backtop


Print 43 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Nov 20 at 5:31 PM

Affected users can hardly log in without being assailed with offensive feed items

Facebook has recent seen a rise in hacking schemes, including the creation of phishing pages spread by infected users' feeds.  This isn't terribly surprising, given that the platform has 800 million users, at last count, and is the world's most used website.  Most of these social networking attacks appear to be of a practical money-driven bent, targeting users' passwords and personal information, which can be used in attacks on other sites like users' bank accounts or emails.

I. Trolls Set New Bar on Offensive Facebook Hack

A new attack is sweeping Facebook, which appears to be solely of a griefing/trolling mindset.  The new attack injects hardcore pornography, horror-film-esque human gore, and religiously offensive material into users' feeds.

Gawker was among the first to report on this reportedly growing attack.  A user writes:

They appear as updates on your news feed, but they're attributed to users who have nothing to do with their being posted.

The pictures are REALLY graphic — a closeup of a woman fingering herself, an erect dick, etc.

Facebook seems to be at a loss as to how to stop this from happening. It's kind of funny, but also scary when you're at work and your boss walks past your computer just as a giant cock appears on your screen.

Other users appeared to be chiming in via Twitter, making remarks such as, "Facebook is officially a porn site" and "it's a legit porn site."

Facebook stop porn

Courtney Zito, an aspiring web actress who created the series Hollywood Girl, drew attention to the issue when she was quoted by The Christian Post as saying:

I have 5000 friends. My feed is littered with porn. I can’t even check my news feed with anyone around because of it. Just saw one with a guy who had his skull bashed in and his brains on the street. Another one was the devil… Besides the countless naked girls. I'm about ready to deactivate.

She shortly thereafter made good on her threat, according to her Twitter account.

II. Anonymous to Blame?

Initial reports, including The Christian Post, speculate that Anonymous might be behind the attacks.  These reports originate from a supposed August posting of the hacktivist post, which called on members to destroy Facebook on November 5.  Nothing happened on November 5, so many news sites eagerly speculated this could be the long awaited attack.

The only problem is that Anonymous has denied having any plans to contact Facebook.  While the group has no leaders, some very active members serve as organizers/spokespeople, offer a common message agreed upon by organizers statewide, nationwide, or worldwide.  

Anonymous Likes Facebook
Anonymous says attacks that they were going to attack Facebook were misreported.
[Image Source: James Martin/CNET]

One such spokesperson commented to CNET on the day before the attack:

Anonymous is a movement we don't take kindly to when people try to f**k it up.  Our movement relies on communicating with people around the world so we can help one another.  One skiddy queer chap named Anthony Guerra from the US in Ohio decided to take it upon himself to have some lulz with creating an imaginary opfacebook and pawning it off as a legit anon op.  Despite us telling this mate several times we did not support his op, he continued to push his agenda for lulz.  This op is phony but he continues to say it's an anon op.

Without being an active organizer within Anonymous or chatting with many members its hard to differentiate false positives from real attacks.  Reports of false attacks often arise from a rogue member posting threats from "Anonymous" on Pastebin, IRC channels, or other communications means.

In some cases this is a real attack that's only supported by a minority, but which actually proceeds.  But most Anonymous attacks require strength in numbers, so often such attacks are simply a ranting fringe member and never go realized.  Members of Anonymous oft tell such members:

Not your army or Not Anon's army or Not your personal army (NYPA)

III. The Likely Attack Vector

So how did these attacks happen?

While its possible that somehow some internet trolls/griefers have found a legitimate flaw in Facebook's code and are using a direct attack on Facebook servers to spread their offensive posts, more likely what is happening here follows the aforementioned prior phishing-driven attacks, which we mentioned earlier.

These attacks typically work by:
  1. Tempting the user to click on some fake feed item (often resembling a Facebook post, such as a post stating that a user joined a group).
     
  2. The attacking image/text contains a link that drops the user on a page that makes it look like they logged out.  Often this can be a multi-stage process to dupe the user, e.g. display a fake group page that looks identical to a real Facebook group, which when users click the button to like/join redirects them to a login screen resembling Facebook's normal login prompt for users in such events.
     
  3. Once the attacker has your username/password, they use softbots to log into accounts.
     
  4. The softbots post feed links pointing to the attack page(s).
Facebook's approach to banning these kinds of schemes appears two-fold.  First, it does appear to block some malicious domains.  Second, the company has implemented a location-based identification prompt, which forces users logging in from a location outside their typical login area to identify pictures of friends to prove their identity.
 
