Project Cumulus Tracks Stolen Credentials
April 26, 2016
Ever wonder how far stolen information can go on the Dark Web? If so, check out “Project Cumulus—Tracking Fake Phished Credentials Leaked to Dark Web” at Security Affairs. Researchers at Bitglass baited the hook and tracked the mock data. Writer Pierluigi Paganini explains:
“The researchers created a fake identity for employees of a ghostly retail bank, along with a functional web portal for the financial institution, and a Google Drive account. The experts also associated the identities with real credit-card data, then leaked ‘phished’ Google Apps credentials to the Dark Web and tracked the activity on these accounts. The results were intriguing, the leaked data were accessed in 30 countries across six continents in just two weeks. Leaked data were viewed more than 1,000 times and downloaded 47 times, in just 24 hours the experts observed three Google Drive login attempts and five bank login attempts. Within 48 hours of the initial leak, files were downloaded, and the account was viewed hundreds of times over the course of a month, with many hackers successfully accessing the victim’s other online accounts.”
Yikes. A few other interesting Project Cumulus findings: More than 1400 hackers viewed the credentials; one tenth of those tried to log into the faux-bank’s web portal; and 68% of the hackers accessed Google Drive through the Tor network. See the article for more details. Paganini concludes with a reminder to avoid reusing login credentials, especially now that we see just how far stolen credentials can quickly travel.
Cynthia Murrell, April 26, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Searching Google Drive Is Easier than Ever
December 29, 2015
Google search is supposed to be the most reliable and accurate search, so by proxy Google Drive should be easy to search as well, right? Wrong! Google Drive is like a cartoon black hole. It has an undisclosed amount of space and things easily get lost in it. Fear not, Google Drive users for Tech Republic has posted a nifty guide on how to use Google Drive’s search and locate your lost spreadsheets and documents: “Pro Tip: How To Use Google Drive’s New And Improved Search.”
Google drive can now be searched with more options: owner, keywords. Item name, shared with, date modified, file type, and located in. The article explains the quickest way to search Google Drive is with the standard wildcard. It is the search filter where you add an asterisk to any of the listed search types and viola, the search results list all viable options. The second method is described as the most powerful option, because it is brand new advanced search feature. By clicking on the drop down arrow box in the search box, you can access filters to limit or expand your search results.
“For anyone who depends upon Google Drive to store and manage their data, the new search tool will be a major plus. No longer will you have to dig through a vast array of search results to find what you’re looking for. Narrow the field down with the new Drive search box.”
The new search features are pretty neat, albeit standard for most databases. Why did it take Google so long to deploy them in the first place?
Whitney Grace, December 29, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Meatbags Prevent Google’s Self-Driving Car
July 2, 2015
Driving is a privilege not a right…for humans and Google wants it for its self-driving cars. Google, however, is still in the test phasing for its self-driving cars and announced that they would publish results of the study on a monthly basis. They first report recently came out and it says that Google cars were in twelve accidents when they were on real roads. The Register takes a snarky, informative approach to self-driving cars in “Google: Our Self-Driving Cars Would Be Tip-Top If You Meatheads Didn’t Crash Into Them.”
Google has twenty-three Lexus SUVs that have driven 1,011,338 miles with the self-driving software and 796, 250 miles with a human behind the wheel. Many of the cars have taken to the real road, but nine are still restricted to the private track.
Google blames all twelve of the accidents on human error, not the software, and it is due to either the human driver in the autonomous car or the driver in the other car. The Google cars, being rear-ended from driving too slow, caused seven accidents. One accident was due to the Google car braking trying to avoid a collision and two more were when non-Google cars failed to obey traffic signs. The worst accident caused when a Google car was driving at 63 mph and was sideswiped by a car changing lanes. No one was hurt. The last two accidents were the fault of Google’s employees: both accidents resulted in Google cars rear-ending the cars in front of them.
Google is quick to point out the software’s positive aspects:
“The report also highlighted some of the smarter aspects of the cars’ software. Google cars can identify emergency vehicles, for example, and automatically give way in a fashion many fleshy drivers are irritatingly unwilling to do. The other example given was Google cars dealing with cyclists who didn’t obey the rules of the road. One cyclist veered in front of the car at night, and the software was clever enough to stop immediately to avoid a crash.”
Google will have its cars drive ten thousand miles a week on the software. A recent luxury car ad campaign was critical of the self-driving car, saying people want the luxury of driving themselves with all the benefits of said luxury car. It will be the TV vs. radio battle again, but the one thing holding back the self-driving car will be human error. Stupid, stupid humans.
Whitney Grace, July 2, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
