A Tour of the Google Blacklist - Michael Sutton's Blog -
A Tour of the Google Blacklist

[Update 01.10.07: In response to some of the queries that I've been receiving, I've published a follow up blog to discuss the structure/decryption algorithm of Google's Encoded/Hashed Blacklist.] 

I recently decided to devote a day to walking through the Google Blacklist. While some of the findings were to be expected, others proved somewhat surprising. The Google Blacklist is a listing of URLs suspected to be phishing sites. It is used by the Google Safe Browsing for Firefox extension which is now part of the Google Toolbar for Firefox. It is also leveraged by the Firefox 2 web browser. Google maintains a number of different safe browsing lists to combat phishing including a URL blacklist, an encoded/hashed blacklist, a URL whitelist, a domain whitelist and a sandbox text list, which contains keywords included in URLs. While Google doesn't reveal exactly how these lists are developed, it's clear that user input is an important variable given that both the Google Toolbar and Firefox 2 allow for optional user feedback when phishing sites are encountered.

My hope was that this exercise would provide some insight into current phishing attacks and it certainly did. The blacklist is continuously updated and specific versions can be requested by including the required major:minor version in the GET request. The full listing (1:1) contained primarily outdated URLs as 86% of the pages or sites were no longer available. While I would like to think that the existence of Google's blacklist had contributed to the demise of these sites, phishing sites tend to emerge and disappear quickly, so I suspect that this is just a natural part of the phishing cycle. I had expected to see a combination of social engineering attacks, known vulnerabilities and 0day attacks used on the sites with the majority falling into the first category. I was therefore somewhat surprised to find virtually all sites using straight social engineering attacks. I was also surprised to see that the top three targets - eBay, PayPal and Bank of America accounted for 63% of the active phishing sites. One amusing finding was that Yahoo! commonly hosts pages that phish...wait for it...Yahoo! credentials. A breakdown of the full findings can be found below.

Summary of All URLs

Category

   # of URLs  

   % of URLs  

Server not found

2315

76.71%

Page unavailable1

283

9.38%

False positives

79

2.62%

Active phishing sites

341

11.29%

Total

3018

100.00%

Note 1: Includes 404 Not Found errors, 503 Service Unavailable errors, domain registrar placeholders, under construction pages, generic search pages, error messages, etc.

Summary of Active Phishing Sites

Target

   # of URLs  

   % of URLs  

eBay

80

23.46%

Paypal

79

23.17%

Bank of America

56

16.42%

Generic2

27

7.92%

Yahoo!

21

6.16%

MySpace

15

4.40%

Wachovia

7

2.05%

e-gold

4

1.17%

HSBC

4

1.17%

Wells Fargo

4

1.17%

Barclays Bank

3

0.88%

Citi

3

0.88%

Nationwide Bank

3

0.88%

Bank of Scotland

2

0.59%

Development Bank

2

0.59%

Geocities

2

0.59%

Hotmail

2

0.59%

IRS

2

0.59%

Orkut

2

0.59%

Others

23

6.73%

Total

341

100.00%

Note 2: Includes pages with web forms designed to harvest email addresses, social security numbers etc., but the sites were generic in nature and did not target any one company. Most were sites promising financial advice in exchange for providing personal information.

In almost all cases, these phishing sites are fake login pages, password reset pages or various other web forms that require the user to input sensitive data such as a password, credit card number or social security number. Surprisingly, of the 341 active phishing pages that I looked at, only one attempted to use a known vulnerability. All others simply employed social engineering attacks. The pages are generally exact replicas of the original web page and generally pull graphics (*.jpg, *.gif, etc.) from the legitimate web site.