Facebook identity confirmation

This can be overcome by brute force (1 out of every so many guesses will be correct and you don't need that many correct answers to complete the log in).  However, the many failed attempts for every success will likely draw Facebook's attention to the attacker IP, allowing it to ban it.

But attackers due have a less dangerous access route if they have access to a sufficiently sizeable botnet in the target region.  The location check is typically triggered on a state-by-state basis, so a possible work around for attackers is to infect local machines and use those in the login attempts.  The attackers can identify the correct local machine to route attacks through by compiling a list of the emails of infected users' friends and what they list their current residential area to be, and then matching this location information to the stolen credentials when a friend clicks through.

Many of these attacks have looked to parlay that information into real world profits.  But others have been designed purely for the sake of trolling and defacing users' profiles/feed.

The latest porn/gore attacks Facebook are interesting from the perspective that they are setting a new bar for offensiveness of trolling schemes targetting the site's members (and media coverage thereof).  However, the attacks do not appear to be terribly widespread (users with a large amount of friends appear to be at the greatest risk due to sheer statistics).  And they certainly don't appear to be the work of Anonymous, as some unfortunately suggested.

Sources: Gawker, The Christian Post



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Simlpe solution....NO FB at work.
By GotThumbs on 11/16/11, Rating: 0
RE: Simlpe solution....NO FB at work.
By Reclaimer77 on 11/16/2011 10:36:04 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I can't believe that your secretary has time for FB, given the extremely important and high pressure position that is!

/sarcasm


By mindless1 on 11/20/2011 5:31:09 PM , Rating: 2
Once upon a time ago if an employee found themselves without anything to do, they found a way to make themselves useful to fellow coworkers instead of trying to find ways to do less work so they had more time for social media sites.

If her job doesn't require all the time then it's due to be turned into a part-time position or she should be given additional tasks.

This is part of why US businesses do so poorly today, all the employees look to slack off as much as possible instead of accepting that while they are at work it is the company's time not theirs. If they can't find SOMETHING useful to do, they are not the most suited for the job.


By cjohnson2136 on 11/16/2011 10:48:32 AM , Rating: 3
Yes because being on Fb is so much different then reading DT articles about FB. That is non-time waster activity right there for you.


By The Raven on 11/16/2011 10:59:47 AM , Rating: 2
Well look at the brightside: when she logs in, now there will be a big pic of a girl (or guy) chugging c**k and she will get fired. lol

In other news I heard that kids these days would rather have access to FB at work instead of a higher salary...
quote:
Study: Young people choose Facebook over higher salary
http://www.wwl.com/Study--Young-people-choose-Face...
No wonder everyone is unemployed without a savings and it looks like it will get worse before it get better.


RE: Simlpe solution....NO FB at work.
By muIIet on 11/17/2011 10:49:31 AM , Rating: 2
I agree FB is for little kids not adults.


As of 12:56am
By ShaolinSoccer on 11/16/2011 12:58:15 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not seeing any sort of this bad stuff on my family's Facebook news feed. And we've got over 100 friends, family and friends of family. Maybe this problem has already been taken care of?




RE: As of 12:56am
By cjohnson2136 on 11/16/2011 10:49:15 AM , Rating: 2
This is an issue more for the people that friend everyone not just people you know.


False Security
By Shining Arcanine on 11/17/2011 6:07:06 PM , Rating: 2
"This can be overcome by brute force (1 out of every so many guesses will be correct and you don't need that many correct answers to complete the log in). However, the many failed attempts for every success will likely draw Facebook's attention to the attacker IP, allowing it to ban it."

If you have all publically available pictures of their friends, it is trivial to do an eignvalue calculation and determine which pictures are those of their friends with 100% certainty. There is need for guesswork. It doesn't matter if facebook rotates the image, resizes it, even changes the color scale or randomizes the image format. The eignvalues will still be the same. A computer can determine if any of the pictures are of their friends with virtually 100% certainty and no human interaction. The only way that this approach could possibly be effective would be if facebook had a 3D model of each user, used it to take snapshots of them random angles and then used a different angle each time.

