“Bluetana,” a new mobile app that looks for Bluetooth-based payment card skimmers hidden inside gas pumps, is helping police and state employees more rapidly and accurately locate compromised fuel stations across the nation, a study released this week suggests. Data collected in the course of the investigation also reveals some fascinating details that may help explain why these pump skimmers are so lucrative and ubiquitous.

The new app, now being used by agencies in several states, is the brainchild of computer scientists from the University of California San Diego and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, who say they developed the software in tandem with technical input from the U.S. Secret Service (the federal agency most commonly called in to investigate pump skimming rings).

Gas pumps are a perennial target of skimmer thieves for several reasons. They are usually unattended, and in too many cases a handful of master keys will open a great many pumps at a variety of filling stations.

The skimming devices can then be attached to electronics inside the pumps in a matter of seconds, and because they’re also wired to the pump’s internal power supply the skimmers can operate indefinitely without the need of short-lived batteries.

And increasingly, these pump skimmers are fashioned to relay stolen card data and PINs via Bluetooth wireless technology, meaning the thieves who install them can periodically download stolen card data just by pulling up to a compromised pump and remotely connecting to it from a Bluetooth-enabled mobile device or laptop.

According to the study, some 44 volunteers  — mostly law enforcement officials and state employees — were equipped with Bluetana over a year-long experiment to test the effectiveness of the scanning app.

The researchers said their volunteers collected Bluetooth scans at 1,185 gas stations across six states, and that Bluetana detected a total of 64 skimmers across four of those states. All of the skimmers were later collected by law enforcement, including two that were reportedly missed in manual safety inspections of the pumps six months earlier.

While several other Android-based apps designed to find pump skimmers are already available, the researchers said Bluetana was developed with an eye toward eliminating false-positives that some of these other apps can fail to distinguish.

“Bluetooth technology used in these skimmers are also used for legitimate products commonly seen at and near gas stations such as speed-limit signs, weather sensors and fleet tracking systems,” said Nishant Bhaskar, UC San Diego Ph.D. student and principal author of the study. “These products can be mistaken for skimmers by existing detection apps.”

BLACK MARKET VALUE

The fuel skimmer study also helps explain how quickly these hidden devices can generate huge profits for the organized gangs that typically deploy them. The researchers found the skimmers their app found collected data from roughly 20 -25 payment cards each day — evenly distributed between debit and credit cards (although they note estimates from payment fraud prevention companies and the Secret Service that put the average figure closer to 50-100 cards daily per compromised machine).

The academics also studied court documents which revealed that skimmer scammers often are only able to “cashout” stolen cards — either through selling them on the black market or using them for fraudulent purchases — a little less than half of the time. This can result from the skimmers sometimes incorrectly reading card data, daily withdrawal limits, or fraud alerts at the issuing bank.

“Based on the prior figures, we estimate the range of per-day revenue from a skimmer is $4,253 (25 cards per day, cashout of $362 per card, and 47% cashout success rate), and our high end estimate is $63,638 (100 cards per day per day, $1,354 cashout per card, and cashout success rate of 47%),” the study notes.

Not a bad haul either way, considering these skimmers typically cost about $25 to produce.

Those earnings estimates assume an even distribution of credit and debit card use among customers of a compromised pump: The more customers pay with a debit card, the more profitable the whole criminal scheme may become. Armed with your PIN and debit card data, skimmer thieves or those who purchase stolen cards can clone your card and pull money out of your account at an ATM.

“Availability of a PIN code with a stolen debit card in particular, can increase its value five-fold on the black market,” the researchers wrote.

This highlights a warning that KrebsOnSecurity has relayed to readers in many previous stories on pump skimming attacks: Using a debit card at the pump can be way riskier than paying with cash or a credit card.

And as the above graphic from the report illustrates, there are different legal protections for fraudulent transactions on debit vs. credit cards. With a credit card, your maximum loss on any transactions you report as fraud is $50; with a debit card, that protection only extends for within two days of the unauthorized transaction. After that, the maximum consumer liability can increase to $500 within 60 days, and to an unlimited amount after 60 days.

