Voice Over IP Under Threat? 148
An anonymous reader writes "The IT Observer is discussing the possible scary future of Voice over IP targeted viruses, and what that could mean for the consumer. The article discusses the likelihood that VoIP is going to become even more popular, and the damage that a targeted 'flash virus' could perpetrate in a very short amount of time. From the article: 'Let's imagine a scenario that could become commonplace in the near future: A user has an IP telephony system on his computer (both at home and at work). In his address book on the computer there is an entry, under the name Bank, with the number 123-45-67. Now, a hacker launches a mass-mailing attack on thousands or millions of email addresses using code that simply enters users' address books and modifies any entry under the name Bank to 987-65-43. ... If any of these users receives a message saying that there is a problem in their account, and asking them to call their bank (a typical phishing strategy), they may not be suspicious, as they are not clicking on a link in an email ... If they use their VoIP system to call the bank, they will be calling the modified number, where a friendly automated system will record all their details. ' "
The problem of telephony + the Internet... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The problem of telephony + the Internet... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The problem of telephony + the Internet... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have been doing it for a while now (need to clean the code for the AGI plugin and post it). For my incoming phone lines I have scheduled times when the phone does not ring, when it rings only in my office for known callerIDs or when it rings for everyone who has not withheld their callerid. Trivial to do with asterisk+perl-AGI and quite more powerfull compared to the default autoattendant.
The article brands all VOIP to be Skypelike (and vice versa). VOIP is not just PC based systems and this attack currently applies only to PC based systems. In addition to that it is limited to a specific VOIP system. A valid Skype attack is not applicable to Yahoo, MSN, SIP phones, etc.
Things may change in the future when integrated contact management and click-to-dial becomes commonplace. This is not common enough now and can be found only on PHB/Sales laptops so it is not yet an attack vector that is worth mentioning. By the way, this will apply to any phone system that has click to dial, not just VOIP. Now having outlook+voip worm - that is a scary thought...
Re: (Score:2)
You actually answer the phone to ACs?
I uses to pretend to be a recorded message, saying {in a slightly posh accent} "Anonymous calls are not welcome on this line. If your business is important, you may ring back without withholding your number." {still have to on my mobile}. Then I found out about Incoming Call Barring. Sweet! Only bad thing about it is you can't change the message.
Re: (Score:2)
99% of recruiters in the UK call as ACs for reasons of sheer stupidity prevalent in the industry. As a result if you want to have a job, you have no choice, but to answer ACs. The only thing you can do about that is to prearrange the calls. In any case you have to have a phone indicating a ring for these - note, the phone which actually "rings" on these in the house is my office phone which has the ringer off and only a visual indication.
In addition to that Cambridge
Re: (Score:2)
An anonymous phone call is the telephonical equivalent of being accosted from behind by a masked stranger. Frankly, I'm amazed it's even legal in this day and age.
If someone's really desperate to get through to me from behind a badly-design
Not just VoIP (Score:2)
That was my thought exactly. I use vonage and don't have an address book on my computer. However, lots of people with conventional phones use Outlook. Changing phone numbers in address books should have been a concern many years ago, and is no more of a concern today.
Hell, I had "click" (F10 key, I think...) to dial on my old Tandy 1000! Modem dialed, then I lifted the handset and the modem disconnected so I could talk.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's "it's your uncle" and not "its your uncle", and now you're no longer in need of correction, either. :)
Re: (Score:2)
It's [wsu.edu] all so confusing!!
Logical progression (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps its because im some sort of luddite, but the VOIP system that i have hooks up into the phone line, not into the computer. Who would trust there computer for anything?
What you're failing to understand is that your VoIP system is a computer, just a specialized one. As to who would trust their computer, lots of people. The main problem being a lot of those people are running Windows desktops instead of a specialized computer or a Linux machine or an OS X box or, well really anything but a Windows PC
And that's why... (Score:4, Interesting)
But that just my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Cell Phone for day-to-day calls.
Cable Modem for day-to-day internet use.
POTS for reliability when all else goes to heck.
In the past ten years I've had both Cell and Cable fail and in each case I was able to fall back on POTS to handle my basic needs (and we're talking the center of a major urban metropoli
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The ONLY practical difference between my VoIP service and POTS is that I only have a single port for my POTS phone to plug into. I can't run telephone line everywhere. But that is easily solved by getting a set of cordless phones that all share a common base.
-matthew
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, I prefer cordless phones. So I might as well get a set of them.
-matthew
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And that's why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I loved the end quote to the article:
"In this way users will be properly protected against any possible waves of attacks using voice over IP systems. For traditional problems (known malicious code), signature-based scanning; for new problems, new technologies (intelligent detection of unknown code)."