By the way, given that significant quantities of facebook accounts appear to compromised, attacker databases on people likely have almost as much information on them as facebook does, so these tactics don't work. If they want their users to be secure, they need to tell them to stop using Windows and use something like OpenBSD. Then they could patch the system web browser to enable users to access their site through a SSH tunnel that requires public key authentication and require all user logins to occur through that. That should put a stop to this.




RE: False Security
By Shining Arcanine on 11/17/2011 6:09:13 PM , Rating: 2
Note that they would need to permit authentication to only the specific account associated with the tunnel. Allowing anyone to log into any account from any tunnel would defeat the point of this.


By Shadowmaster625 on 11/16/2011 11:29:53 AM , Rating: 2
The interface is horribly designed. These stupid feeds are incredibly dimwittedly designed from the get. It begs the question how does such a badly designed site become such a dominant force? Uh... because people are frickin stupid. Well that stupidity carries a hefty price. The backbone of the largest sites in the world much MUST be rock solid. Google and newegg are two examples of rock solid, well designed sites. Facebook is trash and it belongs on the trash heap and the sooner people accept that, the better.




Well played...
By Performance Fanboi on 11/16/2011 3:14:21 PM , Rating: 2
Google +, well played.




Calm the @*!* Down.
By swimdude2113 on 11/17/2011 8:01:19 AM , Rating: 1
Holy Shit people. Calm Down. Facebook got hacked. Big. Fucking. Whoop. You honestly probably shouldn't be on Facebook at work anyways. I'm sorry your friends are morons and clicked on a spam ad, and I'm sorry that you're unfortunate enough to have to see it, but they're doing what they can. I personally haven't seen anything. If you want to deactivate Facebook and move to G+, then be my guest. It's honestly not a big deal though. No need to be a fucking dipshit about it and declare Facebook a porn site.




Really?
By pandemonium on 11/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: Really?
By pandemonium on 11/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: Really?
By Goty on 11/16/2011 10:09:35 AM , Rating: 2
Why is joking at Christianity's expense something worth voting up?


RE: Really?
By Motoman on 11/16/2011 12:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
...because pointing out the inherent stupidity of any and all religions is worth voting up.


RE: Really?
By Goty on 11/16/2011 2:13:36 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, so you're a bigot. Gotcha.


RE: Really?
By jimbojimbo on 11/16/2011 5:46:45 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, maybe that's his religion so don't knock it.

I don't care about any religions but if anybody tells me that I'll suffer for eternity if I don't believe the way they do, well... that's one religion I'll make fun of. Sound familiar?


RE: Really?
By fearrun on 11/17/2011 1:23:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, similar to the liberal point of view. If you happen to disagree with or dislike our current President, you are automatically a racist. The liberal perspective often gives me a good laugh.


RE: Really?
By invidious on 11/16/2011 10:15:18 AM , Rating: 2
Or for being a selfrighteous tool.


RE: Really?
By pandemonium on 11/17/2011 5:06:59 AM , Rating: 2
Pointing out safe security and information practices that I employ isn't self-righteous; it's proven procedure.

Funny coming from you though:

quote:
RE: Why are people acting surprised?
By invidious on 7/25/2011 11:09:09 AM , Rating: 5
Social media is not serious businsess, stop being a snob about it. The reason for "your friends making stupid accounts for their pets" is because your friends are stupid. It's not because facebook has failed to restrain their stupidity, that's not facebook's responsibility. The root of the problem is your choice to befriend morons. And the fact that you would actually accept the friend invite from the cat and complain here about getting status updates from the cat makes it clear that you are a moron too. George Carlin was definately right in your case.


RE: Really?
By Dr of crap on 11/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: Really?
By tastyratz on 11/16/2011 10:11:28 AM , Rating: 2
whoa whoa whoa wait a minute...

does this article say the internet has spam and phishing? I would never believe it! since when do people try to spam or phish facebook?


RE: Really?
By Dr of crap on 11/16/2011 10:35:23 AM , Rating: 2
You're right - when did this start happening?!!??


RE: Really?
By twhittet on 11/16/2011 1:56:11 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, that's what those users get for getting on the internet, and creating accounts with usernames and passwords!! Oh wait, you did that here? And you could be spammed/phished, and your account used to blast offensive garbage or spam on Anandtech?

Your logic is amazing. We should all avoid the internet to protect ourselves. And not go outside. Talking to people is probably also bad, if they know our names, they could steal our identity! Friends also might know our home addresses, we shouldn't make friends for this reason.


