Internet DRAFT - draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns

draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns






Network Working Group                                            P. Cain
Internet-Draft                               The Cooper-Cain Group, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                               D. Jevans
Expires: May 27, 2010                    The Anti-Phishing Working Group
                                                       November 23, 2009


     Extensions to the IODEF-Document Class for Reporting Phishing
                 draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns-07

Abstract

   This document extends the Incident Object Description Exchange Format
   (IODEF) defined in RFC5070 to support the reporting of phishing
   events, which is a particular type of fraud.  These extensions are
   flexible enough to support information gleaned from activities
   throughout the entire electronic fraud cycle - from receipt of the
   phishing lure to the disablement of the collection site.  Both simple
   reporting and complete forensic reporting are possible, as is
   consolidating multiple incidents .































Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


RFC 2129 Keywords

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 27, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the BSD License.








Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.1.  Why a Common Report Format is Needed . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.2.  Processing of Exchanged Data not Defined . . . . . . . . .  6
     1.3.  Relation to the INCH IODEF Data Model  . . . . . . . . . .  6
   2.  Terminology Used in This Document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   3.  Interesting Fraud Event Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.1.  The Elements of a Phishing/Fraud Event . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.2.  Useful Data Items In a Fraud Event . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  Fraud Activity Reporting via IODEF-Documents . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.1.  Fraud Report Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.2.  Fraud Report XML Representation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.3.  Syntactical Correctness of Fraud Activity Reports  . . . . 12
   5.  PhraudReport Element Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.1.  PhraudReport Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.2.  Reuse of IODEF-defined Elements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.3.  Element and Attribute Specification Format . . . . . . . . 14
     5.4.  Version attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.5.  FraudType attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.6.  PhishNameRef element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.7.  PhishNameLocalRef element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.8.  FraudedBrandName element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.9.  LureSource element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.10. OriginatingSensor Element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     5.11. The DCSite element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     5.12. TakeDownInfo element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     5.13. ArchivedData element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     5.14. RelatedData element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     5.15. CorrelationData element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     5.16. PRComments element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     5.17. EmailRecord element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   6.  Mandatory IODEF and PhraudReport Elements  . . . . . . . . . . 33
     6.1.  Guidance on Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     7.1.  Transport-specific concerns  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     7.2.  Using the iodef:restriction attribute  . . . . . . . . . . 35
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
   9.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
   Appendix A.  Appendix A. Phishing Extensions XML Schema  . . . . . 39
   Appendix B.  Example Virus Report  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
     B.1.  Received Email . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
     B.2.  Generated Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
   Appendix C.  Sample Phishing Report  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
     C.1.  Received Lure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


     C.2.  Phishing Report  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

















































Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


1.  Introduction

   Deception activities, such as receiving an email purportedly from a
   bank requesting you to confirm your account information, are an
   expanding attack type on the Internet.  The terms phishing and fraud
   are used interchangeably in this document to characterize broadly-
   launched social engineering attacks in which an electronic identity
   is misrepresented in an attempt to trick individuals into revealing
   their personal credentials ( e.g., passwords, account numbers,
   personal information, ATM PINs, etc.).  A successful phishing attack
   on an individual allows the phisher (i.e., the attacker) to exploit
   the individual's credentials for financial or other gain.  Phishing
   attacks have morphed from directed email messages from alleged
   financial institutions to more sophisticated lures that may also
   include malware.

   This document defines a data format extension to the Incident Object
   Description Exchange Format (IODEF) [RFC5070] that can be used to
   describe information about a phishing or other type of fraudulent
   incident.  Sections 2 of this document provide an overview of the
   terminology and process of a phishing event.  Section3 introduces the
   high-level report format and how to use it.  Sections 4 and 5
   describe the data elements of the fraud extensions.  The appendices
   includes an XML schema for the extensions and a few example fraud
   reports.

