Domain Theft Strands Thousands of Web Sites

Newtek Business Services Corp. [NASDAQ:NEWT], a Web services conglomerate that operates more than 100,000 business Web sites and some 40,000 managed technology accounts, had several of its core domain names stolen over the weekend. The theft shut off email and stranded Web sites for many of Newtek’s customers.

An email blast Newtek sent to customers late Saturday evening made no mention of a breach or incident, saying only that the company was changing domains due to “increased” security. A copy of that message can be read here (PDF).

In reality, three of their core domains were hijacked by a Vietnamese hacker, who replaced the login page many Newtek customers used to remotely manage their Web sites (webcontrolcenter[dot]com) with a live Web chat service. As a result, Newtek customers seeking answers to why their Web sites no longer resolved correctly ended up chatting with the hijacker instead.

The PHP Web chat client that the intruder installed on Webcontrolcenter[dot]com, a domain that many Newtek customers used to manage their Web sites with the company. The perpetrator can be seen in this chat using the name “admin.” Click to enlarge.

In a follow-up email sent to customers 10 hours later (PDF), Newtek acknowledged the outage was the result of a “dispute” over three domains, webcontrolcenter[dot]com, thesba[dot]com, and crystaltech[dot]com.

“We strongly request that you eliminate these domain names from all your corporate or personal browsers, and avoid clicking on them,” the company warned its customers. “At this hour, it has become apparent that as a result over the dispute for these three domain names, we do not currently have control over the domains or email coming from them.”

The warning continued: “There is an unidentified third party that is attempting to chat and may engage with clients when visiting the three domains. It is imperative that you do not communicate or provide any sensitive data at these locations.”

Newtek did not respond to requests for comment.

Domain hijacking is not a new problem, but it can be potentially devastating to the victim organization. In control of a hijacked domain, a malicious attacker could seamlessly conduct phishing attacks to steal personal information, or use the domain to foist malicious software on visitors.

Newtek is not just a large Web hosting firm: It aims to be a one-stop shop for almost any online service a small business might need. As such, it’s a mix of very different business units rolled up into one since its founding in 1998, including lending solutions, HR, payroll, managed cloud solutions, group health insurance and disaster recovery solutions.

“NEWT’s tentacles go deep into their client’s businesses through providing data security, human resources, employee benefits, payments technology, web design and hosting, a multitude of insurance solutions, and a suite of IT services,” reads a Sept. 2017 profile of the company at SeekingAlpha, a crowdsourced market analysis publication.

Newtek’s various business lines. Source: Newtek.

 

Reached via the Web chat client he installed at webcontrolcenter[dot]com, the person who claimed responsibility for the hijack said he notified Newtek five days ago about a “bug” he found in the company’s online operations, but that he received no reply.

A Newtek customer who resells the company’s products to his clients said he had to spend much of the weekend helping clients regain access to email accounts and domains as a result of the incident. The customer, who asked to remain anonymous, said he was shocked that Newtek made little effort to convey the gravity of the hijack to its customers — noting that the company’s home page still makes no mention of the incident.

“They also fail to make it clear that any data sent to any host under the domain could be recorded (email passwords, web credentials, etc.) by the attacker,” he said. “I’m floored at how bad their communication was to their users. I’m not surprised, but concerned, that they didn’t publish the content in the emails directly on their website.”

The source said that at a minimum Newtek should have expired all passwords immediately and required resets through non-compromised hosts.

“And maybe put a notice about this on their home page instead of relying on email, because a lot of my customers can’t get email right now as a result of this,” the source said.

There are a few clues that suggest the perpetrator of these domain hijacks is indeed being truthful about both his nationality and that he located a bug in Newtek’s service. Two of the hijacked domains were moved to a Vietnamese domain registrar (inet.vn).

This individual gave me an email address to contact him at — hd2416@gmail.com — although he has so far not responded to questions beyond promising to reply in Vietenamese. The email is tied to two different Vietnamese-language social networking profiles.

A search at Domaintools indicates that this address is linked to the registration records for four domains, including one (giakiemnew[dot]com) that was recently hosted on a dedicated server operated by Newtek’s legacy business unit Crystaltek [full disclosure: Domaintools is an advertiser on this site]. Recall that Crystaltek[dot]com was among the three hijacked domains.

In addition, the domain giakiemnew[dot]com was registered through Newtek Technology Services, a domain registration service offered by Newtek. This suggests that the perpetrator was in fact a customer of Newtek, and perhaps did discover a vulnerability while using the service.

Go to Source
Author: BrianKrebs

Website Glitch Let Me Overstock My Coinbase

Coinbase and Overstock.com just fixed a serious glitch that allowed Overstock customers to buy any item at a tiny fraction of the listed price. Potentially more punishing, the flaw let anyone paying with bitcoin reap many times the authorized bitcoin refund amount on any canceled Overstock orders.

In January 2014, Overstock.com partnered with Coinbase to let customers pay for merchandise using bitcoin, making it among the first of the largest e-commerce vendors to accept the virtual currency.