Free Web Hosting Sites

Phishers are apparently cheap as many utilize free hosting sites such as Geocities, Tripod and FreeSpaces to host their phishing sites. While the hosting providers are catching some of these sites, they're clearly not working hard enough as several remained active. Somewhat amusing is that Yahoo Geocities is commonly used to host pages designed to harvest Yahoo! login IDs. Why Yahoo! can't catch phishing pages which they host is beyond me. Below are a handful of such pages which remained active as of this posting:

All of the aforementioned sites appear to be set up by the same group as they all forward login credentials to http://www2.fiberbit.net/form/mailto.cgi. However, it is likely that they were set up at different times as they exhibit different properties. Some display an error page after a failed login while others redirect the user to a porn site or alternate Yahoo! page. Some also utilize JavaScript to prevent the user from accessing the right-click context menu, presumably in an attempt to hinder viewing the web page source code. Others also HTML encode the action attribute.

URL Obfuscation

The majority of active phishing sites took minimal steps to obfuscate the URL. The most common practice was to simply prefix the attacker URL with the targeted domain name (e.g. paypal.evilsite.com). Obviously even a casual inspection of the targeted URL would arouse suspicion but sadly this simple attack appears to fool many users. Other sites utilized IP addresses as opposed to fully qualified domain names and others went a step further by using decimal or hexadecimal forms of the IP addresses which are properly interpreted by most browsers. Hexadecimal encoding of at least portions of the URL itself was also a popular technique.

Cybersquatting

Cybersquatting, although far from a new technique, appears to remain in vogue. The unfortunate part is that domain registrars are allowing these names to be registered in the first place. In the sampling of domain names below, it is clear that these were registered with questionable intensions.

  • mail-yahoo-us.tk
  • wellsfargo-newupdate.com
  • e-wachovia.org
  • wachovia-bank.org
  • wachovia24.net
  • wachovia24.org

Multiple Scams, One Domain

A single domain is commonly be used for multiple phishing scams targeting different companies as noted below:

  • Domain - mujweb.cz
  • Targets:
    • eBay
    • PayPal
    • Wachovia
[Update: 01.05.07 - A couple of people have kindly pointed out that mujweb.cz is a free web-hosting service in the Czech Republic and this situation would be more comparable to phishing sites hosted on Geocities as discussed in the 'Free Web Hosting Sites' section.]
  • Domain: 81.113.212.146
  • Targets:
    • eBay
    • Barclays Bank
    • Citi Bank

URL Redirection

Another surprising finding was that few of the phishing scams utilized open URL redirectors. This is a known technique whereby phishers identify redirection functionality at a popular website (e.g. Google) and use that functionality to redirect the victim to the targeted phishing site in order to minimize suspicion. Combing through the blacklist did however reveal the following redirection attack using Google AdWords:

http://www.google.com/pagead/iclk?sa=l&ai=x&adurl=http://www.spidynamics.com

I've seen this technique mentioned in past threads. However, one thing that I noticed which I had not seen before is that the 'ai' parameter can actually be any value rather than the 50+ character unique string that is typically used by AdWords. This would naturally make for a more compact, natural looking URL.

DOM Manipulation

Once again, few phishing sites did anything beyond present a reasonable forgery of a legitimate web page. Some did however perform basic DOM manipulation such as this PayPal phishing site, which uses JavaScript to create a fake address bar at the top of the page, displaying a PayPal URL. The fake address bar is not displayed in Firefox 2.0 but IE 6 & 7 will both display 2 address bars, the real and the fake.

Conclusions

Based on all of the sites that I looked at, the majority of phishing scams are less sophisticated than I had predicted. This is however somewhat concerning as simple attacks must still be working and attackers have not been forced to upgrade their skills in order to make a profit. Phishing is an attack that will be around for some time and there is no magic bullet to stop it. Many parties must work together to reduce phishing attacks and that simply isn't happening. When domain name registrars permit cybersquatting and popular websites allow open URL redirection, it is clear that we have a long way to go.

