Network Working Group P. Cain Internet-Draft The Cooper-Cain Group, Inc. Expires: April 18, 2007 D. Jevans The Anti-Phishing Working Group October 15, 2006 Extensions to the IODEF-Document Class for Phishing, Fraud, and Other Crimeware draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns-00 Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2007. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Abstract This document extends the Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) to support the reporting of phishing, fraud, other types of electronic crime, and widespread spam incidents. These extensions are flexible enough to support information gleaned from activities throughout the entire electronic fraud cycle. Both simple reporting and complete forensic reports are possible, as is consolidated Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 1] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 reporting of multiple phishing incidents. The extensions defined in this document are used to generate two different reports: a fraud and phishing report and a wide-spread spam report. Although similar in structure, each report has different required objects and intents. This document had completed working group last call and was in revision when the INCH working group was disbanded. RFC 2129 Keywords The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 2] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Why a Common Report Format is Needed . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Relation to the INCH IODEF Data Model . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. The Elements of Phishing/Fraud Activity . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Fraud Activity Reporting via IODEF-Documents . . . . . . . . . 8 4. PhraudReport Element Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1. Version attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. FraudType attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3. PhishNameRef element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.4. PhishNameLocalRef element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.5. FraudedBrandName element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.6. LureSource element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.7. OriginatingSensor Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.8. The DCSite element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.9. TakeDownInfo element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.10. ArchivedData element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.11. RelatedData element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.12. CorrelationData element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.13. PRComments element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.14. EmailRecord element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5. IODEF Required Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.1. Fraud or Phishing Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.2. Wide-Spread Spam Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.3. Guidance on Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Appendix A. Phishing Extensions XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Appendix B. Sample Malware Email Repor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 B.1. Received Email . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 B.2. Generated Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Appendix C. Sample Phish Email Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 C.1. Received Lure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 C.2. Phishing Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 53 Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 3] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 1. Introduction Deception-driven activities on the Internet, such as receiving an email purportedly from a bank requesting you to confirm your account information, are an expanding attack type on the Internet. The terms phishing and fraud are used interchangeably in this document to characterize a broadly-launched social engineering attacks in which an electronic identity is misrepresented in an attempt to trick individuals into revealing their personal credentials ( e.g., passwords, account numbers, personal information, ATM PINs, etc.). A successful phishing attack on an individual allows the phisher (i.e. the attacker) to exploit the individual's credentials for financial or other gain. Phishing attacks have morphed from directed email messages from alleged financial institutions to more sophisticated lures that may also include malware. This document defines a data format extension to the Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) that can be used to describe information about a phishing incident or wide-spread spam incident. Sections 1 and 2 of this document introduce the high-level report format. Sections 3 and 4 describe the data elements of the fraud extensions. This document includes an XML schema for the extensions and a few example fraud reports. 1.1. Why a Common Report Format is Needed The rise in phishing and fraud activities via e-mail, instant message, DNS corruption, and malicious code insertion has driven corporations, Internet Service Providers, consumer agencies, and financial institutions to begin to collect and correlate phishing attack information. The collected data allows them to better coordinate mitigation activities and support in the persuit and prosecution of the attacker. By using a common format, it becomes easier for an organization to engage in this coordination as well as correlation of information from multiple sources or products into a cohesive view. The accumulation and correlation of information is also important in resolving phishing incidents detected externally as the phished organization may not even be aware of the attack. Third parties aware of the attack may wish to notify the phished organization or a central notification service so adequate responses could commence. The targeted organization's internal monitoring systems may also detect the attack and wish to take mitigation steps. While the intended use of this specification is to facilitate data sharing between parties, the mechanics of this sharing process and Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 4] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 its related political challenges are out of scope for this document. 1.2. Relation to the INCH IODEF Data Model Instead of defining a new report format, this draft defines an extension to the Incident Object Description Exchange Format Data Model[IODEF]. The IODEF defines a flexible and extensible format and supports a granular level of specificity. This phishing extension reuses subsets of the IODEF data model and, where appropriate, specifies new data elements. Leveraging an existing specification allows for more rapid adoption and reuse of existing tools in organizations. For clarity, and in order to eliminate duplication, only the additional structures necessary for describing the exchange of phishing and e-crime activity are provided. The use of this already existent and operational format, based on the Intrusion Detection Message Exchange Format [IDMEF], allows for quicker vendor adoption and reuse of existing tools in organizations. To reduce duplication and to be compatible with forward modifications to the base IODEF definitions this document only identifies additional structures necessary for exchanging phishing and e-crime information. 