-
Your Code is 0000: An Analysis of the Disposable Phone Numbers Ecosystem
Authors:
José Miguel Moreno,
Srdjan Matic,
Narseo Vallina-Rodriguez,
Juan Tapiador
Abstract:
Short Message Service (SMS) is a popular channel for online service providers to verify accounts and authenticate users registered to a particular service. Specialized applications, called Public SMS Gateways (PSGs), offer free Disposable Phone Numbers (DPNs) that can be used to receive SMS messages. DPNs allow users to protect their privacy when creating online accounts. However, they can also be…
▽ More
Short Message Service (SMS) is a popular channel for online service providers to verify accounts and authenticate users registered to a particular service. Specialized applications, called Public SMS Gateways (PSGs), offer free Disposable Phone Numbers (DPNs) that can be used to receive SMS messages. DPNs allow users to protect their privacy when creating online accounts. However, they can also be abused for fraudulent activities and to bypass security mechanisms like Two-Factor Authentication (2FA). In this paper, we perform a large-scale and longitudinal study of the DPN ecosystem by monitoring 17,141 unique DPNs in 29 PSGs over the course of 12 months. Using a dataset of over 70M messages, we provide an overview of the ecosystem and study the different services that offer DPNs and their relationships. Next, we build a framework that (i) identifies and classifies the purpose of an SMS; and (ii) accurately attributes every message to more than 200 popular Internet services that require SMS for creating registered accounts. Our results indicate that the DPN ecosystem is globally used to support fraudulent account creation and access, and that this issue is ubiquitous and affects all major Internet platforms and specialized online services.
△ Less
Submitted 26 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
-
Deep Dive into the IoT Backend Ecosystem
Authors:
Said Jawad Saidi,
Srdjan Matic,
Oliver Gasser,
Georgios Smaragdakis,
Anja Feldmann
Abstract:
Internet of Things (IoT) devices are becoming increasingly ubiquitous, e.g., at home, in enterprise environments, and in production lines. To support the advanced functionalities of IoT devices, IoT vendors as well as service and cloud companies operate IoT backends -- the focus of this paper. We propose a methodology to identify and locate them by (a) compiling a list of domains used exclusively…
▽ More
Internet of Things (IoT) devices are becoming increasingly ubiquitous, e.g., at home, in enterprise environments, and in production lines. To support the advanced functionalities of IoT devices, IoT vendors as well as service and cloud companies operate IoT backends -- the focus of this paper. We propose a methodology to identify and locate them by (a) compiling a list of domains used exclusively by major IoT backend providers and (b) then identifying their server IP addresses. We rely on multiple sources, including IoT backend provider documentation, passive DNS data, and active scanning. For analyzing IoT traffic patterns, we rely on passive network flows from a major European ISP.
Our analysis focuses on the top IoT backends and unveils diverse operational strategies -- from operating their own infrastructure to utilizing the public cloud. We find that the majority of the top IoT backend providers are located in multiple locations and countries. Still, a handful are located only in one country, which could raise regulatory scrutiny as the client IoT devices are located in other regions. Indeed, our analysis shows that up to 35% of IoT traffic is exchanged with IoT backend servers located in other continents. We also find that at least six of the top IoT backends rely on other IoT backend providers. We also evaluate if cascading effects among the IoT backend providers are possible in the event of an outage, a misconfiguration, or an attack.
△ Less
Submitted 20 September, 2022;
originally announced September 2022.
-
The Rise of GoodFATR: A Novel Accuracy Comparison Methodology for Indicator Extraction Tools
Authors:
Juan Caballero,
Gibran Gomez,
Srdjan Matic,
Gustavo Sánchez,
Silvia Sebastián,
Arturo Villacañas
Abstract:
To adapt to a constantly evolving landscape of cyber threats, organizations actively need to collect Indicators of Compromise (IOCs), i.e., forensic artifacts that signal that a host or network might have been compromised. IOCs can be collected through open-source and commercial structured IOC feeds. But, they can also be extracted from a myriad of unstructured threat reports written in natural la…
▽ More
To adapt to a constantly evolving landscape of cyber threats, organizations actively need to collect Indicators of Compromise (IOCs), i.e., forensic artifacts that signal that a host or network might have been compromised. IOCs can be collected through open-source and commercial structured IOC feeds. But, they can also be extracted from a myriad of unstructured threat reports written in natural language and distributed using a wide array of sources such as blogs and social media. There exist multiple indicator extraction tools that can identify IOCs in natural language reports. But, it is hard to compare their accuracy due to the difficulty of building large ground truth datasets. This work presents a novel majority vote methodology for comparing the accuracy of indicator extraction tools, which does not require a manually-built ground truth. We implement our methodology into GoodFATR, an automated platform for collecting threat reports from a wealth of sources, extracting IOCs from the collected reports using multiple tools, and comparing their accuracy.
GoodFATR supports 6 threat report sources: RSS, Twitter, Telegram, Malpedia, APTnotes, and ChainSmith. GoodFATR continuously monitors the sources, downloads new threat reports, extracts 41 indicator types from the collected reports, and filters non-malicious indicators to output the IOCs. We run GoodFATR over 15 months to collect 472,891 reports from the 6 sources; extract 978,151 indicators from the reports; and identify 618,217 IOCs. We analyze the collected data to identify the top IOC contributors and the IOC class distribution. We apply GoodFATR to compare the IOC extraction accuracy of 7 popular open-source tools with GoodFATR's own indicator extraction module.
△ Less
Submitted 8 March, 2023; v1 submitted 29 July, 2022;
originally announced August 2022.
-
Pythia: a Framework for the Automated Analysis of Web Hosting Environments
Authors:
Srdjan Matic,
Gareth Tyson,
Gianluca Stringhini
Abstract:
A common approach when setting up a website is to utilize third party Web hosting and content delivery networks. Without taking this trend into account, any measurement study inspecting the deployment and operation of websites can be heavily skewed. Unfortunately, the research community lacks generalizable tools that can be used to identify how and where a given website is hosted. Instead, a numbe…
▽ More
A common approach when setting up a website is to utilize third party Web hosting and content delivery networks. Without taking this trend into account, any measurement study inspecting the deployment and operation of websites can be heavily skewed. Unfortunately, the research community lacks generalizable tools that can be used to identify how and where a given website is hosted. Instead, a number of ad hoc techniques have emerged, e.g., using Autonomous System databases, domain prefixes for CNAME records. In this work we propose Pythia, a novel lightweight approach for identifying Web content hosted on third-party infrastructures, including both traditional Web hosts and content delivery networks. Our framework identifies the organization to which a given Web page belongs, and it detects which Web servers are self-hosted and which ones leverage third-party services to provide contents. To test our framework we run it on 40,000 URLs and evaluate its accuracy, both by comparing the results with similar services and with a manually validated groundtruth. Our tool achieves an accuracy of 90% and detects that under 11% of popular domains are self-hosted. We publicly release our tool to allow other researchers to reproduce our findings, and to apply it to their own studies.
△ Less
Submitted 13 May, 2019; v1 submitted 16 March, 2019;
originally announced March 2019.