RE: Really?
By ShaolinSoccer on 11/16/2011 10:54:11 AM , Rating: 1
We all also know that atheists tend to get away with committing crimes without being branded an atheist...

What I would give to hear the media say "An atheist has murdered/raped/molested/robbed etc etc..."

It's only fair, right?


RE: Really?
By The Raven on 11/16/2011 11:10:09 AM , Rating: 3
Well the reason that you hear about Christians/Muslims is because the crime usually has something to do with the church they attend. Like Catholic priests raping kids and whatnot. It is not like the media reports a story of a dock worker killing his coworker and randomly points out that he is Christian or something. Though that does come out sometimes where family and friends say things like, "I don't know where this came from....he is a good Christian man....I was just laughing with him yesterday..."

So in either case being an Athiest wouldn't come up because athiests typically don't "go to church" and no one would ever say, "I don't know where this came from....he is a good athiest man....I was just laughing with him yesterday..."


RE: Really?
By tng on 11/16/11, Rating: 0
RE: Really?
By lagomorpha on 11/16/2011 11:54:42 AM , Rating: 2
They have to be, they're a small minority in the middle of a land controlled by religious fundamentalists that would happily turn the nation into a theocracy. Non-religious people are only starting to speak up now because for the first time in history they don't have to fear being burned to death for speaking out against the Church.


RE: Really?
By lecanard on 11/16/2011 7:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the religious people who founded the USA specifically prevented it from being a theocracy. Now it's the atheists who try to get religious references in public banned that are trying to create a state-sponsored religion: atheism.


RE: Really?
By lagomorpha on 11/18/2011 2:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
The USA was prevented from being a theocracy because each small religious group was so afraid of being persecuted by the neighboring religious group that they happily elected a bunch of deists and atheists rather than risk persecution from the strange form of Christianity next door.


RE: Really?
By MrBlastman on 11/16/2011 12:15:02 PM , Rating: 3
The late Carl Sagan, an agnostic, once said:

quote:
"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."[


It is no wonder Isaac Asimov said that Carl was one of the only two people he ever met that were smarter than him. Such words of wisdom.

His quote is deep and worthy of much pondering.


RE: Really?
By Motoman on 11/16/2011 12:47:36 PM , Rating: 1
Strictly speaking, "atheism" is as unprovable as Sagan says it is - you can't prove there is no god, just as you can't prove there is.

The current lexicon though tends to use "atheist" as being synonymous with "agnostic" - which is really what pretty much anyone who would accept the label "atheist" are, if you ask them. Because any such people would surely accept evidence proving the existence of a god(s) if such evidence were found, which would be the agnostic thing to do, rather than pretend they never saw such evidence and continue to insist that there is no god(s) despite evidence to the contrary (which would be what a true atheist would do).


RE: Really?
By MrBlastman on 11/16/2011 1:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
Lexicon or not, it is an important distinguishing factor that people need to be aware of.

An atheist that calls themselves such and does not know the difference is pure ignorance, plain and simple. There are two distinct words and should be used appropriately.

If someone calls themselves an atheist in my book, per proper word usage, that means they are taking a definitive stance in that there is no God, which is different from an agnostic's view that there might be a higher being or there might not, but with proper evidence proving the existence they would consider it possibly as so.

I feel no sympathy for an ignorant atheist. If someone wants to take a polarizing position, they should be prepared to bear any stigma that it bestows upon them.

Atheism and agnosticism are two completely different stances. You are either one, or the other, not both. Likewise, you are either a protestant or a catholic, not both--or more appropriately, either a christian or a jew (religiously speaking, not heritage/family-tree), not both.


RE: Really?
By ppardee on 11/16/2011 1:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
But you're assuming most people make thoughtful choices with regard to their religious beliefs. Most people who call themselves Christians speak like agnostics and live like atheists.

Most people who call themselves atheists are just doing it to make their parents mad even though they live exactly like their Christian parents.

And I would argue there is nothing more ignorant than an atheist. These are people who claim to know something that cannot be known and refuse to even consider any contrary evidence. This coming from a former atheist, btw.


RE: Really?
By MrBlastman on 11/16/2011 1:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
Oh no, make no mistake, I'm not assuming at all. I completely recognize the level of ignorance and disregard many people put into their thoughtless decisions to be either religious or an atheist.