   The extensions defined in this document may be used to report the
   social engineering victim lure, the collections site, and credential
   targeted ('spear') phishing, broad multi-recipient phishing, and
   other evolving Internet-based fraud attempts.  Malware and other
   malicious software included within the lure may also be included
   within the report

1.1.  Why a Common Report Format is Needed

   To combat the rise in malicious activity on the Internet, service
   providers and investigative agencies are sharing more and more
   network and event data in a coordinated effort to identify
   perpetrators and compromised accounts, coordinate responses, and
   prosecute attackers.  As the number of data sharing parties increases
   the number of party-specific tools, formats, and definitions multiply
   rapidly until it overwhelms the investigative and coordination
   abilities of those parties.

   By using a common format, it becomes easier for an organization to
   engage in this coordination as well as correlation of information
   from multiple data sources or products into a cohesive view.  As the
   number of data sources increases, a common format becomes even more



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   important, since multiple tools would be needed to interpret the
   different sources of data.  A big win in a common format is the
   ability to automate many of the analysis tasks an significantly speed
   up the response and persecution activities.

1.2.  Processing of Exchanged Data not Defined

   While the intended use of this specification is to facilitate data
   sharing between parties, the mechanics of this sharing process and
   its related political challenges are out of scope for this document.

1.3.  Relation to the INCH IODEF Data Model

   Instead of defining a new report format, this draft defines an
   extension to [RFC5070].  The IODEF defines a flexible and extensible
   format and supports a granular level of specificity.  These phishing
   and fraud extensions reuse subsets of the IODEF data model and, where
   appropriate, specifies new data elements.  Leveraging an existing
   specification allows for more rapid adoption and reuse of existing
   tools in organizations.  For clarity, and in order to eliminate
   duplication, only the additional structures necessary for describing
   the exchange of phishing and e-crime activity are provided.





























Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


2.  Terminology Used in This Document

   Since many people use different but similar terms to mean the same
   thing, we use the following terminology in this document.

   a.  Phishing

          The overall process of identifying victims, contacting them
          via a lure, causing a victim to send a set of private
          credentials to a collection site, and storing those
          credentials is called phishing.

   b.  Fraud event

          A fraud event is the combination of Phishing and subsequent
          fraudulent use of the private credentials.

   c.  Lure

          A lure is the decoy used to trick a victim into performing
          some activity such as providing their private credentials.
          The lure relies on social engineering concepts to convince the
          victim that the lure is genuine and its instructions should be
          followed.  A lure includes a pointer or link to a collection
          site.

   d.  Collection Site

          The web site, email box, SMS number, phone number, or other
          place where a phished victim sends their private credentials
          for later fraudulent use by a criminal.

   e.  Credentials

          A credential is data that is transferred or presented to
          establish either a claimed identity or the authorizations of a
          system entity.  Many websites requires a user name and
          password -- combined they are a credential -- to access
          sensitive content.

   f.  Message

          Although primarily email, a Lure can be transported via any
          messaging medium such as Instant message, Voice Over IP, or
          text via an SMS service.  The term message is used as a
          generic term for any of these transport mediums.





Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


3.  Interesting Fraud Event Data

   Before defining the structure of the IODEF extensions we identify the
   'interesting' data in phishing and other fraudulent activities.

3.1.  The Elements of a Phishing/Fraud Event

   +-----------+        +------------------+
   | Fraudster |<---<-- | Collection Site  |<---O--<----<----+
   +----+------+        +------------------+    |            |
        |                                       |            |
        |                                    +--|-----+      ^
        |                                    | Sensor | Credentials
        |                                    +-|------+      |
        |      +---------------+               |        +-------+
        \--->--| Attack Source |--Lure--->-----O------> | User/ |
               +---------------+                        |Victim |
                                                        +-------+

            Figure 3.1: The Components of Internet Fraud


   Internet-based Phishing and Fraud activities are normally comprised
   of at least six components:

   1.  The Phisher, Fraudster, or party perpetrating the fraudulent
       activity.  Most times this party is not readily identifiable.

   2.  The Attack Source, the source of the phishing email, virus,
       trojan, or other attack is masked in an enticing manner.

