Category: Coinbase

One month into his second term, President Trump’s actions to shrink the government through mass layoffs, firings and withholding funds allocated by Congress have thrown federal cybersecurity and consumer protection programs into disarray. At the same time, agencies are battling an ongoing effort by the world’s richest man to wrest control over their networks and data.

Image: Shutterstock. Greg Meland.

The Trump administration has fired at least 130 employees at the federal government’s foremost cybersecurity body — the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Those dismissals reportedly included CISA staff dedicated to securing U.S. elections, and fighting misinformation and foreign influence operations.

Earlier this week, technologists with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) arrived at CISA and gained access to the agency’s email and networked files. Those DOGE staffers include Edward “Big Balls” Coristine, a 19-year-old former denizen of the “Com,” an archipelago of Discord and Telegram chat channels that function as a kind of distributed cybercriminal social network.

The investigative journalist Jacob Silverman writes that Coristine is the grandson of Valery Martynov, a KGB double agent who spied for the United States. Silverman recounted how Martynov’s wife Natalya Martynova moved to the United States with her two children after her husband’s death.

“Her son became a Virginia police officer who sometimes posts comments on blogs about his historically famous father,” Silverman wrote. “Her daughter became a financial professional who married Charles Coristine, the proprietor of LesserEvil, a snack company. Among their children is a 19-year-old young man named Edward Coristine, who currently wields an unknown amount of power and authority over the inner-workings of our federal government.”

Another member of DOGE is Christopher Stanley, formerly senior director for security engineering at X and principal security engineer at Musk’s SpaceX. Stanley, 33, had a brush with celebrity on Twitter in 2015 when he leaked the user database for the DDoS-for-hire service LizardStresser, and soon faced threats of physical violence against his family.

My 2015 story on that leak did not name Stanley, but he exposed himself as the source by posting a video about it on his Youtube channel. A review of domain names registered by Stanley shows he went by the nickname “enKrypt,” and was the former owner of a pirated software and hacking forum called error33[.]net, as well as theC0re, a video game cheating community.

“A NATIONAL CYBERATTACK”

DOGE has been steadily gaining sensitive network access to federal agencies that hold a staggering amount of personal and financial information on Americans, including the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Treasury Department.

Most recently, DOGE has sought broad access to systems at the Internal Revenue Service that contain the personal tax information on millions of Americans, including how much individuals earn and owe, property information, and even details related to child custody agreements. The New York Times reported Friday that the IRS had reached an agreement whereby a single DOGE employee — 25-year-old Gavin Kliger — will be allowed to see only anonymized taxpayer information.

The rapidity with which DOGE has rifled through one federal database after another in the name of unearthing “massive fraud” by government agencies has alarmed many security experts, who warned that DOGE’s actions bypassed essential safeguards and security measures.

“The most alarming aspect isn’t just the access being granted,” wrote Bruce Schneier and Davi Ottenheimer, referring to DOGE as a national cyberattack. “It’s the systematic dismantling of security measures that would detect and prevent misuse—including standard incident response protocols, auditing, and change-tracking mechanisms—by removing the career officials in charge of those security measures and replacing them with inexperienced operators.”

Jacob Williams is a former hacker with the U.S. National Security Agency who now works as managing director of the cybersecurity firm Hunter Labs. Williams kicked a virtual hornet’s nest last week when he posted on LinkedIn that the network incursions by DOGE were “a bigger threat to U.S. federal government information systems than China.”

Williams said while he doesn’t believe anyone at DOGE would intentionally harm the integrity and availability of these systems, it’s widely reported (and not denied) that DOGE introduced code changes into multiple federal IT systems. These code changes, he maintained, are not following the normal process for vetting and review given to federal government IT systems.

“For those thinking ‘I’m glad they aren’t following the normal federal government IT processes, those are too burdensome’ I get where you’re coming from,” Williams wrote. “But another name for ‘red tape’ are ‘controls.’ If you’re comfortable bypassing controls for the advancement of your agenda, I have questions – mostly about whether you do this in your day job too. Please tag your employer letting them know your position when you comment that controls aren’t important (doubly so if you work in cybersecurity). All satire aside, if you’re comfortable abandoning controls for expediency, I implore you to decide where the line is that you won’t cross in that regard.”

The DOGE website’s “wall of receipts” boasts that Musk and his team have saved the federal government more than $55 billion through staff reductions, lease cancellations and terminated contracts. But a team of reporters at The New York Times found the math that could back up those checks is marred with accounting errors, incorrect assumptions, outdated data and other mistakes.

For example, DOGE claimed it saved $8 billion in one contract, when the total amount was actually $8 million, The Times found.

“Some contracts the group claims credit for were double- or triple-counted,” reads a Times story with six bylines. “Another initially contained an error that inflated the totals by billions of dollars. While the DOGE team has surely cut some number of billions of dollars, its slapdash accounting adds to a pattern of recklessness by the group, which has recently gained access to sensitive government payment systems.”

So far, the DOGE website does not inspire confidence: We learned last week that the doge.gov administrators somehow left their database wide open, allowing someone to publish messages that ridiculed the site’s insecurity.

A screenshot of the DOGE website after it was defaced with the message: “These ‘experts’ left their database open – roro”

APPOINTMENTS

Trump’s efforts to grab federal agencies by their data has seen him replace career civil servants who refused to allow DOGE access to agency networks. CNN reports that Michelle King, acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration for more than 30 years, was shown the door after she denied DOGE access to sensitive information.

King was replaced by Leland Dudek, formerly a senior advisor in the SSA’s Office of Program Integrity. This week, Dudek posted a now-deleted message on LinkedIn acknowledging he had been placed on administrative leave for cooperating with DOGE.

“I confess,” Dudek wrote. “I bullied agency executives, shared executive contact information, and circumvented the chain of command to connect DOGE with the people who get stuff done. I confess. I asked where the fat was and is in our contracts so we can make the right tough choices.”

Dudek’s message on LinkedIn.

According to Wired, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was also bracing this week for roughly 500 staffers to be fired, which could have serious impacts on NIST’s cybersecurity standards and software vulnerability tracking work.

“And cuts last week at the US Digital Service included the cybersecurity lead for the central Veterans Affairs portal, VA.gov, potentially leaving VA systems and data more vulnerable without someone in his role,” Wired’s Andy Greenberg and Lily Hay Newman wrote.

NextGov reports that Trump named the Department of Defense’s new chief information security officer: Katie Arrington, a former South Carolina state lawmaker who helped steer Pentagon cybersecurity contracting policy before being put on leave amid accusations that she disclosed classified data from a military intelligence agency.

NextGov notes that the National Security Agency suspended her clearance in 2021, although the exact reasons that led to the suspension and her subsequent leave were classified. Arrington argued that the suspension was a politically motivated effort to silence her.

Trump also appointed the former chief operating officer of the Republican National Committee as the new head of the Office of National Cyber Director. Sean Cairncross, who has no formal experience in technology or security, will be responsible for coordinating national cybersecurity policy, advising the president on cyber threats, and ensuring a unified federal response to emerging cyber-risks, Politico writes.

DarkReading reports that Cairncross would share responsibility for advising the president on cyber matters, along with the director of cyber at the White House National Security Council (NSC) — a group that advises the president on all matters security related, and not just cyber.

CONSUMER PROTECTION?

The president also ordered staffers at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to stop most work. Created by Congress in 2011 to be a clearinghouse of consumer complaints, the CFPB has sued some of the nation’s largest financial institutions for violating consumer protection laws.

The CFPB says its actions have put nearly $18 billion back in Americans’ pockets in the form of monetary compensation or canceled debts, and imposed $4 billion in civil money penalties against violators. The CFPB’s homepage has featured a “404: Page not found” error for weeks now.

Trump has appointed Russell Vought, the architect of the conservative policy playbook Project 2025, to be the CFPB’s acting director. Vought has publicly favored abolishing the agency, as has Elon Musk, whose efforts to remake X into a payments platform would otherwise be regulated by the CFPB.

The New York Times recently published a useful graphic showing all of the government staffing changes, including the firing of several top officials, affecting agencies with federal investigations into or regulatory battles with Musk’s companies. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee also have released a comprehensive account (PDF) of Musk’s various conflicts of interest.

Image: nytimes.com

As the Times notes, Musk and his companies have repeatedly failed to comply with federal reporting protocols aimed at protecting state secrets, and these failures have prompted at least three federal reviews. Those include an inquiry launched last year by the Defense Department’s Office of Inspector General. Four days after taking office, Trump fired the DoD inspector general along with 17 other inspectors general.

The Trump administration also shifted the enforcement priorities of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) away from prosecuting misconduct in the cryptocurrency sector, reassigning lawyers and renaming the unit to focus more on “cyber and emerging technologies.”

Reuters reports that the former SEC chair Gary Gensler made fighting misconduct in a sector he termed the “wild west” a priority for the agency, targeting not only cryptocurrency fraudsters but also the large firms that facilitate trading such as Coinbase.

On Friday, Coinbase said the SEC planned to withdraw its lawsuit against the crypto exchange. Also on Friday, the cryptocurrency exchange Bybit announced on X that a cybersecurity breach led to the theft of more than $1.4 billion worth of cryptocurrencies — making it the largest crypto heist ever.

ORGANIZED CRIME AND CORRUPTION

On Feb. 10, Trump ordered executive branch agencies to stop enforcing the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which froze foreign bribery investigations, and even allows for “remedial actions” of past enforcement actions deemed “inappropriate.”