And that brings me to another neat observation: The growing number of atheists who meet together in conventions, or buy/read publications from other atheists that help them "feel" good about their decision. It all reeks of a religion unto itself to me.

It must be great though, to know everything there is to learn about in the Universe. It must make atheist's lives
much easier. To know whether we live in a simple, single Universe, or a grand multiverse--to understand what "nothing" really is and to have at the tip of your tongue the means to unify General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics must be grand. To be able to know whether String Theory is absolutely the correct theory or everything must be astonishing. I wish I had that kind of knowledge. To be an atheist, you must know exactly everything there is to know about the Universe to be as such--have all the answers as you can definitely prove there is no God.

There is, however, nothing wrong with taking a stand, like I said, as long as they are prepared to bear the burden it might bring. Sadly, I observe, most are not.

Carl's quote from years ago is still relevant to this day and drips with wisdom.


RE: Really?
By The Raven on 11/16/2011 12:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most of the atheists that I know are more "religious" about their "beliefs" than any of my Christian friends. They are also more pushy about sharing them.
Well I'm not sure that is true even though I have been pissed off by that d-bag in California that wants the Pledge of Allegiance changed and all. I mean how many d-bags do you see waving pictures of dead fetuses in your face as you visit the state capitol? How many Muslims do you see blowing themselves, and others up? How many atheists do you see attacking planned parenthood?

No that any of this means anything, but my point is that when it comes to people trying to push their view on others, the religious take the cake. And let me say also that this in no way affects my view of the sane people that are religious, but there just seems to be a lot more religious whackadoos than there are atheists. But then again that statistic is never reported as previously mentioned.

And no I didn't purposefully capitalize the word. As you can see in the same comment, I also went lowercase. But having said that Atheism is a religion though I was talking in a more general definition that would include some Buddhists, deists, and Jack-Christians lol.


RE: Really?
By jvillaro on 11/16/2011 1:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
this in no way affects my view of the sane people that are religious, but there just seems to be a lot more religious whackadoos

Yeap and most of those are running for the republican party!!!


RE: Really?
By MrBlastman on 11/16/2011 1:08:22 PM , Rating: 2
I think it is shameful that many of the current Republican candidates wear religion on their sleeve just to gather votes... and likewise I think it is just as shameful to vote for someone simply because they share the same religious belief as yourself without even considering everything else they stand for.


RE: Really?
By jimbojimbo on 11/16/2011 5:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
That's interesting you just say Republicans. When Obama started for office while living in Chicago his advisers told him to attend a church since so many voters are religious. Because of that he started going to the church of a minister who was extremely racist because he was popular.

It's not just the republicans. Many politicians of every party do it. I actually mind it less in republicans because that's actually how they feel and how they were raised. Many democrats just do it for the votes. That I despise.


RE: Really?
By tng on 11/17/2011 11:00:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I mean how many d-bags do you see waving pictures of dead fetuses in your face as you visit the state capitol? How many Muslims do you see blowing themselves, and others up?
Point taken, but each religion follows some of the same basic principles.

In attacking other religious establishments, atheists have been waging a low key war against other religions for years, crosses offend them, the mere mention of God in any official capacity seems to be a target as well. This is not really different than Christians or Muslims fighting with each other just because of religious belief.

In my mind if you don't believe in a God or god, why should you go around trying to tear down others beliefs? Shouldn't you just be happy that you know better while the rest of us struggle with the unknown? Once you start down that road of a trying to destroy even the symbols of others to teach everybody that your answer is better, it becomes a religion IMO.


RE: Really?
By The Raven on 11/17/2011 2:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
to teach everybody that your answer is better

This is what it all comes down to. Pushing your beliefs on others. That 'you' are right and everyone else is wrong. It doesn't matter if it is Islam v. Atheism or Mac v. PC, people are just rude and arrogant. At least it is nice to know that in their own twisted mind the people out there trying to convert others by waving aforementioned pictures of butchered fetuses in your face do it out of good intentions. Whether that converts anyone or not is not the issue. The issue is personal liberty to do what you believe is right. When the religions of the world say you can't marry your gay partner or smoke some of the evil weed then there is blowback and rude contention.

There are Christians who won't go all d-bag on you in their attempts to convert you and there are atheists who don't go d-bag on you in their attempts to bring down organized religion. What it comes down to is what kind of person they are and not what they believe.


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki