Jul 13 2022

The weaponizing of smartphone location data on the battlefield

Category: Smart PhoneDISC @ 8:40 am

How smartphone location data is obtained

For a country at war, monitoring the cellular networks in the conflict zone provides the most comprehensive view of mobile device activity. But before the conflict even begins, the nation can identify phones of interest, including the devices belonging to soldiers.

Because mobile app location data is often sold to commercial data brokers and then repackaged and sold to individual customers, a country can access such a database and then pick out the phones likely belonging to soldiers. Such devices will ping regularly in the locations of known bases or other military facilities. It’s even possible to identify the owner of a device by tracking the phone to its home address and then referencing publicly available information.

A country can also use information obtained from one or more data breaches to inform their devices of interest. The T-Mobile breach in 2021 demonstrated how much customer data is in the hands of a mobile operator, including a phone’s unique identifier (IMEI) and its SIM card’s identifier (IMSI).

Spies can also physically monitor known military sites and use devices known as IMSI catchers – essentially fake cell towers – to collect phone data from the phones in the vicinity. The Kremlin reportedly did this in the UK, with GRU officers gathering near some of the UK’s most sensitive military sites.

When a phone of interest appears on the monitored mobile network, the country can keep a close eye on the device’s location and other cellular data. The presence of two or more such devices in close proximity indicates that a mission may be taking place.

In addition to monitoring cell networks, a nation at war can utilize IMSI catchers on the battlefield to gather phone data for the purposes of locating and identifying devices. Location can be determined by triangulating signal strengths from nearby cell towers or by pinging a targeted device’s GPS system. Russia’s Leer-3 electronic warfare system, which consists of two drones containing IMSI catchers along with a command truck, can locate up to 2,000 phones within a 3.7-mile range.

To counter these location-finding drones, an opposing nation may jam a drone’s GPS signal, using a radio emitter to block the drone from receiving GPS signals. The country can also try GPS spoofing, employing a radio transmitter to corrupt the accuracy of the drone’s reported location. To counter such spoofing, systems for validating GPS signals have been deployed on the battlefield. In the larger picture, the corruptibility of GPS data has forced some nations to build their own geopositioning systems. For the US, M-Code serves as a military-only GPS signal that is both more accurate and provides anti-jamming and anti-spoofing capabilities.

Spyware is a more targeted approach to obtaining location data. It can be delivered over the cell network (via a malicious carrier update) or through an IMSI catcher. It’s also not uncommon for operators to pose as single women on social media sites to lure soldiers into downloading a malicious app. Hamas has reportedly used this tactic many times against Israeli soldiers. Such spyware can capture a device’s real-time location, among other capabilities.

The risks of captured smartphone location data

location services

Cell Phone Location Evidence for Legal Professionals: Understanding Cell Phone Location Evidence from the Warrant to the Courtroom

Are Smartphones a Threat to Privacy?

Location, health, and other sensitive information: FTC committed to fully enforcing the law against illegal use and sharing of highly sensitive data

DISC InfoSec

#InfoSecTools and #InfoSectraining

#InfoSecLatestTitles

#InfoSecServices

Ask DISC an InfoSec & compliance related question

Tags: FTC, location data, smartphone location data


Oct 27 2021

FTC: ISPs are Spying on You. ISPs: Deal With It.

Category: Cyber surveillanceDISC @ 10:09 pm

Your internet service provider snoops on your browsing habits, records them and sells you—the product—to the highest bidder. So says the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in a new report.

Are you surprised? Did you really think your ISP has your best interests at heart? This is the same company that overcharges you for a slow, unreliable service. And it barely competes for your business, because there’s no alternative in your market.

Privacy is dead. In today’s SB Blogwatch, we mourn its passing.

Your humble blogwatcher curated these bloggy bits for your entertainment. Not to mention: Animated postcards.

