Technology

• The US Supreme Court kills warrantless cell phone location fishing and okays state sales taxes on internet purchases.
• Apple offers refunds on MacBook butterfly keyboard repairs and wants to let you use your iPhone to unlock your car.
• Amazon wants to put Alexa in your hotel room, and everywhere else.
• Professional videogames are going mainstream, with huge stadiums and $100 million prizes.
• A proposed European Union copyright law will declare war on memes.
• IGTV is Instagram's attempt to jump on the online video bandwagon.
• Plus: transhumanism, Domino's as an infrastructure company, and IBM's new debate robot!

Host: Leo Laporte

Guests: Mikah Sargent, Ben Johnson, and Devindra Hardawar

Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech

Bandwidth for This Week in Tech is provided by CacheFly.

Sponsors:

• Stamps.com promo code TWiT
• betterment.com/twit

The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that the government needs to obtain a court-ordered warrant to gather location data on mobile device users. The decision is a major development for privacy rights, but experts say it may have limited bearing on the selling of real-time customer location data by the wireless carriers to third-party companies.

Image: Wikipedia.

At issue is Carpenter v. United States, which challenged a legal theory the Supreme Court outlined more than 40 years ago known as the “third-party doctrine.” The doctrine holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties — such as banks, phone companies, email providers or Internet service providers (ISPs) — have “no reasonable expectation of privacy.”

That framework in recent years has been interpreted to allow police and federal investigators to obtain information — such as mobile location data — from third parties without a warrant. But in a 5-4 ruling issued today that flies in the face of the third-party doctrine, the Supreme Court cited “seismic shifts in digital technology” allowing wireless carriers to collect “deeply revealing” information about mobile users that should be protected by the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is intended to shield Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

Amy Howe, a reporter for SCOTUSblog.com, writes that the decision means police will generally need to get a warrant to obtain cell-site location information, a record of the cell towers (or other sites) with which a cellphone connected.

The ruling is no doubt a big win for privacy advocates, but many readers have been asking whether this case has any bearing on the sharing or selling of real-time customer location data by the mobile providers to third party companies. Last month, The New York times revealed that a company called Securus Technologies had been selling this highly sensitive real-time location information to local police forces across the United States, thanks to agreements the company had in place with the major mobile providers.

It soon emerged that Securus was getting its location data second-hand through a company called 3Cinteractive, which in turn was reselling data from California-based “location aggregator” LocationSmart. Roughly two weeks after The Times’ scoop, KrebsOnSecurity broke the news that anyone could look up the real time location data for virtually any phone number assigned by the major carriers, using a buggy try-before-you-buy demo page that LocationSmart had made available online for years to showcase its technology.

Since those scandals broke, LocationSmart disabled its promiscuous demo page. More importantly, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon all have said they are now in the process of terminating agreements with third-parties to share this real-time location data.

Still, there is no law preventing the mobile providers from hashing out new deals to sell this data going forward, and many readers here have expressed concerns that the carriers can and eventually will do exactly that.

So the question is: Does today’s Supreme Court ruling have any bearing whatsoever on mobile providers sharing location data with private companies?

According to SCOTUSblog’s Howe, the answer is probably “no.”

“[Justice] Roberts emphasized that today’s ruling ‘is a narrow one’ that applies only to cell-site location records,” Howe writes. “He took pains to point out that the ruling did not ‘express a view on matters not before us’ – such as obtaining cell-site location records in real time, or getting information about all of the phones that connected to a particular tower at a particular time. He acknowledged that law-enforcement officials might still be able to obtain cell-site location records without a warrant in emergencies, to deal with ‘bomb threats, active shootings, and child abductions.'”

However, today’s decision by the high court may have implications for companies like Securus which have marketed the ability to provide real-time mobile location data to law enforcement officials, according to Jennifer Lynch, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit digital rights advocacy group.

“The court clearly recognizes the ‘deeply revealing nature’ of location data and recognizes we have a privacy interest in this kind of information, even when it’s collected by a third party (the phone companies),” Lynch wrote in an email to KrebsOnSecurity. “I think Carpenter would have implications for the Securus context where the phone companies were sharing location data with non-government third parties that were then, themselves, making that data available to the government.”

Lynch said that in those circumstances, there is a strong argument the government would need to get a warrant to access the data (even if the information didn’t come directly from the phone company).

“However, Carpenter’s impact in other contexts — specifically in contexts where the government is not involved — is much less clear,” she added. “Currently, there aren’t any federal laws that would prevent phone companies from sharing data with non-government third parties, and the Fourth Amendment would not apply in that context.”

And there’s the rub: There is nothing in the current law that prevents mobile companies from sharing real-time location data with other commercial entities. For that reality to change, Congress would need to act. For more on the prospects of that happening and how we wound up here, check out my May 26 story, Why is Your Location Data No Longer Private?

The full Supreme Court opinion in Carpenter v. United States is available here (PDF).

This week we examine a rather "mega" patch Tuesday, a nifty hack of Win10's Cortana, Microsoft's official "when do we patch" guidelines, the continuing tweaking of web browser behavior for our sanity, a widespread Windows 10 rootkit, the resurgence of the Satori IoT botnet, clipboard monitoring malware, a forthcoming change in Chrome's extensions policy, hacking apparent download counts on the Android store, some miscellany, an update on the status of Spectre & Meltdown... and yes, yet another brand new speculative execution vulnerability our OSes will be needing to patch against.

Hosts: Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte

Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/security-now.

You can submit a question to Security Now! at the GRC Feedback Page.

For 16kbps versions, transcripts, and notes (including fixes), visit Steve's site: grc.com, also the home of the best disk maintenance and recovery utility ever written Spinrite 6.