1.2.1. The IODEF Extensions for Fraud In general, an IODEF incident report contains detailed incident- specific data which populates an EventData Structure. That data is then incorporated, either singularly or in aggregation with additional summary and contact data, into an Incident structure. A Fraud Activity Report is an instance of an XML IODEF-Document with added EventData and AdditionalData elements. It contains the Incident structure and additional fields in the EventData specific to phishing and fraud (the PhraudReport). Phishing activity may include multiple emails, instant messages, or network messages, scattered over various times, locations, and methodologies. The new EventData fields are combined into a Fraud Activity Report and include information about the email header and body, details of the actual phishing lure, correlation to other attacks, and details of the removal of the web server or credential collector. As a phishing attack may generate multiple reports to an incident team, the Fraud Activity Reports may be combined into one EventData structure. Multiple EventData structures may be combined into one Incident Report. One IODEF Incident report may record one or more individual phishing events and may include multiple EventData elements. This document defines new elements for the EventData and Record Item IODEF XML elements and identifies the Fraud Activity Report required Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 5] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 attributes. The Appendices contain sample Fraud Activity Reports and a complete Schema. The IODEF Extensions defined in this document comply with section 4, "Extending the IODEF Format" in[IODEF]. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 6] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 2. The Elements of Phishing/Fraud Activity +-----------+ +------------------+ | Fraudster |<---<-- | Collection Point |<---O--<----<----+ +----+------+ +------------------+ | | | | | | +--|-----+ ^ | | Sensor | Credentials | +-|------+ | | +---------------+ | +-------+ \--->--| Attack Source |--Phish-->-----O------> | User/ | +---------------+ |Victim | +-------+ Figure 2.1: The Components of Internet Phishing Internet-based Phishing and Fraud activities are normally comprised of at least four components: 1. The Phisher, Fraudster, or party perpetrating the fraudulent activity. Most times this party is not readily identifiable. 2. The Attack Source, the source of the phishing email, virus, trojan, or other attack is masked in an enticing manner. 3. The User, Victim, or intended target of the fraud/phish. 4. The collection point, where the victim sends their credentials or personal data if they have been duped by the phisher. If we take a holistic view of the attack, there are some additional components: 5. The sensor, the means by which the phish is detected. This element may be an intrusion detection system, firewall, filter, email gateway, or human analyst. 6. A forensic or archive site where an investigator has copied or otherwise retained the data used for the fraud attempt or credential collection. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 7] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 3. Fraud Activity Reporting via IODEF-Documents A Fraud Activity Report is an instance of an XML IODEF-Document with additional extensions and usage guidance as specified in Section 4 of this document. These additional extensions are implemented through the PhraudReport Element. The Appendices contain sample Fraud Activity Reports and the complete XML Document Type Definition and schema. The IODEF Incident element [IODEF, Section 3.2] with fraud extensions is summarized below. It and the rest of the data model presented in Section 4 is expressed in Unified Modeling Language (UML) syntax. +--------------------+ | Incident | +--------------------+ | ENUM purpose |<>----------[ IncidentID ] | STRING ext-purpose |<>--{0..1}--[ AlternativeID ] | ENUM lang |<>--{0..1}--[ RelatedActivity ] | ENUM restriction |<>--{0..1}--[ DetectTime ] | |<>--{0..1}--[ StartTime ] | |<>--{0..1}--[ EndTime ] | |<>----------[ ReportTime ] | |<>--{0..*}--[ Description ] | |<>--{1..*}--[ Assessment ] | |<>--{0..*}--[ Method ] | |<>--{1..*}--[ Contact ] | |<>--{0..*}--[ EventData ] | | --> [ AdditionalData ] | | --> PhraudReport (added) | |<>--{0..1}--[ History ] | |<>--{0..*}--[ AdditionalData ] +------------------+ Figure 3.1: The IODEF XML Incident Element (modified) A Fraud Activity Report is composed of one iodef:Incident element that contains one or more related PhraudReport elements embedded in iodef:AdditionalData element of iodef:EventData. The PhraudReport element is added to the IODEF using its defined extension procedure documented in Section 5 of [IODEF]. One IODEF-Document may contain information on multiple incidents with information for each incident contained within an iodef:Incident element [IODEF, Section 3.12]. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 8] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 4. PhraudReport Element Definitions A PhraudReport consists of an extension to the Incident.EventData.AdditionalData element with a dtype of "xml". The elements of the PhraudReport will specify information about the six components of fraud activity identified in Section 2. Additional forensic information and commentary can be added by the reporter as necessary to show relation to other events, to show the output of an investigation, or for archival purposes. A PhraudReport accommodates the six elements this way: a. The PhishNameRef and LocalPhishNameRef elements identify the fraud or class of fraud. b. The LureSource element describes the source of the attack or phishing lure, including host information and any included malware. c. The DCData describes the technical details of the credential collection point. d. The Originating Sensor element describes the means of detection. e. The RelatedData, ArchivedData, and TakeDownInfo fields allow optional forensics and history data. A specific phish/fraud activity can be identified using a combination of the FraudType, FraudParameter, FraudedBrandName, LureSource, and PhishRefName elements. A PhraudReport element is structured as follows. The components of a PhraudReport are introduced in functional grouping as some parameters are related and some elements may not make sense individually. Note: Elements that are imported from the base IODEF specification are prefaced with an "iodef" namespace and are noted with the section defining that element in [IODEF]. 4.1. Version attribute STRING. The version shall be the value 1.0 to be compliant with this document. 