Ghost of Privacy

What’s the craic? Tonya Riley reports—“Internet providers fail to inform Americans about how they use sensitive data for advertising”:

Difficult for consumers to opt out”
Internet service providers fail to disclose to consumers how they use sensitive data, obscure privacy practices and make it difficult to opt-out of collection, according to … the Federal Trade Commission. [It] comes as the agency weighs pursuing a privacy rule-making process as Congress dithers on passing a federal privacy law.
…
The key takeaways offer a scathing view of the industry’s privacy practices as a whole. … Common collection practices across many of the ISPs included gathering data that wasn’t necessary to provide internet services, as well as using web browsing data to serve up specific advertisements. … Numerous ISPs also shared real-time location data with third parties, allowing third parties to garner sensitive details about an individual’s life, such as if they visit a rehab or where their children go to daycare.
…
Crucially, FTC staff found that ISPs made it both difficult for consumers to opt out of data collection [and] to find out what ISPs had collected on them. FTC Chair Lina Khan said that the report raised the need to consider “a new paradigm” when it comes to how consumers can consent to data collection.

Tags: FTC, ISPs are Spying on You, Spying


Jul 10 2010

FTC Says Scammers Stole Millions, Using Virtual Companies

Category: CybercrimeDISC @ 11:23 pm
Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...
Image via Wikipedia

100% Internet Credit Card Fraud Protected

by Robert McMillan
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has disrupted a long-running online scam that allowed offshore fraudsters to steal millions of dollars from U.S. consumers — often by taking just pennies at a time.

The scam, which had been run for about four years, according to the FTC, provides a case lesson in how many of the online services used to lubricate business in the 21st century can equally be misused for fraud.

“It was a very patient scam,” said Steve Wernikoff, a staff attorney with the FTC who is prosecuting the case. “The people who are behind this are very meticulous.”

The FTC has not identified those responsible for the fraud, but in March, it quietly filed a civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Illinois. This has frozen the gang’s U.S. assets and also allowed the FTC to shut down merchant accounts and 14 “money mules” — U.S. residents recruited by the criminals to move money offshore to countries such as Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Estonia.

“We’re going to aggressively seek to identify the ultimate masterminds behind this scheme,” Wernikoff said. According to him, the scammers found loopholes in the credit card processing system that allowed them to set up fake U.S. companies that then ran more than a million phony credit card transactions through legitimate credit card processing companies.

Wernikoff doesn’t know where the scammers obtained the credit card numbers they charged, but they could have been purchased from online carder forums, black market Web sites where criminal buy and sell stolen information.

Small Thefts Overlooked

The scammers stayed under the radar by charging very small amounts — typically between $0.25 and $9 per card — and by setting up more than 100 bogus companies to process the transactions.

U.S. consumers footed most of the bill for the scam because, amazingly, about 94 percent of all charges went uncontested by the victims. According to the FTC, the fraudsters charged 1.35 million credit cards a total of $9.5 million, but only 78,724 of these fake charges were ever noticed. Typically they floated just one charge per card number, billing on behalf of made-up business names such as Adele Services or Bartelca LLC.

As credit cards are increasingly being used for inexpensive purchases — they’re now accepted by soda machines and parking meters — criminals have cashed in on the trend by running this type of unauthorized charging scam.

“They know that most of the fraud detection systems won’t detect anything under $10 and they know that consumers won’t complain about a 20 cent fee,” said Avivah Litan, an analyst with the Gartner research firm who follows bank fraud. “What’s different here is the scale, and that they got away with it for so many years,” she said.

Similar Cases Show Trend

In March Alexsandr Bernik of Roseville, California, was sentenced to 70 months in prison for running a similar scam. He put tens of thousands of charges on Amex accounts, each ranging from $9 to $15. Neither federal authorities nor American Express would explain how Bernik obtained his card numbers.

Bernik made his charges on behalf of a fictional corporation called Lexbay Ltd., but in the FTC case, the scammers would mimic legitimate companies — taking real federal tax I.D. numbers and then setting up fake businesses with nearly identical names that appeared to be located nearby. In a move that apparently tricked credit card processors into granting it a merchant account, Adele Services, for example, was set up to mimic a legitimate Bronx, New York group called Adele Organization.

When the scammers tried to register merchant accounts with credit card processors, the processors would do some investigating, but using tricks like these, the scammers were always one step ahead.

In fact, the FTC’s description of their operation reads like a textbook on how to set up a fake virtual corporation in the Internet age.

The criminals used a range of legitimate business services to make it appear to credit card processors as though they were legitimate U.S. companies, even though the scammers may have never set foot in the U.S.

