From @jjmartucci: I bet 99% of the stolen Zappos passwords were “shoes”. // Fact: most passwords are frighteningly easy to guess. We bet that those passwords aren’t “shoes” at all, but rather “password”, “abc123″ and others from the list of too-often-used passwords. Alphanumeric passwords just aren’t as safe as we think they are.

From @dombenoit: receive @zappos email asking to change password after hack, can’t change password because i’m outside the US… good thinking guys.// Fact: American may be in the center of some poorly conceived maps, but it is not the center of the universe. Corporations, don’t forget that the majority of the world lives outside of the US, and they need customer service too.

From @kimfouroffive: In order to change my Zappos password I would have to remember my Zappos password and that’s not going to happen. // Fact: Tons of consumers rely on the “cookies” on their computer to remember their passwords. There’s no need to delve into all the reasons that’s poor practice. But let’s face it – many users either don’t remember their passwords, or they have them written on a post-it in their desk.

From @Kevbo1111: Wait, you’re telling me a company whose office looks like this, has lax security? #Zappos http://pic.twitter.com/pr9SrfCF // Fact: If we could see inside the workings of all the places that hold our ‘secure data’ we wouldn’t feel so secure.

From @Tuna999: Im confused, is that zappos security email real? // Fact: This is actually a very smart question, that many wouldn’t think to ask (or research before clicking through). A phishing attempt can look much the same, and confuse consumers into handing over their credentials to fraudulent sites.

From @justAK: Had someone try to acces my bank info a few times. Could this be cause of the #zappos #hacking ? I hope not. #worried // Fact: Too many users have the same password for all online accounts. It’s not hard to believe that hackers would use information from one site to try to access others.

From @andishehnouraee: Zappos hacked, “sensitive” customer info stolen. Before I’m outed, I’ll confess here: I’m a size 12. // Fact: sensitive information is a lot more sensitive than shoe size. That said, great sense of humor!

From @Tontiella: Zappos why are your accounts being hacked into?? Who is not doing their job to prevent this?  // Fact: Strong security measures are fabled to be more expensive than responding to data breaches. Time will tell how this affects Zappos in the long term, but let’s just say that resetting passwords doesn’t instill a sense of trust. (And, for the record, strong mutual authentication is well worth the investment)

Some facts that the typical ecommerce consumer should be aware of:

1. Too many users have a single set of login credentials (username and password) for all their online accounts. That means, when someone gets their info from Zappos, they can use it to access Facebook, Amazon, online magazine subscriptions, PayPal, email, gaming sites, online banking, and more.
2. “Fixing” an alphanumeric password breach with new alphanumeric passwords doesn’t actually “fix” anything. If I know the guy trying to break into my house is a locksmith, I don’t just cut a new key – I install security measures that a locksmith isn’t an expert in.
3. Zappos has chosen the path of least resistance – deploying consumers themselves to fix the breach. Zappos users have to follow instructions given in an email (which may have gone into spam folders), change their passwords, and email Zappos with any questions or concerns. Anyone with an email address they don’t regularly check, an overactive spam filter, or the ‘grandma’ syndrome (not computer savvy, and likely suspicious of ‘official’ email communication) may fall through the cracks.
4. Changing the Zappos password doesn’t change all the other similar or identical passwords the consumer uses on other accounts, leaving their customer base open to further attack elsewhere.

One of the key takeaways from this is that ecommerce systems should not be based on ‘security’ systems that rely on users’ unreliable alertness. Users expect the systems that hold their sensitive information to bear the burden of iron-clad security for their data. Strong, two-factor authentication systems aren’t just an option in today’s online environment – they are where the market is heading by default and by necessity. Zappos has shown us exactly how not to handle a data breach. Of course, if more systems used strong mutual authentication, we’d see decidedly fewer breaches like the one this weekend.

Those in the business know that December is a notoriously risk-ridden time for identity theft, as hackers take advantage of escalating ecommerce around the holidays. How are merchants and business owners to safeguard identity when customers like Joe Consumer make identity theft child’s play? One of the keys in identity protection is anticipating the evolution of technology. Responding reactively to current and past attacks only leaves users highly vulnerable.

A recent two-pronged RSA security breach hows just how deep hackers will go, uniting efforts across nations to attack secure data. Tokens are out of reach for many, with their high cost of maintenance. SMS authentication is cumbersome at best, and the most user-friendly solutions require nothing other than the user himself. That said, biometrics are excessively expensive.

Strong mutual authentication systems, like that of Tricerion, offer secure protection against assault while maintaining accessible affordability in comparison with biometric or token-based systems.  Picture-passwords have been found more memorable and harder to crack than alpha numeric passwords in multiple studies . Details on our authentication systems can be found on our website.

In brief:

• Complaints received:  336,655
• Total loss:  $559.7 million
• Increase from 2008 by 22.3 percent
• Median dollar loss of $575
• Average dollar loss: $1,633

Top five categories of offenses:

1. Non-delivered merchandise and/or payment – 19.9%
2. Identity theft – 14.1%
3. Credit card fraud – 10.4%
4. Auction fraud – 10.3%
5. Computer fraud – 7.9%

Find lots more data and demographic information by reading the full report at IC3.