Trump’s action also disbanded the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative and KleptoCapture Task Force — units which proved their value in corruption cases and in seizing the assets of sanctioned Russian oligarchs — and diverted resources away from investigating white-collar crime.

That’s according to the independent Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), an investigative journalism outlet that until very recently was funded in part by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

The OCCRP lost nearly a third of its funding and was forced to lay off 43 reporters and staff after Trump moved to shutter USAID and freeze its spending. NBC News reports the Trump administration plans to gut the agency and leave fewer than 300 staffers on the job out of the current 8,000 direct hires and contractors.

The Global Investigative Journalism Network wrote this week that the sudden hold on USAID foreign assistance funding has frozen an estimated $268 million in agreed grants for independent media and the free flow of information in more than 30 countries — including several under repressive regimes.

Elon Musk has called USAID “a criminal organization” without evidence, and promoted fringe theories on his social media platform X that the agency operated without oversight and was rife with fraud. Just months before the election, USAID’s Office of Inspector General announced an investigation into USAID’s oversight of Starlink satellite terminals provided to the government of Ukraine.

KrebsOnSecurity this week heard from a trusted source that all outgoing email from USAID now carries a notation of “sensitive but unclassified,” a designation that experts say could make it more difficult for journalists and others to obtain USAID email records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). On Feb. 20, Fedscoop reported also hearing the same thing from multiple sources, noting that the added message cannot be seen by senders until after the email is sent.

FIVE BULLETS

On Feb. 18, Trump issued an executive order declaring that only the U.S. attorney general and the president can provide authoritative interpretations of the law for the executive branch, and that this authority extends to independent agencies operating under the executive branch.

Trump is arguing that Article II, Clause 1 of the Constitution vests this power with the president. However, jurist.org writes that Article II does not expressly state the president or any other person in the executive branch has the power to interpret laws.

“The article states that the president is required to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'” Juris noted. “Jurisdiction to interpret laws and determine constitutionality belongs to the judicial branch under Article III. The framers of the Constitution designed the separation of duties to prevent any single branch of government from becoming too powerful.”

The executive order requires all agencies to submit to “performance standards and management objectives” to be established by the White House Office of Management and Budget, and to report periodically to the president.

Those performance metrics are already being requested: Employees at multiple federal agencies on Saturday reported receiving an email from the Office of Personnel Management ordering them to reply with a set of bullet points justifying their work for the past week.

“Please reply to this email with approx. 5 bullets of what you accomplished last week and cc your manager,” the notice read. “Please do not send any classified information, links, or attachments. Deadline is this Monday at 11:59 p.m. EST.”

An email sent by the OPM to more than two million federal employees late in the afternoon EST on Saturday, Feb. 22.

In a social media post Saturday, Musk said the directive came at the behest of President Trump, and that failure to respond would be taken as a resignation. Meanwhile, Bloomberg writes the Department of Justice has been urging employees to hold off replying out of concern doing so could trigger ethics violations. The National Treasury Employees Union also is advising its employees not to respond.

A legal battle over Trump’s latest executive order is bound to join more than 70 other lawsuits currently underway to halt the administration’s efforts to massively reduce the size of the federal workforce through layoffs, firings and attrition.

KING TRUMP?

On Feb. 15, the president posted on social media, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” citing a quote often attributed to the French dictator Napoleon Bonaparte. Four days later, Trump referred to himself as “the king” on social media, while the White House nonchalantly posted an illustration of him wearing a crown.

Trump has been publicly musing about running for an unconstitutional third-term in office, a statement that some of his supporters dismiss as Trump just trying to rile his liberal critics. However, just days after Trump began his second term, Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) introduced a bill to amend the Constitution so that Trump — and any other future president — can be elected to serve a third term.

This week at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Rep. Ogles reportedly led a group of Trump supporters calling itself the “Third Term Project,” which is trying to gain support for the bill from GOP lawmakers. The event featured images of Trump depicted as Caesar.

A banner at the CPAC conference this week in support of The Third Term Project, a group of conservatives trying to gain support for a bill to amend the Constitution and allow Trump to run for a third term.

Russia continues to be among the world’s top exporters of cybercrime, narcotics, money laundering, human trafficking, disinformation, war and death, and yet the Trump administration has suddenly broken with the Western world in normalizing relations with Moscow.

This week President Trump stunned U.S. allies by repeating Kremlin talking points that Ukraine is somehow responsible for Russia’s invasion, and that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a “dictator.” The president repeated these lies even as his administration is demanding that Zelensky give the United States half of his country’s mineral wealth in exchange for a promise that Russia will cease its territorial aggression there.

