One document matched: draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns-01.txt
Differences from draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns-00.txt
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft P. Cain
Intended status: Standards Track The Cooper-Cain Group, Inc.
Expires: December 29, 2007 D. Jevans
The Anti-Phishing Working Group
June 27, 2007
Extensions to the IODEF-Document Class for Phishing, Fraud, and Other
Crimeware
draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns-01
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
Abstract
This document extends the Incident Object Description Exchange Format
(IODEF) to support the reporting of phishing, fraud, other types of
electronic crime, and widespread spam incidents. These extensions
are flexible enough to support information gleaned from activities
throughout the entire electronic fraud cycle. Both simple reporting
and complete forensic reports are possible, as is consolidated
reporting of multiple phishing incidents.
The extensions defined in this document are used to generate two
different types of reports: a fraud and phishing report and a wide-
spread spam report. Although similar in structure, each report has
different required objects and intents.
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
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].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1. Why a Common Report Format is Needed . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Relation to the INCH IODEF Data Model . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. The Elements of Phishing/Fraud Activity . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Fraud Activity Reporting via IODEF-Documents . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Fraud Report Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Fraud Report XML Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Correctness of Fraud Activity Reports . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. PhraudReport Element Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. PhraudReport Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Reuse of IODEF-defined Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Element and Attribute Specification Format . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Version attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5. FraudType attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.6. PhishNameRef element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.7. PhishNameLocalRef element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.8. FraudedBrandName element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.9. LureSource element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.10. OriginatingSensor Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.11. The DCSite element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.12. TakeDownInfo element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.13. ArchivedData element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.14. RelatedData element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.15. CorrelationData element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.16. PRComments element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.17. EmailRecord element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5. IODEF Required Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1. Fraud or Phishing Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2. Wide-Spread Spam Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3. Guidance on Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.1. Transport-specific concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.2. Using the iodef:restriction attribute . . . . . . . . . . 33
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Appendix A. Appendix A. Phishing Extensions XML Schema . . . . . 37
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
Appendix B. Example Virus Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
B.1. Received Email . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
B.2. Generated Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Appendix C. Sample Phishing Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
C.1. Received Lure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
C.2. Phishing Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 57
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
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 a 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) [RFC-IODEF] that can be used to
describe information about a phishing incident or wide-spread spam
incident. Sections 2 and 3 of this document introduce the high-level
report format and how to use it. Sections 4 and 5 describe the data
elements of the fraud extensions. This document includes an XML
schema for the extensions and a few example fraud reports.
1.1. Why a Common Report Format is Needed
The rise in phishing and fraud activities via e-mail, instant
message, DNS corruption, and malicious code insertion has driven
corporations, Internet Service Providers, consumer agencies, and
financial institutions to begin to collect and correlate phishing
attack information. The collected data allows them to better
coordinate mitigation activities and support in the pursuit and
prosecution of the attacker.
By using a common format, it becomes easier for an organization to
engage in this coordination as well as correlation of information
from multiple sources or products into a cohesive view. As the
number of data sources increases the usefulness of a common format
increases as it decreases the need for multiple tools to interpret
every different type of report.
The accumulation and correlation of information is also important in
resolving phishing incidents detected externally as the phished
organization may not even be aware of the attack. Third parties
aware of the attack may wish to notify the phished organization or a
central notification service so adequate responses could commence.
The targeted organization's internal monitoring systems may also
detect the attack and wish to take mitigation steps.
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
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.
1.2. Relation to the INCH IODEF Data Model
Instead of defining a new report format, this draft defines an
extension to [RFC-IODEF]. The IODEF defines a flexible and
extensible format and supports a granular level of specificity. This
phishing extension reuses 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.
1.2.1. Fraudulent Activity Extensions to the IODEF-Document
Fraudulent 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 [RFC-IODEF].
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
2. The Elements of Phishing/Fraud Activity
+-----------+ +------------------+
| Fraudster |<---<-- | Collection Point |<---O--<----<----+
+----+------+ +------------------+ | |
| | |
| +--|-----+ ^
| | Sensor | Credentials
| +-|------+ |
| +---------------+ | +-------+
\--->--| Attack Source |--Phish-->-----O------> | User/ |
+---------------+ |Victim |
+-------+
Figure 2.1: The Components of Internet Phishing
Internet-based Phishing and Fraud activities are normally comprised
of at least four 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 User, Victim, or intended target of the fraud/phish.
4. The collection point, where the victim sends their credentials
or personal data if they have been duped by the phisher.
If we take a holistic view of the attack, there are some additional
components:
5. 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.
6. A forensic or archive site where an investigator has copied or
otherwise retained the data used for the fraud attempt or
credential collection.
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
3. 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.
3.1. Fraud Report Types
There are three types of reports relating to 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-
pupose 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 lifecycle is very environment specific.
3.2. Fraud Report XML Representation
The IODEF Incident element [IODEF, 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 by A
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
+--------------------+
| 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 3.1: 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 [RFC-IODEF].
One IODEF-Document may contain information on multiple incidents with
information for each incident contained within an iodef:Incident
element [IODEF, Section 3.12].
3.3. Correctness of Fraud Activity Reports
The Fraud Activity Report MUST pass XML validation using the schema
defined in [RFC-IODEF] and the extensions defined in
<AppendixA> of this document.
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
4. 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.
4.1. 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 ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ FraudParameter ]
| |<>--{0..*}--[ FraudedBrandName ]
| |<>--{1..*}--[ LureSource ]
| |<>--{1..*}--[ OriginatingSensor ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ EmailRecord ]
| |<>--{0..*}--[ DCSite ]
| |<>--{0..*}--[ TakeDownInfo ]
| |<>--{0..*}--[ ArchivedData ]
| |<>--{0..*}--[ RelatedData ]
| |<>--{0..*}--[ CorrelatedData ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ PRComments ]
+------------------+
Figure 3.1: 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.
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
c. The DCSite describes the technical details of the credential
collection point.
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.
4.2. 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 Contact and System elements.
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 [RFC-IODEF]. Each element in a
PhraudReport is used as described in the following sections.
4.3. Element and Attribute Specification Format
The following sections describe the components of a PhraudReport XML
element. Each description is structured as follows.
1. Terse XML-type identifier for the element.
2. Indication of whether this item is REQUIRED or optional.
3. Description of the element and its intended use.
Elements that contain sub-elements or enumerated values are further
sub-sectioned.
The rest of this section describes elements of the PhraudReport.
4.4. Version attribute
STRING. The version shall be the value 0.01 to be compliant with
this document. [This value will be changed to "1.0" when this
document progresses.]
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
4.5. FraudType attribute
One ENUM. The FraudType attribute describes the type of fraudulent
activity described in this PhraudReport and contains one of the
following values:
1. phishemail. The FraudParameter should be the email subject line
of the phishing email. This type is a standard email phish,
usually sent as spam, and is intended to derive financial loss
to the recipient.
2. recruitemail. 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 covers other
cases of the phish and fraud lifecycle.
3. malwareemail. 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. fraudsite. This identifies a known fraudulent site that does
not necessarily send spam but is used for lures. The
FraudParameter may be used to identify the website.
5. dnsspoof. This choice does not have a related FraudParameter.