- michael


Posted 01-04-2007 12:48 PM by erik.peterson
Filed under: , ,

Comments

Daniel Veditz wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-04-2007 5:32 PM

It would be interesting to use the enchash data instead. It's been updated twice as often (1.15609 vs 1.7793) and is quite a bit bigger (1200K vs 58K, 11276 lines vs 2855 lines). The statistics could change considerably.

grant wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-04-2007 10:58 PM

brillant artical, thanks for the research. amazing yahoo cant do something about the use of there servers by phishers

Matt wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 12:02 AM
Could you discuss the false positives you found?
Michael Sutton wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 12:18 AM
Matt - The false positives fell into three primary categories. Most were small sites that I imagine receive minimal traffic. In most cases it was unclear why they were marked as phishing sites and I wonder if Google factors traffic volume into their algorithm so that fewer people would need to mark such sites as being potential phishing sites. A handful were high volume sites, but I could see why they may have been considered by some to be phishing sites. For example, http://www.ebaychatter.com is owned by eBay but it took speaking to a friend at eBay before I was convinced that it was legitimate as it included an eBay login page but wasn't at the main eBay domain. Lastly, there were a handful of intentionally fake sites set up by Google and Mozilla to demonstrate the functionality of their phishing filters. Hope that helps. - michael
atb2008 wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 12:36 AM

did anyone send those sites into yahoo yet - im going to...

Shezi wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 2:20 AM

There is one point about your conclusions: The list containing mostly rather simple phishings scams does not indicate that very high-profile scams don't exist. It just means that they're not identified by the google list.

And, in fact, this makes the list quite dangerous (as has been pointed out before): If a (sophisticated) site is not on the list, it ought to be secure.

Heath Raftery wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 2:59 AM

Your work is much appreciated. Re the couple of solutions you're alluding to - I'd suggest that's a case of chasing your tail or shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. It seems to me that Yahoo preventing suspicious sites, or GoDaddy restricting funny looking domain registrations, is shooting at a moving target. It might prevent some of the new sites from appearing, but it wont catch them all, and there will always be existing sites or new ways of getting them out there. Instead, and I know I'm probably asking the impossible, but wouldn't user education be a massive stake in the heart of the phishing industry?

Lesson 1: If you're entering personal information, make sure the web address you're actually at is the one you want the information to go to.

Lesson 2: There is no Lesson 2. If you don't understand that, disconnect your Internet connection or expect some dramas.

Miscreant wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 3:15 AM
Just curious, did this prompt your research? http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/fulldisclosure/2007-01/0039.html Nice work on the research, saved me hours! :)
Web developers wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 3:38 AM

Michael

A well thought out and well researched article indeed.

Robert wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 4:21 AM

Nice research ;-)

I wonder if Google generates the blacklist dependent on the location of the requester, since I am from Germany and I see all the big banks of Germany but they did not show up in your ranking.

> grep volksbank update@version=goog-black-url%3A1%3A1 | wc

   336     672   26552

> grep bankofamerica update@version=goog-black-url%3A1%3A1 | wc

   203     406   18142

> wc update@version=goog-black-url%3A1%3A1

 2461   4920 184275 update@version=goog-black-url%3A1%3A1

Where 84 of the 336 “volksbank” sites were still active.

Robert.

MeOfCourse77 wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 4:30 AM

Did anyone notice that google is on it's own blacklist?  Interesting.

+https://www.google.com/tools/firefox/safebrowsing/phish-o-rama.html c

Mike wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 7:28 AM

Good stuff, it's interesting to see how some of this works. Phishing has gone big-time and Google clearly has their work cut out for themselves trying to keep up.

Mike

http://quicktrivia.com

Shiggity wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 9:17 AM

Heath, you hit the nail on the head.

jistanidiot wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 9:19 AM

tesll us about the false positives!

Phishcop Admin wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 9:54 AM

Nice article.  It's good to see people helping to chase the phishing problem.  It's a shame that companies like Yahoo! are clueless when it comes to dealing with phishing.  I can't tell you how many times I've sent email to them giving them a Yahoo! email address I found on a phishing site being used to collect the phishing data, and most of the time I just get back "Please include the headers of the email you received..." stock answer.  Even after I reply and explain to them that the email address I sent them is being used by a phishing site to collect personal account information, they continue to ask for email headers!?!  Not to mention how often Yahoo! themselves are hosting the phishing sites and that the bogus domain was registered via Yahoo! with a stolen credit card.  Maybe they're not so clueless - maybe they just get greater financial benefit from hosting the phishers than from spending resources to shut them down??  I know many credit card companies who seem to prefer SELLING THE CONSUMER "Identity Theft Insurance" rather than preventing Identity Theft in the first place.  Why fix a problem when you can get your customers to pay you to insure against when the problem happens?!?  It's simple economics.