The university scientists found that they could deduce tiny pieces of a private key by injecting slight fluctuations in a device’s power supply as it was processing encrypted messages. In a little more than 100 hours, they fed the device enough “transient faults” that they were able to assemble the entirety of its 1024-bit key.

“The RSA algorithm gives security under the assumption that as long as the private key is private, you can’t break in unless you guess it. We’ve shown that that’s not true,” said Valeria Bertacco, an associate professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

Read the full statement here.

But last weekend their clients and colleagues got a little surprise. First Direct’s Twitter account was duped, sending direct messages – the Twitter equivalent to short emails – to contacts. What’s more? These weren’t just any direct messages – they were pornographic. I don’t think that boosted their image of professionalism. The direct messages sent out tantalizing links, and upon clicking, users were asked to login to Twitter. Of course, it was a phishing attack where the users were actually divulging their password to hackers.

The next day First Direct sent out a series of tweets that did little to allay fears – they mentioned twice that they’d been hacked, then tried to reassure clients that only the Twitter account had been hacked – not the bank – and that no user passwords were involved.

The Register reader Paul Eagles comments in Twitter style of 140 characters or less: “Let’s hope they are more secure with their banking systems than their twitter account,” he writes. Here’s the deal. This attack phished bank users and convinced them to give away their passwords for Twitter. The problem is that a large number of users have the same passwords for all their accounts, giving hackers potential access to more than just Twitter accounts.

So, a note to all users on all platforms. If a link sent to you looks suspect, it probably is. Clicking on it is unwise, and entering any information about yourself is plain foolishness. Your bank won’t send you porn. I promise.

At Xing.com, the site that was used to test this theory, it is impressive how quickly the technical team implemented the appropriate safeguards to protect their users from this type of attacks (it took 3 days from learning about the potential threat for Hotfix deployment).

Now that the whole world knows how to launch this type of attack it may be wise to adjust the privacy settings of your browsers so that your browsing history is either not recorded or is erased fairly often.  Alternatively, use this plug-in for Firefox – Stanford SafeHistory.

Taking a quick look at several of these emissions trading registries’ websites (DEHSt, DEFRA, ETR.ie, etc.), it appears that SSL certificates is the limit of security on all of them.  While the banking industry is generally perceived to be very conservative when it comes to adopting new technologies, in the past several years a large number of banks chose mutual authentication technologies as an effective and low-cost solution to fight phishing.  As criminals learn about new schemes where social engineering can turn into profit, they will pursue other industries that will be vulnerable and that have not adopted safe login mechanisms.

The moral of the story? Mutual authentication isn’t just for banks. Companies in other industries need to anticipate cyberthieves just as much as banks do. What’s next?

2 of my 3 Twitter accounts asked me to reset my password this morning when I signed in. It seems that a third party application may have compromised accounts, but stories abound about what really happened.

What I can tell you is that I know enough about where to share my passwords that I didn’t accidentally give my credentials to a fraudulent site. I can also tell you that no one hijacked my account. My password is reset on both ‘compromised’ accounts and I’ve updated the legitimate applications I use to access Twitter.

I’m not quite sure why Twitter would be the target of a phishing attack. While they might be able to post what they ate for breakfast or follow a few celebrities (or whoever), no one can use my Twitter login information to access money or sensitive information. Not sure what the point to the whole Twitter phishing attack was, but I’m not too worried either. A minor inconvenience at worst, interesting blog fodder at best.

Update: Thanks to Malcolm for posting the following in the comments on one of our posts about phishing:

With the knowledge that many people use the same passwords across multiple sites, there is value in phishing ANY online login system. Because email+password can be identical on every site, any and every site is vunerable to phishing. Phishers need a single chink in the armour, if the phished person uses a hotmail/gmail etc email address for Twitter, there’s a high chance the email can then be comprimised with the same login details, and once you have the email you could wait for a ’statement’ email from a bank or credit card …

More online users know about phishing, while number of victims is up by 600% @ Tricerion Security Blog

We read stories about phishing and data breaches and we get worried. Some of us start thinking that maybe we’re better off (security-wise) with paper-based banking. Sending checks, receiving statements in the mail, paying bills the old fashioned way – manually with a checkbook and a stamp. But as Jean Chatzky said this morning on NBC’s Today Show, online banking is actually safer than paper-based for a few reasons.

1. People who use online banking check their account 4 times more often than those who use paper-based banking. That means if someone does fraudulently steal your identity or your banking information, you’ll find out about it more quickly and remedy the problem earlier, translating to potentially fewer losses.
2. Banks’ online systems are more secure than your mailbox and trash bin. Sure, they may not be 100% impervious to attack, but they’re much harder to hack into than your mailbox at the curb or the trash can full of sensitive information (even if it is shredded).
3. You can’t ‘wash’ an online transaction. Check washing still occurs today – where someone takes a legitimate check you signed, washes the original amount and payee information but retains your signature. They’re then free to put their own name and any amount they choose. Online transactions aren’t washable – they go where they’re meant to go, when they’re meant to go.

Basically what it boils down to is, choose a secure password that you can remember without writing it down. Keep your information to yourself, and don’t fall prey to scams inviting you “click here” to verify your information. You bank doesn’t need you to verify your information, and if they do they can find a more secure way to contact you than sending an email or putting a button on your Facebook page.