4.2. FraudType attribute One ENUM. The FraudType attribute describes the type of fraudlent activity described in this PhraudReport. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 9] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 1. phishemail. The FraudParameter should be the email subject line of the phishing email. This type is a standard email phish, usually sent as spam, and is intended to derive financial loss to the recipient. 2. recruitemail. The FraudParameter is the email subject line of the phishing email. This type of email phish does not pose a potential financial loss to the recipient, but covers other cases of the phish and fraud lifecycle. 3. malwareemail. The FraudParameter is the email subject line of the phishing email. This type of email phish does not pose a potential financial loss to the recipient, but lures the recipient to an infected site. 4. fraudsite. This identifies a known fraudulent site that does not necessarily send spam but is used for lures. The FraudParameter may be used to identify the website. 5. dnsspoof. This choice does not have a related FraudParameter. This is used for a spoofed DNS (e.g., malware changes localhost file so visits to www.example.com go to another IP address chosen by the fraudster). 6. keylogger. This choice does not have a FraudParameter and specifies a keylogger downloaded with the lure. 7. ole. There is no FraudParameter. This identifies background Microsoft Object Linking and Embedding (OLE) information that comes as part of a lure. 8. im. The FraudParameter should be the malicious instant message (IM) link supplied to the user. 9. cve. This choice identifies CVE-known malware, with the Common Vulnerability and Exposures project (CVE) number as the FraudParameter. 10. archive. There is no required FraudParameter for this choice, although the FraudParameter of the original phish could be entered. The data archived from the phishing server is placed in the ArchiveInfo element. 11. spamreport. This type is used when the PhraudReport is reporting a large-scale spam activity. The FraudParameter should be the spam email subject line. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 10] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 12. voip. The lure was received via a voice-over-IP connection identified by the information in the FraudParameter field. 13. other. This is used to identify not-yet-enumerated fraud types. 14. unknown. This choice may have an associated FraudParameter. It is used to cover confused cases. 4.2.1. FraudParameter element One value of iodef:MLStringType [IODEF, Section 2.4]. This is the lure used to attract victims. It may be an email subject line, VoIP lure, link in an IM message, the CVE or malware identifier, or a web URL. Note that some phishers add a number of random characters onto the end of a phish email subject line for uniqueness; reporters should delete those characters before insertion into the FraudParameter field. 4.3. PhishNameRef element Zero or one value of STRING. The PhishNameRef element is the common name used to identify this fraud event. It is often the name agreed upon by involved parties or vendors. Using this name can be a convenient way to reference the activity collaborating with other parties, the media, or engaging in public education. 4.4. PhishNameLocalRef element Zero or one value of STRING. The PhishNameLocalRef element describes a local name or Unique-IDentifier (UID) that is used by various parties before a commonly agreed term is adopted. This field allows a cross-reference from the submitting organization's system to a central repository. 4.5. FraudedBrandName element Zero or more values of STRING. This is the identifier of the recognized brand name or company name used in the phishing activity (e.g., XYZ Semiconductor Corp). 4.6. LureSource element One value. REQUIRED. The LureSource element describes the source of the PhraudReport lure. It allows the specification of IP Addresses, DNS names, domain registry information, and rudimentary support for the files that might be downloaded or registry keys modified by the crimeware. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 11] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 +-------------+ | LureSource | +-------------+ | |<>--(1..*)--[ System ] | |<>--(0..*)--[ DomainData ] | |<>--(0..1)--[ IncludedMalware ] | |<>--(0..1)--[ FilesDownloaded ] | |<>--(0..1)--[ RegistryKeysModified ] +-------------+ Figure 4.2: The LureSource element 4.6.1. System element One or more values of iodef:System [IODEF, Section 3.15]. The system element describes a particular host involved in the phishing activity. If the real IP Address can be ascertained, it should be populated. A spoofed address may also be entered, but the spoofed attribute SHALL be set. 4.6.2. DomainData element Zero or more. The DomainData element describes the registration, delegation, and control of a domain used to source the lure. The structure of a DomainData element is as follows: +--------------------+ | DomainData | +--------------------+ | |<>----------[ Name ] | |<>--(0..1)--[ DateDomainWasChecked ] | ENUM SystemStatus |<>--(0..1)--[ RegistrationDate ] | ENUM DomainStatus |<>--(0..1)--[ ExpirationDate ] | |<>--(0..16)-[ Nameservers ] | |<>--(0..*)--[ DomainContacts ] +--------------------+ +----------------+ | DomainContacts | +----------------+ | |<>--(0..1)--[ SameDomainContact ] | |<>--(0..1)--[ Contact ] +----------------+ Figure 4.3: The DomainData element Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 12] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 4.6.3. Name One value of iodef:MLStringType [IODEF, Section 2.4]. The Name element describes a domain name. 4.6.4. DateDomainWasChecked Zero or One value of DATETIME. The DateDomainWasChecked element describes the timestamp of when this domain data was checked and entered into this report. 4.6.5. RegistrationDate Zero or one value of DATETIME. The RegistrationData element describes the date of registration for a domain. 4.6.6. ExpirationDate Zero or one value of DATETIME. The ExpirationDate element describes the date the domain will expire. 4.6.7. Nameservers Zero or less than 16. These fields hold nameservers identified for this domain. The element is artificially limited to 16 nameserver entries. Each entry is a sequence of DNSNameType and iodef:Address [IODEF, Section 3.16.2] pairs. 4.6.7.1. DNSNameType iodef:MLStringType [IODEF, Section 2.4]. This field contains the DNS name of the domain nameserver. 4.6.7.2. iodef:Address This field contains the IP address of the domain nameserver. 4.6.8. DomainContacts element Choice of either a SameDomainContact or an unbounded set of DomainContact elements. The DomainContacts element allows the reporter to enter contact information supplied by the registrar or returned by whois. For efficiency of the reporting party, the domain contact information may be marked to be the same as another domain already reported. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 13] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 +--------------------+ | DomainContact | +--------------------+ | |<>----------[ iodef:ContactName ] | |<>--(0..