In practice, your bank or debit card issuer may still waive additional liabilities, and many do. But even then, having your checking account emptied of cash while your bank sorts out the situation can still be a huge hassle and create secondary problems (bounced checks, for instance).

Interestingly, this advice against using debit cards at the pump often runs counter to the messaging pushed by fuel station owners themselves, many of whom offer lower prices for cash or debit card transactions. That’s because credit card transactions typically are more expensive to process.

For all its skimmer-skewering prowess, Bluetana will not be released to the public. The researchers said they the primary reason for this is highlighted in the core findings of the study.

“There are many legitimate devices near gas stations that look exactly like skimmers do in Bluetooth scans,” said UCSD Assistant Professor Aaron Schulman, in an email to KrebsOnSecurity. “Flagging suspicious devices in Bluetana is a only a way of notifying inspectors that they need to gather more data around the gas station to determine if the Bluetooth transmissions appear to be emanating from a device inside of of the pumps. If it does, they can then open the pump door and confirm that the signal strength rises, and begin their visual inspection for the skimmer.”

One of the best tips for avoiding fuel card skimmers is to favor filling stations that have updated security features, such as custom keys for each pump, better compartmentalization of individual components within the machine, and tamper protections that physically shut down a pump if the machine is improperly accessed.

How can you spot a gas station with these updated features, you ask? As noted in last summer’s story, How to Avoid Card Skimmers at the Pumps, these newer-model machines typically feature a horizontal card acceptance slot along with a raised metallic keypad. In contrast, older, less secure pumps usually have a vertical card reader a flat, membrane-based keypad.

The researchers will present their work on Bluetana later today at the USENIX Security 2019 conference in Santa Clara, Calif. A copy of their paper is available here (PDF).

If you enjoyed this story, check out my series on all things skimmer-related: All About Skimmers. Looking for more information on fuel pump skimming? Have a look at some of these stories.

Most Microsoft Windows (ab)users probably welcome the monthly ritual of applying security updates about as much as they look forward to going to the dentist: It always seems like you were there just yesterday, and you never quite know how it’s all going to turn out. Fortunately, this month’s patch batch from Redmond is mercifully light, at least compared to last month.

Okay, maybe a trip to the dentist’s office is still preferable. In any case, today is the second Tuesday of the month, which means it’s once again Patch Tuesday (or — depending on your setup and when you’re reading this post — Reboot Wednesday). Microsoft today released patches to fix some 93 vulnerabilities in Windows and related software, 35 of which affect various Server versions of Windows, and another 70 that apply to the Windows 10 operating system.

Although there don’t appear to be any zero-day vulnerabilities fixed this month — i.e. those that get exploited by cybercriminals before an official patch is available — there are several issues that merit attention.

Chief among those are patches to address four moderately terrifying flaws in Microsoft’s Remote Desktop Service, a feature which allows users to remotely access and administer a Windows computer as if they were actually seated in front of the remote computer. Security vendor Qualys says two of these weaknesses can be exploited remotely without any authentication or user interaction.

“According to Microsoft, at least two of these vulnerabilities (CVE-2019-1181 and CVE-2019-1182) can be considered ‘wormable’ and [can be equated] to BlueKeep,” referring to a dangerous bug patched earlier this year that Microsoft warned could be used to spread another WannaCry-like ransomware outbreak. “It is highly likely that at least one of these vulnerabilities will be quickly weaponized, and patching should be prioritized for all Windows systems.”

Fortunately, Remote Desktop is disabled by default in Windows 10, and as such these flaws are more likely to be a threat for enterprises that have enabled the application for various purposes. For those keeping score, this is the fourth time in 2019 Microsoft has had to fix critical security issues with its Remote Desktop service.

