Web developerz

Another in my occasional series of desperate sales pitches:

A friend said his company web site looked a bit sad. It is a bit dull. There’s not much in the way of product photos, only soothing words. I’m not one for the pictures with everything craze, but in this case an illustration would be worth a bit thousand words.

“Get some proper photography done, and I don’t mean iPhone snaps. That’s all you need.”, I said.

A few days later, after talking to his prospective web developer, he came back with the following:

“…I have told that using iphone pictures is good internationally since the pixel number is lower [which means web pages] loading quicker”

Malware claiming to come from Transport for London

I often get Transport for London information messages. I suspect a few million people in London do. But until just now, I’ve not seen it used as a malware distribution trick. Here’s what they look like:

Received: from [80.122.72.234] ([80.122.72.234])
	by  (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t5QAj0ns002218
	for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:45:01 +0100 (BST)
	(envelope-from noresponse@cclondon.com)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:45:04 +0200
From: 
Subject: Email from Transport for London
To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-Mailer: SAP Web Application Server 7.00
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="=_5557BCCC15D34570E10080000A82A3EC"
Envelope-To: 


--=_5557BCCC15D34570E10080000A82A3EC
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Description: Email from Transport for London


Dear Customer,

Please open the attached file to view correspondence from Transport for
London.

If the attachment is in DOC format you may need Adobe Acrobat Reader to
read or download this attachment.

Thank you for contacting Transport for London.



Business Operations
Customer Service Representative

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com

This email and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee, are s=
trictly confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the int=
ended recipient any reading, dissemination, copying or any other use or re=
liance is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please noti=
fy the sender immediately by email and then permanently delete the email.
______________________________________________________________________
--=_5557BCCC15D34570E10080000A82A3EC
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="AP0210932630.doc"
Content-Type: application/doc;
 name="AP0210932630.doc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Description: AP0210932630.doc

0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAJwAAAAAA

The file attachment is a dodgy Microsoft Word document, unknown to malware scanners, and in spite of the faulty English it’s unlikely that Bayesian analysis will think it odd, although the SPF records don’t match and the IP address is currently flagged as slightly dodgy with no reverse lookup. It belongs to Telekom Austria, and I suspect it’s NOT a botnet at this time.

If anyone else has received one, I’d be interested to know! I let TFL know, and, refreshingly, got through to the right people and they took the matter seriously. This is hardly ever the case, so my feelings for TFL have gone up several notches!

Spam From Amazon SES

Spam has always been a problem with Amazon’s email service (SES). They make an effort to filter the outgoing missives transmitted by their customers, but it’s not perfect. And Amazon is no respecter of laws outside the good ‘ol US of A, where the right to free speech is a license to spam any kind of junk you like; whether the recipient asked for it or not.

Here’s a case in point:

Received: from a8-55.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-55.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.55])
	by xxx.xxx.xxx.uk (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t5NHpefn075543
	for <spambait@xxx.xxx.uk>; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:51:40 +0100 (BST)
	(envelope-from 0000014e218bf8a9-07659756-debc-452c-9a9f-1b0ecedf709d-000000@amazonses.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple;
	s=ug7nbtf4gccmlpwj322ax3p6ow6yfsug; d=amazonses.com; t=1435081898;
	h=From:Date:To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Reply-to:Subject:Content-Type:Feedback-ID;
	bh=jCdtb+gUf4FAvUudtcIKxlX0IOnQHEd/YxIGxHXLcQ4=;
	b=cNIs7cNe5LzyxYvGWw/LdIeA7epknAFAoeQYjiyf9b5mTKRYLAW9KLvUTSGtlsr7
	WWy52wd3Tz9o9vQryvK/Q5l5okAFxgZCZa5uSbXMor7sa/1dU02kwjCyACnb7viR1np
	BlEytfbGEBUlAfBBrrJueagmdzwa+IXNZsBo4w2Y=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple;
	s=lfgclj2zbjygv5i5rirpal2v2zj3dquy; d=uebaps.com; t=1435081898;
	h=From:Date:To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Reply-to:Subject:Content-Type;
	bh=jCdtb+gUf4FAvUudtcIKxlX0IOnQHEd/YxIGxHXLcQ4=;
	b=bZZSEICBkHU8HkdFtiYg9fp+qxzmxJlfNj6UclS3B4dtaKBMTf1oSCSQR5jm0XXE
	0JxmIdNWKsgumLUcf8XnZGZFVfwe2f7cVOCiA1EcHX7oHn0weHQjoce+nxwVClgCQYz
	m0OlXn/YvNBE1MwSvpQR3PfoSCyTVQQpBWjgD8dQ=
From: Ray-Ban Sale <enews@uebaps.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:51:38 +0000
To: "spambait@xxx.xx.uk" <spambait@xxx.xx.uk>
X-MessageID: OXx8fHwxMzY3MXx8fHxmcmFuazJAZmpsLmNvLnVrfHx8fDEwfHx8fDF8fHx8MA%3D%3D MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0000014e218bf8a9-07659756-debc-452c-9a9f-1b0ecedf709d-000000@email.amazonses.com>
X-Priority: 3
Reply-to: Ray-Ban Sale <enews@uebaps.com>
Subject: Spambait: Keep Calm and Get 80% Off Ray-Ban!
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="b1_b18fea4f74280e521923210f4d5c61eb"
X-SES-Outgoing: 2015.06.23-54.240.8.55
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.E00ipiLUCdDBKP1kTeYjtCc2E2c3DbfGjCtoi1emL2E=:AmazonSES 
--b1_b18fea4f74280e521923210f4d5c61eb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset = "utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
SGksRnJhbmsgTGVvbmhhcmR0OiAjUl9Ub3BfVGl0bGUjLg0KQm9ybiBmcm9tIGEgbWVzaCBiZXR3
ZWVuIHR3byBvZiBSYXktQmFuJ3MgbW9zdCBpY29uaWMgYW5kIHBvcHVsYXIgc3VuZ2xhc3NlcyAt
IHRoZSBDbHVibWFzdGVyIGFuZCBXYXlmYXJlciAtIFJheS1CYW5DbHVibWFzdGVyIE92ZXJzaXpl

As you can see (if you’re used to reading email headers), this looks very legitimate – send from a correctly configured server. However. these characters are as guilty has hell. The email body, once decoded, claims that the spambait email address belonged to a past customer of theirs, and was used for placing an order (in the USA). This is, of course, physically impossible.

If this had been sent in Europe they’d have been breaking the local law that implemented  the EU Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive, 2002.  But they’re sending it from the USA. Other text in the email suggests it’s not from an English-speaking country (not even the USA), and it’s probably a scam. But Amazon doesn’t t seem to mind – they don’t even have an abuse reporting system for ISPs plagued by this stuff.

It’s tempting to simply block all Amazon SES IP addresses, but this will cause collateral damage. Spam filtering isn’t likely to detect it any other way, as the sending server is set up correctly, with SPF records and so on, so the Bayesian filter in a spam classifier will be over-ruled. However, this correctness can be used against it…

Let’s be clear here – it’s easy enough to block the whole of SES. You can get its address range just by looking at it’s SPF records:

%nslookup
> set type=TXT
> amazonses.com
Server: 127.0.0.1
Address: 127.0.0.1#53
amazonses.com text = "v=spf1 ip4:199.255.192.0/22 ip4:199.127.232.0/22 ip4:54.240.0.0/18 -all"

I suspect this may cover more than SES, but SES is certainly covered by it. However, blocking it will, as I mentioned earlier, block some innocent stuff that you do want. This is a job for Spamassassin.

I’m experimenting by adding the following to SA’s local.cf file:

header AMAZON_SES Received =~ /amazonses.com/
score AMAZON_SES 3.5
describe AMAZON_SES Sent from Amazon SES - often used by spammers

The the appropriate score to weight it by is an interesting question. By default good SPF records are ignored anyway; if they were not then it would obviously be a good idea to negate a positive score here. So I’ve picked 3.5 as this matches a clear Bayesian score rather than for any good statistical reason. Check back later to see how well it works.