What, something like your goddamn TruPrevent Technology [pandasoftware.com] which repeatedly identified my uTorrent client as malware and my connection to WoW as an e-mail virus?
I think not, chumps!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As an AT&T CallVantage customer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Open VoIP Clients are Safer (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes they are. And good ones are already available. You can now use OpenWengo [openwengo.org] as an alternative to Skype - it's GPL'ed code and uses a standard protocol (SIP), making it interoperable with most VoIP software. Except Skype.
Skype is a closed-source minefield of terrifying security holes just waiting to be stumbled upon by black hats and exploited for the usual reasons. It's a ready made peer to peer infrastructure that always uses encrypted communications, just waiting to be made int
Re: (Score:2)
If the distribution and maintenance process is slowed down by requiring users to install (continuously bugfixed) apps under their OS, the ecosystem will remain riddled with insecurity.
Re: (Score:2)
Storing patched SW at servers run by admins and personal data at clients protected by the people who own it is the way to best secure privacy and safety.
VoIP-Spam is another threat (Score:3, Insightful)
VoIP will be cheap enough for spammers, and easy to handle by spamrobots...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Try using a cigar/lubricant/antibiotic.
KFG
Re: (Score:2)
Why would this threaten VoIP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, if I just fired up my VoIP software and double-clicked the "Bank" entry in a phone list, I may never even suspect that anything's amiss.
No, this isn't VoIP-specific, but I can see how it might be made *easier* if the person uses VoIP.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that with a VoIP system, the system actually uses your computerized address book to do the dialing. Even more troubling is the possibility of modifying the VoIP such that when you (or your address book) dial the correct number for your bank, it actually dials a number that the hacker owns.
Re: (Score:2)
and? (Score:1)
Last I checked, I didn't have my bank's phone number in my address book, seems kind of odd to have something like that anyways.
Do people really call their banks with any regularity to need an entry in their address book?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, since my bank has a branch office right next to my company's cafeteria, I don't consider this an issue.
I don't store numbers in any address book that are on websites I frequently use, this includes all of my banks. (100% of phone calls to the bank are usually the result of a "you can't do this online, call 1-800-xyz-abcd".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OMG (Score:1)
VERY UNLIKELY, see why... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The potential scenerio quoted in the post is so far fetched, it's doubtful anyone will ever pull it off. It involves hacking their voip system, home computer (and address book), a mass-mailing spam which happens to also include the email address of the hacked computer, user intervention (they must read the spam and respond), and the hacker must also have a good enough radio voice to fool the homeowner into thinking he's actually calling his real bank.Don't know about you, but we're not to afraid of this possible Voice over IP threat.
Far fetched? Hey, the author thought it up, didn't he? Everything is far fetched (sailing around the world, explaining gravity, travelling into space) until someone actually does it. This technique requires thought and some actual work. So? If there's money in it, someone or some group out there with the wherewithal and time on their hands will try and exploit it, because basically they know your average computer users are sheep, and they have these nifty shears. It's this kind of complicated and non-obvi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only way y
If! But! Maybe! Might! Could! (Score:2)
Seriously though, there were an awful lot of 'if's and 'maybe's in that, and at least one of those steps can be avoided by being at least slightly knowledgable about the internet. It's a matter of education and in that respect people have to help themselves, or other people will help themselves instead.
To all your money.
Again People Are the Weakness (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not Unique to VOIP (Score:4, Informative)
Changing phone numbers in an address book isn't unique to VOIP. A virus could scan Outlook and other common address book systems and change phone numbers, whether VOIP or not. Since most people don't have their bank phone numbers memorized, they'll assume that the address book entry is correct. Even if they use a non-VOIP phone, the phishing attack can work.
Now, a VOIP system might have an integrated address-book/speed-dial system that could also be attacked. But otherwise, I don't see where this is unique to VOIP.
Whaaat? (Score:2, Insightful)
What if someone hacks the telephone exchange and redirects all calls to the bank to a new number?
What if I get a letter from my bank saying they have moved, and a phisher builds a new bank at that address, thus allowing them to take all my details?
How would that work? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What color is the sky in your world?
Re: (Score:1)
Right now, it is my VoIP that is the least prone to these.
I guess the point to all this is how to prevent it pro actively.
Right now, when I sign into my bank they present me with a picture and some text to go with it. This, in theory, means that I am actually on their site and not an elab
Re: (Score:2)
Easy. The skype user's telephone book is most likely (I don't use Skype so I can't be sure) a file on their PC.