President Trump’s servility toward an actual dictator — Russian President Vladimir Putin — does not bode well for efforts to improve the cybersecurity of U.S. federal IT networks, or the private sector systems on which the government is largely reliant. In addition, this administration’s baffling moves to alienate, antagonize and sideline our closest allies could make it more difficult for the United States to secure their ongoing cooperation in cybercrime investigations.

It’s also startling how closely DOGE’s approach so far hews to tactics typically employed by ransomware gangs: A group of 20-somethings with names like “Big Balls” shows up on a weekend and gains access to your servers, deletes data, locks out key staff, takes your website down, and prevents you from serving customers.

When the federal executive starts imitating ransomware playbooks against its own agencies while Congress largely gazes on in either bewilderment or amusement, we’re in four-alarm fire territory. At least in theory, one can negotiate with ransomware purveyors.

In episode 403 of "Smashing Security" we dive into the mystery of $65 million vanishing from Coinbase users faster than J-Lo slipped into Graham's DMs, Geoff gives a poor grade for PowerSchool's security, and Carole takes a curious look at QR codes. All this and more is discussed in the latest edition of the "Smashing Security" podcast by cybersecurity veterans Graham Cluley and Carole Theriault, joined this week by The Lazarus Heist's Geoff White.

Besieged by scammers seeking to phish user accounts over the telephone, Apple and Google frequently caution that they will never reach out unbidden to users this way. However, new details about the internal operations of a prolific voice phishing gang show the group routinely abuses legitimate services at Apple and Google to force a variety of outbound communications to their users, including emails, automated phone calls and system-level messages sent to all signed-in devices.

Image: Shutterstock, iHaMoo.

KrebsOnSecurity recently told the saga of a cryptocurrency investor named Tony who was robbed of more than $4.7 million in an elaborate voice phishing attack. In Tony’s ordeal, the crooks appear to have initially contacted him via Google Assistant, an AI-based service that can engage in two-way conversations. The phishers also abused legitimate Google services to send Tony an email from google.com, and to send a Google account recovery prompt to all of his signed-in devices.

Today’s story pivots off of Tony’s heist and new details shared by a scammer to explain how these voice phishing groups are abusing a legitimate Apple telephone support line to generate “account confirmation” message prompts from Apple to their customers.

Before we get to the Apple scam in detail, we need to revisit Tony’s case. The phishing domain used to steal roughly $4.7 million in cryptocurrencies from Tony was verify-trezor[.]io. This domain was featured in a writeup from February 2024 by the security firm Lookout, which found it was one of dozens being used by a prolific and audacious voice phishing group it dubbed “Crypto Chameleon.”

Crypto Chameleon was brazenly trying to voice phish employees at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as well as those working at the cryptocurrency exchanges Coinbase and Binance. Lookout researchers discovered multiple voice phishing groups were using a new phishing kit that closely mimicked the single sign-on pages for Okta and other authentication providers.

As we’ll see in a moment, that phishing kit is operated and rented out by a cybercriminal known as “Perm” a.k.a. “Annie.” Perm is the current administrator of Star Fraud, one of the more consequential cybercrime communities on Telegram and one that has emerged as a foundry of innovation in voice phishing attacks.

A review of the many messages that Perm posted to Star Fraud and other Telegram channels showed they worked closely with another cybercriminal who went by the handles “Aristotle” and just “Stotle.”

It is not clear what caused the rift, but at some point last year Stotle decided to turn on his erstwhile business partner Perm, sharing extremely detailed videos, tutorials and secrets that shed new light on how these phishing panels operate.

Stotle explained that the division of spoils from each robbery is decided in advance by all participants. Some co-conspirators will be paid a set fee for each call, while others are promised a percentage of any overall amount stolen. The person in charge of managing or renting out the phishing panel to others will generally take a percentage of each theft, which in Perm’s case is 10 percent.

When the phishing group settles on a target of interest, the scammers will create and join a new Discord channel. This allows each logged on member to share what is currently on their screen, and these screens are tiled in a series of boxes so that everyone can see all other call participant screens at once.

Each participant in the call has a specific role, including:

-The Caller: The person speaking and trying to social engineer the target.
-The Operator: The individual managing the phishing panel, silently moving the victim from page to page.
-The Drainer: The person who logs into compromised accounts to drain the victim’s funds.
-The Owner: The phishing panel owner, who will frequently listen in on and participate in scam calls.

‘OKAY, SO THIS REALLY IS APPLE’

In one video of a live voice phishing attack shared by Stotle, scammers using Perm’s panel targeted a musician in California. Throughout the video, we can see Perm monitoring the conversation and operating the phishing panel in the upper right corner of the screen.

In the first step of the attack, they peppered the target’s Apple device with notifications from Apple by attempting to reset his password. Then a “Michael Keen” called him, spoofing Apple’s phone number and saying they were with Apple’s account recovery team.