   3.  The Lure used to trick the victim into responding.

   4.  The User, Victim, or intended target of the fraud or phish.

   5.  The credentials, personal data, or other information the victim
       has surrendered to the phisher.

   6.  The collection site, where the victim sends their credentials or
       personal data if they have been duped by the lure of the phisher.
       This may be a website, mailbox, phone operator, or a database.

   If we take a holistic view of the attack, there are some additional
   components:

   o  The sensor, the means by which the phish is detected.  This
      element may be an intrusion detection system, firewall, filter,
      email gateway, or human analyst.



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   o  A forensic or archive site (not pictured) where an investigator
      has copied or otherwise retained the data used for the fraud
      attempt or credential collection.

3.1.1.  Fraudulent Activity Extensions to the IODEF-Document

   Fraud events are reported in a Fraud Activity Report which is an
   instance of an XML IODEF-Document Incident element with added
   EventData and AdditionalData elements.  The additional fields in the
   EventData specific to phishing and fraud are enclosed into a
   PhraudReport XML element.  Fraudulent activity may include multiple
   emails, instant messages, or network messages, scattered over various
   times, locations, and methodologies.  The PhraudReport within an
   EventData may include information about the email header and body,
   details of the actual phishing lure, correlation to other attacks,
   and details of the removal of the web server or credential collector.
   As a phishing attack may generate multiple reports to an incident
   team, multiple PhraudReports may be combined into one EventData
   structure and multiple EventData structures may be combined into one
   Incident Report.  One IODEF Incident report may record one or more
   individual phishing events and may include multiple EventData
   elements.

   This document defines new extension elements for the EventData and
   Record Item IODEF XML elements and identifies those required in a
   PhraudReport.  The Appendices contain sample Fraud Activity Reports
   and a complete Schema.

   The IODEF Extensions defined in this document comply with section 4,
   "Extending the IODEF Format" in [RFC5070].

3.2.  Useful Data Items In a Fraud Event

   There are a number of subtle and non-obvious datum to capture from a
   fraud event that makes the event analysis and correlation with other
   events more useful.  These datum can be grouped into categories:

3.2.1.  Data about the Lure

   If a lure was presented as part of the fraud event, this category
   includes the original received lure, the means that the lure was
   received ( e.g., email, phone, or SMS), and the source addresses that
   sent the lure.  Other useful data includes DNS data about the lure
   source, identification of any accompanying malware, and the Brand
   name defrauded.






Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


3.2.2.  Credential Collection Site Data

   The collection site contains victim identifications along with copies
   of data supplied by the victims such as account names or numbers,
   passwords, date of birth, etc.  This category of useful data includes
   these credentials along with information about the collections site
   itself such as its type, site DNS data, DNS registrant data, and site
   physical location.  The location and registrant information is
   particularly important if law enforcement assistance is expected.
   Additionally, an entire site archive can be gathered to allow a
   collector on a shared web site to be disabled without impacting other
   users.

3.2.3.  Detection Information

   This is a non-obvious data category and contains data on how the lure
   or collection site was detected.  Understanding how the lure was
   detected allows us to design and implement better detection systems.

3.2.4.  Analysis Output

   In an environment where time is critical, it is imperative that
   analysis from one party can be reliably explained and shared to other
   investigative parties.  This grouping includes data that an
   investigator found interesting or could be useful to others.


























Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


4.  Fraud Activity Reporting via IODEF-Documents

   A Fraud Activity Report is an instance of an XML IODEF-Document with
   additional extensions and usage guidance as specified in Section 4 of
   this document.  These additional extensions are implemented through
   the PhraudReport XML element.

   As described in the following sections, reporting Fraud Activity has
   three primary components: choosing a report type; a format for the
   data; and how to check correctness of the format.