I like Heath's "Lesson 2", but until everyone is educated enough not to fall for these scams (I've talked to doctors and lawyers, so noone should feel stupid),  this problem has to be attacked from all angles.

People can send thier phishing emails to submit@phishcop.net to let us help get sites shut down and victims notified.

Justin Mason wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 10:27 AM

Nice.  Thanks for looking at this.

How did you measure false positives?  Did you use the blacklists outside of the Firefox/toolbar framework (from standalone scripts, for instance), or simply surf around a bunch of known-good sites by hand? ;)

Also, if you figured out how to use the enchash list, I'd be curious as to what the hash algorithm they're using is...

Andrew wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 11:01 AM

Great work. It's amazing what some people will fall for, but it's equally amazing the lengths some people will go to to make sites that convincing.

erik.peterson wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 11:12 AM

Miscreant - That was indeed was triggered the idea to look at the list.

Brandon Checketts wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 11:21 AM

You mentioned that "The pages are generally exact replicas of the original web page and generally pull graphics (*.jpg, *.gif, etc.) from the legitimate web site." which is something that I've also noticed as I've looked at phishing sites.  

Isn't an easy solution for the phishing target (ebay, paypal, etc) to just look at the HTTP_REFERRER field to identify those phishing sites.  (I blogged about this on my blog at http://www.brandonchecketts.com/)

KDubb wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 12:01 PM

Nice work on the article.

@Heath Raftery: I agree with you that user education of not only phishing sites in general but Trojans as well is of prime importance to reduce the amount of victims of such schemes. There are other things that could be done but I don't see them working as feasibly or effectively:

1. The folks creating the phishing pages are hunted down and punished for what they've done. (Which is not likely it is hard to track them down, and even harder to get foreign law enforcement to take action.)

2. ISPs take steps to verify that the credit card payment they are receiving to host the site is really from the person who owns the account. (Most phishing sites that aren't hack-jobs are paid for via stolen credit card accounts.)

3. Folks beef up their network security so it's not so easy to get hacked into.

4. People not surfing the web with a vulnerable browser and not install software from sources they don't know.

In addition, what do you do if there exists an ISP hosting these phishing schemes that is run by a relatively untouchable criminal organization in a country with inadequate law? I.E. Rbnnetwork in Russia, one IP being 81.95.146.37 that acts as a trojan drop off point.

User education definitely seems to be the way to go at this point in time.

Just my $0.02

spook #3l33t wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 12:32 PM

Thanks for the interesting review.  However, it is surprising that some of the newer forms of phishing (image, etc) were not identified.

Cheers.

nikolay wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 1:39 PM

<i>A single domain is commonly be used for multiple phishing scams targeting different companies as noted below:

Domain - mujweb.cz

Targets:

eBay

PayPal

Wachovia</i>

Mujweb.cz is a Czech free webhosting service.

Steve Basford wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 3:37 PM

Nice article!  I produce extra ClamAV signatures for phishing... some of these signatures use the common tricks that the google url list show are being used

Nick FitzGerald wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 5:47 PM

Brandon Checketts raised the issue of commonly-phished sites checking the HTTP Referer header. This makes him about the 387,274th "expert" to make this stunning suggestion.

Given so many folk have made this earth-shatteringly obvious suggestion, also usually pairing it with a claim for the profound efficacy it should be expected to have in reducing the effectiveness of phishing, sane people would have to wonder why, in fact, so few of the heavily phished sites actually bother doing it.

Perhaps it is because the folk who would actually face the cost of re-designing their websites to accomodate this, plus bear the cost of the extra server-side processing, etc recognize that it is an almost totally worthless idea?