A virus can enter that PC in any of the normal ways that they can propagate and go modify that file. (i.e. it isn't a "VoIP Virus", it's a traditional virus that attacks your address book once you're infected)
Dr. Weird had it right after all (Score:4, Funny)
You could just stop using Windows... (Score:2)
and all this should go away. When did you last hear of a security breach on Alcatel DEC
Re:You could just stop using Windows... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll never get caught by a phising scam because my web browser doesn't support the HTML used on fake-paypal.com and I can't even connect to it anyway because I'm using a brand of TCP/IP used only by myself and a handful of
Call me crazy, but I want to work on something that I can easily share with my colleagues - I want the most open digital environment I can get.
I refuse to accept that lazy/poor programmers can excuse the security holes in their products by claiming that everyone should be aiming for security through obscurity. Lets stop blaming Windows/Internet Explorer users for the insecurity of the products they use. Security through diversity is just renamed security through obscurity; it's no security at all.
Re:You could just stop using Windows... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, I understand in the Slashdot world, anything that pokes at Microsoft and Windows is instantly thought of as insightful and true, but what the hell does this problem have to do with Microsoft? This problem exists because of social habits of human beings. Most phishing scams work only when there is action taken by a victim that is either uncaring, or doesn't know better.
I recently received a phishing scam email from somebody purporting to be Wells Fargo Bank. First clue is obvious, I don't have an account with them, but I was curious. So I clicked the link in Firefox. The site comes up, looks similar to the real Wells Fargo site, but has a completely non-legitimate URL. So then I clicked the link in IE7. Guess what, IE7 knew it was a phishing site.
So in my above example, Microsoft was not at fault, in fact, they were proactive enough to protect the user. Stop blaming third parties for what amounts to human error. And if you think OS diversity would help the problem, you are wrong. People react the same way to phishing scams regardless of OS.
And your suggestions are absolutely insane. One thing that computing monoculture brings is a standard implementation. How would the average consumer react if they were told "this software won't work on this OS" or worse "this software only works on certain flavors of linux, but not yours". The reason the PC grew so quickly was the ability to choose between different software and hardware easily, and be sure of compatibility. Sure, niche markets existed, such as the Mac, but the PC was much more extensible and much more desirable.
-dave
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not at all unfeasible that someone could write a trojan to run on an easily-compromised Windows box (many businesses still have to use a few of these for running legacy apps), listen for VoIP traffic, determine from the headers what phone models are in use, download a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I understand in the Slashdot world, anything that pokes at Microsoft and Windows is instantly thought of as insightful and true, but what the hell does this problem have to do with Microsoft?
The attack described relies upon a worm that can compromise desktop systems. Worms are a lot easier to implement if their are a huge number of identical targets with identical holes. Currently that target is Windows.
This problem exists because of social habits of human beings. Most phishing scams work only whe
Re: (Score:2)
Or, it would only require a user to run certain software, which is the reason a lot of people get malware/spyware on their computers in the first place. This would not stop if there were no holes. It would only stop if there was a way to ensure that people didn't run software they download
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or, it would only require a user to run certain software, which is the reason a lot of people get malware/spyware on their computers in the first place.
Yeah, trojans are a problem, although all the studies I've seen by number of infections put malware without user interaction in the lead.
This would not stop if there were no holes. It would only stop if there was a way to ensure that people didn't run software they download AND that any software provided to them was legitimate.
OS's don't need to pr
Re: (Score:2)
Keeping the user informed, when the user isn't a computer expert can be extremely difficult. How is an OS to know that the file being modified is phone numbers rather than configuration settings?
The problem with trojans isn't that people double click on things, it's that when they
Re: (Score:2)
How is an OS to know that the file being modified is phone numbers rather than configuration settings?
Because the first one is called "Phone Numbers.db" and the second is called "Address Book Settings.xml."
So if every time a user double clicks a file, you would like the OS to inform them that they have run a program?
No, I'd like them to be aware before they click that the item they are clicking is an executable or data. The UI should make this 100% crystal clear. Today, this is not the case. Then, i
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, the vast majority of people are running some flavour of Windows on x86, so that's what's targetted. It helps that Windows machines are also generally a soft(er) target, used by people with little or on clue as to how to use a PC safely. As and when significant numbers of users move to other platforms, those platforms will also be ta
Re: (Score:2)
Scaremongering (Score:2, Interesting)
OMFG, What if someone wrote a virus that relinked your favorite
Address (Score:2)
Near future - HAH (Score:2)
Or sooner now they have described what to do &
Jaj
What about a BotNet? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
A 911 center typically has a handful of human operators - so what is needed to DOS a typical PSAP is a handful of cell phones and you just have a few people phone in and the 911 center is totally full. You don't need a bot net of voip systems. The reason this does not happen is because there is very little incentive to DOS a 911 center.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that it is probably a federal offense and would initiate an FBI investigation
Re: (Score:2)
I'll keep it brief. As other informative posts have explained, the virii potential of VOIP clients is unlikely.
