Internet DRAFT - draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns
draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns
Last Version: | draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns-07.txt | | Tracker Entry |
Date: | 25-Nov-2009 |
Disposition: | RFC5901 (diff) |
Previous Versions: |
draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns-06.txt (diff) - 03-Jul-2009 | |
| draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns-05.txt (diff) - 30-Jul-2008 | |
| draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns-04.txt (diff) - 22-May-2008 | |
| draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns-03.txt (diff) - 26-Oct-2007 | |
| draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns-02.txt (diff) - 24-Aug-2007 | |
| draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns-01.txt (diff) - 02-Jul-2007 | |
| draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns-01.txt (diff) - 29-Jun-2007 | |
| draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns-00.txt (diff) - 18-Oct-2006 | |
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 or responsible
for its contents. This is a safe-cache copy of the original web site.
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.