查看: 1740|回复: 3


发表于 2012-6-23 23:41:35 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
                                What do hackers do with your password?
The news on Wednesday sounded like the setup for a lame Silicon Valley joke. Russian hackers stole 6 million passwords from LinkedIn. Did they mistranslate “world’s largest professional network” as “professional network that people actually use”? Where will they strike next, Google+? What are they going to do now that they’ve hacked all of those accounts, sell a bunch of résumés on the black market? Use your contact list to spam you with even more LinkedIn email invitations than you already get?
Amid the yawns and derision, one small group of people took the LinkedIn breach very seriously: security experts.
The answers to the facetious questions above are, in all probability, no, no, yes, and yes. No, the Russian hackers aren’t stupid, and they don’t care whether you actually use LinkedIn or not. No, they did not strike next at Google—too secure—but at the massively popular dating site eHarmony. Yes, stealing résumés and other personal information is almost certainly part of the plan, and a potential gold mine at that. And yes, sending you bogus emails that appear to be from people you know is one of the main ways they’ll hook you. It’s a lot more effective than sending emails from someone posing as a Nigerian prince.
The full dimensions of the breach are not yet clear. LinkedIn and eHarmony have not been particularly forthcoming about when and how it happened, perhaps because even they don’t know all the details yet. But computer security types are becoming increasingly convinced that the attack was more complex and sinister than the companies initially made it seem.
The bottom line: If you have a LinkedIn or eHarmony account, you should be concerned. And if you use the same password for other sites—particularly sensitive ones such as PayPal or Facebook—you should be very concerned. If you fall into either of those categories, you should go change your passwords immediately. (Well, you should finish reading this article first. But then go change those passwords!)
The first reports about the breach indicated that some 6.5 million LinkedIn user passwords had been published online, but without the email addresses needed to tie them to individual accounts. That sounded reassuring but raised a bunch of questions: Why would hackers post people’s passwords on an Internet forum for all to see? How could those passwords be used once they became public? And if your password wasn’t among those “cracked and leaked, ” did that mean you were safe?
Security experts have arrived at a surprising hypothesis: The hackers may have posted the passwords online because they needed the public’s help cracking some of them. If yours isn’t among those publicized, it may mean you’re not safe at all—it’s possible the hackers already figured out your password on their own. If that theory is true, that might also explain why no emails or other personal information was posted. Not because they don’t have it but because they’re keeping it to themselves, possibly with the intent of selling it to criminal hackers on the black market.
The majority of systematic security breaches, according to Symantec’s Marian Merritt, are orchestrated by criminal gangs with a profit motive. A smaller number are the work of “hacktivist” groups such as Anonymous or LulzSec whose main goal is to embarrass, expose, thwart, or intimidate their targets, often large corporations that run afoul of the hackers’ ideology. The LinkedIn breach bore a passing resemblance to past LulzSec hacks, including one that compromised the personal information of 1 million Sony users last summer. But no hacktivists have claimed responsibility, and the fact that the data were first posted on a Russian forum dedicated to password decryption suggests that publicity was a by-product of this attack, not its main intent.