*)--[ iodef:Description ] | ENUM Role |<>--(0..*)--[ iodef:RegistryHandle ] | ENUM Confidence |<>--(0..1)--[ iodef:PostalAdress ] | ENUM Restriction |<>--(0..*)--[ iodef:Email ] | |<>--(0..*)--[ iodef:Telephone ] | |<>--(0..1)--[ iodef:Fax ] | |<>--(0..1)--[ iodef:Timezone ] +--------------------+ Figure 4.4: The DomainContact element 4.6.8.1. SameDomainContact One DNSNAME. The SameDomainContact element is populated with a domain name if the contact information for this domain is identical to that name in this or another report. 4.6.8.2. DomainContact Element This element reuses the iodef:Contact elements [IODEF, Section 3.7] for its components. Each component may have zero or more values. If only the role attribute and the ContactName component are populated, the same (identical) information is listed for multiple roles. The permissible elements are equivalent to iodef:Contact values, listed below, as defined in IODEF, Section 3.7 unless otherwise noted: 1. iodef:ContactName. 2. iodef:Description. 3. iodef:RegistryHandle [IODEF, Section 3.7.1]. 4. iodef:PostalAddress. 5. iodef:Email. 6. iodef:Telephone. 7. iodef:Fax. 8. iodef:Timezone. Each Contact has three attributes to capture the sensitivity, Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 14] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 confidence, and role for which the contact is listed. 4.6.8.2.1. Role attribute ENUM. The role values are imported from [CRISP], with some additions. The role attribute is one of the following values: 1. registrant. This identified Contact is the domain registrant. 2. registrar. This contact identifies the registrar of this domain. 3. billing. This entry is the billing or financial contact. 4. technical. This contact deals with technical issues. 5. administrative. This contact handles administrative matters for this domain. 6. legal. This entry deals with legal issues for this domain. 7. zone. This entry controls the DNS zone information. 8. abuse. This entry accepts abuse issues. 9. security. This entry accepts security issues. 10. domainOwner. This lists the owner of the domain. 11. ipAddressOwner. This entry identifes the assignee of the IP address space. 12. hostingProvider. This contact is the hosting rovider of this domain. 13. other. This entry does not meet an enumerated value. 4.6.8.2.2. Confidence attribute ENUM. The Confidence attribute describes a qualitative assessment of the veracity of the contact information. There are five possible values as follows. 1. known-fraudulent. This contact information has been previously determined to be fraudulent, either as non-existent physical information or containing real information not associated with this domain registration. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 15] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 2. looks-fraudulent. The contact information has suspicious information included. 3. known-real. The contact information has been previously investigated or determined to be correct. 4. looks-real. The contact information does not arouse suspicion but has not been previously validated. 5. unknown. The reporter cannot make a value judgment on the contact data. 4.6.8.2.3. Restriction attribute Zero or one iodef:restriction attribute [IODEF, as part of Section 3.2]. The restriction attribute is used to label the sensitivity of included information. 4.6.9. SystemStatus attribute ENUM. The SystemStatus attribute assesses a domain's involvement in this event. 1. spoofed. This domain or system did not participate in this event, but its address space or DNS name was forged. 2. fraudulent. The system is fraudulently operated. 3. innocent-hacked. The system was compromised and used in this event to source the lure. 4. innocent-hijacked. The IP Address or domain name was hijacked and used in this event to source of the lure. 5. unknown. No conclusions are inferred from this event. 4.6.10. DomainStatus attribute ENUM. The DomainStatus attribute describes the registry status of a domain at the time of the report. The below enumerated list is taken verbose from the 'domainStatusType' of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol[RFC3733] and "Domain Registry Version 2 for the Internet Registry Information Service" internet-draft [CRISP]. 1. reservedDelegation - permanently inactive 2. assignedAndActive - normal state Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 16] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 3. assignedAndInactive - registration assigned but delegation inactive 4. assignedAndOnHold - dispute 5. revoked - database purge pending 6. transferPending - change of authority pending 7. registryLock - on hold by registry 8. registrarLock - on hold by registrar 4.6.11. IncludedMalware Zero or One Value. The IncludedMalware element allows for the identification and optional inclusion of the actual malware that was part of the lure. The goal of this element is not to detail the characteristics of the malware but rather to allow for a convenient element to link malware to a phishing campaign. +------------------+ | IncludedMalware | +------------------+ | |<>--(1..*)--[ Name ] | |<>--(0..1)--[ Hashvalue ] | |<>--(0..1)--[ Data ] +------------------+ +-----------------+ | Hashvalue | +-----------------+ | ENUM Algorithm | | | | STRING | +-----------------+ +---------------------+ | Data | +---------------------+ | STRING XORPattern |<>--(0..1)-+-[ StringData ] | | | | | +-[ BinaryData ] +---------------------+ Figure 4.5: The Included Malware element Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 17] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 4.6.11.1. Name One or more value of iodef:MLStringType. This optional field is used to identify the lure malware. 4.6.11.2. Hashvalue Zero or one value of STRING. This optional field is used to hold the value of a hash computed over the malware executable. 4.6.11.2.1. Algorithm attribute REQUIRED ENUM. This field from the following list identifies the algorithm used to create this hashvalue. SHA1. Hashvalue as defined in[SHA]. 4.6.11.3. Data Zero or one value. Choice of two elements, below. The optional Data element is used to describe the lure malware. 4.6.11.3.1. StringData The lure malware is encoded as a String value. 4.6.11.3.2. BinaryData The lure malware is encoded as a hexBinary, as defined by the XML standard, encoded value 4.6.11.3.3. XORPattern attribute STRING. The Data Element includes an optional 16 hexadecimal character XORPattern attribute to support disabling the included malware to bypass anti-virus filters. The default value is 0x55AA55AA55AA55BB which would be XOR-ed with the malware datastring to recover the actual malware. 4.6.12. FilesDownloaded Zero or One value of STRING. The FileDownloaded element is a comma- separated list where each entry is the name of a file downloaded by this lure. Although this element could be implemented as a sequence of individual XML entries, the extra XML overhead was perceived to not add any value, so the files are listed in one element. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 18] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 4.6.13. RegistryKeysModified One value of the Keys sequence. The contents of the RegistryKeysModified element are sets of Keys and an optional Value as attribute. The structure is artificially limited to 32 entries. +-----------------------+ | RegistryKeysModified | +-----------------------+ | |<>--(1..32)--[ Key ] +-----------------------+ +--------------+ | Key | +--------------+ | STRING | | | | STRING Value | +--------------+ Figure 4.6: The RegistryKeysModified element 4.6.13.1. Key element One STRING, representing the WINDOWS Operating System Registry Key Name. 4.6.13.2. Value attribute One STRING, representing the value of the associated Key 4.7. OriginatingSensor Element The OriginatingSensor element contains the identification and cognizant data of the network element that detected this fraud activity. Note that the network element does not have to be on the Internet itself (i.e., it may be a local IDS system) nor is it required to be mechanical (e.g., humans are allowed). Multiple Originating Sensor Elements are allowed to support detection at mutiple locations. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 19] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 +---------------------+ | OriginatingSensor | +---------------------+ | ENUM OrigSensorType |<>------------[ DateFirstSeen ] | |<>---(1..*)---[ iodef:System ] +---------------------+ Figure 4.7: The OriginatingSensor element The OriginatingSensor requires a type value and identification of the entity that detected this fraudulent event. 4.7.1. OrigSensorType attribute ENUM. REQUIRED. The value is chosen from the following list, categorizing the function of this sensor: 1. Web. A web server or service detected this event. 2. WebGateway. A proxy, firewall, or other network gateway detcted this event. 3. MailGateway. The event was detected via a mail gateway or filter 4. Browser, or browser-type element. Th event was detected at the user web interface. 5. ISP-resident or network sensor. The event was detected by an automated system in the network. 6. Human or manual analysis. A non-automated system detected this event. 7. Honeypot or other decoy device. The event was detected by receipt at a decoy device. 8. Other. The detection was performed via a non-listed method. 4.7.2. DateFirstSeen element REQUIRED. DATETIME. This is the date and time that this sensor first saw this phishing activity. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 20] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 4.7.3. iodef:System element iodef:System [IODEF, Section 3.15]. This is the IPVersion, IPAddress, and optionally, port number of the entity that generated this report. 4.8. The DCSite element Zero or more DCSiteData elements. The DCSitedata captures the type, identifier, collection location, and other pertinent information about the credential gathering process, or data collection site, used in the phishing incident. The data collection site is identified by three elements: the type of collector activity, the type of collector site, and the network location. Further details about the domain, system, or owner of the DCSite can be inserted into the DomainData element. If the DCSite element is present, the DCSiteType element is required. Multiple DCSiteData elements are allowed. +-------------+ | DCSite | +-------------+ | ENUM DCType |<>--(0..*)---[ DCSiteData ] +-------------+ +------------------+ | DCSiteData | +------------------+ | ENUM DCSiteType |<>--+--------[ SiteURL ] | | +--------[ EmailSite ] | | +--------[ System ] | | +--------[ Unknown ] | |<>--(0..1)---[ DomainData ] | |<>--(0..1)---[ iodef:Assessment ] +------------------+ Figure 4.8: The DCSite element 4.8.1. DCType attribute ENUM. The DCType attribute identifies the method of data collection as determined through the analysis of the victim computer, lure, or malware. This attribute coupled with the DCSiteData element identifies the data collection site. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 21] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 1. web. The user is redirected to a website to collect the data. 2. email Form. The victim sends an email with credentials enclosed. 3. keylogger. Some form of keylogger is downloaded to the victim. 4. automation. Other forms of automatic data collection, such as background OLE automation, are used to capture information. 5. unspecified. 4.8.2. DCSiteData element The DCSiteData element contains the IPAddress, URL, or other identifier of the data collection site as selected by the DCType Parameter. Each DCSiteData element also includes an optional iodef: Assessment element as a multiple-site data collector may have different confidence or impact values. The DCSiteData element is a choice of: 1. SiteURL. anyURI. This choice supports URIs. 2. EmailSite. STRING. This choice captures either the email address of the data collection site. 3. iodef:System element [IODEF, Section 3.15]. This choice is filled it to capture the IP Address of a site. 4. Unknown. STRING. The unknown entry is used for exception to the preceding choices. 4.8.2.1. DomainData element Zero or One value of DomainData. This element allows for the identification of data associated with the data collection site. 4.8.2.2. iodef:Assessment element Zero or One value of iodef:Assessment [IODEF, Section 3.10]. This element is used to designate different confidence levels of multiple- site data collectors. 4.8.2.3. DCSiteType attribute ENUM. The DCSiteType attribute tags the network address and other information in the DataCollectionSiteData element. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 22] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 1. web. Data from the victim is collected on a website. The website URL is included in the DCSitePointer. 2. email. The victim emails credentials to the collection site. The email server DNS name is in the DCSitePointer. 3. iodef:System element [IODEF, Section 3.15]. This collection site uses other protocols to gather data from the victim. The DCSitePointer field is an IODEF System element, holding the IP Version Protocol, IPAddress, and Port number of the collection site. The Protocol field defaults to TCP, if absent. 4. unknown. The DCSitePointer data should be verbose to describe this type of site. 4.9. TakeDownInfo element This element identifies the agent or agency that performed the removal or ISP-blockage of the phish or fraud collector site. A PhraudReport may have multiple TakeDownInfo elements to support activities where multiple agencies are active. Note that the term "Agency" is used to identify any party performing the blocking or removal such as ISPs or private parties, not just government entities. +-------------------+ | TakeDownInfo | +-------------------+ | |<>---(0..1)--[ TakeDownDate ] | |<>---(0..*)--[ TakeDownAgency ] | |<>---(0..*)--[ TakeDownComments ] +-------------------+ Figure 4.9: The TakeDownInfo element 4.9.1. TakeDownDate Zero or one DATETIME. This is the date and time that takedown of the collector site occurred. 