Say I'm a bad guy and I want to simultaneously call 100,000 machines. I would have to spawn 100,000 connections to a voip server. Your voip server firewall has a threshold for dropping connections from a single IP address doesn't it? If the bad guy is using 100,000 zombies then the problem is not voip is it?
Let's say for a minute that I'm able to connect to a client. *The phone will ring
Re: (Score:2)
Say I'm a bad guy and I want to simultaneously call 100,000 machines. I would have to spawn 100,000 connections to a voip server. Your voip server firewall has a threshold for dropping connections from a single IP address doesn't it? If the bad guy is using 100,000 zombies then the problem is not voip is it?
You wouldn't have to spawn 100,000 connections to a single voip server, the botnet would already be running on an IRC server somewhere, awaiting orders. I just login to the IRC channel after making a few dozen ssh hops around my bots and through a TOR network somewhere. I send the command and the bots start cycling through commands to hijack the 10 most common VOIP apps and dial whatever number i have the bots set to dial. It wouldn't be that hard. My original post was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I did
Re: (Score:2)
A serious botnet can have 50k-100k minion boxes out there... Imagine if VOIP hit even 20% penetration
Unless they're all running the same VoIP client and service, it is pretty hard to grab all those 20%. Another option would be to use a custom VoIP client, if there are free services available for calling out.
If you were the type of slimeball or, gods forbid, terrorist, what would you do with 20 thousand phones you had access to? Think DDOS on 911?
To what end? 911 is for reporting crimes and emergencie
Maybe a FUTURE problem (Score:4, Interesting)
In short, we know the threat. And we're also the ones who use VOIP predominantly, aside of companies (who better have someone like us as their IT-security person there). Auntie Mable and Joe Hicksberger won't switch to VOIP any time soon.
So personally, I'd rate THAT threat low. At least for now.
Re: (Score:2)
"Auntie Mable and Joe Hicksberger won't switch to VOIP any time soon."
In some places, cable companies are starting to offer their own VoIP services. It's a great deal because you can get a package (TV + Internet + Long distance Phone) for a reasonable price. So lots of "Auntie Mable" types are starting to sign up for these things, without really knowing (or caring) that it's VoIP.
My mom, for instance, is about to make ths switch (finally upgradi
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't phishing, where Joe Average is putting his data into peril by trusting it to a machine which is (by its very nature and reason to exist) open and easy to infect, wh
Re: (Score:2)
So you're quite right that TFA is needlessly alarmist.
Stop giving them ideas! (Score:2)
I'll take VOIP... (Score:2, Funny)
Those shankers hurt!
By Fernando de la Cuadra, Panda Software (Score:2)
Let me be the first to state this as a rebus (Score:2)
Voice
IP
An exaggerated and unlikely threat (Score:2)
First, as with every technology outside the Windows desktop monoculture, viruses are not easy to spread: A variety of CPUs and OSs make it less likely the next machine a virus encounters will be able to run the virus code.
Second, the hypothetical attack depends on a combination of two attacks: A virus plus phishing. That is an uncommonly sophisticated combination. Is there any basis in current experience with attacks that shows this is likely t
VOIP Lowers the Entry Barrier Maybe... (Score:2)
The hypothetical scenario described is extremely weak... I don't know of any people who have their address book that tightly integrated into the
Example pulled out of thin air (Score:2)
BS (Score:2)
"Friendly automated system" have unfriendly prices (Score:2)
Therein lies the rub. If you don't use the original voice talent the people you're trying to scam will immediately know somthing is up.
Having worked with the voice talent that you hear on some major voicemail systems (Lorrain Nelson [voicelady.com], who did Merlin and Audix) these kinds of systems don't come cheap. So to set up a phony system you would need to
a) be in cahoots with the voice talent, who are us
the end... (Score:2)
so long, and thanks for all the phish.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US you are lucky if the automated system has time to talk to you. Normally you get rushed through because the automated system is busy and has more important things to do than talking with a customer with a problem - when the problem is almost certainly the customer's and not the bank's.
Face it, when the ATM machine encouraged banks to charge for teller vists and a couple tried it customer service at a bank was lost and isn't likely to reappear anytime soon. In Arizona they hav