This is used for a spoofed DNS (e.g., malware changes localhost
file so visits to www.example.com go to another IP address
chosen by the fraudster).
6. keylogger. This choice does not have a FraudParameter and
specifies a keylogger downloaded with the lure.
7. ole. There is no FraudParameter. This identifies background
Microsoft Object Linking and Embedding (OLE) information that
comes as part of a lure.
8. im. The FraudParameter should be the malicious instant message
(IM) link supplied to the user.
9. cve. This choice identifies CVE-known malware, with the Common
Vulnerability and Exposures project (CVE) number as the
FraudParameter.
10. 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.
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
11. spamreport. This type is used when the PhraudReport is
reporting a large-scale spam activity. The FraudParameter
should be the spam email subject line.
12. voip. The lure was received via a voice-over-IP connection
identified by the information in the FraudParameter field.
13. other. This is used to identify not-yet-enumerated fraud types.
14. unknown. This choice may have an associated FraudParameter. It
is used to cover confused cases.
4.5.1. FraudParameter element
One value of iodef:MLStringType. This is the lure used to attract
victims. It may be an email subject line, VoIP lure, link in an IM
message, the CVE or malware identifier, 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.
4.6. PhishNameRef element
Zero or one value of STRING. 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.
4.7. PhishNameLocalRef element
Zero or one value of STRING. 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.
4.8. FraudedBrandName element
Zero or more values of STRING. This is the identifier of the
recognized brand name or company name used in the phishing activity
(e.g., XYZ Semiconductor Corp).
4.9. LureSource element
One value. REQUIRED. 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
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
the files that might be downloaded or registry keys modified by the
crimeware.
+-------------+
| LureSource |
+-------------+
| |<>--(1..*)--[ System ]
| |<>--(0..*)--[ DomainData ]
| |<>--(0..1)--[ IncludedMalware ]
| |<>--(0..1)--[ FilesDownloaded ]
| |<>--(0..1)--[ RegistryKeysModified ]
+-------------+
Figure 4.2: The LureSource element
4.9.1. System element
One or more values of the iodef:System [IODEF, 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.
4.9.2. DomainData element
Zero or more. The DomainData element describes the registration,
delegation, and control of a domain used to source the lure.
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..*)--[ DomainContacts ]
+--------------------+
Figure 4.3 The DomainData element
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
4.9.3. Name
One value of iodef:MLStringType [IODEF, Section 2.4]. The Name
element is the domain name used in this event.
4.9.4. 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.
4.9.5. RegistrationDate element
Zero or one value of DATETIME. The RegistrationDate element shows
the date of registration for a domain.
4.9.6. ExpirationDate element
Zero or one value of DATETIME. The ExpirationDate element shows the
date the domain will expire.
4.9.7. Nameservers element
Zero or more sub-elements. These fields hold nameservers identified
for this domain. Each entry is a sequence of DNSNameType and iodef:
Address pairs as specified below.
4.9.7.1. Server element
Zero or more values of iodef:MLStringType. This field contains the
DNS name of the domain nameserver.
4.9.7.2. iodef:Address element
One Value of Address. REQUIRED. This field contains the IP address
of the domain nameserver.
The use of one Server value and one Address value, followed by
multiple empty Server values with Address values is allowable to note
multiple IPAddreses associated with one DNS entry for the domain
nameserver.
4.9.8. DomainContacts element
Choice of either a SameDomainContact or one or more DomainContact
elements. The DomainContacts element allows the reporter to enter
contact information supplied by the registrar or returned by Whois.
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
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..*)--[ DomainContact ]
+----------------+
Figure 4.4 The DomainContacts element
The DomainContacts Element
4.9.8.1. SameDomainContact
One iodef:DNSNAME. 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 the
registrar is identical.
4.9.8.2. DomainContact Element
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.
+--------------------+
| DomainContact |
+--------------------+
| |<>----------[ iodef:ContactName ]
| |<>--(0..*)--[ iodef:Description ]
| ENUM Role |<>--(0..*)--[ iodef:RegistryHandle ]
| ENUM Confidence |<>--(0..1)--[ iodef:PostalAdress ]
| ENUM Restriction |<>--(0..*)--[ iodef:Email ]
| |<>--(0..*)--[ iodef:Telephone ]
| |<>--(0..1)--[ iodef:Fax ]
| |<>--(0..1)--[ iodef:Timezone ]
+--------------------+
Figure 4.5: The DomainContact element
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
Each Contact has three attributes to capture the sensitivity,
confidence, and role for which the contact is listed.
4.9.8.2.1. Role attribute
ENUM. The role attribute is extended from the iodef:role attribute
with values identified in [CRISP]. The extended role attribute is
one of the following values:
1. registrant. This identified Contact is the domain registrant.
2. registrar. This contact identifies the registrar of this
domain.
3. billing. This entry is the billing or financial contact.
4. technical. This contact deals with technical issues.
5. administrative. This contact handles administrative matters for
this domain.
6. legal. This entry deals with legal issues for this domain.
7. zone. This entry controls the DNS zone information.
8. abuse. This entry accepts abuse issues.
9. security. This entry accepts security issues.
10. domainOwner. This lists the owner of the domain.
11. ipAddressOwner. This entry identifies the assignee of the IP
address space.
12. hostingProvider. This contact is the hosting provider of this
domain.
13. other. This entry does not meet an enumerated value.
4.9.8.2.2. Confidence attribute
ENUM. The Confidence attribute 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.
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
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.
4. looks-real. The contact information does not arouse suspicion
but has not been previously validated.
5. unknown. The reporter cannot make a value judgment on the
contact data.
4.9.8.2.3. Restriction attribute
Zero or one iodef:restriction attribute [IODEF, as part of Section
3.2]. The restriction attribute is used to label the sensitivity of
included information.
4.9.9. SystemStatus attribute
ENUM. The SystemStatus attribute assesses a domain's involvement in
this event.
1. spoofed. This domain or system did not participate in this
event, but its address space or DNS name was forged.
2. fraudulent. The system is fraudulently operated.
3. innocent-hacked. The system was compromised and used in this
event to source the lure.
4. innocent-hijacked. The IP Address or domain name was hijacked
and used in this event to source of the lure.
5. unknown. No conclusions are inferred from this event.
4.9.10. DomainStatus attribute
ENUM. The DomainStatus attribute describes the registry status of a
domain at the time of the report. The below enumerated list is taken
verbose from the 'domainStatusType' of the Extensible Provisioning
Protocol[RFC3733] and "Domain Registry Version 2 for the Internet
Registry Information Service" internet-draft [CRISP].
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
1. reservedDelegation - permanently inactive
2. assignedAndActive - normal state
3. assignedAndInactive - registration assigned but delegation
inactive
4. assignedAndOnHold - dispute
5. revoked - database purge pending
6. transferPending - change of authority pending
7. registryLock - on hold by registry
8. registrarLock - on hold by registrar
4.9.11. IncludedMalware element
Zero or One Value. The IncludedMalware element allows for the
identification and optional inclusion of the actual malware that was
part of the lure. The goal of this element is not to detail the
characteristics of the malware but rather to allow for a convenient
element to link malware to a phishing campaign.