4.1.  Fraud Report Types

   There are three actions relating to reporting phishing events.
   First, a reporter may *create* and exchange a new report on a new
   event.  Secondly, a reporter may *update* a previously exchanged
   report to indicate new collection sites, site take down information,
   or related activities.  Lastly, a reporter may have realized that the
   report is in error or contain significant incorrect data and the
   prudent reaction is to *delete* the report.

   The three types of reports are denoted through the use of the ext-
   purpose attribute of an Incident element.  A new report contains an
   empty or a "create" ext-purpose value; an updated report contains a
   ext-value value of "update"; a request for deletion contains a
   "delete" ext-purpose value.  Note that this is actually an advisory
   marking for the report originator or recipient as operating
   procedures in a report life cycle is very environment specific.

4.2.  Fraud Report XML Representation

   The IODEF Incident element [RFC5070, Section 3.2] is summarized
   below.  It and the rest of the data model presented in Section 4 is
   expressed in Unified Modeling Language (UML) syntax as used in the
   IODEF specification.  The UML representations is for illustrative
   purposes only; elements are specified in XML as defined in Appendix A















Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   +--------------------+
   | Incident           |
   +--------------------+
   | ENUM purpose       |<>----------[ IncidentID ]
   | STRING ext-purpose |<>--{0..1}--[ AlternativeID ]
   | ENUM lang          |<>--{0..1}--[ RelatedActivity ]
   | ENUM restriction   |<>--{0..1}--[ DetectTime ]
   |                    |<>--{0..1}--[ StartTime ]
   |                    |<>--{0..1}--[ EndTime ]
   |                    |<>----------[ ReportTime ]
   |                    |<>--{0..*}--[ Description ]
   |                    |<>--{1..*}--[ Assessment ]
   |                    |<>--{0..*}--[ Method ]
   |                    |<>--{1..*}--[ Contact ]
   |                    |<>--{0..*}--[ EventData ]
   |                    |              |<>--[ AdditionalData ]
   |                    |                     |<>--[ PhraudReport ]
   |                    |<>--{0..1}--[ History ]
   |                    |<>--{0..*}--[ AdditionalData ]
   +------------------+

           Figure 4.1: The IODEF XML Incident Element (modified)


   A Fraud Activity Report is composed of one iodef:Incident element
   that contains one or more related PhraudReport elements embedded in
   iodef:AdditionalData element of iodef:EventData.  The PhraudReport
   element is added to the IODEF using its defined extension procedure
   documented in Section 5 of [RFC5070].

   One IODEF-Document may contain information on multiple incidents with
   information for each incident contained within an iodef:Incident
   element [RFC5070], Section 3.12].

4.3.  Syntactical Correctness of Fraud Activity Reports

   The Fraud Activity Report MUST pass XML validation using the schema
   defined in [RFC5070] and the extensions defined in<AppendixA> of this
   document.












Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


5.  PhraudReport Element Definitions

   A PhraudReport consists of an extension to the
   Incident.EventData.AdditionalData element with a dtype of "xml".  The
   elements of the PhraudReport will specify information about the six
   components of fraud activity identified in Section 2.  Additional
   forensic information and commentary can be added by the reporter as
   necessary to show relation to other events, to show the output of an
   investigation, or for archival purposes.

5.1.  PhraudReport Structure

   A PhraudReport element is structured as follows.  The components of a
   PhraudReport are introduced in functional grouping as some parameters
   are related and some elements may not make sense individually.
   +------------------+
   |   PhraudReport   |
   +------------------+
   | STRING Version   |<>--{0..1}--[ PhishNameRef ]
   | ENUM FraudType   |<>--{0..1}--[ PhishNameLocalRef ]
   | STRING ext-value |<>--{0..1}--[ FraudParameter ]
   |                  |<>--{0..*}--[ FraudedBrandName ]
   |                  |<>--{1..*}--[ LureSource ]
   |                  |<>--{1..*}--[ OriginatingSensor ]
   |                  |<>--{0..1}--[ EmailRecord ]
   |                  |<>--{0..*}--[ DCSite ]
   |                  |<>--{0..*}--[ TakeDownInfo ]
   |                  |<>--{0..*}--[ ArchivedData ]
   |                  |<>--{0..*}--[ RelatedData ]
   |                  |<>--{0..*}--[ CorrelationData ]
   |                  |<>--{0..1}--[ PRComments ]
   +------------------+