So how exactly do cyber-crooks use these passwords once they have them? There are multiple potential uses, explains Chester Wisniewski, senior security adviser for data security firm Sophos. For hackers around the world, the huge trove of new leaked passwords is an opportunity to update their “rainbow tables”—vast databases that serve as a digital key for cracking encrypted passwords, called “hashes.” The most-secure websites use an extra layer of password encryption, called “salting, ” so that two users with the same password—say, “123456”—will have different hashes. But LinkedIn didn’t do that, so the same key will unlock the accounts of every user who has that password, not only on LinkedIn but on any other site that uses the same hashing algorithm. (eHarmony apparently used an even weaker algorithm, also sans salt.)
If the hackers have people’s email addresses as well as their passwords—and most security analysts suspect they do—the information can also be used to target LinkedIn and eHarmony users directly. One of the first things crooks will do is run software that will try out the same email/password combinations on other sites, to see if they can get into people’s financial or social media accounts.
The personal information available on users’ LinkedIn accounts could also be ideal for a type of targeted attack known as “spear phishing.” The idea behind spear phishing is to lure someone into downloading malware or divulging sensitive information by sending them an email that looks legitimate, says Marcus Carey, a former security analyst for the National Security Agency who now works as a researcher for the cybersecurity firm Rapid7. Such a message might appear to be from a boss or colleague, or it might be designed to look like an email they have to respond to in the course of their work, like a request for a quote on a particular service. Because it doesn’t look like spam, the target’s guard is down.
Spear phishing requires care and individual attention on the cyber-criminal’s part, so it’s only worth trying on high-value targets—like the professionals and executives who make up the core of LinkedIn’s membership.
There’s one more type of phishing that almost always accompanies attacks like the LinkedIn and eHarmony breaches, and in some ways it’s the most devious. Internet mischief-makers know that lots of people will read articles like this and decide it’s time to change their passwords. The right way to do it is to go directly to the LinkedIn or eHarmony site. The wrong way is to click through a link in an official-looking email that sends you to an official-looking website with instructions on how to reset your account. If the hackers didn’t have your password before, they certainly will once you’ve dutifully entered a new one in the form they provide. Don’t be fooled. It’s bad enough to get your password hacked. It’s worse when you do it to yourself.
 楼主| 发表于 2012-6-23 23:42:43 | 显示全部楼层
周三的新闻听起来像是标准的硅谷冷笑话。俄罗斯黑客窃取了600万LinkedIn账户密码。难道他们把“世界上最大的职业网络”误翻成了“大家都在用的职业网络”?他们下一步要黑哪一家,谷歌+么?窃取这些账户之后,他们还打算干嘛,到黑市上卖简历吗?嫌LinkedIn邀请注册邮件还不够多,所以要利用联系人列表来发垃圾邮件么?     漠不关心者有之,冷嘲热讽者有之,但是还有一小掇人高度重视这次LinkedIn被攻击事件:安全专家。
    赛门铁克专家马里安·梅里特(Marian Merritt)称,有组织的黑客攻击大多是由犯罪团伙策划的,意在谋财。其次是“黑客活跃分子”组织所为,比如“匿名(Anonymous)”和“LulzSec”。这些团伙的主要目标是恶心、揭露、阻遏以及恐吓他们的攻击目标,主要与黑客意识形态格格不入的大公司。攻击LinkedIn的手法跟LulzSec有相似之处,比如去年夏天索尼公司100万用户个人信息失窃。不过,没有任何黑客活跃分子声称对此事负责,而且这些数据最先公布在俄罗斯专注于密码破解论坛的事实表明,公开密码只是此番攻击的副产品,而决不是主要目标。
    这些网络骗子拿到密码想干什么呢?数据安全企业Sophos的高级安全顾问切斯特·维斯涅夫斯基(Chester Wisniewski)说,用途很多。对于全世界的黑客来说,大批量泄漏的密码正好可以拿来更新他们所谓的“彩虹表(rainbow table)”——巨大的数据库,可作为破解加密密码的数字钥匙,称之为“哈希(Hash)”。最安全的网站使用另一层密码加密,称之为“放盐(salting)”,如此一来,同样是用了“123456”这串密码,两个用户的哈希是不一样的。可是LinkedIn没有这样做,结果就是同样的钥匙可以解锁一大批使用同一个密码串的用户,此法不仅可以用在LinkedIn上,还可以用在采取同一种哈希算法的网站上。(一派和谐的算法甚至更弱,同样没有“放盐”。)
    LinkedIn账号上的个人信息也是某种网络攻击的理想目标,称之为“鱼叉式网络钓鱼(spear phishing)”。前国家安全局安全分析师马库斯·卡雷(Marcus Carey)说,钓鱼者的如意算盘是引诱他人下载流氓软件或者通过发送貌似正常的邮件让收件人泄露敏感信息。马库斯如今是网络安全企业快7(Rapid7)的研究员。这些消息看上去是老板或者同事发来的,或者伪装成一封与用户业务相关的电子邮件,比如要求报价或者特定服务。由于这类邮件不像是垃圾邮件,攻击目标往往会放松警惕。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

发表于 2012-6-24 10:28:53 | 显示全部楼层
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2012-6-24 12:00:06 | 显示全部楼层
ahcheqiu 发表于 2012-6-24 10:28

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册


小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|免责声明|更新日记|云麓团队 ( 湘ICP备05005659  

GMT+8, 2018-7-23 18:11 , Processed in 0.068254 second(s), 21 queries , Memcache On.

Powered by Discuz! X3.2

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表