First, a lot of phishers already host all their own images on their phishing servers -- at least all the "big" ones do. This does not cost the phishers a dime, as they are almost universally only using stolen bandwidth and other hosting services, either paid for with stollen CC's, etc, or better (for them; "worse" for most of us) paid for with real money they aveobtained illegally, either from phishing or the multiple other illegal activities they and/or their "business associates" are involved in. The latter is a perfect result for organized crime, as it is a great form of money laundering, "re-investing" ill-gotten gains, no-questions-asked and largely untraceably, in furthering the income earning capacity of other of their illegal activities.

Second, those phishers that don't already host all their own images will quickly change their habits to do so if/when all their common targets start to implement the suggested strategy. The common targets of phishing know this and hence are not at all likely to rush out and re-design their web-presence just to implement this very ineffective "protection".

For example, one of the very few sites I recall hearing of (well, actually noting myself) implementing this, and the only heavily-phished site I'm aware of that has done so, is e-gold.com. I think they did this sometime in August 2006 -- at least I noticed it late that month when investigating the phish at the heart of this:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/08/using_images_to_fight_phishing.html

Within two days, the same phish kit as was on that phishing site was turning up on other sites BUT it had been updated to take account of e-gold.com's "new" referer-checking, including the necessary image files and removing the phishers from any reliance on content dynamically sourced from e-gold.com. I don't have any contacts at e-gold.com, but you can be sure that it took e-gold.com a darn site longer than two days to conceive, feasability check, design, implement, test and finally roll-out, the referer-checking "anti-phishing" fixes on its site.

Sure, Brandon Checketts can do it in a few hours on his "toy" web-site (as per his blog entry), but that just shows how little grip Brandon has on what "scaling in a real-world, multi-national, cross-provider, multiple-business-partner, online business presence scenario" really means...

dave wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-05-2007 8:51 PM

please don't tell any more people my business plan. shhh

Jeff Chan wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-06-2007 3:45 AM

Michael: Thanks for the analysis of Google's phishing data.  We are looking into filtering and incorporating it into our SURBL phishing list:

 http://www.surbl.org/lists.html#ph

phishcop: While answerbots can be annoying and misused, isnt' it possible that Yahoo may want to see message headers in order to more closely analyze the phish?   If someone gave you a phish without the headers, wouldn't you wonder where it came from, when it was sent, etc.  Headers can be very useful.

Nick FitzGerald wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-06-2007 4:09 AM

In his "Conclusions", Michael closes with (and I wholeheartedly concur) "When domain name registrars permit cybersquatting and popular websites allow open URL redirection, it is clear that we have a long way to go."

Ironically, Michael -- a self-described (below) "Security Evangelist" and "expert in web application security" -- makes this claim in his blog hosted on his employer's servers.

The irony?

A bad case of beholding the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considering not the beam that is in thine own.  Look at the URLs for the links back to the commentators' web pages and what do you find?

An open redirector...

Whoops!

adam wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-06-2007 8:52 AM

very neat.....i was wondering where google's blocklist was downloaded from :P

But yea, I've been just using opendns.com (they partner with phishtank.com), and they got a lot of the phishing sites blocklisted there ;)

Fruit Helmet Cat wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-06-2007 3:14 PM

Dear Michael,

For someone who might be a novice to the web, would you recommend they add the Google Blocklist IPs & domains to say their firewall software blocks?

Jason Hong wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-07-2007 12:21 AM
All of you might be interested in this research paper that is about to be published evaluating the effectiveness of various toolbars. Note that I am one of the authors of this paper, and the results show that Google catches around 60-70% of phishing URLs that we sent, but doesn't have any substantial false positives. http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/toolbars.html I also just gave a Google TechTalk, so there may be a Google video soon describing of all of our work at Carnegie Mellon on anti-phishing. We have also developed a new anti-phishing detection algorithm (ie no blacklists) for web sites that detects 89-97% of phishing web sites (with 1% false positives and 6% false positives respectively, depending on the specific heuristics used). http://cups.cs.cmu.edu/trust.php
Brandon Checketts wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-07-2007 1:20 AM

Whoa there Nick.  I never claimed that I was an expert.  I'm a simple web programmer asking a question on a blog.  I'd never seen any discussion about it, and now I have.