           Figure 5.1: The PhraudReport Element

   Relevant information about a phishing or fraud event can be encoded
   by encoding the six components as follows:

   a.  The PhishNameRef and PhishNameLocalRef elements identify the
       fraud or class of fraud.

   b.  The LureSource element describes the source of the attack or
       phishing lure, including host information and any included
       malware.

   c.  The DCSite describes the technical details of the credential
       collection site.




Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   d.  The Originating Sensor element describes the means of detection.

   The RelatedData, ArchivedData, and TakeDownInfo fields allow optional
   forensics and history data to be included.

   A specific phish/fraud activity can be identified using a combination
   of the FraudType, FraudParameter, FraudedBrandName, LureSource, and
   PhishNameRef elements.

5.2.  Reuse of IODEF-defined Elements

   Elements, attributes, and parameters defined in the base IODEF
   specification were used whenever possible in the definition of the
   PhraudReport XML element.  This specification does not introduce any
   new variable types or encodings to the IODEF data model, but extends
   the IODEF Contact and System elements.

   The data model schema contains a copy of the iodef:System element.
   Although we would like to just extend the System element, it is
   defined in RFC5070 with an unable-to-extend anonymous type so we
   copied the element, named its underlying type, and then generated the
   extension to it.

   Note: Elements that are imported from the base IODEF specification
   are prefaced with an "iodef" XML namespace and are noted with the
   section defining that element in [RFC5070].  Each element in a
   PhraudReport is used as described in the following sections.

5.3.  Element and Attribute Specification Format

   The following sections describe the components of a PhraudReport XML
   element.  Each description is structured as follows.

   1.  A terse XML-type identifier for the element or attribute.

   2.  An indication of whether the element or attribute is REQUIRED or
       optional.  Mandatory items are noted as REQUIRED.  If not
       specified, elements are optional.  Note that when optional
       elements are included, they may REQUIRE specific sub-elements.

   3.  A description of the element or attribute and its intended use.

   Elements that contain sub-elements or enumerated values are further
   sub-sectioned.  Note that there is no 'trickle-up' effect in
   elements.  That is, the required elements of a sub-element are only
   populated if the sub-element is used.





Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


5.4.  Version attribute

   REQUIRED.  STRING.  The version shall be the value 0.06 to be
   compliant with this document.

5.5.  FraudType attribute

   REQUIRED.  One ENUM.  The FraudType attribute describes the type of
   fraudulent activity described in this PhraudReport.  The FraudType
   chosen determines the value of the FraudParameter filed.  This field
   contains one of the following values:

   1.  phishing.  The FraudParameter should be the subject line of the
       phishing lure email or value of a lure IM or VoIP message.  This
       type is a standard phishing lure, usually sent as email, and is
       intended to derive financial loss to the recipient.

   2.  recruiting.  The FraudParameter is the subject line of the
       recruit, or mule, email or message.

   3.  malware distribution.  The FraudParameter is the email subject
       line of the phishing email.  This type of email phish does not
       pose a potential financial loss to the recipient, but lures the
       recipient to an infected site.

   4.  fraudulent site.  This identifies a known fraudulent site that
       does not necessarily send spam but is used to show lures.  The
       FraudParameter may be used to identify the website.

   5.  dnsspoof.  This choice does not have a related FraudParameter.
       This value is used when a DNS system component responses with an
       untrue IP address for the requested domain name due to either
       cache poisoning, ID spoofing, or other manipulation of the DNS
       system.

   6.  archive.  There is no required FraudParameter for this choice,
       although the FraudParameter of the original phish could be
       entered.  The data archived from the phishing server is placed in
       the ArchiveInfo element.

   7.  other.  This is used to identify not-yet-enumerated fraud types.