4.9.2. TakeDownAgency Zero or more STRING. This is a free form string identifying the agency that performed the takedown Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 23] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 4.9.3. TakeDownComments Zero or more STRING. A free form field to add any additional details of this takedown effort. 4.10. ArchivedData element Zero or more values of the ArchivedData element are allowed. +-------------------+ | ArchivedData | +-------------------+ | ENUM type |<>---(0..1)--[ ArchivedDataURL ] | |<>---(0..1)--[ ArchivedDataComments ] +-------------------+ Figure 4.10: The ArchivedData element The ArchivedData element is populated with a pointer to the contents of a data collection site, base camp, or other site where the phisher developed their code. This element will be populated when, for example, an ISP takes down a phisher's web site and has copied the site data into an archive file. There are three types of archives currently supported, as specified in the type field. 4.10.1. type attribute This parameter specifies the type of site included in the archive. 1. collectionsite. The archived data contains a data collection site. 2. basecamp. The archived data contains a development site. 3. sendersite. The archive data contains data from the lure originating site. 4. unspecified. The archive data containd data as described in the ArchivedDataComments field. 4.10.2. ArchivedDataURL Zero or one value of URL. As the archive of an entire site can be quite large, the ArchivedURL element points to an Internet- based server where the actual gzipped content of the site archive can be retrieved. Note that this element just points out where the archive is and does not include the entire archive in the Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 24] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 report. This is the URL where the gzipped archive file is located. 4.10.3. ArchivedDataComments Zero or one value of STRING. This field is a free form area for comments on the archive and/or URL. 4.11. RelatedData element Zero or more value of anyURI. This element allows the listing of other web or net sites that are related to this incident (e.g., victim site, etc.). 4.12. CorrelationData element Zero or more value of STRING. Any information that correlates this incident to other incidents can be entered here. 4.13. PRComments element Zero or one value of STRING. This field allows for any comments specific to this PhraudReport that does not fit in any other field. 4.14. EmailRecord element Extensions are also made to the iodef:Incident.EventData element [IODEF, Section 3.12] to include the actual email message received in phishing lure or widespread spam emails. The ability to report spam is included within a PhraudReport to support exchanging information about large-scale spam activities related to phishing, not necessarily a single spam message to a user. As such the spam reporting mechanism was not designed to minimize overhead and processing, but to support other widely-used spam reporting formats such as the MAAWG's Abuse Reporting Format [ARF]. Reporting of the actual mail message is supported by choosing one of three methods. First, an ARF message may be included. Second, the message may be included as one large string. Third, the header and body components may be dissected and included as a series of strings. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 25] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 +--------------------+ | EmailRecord | +--------------------+ | |<>--------------[ EmailCount ] | |<>--(0..1)--+---[ Email ] | | +---[ Message ] | | +---[ ARFText ] | |<>--(0..1)------[ EmailComments ] +--------------------+ +---------------+ | Email | +---------------+ | |<>---+----------[ EmailHeader ] | |<>--(0..1)------[ EmailBody ] +---------------+ +-------------+ | EmailHeader | +-------------+ | |<>--(1..*)--[ Header ] +-------------+ Figure 4.11: The EmailRecord element 4.14.1. EmailCount INTEGER. REQUIRED. This field enumerates the number of email messages identified in this record detected by the reporter. 4.14.2. Email Message Inclusion The actual wide-spread spam message may be included in a report via one of three encodings: an ARF message, one big text blob, or a separate header and body element. 4.14.2.1. ARFText Zero or one value of STRING. The Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group (MAAWG) defined a format for sending abuse and list control traffic to other parties. Since many of these reports will get integrated into incident processes, the raw Abuse Reporting Format [ARF] may be inserted into this element. The ARF should be encoded as a character string. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 26] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 4.14.2.2. Email element 4.14.2.2.1. EmailHeader Element Sequence of Header. The headers of the phish email are included in this element as a sequence of one-line text strings. There SHALL be one EmailHeader element per EmailRecord. 4.14.2.2.1.1. Header iodef:MLStringType. The header element contains a sequence of email header lines, one line per header element. 4.14.2.2.2. EmailBody Element Zero or one value of iodef:MLStringType. This element contains the body of the phish email. If present, there should be at most one EmailBody element per EmailRecord 4.14.2.3. Message iodef:MLStringType. The entire mail message can be inserted as one large string. 4.14.3. EmailComments Element Zero or one value of STRING. This field contains comments or relevant data not placed elsewhere about the phishing or spam email. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 27] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 5. IODEF Required Elements A report about fraud, spam, or phishing requires certain identifying information which is contained within the standard IODEF Incident data structure and the PhraudReport extensions. The following table identifies attributes required to be present in a compliant PhraudReport to report phishing or fraud or to report widespread spam. The required attributes are a combination of those required by the base IODEF element and those required by this document. Attributes identified as required SHALL be populated in conforming phishing activity reports. Note that the major difference between a widespread-spam report and a phishing/fraud report is that a spam report does not require the FraudParameter element and includes an EMailRecord element. The following table is a visual description of the IODEF-Document required fields. 5.1. Fraud or Phishing Report A compliant IODEF PhraudReport is required to contain the following fields: Incident @purpose IncidentID ReportTime Assessment -> Confidence Contact -> Role Contact -> Type Contact -> Name EventData DetectTime AdditionalData PhraudReport FraudType FraudedBrandName LureSource OriginatingSensor 5.2. Wide-Spread Spam Report These following fields MUST be populated in an IODEF PhraudReport compliant Spam Activity Report: Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 28] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 Incident @purpose IncidentID ReportTime Assessment -> Confidence Contact -> Role Contact -> Type Contact -> Name EventData DetectTime AdditionalData PhraudReport FraudType == spamreport LureSource OriginatingSensor EmailRecord 5.3. Guidance on Usage It may be apparent that the mandatory attributes for a phishing activity report make for a quite sparse report. As incident forensics and data analysis require detailed information, the originator of a PhraudReport should include any tidbit of information gleaned from the attack analysis. Information that is considered sensitive can be marked as such using the restriction parameter of each data element. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 29] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 6. Security Considerations This document specifies a format for encoding a particular class of security incidents appropriate for exchange across organizations. As merely a data representation, it does not directly introduce security issues. However, it is guaranteed that parties exchanging instances of this specification will have certain concerns. For this reason, the underlying message format and transport protocol used must ensure the appropriate degree of confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity. The critical security concern is that phishing activity reports may be falsified or the PhraudReport may become corrupt during transit. In areas where transmission security or secrecy is necessary, the application of a digital signature and/or message encryption on each report will counteract both of these concerns. We expect that each receiving entity will determine the need, and mechanism, for this signature independently. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 30] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 7. IANA Considerations This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas conforming to a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688] Registration request for the IODEF phishing namespace: URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-phish-1.0 Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this document. XML: None. Registration request for the IODEF phishing extension XML schema: URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:iodef-phish-1.0 Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this document. XML: See the "Phishing Extensions Schema Definition" in the section of this document. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 31] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 8. Contributors The extensions are an outgrowth of the Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG) activities in data collection and sharing of phishing and other ecrime-ware. This document has received significant assistance from two groups addressing the phishing problem: members of the Anti-Phishing Working Group and participants in the Financial Services Technology Consortium's Counter-Phishing project. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 32] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 9. References 9.1. Normative References [IODEF] Meijer, J., Danyliw, and Demchenko, "The Incident Object Description Exchange Format Data Model and XML Implementation", September 2006. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3688] Mealing, M., "The IETF XML Registry", RFC 3688, January 2004. [SHA] National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, "Secure Hash Standard", FIPS 180-1, May 1994. 9.2. Informative References [ARF] The Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group (MAAWG), "Abuse Reporting Format", May 2005. [CRISP] Newton, L. and A. Neves, "Domain Registry Version 2 for the Internet Registry Information Service", RFC 3982, January 2005. [IDMEF] Curry, D. and H. Debar, "The Intrusion Detection Message Exchange Format", July 2004. [RFC3733] Hollenbeck, "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Contact Mapping"", RFC 3733, March 2004. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 33] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 Appendix A. Phishing Extensions XML Schema A digital copy of this file is available to prevent errors when re- entering text. See www.coopercain.com/incidents . This is an EventData.AdditionalData structure for an IODEF Incident class. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 34] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 35] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 36] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 37] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 38] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 Multiple domains with equal contact and registraton data can be referenced with the "sameas" entry. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 39] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 40] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 41] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 42] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 43] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 Appendix B. Sample Malware Email Repor This section shows a received electronic mail message that included a virus in a zipped attachment and a report that was generated for that message. B.1. Received Email From: support@coopercain.com Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 3:52 PM To: pcain@coopercain.com Subject: You have successfully updated your password Attachments: updated-password.zip Dear user pcain, You have successfully updated the password of your Coopercain account. If you did not authorize this change or if you need assistance with your account, please contact Coopercain customer service at: support@coopercain.com Thank you for using Coopercain! The Coopercain Support Team +++ Attachment: No Virus (Clean) +++ Coopercain Antivirus - www.coopercain.com B.2. Generated Report NOTE: Some wrapping and folding liberties have been applied to fit it into the margins. PAT2005-06 2005-06-22T08:30:00-05:00 This is a test report from actual data. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 44] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 patcain pcain@coopercain.com 2005-06-21T18:22:02-05:00 Subject: You have successfully updated your password Cooper-Cain
216.231.63.162
 W32.Mytob.EA@mm 2005-06-10T15:52:11-05:00
10.0.0.4