For all you Microsoft Edge and Internet Exploiter Explorer users, Microsoft has issued the usual panoply of updates for flaws that could be exploited to install malware after a user merely visits a hacked or booby-trapped Web site. Other equally serious flaws patched in Windows this month could be used to compromise the operating system just by convincing the user to open a malicious file (regardless of which browser the user is running).

As crazy as it may seem, this is the second month in a row that Adobe hasn’t issued a security update for its Flash Player browser plugin, which is bundled in IE/Edge and Chrome (although now hobbled by default in Chrome). However, Adobe did release important updates for its Acrobat and free PDF reader products.

If the tone of this post sounds a wee bit cantankerous, it might be because at least one of the updates I installed last month totally hosed my Windows 10 machine. I consider myself an equal OS abuser, and maintain multiple computers powered by a variety of operating systems, including Windows, Linux and MacOS.

Nevertheless, it is frustrating when being diligent about applying patches introduces so many unfixable problems that you’re forced to completely reinstall the OS and all of the programs that ride on top of it. On the bright side, my newly-refreshed Windows computer is a bit more responsive than it was before crash hell.

So, three words of advice. First off, don’t let Microsoft decide when to apply patches and reboot your computer. On the one hand, it’s nice Microsoft gives us a predictable schedule when it’s going to release patches. On the other, Windows 10 will by default download and install patches whenever it pleases, and then reboot the computer.

Unless you change that setting. Here’s a tutorial on how to do that. For all other Windows OS users, if you’d rather be alerted to new updates when they’re available so you can choose when to install them, there’s a setting for that in Windows Update.

Secondly, it doesn’t hurt to wait a few days to apply updates.  Very often fixes released on Patch Tuesday have glitches that cause problems for an indeterminate number of Windows systems. When this happens, Microsoft then patches their patches to minimize the same problems for users who haven’t yet applied the updates, but it sometimes takes a few days for Redmond to iron out the kinks.

Finally, please have some kind of system for backing up your files before applying any updates. You can use third-party software for this, or just the options built into Windows 10. At some level, it doesn’t matter. Just make sure you’re backing up your files, preferably following the 3-2-1 backup rule. Thankfully, I’m vigilant about backing up my files.

And, as ever, if you experience any problems installing any of these patches this month, please feel free to leave a comment about it below; there’s a good chance other readers have experienced the same and may even chime in here with some helpful tips.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is investigating a security failure on the Web site of real estate title insurance giant First American Financial Corp. that exposed more than 885 million personal and financial records tied to mortgage deals going back to 2003, KrebsOnSecurity has learned.

In May, KrebsOnSecurity broke the news that the Web site for Santa Ana, Calif.-based First American [NYSE:FAF] exposed some 885 million documents related to real estate closings over the past 16 years, including bank account numbers and statements, mortgage and tax records, Social Security numbers, wire transaction receipts and drivers license images. No authentication was required to view the documents.

The initial tip on that story came from Ben Shoval, a real estate developer based in Seattle. Shoval said he recently received a letter from the SEC’s enforcement division which stated the agency was investigating the data exposure to determine if First American had violated federal securities laws.

In its letter, the SEC asked Shoval to preserve and share any documents or evidence he had related to the data exposure.

“This investigation is a non-public, fact-finding inquiry,” the letter explained. “The investigation does not mean that we have concluded that anyone has violated the law.”

The SEC did not respond to requests for comment.

Word of the SEC investigation comes weeks after regulators in New York said they were investigating the company in what could turn out to be the first test of the state’s strict new cybersecurity regulation, which requires financial companies to periodically audit and report on how they protect sensitive data, and provides for fines in cases where violations were reckless or willful. First American also is now the target of a class action lawsuit that alleges it “failed to implement even rudimentary security measures.”

First American has issued a series of statements over the past few months that seem to downplay the severity of the data exposure, which the company said was the result of a “design defect” in its Web site.

On June 18, First American said a review of system logs by an outside forensic firm, “based on guidance from the company, identified 484 files that likely were accessed by individuals without authorization. The company has reviewed 211 of these files to date and determined that only 14 (or 6.6%) of those files contain non-public personal information. The company is in the process of notifying the affected consumers and will offer them complimentary credit monitoring services.”