Bandwidth for Security Now is provided by CacheFly.

Sponsors:

• RocketMortgage.com/SecurityNow
• www.capitalone.com/eno/virtualnumbers
• WordPress.com/securitynow

In the wake of a scandal involving third-party companies leaking or selling precise, real-time location data on virtually all Americans who own a mobile phone, the four major wireless carriers have responded to requests from a U.S. senator for more details about how the carriers are managing access to this extremely sensitive information. While three out of four providers said they had cancelled data sharing agreements with some of the offending companies, only one — Verizon — pledged to terminate all of them and initiate a wholesale review of their location data-sharing practices.

At issue are companies known in the wireless industry as “location aggregators,” entities that manage requests for real-time customer location data for a variety of purposes, such as roadside assistance and emergency response. These aggregators are supposed to obtain customer consent before divulging such information, but several recent incidents show that this third-party trust model is fundamentally broken.

On May 10, 2018, The New York Times broke the story that a little-known data broker named Securus was selling local police forces around the country the ability to look up the precise location of any cell phone across all of the major U.S. mobile networks.

Then it emerged that Securus had been hacked, its database of hundreds of law enforcement officer usernames and passwords plundered. We also learned that Securus’ data was ultimately obtained from a company called 3Cinteractive, which in turn obtained its data through a California-based location tracking firm called LocationSmart.

On May 17, KrebsOnSecurity broke the news of research by Carnegie Mellon University PhD student Robert Xiao, who discovered that a LocationSmart try-before-you-buy opt-in demo of the company’s technology was wide open — allowing real-time lookups from anyone on anyone’s mobile device — without any sort of authentication, consent or authorization.

LocationSmart disabled its demo page shortly after that story. By that time, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) had already sent letters to AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon, asking them to detail any agreements to share real-time customer location data with third-party data aggregation firms.

AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon all said they had terminated data-sharing agreements with Securus. In a written response (PDF) to Sen. Wyden, Sprint declined to share any information about third-parties with which it may share customer location data, and it was the only one of the four carriers that didn’t say it was terminating any data-sharing agreements.

T-Mobile and Verizon each said they both share real-time customer data with two companies — LocationSmart and another firm called Zumigo, noting that these companies in turn provide services to a total of approximately 75 other customers.

Verizon emphasized that Zumigo — unlike LocationSmart — has never offered any kind of mobile location information demo service via its site. Nevertheless, Verizon said it had decided to terminate its current location aggregation arrangements with both LocationSmart and Zumigo.

“Verizon has notified these location aggregators that it intends to terminate their ability to access and use our customers’ location data as soon as possible,” wrote Karen Zacharia, Verizon’s chief privacy officer. “We recognize that location information can provide many pro-consumer benefits. But our review of our location aggregator program has led to a number of internal questions about how best to protect our customers’ data. We will not enter into new location aggregation arrangements unless and until we are comfortable that we can adequately protect our customers’ location data through technological advancements and/or other practices.”

In its response (PDF), AT&T made no mention of any other company besides Securus. AT&T indicated it had no intention to stop sharing real-time location data with third-parties, stating that “without an aggregator, there would be no practical and efficient method to facilitate requests across different carriers.”

Sen. Wyden issued a statement today calling on all wireless companies to follow Verizon’s lead.

“Verizon deserves credit for taking quick action to protect its customers’ privacy and security,” Wyden said. “After my investigation and follow-up reports revealed that middlemen are selling Americans’ location to the highest bidder without their consent, or making it available on insecure web portals, Verizon did the responsible thing and promptly announced it was cutting these companies off. In contrast, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint seem content to continuing to sell their customers’ private information to these shady middle men, Americans’ privacy be damned.”

Wyden’s letter asked the carriers to detail any arrangements they may have to validate that location aggregators are in fact gaining customer consent before divulging the information. Both Sprint and T-Mobile said location aggregators were contractually obligated to obtain customer consent before sharing the data, but they provided few details about any programs in place to review claims and evidence that an aggregator has obtained consent.

AT&T and Verizon each said they have processes for periodically auditing consent practices by the location aggregators, but that Securus’ unauthorized use of the data somehow flew under the radar.

AT&T noted that it began its relationship with LocationSmart in October 2012 (back when it was known by another name, “Locaid”).  Under that agreement, LocationSmart’s customer 3Cinteractive would share location information with prison officials through prison telecommunications provider Securus, which operates a prison inmate calling service.

But AT&T said after Locaid was granted that access, Securus began abusing it to sell an unauthorized “on-demand service” that allowed police departments to learn the real-time location data of any customer of the four major providers.

“We now understand that, despite AT&T’s requirements to obtain customer consent, Securus did not in fact obtain customer consent before collecting customers’ location information for its on-demand service,” wrote Timothy P. McKone, executive vice president of federal relations at AT&T. “Instead, Securus evidently relied upon law enforcement’s representation that it had appropriate legal authority to obtain customer location data, such as a warrant, court order, or other authorizing document as a proxy for customer consent.”

McKone’s letter downplays the severity of the Securus incident, saying that the on-demand location requests “comprised a tiny fraction — less than two tenths of one percent — of the total requests Securus submitted for the approved inmate calling service. AT&T has no reason to believe that there are other instances of unauthorized access to AT&T customer location data.”

Blake Reid, an associate clinical professor at the University of Colorado School of Law, said the entire mobile location-sharing debacle shows the futility of transitive trust.

“The carriers basically have arrangements with these location aggregators that contractually say, ‘You agree not to use this access we provide you without getting customer consent’,” Reid said. “Then that aggregator has a relationship with another aggregator, and so on. So what we then have is this long chain of trust where no one has ever consented to the provision of the location information, and yet it ends up getting disclosed anyhow.”