In fact, after reading the Washington Post article, I think that the targets may have more to gain by letting the phishers continue to link to their images.   At least that way they can identify the 'unprofessional' phishers and work to shut them down.

Since most phishing attacks end up sending the user back to the legitimate site, I think the idea of checking the referrer at that point against a list of known phishing sites still has some merit.  Even if the referrer is a known redirector, it could still raise some suspicion.

actually gives the target reason to let phishers link to their images directly.  

Phishers would host the images themselves:  Of course they would.  That doesn't mean that the target institutions shouldn't take some measures to protect against it.  

Adding load to their web servers:  These institutions claim to have customer security as a top priority.  

Voki wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-07-2007 2:05 PM

Hello Michael !

The excellent analysis! Excellent clause!  

About phising much is already told, but people again become victims of swindlers. I think will kill phising difficultly!

If you are interested in this theme on my blog it is possible see review about 20 000 stolen passwords <a href=http://shizgara.blogspot.com/2007/01/myspace-20000-passwords.html>MySpace</a>

I hope you find on my blog something useful and intresting.

Chao.

erik.peterson wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-07-2007 4:08 PM

Fruit Helmet Cat - Blocking known phishing sites is a good thing. Keep in mind however that the Google blacklist is far from a definitive site and it does have some false positives.

- michael

Navneet Kaushal wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-08-2007 12:25 AM
Great work Michael. Phishers are on prawl. Usally, they traverse intocorporate networking due to P2P communication networks. Yahoo! not doing something about the use of there servers by phishers is surprising though.
Bill Newton Dunn wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-08-2007 5:25 AM
Do you have any information - or know where to find it - about WHO the phishers are, and where they work from ?
Phishcop Admin wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-08-2007 10:43 AM

> phishcop: While answerbots can be annoying and

> misused, isnt' it possible that Yahoo may want to

> see message headers in order to more closely

> analyze the phish?   If someone gave you a phish

> without the headers, wouldn't you wonder where

> it came from, when it was sent, etc. Headers can

> be very useful.

I must not have made myself clear.  I was reporting a Yahoo! email address found in the PHP scripts of the phishing site itself.  I sent THAT email address to Yahoo! for them to investigate.  If someone sent me a report that the email address 'joeblow@phishcop.net' was being used to collect phishing data, as owner of the domain, I would simply take a peek at the mailbox for joeblow and easily determine if more investigation were warranted?  If the headers (i.e. subject and amount of email) suggested that the mailbox was likely being used for illegal activity, I would go further into checking the contents of the mail to verify the claim.

The thing is that Yahoo! Customer Support only has so many "canned answers" for replying to complaints, and noone smart enough to actually READ the complaint and try to comprehend it!

Paul McNamara wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-08-2007 11:25 AM

I asked Yahoo to address Michael's point: "Why Yahoo! can't catch phishing pages which they host is beyond me."

Here's what the company had to say for itself:

http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/10314  

erik.peterson wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-08-2007 12:35 PM

Paul - I'm pleased to see that you challenged Yahoo! on this issue. Unfortunately, the answer that you received is a long winded attempt to say nothing. I agree with your assessment that this is about money. Companies are here to earn a profit and so long as the revenue generated by ignoring the problem exceeds the value of dealing with it, nothing will be done. It's up to us to raise the cost of apathy by ensuring that people are aware of the problem.

- michael

Kevin Mullenex (Cyveillance, Inc) wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-09-2007 4:02 AM

Hi Mike:

Great info and blog! Very interesting information with some great questions.

One thing that is clear is that Phishing is not going away and we will see much more of it happen in 2007...... It is my prediction that the social engineering behind Phishing is going to become much more complicated and the URL's/Domains will be even harder to detect in "real time"  and shut down moving forward!

That said this is a NEVER ENDING fight as Phishing and Pharming will never go away --- it will be a continous "war against crime" and we all need to work together to try and solve it!