   8.  unknown.  This choice may have an associated FraudParameter.  It
       is used to cover confused cases.

   9.  ext-value.  This choice identifies an unidentified FraudType.
       The FraudType should be captured in the ext-value attribute.




Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


5.5.1.  ext-value attribute

   OPTIONAL.  This STRING may be populated with a FraudType that has not
   been predefined.

5.5.2.  FraudParameter element

   Zero or one value of iodef:MLStringType.  The contents of this
   element are dependent on the FraudType choice.  It may be an email
   subject line, VoIP lure, link in an IM message, or a web URL.  Note
   that some phishers add a number of random characters onto the end of
   a phish email subject line for uniqueness; reporters should delete
   those characters before insertion into the FraudParameter field.

5.6.  PhishNameRef element

   Zero or one value of iodef:MLStringType.  The PhishNameRef element is
   the common name used to identify this fraud event.  It is often the
   name agreed upon by involved parties or vendors.  Using this name can
   be a convenient way to reference the activity collaborating with
   other parties, the media, or engaging in public education.

5.7.  PhishNameLocalRef element

   Zero or one value of iodef:MLStringType.  The PhishNameLocalRef
   element describes a local name or Unique-IDentifier (UID) that is
   used by various parties before a commonly agreed term is adopted.
   This field allows a cross-reference from the submitting
   organization's system to a central repository.

5.8.  FraudedBrandName element

   Zero or more values of iodef:MLStringType.  This is the identifier of
   the recognized brand name or company name used in the phishing
   activity (e.g., XYZ Semiconductor Corp).

5.9.  LureSource element

   REQUIRED.  One or more values.  The LureSource element describes the
   source of the PhraudReport lure.  It allows the specification of IP
   Addresses, DNS names, domain registry information, and rudimentary
   support for the files that might be downloaded or registry keys
   modified by the crimeware.








Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   +-------------+
   | LureSource  |
   +-------------+
   |             |<>--(1..*)--[ System ]
   |             |<>--(0..*)--[ DomainData ]
   |             |<>--(0..1)--[ IncludedMalware  ]
   |             |<>--(0..1)--[ FilesDownloaded  ]
   |             |<>--(0..1)--[ WindowsRegistryKeysModified  ]
   +-------------+

           Figure 5.2: The LureSource element


5.9.1.  System element

   REQUIRED.  One or more values of the iodef:System [RFC5070, Section
   3.15].  The system element describes a particular host involved in
   the phishing activity.  If the real IP Address can be ascertained, it
   should be populated.  A spoofed address may also be entered and the
   spoofed attribute SHALL be set.

   Multiple System elements may be used to identify the DNS Name, IP
   Address(es) of the lure source.

5.9.2.  DomainData element

   Zero or more element values.  The DomainData element describes the
   registration, delegation, and control of a domain used to source the
   lure and can identify the IP address associated with the System
   element URI.  Capturing the domain data is very useful when
   investigating or correlating events.

   The structure of a DomainData element is as follows:

   +--------------------+
   | DomainData         |
   +--------------------+
   |                    |<>----------[ Name ]
   |                    |<>--(0..1)--[ DateDomainWasChecked ]
   | ENUM SystemStatus  |<>--(0..1)--[ RegistrationDate ]
   | ENUM DomainStatus  |<>--(0..1)--[ ExpirationDate ]
   |                    |<>--(0..*)--[ Nameservers ]
   |                    |<>--(0..1)--[ DomainContacts ]
   +--------------------+

                Figure 5.3 The DomainData element





Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


5.9.2.1.  Name

   REQUIRED.  One value of iodef:MLStringType.  The Name element
   contains the host DNS name used in this event.  Its value should be
   the complete DNS host address, e.g., if an event targeted
   www.example.com the value would be www.example.com.

5.9.2.2.  DateDomainWasChecked

   Zero or One value of DATETIME.  This element includes the timestamp
   of when this domain data was checked and entered into this report as
   many phishers modify their domain data at various stages of a
   phishing event.