Curious how we got here and what Congress or federal regulators might do about the current situation? Check out last month’s story, Why Is Your Location Data No Longer Private.

Google in the coming weeks is expected to fix a location privacy leak in two of its most popular consumer products. New research shows that Web sites can run a simple script in the background that collects precise location data on people who have a Google Home or Chromecast device installed anywhere on their local network.

Craig Young, a researcher with security firm Tripwire, said he discovered an authentication weakness that leaks incredibly accurate location information about users of both the smart speaker and home assistant Google Home, and Chromecast, a small electronic device that makes it simple to stream TV shows, movies and games to a digital television or monitor.

Young said the attack works by asking the Google device for a list of nearby wireless networks and then sending that list to Google’s geolocation lookup services.

“An attacker can be completely remote as long as they can get the victim to open a link while connected to the same Wi-Fi or wired network as a Google Chromecast or Home device,” Young told KrebsOnSecurity. “The only real limitation is that the link needs to remain open for about a minute before the attacker has a location. The attack content could be contained within malicious advertisements or even a tweet.”

It is common for Web sites to keep a record of the numeric Internet Protocol (IP) address of all visitors, and those addresses can be used in combination with online geolocation tools to glean information about each visitor’s hometown or region. But this type of location information is often quite imprecise. In many cases, IP geolocation offers only a general idea of where the IP address may be based geographically.

This is typically not the case with Google’s geolocation data, which includes comprehensive maps of wireless network names around the world, linking each individual Wi-Fi network to a corresponding physical location. Armed with this data, Google can very often determine a user’s location to within a few feet (particularly in densely populated areas), by triangulating the user between several nearby mapped Wi-Fi access points. [Side note: Anyone who’d like to see this in action need only to turn off location data and remove the SIM card from a smart phone and see how well navigation apps like Google’s Waze can still figure out where you are].

“The difference between this and a basic IP geolocation is the level of precision,” Young said. “For example, if I geolocate my IP address right now, I get a location that is roughly 2 miles from my current location at work. For my home Internet connection, the IP geolocation is only accurate to about 3 miles. With my attack demo however, I’ve been consistently getting locations within about 10 meters of the device.”

Young said a demo he created (a video of which is below) is accurate enough that he can tell roughly how far apart his device in the kitchen is from another device in the basement.

“I’ve only tested this in three environments so far, but in each case the location corresponds to the right street address,” Young said. “The Wi-Fi based geolocation works by triangulating a position based on signal strengths to Wi-Fi access points with known locations based on reporting from people’s phones.”

Beyond leaking a Chromecast or Google Home user’s precise geographic location, this bug could help scammers make phishing and extortion attacks appear more realistic. Common scams like fake FBI or IRS warnings or threats to release compromising photos or expose some secret to friends and family could abuse Google’s location data to lend credibility to the fake warnings, Young notes.

“The implications of this are quite broad including the possibility for more effective blackmail or extortion campaigns,” he said. “Threats to release compromising photos or expose some secret to friends and family could use this to lend credibility to the warnings and increase their odds of success.”

When Young first reached out to Google in May about his findings, the company replied by closing his bug report with a “Status: Won’t Fix (Intended Behavior)” message. But after being contacted by KrebsOnSecurity, Google changed its tune, saying it planned to ship an update to address the privacy leak in both devices. Currently, that update is slated to be released in mid-July 2018.

According to Tripwire, the location data leak stems from poor authentication by Google Home and Chromecast devices, which rarely require authentication for connections received on a local network.

“We must assume that any data accessible on the local network without credentials is also accessible to hostile adversaries,” Young wrote in a blog post about his findings. “This means that all requests must be authenticated and all unauthenticated responses should be as generic as possible. Until we reach that point, consumers should separate their devices as best as is possible and be mindful of what web sites or apps are loaded while on the same network as their connected gadgets.”

Earlier this year, KrebsOnSecurity posted some basic rules for securing your various “Internet of Things” (IoT) devices. That primer lacked one piece of advice that is a bit more technical but which can help mitigate security or privacy issues that come with using IoT systems: Creating your own “Intranet of Things,” by segregating IoT devices from the rest of your local network so that they reside on a completely different network from the devices you use to browse the Internet and store files.

“A much easier solution is to add another router on the network specifically for connected devices,” Young wrote. “By connecting the WAN port of the new router to an open LAN port on the existing router, attacker code running on the main network will not have a path to abuse those connected devices. Although this does not by default prevent attacks from the IoT devices to the main network, it is likely that most naïve attacks would fail to even recognize that there is another network to attack.”

For more on setting up a multi-router solution to mitigating threats from IoT devices, check out this in-depth post on the subject from security researcher and blogger Steve Gibson.

Social media is still destroying the world. Top trends at E3. The end of Net Neutrality and the AT&T/ Time Warner Merger are a 1-2 punch against consumers. Automation is taking jobs in China and at Amazon. White house hacked. GDPR is killing email marketing. Theranos founder up on charges.

Host: Leo Laporte

Guests: Brianna Wu, Jeff Cannata, and Dan Patterson

Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech

Bandwidth for This Week in Tech is provided by CacheFly.

Sponsors:

• texture.com/twit
• RocketMortgage.com/TWiT2
• Moogsoft.com
• LastPass.com/twit

In the days following revelations last September that big-three consumer credit bureau Equifax had been hacked and relieved of personal data on nearly 150 million people, many Americans no doubt felt resigned and powerless to control their information. But not Jessamyn West. The 49-year-old librarian from a tiny town in Vermont took Equifax to court. And now she’s celebrating a small but symbolic victory after a small claims court awarded her $600 in damages stemming from the 2017 breach.