The target told Michael that someone was trying to change his password, which Michael calmly explained they would investigate. Michael said he was going to send a prompt to the man’s device, and proceeded to place a call to an automated line that answered as Apple support saying, “I’d like to send a consent notification to your Apple devices. Do I have permission to do that?”

In this segment of the video, we can see the operator of the panel is calling the real Apple customer support phone number 800-275-2273, but they are doing so by spoofing the target’s phone number (the victim’s number is redacted in the video above). That’s because calling this support number from a phone number tied to an Apple account and selecting “1” for “yes” will then send an alert from Apple that displays the following message on all associated devices:

Calling the Apple support number 800-275-2273 from a phone number tied to an Apple account will cause a prompt similar to this one to appear on all connected Apple devices.

KrebsOnSecurity asked two different security firms to test this using the caller ID spoofing service shown in Perm’s video, and sure enough calling that 800 number for Apple by spoofing my phone number as the source caused the Apple Account Confirmation to pop up on all of my signed-in Apple devices.

In essence, the voice phishers are using an automated Apple phone support line to send notifications from Apple and to trick people into thinking they’re really talking with Apple. The phishing panel video leaked by Stotle shows this technique fooled the target, who felt completely at ease that he was talking to Apple after receiving the support prompt on his iPhone.

“Okay, so this really is Apple,” the man said after receiving the alert from Apple. “Yeah, that’s definitely not me trying to reset my password.”

“Not a problem, we can go ahead and take care of this today,” Michael replied. “I’ll go ahead and prompt your device with the steps to close out this ticket. Before I do that, I do highly suggest that you change your password in the settings app of your device.”

The target said they weren’t sure exactly how to do that. Michael replied “no problem,” and then described how to change the account password, which the man said he did on his own device. At this point, the musician was still in control of his iCloud account.

“Password is changed,” the man said. “I don’t know what that was, but I appreciate the call.”

“Yup,” Michael replied, setting up the killer blow. “I’ll go ahead and prompt you with the next step to close out this ticket. Please give me one moment.”

The target then received a text message that referenced information about his account, stating that he was in a support call with Michael. Included in the message was a link to a website that mimicked Apple’s iCloud login page — 17505-apple[.]com. Once the target navigated to the phishing page, the video showed Perm’s screen in the upper right corner opening the phishing page from their end.

“Oh okay, now I log in with my Apple ID?,” the man asked.

“Yup, then just follow the steps it requires, and if you need any help, just let me know,” Michael replied.

As the victim typed in their Apple password and one-time passcode at the fake Apple site, Perm’s screen could be seen in the background logging into the victim’s iCloud account.

It’s unclear whether the phishers were able to steal any cryptocurrency from the victim in this case, who did not respond to requests for comment. However, shortly after this video was recorded, someone leaked several music recordings stolen from the victim’s iCloud account.

At the conclusion of the call, Michael offered to configure the victim’s Apple profile so that any further changes to the account would need to happen in person at a physical Apple store. This appears to be one of several scripted ploys used by these voice phishers to gain and maintain the target’s confidence.

A tutorial shared by Stotle titled “Social Engineering Script” includes a number of tips for scam callers that can help establish trust or a rapport with their prey. When the callers are impersonating Coinbase employees, for example, they will offer to sign the user up for the company’s free security email newsletter.

“Also, for your security, we are able to subscribe you to Coinbase Bytes, which will basically give you updates to your email about data breaches and updates to your Coinbase account,” the script reads. “So we should have gone ahead and successfully subscribed you, and you should have gotten an email confirmation. Please let me know if that is the case. Alright, perfect.”

In reality, all they are doing is entering the target’s email address into Coinbase’s public email newsletter signup page, but it’s a remarkably effective technique because it demonstrates to the would-be victim that the caller has the ability to send emails from Coinbase.com.

Asked to comment for this story, Apple said there has been no breach, hack, or technical exploit of iCloud or Apple services, and that the company is continuously adding new protections to address new and emerging threats. For example, it said it has implemented rate limiting for multi-factor authentication requests, which have been abused by voice phishing groups to impersonate Apple.

Apple said its representatives will never ask users to provide their password, device passcode, or two-factor authentication code or to enter it into a web page, even if it looks like an official Apple website. If a user receives a message or call that claims to be from Apple, here is what the user should expect.

AUTODOXERS

According to Stotle, the target lists used by their phishing callers originate mostly from a few crypto-related data breaches, including the 2022 and 2024 breaches involving user account data stolen from cryptocurrency hardware wallet vendor Trezor.

Perm’s group and other crypto phishing gangs rely on a mix of homemade code and third-party data broker services to refine their target lists. Known as “autodoxers,” these tools help phishing gangs quickly automate the acquisition and/or verification of personal data on a target prior to each call attempt.