+------------------+
| IncludedMalware |
+------------------+
| |<>--(1..*)--[ Name ]
| |<>--(0..1)--[ Hashvalue ]
| |<>--(0..1)--[ Data ]
+------------------+
+-----------------+
| Hashvalue |
+-----------------+
| ENUM Algorithm |
| |
| STRING |
+-----------------+
+---------------------+
| Data |
+---------------------+
| STRING XORPattern |<>--(0..1)-+-[ StringData ]
| | +-[ BinaryData ]
+---------------------+
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
Figure 4.6: The Included Malware element
The IncludedMalware element
4.9.11.1. Name element
One or more value of iodef:MLStringType. This optional field is used
to identify the lure malware.
4.9.11.2. Hashvalue element
Zero or one value of STRING. This optional field is used to hold the
value of a hash computed over the malware executable.
4.9.11.2.1. Algorithm attribute
REQUIRED ENUM. This field from the following list identifies the
algorithm used to create this hashvalue.
SHA1. Hashvalue as defined in[SHA].
4.9.11.3. Data element
Zero or one value. Choice of two elements, below. The optional Data
element is used to describe the lure malware.
4.9.11.3.1. StringData element
The lure malware is encoded as a String value.
4.9.11.3.2. BinaryData element
The lure malware is encoded as a hexBinary encoded value, as defined
by the XML standard.
4.9.11.3.3. XORPattern attribute
STRING. The Data Element includes an optional 16 hexadecimal
character XORPattern attribute to support disabling the included
malware to bypass anti-virus filters. The default value is
0x55AA55AA55AA55BB which would be XOR-ed with the malware datastring
to recover the actual malware.
4.9.12. FilesDownloaded element
Zero or One value of STRING. The FileDownloaded element is a comma-
separated list where each entry is the name of a file downloaded by
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
this lure. Although this element could be implemented as a sequence
of individual XML entries, the extra XML overhead was perceived to
not add any value, so the files are listed in one element.
4.9.13. RegistryKeysModified element
One value of the Keys sequence.
The contents of the RegistryKeysModified element are sets of Key
elements.
+-----------------------+
| RegistryKeysModified |
+-----------------------+
| |<>--(1..*)--[ Key ]
+-----------------------+
+--------------+
| Key |
+--------------+
| |<>-----[ Name ]
| |<>-----[ Value ]
+--------------+
Figure 4.7: The RegistryKeysModified element
The RegistryKeysModified element
4.9.13.1. Key element
One or more Sequences. The key element is a sequence of Name and
Value pairs representing an operating system registry key and its
value
4.9.13.1.1. Name element
One STRING, representing the WINDOWS Operating System Registry Key
Name.
4.9.13.1.2. Value element
One STRING, representing the value of the associated Key
4.10. OriginatingSensor Element
The OriginatingSensor element contains the identification and
cognizant data of the network element that detected this fraud
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
activity. Note that the network element does not have to be on the
Internet itself (i.e., it may be a local IDS system) nor is it
required to be mechanical (e.g., humans are allowed).
Multiple OriginatingSensor Elements are allowed to support detection
at mutiple locations.
+---------------------+
| OriginatingSensor |
+---------------------+
| ENUM OrigSensorType |<>------------[ DateFirstSeen ]
| |<>---(1..*)---[ iodef:System ]
+---------------------+
Figure 4.8: The OriginatingSensor element
The OriginatingSensor requires a type value and identification of the
entity that detected this fraudulent event.
4.10.1. OrigSensorType attribute
ENUM. REQUIRED. The value is chosen from the following list,
categorizing the function of this sensor:
1. Web. A web server or service detected this event.
2. WebGateway. A proxy, firewall, or other network gateway
detected this event.
3. MailGateway. The event was detected via a mail gateway or
filter
4. Browser. The event was detected at the user web interface or
browser-type element..
5. ISPsensor. The event was detected by an automated system in
the network such as IDS, IPS, or ISP device.
6. Human. A non-automated system (e.g., a human, manual
analysis, etc) detected this event.
7. Honeypot. The event was detected by receipt at a decoy
device.
8. Other. The detection was performed via a non-listed method.
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
4.10.2. DateFirstSeen element
REQUIRED. DATETIME. This is the date and time that this sensor
first saw this phishing activity.
4.10.3. iodef:System element
One iodef:System. This is the IPVersion, IPAddress, and
optionally, port number of the entity that generated this report.
4.11. The DCSite element
Zero or more DCSite elements. The DCSite captures the type,
identifier, collection location, and other pertinent information
about the credential gathering process, or data collection site, used
in the phishing incident. The data collection site is identified by
four elements: the type of collector site, the network location,
information about its DNS Domain, and a confidence factor. Further
details about the domain, system, or owner of the DCSite can be
inserted into the DomainData element.
If the DCSite element is present, the DCSite element is required.
Multiple DCSite elements are allowed to indicate multiple collection
sites for a single collector. Multiple URLs pointing to the same DNS
entry can be identified with multiple SiteURL elements and either
blank or using the SameDomainContact element.
+--------------+
| DCSite |
+--------------+
| ENUM DCSite |<>--+--------[ SiteURL ]
| | +--------[ Domain ]
| | +--------[ EmailSite ]
| | +--------[ System ]
| | +--------[ Unknown ]
| |<>--(0..1)---[ DomainData ]
| |<>--(0..1)---[ iodef:Assessment ]
+--------------+
Figure 4.9: The DCSite element
The DCSite element
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
4.11.1. DCType attribute
ENUM. The DCType attribute identifies the method of data collection
as determined through the analysis of the victim computer, lure, or
malware. This attribute coupled with the DCSite content identifies
the data collection site.
1. web. The user is redirected to a website to collect the data.
2. email. The victim sends an email with credentials enclosed.
3. keylogger. Some form of keylogger is downloaded to the victim.
4. automation. Other forms of automatic data collection, such as
background OLE automation, are used to capture information.
5. unspecified.
4.11.2. DCSite values
The DCSite element contains the IPAddress, URL, emailsite, or other
identifier of the data collection site. The Domain choice may be
used to identify entire 'phishy' domains like those used for the
RockPhish and related malware. Each DCSite element also includes a
confidence element to convey the reporter's assessment of their
confidence that this DCSite element is valid, and involved with this
event. The confidence value is a per-DCSite value as multiple-site
data collectors may have different confidence values.
The DCSite element is a choice of:
1. SiteURL. anyURI. This choice supports URIs.
2. Domain. STRING. This choice allows the entry of a DNS Domain
name.
3. EmailSite. STRING. This choice captures either the email
address of the data collection site.
4. iodef:System element [IODEF, Section 3.15]. This choice is
filled it to capture the IP Address of a site.
5. Unknown. STRING. The unknown entry is used for exception to the
preceding choices.
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
4.11.2.1. DomainData element
Zero or One value of DomainData. This element allows for the
identification of data associated with the data collection site.
4.11.2.2. iodef:Assessment element
Zero or One value of iodef:Assessment. This element is used to
designate different confidence levels of multiple-site data
collectors.