In a statement on July 16, First American said its now-completed investigation identified just 32 consumers whose non-public personal information likely was accessed without authorization.

“These 32 consumers have been notified and offered complimentary credit monitoring services,” the company said.

First American has not responded to questions about how long this “design defect” persisted on its site, how far back it maintained access logs, or how far back in those access logs the company’s review extended.

A ransomware outbreak that hit QuickBooks cloud hosting firm iNSYNQ in mid-July appears to have started with an email phishing attack that snared an employee working in sales for the company, KrebsOnSecurity has learned. It also looks like the intruders spent roughly ten days rooting around iNSYNQ’s internal network to properly stage things before unleashing the ransomware. iNSYNQ ultimately declined to pay the ransom demand, and it is still working to completely restore customer access to files.

Some of this detail came in a virtual “town hall” meeting held August 8, in which iNSYNQ chief executive Elliot Luchansky briefed customers on how it all went down, and what the company is doing to prevent such outages in the future.

A great many iNSYNQ’s customers are accountants, and when the company took its network offline on July 16 in response to the ransomware outbreak, some of those customers took to social media to complain that iNSYNQ was stonewalling them.

“We could definitely have been better prepared, and it’s totally unacceptable,” Luchansky told customers. “I take full responsibility for this. People waiting ridiculous amounts of time for a response is unacceptable.”

By way of explaining iNSYNQ’s initial reluctance to share information about the particulars of the attack early on, Luchansky told customers the company had to assume the intruders were watching and listening to everything iNSYNQ was doing to recover operations and data in the wake of the ransomware outbreak.

“That was done strategically for a good reason,” he said. “There were human beings involved with [carrying out] this attack in real time, and we had to assume they were monitoring everything we could say. And that posed risks based on what we did say publicly while the ransom negotiations were going on. It could have been used in a way that would have exposed customers even more. That put us in a really tough bind, because transparency is something we take very seriously. But we decided it was in our customers’ best interests to not do that.”

Luchansky did not say how much the intruders were demanding, but he mentioned two key factors that informed the company’s decision not to pay up.

“It was a very substantial amount, but we had the money wired and were ready to pay it in cryptocurrency in the case that it made sense to do so,” he told customers. “But we also understood [that paying] would put a target on our heads in the future, and even if we actually received the decryption key, that wasn’t really the main issue here. Because of the quick reaction we had, we were able to contain the encryption part” to roughly 50 percent of customer systems, he said.

Luchansky said the intruders seeded its internal network with MegaCortex, a potent new ransomware strain first spotted just a couple of months ago that is being used in targeted attacks on enterprises. He said the attack appears to have been carefully planned out in advance and executed “with human intervention all the way through.”

“They decided they were coming after us,” he said. “It’s one thing to prepare for these sorts of events but it’s an entirely different experience to deal with first hand.”

According to an analysis of MegaCortex published this week by Accenture iDefense, the crooks behind this ransomware strain are targeting businesses — not home users — and demanding ransom payments in the range of two to 600 bitcoins, which is roughly $20,000 to $5.8 million.

“We are working for profit,” reads the ransom note left behind by the latest version of MegaCortex. “The core of this criminal business is to give back your valuable data in the original form (for ransom of course).”

Luchansky did not mention in the town hall meeting exactly when the initial phishing attack was thought to have occurred, noting that iNSYNQ is still working with California-based CrowdStrike to gain a more complete picture of the attack.

But Alex Holden, founder of Milwaukee-based cyber intelligence firm Hold Security, showed KrebsOnSecurity information obtained from monitoring dark web communications which suggested the problem started on July 6, after an employee in iNSYNQ’s sales division fell for a targeted phishing email.

“This shows that even after the initial infection, if companies act promptly they can still detect and stop the ransomware,” Holden said. “For these infections hackers take sometimes days, weeks, or even months to encrypt your data.”

iNSYNQ did not respond to requests for comment on Hold Security’s findings.