Vermont librarian Jessamyn West sued Equifax over its 2017 data breach and won $600 in small claims court. Others are following suit.

Just days after Equifax disclosed the breach, West filed a claim with the local Orange County, Vt. courthouse asking a judge to award her almost $5,000. She told the court that her mother had just died in July, and that it added to the work of sorting out her mom’s finances while trying to respond to having the entire family’s credit files potentially exposed to hackers and identity thieves.

The judge ultimately agreed, but awarded West just $690 ($90 to cover court fees and the rest intended to cover the cost of up to two years of payments to online identity theft protection services).

In an interview with KrebsOnSecurity, West said she’s feeling victorious even though the amount awarded is a drop in the bucket for Equifax, which reported more than $3.4 billion in revenue last year.

“The small claims case was a lot more about raising awareness,” said West, a librarian at the Randolph Technical Career Center who specializes in technology training and frequently conducts talks on privacy and security.

“I just wanted to change the conversation I was having with all my neighbors who were like, ‘Ugh, computers are hard, what can you do?’ to ‘Hey, here are some things you can do’,” she said. “A lot of people don’t feel they have agency around privacy and technology in general. This case was about having your own agency when companies don’t behave how they’re supposed to with our private information.”

West said she’s surprised more people aren’t following her example. After all, if just a tiny fraction of the 147 million Americans who had their Social Security number, date of birth, address and other personal data stolen in last year’s breach filed a claim and prevailed as West did, it could easily cost Equifax tens of millions of dollars in damages and legal fees.

“The paperwork to file the claim was a little irritating, but it only cost $90,” she said. “Then again, I could see how many people probably would see this as a lark, where there’s a pretty good chance you’re not going to see that money again, and for a lot of people that probably doesn’t really make things better.”

Equifax is currently the target of several class action lawsuits related to the 2017 breach disclosure, but there have been a few other minor victories in state small claims courts.

In January, data privacy enthusiast Christian Haigh wrote about winning an $8,000 judgment in small claims court against Equifax for its 2017 breach (the amount was reduced to $5,500 after Equifax appealed).

Haigh is co-founder of litigation finance startup Legalist. According to Inc.com, Haigh’s company has started funding other people’s small claims suits against Equifax, too. (Legalist pays lawyers in plaintiff’s suits on an hourly basis, and takes a contingency fee if the case is successful.)

Days after the Equifax breach news broke, a 20-year-old Stanford University student published a free online bot that helps users sue the company in small claims court.

It’s not clear if the Web site tool is still functioning, but West said it was media coverage of this very same lawsuit bot that prompted her to file.

“I thought if some stupid online bot can do this, I could probably figure it out,” she recalled.

If you’re a DYI type person, by all means file a claim in your local small claims court. And then write and publish about your experience, just like West did in a post at Medium.com.

West said she plans to donate the money from her small claims win to the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and that she hopes her case inspires others.

“Even if all this does is get people to use better passwords, or go to the library, or to tell a company, ‘No, that’s not not good enough, you need to do better,’ that would be a good thing,” West said. “I wanted to show that there are constructive ways to seek redress of grievances about lots of different things, which makes me happy. I was willing to do the work and go to court. I look at this like an opportunity to educate and inform yourself, and realize there is a step you can take beyond just rending of garments and gnashing of teeth.”

This week we update again on VPNFilter, look at another new emerging threat, check in on Drupalgeddon2, examine a very troubling remote Android vulnerability under active wormable exploitation, take stock of Cisco's multiple firmware backdoors, look at a new cryptomining strategy, the evolution of Russian state-sponsored cybercrime, a genealogy service that lost its user database, ongoing Russian censorship, another Adobe FLASH mess, and a check-in on how Marcus Hutchins is doing. Then we look at yet another huge mess resulting from insecure interpreters.

Hosts: Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte

Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/security-now.

You can submit a question to Security Now! at the GRC Feedback Page.

For 16kbps versions, transcripts, and notes (including fixes), visit Steve's site: grc.com, also the home of the best disk maintenance and recovery utility ever written Spinrite 6.

Bandwidth for Security Now is provided by CacheFly.

Sponsors:

• RING.COM/SecurityNow
• canary.tools/twit - use code: TWIT
• LastPass.com/twit

Microsoft today pushed out a bevy of software updates to fix more than four dozen security holes in Windows and related software. Almost a quarter of the vulnerabilities addressed in this month’s patch batch earned Microsoft’s “critical” rating, meaning malware or miscreants can exploit the flaws to break into vulnerable systems without any help from users.

Most of the critical fixes are in Microsoft browsers or browser components. One of the flaws, CVE-2018-8267, was publicly disclosed prior to today’s patch release, meaning attackers may have had a head start figuring out how to exploit the bug to attack Internet Explorer users.

According to Recorded Future, the most important patched vulnerability is a remote code execution vulnerability in the Windows Domain Name System (DNS), which is present in all versions of supported versions of Windows from Windows 7 to Windows 10 as well as all versions of Windows Server from 2008 to 2016.

“The vulnerability allows an attacker to send a maliciously crafted DNS packet to the victim machine from a DNS server, or even send spoofed DNS responses from attack box,” wrote Allan Liska, a threat intelligence analyst at Recorded Future. “Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an attacker to take control of the target machine.”

Security vendor Qualys says mobile workstations that may connect to untrusted Wi-Fi networks are at high risk and this DNS patch should be a priority for them. Qualys also notes that Microsoft this month is shipping updates to mitigate another variant of the Spectre vulnerability in Intel machines.