One “autodoxer” service advertised on Telegram that promotes a range of voice phishing tools and services.

Stotle said their autodoxer used a Telegram bot that leverages hacked accounts at consumer data brokers to gather a wealth of information about their targets, including their full Social Security number, date of birth, current and previous addresses, employer, and the names of family members.

The autodoxers are used to verify that each email address on a target list has an active account at Coinbase or another cryptocurrency exchange, ensuring that the attackers don’t waste time calling people who have no cryptocurrency to steal.

Some of these autodoxer tools also will check the value of the target’s home address at property search services online, and then sort the target lists so that the wealthiest are at the top.

CRYPTO THIEVES IN THE SHARK TANK

Stotle’s messages on Discord and Telegram show that a phishing group renting Perm’s panel voice-phished tens of thousands of dollars worth of cryptocurrency from the billionaire Mark Cuban.

“I was an idiot,” Cuban told KrebsOnsecurity when asked about the June 2024 attack, which he first disclosed in a short-lived post on Twitter/X. “We were shooting Shark Tank and I was rushing between pitches.”

Image: Shutterstock, ssi77.

Cuban said he first received a notice from Google that someone had tried to log in to his account. Then he got a call from what appeared to be a Google phone number. Cuban said he ignored several of these emails and calls until he decided they probably wouldn’t stop unless he answered.

“So I answered, and wasn’t paying enough attention,” he said. “They asked for the circled number that comes up on the screen. Like a moron, I gave it to them, and they were in.”

Unfortunately for Cuban, somewhere in his inbox were the secret “seed phrases” protecting two of his cryptocurrency accounts, and armed with those credentials the crooks were able to drain his funds. All told, the thieves managed to steal roughly $43,000 worth of cryptocurrencies from Cuban’s wallets — a relatively small heist for this crew.

“They must have done some keyword searches,” once inside his Gmail account, Cuban said. “I had sent myself an email I had forgotten about that had my seed words for 2 accounts that weren’t very active any longer. I had moved almost everything but some smaller balances to Coinbase.”

LIFE IS A GAME: MONEY IS HOW WE KEEP SCORE

Cybercriminals involved in voice phishing communities on Telegram are universally obsessed with their crypto holdings, mainly because in this community one’s demonstrable wealth is primarily what confers social status. It is not uncommon to see members sizing one another up using a verbal shorthand of “figs,” as in figures of crypto wealth.

For example, a low-level caller with no experience will sometimes be mockingly referred to as a 3fig or 3f, as in a person with less than $1,000 to their name. Salaries for callers are often also referenced this way, e.g. “Weekly salary: 5f.”

This meme shared by Stotle uses humor to depict and all-too-common pathway for voice phishing callers, who are often minors recruited from gaming networks like Minecraft and Roblox. The image that Lookout used in its blog post for Crypto Chameleon can be seen in the lower right hooded figure.

Voice phishing groups frequently require new members to provide “proof of funds” — screenshots of their crypto holdings, ostensibly to demonstrate they are not penniless — before they’re allowed to join.

This proof of funds (POF) demand is typical among thieves selling high-dollar items, because it tends to cut down on the time-wasting inquiries from criminals who can’t afford what’s for sale anyway. But it has become so common in cybercrime communities that there are now several services designed to create fake POF images and videos, allowing customers to brag about large crypto holdings without actually possessing said wealth.

Several of the phishing panel videos shared by Stotle feature audio that suggests co-conspirators were practicing responses to certain call scenarios, while other members of the phishing group critiqued them or tried disrupt their social engineering by being verbally abusive.

These groups will organize and operate for a few weeks, but tend to disintegrate when one member of the conspiracy decides to steal some or all of the loot, referred to in these communities as “snaking” others out of their agreed-upon sums. Almost invariably, the phishing groups will splinter apart over the drama caused by one of these snaking events, and individual members eventually will then re-form a new phishing group.

Allison Nixon is the chief research officer for Unit 221B, a cybersecurity firm in New York that has worked on a number of investigations involving these voice phishing groups. Nixon said the constant snaking within the voice phishing circles points to a psychological self-selection phenomenon that is in desperate need of academic study.

“In short, a person whose moral compass lets them rob old people will also be a bad business partner,” Nixon said. “This is another fundamental flaw in this ecosystem and why most groups end in betrayal. This structural problem is great for journalists and the police too. Lots of snitching.”

POINTS FOR BRAZENNESS

Asked about the size of Perm’s phishing enterprise, Stotle said there were dozens of distinct phishing groups paying to use Perm’s panel. He said each group was assigned their own subdomain on Perm’s main “command and control server,” which naturally uses the domain name commandandcontrolserver[.]com.