4.12. TakeDownInfo element
Zero or more TakeDownInfo element. This element identifies the agent
or agency that performed the removal, DNS domain disablement, or ISP-
blockage of the phish or fraud collector site. A PhraudReport may
have multiple TakeDownInfo elements to support activities where
multiple take down activities are involved on different dates. Note
that the term "Agency" is used to identify any party performing the
blocking or removal such as ISPs or private parties, not just
government entities.
The TakeDownInfo element allows one date element with multiple
TakeDownAgency and Comment elements to support operations using
multiple agencies.
+-------------------+
| TakeDownInfo |
+-------------------+
| |<>---(0..1)--[ TakeDownDate ]
| |<>---(0..*)--[ TakeDownAgency ]
| |<>---(0..*)--[ TakeDownComments ]
+-------------------+
Figure 4.10: The TakeDownInfo element
4.12.1. TakeDownDate
Zero or one DATETIME. This is the date and time that take down of
the collector site occurred.
4.12.2. TakeDownAgency
Zero or more STRING. This is a free form string identifying the
agency, corporation, or cooperative that performed the take down.
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
4.12.3. TakeDownComments
Zero or more STRING. A free form field to add any additional details
of this take down effort or to identify parties that assisted in the
effort at an ISP, CERT, or DNS Registry.
4.13. ArchivedData element
Zero or more values of the ArchivedData element are allowed.
+-------------------+
| ArchivedData |
+-------------------+
| ENUM type |<>---(0..1)--[ ArchivedDataURL ]
| |<>---(0..1)--[ ArchivedDataComments ]
| |<>---(0..1)--[ ArchivedData ]
+-------------------+
Figure 4.11: The ArchivedData element
The ArchivedData element
The ArchivedData element is populated with a pointer to the contents
of a data collection site, base camp (i.e., development site), or
other site used by a phisher. The ArchivedDataInfo may also include
a copy of the archived data recovered from a phishing system. This
element will be populated when, for example, an ISP takes down a
phisher's web site and has copied the site data into an archive file.
There are four types of archives currently supported, as specified in
the type field.
4.13.1. type attribute
REQUIRED. This parameter specifies the type of site data pointed to
by the ArchivedDataURL, from the following list:
1. collectionsite.
2. basecamp.
3. sendersite.
4. credentialInfo.
5. unspecified.
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
4.13.2. ArchivedDataURL element
Zero or one value of URL. As the archive of an entire site can be
quite large, the ArchivedURL element points to an Internet-based
server where the actual gzipped content of the site archive can be
retrieved. Note that this element just points out where the archive
is and does not include the entire archive in the report. This is
the URL where the gzipped archive file is located.
4.13.3. ArchivedDataComments element
Zero or one value of STRING. This field is a free form area for
comments on the archive and/or URL.
4.13.4. ArchivedData element
Zero or one value of xs:Base64Binary. This field may contain a
base64 encoded version of the data described in the comment field
above.
4.14. RelatedData element
Zero or more value of anyURI. This element allows the listing of
other web or net sites that are related to this incident (e.g.,
victim site, etc.).
4.15. CorrelationData element
Zero or more value of STRING. Any information that correlates this
incident to other incidents can be entered here.
4.16. PRComments element
Zero or one value of STRING. This field allows for any comments
specific to this PhraudReport that does not fit in any other field.
4.17. EmailRecord element
Extensions are also made to the iodef:Incident.EventData element to
include the actual email message received in phishing lure or
widespread spam emails. The ability to report spam is included
within a PhraudReport to support exchanging information about large-
scale spam activities related to phishing, not necessarily a single
spam message to a user. As such the spam reporting mechanism was not
designed to minimize overhead and processing, but to support other
widely-used spam reporting formats such as the MAAWG's Abuse
Reporting Format [ARF].
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
Reporting of the actual mail message is supported by choosing one of
three methods. First, an ARF message may be included. Second, the
message may be included as one large string. Third, the header and
body components may be dissected and included as a series of strings.
+--------------------+
| EmailRecord |
+--------------------+
| |<>--------------[ EmailCount ]
| |<>--(0..1)--+---[ Email ]
| | +---[ Message ]
| | +---[ ARFText ]
| |<>--(0..1)------[ EmailComments ]
+--------------------+
+---------------+
| Email |
+---------------+
| |<>---+----------[ EmailHeader ]
| |<>--(0..1)------[ EmailBody ]
+---------------+
+-------------+
| EmailHeader |
+-------------+
| |<>--(1..*)--[ Header ]
+-------------+
Figure 4.12: The EmailRecord element
4.17.1. EmailCount
INTEGER. REQUIRED. This field enumerates the number of email
messages identified in this record detected by the reporter.
4.17.2. Email Message Inclusion
The actual wide-spread spam message may be included in a report via
one of three encodings: an ARF message, one big text blob, or a
separate header and body element.
4.17.2.1. Message
Zero of one value of iodef:MLStringType. The entire mail message can
be inserted as one large string.
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
4.17.2.2. ARFText
Zero or one value of STRING. The Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group
(MAAWG) defined a format for sending abuse and list control traffic
to other parties. Since many of these reports will get integrated
into incident processes, the raw Abuse Reporting Format [ARF] may be
inserted into this element.
The ARF should be encoded as a character string.
4.17.2.3. Email element
4.17.2.3.1. EmailHeader Element
Sequence of Header. The headers of the phish email are included in
this element as a sequence of one-line text strings. There SHALL be
one EmailHeader element per EmailRecord.
4.17.2.3.1.1. Header
iodef:MLStringType. The header element contains a sequence of email
header lines, one line per header element.
4.17.2.3.2. EmailBody Element
Zero or one value of iodef:MLStringType. This element contains the
body of the phish email. If present, there should be at most one
EmailBody element per EmailRecord
4.17.2.4. Message
iodef:MLStringType. The entire mail message can be inserted as one
large string.
4.17.3. EmailComments Element
Zero or one value of STRING. This field contains comments or
relevant data not placed elsewhere about the phishing or spam email.
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
5. IODEF Required Elements
A report about fraud, spam, or phishing requires certain identifying
information which is contained within the standard IODEF Incident
data structure and the PhraudReport extensions. The following table
identifies attributes required to be present in a compliant
PhraudReport to report phishing or fraud or to report widespread
spam. The required attributes are a combination of those required by
the base IODEF element and those required by this document.
Attributes identified as required SHALL be populated in conforming
phishing activity reports.
The following table is a visual description of the IODEF-Document
required fields.
5.1. Fraud or Phishing Report
A compliant IODEF PhraudReport is SHALL contain the following element
and attributes:
Incident
@purpose
IncidentID
ReportTime
Assessment -> Confidence
Contact -> Role
Contact -> Type
Contact -> Name
EventData
DetectTime
AdditionalData
PhraudReport
FraudType
FraudedBrandName
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
LureSource
OriginatingSensor
5.2. Wide-Spread Spam Report
An IODEF PhraudReport compliant Spam Activity Report SHALL contain
the following elements and attributes:
Incident
@purpose
IncidentID
ReportTime
Assessment -> Confidence
Contact -> Role
Contact -> Type
Contact -> Name
EventData
DetectTime
AdditionalData
PhraudReport
FraudType = spamreport
LureSource
OriginatingSensor
EmailRecord
5.3. Guidance on Usage
It may be apparent that the mandatory attributes for a phishing
activity report make for a quite sparse report. As incident
forensics and data analysis require detailed information, the
originator of a PhraudReport SHOULD include any tidbit of information
gleaned from the attack analysis. Information that is considered
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
sensitive can be marked as such using the restriction parameter of
each data element.