And of course there are updates available to address the Adobe Flash Player vulnerability that is already being exploited in active attacks. Read more on that here.

It’s a good idea to get in the habit of backing up your computer before applying monthly updates from Microsoft. Windows has some built-in tools that can help recover from bad patches, but restoring the system to a backup image taken just before installing the updates is often much less hassle and an added piece of mind when you’re sitting there praying for the machine to reboot after patching.

This assumes you can get around to backing up before Microsoft decides to patch Windows on your behalf. Microsoft says by default, Windows 10 receives updates automatically, “and for customers running previous versions, we recommend they turn on automatic updates as a best practice.” Microsoft doesn’t make it easy for Windows 10 users to change this setting, but it is possible.

For all other Windows OS users, if you’d rather be alerted to new updates when they’re available so you can choose when to install them, there’s a setting for that in Windows Update.

As always, if you experience any problems installing any of these updates, please leave a note about your issues in the comments below.

Additional reading:

Cisco Talos Intelligence blog take

The Zero Day Initiative’s Security Update Review

SANS Internet Storm Center

Microsoft Security Update Guide

Web site names ending in new top-level domains (TLDs) like .men, .work and .click are some of the riskiest and spammy-est on the Internet, according to experts who track such concentrations of badness online. Not that there still aren’t a whole mess of nasty .com, .net and .biz domains out there, but relative to their size (i.e. overall number of domains) these newer TLDs are far dicier to visit than most online destinations.

There are many sources for measuring domain reputation online, but one of the newest is The 10 Most Abused Top Level Domains list, run by Spamhaus.org. Currently at the #1 spot on the list (the worst) is .men: Spamhaus says of the 65,570 domains it has seen registered in the .men TLD, more than half (55 percent) were “bad.”

According to Spamhaus, a TLD may be “bad” because it is tied to spam or malware dissemination (or both). More specifically, the “badness” of a given TLD may be assigned in two ways:

“The ratio of bad to good domains may be higher than average, indicating that the registry could do a better job of enforcing policies and shunning abusers. Or, some TLDs with a high fraction of bad domains may be quite small, and their total number of bad domains could be relatively limited with respect to other, bigger TLDs. Their total “badness” to the Internet is limited by their small total size.”

More than 1,500 TLDs exist today, but hundreds of them were introduced in just the past few years. The nonprofit organization that runs the domain name space — the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) — enabled the new TLDs in response to requests from advertisers and domain speculators — even though security experts warned that an onslaught of new, far cheaper TLDs would be a boon mainly to spammers and scammers.

And what a boon it has been. The newer TLDs are popular among spammers and scammers alike because domains in many of these TLDs can be had for pennies apiece. But not all of the TLDs on Spamhaus’ list are prized for being cheaper than generic TLDs (like .com, .net, etc.). The cheapest domains at half of Spamhaus’ top ten “baddest” TLDs go for prices between $6 and $14.50 per domain.

Still, domains in the remaining five Top Bad TLDs can be had for between 48 cents and a dollar each.

Security firm Symantec in March 2018 published its own Top 20 list of Shady TLDs:

Symantec’s “Top 20 Shady TLDs,” published in March 2018.

Spamhaus says TLD registries that allow registrars to sell high volumes of domains to professional spammers and malware operators in essence aid and abet the plague of abuse on the Internet.

“Some registrars and resellers knowingly sell high volumes of domains to these actors for profit, and many registries do not do enough to stop or limit this endless supply of domains,” Spamhaus’ World’s Most Abused TLDs page explains.

Namecheap, a Phoenix, Ariz. based domain name registrar that in Oct. 2017 was the fourth-largest registrar, currently offers by a wide margin the lowest registration prices for three out of 10 of Spamhaus’ baddest TLDs, selling most for less than 50 cents each.

Namecheap also is by far the cheapest registrar for 11 of Symantec’s Top 20 Shady New TLDs: Namecheap is easily the least expensive registrar to secure a domain in 11 of the Top 20, including .date, .trade, .review, .party, .loan, .kim, .bid, .win, .racing, .download and .stream.

I should preface the following analysis by saying the prices that domain registrars charge for various TLD name registrations vary frequently, as do the rankings in these Top Bad TLD lists. But I was curious if there was any useful data about new TLD abuse at tld-list.com — a comparison shopping page for domain registrars.

What I found is that although domains in almost all of the above-mentioned TLDs are sold by dozens of registrars, most of these registrars have priced themselves out of the market for the TLDs that are currently so-favored by spammers and scammers.

Not so with Namecheap. True to its name, when it is the cheapest Namecheap consistently offers the lowest price by approximately 98 percent off the average price that other registrars selling the same TLD charge per domain. The company appears to have specifically targeted these TLDs with price promotions that far undercut competitors.

Namecheap is by far the lowest-priced registrar for more than half of the 20 Top Bad TLDs tracked by Symantec earlier this year.

Here’s a look at the per-domain prices charged by the registrars for the TLDs named in Spamhaus’s top 10:

The lowest, highest, and average prices charged by registrars for the domains in Spamhaus’ Top 10 “Bad” TLDs. Click to enlarge.

This a price comparison for Symantec’s Top 20 list:

The lowest, highest, and average prices charged by registrars for the domains in Symantec’s Top 20 “Shady” TLDs. Click to enlarge.

I asked Namecheap’s CEO why the company’s name comes up so frequently in these lists, and if there was any strategy behind cornering the market for so many of the “bad” and “shady” TLDs.