A review of that domain’s history via DomainTools.com shows there are at least 57 separate subdomains scattered across commandandcontrolserver[.]com and two other related control domains — thebackendserver[.]com and lookoutsucks[.]com. That latter domain was created and deployed shortly after Lookout published its blog post on Crypto Chameleon.

The dozens of phishing domains that phone home to these control servers are all kept offline when they are not actively being used in phishing attacks. A social engineering training guide shared by Stotle explains this practice minimizes the chances that a phishing domain will get “redpaged,” a reference to the default red warning pages served by Google Chrome or Firefox whenever someone tries to visit a site that’s been flagged for phishing or distributing malware.

What’s more, while the phishing sites are live their operators typically place a CAPTCHA challenge in front of the main page to prevent security services from scanning and flagging the sites as malicious.

It may seem odd that so many cybercriminal groups operate so openly on instant collaboration networks like Telegram and Discord. After all, this blog is replete with stories about cybercriminals getting caught thanks to personal details they inadvertently leaked or disclosed themselves.

Nixon said the relative openness of these cybercrime communities makes them inherently risky, but it also allows for the rapid formation and recruitment of new potential co-conspirators. Moreover, today’s English-speaking cybercriminals tend to be more afraid of gettimg home invaded or mugged by fellow cyber thieves than they are of being arrested by authorities.

“The biggest structural threat to the online criminal ecosystem is not the police or researchers, it is fellow criminals,” Nixon said. “To protect them from themselves, every criminal forum and marketplace has a reputation system, even though they know it’s a major liability when the police come. That is why I am not worried as we see criminals migrate to various ‘encrypted’ platforms that promise to ignore the police. To protect themselves better against the law, they have to ditch their protections against fellow criminals and that’s not going to happen.”

Image: Shutterstock, iHaMoo.

Adam Griffin is still in disbelief over how quickly he was robbed of nearly $500,000 in cryptocurrencies. A scammer called using a real Google phone number to warn his Gmail account was being hacked, sent email security alerts directly from google.com, and ultimately seized control over the account by convincing him to click “yes” to a Google prompt on his mobile device.

Griffin is a battalion chief firefighter in the Seattle area, and on May 6 he received a call from someone claiming they were from Google support saying his account was being accessed from Germany. A Google search on the phone number calling him — (650) 203-0000 — revealed it was an official number for Google Assistant, an AI-based service that can engage in two-way conversations.

At the same time, he received an email that came from a google.com email address, warning his Google account was compromised. The message included a “Google Support Case ID number” and information about the Google representative supposedly talking to him on the phone, stating the rep’s name as “Ashton” — the same name given by the caller.

Griffin didn’t learn this until much later, but the email he received had a real google.com address because it was sent via Google Forms, a service available to all Google Docs users that makes it easy to send surveys, quizzes and other communications.

A phony security alert Griffin received prior to his bitcoin heist, via Google Forms.

According to tripwire.com’s Graham Cluely, phishers will use Google Forms to create a security alert message, and then change the form’s settings to automatically send a copy of the completed form to any email address entered into the form. The attacker then sends an invitation to complete the form to themselves, not to their intended victim.

“So, the attacker receives the invitation to fill out the form – and when they complete it, they enter their intended victim’s email address into the form, not their own,” Cluely wrote in a December 2023 post. “The attackers are taking advantage of the fact that the emails are being sent out directly by Google Forms (from the google.com domain). It’s an established legitimate domain that helps to make the email look more legitimate and is less likely to be intercepted en route by email-filtering solutions.”

The fake Google representative was polite, patient, professional and reassuring. Ashton told Griffin he was going to receive a notification that would allow him to regain control of the account from the hackers. Sure enough, a Google prompt instantly appeared on his phone asking, “Is it you trying to recover your account?”

Adam Griffin clicked “yes,” to an account recovery notification similar to this one on May 6.

Griffin said that after receiving the pop-up prompt from Google on his phone, he felt more at ease that he really was talking to someone at Google. In reality, the thieves caused the alert to appear on his phone merely by stepping through Google’s account recovery process for Griffin’s Gmail address.

“As soon as I clicked yes, I gave them access to my Gmail, which was synched to Google Photos,” Griffin said.

Unfortunately for Griffin, years ago he used Google Photos to store an image of the secret seed phrase that was protecting his cryptocurrency wallet. Armed with that phrase, the phishers could drain all of his funds.

“From there they were able to transfer approximately $450,000 out of my Exodus wallet,” Griffin recalled.

Griffin said just minutes after giving away access to his Gmail account he received a call from someone claiming to be with Coinbase, who likewise told him someone in Germany was trying to take over his account.