Asked whether the company had backups of customer data and — if so — why iNSYNQ decided not to restore from those, Luchansky said there were backups but that some of those were also infected.

“The backup system is backing up the primary system, and that by definition entails some level of integration,” Luchansky explained. “The way our system was architected, the malware had spread into the backups as well, at least a little bit. So [by] just turning the backups back on, there was a good chance the the virus would then start to spread through the backup system more. So we had to treat the backups similarly to how we were treating the primary systems.”

Luchansky said their backup system has since been overhauled, and that if a similar attack happened in the future it would take days instead of weeks to recover. However, he declined to get into specifics about exactly what had changed, which is too bad because in every ransomware attack story I’ve written this seems to be the detail most readers are interested in and arguing about.

The CEO added that iNSYNQ also will be partnering with a company that helps firms detect and block targeted phishing attacks, and that it envisioned being able to offer this to its customers at a discounted rate. It wasn’t clear from Luchansky’s responses to questions whether the cloud hosting firm was also considering any kind of employee anti-phishing education and/or testing service.

Luchansky said iNSYNQ was about to restore access to more than 90 percent of customer files by Aug. 2 — roughly two weeks after the ransomware outbreak — and that the company would be offering customers a two month credit as a result of the outage.

Incessantly annoying and fraudulent robocalls. Corrupt wireless company employees taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to unlock and hijack mobile phone service. Wireless providers selling real-time customer location data, despite repeated promises to the contrary. A noticeable uptick in SIM-swapping attacks that lead to multi-million dollar cyberheists.

If you are somehow under the impression that you — the customer — are in control over the security, privacy and integrity of your mobile phone service, think again. And you’d be forgiven if you assumed the major wireless carriers or federal regulators had their hands firmly on the wheel.

No, a series of recent court cases and unfortunate developments highlight the sad reality that the wireless industry today has all but ceded control over this vital national resource to cybercriminals, scammers, corrupt employees and plain old corporate greed.

On Tuesday, Google announced that an unceasing deluge of automated robocalls had doomed a feature of its Google Voice service that sends transcripts of voicemails via text message.

Google said “certain carriers” are blocking the delivery of these messages because all too often the transcripts resulted from unsolicited robocalls, and that as a result the feature would be discontinued by Aug. 9. This is especially rich given that one big reason people use Google Voice in the first place is to screen unwanted communications from robocalls, mainly because the major wireless carriers have shown themselves incapable or else unwilling to do much to stem the tide of robocalls targeting their customers.

AT&T in particular has had a rough month. In July, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of AT&T customers in California to stop the telecom giant and two data location aggregators from allowing numerous entities — including bounty hunters, car dealerships, landlords and stalkers — to access wireless customers’ real-time locations without authorization.

And on Monday, the U.S. Justice Department revealed that a Pakistani man was arrested and extradited to the United States to face charges of bribing numerous AT&T call-center employees to install malicious software and unauthorized hardware as part of a scheme to fraudulently unlock cell phones.

Ars Technica reports the scam resulted in millions of phones being removed from AT&T service and/or payment plans, and that the accused allegedly paid insiders hundreds of thousands of dollars to assist in the process.

We should all probably be thankful that the defendant in this case wasn’t using his considerable access to aid criminals who specialize in conducting unauthorized SIM swaps, an extraordinarily invasive form of fraud in which scammers bribe or trick employees at mobile phone stores into seizing control of the target’s phone number and diverting all texts and phone calls to the attacker’s mobile device.

Late last month, a federal judge in New York rejected a request by AT&T to dismiss a $224 million lawsuit over a SIM-swapping incident that led to $24 million in stolen cryptocurrency.

The defendant in that case, 21-year-old Manhattan resident Nicholas Truglia, is alleged to have stolen more than $80 million from victims of SIM swapping, but he is only one of many individuals involved in this incredibly easy, increasingly common and lucrative scheme. The plaintiff in that case alleges that he was SIM-swapped on two different occasions, both allegedly involving crooked or else clueless employees at AT&T wireless stores.