Infosec 2015 – first thoughts.

This is my customary personal blog post on the Infosec Europe show. Specific articles may, or may not appear here later.

This year the show has moved to Olympia from the defunct Earls Court, which is is probably the best choice available. It’s made me nostalgic for the old Personal Computer World shows of the 1980’s. Except there’s not a lot of interesting technology here. The theme of the show seems to be governance and the IT Security industry – governance and compliance rather than solutions to real problems. It’s been the way things have been moving over the last few years, with the modern IT professional being hard pressed to know which end of a soldering iron to hold it by.

There were a few interesting new(-ish) ideas, and the bleedin’ obvious stuff being packed with a GUI and monetised.

Libra Esva is a good case in point. They’ve taken Linux, spamassassin, Clam-AV (and optional commercial AV products),together with extra filtering and firewall functionality of the kind an old-style UNIX admin would customise their rigs with, and created a virtual appliance with a good looking and easy-to-use front end for users to deploy on VMware and so on. Sure, it takes the fun out of it but it looked good.

ActiveDefence were on hand, offering to launch a DDoS attack on your infrastructure to see how good it was. What, how do you launch a realistic DdoS attack without a botnet? “We have our own, they said.” And they were serious. The service may not be unique, but it’s very rare (unless you hire a bunch of crims, of course – I’ll have to see how prices compare).

KnowBe4’s PR has been bombarding me with their name for a few weeks now; I had to see why. They’re a company after my own heart – they’re launching cyber-security awareness training and consultancy in the UK, at a level appropriate to users and at a price point where SMEs really have no excuse for not doing something about what I (and KnowB4, obviously) regard as one of the greatest threats. Call it spear phishing or human engineering attacks – the weak link is employees being duped. And the criminals are very sophisticated, so awareness is about the old defence.

I’m off to see some more people who seem to have re-invented the obvious, and put it on the market. They’re using honey-pots to capture IP addresses to dynamically configure firewalls, it appears. Quite what their angle is remains to be seen, but it’s presumably a better honey-pot than we’ve all be writing for years now.

The Future of Nominet (AGM report)

Nominet, the not-for-profit company that manages most of the .uk domain space, has been worrying me of late. It replaced a naming committee in 1996 as the volunteers that run it started to become overwhelmed by the workload, and was set up be self-sustaining by charging for domain name registrations. Based in Oxford, it now employs 140 people.

They’re worried. Anyone who wants a domain name pretty much has it – or it’s being sat on by a cybersquatter. Either way, Nominet’s getting the residual income from having registered it in the first place, and this is now fixed. Or worse, as the enthusiasm for registering names in the hope of making money from it later wanes, their income may fall as people unload their speculative “investments”.

As well as Nominet employees no longer being kept in the manner to which they’re accustomed, this presents a problem for those dealing in domain names commercially. Call them cybersquatters, domainers or parasites as you wish – domain dealers are making money out of buying and selling domain names. Their portfolio losing value as the bubble bursts could be problematic for them. With new top-level-domains now available, and the importance of a particular domain name falling, this is inevitable.

So, unsurprisingly, Nominet has been talking about expanding in other ways. At today’s AGM, new CEO Russel Harworth, was taking about expanding in to adjacent markets. What could this mean? As well as providing domain names, the obvious answer is hosting or other Internet services. Nominet members are going to have a problem with that: Nominet has a monopoly position issuing domain names, a big pile of cash and no way would it be good for anyone if they started competing with UK Internet businesses.

I pushed Russell Haworth on his choice of words. “I have no intention of competing with the channel”, was the emphatic reply. He explicitly rejected the idea of hosting: “It’s not our core business and never will be. The margins are very tight anyway.” This will be a relief to the hosting companies, who know all about tough margins. He continued “I’d like to see us add value to the channel. For example, we sit on a lot of data. We can aggregate that data. There is an opportunity to look at big data. [and derive value from it]”.