The reporting party is advised to supply as much information abut the
event as possible -- or even more -- as the information may be
volatile and not recoverable in the future to answer investigation
questions or to perform correlation with other events.
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
6. Security Considerations
This document specifies a format for encoding a particular class of
security incidents appropriate for exchange across organizations. As
merely a data representation, it does not directly introduce security
issues. However, it is guaranteed that parties exchanging instances
of this specification will have certain concerns. For this reason,
the underlying message format and transport protocol used MUST ensure
the appropriate degree of confidentiality, integrity, and
authenticity for the environment.
Organizations that exchange data using this document are URGED to
develop operating procedures that document the following areas of
concern.
6.1. Transport-specific concerns
The critical security concerns are that phishing activity reports may
be falsified or the PhraudReport may become corrupt during transit.
In areas where transmission security or secrecy is necessary, the
application of a digital signature and/or message encryption on each
report will counteract both of these concerns. We expect that each
receiving entity will determine the need, and mechanism, for this
signature independently.
6.2. Using the iodef:restriction attribute
In some instances data values in particular elements may contain data
deemed sensitive by the reporter. Although there are no general-
purpose rules on when to mark certain values as "private" or "need-
to-know" via the iodef:restriction attribute, the reporter is
cautioned to not apply element-level sensitivity markings unless they
believe the receiving party (i.e., the party they are exchanging the
event report data with) has a mechanism to adequately safeguard and
process the data as marked. For example, if the PhraudReport element
is marked private and contains a phishing collector URL in the
DCSite/SiteURL element, can that URL be included within a block list
distributed to other parties? No guidance is provided here except to
urge exchanging parties to review the IODEF and PhraudReport
documents to decide on common marking rules.
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
7. IANA Considerations
This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas
conforming to a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]
Registration request for the IODEF phishing namespace:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-phish-1.0
Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this
document.
XML: None.
Registration request for the IODEF phishing extension XML schema:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:iodef-phish-1.0
Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of
this document.
XML: See the "Phishing Extensions Schema Definition" in the
<Appendix A> section of this document.
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
8. Contributors
The extensions are an outgrowth of the Anti-Phishing Working Group
(APWG) activities in data collection and sharing of phishing and
other ecrime-ware.
This document has received significant assistance from two groups
addressing the phishing problem: members of the Anti-Phishing Working
Group and participants in the Financial Services Technology
Consortium's Counter-Phishing project.
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC-IODEF]
Meijer, J., Danyliw, R., and Y. Demchenko, "The Incident
Object Description Exchange Format Data Model and XML
Implementation", May 2007.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3688] Mealing, M., "The IETF XML Registry", RFC 3688,
January 2004.
[SHA] National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S.
Department of Commerce, "Secure Hash Standard",
FIPS 180-1, May 1994.
9.2. Informative References
[ARF] The Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group (MAAWG), "Abuse
Reporting Format", May 2005.
[CRISP] Newton, L. and A. Neves, "Domain Registry Version 2 for
the Internet Registry Information Service", RFC 3982,
January 2005.
[RFC3733] Hollenbeck, "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Contact Mapping"", RFC 3733, March 2004.
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
Appendix A. Appendix A. Phishing Extensions XML Schema
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xs:schema
attributeFormDefault="unqualified" elementFormDefault="qualified"
targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-phish-1.0"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-1.0"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:phish="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-phish-1.0"
xmlns:ns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
xmlns:iodef="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-1.0"
xmlns:hfp="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-hasFacetAndProperty"
xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#">
<xs:import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-1.0"
schemaLocation="draft-ietf-inch-iodef-131.xsd"/>
<!--
This Schema complies with draft-cain-postinch-phishingextns-01.txt
==========================================================
=== Top Level Class: PhraudReport ===
==========================================================
It is incorporated within an
IODEF.Incident.EventData.AdditionalData element.
All the top-level or major elements are defined as xs:types to make
future extension easier.
-->
<xs:element name="PhraudReport">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element minOccurs="0" name="PhishNameRef" type="xs:string"/>
<xs:element minOccurs="0" name="PhishNameLocalRef"
type="xs:string"/>
<xs:element minOccurs="0" name="FraudParameter"
type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
<xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0"
name="FraudedBrandName" type="xs:string"/>
<xs:element name="LureSource" maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="1"
type="phish:LureSource.type" />
<xs:element name="OriginatingSensor" maxOccurs="unbounded"
minOccurs="1" type="phish:OriginatingSensor.type" />
<xs:element name="EmailRecord" maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0"
type="phish:EmailRecord.type"/>
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
<xs:element name="DCSite" maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0"
type="phish:DCSite.type"/>
<xs:element name="TakeDownInfo" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded" type="phish:TakeDownInfo.type"/>
<xs:element name="ArchivedData" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded" type="phish:ArchivedData.type"/>
<xs:element name="RelatedData" maxOccurs="unbounded"
minOccurs="0" type="xs:anyURI"/>
<xs:element minOccurs="0" name="CorrelationData"
type="xs:string" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="PRComments"
type="xs:string"/>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:attribute default="1.0" name="Version" use="optional"/>
<xs:attribute name="FraudType" type="phish:FraudType.type"
use="required"/>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:simpleType name="FraudType.type" >
<xs:restriction base="xs:string">
<xs:enumeration value="phishemail"/>
<xs:enumeration value="recruitemail"/>
<xs:enumeration value="malwareemail"/>
<xs:enumeration value="fraudsite"/>
<xs:enumeration value="dnsspoof"/>
<xs:enumeration value="keylogger"/>
<xs:enumeration value="ole"/>
<xs:enumeration value="im"/>
<xs:enumeration value="cve"/>
<xs:enumeration value="archive"/>
<xs:enumeration value="spamreport"/>
<xs:enumeration value="voip"/>
<xs:enumeration value="other"/>
<xs:enumeration value="unknown"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
<!--
==========================================================
=== End of the Top-Level Element ===
==========================================================
-->
<!--
==========================================================
=== The Lure Source Element ===
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
==========================================================
-->
<xs:complexType name="LureSource.type" mixed="false">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="1" ref="iodef:System"/>
<xs:element minOccurs="0" ref="phish:DomainData"/>
<xs:element name="IncludedMalware" minOccurs="0"
type="phish:IncludedMalware.type"/>
<xs:element minOccurs="0" name="FilesDownloaded">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:list itemType="xs:string"/>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element minOccurs="0" name="RegistryKeysModified">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" name="Key">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="Name"/>
<xs:element name="Value"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
<!--
=== LureSource sub-elements ===
-->
<xs:complexType name="IncludedMalware.type" >
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="Name" type="iodef:MLStringType" />
<xs:element minOccurs="0" name="Hashvalue">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:simpleContent>
<xs:extension base="xs:string">
<xs:attribute name="Algorithm" use="required">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:string">
<xs:enumeration value="SHA1"/>
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:attribute>
</xs:extension>
</xs:simpleContent>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element minOccurs="0" name="Data">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:choice>
<xs:element name="StringData" type="xs:string"/>
<xs:element name="BinaryData" type="xs:hexBinary"/>
</xs:choice>
<xs:attribute default="55AA55AA55AA55BB" name="XORPattern"
type="xs:string"/>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
<!--
==========================================================
== The EmailRecord Element ===
==========================================================
-->
<xs:complexType name="EmailRecord.type" >
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="EmailCount" type="xs:integer" />
<xs:choice>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="EmailHeader">
<!--
This is an ugly way to deal with multi-line header info.