“Our business model, as our name implies is to offer choice and value to everyone in the same way companies like Amazon or Walmart do,” Namecheap CEO Richard Kirkendall told KrebsOnSecurity. “Saying that because we offer low prices to all customers we somehow condone nefarious activity is an irresponsible assumption on your part. Our commitment to our millions of customers across the world is to continue to bring them the best value and choice whenever and wherever we can.”

Kirkendall said expecting retail registrars that compete on pricing to stop doing that is not realistic and would be the last place he would go to for change.

“On the other hand, if you do manage to secure higher pricing you will also in effect tax everyone for the bad actions of a few,” Kirkendall said. “Is this really the way to solve the problem? While a few dollars may not matter to you, there are plenty of less fortunate people out there where it does matter. They say the internet is the great equalizer, by making things cost more simply for the sake of creating barriers truly and indiscriminately creates barriers for everyone, not just for those you target.”

Incidentally, should you ever wish to block all domains from any given TLD, there are a number of tools available to do that. One of the easiest to use is Cisco‘s OpenDNS, which includes up to 30 filters for managing traffic, content and Web sites on your computer and home network — including the ability to block entire TLDs if that’s something you want to do.

I’m often asked if blocking sites from loading when they’re served from specific TLDs or countries (like .ru) would be an effective way to block malware and phishing attacks. It’s important to note here that it’s not practical to assume you can block all traffic from given countries (that somehow blacklisting .ru is going to block all traffic from Russia). It also seems likely that the .com TLD space and US-based ISPs are bigger sources of the problem overall.

But that’s not to say blocking entire TLDs a horrible idea for individual users and home network owners. I’d wager there are whole a host of TLDs (including all of the above “bad” and “shady” TLDs) that most users could block across the board without forgoing anything they might otherwise want to have seen or visited. I mean seriously: When was the last time you intentionally visited a site registered in the TLD for Gabon (.ga)?

And while many people might never click on a .party or .men domain in a malicious or spammy email, these domains are often loaded only after the user clicks on a malicious or booby-trapped link that may not look so phishy — such as a .com or .org link.

Update: 11:46 a.m. ET: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated the name of the company that owns OpenDNS.

• A New Tech Manifesto by Baratunde: how to reinvent social media to improve all our lives.
• Apple's WWDC announcements: Screen Time restores balance to your life, memojis avoid the uncanny valley, ARKit 2 might (might) actually have usefull apps, Siri Shortcuts might (might) make Siri useful, macOS Mojave makes much-needed improvements to the Finder, tvOS gets Dolby Atmos.
• Gmail's improved design is headed your way.
• Microsoft buys GitHub: how MS went from a Windows monolith to an open-source champion.
• Computex's big announcements: Intel fudges some numbers, AMD's new Threadripper 2, and ASUS put a computer in your computer so you can compute while you compute.

Host: Leo Laporte

Guests: Philip Elmer-DeWitt, Alex Wilhelm, and Baratunde Thurston

Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech

Bandwidth for This Week in Tech is provided by CacheFly.

Sponsors:

• uber.com/movingforward
• WordPress.com/twit
• audible.com/twit
• RING.COM/TWIT

Adobe has released an emergency update to address a critical security hole in its Flash Player browser plugin that is being actively exploited to deploy malicious software. If you’ve got Flash installed — and if you’re using Google Chrome or a recent version of Microsoft Windows you do — it’s time once again to make sure your copy of Flash is either patched, hobbled or removed.

In an advisory published today, Adobe said it is aware of a report that an exploit for the previously unknown Flash flaw — CVE-2018-5002 — exists in the wild, and “is being used in limited, targeted attacks against Windows users. These attacks leverage Microsoft Office documents with embedded malicious Flash Player content distributed via email.”

The vulnerable versions of Flash include v. 29.0.0.171 and earlier. The version of Flash released today brings the program to v. 30.0.0.113 for Windows, Mac, Linux and Chrome OS. Check out this link to detect the presence of Flash in your browser and the version number installed.

Both Internet Explorer/Edge on Windows 10 and Chrome should automatically prompt users to update Flash when newer versions are available. At the moment, however, I can’t see any signs yet that either Microsoft or Google has pushed out new updates to address the Flash flaw. I’ll update this post if that changes.

Adobe credits Chinese security firm Qihoo 360 with reporting the zero-day Flash flaw. Qihoo said in a blog post that the exploit was seen being used to target individuals and companies in Doha, Qatar, and is believed to be related to a nation-state backed cyber-espionage campaign that uses booby-trapped Office documents to deploy malware.

In February 2018, Adobe patched another zero-day Flash flaw that was tied to cyber espionage attacks launched by North Korean hackers.

Hopefully, most readers here have taken my longstanding advice to disable or at least hobble Flash, a buggy and insecure component that nonetheless ships by default with Google Chrome and Internet Explorer. More on that approach (as well as slightly less radical solutions) can be found in A Month Without Adobe Flash Player. The short version is that you can probably get by without Flash installed and not miss it at all.

For readers still unwilling to cut the Flash cord, there are half-measures that work almost as well. Fortunately, disabling Flash in Chrome is simple enough. Paste “chrome://settings/content” into a Chrome browser bar and then select “Flash” from the list of items. By default it should be set to “Ask first” before running Flash, although users also can disable Flash entirely here or whitelist/blacklist specific sites.

By default, Mozilla Firefox on Windows computers with Flash installed runs Flash in a “protected mode,” which prompts the user to decide if they want to enable the plugin before Flash content runs on a Web site.

Another, perhaps less elegant, alternative to wholesale kicking Flash to the curb is to keeping it installed in a browser that you don’t normally use, and then only using that browser on sites that require Flash.