That will mean, that while APWG will continue to work on trying to solve this problem, it is unclear if they can really help solve it and, more importantly, are not focusing on trying to "catch" the folks that are doing this --- in the US or overseas! Doing that will have a better and larger impact on the folks that engage in such activities.

Best,

Kevin

miley wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-09-2007 10:46 PM

I find Paul's networkworld explanation of yahoo's response rather silly.  Of course this is about money.  Every hoster, registrar, antispam vendor etc in the world *could* hire millions of people to make a phishing/nonphishing determination of every page it hosts, URL it sees, etc.  Obviously, that would be prohibitively expensive.  Most vendors will try to build automated tools to fight.  This becomes the cat and mouse spammer v antispammer technology game.

There are at least 2 big misses in the article:

1) the blog talks about geocities -- a free hosting service.  The article talks about domain registration, which is not free and has extra information to use (domain name, credit card, subdomain name), and thus should likely have more controls in place. Apples, meet oranges.

2) The pages target yahoo users, thus yahoo will incur more expense in dealing with the compromised users (which has to be expensive).  Yahoo's incentive is to protect their brand the most -- which suggests that this just may be a semi-hard problem. (were the pages written in javascript? Did they have content hidden to the naked eye, but computer parsable? any http://www.jgc.org/tsc/ like tricks?)  

BTW, anyone note when the geo sites were taken down? (see someone said they would notify on Jan 5, and the article did say they were down as of Jan 8, but I don't see any data in between.

Michael Sutton's Blog wrote Decoding the Google Blacklist
on 01-10-2007 4:21 PM

After publishing last week&#39;s blog entitled &lsquo;A Tour of the Google Blacklist&#39; , I received

FenderB wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-23-2007 2:19 PM
Until last week, Google apparently was divulging personal user information via this blacklist. Phishers do not care about user security, so the URLs they were using had usernames and passwords within them. These were then being fed into the blacklist for all to use, and see. This mainly affected the anti-phishing plug-in for Firefox that Google put out. The blacklists are now scrubbed for this sort of information. ;-}
Jayesh wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-29-2007 5:32 AM

Nice research !

btw, i find this issue first reported in Full Disclosure mailing list by Rajesh Sethumadhavan of xdisclose.com in Jan 02, 2007.

Here is the link,

http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/2007-January/051549.html

David wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 01-29-2007 8:03 AM
Is there a process for getting a site removed from the blacklist. I've found a site that has been blacklisted incorrectly as they are a perfectly innocent ecommerce site.
michalle wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 02-02-2007 9:20 PM
Hello! ;) hey... what mad comments! what do you suppose about it?
Somebody wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 02-02-2007 10:25 PM
You can submit false positives to: www.google.com/safebrowsing/report_error/
Somebodyelse wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 02-05-2007 9:15 AM

The Google technology filters both phishing sites and malware sites.  Some of the apparent false positives may contain malware hosted in a non-obvious fashion and thus be true positives.

Michael Sutton's Blog wrote Phree Phishing
on 02-09-2007 1:27 AM

I recently blogged about the phishing pages that I found during a Tour of the Google Blacklist . In that

Richard Brown wrote re: A Tour of the Google Blacklist
on 05-24-2007 8:52 AM

Unfortunately there is a section of the less well informed who are leaving directories open on servers to allow the easy hosting of such Phishing sites - how do I know? I did it about 6months ago - most embarrassing and super inconvenient when that particular site was temporarily closed

email compliance and email filtering wrote email compliance and email filtering
on 12-21-2007 7:03 PM

Everyone wants to have easy access to the net.

payday loan fast no fax wrote advance advance america cash
on 02-01-2008 2:01 PM

For example cash loan payday till advance cash day loan pay

1600 nokia ringtones wrote low interest payday loan
on 02-05-2008 4:51 AM

Possibly free pcs ringtones sprint ringtones for verizon wireless phone

make money online wrote make money online
on 05-17-2008 4:57 AM

It also got me to wondering what it is that people get from these things. Do people really draw motivation from this stuff? I have been reading Darren Brown’ s Tricks of the Mind , or at least re- reading sections of it, this week. He points out that