Re: FV's blatant double standards

[John Pettitt <jpp@software.net>]

At 06:34 AM 2/6/96 -0500, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:

>1.  He doesn't explain how he's going to spot the VirtualPIN in the
>outgoing stream.  Given the non-structured nature of the VirtualPIN,
>this alone probably requires more sophistication than our entire attack
>program.
>
>2.  He acknowledges that this approach will miss anyone who isn't buying
>things from the machine that actually composes his mail messages.  What
>he doesn't seem to realize, however, is that this means that any
>automated attack will cause "fraud" to be called as soon as it hits a
>user of AOL, Compuserve, etc.  Jeff's approach would last a bit longer,
>but is also vulnerable to heterogeneous mail environments.  The real
>point is that an automated attack like this one is undermined by email
>heterogeneity, which will cause FV's fraud department to be alerted
>quite quickly & trace things down.  In contrast, the attack we've
>outlined on credit card numbers is simple, single-step, and has no
>obvious "misfiring path" that would lead to quick detection.  It could
>do its dirty work for a long time.  
>
>
You missed my point.

1) hook into the winsock and look for an FV message in the web data stream,
save the ID.

2) now look for an approve/deny/fraud, when you see one you know that the
user uses an IP connection for mail and web.

3) only now does the attack begin.

The attack does not trigger until it *knows* that both FV orders and
confirms are moving via winsock - I.E. it does not report back the FV ID of
the victim until it sees the victim use FV and *knows* it can intercept the
reply.  The key  here is not breaking all cases just a significant number
and not setting off too many alarms.

This significantly lowers the fraud detection risk, now the fraud does not
get noticed until the card statement shows up, the same as with a card
number snooping attack.

Yes it will miss a large group of FV customers who use AOL, CI$ etc
(although a similar hook in the common serial port code on Win95 could catch
most of them).

The basic point is if the achine is not secure then no data on it is either.


John Pettitt, jpp@software.net
VP Engineering, CyberSource Corporation, 415 473 3065
 "Technology is a way of organizing the universe so that man
  doesn't have to experience it." - Max Frisch