And let’s not forget about all the times various hackers figured out ways to remotely use a carrier’s own internal systems for looking up personal and account information on wireless subscribers.

So what the fresh hell is going on here? And is there any hope that lawmakers or regulators will do anything about these persistent problems? Gigi Sohn, a distinguished fellow at the Georgetown Institute for Technology Law and Policy, said the answer — at least in this administration — is probably a big “no.”

“The takeaway here is the complete and total abdication of any oversight of the mobile wireless industry,” Sohn told KrebsOnSecurity. “Our enforcement agencies aren’t doing anything on these topics right now, and we have a complete and total breakdown of oversight of these incredibly powerful and important companies.”

Aaron Mackey, a staff attorney at the EFF, said that on the location data-sharing issue, federal law already bars the wireless carriers from sharing this with third parties without the expressed consent of consumers.

“What we’ve seen is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is well aware of this ongoing behavior about location data sales,” Mackey said. “The FCC has said it’s under investigation, but there has been no public action taken yet and this has been going on for more than a year. The major wireless carriers are not only violating federal law, but they’re also putting people in harm’s way. There are countless stories of folks being able to pretend to be law enforcement and gaining access to information they can use to assault and harass people based on the carriers making location data available to a host of third parties.”

On the issue of illegal SIM swaps, Wired recently ran a column pointing to a solution that many carriers in Africa have implemented which makes it much more difficult for SIM swap thieves to ply their craft.

“The carrier would set up a system to let the bank query phone records for any recent SIM swaps associated with a bank account before they carried out a money transfer,” wrote Wired’s Andy Greenberg in April. “If a SIM swap had occurred in, say, the last two or three days, the transfer would be blocked. Because SIM swap victims can typically see within minutes that their phone has been disabled, that window of time let them report the crime before fraudsters could take advantage.”

So far, there is zero indication that the U.S.-based mobile carriers are paying any attention.

In terms of combating the deluge of robocalls, Sohn says we already have a workable approach to arresting these nuisance calls: It’s an authentication procedure known as “SHAKEN/STIR,” and it is premised on the idea that every phone has a certificate of authenticity attached to it that can be used to validate if the call is indeed originating from the number it appears to be calling from.

Under a SHAKEN/STIR regime, anyone who is spoofing their number (and most of these robocalls are spoofed to appear as though they come from a number that is in the same prefix as yours) gets automatically blocked.

Unfortunately, Sohn said, the FCC has allowed the wireless carriers to adopt this approach voluntarily. And — shocker — most of them haven’t, or else they are charging a premium for it.

“The FCC could make the carriers provide robocall apps for free to customers, but they’re not,” Sohn said. “The carriers instead are turning around and charging customers extra for this service. There was a fairly strong anti-robocalls bill that passed the House, but it’s now stuck in the legislative graveyard that is the Senate.”

What about the prospects of any kind of major overhaul to the privacy laws in this country that might give consumers more say over who can access their private data and what recourse they may have when companies entrusted with that information screw up?

Sohn said there are few signs that anyone in Congress is seriously championing consumer privacy as a major legislative issue. Most of the nascent efforts to bring privacy laws in the United States into the 21st Century she said are interminably bogged down on two sticky issues: Federal preemption of stronger state laws, and the ability of consumers to bring a private right of civil action in the courts against companies that violate those provisions.

“It’s way past time we had a federal privacy bill,” Sohn said. “Companies like Facebook and others are practically begging for some type of regulatory framework on consumer privacy, yet this congress can’t manage to put something together. To me it’s incredible we don’t even have a discussion draft yet. There’s not even a bill that’s being discussed and debated. That is really pitiful, and the closer we get to elections, the less likely it becomes because nobody wants to do anything that upsets their corporate contributions. And, frankly, that’s shameful.”