Can you tell a good URL from a bad one?
Look at these three URLs: www.accountonline.com, www.democratic-party.us, www.wachovia.pin-update.com.
Can you tell which (if any) correspond to legitimate service providers? Do you think the average Internet user can tell, too?
In fact, most people have no idea how to tell a good URL from a bad one. A recent Indiana University study I co-authored with Jacob Ratkiewicz (download PDF) showed that Internet users are not the least suspicious of so-called cousin-name domains. A cousin-name domain is a URL like www.democratic-party.us that is "semantically correct" - in this case it makes it look like it should belong to the Democratic Party. The study also showed that most people do not identify sub-domain attacks in which the subdomain is used to semantically defraud -- like www.wachovia.pin-update.com has nothing to do with Wachovia.
Part of the problem is that people are people, not string matching machines. We are just not very good at remembering things verbatim, but we are pretty good at making sense of cues - which is what gets us into trouble. But that's not all. The problem is made worse by companies that register and use domains that have nothing in particular to do with their brand. Like www.accountonline.com, which belongs to CitiBank and is used to access credit card accounts. Why not use the regular citibank.com domain? Or at least citicards.com? Now, CitiBank is not the only financial institution that uses weird domains ... unfortunately, this is the rule rather than the exception.
What should we conclude from this? First of all, phishers and crimeware authors will make increasing use of deceptive domain names. This means that blacklisting will become less and less meaningful and that we will have to rely on whitelisting, heuristics, and our own ability to be careful. Not a happy thought.
What do we need to do? First of all, we need to educate our users (see www.SecurityCartoon.com and http://cups.cs.cmu.edu/antiphishing_phil/ for two lighthearted approaches). Second, service provides need to think about what domains they use and how any inconsistencies may come back to haunt them. And third, we need to develop tools that recognize what people can and cannot do.
Sign up for ITworld's Daily newsletter
Follow ITworld on Twitter @IT_world
Esther Schindler
If the comments are ugly, the code is ugly
claird
SVG a graphics format for 21st century
pasmith
Take Chrome OS for a test spin
Sandra Henry-Stocker
Solaris Tip: Have Your Files Changed Since Installation?
jfruh
Android fragments vs. the iPhone monolith
mikelgan
What Gizmodo missed about the Pro WX Wireless USB disk drive
Sidekick: The Good News & the Bad News
Either way you look at it Microsoft Data Center management did not follow standards or best practices in this failure. In which case it makes me wonder more about the outsourcing of corporate data much less personal data.
- mburton325
Join the conversation here
Quick, practical advice for IT pros. Made fresh daily.
Want to cash in on your IT savvy? Send your tip to tips@itworld.com. If we post it, we'll send you a $25 Amazon e-gift card.
I have seen a few fraudulent
I have seen a few fraudulent spammers and other would be thieves use such domain names to try and fool web site visitors and have learned to be wary of such sites. I try to look over the domain name of the site that I am visiting very carefully. If the root domain (the far right domain) does not match the institution that I think I should be visiting than I am skeptical as to the validity of the site I have landed on as to whether it is legitimate. Also I am generally cautious to check the security certificate of encrypted sites that I am visiting to ensure that it comes from a known source and is for the organization, whose web site I intend to be visiting.The University that I have attended for the past few years used such a domain for bill pay emails that they sent out, which prompted me to call their finance department to verify that the email was legitimate. Speaking of Educational institutions I scrutinize all emails claiming to be originating from the University and if the domain name does not end in .edu I am suspicious. In reality the university in question appears to have sent a few emails out that ended in .com that were legitimate.
As for the article written by Markus Jakobsson I would hazard to guess that none of the URL's mentioned in the article are legitimate.
James D.
Educating ourselves and
Educating ourselves and using the right online tools are key to preventing phishing attacks.I work for Passpack
which is an online password manager and we are always trying to stress the importance of security on web.
Passpack lets you store the root of all sensitive information - you passwords.
It is the only online password manager with anti-phishing and with its auto-login feature you will only be logged into sites that are in your Passpack account - ensuring that the URL address is legit.
I wrote a post back in April on the Anti-Phishing Phil game. It's a great way to get people more aware of the seriousness of online security.
Louise
James, From what you are
James,From what you are writing, you are more knowledgeable than the average user. Most people do not know how to evaluate a URL (for a 30-second tutorial, see http://www.securitycartoon.com/index.php?comic=20070621)
But as for the URLs I listed ... one of them is legitimate. The accountonline.com. The other two could have belonged to phishers. They actually do not, they belong to me. I registered them to demonstrate how a phisher could have taken them.
Cheers,
Markus