-->
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="1"
name="Header" type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="EmailBody"
type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:element minOccurs="0" name="Message"
type="iodef:MLStringType" maxOccurs="1" />
<xs:element minOccurs="0" name="ARFText"
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
type="xs:string" maxOccurs="1" />
</xs:choice>
<xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="EmailComments"
type="xs:string"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
<!--
===========================================================
=== The Data Collection Site (DCSite) Info Element ===
===========================================================
-->
<xs:complexType name="DCSite.type" >
<xs:sequence>
<xs:choice>
<xs:element name="SiteURL">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:simpleContent>
<xs:extension base="xs:anyURI">
<xs:attribute name="confidence" type="xs:string" />
</xs:extension>
</xs:simpleContent>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name="Domain">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:simpleContent>
<xs:extension base="xs:string">
<xs:attribute name="confidence" type="xs:string" />
</xs:extension>
</xs:simpleContent>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name="EmailSite">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:simpleContent>
<xs:extension base="xs:string">
<xs:attribute name="confidence" type="xs:string" />
</xs:extension>
</xs:simpleContent>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element ref="phish:System"/>
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
<xs:element name="Unknown">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:simpleContent>
<xs:extension base="xs:string">
<xs:attribute name="confidence" type="xs:string" />
</xs:extension>
</xs:simpleContent>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
</xs:choice>
<xs:element minOccurs="0" ref="phish:DomainData"/>
<xs:element minOccurs="0" ref="iodef:Assessment"/>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:attribute name="DCType" use="required">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:string">
<xs:enumeration value="web"/>
<xs:enumeration value="email"/>
<xs:enumeration value="keylogger"/>
<xs:enumeration value="automation"/>
<xs:enumeration value="unspecified"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:attribute>
</xs:complexType>
<!--
=== DCSite sub-elements ===
-->
<!-- Redefine iodef:System to include a confidence value -->
<xs:element name="System">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element ref="iodef:Node"/>
<xs:element ref="iodef:Service"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<xs:element ref="iodef:OperatingSystem"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<xs:element ref="iodef:Counter"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<xs:element ref="iodef:Description"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<xs:element ref="iodef:AdditionalData"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xs:sequence>
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
<xs:attribute name="restriction"
type="iodef:restriction-type"/>
<xs:attribute name="interface" type="xs:string"/>
<xs:attribute name="category">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:NMTOKEN">
<xs:enumeration value="source"/>
<xs:enumeration value="target"/>
<xs:enumeration value="intermediate"/>
<xs:enumeration value="sensor"/>
<xs:enumeration value="infrastructure"/>
<xs:enumeration value="ext-value"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:attribute>
<xs:attribute name="ext-category"
type="xs:string" use="optional"/>
<xs:attribute name="spoofed" default="unknown">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:NMTOKEN">
<xs:enumeration value="unknown"/>
<xs:enumeration value="yes"/>
<xs:enumeration value="no"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:attribute>
<xs:attribute name="confidence" type="xs:string"/>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name="DomainData">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element maxOccurs="1" name="Name" type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
<xs:element minOccurs="0" name="DateDomainWasChecked"
maxOccurs="1" type="xs:dateTime"/>
<xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="RegistrationDate"
type="xs:dateTime"/>
<xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="ExpirationDate"
type="xs:dateTime"/>
<xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0" name="Nameserver">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="Server" type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
<xs:element ref="iodef:Address"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
<xs:choice id="DomainContacts" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1" >
<xs:element name="SameDomainContact" type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="1"
ref="phish:DomainContact"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:choice>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:attribute name="SystemStatus">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:string">
<xs:enumeration value="spoofed"/>
<xs:enumeration value="fraudulent"/>
<xs:enumeration value="innocent-hacked"/>
<xs:enumeration value="innocent-hijacked"/>
<xs:enumeration value="unknown"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:attribute>
<xs:attribute name="DomainStatus">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:string">
<xs:enumeration value=
"reservedDelegation - permanently inactive"/>
<xs:enumeration value="assignedAndActive - normal state"/>
<xs:enumeration value=
"assignedAndInactive - registration assigned but delegation inactive"/>
<xs:enumeration value="assignedAndOnHold - dispute"/>
<xs:enumeration value="revoked - database purge pending"/>
<xs:enumeration value=
"transferPending - change of authority pending"/>
<xs:enumeration value="registryLock - on hold by registry"/>
<xs:enumeration value="registrarLock - on hold by registrar"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:attribute>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name="DomainContact" type="phish:DomainContact.type"/>
<!--
<xs:redefine schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-1.0" >
<xs:element name="iodef:Contact"> -->
<xs:complexType name="DomainContact.type" >
<xs:sequence>
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
<xs:element ref="iodef:ContactName" minOccurs="0"/>
<xs:element ref="iodef:Description"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<xs:element ref="iodef:RegistryHandle"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<xs:element ref="iodef:PostalAddress" minOccurs="0"/>
<xs:element ref="iodef:Email" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<xs:element ref="iodef:Telephone"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<xs:element ref="iodef:Fax" minOccurs="0"/>
<xs:element ref="iodef:Timezone" minOccurs="0"/>
<xs:element ref="iodef:Contact"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<xs:element ref="iodef:AdditionalData"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:attribute name="role" use="required">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:NMTOKEN">
<xs:enumeration value="creator"/>
<xs:enumeration value="admin"/>
<xs:enumeration value="tech"/>
<xs:enumeration value="irt"/>
<xs:enumeration value="cc"/>
<xs:enumeration value="ext-value"/>
<!-- Identified by phish extensions -->
<xs:enumeration value="registrant"/>
<xs:enumeration value="registrar"/>
<xs:enumeration value="billing"/>
<xs:enumeration value="technical"/>
<xs:enumeration value="administrative"/>
<xs:enumeration value="legal"/>
<xs:enumeration value="zone"/>
<xs:enumeration value="abuse"/>
<xs:enumeration value="security"/>
<xs:enumeration value="other"/>
<xs:enumeration value="domainOwner"/>
<xs:enumeration value="ipAddressOwner"/>
<xs:enumeration value="hostingProvider"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:attribute>
<xs:attribute name="ext-role" type="xs:string" use="optional"/>
<xs:attribute name="type" use="required">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:NMTOKEN">
<xs:enumeration value="person"/>
<xs:enumeration value="organization"/>
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
<xs:enumeration value="ext-value"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:attribute>
<xs:attribute name="ext-type" type="xs:string" use="optional"/>
<xs:attribute name="restriction" type="iodef:restriction-type"/>
<xs:attribute name="confidence">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:string">
<xs:enumeration value="known-fraudulent"/>
<xs:enumeration value="looks-fraudulent"/>
<xs:enumeration value="known-real"/>
<xs:enumeration value="looks-real"/>
<xs:enumeration value="unknown"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:attribute>
</xs:complexType>
<!--
===================================================================
=== The Originating Sensor Data Element ===
===================================================================
-->
<xs:complexType name="OriginatingSensor.type" >
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="DateFirstSeen" type="xs:dateTime"/>
<xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="1" ref="iodef:System"/>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:attribute name="OriginatingSensorType" use="required">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:NMTOKENS">
<xs:enumeration value="web"/>
<xs:enumeration value="webgateway"/>
<xs:enumeration value="mailgateway"/>
<xs:enumeration value="browser"/>
<xs:enumeration value="ispsensor"/>
<xs:enumeration value="human"/>
<xs:enumeration value="honeypot"/>
<xs:enumeration value="other"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:attribute>
</xs:complexType>
<!--
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
===================================================
=== The Take Down Data structure. ===
===================================================
-->
<xs:complexType name="TakeDownInfo.type" >
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="TakeDownDate" type="xs:dateTime"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1" />
<xs:element name="TakeDownAgency" type="xs:string"
maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0" />
<xs:element name="TakeDownComments" type="xs:string"
maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0" />
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
<!--
====================================================
=== The Archived Data Element ===
====================================================
-->
<xs:complexType name="ArchivedData.type" >
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="ArchivedDataURL" type="xs:anyURI" minOccurs="0"/>
<xs:element name="ArchivedDataComments" type="xs:string"
minOccurs="0" />
<xs:element name="ArchivedData" type="xs:base64Binary"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:attribute name="type" use="required">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:NMTOKENS">
<xs:enumeration value="collectionsite"/>
<xs:enumeration value="basecamp"/>
<xs:enumeration value="sendersite"/>
<xs:enumeration value="credentialInfo"/>
<xs:enumeration value="unspecified"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:attribute>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:schema>
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
Appendix B. Example Virus Report
This section shows a received electronic mail message that included a
virus in a zipped attachment and a report that was generated for that
message.