On December 19, 2017, as the price of bitcoin soared to more than $17,000 per coin, Coinbase added support for Bitcoin Cash — an offshoot (or “fork”) from bitcoin designed to address the cryptocurrency’s scalability challenges.

As a result of the change, Coinbase customers with balances of bitcoin at the time of the fork were given an equal amount of bitcoin cash stored by Coinbase. However, there is a significant price difference between the two currencies: A single bitcoin is worth almost $15,000 right now, whereas a unit of bitcoin cash is valued at around $2,400.

On Friday, Jan. 5, KrebsOnSecurity was contacted by JB Snyder, owner of North Carolina-based Bancsec, a company that gets paid to break into banks and test their security. An early adopter of bitcoin, Snyder said he was using some of his virtual currency to purchase an item at Overstock when he noticed something alarming.

During the checkout process for those paying by bitcoin, Overstock.com provides the customer a bitcoin wallet address that can be used to pay the invoice and complete the transaction. But Snyder discovered that Overstock’s site just as happily accepted bitcoin cash as payment, even though bitcoin cash is currently worth only about 15 percent of the value of bitcoin.

To confirm and replicate Snyder’s experience firsthand, KrebsOnSecurity purchased a set of three outdoor solar lamps from Overstock for a grand total of $78.27.

The solar lights I purchased from Overstock.com to test Snyder’s finding. They cost $78.27 in bitcoin, but because I was able to pay for them in bitcoin cash I only paid $12.02.

After indicating I wished to pay for the lamps in bitcoin, the site produced a payment invoice instructing me to send exactly 0.00475574 bitcoins to a specific address.

The payment invoice I received from Overstock.com.

Logging into Coinbase, I took the bitcoin address and pasted that into the “pay to:” field, and then told Coinbase to send 0.00475574 in bitcoin cash instead of bitcoin. The site responded that the payment was complete. Within a few seconds I received an email from Overstock congratulating me on my purchase and stating that the items would be shipped shortly.

I had just made a $78 purchase by sending approximately USD $12 worth of bitcoin cash. Crypto-currency alchemy at last!

But that wasn’t the worst part. I didn’t really want the solar lights, but also I had no interest in ripping off Overstock. So I cancelled the order. To my surprise, the system refunded my purchase in bitcoin, not bitcoin cash!

Consider the implications here: A dishonest customer could have used this bug to make ridiculous sums of bitcoin in a very short period of time. Let’s say I purchased one of the more expensive items for sale on Overstock, such as this $100,000, 3-carat platinum diamond ring. I then pay for it in Bitcoin cash, using an amount equivalent to approximately 1 bitcoin ($~15,000).

Then I simply cancel my order, and Overstock/Coinbase sends me almost $100,000 in bitcoin, netting me a tidy $85,000 profit. Rinse, wash, repeat.

Reached for comment, Overstock.com said the company changed no code in its site and that a fix implemented by Coinbase resolved the issue.

“We were made aware of an issue affecting cryptocurrency transactions and refunds by an independent researcher. After working with the researcher to confirm the finding, that method of payment was disabled while we worked with our cryptocurrency integration partner, Coinbase, to ensure they resolved the issue. We have since confirmed that the issue described in the finding has been resolved, and the cryptocurrency payment option has been re-enabled.”

Coinbase said “the issue was caused by the merchant partner improperly using the return values in our merchant integration API. No other Coinbase customer had this problem.”Coinbase told me the bug only existed for approximately three weeks.”

“After being made aware of an issue in our joint refund processing code on SaturdayCoinbase and Overstock worked together to deploy a fix within hours,” The Coinbase statement continued. “While a patch was being developed and tested, orders were proactively disabled to protect customers. To our knowledge, a very small number of transactions were impacted by this issue. Coinbase actively works with merchant partners to identify and solve issues like this in an ongoing, collaborative manner and since being made aware of this have ensured that no other partners are affected.”

Bancsec’s Snyder and I both checked for the presence of this glitch at multiple other merchants that work directly with Coinbase in their checkout process, but we found no other examples of this flaw.

The snafu comes as many businesses that have long accepted bitcoin are now distancing themselves from the currency thanks to the recent volatility in bitcoin prices and associated fees.

Earlier this week, it emerged that Microsoft had ceased accepting payments in Bitcoin, citing volatility concerns. In December, online game giant Steam said it was dropping support for bitcoin payments for the same reason.

And, as KrebsOnSecurity noted last month, even cybercriminals who run online stores that sell stolen identities and credit cards are urging their customers to transact in something other than bitcoin.

Interestingly, bitcoin is thought to have been behind a huge jump in Overstock’s stock price in 2017. In December, Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne reportedly stoked the cryptocurrency fires when he said that he might want to sell Overstock’s e-tailing operations and pour the extra cash into accelerating his blockchain-based business ideas instead.

In case anyone is wondering what I did with the “profit” I made from this scheme, I offered to send it back to Overstock, but they told me to keep it. Instead, I donated it to archive.org, a site that has come in handy for many stories published here.

Update, 3:15 p.m. ET: A previous version of this story stated that neither Coinbase nor Overstock would say which of the two was responsible for this issue. The modified story above resolves that ambiguity.

Go to Source
Author: BrianKrebs