This is really interesting, though I can't see it exploited very widely in everyday use.
Why? I think the main thing stopping it is safe browsing, which is the same thing stopping all other phishing sites from getting too big.
An Innovative Phishing Style
81–83 of 83 posts
Re: An Innovative Phishing Style
#82The site's dead now - the DNS record was pulled about an hour ago. But, I got a snapshot of the site and all the code before it got taken down, and I took the liberty of deobfuscating the big blobs of code: https://github.com/nneonneo/steam-phishing-analysis It's fairly simple code, in the end. The phishers copied the legitimate trading site, as well as the Steam Community login page, and then added some JavaScript c…
How was the JS obfuscated? Did they, by any chance, use [1]? AFAIK that tool includes a very similar anti-debugging technique. [1] https://github.com/javascript-obfuscator/javascript-obfuscat...
They did a first pass obfuscation which replaced local variable names with gibberish and then applied some minification. Then they applied an obfuscation tool 2-3 times for each of the three code snippets, causing the code to bloat up quite considerably. However, at least two different obfuscation tools were used - one simpler one (used for the antidebugger hook) and one more complex one that looked almost like a virtual machine.
The output looks a little like the output from your link, but there's a lot of structural differences so I'm not sure it was the same tool.
Re: An Innovative Phishing Style
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate that kind reasoning. 1. You are actively funding thieves. This is wrong on so many levels it is bizarre. 2. All subscriptions need to be redone. 3. Even in a perfect world it is quite the hassle. And that is not taking into account the added problems if this were to be happening while you were on vacation. Even risking only one of those is a complete dealbreaker.
This is an institutional problem. Since banks are so unreliable that information leaks, identity theft, and fraudulent charges are expected, they have this strange relationship with the customers, who do not treat their CC information as secret (not that it would help). It is sort of a cyclical thing, maybe.
Yes, but the only reason for that is because banks have convinced enough people to accept it.
In the end we have a deeply unethical and immoral system for the benefit of banks and to the cost of society. I don't subscribe to that.
There is no reason to be careless with your cc even if there is little risk to you personally. Subscribing to a free service that requires a cc is definitely being careless.