Administrators have the ability to change Flash Player’s behavior when running on Internet Explorer on Windows 7 and below by prompting the user before playing Flash content. A guide on how to do that is here (PDF). Administrators may also consider implementing Protected View for Office. Protected View opens a file marked as potentially unsafe in Read-only mode.

Last month’s story about organizations exposing passwords and other sensitive data via collaborative online spaces at Trello.com only scratched the surface of the problem. A deeper dive suggests a large number of government agencies, marketing firms, healthcare organizations and IT support companies are publishing credentials via public Trello boards that quickly get indexed by the major search engines.

By default, Trello boards for both enterprise and personal use are set to either private (requires a password to view the content) or team-visible only (approved members of the collaboration team can view).

But individual users may be able to manually share personal boards that include personal or proprietary employer data, information that gets cataloged by Internet search engines and available to anyone with a Web browser.

David Shear is an analyst at Flashpoint, a New York City based threat intelligence company. Shear spent several weeks last month exploring the depths of sensitive data exposed on Trello. Amid his digging, Shear documented hundreds of public Trello boards that were exposing passwords and other sensitive information. KrebsOnSecurity worked with Shear to document and report these boards to Trello.

Shear said he’s amazed at the number of companies selling IT support services that are using Trello not only to store their own passwords, but even credentials to manage customer assets online.

“There’s a bunch of different IT shops using it to troubleshoot client requests, and to do updates to infrastructure,” Shear said. “We also found a Web development team that’s done a lot of work for various dental offices. You could see who all their clients were and see credentials for clients to log into their own sites. These are IT companies doing this. And they tracked it all via [public] Trello pages.”

One particularly jarring misstep came from someone working for Seceon, a Westford, Mass. cybersecurity firm that touts the ability to detect and stop data breaches in real time. But until a few weeks ago the Trello page for Seceon featured multiple usernames and passwords, including credentials to log in to the company’s WordPress blog and iPage domain hosting.

Credentials shared on Trello by an employee of Seceon, a cybersecurity firm.

Shear also found that a senior software engineer working for Red Hat Linux in October 2017 posted administrative credentials to two different servers apparently used to test new builds.

Credentials posted by a senior software engineer at Red Hat.

The Maricopa County Department of Public Health (MCDPH) in Arizona used public Trello boards to document a host of internal resources that are typically found behind corporate intranets, such as this board that aggregated information for new hires (including information about how to navigate the MCDPH’s payroll system):

The (now defunct) Trello page for the Maricopa County Department of Public Health.

Even federal health regulators have made privacy missteps with Trello. Shear’s sleuthing uncovered a public Trello page maintained by HealthIT.gov — the official Web site of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — that was leaking credentials.

There appear to be a great many marketers and realtors who are using public Trello boards as their personal password notepads. One of my favorites is a Trello page maintained by a “virtual assistant” who specializes in helping realtors find new clients and sales leads. Apparently, this person re-used her Trello account password somewhere else (and/or perhaps re-used it from a list of passwords available on her Trello page), and as a result someone added a “You hacked” card to the assistant’s Trello board, urging her to change the password.

One realtor from Austin, Texas who posted numerous passwords to her public Trello board apparently had her Twitter profile hijacked and defaced with a photo featuring a giant Nazi flag and assorted Nazi memorabilia. It’s not clear how the hijacker obtained her password, but it appears to have been on Trello for some time.

Other entities that inadvertently shared passwords for private resources via public Trello boards included a Chinese aviation authority; the International AIDS Society; and the global technology consulting and research firm Analysis Mason, which also exposed its Twitter account credentials on Trello until very recently.

Trello responded to this report by making private many of the boards referenced above; other reported boards appear to remain public, minus the sensitive information. Trello said it was working with Google and other search engine providers to have any cached copies of the exposed boards removed.

“We have put many safeguards in place to make sure that public boards are being created intentionally and have clear language around each privacy setting, as well as persistent visibility settings at the top of each board,” a Trello spokesperson told KrebsOnSecurity in response to this research. “With regard to the search-engine indexing, we are currently sending the correct HTTP response code to Google after a board is made private. This is an automated, immediate action that happens upon users making the change. But we are trying to see if we can speed up the time it takes Google to realize that some of the URLs are no longer available.”

If a Trello board is Team Visible it means any members of that team can view, join, and edit cards. If a board is Private, only members of that specific board can see it. If a board is Public, anyone with the link to the board can see it.

Flashpoint’s Shear said Trello should be making a more concerted effort to proactively find sensitive data exposed by its users. For example, Shear said Trello’s platform could perform some type of automated analysis that looks for specific keywords (like “password”) and if the page is public display a reminder to the board’s author about how to make the page private.

“They could easily do input validation on things like passwords if they’re not going to proactively search their own network for this stuff,” Shear said.

Trello co-founder Michael Pryor said the company was grateful for the suggestion and would consider it.

“We are looking at other cloud apps of our size and how they balance the vast majority of useful sharing of public info with helping people not make a mistake,” Pryor said. “We’ll continue to explore the topic and potential solutions, and appreciate the work you put into the list you shared with us.”

Shear said he doubts his finds even come close to revealing the true extent of the sensitive data organizations are exposing via misconfigured Trello boards. He added that even in cases where public Trello boards don’t expose passwords or financial data, the information that countless organizations publish to these boards can provide plenty of ammunition for phishers and cybercriminals looking to target specific entities.

“I don’t think we’ve even uncovered the real depth of what’s probably there,” he said. “I’d be surprised if someone isn’t at least trying to collect a bunch of user passwords and configuration files off lots of Trello accounts for bad guy operations.”

Update, 11:56 p.m. ET: Corrected location of MCDPH.