B.1. Received Email
From: support@example.com
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 3:52 PM
To: pcain@example.com
Subject: You have successfully updated your password
Attachments: updated-password.zip
Dear user pcain,
You have successfully updated the password of your Coopercain
account. If you did not authorize this change or if you need
assistance with your account, please contact Coopercain customer
service at: support@coopercain.com
Thank you for using Coopercain!
The Coopercain Support Team
+++ Attachment: No Virus (Clean) +++
Coopercain Antivirus - www.example.com
B.2. Generated Report
NOTE: Some wrapping and folding liberties have been applied to fit it
into the margins.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<IODEF-Document lang="en-US" xmlns:ns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
xmlns:hfp="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-hasFacetAndProperty"
xmlns:iodef="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-1.0"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-phish-1.0
D:\APWGFO~1\INCH04~1\draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns-01.xsd"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-1.0"
xmlns:phish="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-phish-1.0" >
<Incident purpose="other">
<IncidentID name="example.com">PAT2005-06</IncidentID>
<ReportTime>2005-06-22T08:30:00-05:00</ReportTime>
<Description>This is a test report from actual data.
</Description>
<Assessment>
<Impact type="social-engineering"></Impact>
<Confidence rating="high"></Confidence>
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
</Assessment>
<Contact role="creator" type="person">
<ContactName>patcain</ContactName>
<Email>pcain@coopercain.com</Email>
</Contact>
<EventData>
<DetectTime>2005-06-21T18:22:02-05:00</DetectTime>
<AdditionalData dtype="xml">
<phish:PhraudReport FraudType="phishemail">
<phish:FraudParameter>
Subject: You have successfully updated your password
</phish:FraudParameter>
<phish:FraudedBrandName>Cooper-Cain
</phish:FraudedBrandName> <phish:LureSource>
<System category="source">
<Node>
<Address>192.0.2.18</Address>
</Node>
</System>
<phish:IncludedMalware>
<phish:Name>W32.Mytob.EA@mm</phish:Name>
</phish:IncludedMalware>
</phish:LureSource>
<phish:OriginatingSensor OriginatingSensorType="human">
<phish:DateFirstSeen>2005-06-10T15:52:11-05:00
</phish:DateFirstSeen>
<System>
<Node>
<Address>192.0.2.18</Address>
</Node>
</System>
</phish:OriginatingSensor>
<phish:EmailRecord>
<phish:EmailCount>1</phish:EmailCount>
<phish:Message>
"Return-path: <support@coopercain.com>"
Envelope-to: pcain@coopercain.com Delivery-date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005
15:52:11-0400 Received: from dsl231-063-162.sea1.dsl.example.net
([192.0.2.18] helo=coopercain.com) by mail06.coopercain.com
with esmtp (Exim) id 1DgpXy-0002Ua-IR for pcain@coopercain.com;
Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:52:10-0400 From: support@coopercain.com To:
pcain@coopercain.com Subject: You have successfully updated yourn
password Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:52:00 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_0911068B.E7EB6D2A" X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-EN-OrigIP: 192.0.2.18
X-EN-OrigHost: dsl231-063-162.sea1.dsl.example.net
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on
Scan18.example.net X-Spam-Level: ***** X-Spam-Status: No,
score=5.6 required=6.0 tests=BAYES_95,CABLEDSL,HTML_20_30,
HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,MISSING_MIMEOLE,NO_REAL_NAME,
PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 From:
support@coopercain.com Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 3:52 PM
To:pcain@coopercain.com Subject: You have successfully updated
your password Attachments: updated-password.zip
Dear user pcain,
You have successfully updated the password of your Coopercain
account. If you did not authorize this change or if you need
assistance with your account, please contact Coopercain customer
service at: support@coopercain.com Thank you for using Coopercain!
The Coopercain Support Team +++ Attachment: No Virus (Clean) +++
Coopercain Antivirus - www.coopercain.com
</phish:Message>
</phish:EmailRecord>
</phish:PhraudReport></AdditionalData>
</EventData>
</Incident>
</IODEF-Document>
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
Appendix C. Sample Phishing Report
A sample report generated from a received electronic mail phishing
message in shown in this section.
C.1. Received Lure
Return-path: <service@paypal.com>
Envelope-to: pcain@coopercain.com
Delivery-date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:37:22 -0400
Received: from mail15.yourhostingaccount.com ([10.1.1.161]
helo=mail15.yourhostingaccount.com)
by mailscan38.yourhostingaccount.com with esmtp (Exim)
id 1Fq5Kr-0005wU-LT for pcain@coopercain.com; Tue, 13 Jun 2006
05:37:21 -0400
Received: from [24.147.114.61] (helo=TSI)
by mail15.yourhostingaccount.com with
esmtp (Exim) id 1Fq5Bj-0006dv-6b
for pcain@coopercain.com; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:37:21 -0400
Received: from User ([66.59.189.157]) by TSI with
Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713);
Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:24:30 -0400
Reply-To: <nospa@nospa.us>
From: "PayPal"<service@paypal.com>
Subject: * * * Update & Verify Your PayPal Account * * *
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:36:34 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1251"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 1
X-MSMail-Priority: High
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Bcc:
Message-ID: <TSIlYbvhBISmT6QcWY90000085f@TSI>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jun 2006 06:24:30.0218 (UTC)
FILETIME=[072A66A0:01C68EB2]
X-EN-OrigSender: service@paypal.com
X-EN-OrigIP: 192.0.2.1
X-EN-OrigHost: unknown
PayPal<http://www.paypal.com/images/paypal_logo.gif>
<http://www.paypal.com/images/pixel.gif>
<http://www.paypal.com/images/pixel.gif>
<http://www.paypal.com/images/pixel.gif>
Account Update Request
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
Dear PayPal. member:,
You are receiving this notification because PayPal is required by
law to notify you, that you urgently need to update your online
account statement, due to high risks of fraud intentions.