Basically, the plan seems to be to analyse domain registration data and DNS traffic, and use it to target areas such as SMEs with a view to selling them something. Quite what they were selling wasn’t spelled out exactly, but domain name registrations seemed to be the only example.

It seems that the current thinking is to sell DNS products, which won’t compete with anyone much (apart from anyone selling DNS products). Why anyone should pay for DNS products is beyond me; but if you can’t manage your own DNS I suppose its possible for companies to outsource it. But I really don’t see this replacing the revenue stream, as new domain name registration income stops rising.

Rob Golding from Astutium asked what many of us were thinking – what’s so wrong with the status quo? Why not stick with one revenue stream. Nominet isn’t supposed to be a business and has no need to expand; it’d be okay to contract. Unsurprisingly, Nominet’s view was similar to that of turkeys towards Christmas. “It would be foolish not to look at opportunities to diversify”. Speaking about the saturation of the .uk namespace and future projections, Haworth continued “It’s Darwinian – we’ re not going to sit and watch things fall apart. If we see domains trending downwards, Nominet can add value to adjacent markets.”

This is an interesting situation, especially when you see who controls Nominet. Things are voted on, ultimately, by its members. This is weighted to the number of names they have registered. It’s pretty obvious that the large domain name registration businesses are going to have a far greater say than the majority of small members; those that represent the general Internet industry and general public. The big domain dealers will have millions of votes; a normal small ISP might have a few dozen. To counteract this, Nominet limits the votes of any one member to 3%, and has mechanisms in place to stop the big companies simply joining once and splitting their domain portfolios to get multiple 3% blocks. However, one still suspects that, although there appears to be no evidence that the domain dealers don’t collude in their voting, they’re all going to have the same interests and will naturally vote together – this effectively tending to control Nominet towards policies that support their business model.

Unfortunately there’s no easy way around this. Even if it was one-member-one-vote, large organisations could swamp the membership with their friends. So what keeps Nominet working in the public interest? Ultimately, scrutiny. If it went too far, an outcry could get the Government involved.

It’s also hard to see what Nominet can do in other fields. Their charter requires them to engage only in worthy projects. But according to Haworth, “This doesn’t mean yo can’t be commercial.” However, given that Nominet has a huge, secure revenue stream for investment, it clearly does have a commercial advantage over anyone else who has to raise funding through normal channels. We’ve heard this before – Bill Gates famously said that Microsoft was about making the world a better place. Whether that’s his personal philosophy or not, from a corporate perspective it has a hollow ring.

In the mean time, Nominet is intent on expanding its revenue streams. The supposed block votes of the domain dealers (all those 3%s added together) is going to limit Nominet’s ability to compete with them. 123-Reg is never going to allow Nominet to start hosting web sites and damage their own business. So what next? I, for one, will be keeping a close eye on it. I was very much heartened to see that was the general consensus of those present, including Trustees and the board.

Nominet’s AGM venue fail – almost

I decided to miss out on the first day of Infosec to attend the Nominet AGM, which this year took place in their home town of Oxford. In the Said Business School, to be precise. I’d never heard of this, but it’s a very nice place and right next to the railway station. But I was driving.

Had I known this was in the centre I might have made other transport arrangements, but getting to Oxford by public transport is difficult for me. Had I known that one of the main Thames bridges had been closed and the city centre was grid-locked, I would definitely left the car behind.

Given that most of those in attendance were from Nominet (only a dozen members were listed as expected), it does make sense to hold a meeting close to home. But the city centre?

As you approach, it’s obvious that Oxford has plenty of Parks. There’s he normal park, of course. There’s are also Business Parks, Retail Parks, Leisure Parks, Science Parks. In fact, every kind of park you can think of other than a Car Park.

I managed to stop in the short-term station car park, without a ticket as the machine was out-of-order, while I negotiated the use of the Said Business School’s underground one. I said it was a nice place.

Nominet – please don’t do this again! Or at least, put out in the AGM details that parking is a nightmare at the venue, if you do.