This week we discuss yesterday's further good privacy news from Apple, the continuation of VPNFilter, an extremely clever web browser cross-site information leakage side-channel attack, Microsoft Research's fork of OpenVPN for security in a post-quantum world, Microsoft drops the ball on a 0-day remote code execution vulnerability in JScript, Valve finally patches a longstanding and very potent RCE vulnerability, Redis caching servers continue to be in serious trouble, a previously patched IE 0-day continues to find victims, Google's latest Chrome browser has removed support for HTTP public key pinning (HPKP), and... what is "Certificate Transparency" and why do we need it?

We invite you to read our show notes.

Hosts: Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte

Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/security-now.

You can submit a question to Security Now! at the GRC Feedback Page.

For 16kbps versions, transcripts, and notes (including fixes), visit Steve's site: grc.com, also the home of the best disk maintenance and recovery utility ever written Spinrite 6.

Bandwidth for Security Now is provided by CacheFly.

Sponsors:

• FreshBooks.com/securitynow
• RocketMortgage.com/SecurityNow
• ITPro.TV/securitynow - use code: SN30

MyHeritage, an Israeli-based genealogy and DNA testing company, disclosed today that a security researcher found on the Internet a file containing the email addresses and hashed passwords of more than 92 million of its users.

MyHeritage says it has no reason to believe other user data was compromised, and it is urging all users to change their passwords. It says sensitive customer DNA data is stored on IT systems that are separate from its user database, and that user passwords were “hashed” — or churned through a mathematical model designed to turn them into unique pieces of gibberish text that is (in theory, at least) difficult to reverse.

MyHeritage did not say in its blog post which method it used to obfuscate user passwords, but suggested that it had added some uniqueness to each password (beyond the hashing) to make them all much harder to crack.

“MyHeritage does not store user passwords, but rather a one-way hash of each password, in which the hash key differs for each customer,” wrote Omer Deutsch, MyHeritage’s chief information security officer. “This means that anyone gaining access to the hashed passwords does not have the actual passwords.”

The company said the security researcher who found the user database reported it on Monday, June 4. The file contained the email addresses and hashed passwords of 92,283,889 users who created accounts at MyHeritage up to and including Oct. 26, 2017, which MyHeritage says was “the date of the breach.”

MyHeritage added that it is expediting work on an upcoming two-factor authentication option that the company plans to make available to all MyHeritage users soon.

“This will allow users interested in taking advantage of it, to authenticate themselves using a mobile device in addition to a password, which will further harden their MyHeritage accounts against illegitimate access,” the blog post concludes.

MyHeritage has not yet responded to requests for comment and clarification on several points. I will update this post if that changes.

MyHeritage’s repeated assurances that nothing related to user DNA ancestry tests and genealogy data was impacted by this incident are not reassuring. Much depends on the strength of the hashing routine used to obfuscate user passwords.

Thieves can use open-source tools to crack large numbers of passwords that are scrambled by weaker hashing algorithms (MD5 and SHA-1, e.g.) with very little effort. Passwords jumbled by more advanced hashing methods — such as Bcrypt — are typically far more difficult to crack, but I would expect any breach victim who was using Bcrypt to disclose this and point to it as a mitigating factor in a cybersecurity incident.

In its blog post, MyHeritage says it enabled a unique “hash key” for each user password. It seems likely the company is talking about adding random “salt” to each password, which can be a very effective method for blunting large-scale password cracking attacks (if implemented properly).

If indeed the MyHeritage user database was taken and stored by a malicious hacker (as opposed to inadvertently exposed by an employee), there is a good chance that the attackers will be trying to crack all user passwords. And if any of those passwords are crackable, the attackers will then of course get access to the more personal data on those users.

In light of this and the sensitivity of the data involved, it would seem prudent for MyHeritage to simply expire all existing passwords and force a password reset for all of users, instead of relying on them to do it themselves at some point (hopefully, before any attackers might figure out how to crack the user password hashes).

Finally, it’s astounding that 92 million+ users thought it was okay to protect such sensitive data with just a username and password. And that MyHeritage is only now getting around developing two-factor solutions.

It’s now 2018, and two-factor authentication is not a new security technology by any stretch. A word of advice: If a Web site you trust with sensitive personal or financial information doesn’t offer some form of multi-factor authentication, it’s time to shop around.

Check out twofactorauth.org, and compare how your bank, email, Web/cloud hosting or domain name provider stacks up against the competition. If you find a competitor with better security, consider moving your data and business there.

Every company (including MyHeritage) likes to say that “your privacy and the security of your data are our highest priority.” Maybe it’s time we stopped patronizing companies that don’t outwardly demonstrate that priority.

For more on MyHeritage, check out this March 2018 story in The Atlantic about how the company recently mapped out a 13-million person family tree.

• Apple's WWDC this week looks like it may be a disappointment for anyone hoping for new hardware.
• Facebook is killing its "Trending Topics" section.
• Teens prefer Instagram and Snapchat to Facebook; close to half are "almost constantly" online.
• The Atari VCS is coming soon for expensive retro gaming.
• Scooters and bikes are becoming a problem for San Francisco.
• The new emoji are coming!
• A Canadian Hacker gets 5 years for his part in the Russin-linked Yahoo breach.
• Microsoft is worth more than Google.
• Self-driving technology picks up speed as California ok's free autonomous taxis.

Host: Leo Laporte

Guests: Seth Weintraub, Larry Magid, and Greg Ferro

Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech

Bandwidth for This Week in Tech is provided by CacheFly.

Sponsors:

• casper.com/twit - promo code: TWIT
• RocketMortgage.com/TWiT2
• BLUEAPRON.COM/TWIT
• Moogsoft.com