For example, using a company called Regus, they were able to give their fictional companies addresses that were very close to the companies whose tax IDs they were stealing. Regus lets companies operate “virtual offices” out of a number of prestigious addresses throughout the U.S. — the Chrysler Building in New York for example — forwarding mail for as little as US$59 per month.

Mail sent to Regus locations was then forwarded to another company, called Earth Class Mail, which scans correspondence and uses the Internet to deliver it to customers in pdf format.

They used another legitimate virtual business service — United World Telecom’s CallMe800 — to have phone calls forwarded overseas. To further make it seem as though their companies were legitimate, the scammers would set up fake retail Web sites. And when credit card processors asked them to provide information about company executives, they handed over legitimate names and social security numbers, stolen from ID theft victims.

When they had to log into payment processor Web sites, they would do this from IP addresses that were located near their virtual offices, again evading payment processor fraud detection services.

One of the largest payment processors in the U.S., First Data, was a favorite of the scammers. Of the 116 fake merchant accounts the FTC uncovered, 110 were with First Data. The scammers also set up bogus accounts with Elavon and BBVA Compass.

First Data would not comment on the measures it had taken to improve its merchant vetting process, but the company did confirm that it cooperated with the FTC investigation.

Aided by ‘Mules’

To get the money out of the U.S., the scammers had to recruit money mules. These were U.S. residents who were recruited online, often with spam e-mail messages. Under the impression that they were helping offshore businesses, the money mules set up bank accounts and helped the fraudsters move money offshore.

In a letter to the judge presiding over the case, one of the mules, James P. Smith of Brownwood, Texas, says he worked for one of the scammers for four years without realizing that anything illegal was going on. Smith now says he is “ashamed” to be named in the FTC action, and offers to help catch his former boss, who used the name Alex Moore.

The FTC’s Wernikoff believes that whoever is responsible for this crime lives outside of the U.S., but with the money-cashing operation now busted up, the scammers will have to start again from scratch, if they want to keep bilking consumers. And criminal investigators now have a trail to follow.

“Does it prevent the people from ultimately responsible from building up again from scratch?” he asked. “No. But we do hope that this serously disrupts them.”.




Tags: American Express, Business, Credit card, Federal Trade Commission, First Data, fraud, FTC, United States


Oct 26 2009

ChoicePoint fined for security breach

Category: Security BreachDISC @ 1:10 pm

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...
Image via Wikipedia

Into The Breach; Protect Your Business by Managing People,

Atlanta Business Chronicle reported on Monday, October 26, 2009 that ChoicePoint Inc. will pay federal regulators $275,000 for a data breach in 2008 that compromised the personal information of 13,750 people and put them at risk of identify theft, the Federal Trade Commission reported.

The company, now owned by Reed Elsevier Inc., also agreed to strengthened data security requirements. ChoicePoint now must report to the FTC every two months for two years detailed information about how it is protecting the breached database and certain other databases and records containing personal information.

The moves settle Federal Trade Commission charges ChoicePoint failed to implement a comprehensive information security program protecting consumers’ sensitive information, as required by a previous court order.

In April 2008, ChoicePoint turned off a key electronic security tool used to monitor access to one of its databases, and for four months failed to detect that the security tool was off, according to the FTC. During that period, an unknown person conducted unauthorized searches of a ChoicePoint database containing sensitive consumer information, including Social Security numbers. The searches continued for 30 days. After discovering the breach, the company brought the matter to the FTC’s attention.

The FTC alleged that if the security software tool had been working, ChoicePoint likely would have detected the intrusions much earlier and minimized the extent of the breach. The FTC also claimed ChoicePoint’s conduct violated a 2006 court order mandating that the company institute a comprehensive information security program reasonably designed to protect consumers’ sensitive personal information.

The FTC’s prior action against ChoicePoint involved a data breach in 2005, which compromised the personal information of more than 163,000 consumers and resulted in at least 800 cases of identity theft. The settlement and resulting 2006 court order in that case required the company to pay $10 million in civil penalties and $5 million in consumer redress.

Choice Point Victim
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90qWVtAuE_A

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]




Tags: ChoicePoint, Choicepoint breach, ChoicePoint fined, Federal Trade Commission, FTC, Identity Theft, Reed Elsevier, Security Breach, social security, Social Security number