5.9.2.3.  RegistrationDate element

   Zero or one value of DATETIME.  The RegistrationDate element shows
   the date of registration for a domain.

5.9.2.4.  ExpirationDate element

   Zero or one value of DATETIME.  The ExpirationDate element shows the
   date the domain will expire.

5.9.2.5.  Nameservers element

   Zero or more values.  These fields hold name servers identified for
   this domain.  Each entry is a sequence of DNSNameType and iodef:
   Address pairs as specified below.

   +--------------------+
   | Nameservers        |
   +--------------------+
   |                    |<>----------[ Server]
   |                    |<>--(1..*)--[ iodef:Address ]
   +--------------------+

                Figure 5.4 The Nameservers element


   The use of one Server value and multiple Address values is used to
   note multiple IPAddreses associated with one DNS entry for the domain
   nameserver.

5.9.2.5.1.  Server element

   One value of iodef:MLStringType.  This field contains the DNS name of
   the domain nameserver.



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


5.9.2.5.2.  iodef:Address element

   One or more values of iodef:Address.  This field lists the IP
   Address(es) associated with this Server element.

5.9.2.6.  DomainContacts element

   REQUIRED.  Choice of either a SameDomainContact or one or more
   Contact elements.  The DomainContacts element allows the reporter to
   enter contact information supplied by the registrar or returned by
   Whois queries.  For efficiency of the reporting party, the domain
   contact information may be marked to be the same as another domain
   already reported using the SameDomainContact element.

   +----------------+
   | DomainContacts |
   +----------------+
   |                |<>--(0..1)--[ SameDomainContact ]
   |                |<>--(1..*)--[ Contact ]
   +----------------|

             Figure 5.5 The DomainContacts element


5.9.2.6.1.  SameDomainContact

   REQUIRED.  One iodef:MLStringType.  The SameDomainContact element is
   populated with a domain name if the contact information for this
   domain is identical to that name in this or another report.
   Implementors are cautioned to only use this element when the domain
   contact data returned by a registrar or registry is identical.

5.9.2.6.2.  Contact Element

   REQUIRED.  One or more iodef:Contact elements.  This element reuses
   and extends the iodef:Contact elements for its components.  Each
   component may have zero or more values.  If only the role attribute
   and the ContactName component are populated, the same (identical)
   information is listed for multiple roles.












Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   +--------------------+
   | Contact            |
   +--------------------+
   |                    |<>----------[ iodef:ContactName ]
   |                    |<>--(0..*)--[ iodef:Description ]
   | ENUM role          |<>--(0..*)--[ iodef:RegistryHandle ]
   |                    |<>--(0..1)--[ iodef:PostalAdress ]
   | ENUM Restriction   |<>--(0..*)--[ iodef:Email ]
   | ENUM ext-role      |<>--(0..*)--[ iodef:Telephone ]
   | ENUM type          |<>--(0..1)--[ iodef:Fax ]
   | ENUM ext-type      |<>--(0..1)--[ iodef:Timezone ]
   |                    |<->----------[ AdditionalData ]
   |                    |                  +<-> [ Confidence ]
   +--------------------+

           Figure 5.6: The Contact element


   Each Contact has optional attributes to capture the sensitivity and
   role for which the contact is listed.  Elements reused from [RFC5070]
   are not discussed in this document.

5.9.2.6.2.1.  Confidence element

   REQUIRED.  ENUM.  The Confidence element describes a qualitative
   assessment of the veracity of the contact information.  This
   attribute is an extension to the iodef:Contact element and is defined
   in this document.  There are five possible confidence values as
   follows.

   1.  known-fraudulent.  This contact information has been previously
       determined to be fraudulent, either as non-existent physical
       information or containing real information not associated with
       this domain registration.

   2.  looks-fraudulent.  The contact information has suspicious
       information included.

   3.  known-real.  The contact information has been previously
       investigated or determined to be correct.

   <">



		
GiPOCO.COM is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its contents. This is a safe-cache copy of the original web site.