The updating of your PayPal account can be done at any time by
clicking on the link shown below
http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_login-run
<http://217.136.251.41:8080/.cgi-bin/.webscr/.secure-
login/%20/%20/.payp
al.com/index.htm>
Once you log in,update your account information.
After updating your account click on the History sub tab of your
Account Overview page to see your most recent statement.
If you need help with your password, click the Help link which is at
the upper right hand side of the PayPal website. To report errors in
your statement or make inquiries, click the Contact Us link in the
footer on any page of the PayPal website, call our Customer Service
center at (401) 938-3600, or write us at:
PayPal, Inc.
P.O. Box 45950
Omaha, NE 68145
Sincerely,
PayPal
<http://www.paypal.com/images/dot_row_long.gif>
C.2. Phishing Report
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<IODEF-Document xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-1.0"
xmlns:ns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
xmlns:hfp="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-hasFacetAndProperty"
xmlns:iodef="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-1.0"
xmlns:phish="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-phish-1.0"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-phish-1.0
D:\APWGFO~1\INCH04~1\draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns-01.xsd" lang="">
<Incident purpose="mitigation" restriction="private">
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
<IncidentID name="coopercain.com">CC200600000002</IncidentID>
<ReportTime>2006-06-13T21:14:56-05:00</ReportTime>
<Description>This is a sample phishing email received report.
The phish was actually received as is.</Description>
<Assessment>
<Impact severity="high" type="social-engineering"></Impact>
<Confidence rating="numeric">85</Confidence>
</Assessment>
<Contact role="creator" type="person">
<ContactName>patcain</ContactName>
<Email>pcain@coopercain.com</Email>
</Contact>
<EventData>
<DetectTime>2006-06-13T05:37:21-04:00</DetectTime>
<AdditionalData dtype="xml">
<phish:PhraudReport FraudType="phishemail">
<phish:FraudParameter>
* * * Update & Verify Your PayPal Account * * *
</phish:FraudParameter>
<phish:FraudedBrandName>PayPal</phish:FraudedBrandName>
<phish:LureSource>
<System category="source">
<Node>
<Address>192.0.2.2</Address>
</Node>
</System>
</phish:LureSource>
<phish:OriginatingSensor
OriginatingSensorType="mailgateway">
<phish:DateFirstSeen>
2006-06-13T05:37:22-04:00</phish:DateFirstSeen>
<System>
<Node>
<NodeRole category="mail"></NodeRole>
</Node>
</System>
</phish:OriginatingSensor>
<phish:EmailRecord>
<phish:EmailCount>1</phish:EmailCount>
<phish:Message>Return-path: <service@paypal.com>
Envelope-to: pcain@coopercain.com
Delivery-date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:37:22 -0400
Received: from mail15.example.com ([10.1.1.161]
helo=mail15.example.com) by mailscan38.example.com
with esmtp (Exim) id 1Fq5Kr-0005wU-LT for pcain@coopercain.com;
Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:37:21 -0400
Received: from [192.0.2.2] (helo=bob) by mail15.example.com
with esmtp (Exim) id 1Fq5Bj-0006dv-6b for pcain@coopercai
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
n.com; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:37:21 -0400
Received: from User ([192.0.2.4]) by Bob with Microsoft SMTPSV
C(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:24:30 -0400 Reply-To: <no
spa@nospa.us>
From: "PayPal"<service@paypal.com>
Subject: * * * Update & Verify Your PayPal Account * * *
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:36:34 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1251"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Bcc:
Message-ID: <TSIlYbvhBISmT6QcWY90000085f@TSI>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jun 2006 06:24:30.0218 (UTC) FILETIME=[07
2A66A0:01C68EB2]
X-EN-OrigSender: service@paypal.com X-EN-OrigIP: 192.0.2.4
X-EN-OrigHost: unknown PayPal<http://www.paypal.com/images/paypal
_logo.gif> <http://www.paypal.com/images/pixel.gif> <htt
p://www.paypal.com/images/pixel.gif> <http://www.paypal.com/im
ages/pixel.gif> Account Update Request Dear PayPal. member:, You
are receiving this notification because PayPal is required by law to
notify you, that you urgently need to update your online account st
atement, due to high risks of fraud intentions.
The updating of your PayPal account can be done at any time by click
ing on the link shown below http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd
=_login-run <http://217.136.251.41:8080/.cgi-bin/.webscr/.secure-
login/%20/%20/.payp al.com/index.htm> Once you log in,update your
account information. After updating your account click on the Histo
ry sub tab of your Account Overview page to see your most recent sta
tement. If you need help with your password, click the Help link whi
ch is at the upper right hand side of the PayPal website. To report
errors in your statement or make inquiries, click the Contact Us lin
k in the footer on any page of the PayPal website, call our Customer
Service center at (402) 938-3630, or write us at: PayPal, Inc. P.O.
Box 45950 Omaha, NE 68145 Sincerely, PayPal <http://www.paypal.c
om/images/dot_row_long.gif></phish:Message>
</phish:EmailRecord>
<phish:DCSite DCType="web">
<phish:SiteURL>
http://217.136.251.41:8080/.cgi-bin/.webscr/.secure-
login/%20%20/.paypal.com/index.htm
</phish:SiteURL>
<phish:DomainData
DomainStatus="assignedAndActive - normal state"
SystemStatus="unknown">
<phish:Name>adsl.skynet.be</phish:Name>
<phish:DateDomainWasChecked>
2006-06-14T13:05:00-05:00
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
</phish:DateDomainWasChecked>
<phish:RegistrationDate>
2000-12-13T00:00:00</phish:RegistrationDate>
<phish:Nameserver>
<phish:Server>ns1.example.net</phish:Server>
<Address>192.0.2.18</Address>
</phish:Nameserver>
</phish:DomainData>
</phish:DCSite>
</phish:PhraudReport></AdditionalData>
</EventData>
</Incident>
</IODEF-Document>
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
Authors' Addresses
Phone:
Fax:
Email:
URI:
Patrick Cain
The Cooper-Cain Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 400992
Cambridge, MA
USA
Email: pcain@coopercain.com
David Jevans
The Anti-Phishing Working Group
5150 El Camino Real, Suite A20
Los Altos, CA 94022
USA
Email: dave.jevans@antiphishing.org
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft IODEF Phishing Extensions June 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
, et al. Expires December 29, 2007 [Page 57]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 22:31:29 |