer service number is in area code 402 [paypal.com]. Please don't make statements without verifying them first.
Anyone with half a brain would go "A long distance number? what kind of BS is this?"
I guess that means you have half a brain, then.
Catch 22? (Score:2, Interesting)
Sample (Score:4, Informative)
PayPal
Account Verification
Dear $email_addres
You have received this email because we have strong reason to belive that your
PayPal account had been recently compromised. In order to prevent any fraudulent
activity from occurring we are required to open an investigation into this matter.
If your Credit/Debit Card on file is not updated within the next 48 hours, then will
assume this account is fraudulent and will be suspended. We apologise for this
inconvenience, but the purpose of this verification is to ensure that your PayPal
account has not fraudulently used and to combat fraud attempts.
To speed up the process, you are required to call us ($phone_number) to verify your
PayPal account.
We apologise in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you and we would like
to thank you for cooperation as we review this matter.
Regards,
PayPal Account Verification.
Copyright (c) 1999-2006 PayPal. All rights reserved.
--
Please do not reply to this e-mail. Mail sent to this address cannot be answered.
Re:Sample (Score:2)
My Simple Solution (Score:2)
The obvious answer... (Score:2)
Re:The obvious joke... (Score:2, Funny)
Ask for Ted.
Re:Latest phishing method??? (Score:2)