 1 "Return-path: <support@coopercain.com>" Envelope-to: pcain@coopercain.com Delivery-date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:52:11-0400 Received: from dsl231-063-162.sea1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.231.63.162] helo=coopercain.com) by mail06.coopercain.com with esmtp (Exim) id 1DgpXy-0002Ua-IR for pcain@coopercain.com; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:52:10-0400 From: support@coopercain.com To: pcain@coopercain.com Subject: You have successfully updated yourn password Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:52:00 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 45] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_0911068B.E7EB6D2A" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-EN-OrigIP: 216.231.63.162 X-EN-OrigHost: dsl231-063-162.sea1.dsl.speakeasy.net X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on Scan18.int.bizland.net X-Spam-Level: ***** X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.6 required=6.0 tests=BAYES_95,CABLEDSL,HTML_20_30, HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,MISSING_MIMEOLE,NO_REAL_NAME, PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 From: support@coopercain.com Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 3:52 PM To:pcain@coopercain.com Subject: You have successfully updated your password Attachments: updated-password.zip Dear user pcain, You have successfully updated the password of your Coopercain account. If you did not authorize this change or if you need assistance with your account, please contact Coopercain customer service at: support@coopercain.com Thank you for using Coopercain! The Coopercain Support Team +++ Attachment: No Virus (Clean) +++ Coopercain Antivirus - www.coopercain.com Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 46] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 Appendix C. Sample Phish Email Report A sample report generated from a received electronic mail phishing message in shoen in this section. C.1. Received Lure Return-path: Envelope-to: pcain@coopercain.com Delivery-date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:37:22 -0400 Received: from mail15.yourhostingaccount.com ([10.1.1.161] helo=mail15.yourhostingaccount.com) by mailscan38.yourhostingaccount.com with esmtp (Exim) id 1Fq5Kr-0005wU-LT for pcain@coopercain.com; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:37:21 -0400 Received: from [24.147.114.61] (helo=TSI) by mail15.yourhostingaccount.com with esmtp (Exim) id 1Fq5Bj-0006dv-6b for pcain@coopercain.com; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:37:21 -0400 Received: from User ([66.59.189.157]) by TSI with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:24:30 -0400 Reply-To: From: "PayPal" Subject: * * * Update & Verify Your PayPal Account * * * Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:36:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Bcc: Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jun 2006 06:24:30.0218 (UTC) FILETIME=[072A66A0:01C68EB2] X-EN-OrigSender: service@paypal.com X-EN-OrigIP: 24.147.114.61 X-EN-OrigHost: unknown PayPal Account Update Request Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 47] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 Dear PayPal. member:, You are receiving this notification because PayPal is required by law to notify you, that you urgently need to update your online account statement, due to high risks of fraud intentions. The updating of your PayPal account can be done at any time by clicking on the link shown below http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_login-run Once you log in,update your account information. After updating your account click on the History sub tab of your Account Overview page to see your most recent statement. If you need help with your password, click the Help link which is at the upper right hand side of the PayPal website. To report errors in your statement or make inquiries, click the Contact Us link in the footer on any page of the PayPal website, call our Customer Service center at (402) 938-3630, or write us at: PayPal, Inc. P.O. Box 45950 Omaha, NE 68145 Sincerely, PayPal C.2. Phishing Report Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 48] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 CC200600000002 2006-06-13T21:14:56-05:00 This is a sample phishing email received report. The phish was actually received as is. 85 patcain pcain@coopercain.com 2006-06-13T05:37:21-04:00 * * * Update & Verify Your PayPal Account * * * PayPal
24.147.114.61
 2006-06-13T05:37:22-04:00 1 Return-path: <service@paypal.com> Envelope-to: pcain@coopercain.com Delivery-date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:37:22 -0400 Received: from mail15.yourhostingaccount.com ([10.1.1.161] helo=mail15.yourhostingaccount.com) by mailscan38.yourhostingaccou nt.com with esmtp (Exim) id 1Fq5Kr-0005wU-LT for pcain@coopercain. com; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:37:21 -0400 Received: from [24.147.114.61] (helo=TSI) by mail15.yourhostingacc Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 49] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 ount.com with esmtp (Exim) id 1Fq5Bj-0006dv-6b for pcain@coopercai n.com; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:37:21 -0400 Received: from User ([66.59.189.157]) by TSI with Microsoft SMTPSV C(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:24:30 -0400 Reply-To: <no spa@nospa.us> From: "PayPal"<service@paypal.com> Subject: * * * Update & Verify Your PayPal Account * * * Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:36:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Bcc: Message-ID: <TSIlYbvhBISmT6QcWY90000085f@TSI> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jun 2006 06:24:30.0218 (UTC) FILETIME=[07 2A66A0:01C68EB2] X-EN-OrigSender: service@paypal.com X-EN-OrigIP: 24.147.114.61 X-EN-OrigHost: unknown PayPal<http://www.paypal.com/images/paypal _logo.gif> <http://www.paypal.com/images/pixel.gif> <htt p://www.paypal.com/images/pixel.gif> <http://www.paypal.com/im ages/pixel.gif> Account Update Request Dear PayPal. member:, You are receiving this notification because PayPal is required by law to notify you, that you urgently need to update your online account st atement, due to high risks of fraud intentions. The updating of your PayPal account can be done at any time by click ing on the link shown below http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd =_login-run <http://217.136.251.41:8080/.cgi-bin/.webscr/.secure- login/%20/%20/.payp al.com/index.htm> Once you log in,update your account information. After updating your account click on the Histo ry sub tab of your Account Overview page to see your most recent sta tement. If you need help with your password, click the Help link whi ch is at the upper right hand side of the PayPal website. To report errors in your statement or make inquiries, click the Contact Us lin k in the footer on any page of the PayPal website, call our Customer Service center at (402) 938-3630, or write us at: PayPal, Inc. P.O. Box 45950 Omaha, NE 68145 Sincerely, PayPal <http://www.paypal.c om/images/dot_row_long.gif> http://217.136.251.41:8080/.cgi-bin/.webscr/.secure- login/%20%20/.paypal.com/index.htm adsl.skynet.be Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 50] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 2006-06-14T13:05:00-05:00 2000-12-13T00:00:00 ns1.skynet.be
195.238.3.17
 Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 51] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 Authors' Addresses Patrick Cain The Cooper-Cain Group, Inc. P.O. Box 400992 Cambridge, MA USA Email: pcain@coopercain.com David Jevans The Anti-Phishing Working Group 5150 El Camino Real, Suite A20 Los Altos, CA 94022 USA Email: dave.jevans@antiphishing.org Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 52] Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions October 2006 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Cain & Jevans Expires April 18, 2007 [Page 53]