Griffin said a follow-up investigation revealed the attackers had used his Gmail account to gain access to his Coinbase account from a VPN connection in California, providing the multi-factor code from his Google Authenticator app. Unbeknownst to him at the time, Google Authenticator by default also makes the same codes available in one’s Google account online.

But when the thieves tried to move $100,000 worth of cryptocurrency out of his account, Coinbase sent an email stating that the account had been locked, and that he would have to submit additional verification documents before he could do anything with it.

GRAND THEFT AUTOMATED

Just days after Griffin was robbed, a scammer impersonating Google managed to phish 45 bitcoins — approximately $4,725,000 at today’s value — from Tony, a 42-year-old professional from northern California. Tony agreed to speak about his harrowing experience on condition that his last name not be used.

Tony got into bitcoin back in 2013 and has been investing in it ever since. On the evening of May 15, 2024, Tony was putting his three- and one-year-old boys to bed when he received a message from Google about an account security issue, followed by a phone call from a “Daniel Alexander” at Google who said his account was compromised by hackers.

Tony said he had just signed up for Google’s Gemini AI (an artificial intelligence platform formerly known as “Bard”), and mistakenly believed the call was part of that service. Daniel told Tony his account was being accessed by someone in Frankfurt, Germany, and that he could evict the hacker and recover access to the account by clicking “yes” to the prompt that Google was going to send to his phone.

The Google prompt arrived seconds later. And to his everlasting regret, Tony clicked the “Yes, it’s me” button.

Then came another call, this one allegedly from security personnel at Trezor, a company that makes encrypted hardware devices made to store cryptocurrency seed phrases securely offline. The caller said someone had submitted a request to Trezor to close his account, and they forwarded Tony a message sent from his Gmail account that included his name, Social Security number, date of birth, address, phone number and email address.

Tony said he began to believe then that his Trezor account truly was compromised. The caller convinced him to “recover” his account by entering his cryptocurrency seed phrase at a phishing website (verify-trezor[.]io) that mimicked the official Trezor website.

“At this point I go into fight or flight mode,” Tony recalled. “I’ve got my kids crying, my wife is like what the heck is going on? My brain went haywire. I put my seed phrase into a phishing site, and that was it.”

Almost immediately, all of the funds he was planning to save for retirement and for his children’s college fund were drained from his account.

“I made mistakes due to being so busy and not thinking correctly,” Tony told KrebsOnSecurity. “I had gotten so far away from the security protocols in bitcoin as life had changed so much since having kids.”

Tony shared this text message exchange of him pleading with his tormentors after being robbed of 45 bitcoins.

Tony said the theft left him traumatized and angry for months.

“All I was thinking about was protecting my boys and it ended up costing me everything,” he said. “Needless to say I’m devastated and have had to do serious therapy to get through it.”

MISERY LOVES COMPANY

Tony told KrebsOnSecurity that in the weeks following the theft of his 45 bitcoins, he became so consumed with rage and shame that he was seriously contemplating suicide. Then one day, while scouring the Internet for signs that others may have been phished by Daniel, he encountered Griffin posting on Reddit about the phone number involved in his recent bitcoin theft.

Griffin said the two of them were initially suspicious of each other — exchanging cautious messages for about a week — but he decided Tony was telling the truth after contacting the FBI agent that Tony said was working his case. Comparing notes, they discovered the fake Google security alerts they received just prior to their individual bitcoin thefts referenced the same phony “Google Support Case ID” number.

Adam Griffin and Tony said they received the same Google Support Case ID number in advance of their thefts. Both were sent via Google Forms, which sends directly from the google.com domain name.

More importantly, Tony recognized the voice of “Daniel from Google” when it was featured in an interview by Junseth, a podcaster who covers cryptocurrency scams. The same voice that had coaxed Tony out of his considerable cryptocurrency holdings just days earlier also had tried to phish Junseth, who played along for several minutes before revealing he knew it was a scam.

Daniel told Junseth he was a teenager and worked with other scam callers who had all met years ago on the game Minecraft, and that he recently enjoyed a run of back-to-back Gmail account compromises that led to crypto theft paydays.

“No one gets arrested,” Daniel enthused to Junseth in the May 7 podcast, which quickly went viral on social media. “It’s almost like there’s no consequences. I have small legal side hustles, like businesses and shit that I can funnel everything through. If you were to see me in real life, I look like a regular child going to school with my backpack and shit, you’d never expect this kid is stealing all this shit.”

Daniel explained that they often use an automated bot that initiates calls to targets warning that their account is experiencing suspicious activity, and that they should press “1” to speak with a representative. This process, he explained, essentially self-selects people who are more likely to be susceptible to their social engineering schemes. [It is possible — but not certain — that this bot Daniel referenced explains the incoming call to Griffin from Google Assistant that precipitated his bitcoin heist].

Daniel told Junseth he and his co-conspirators had just scored a $1.2 million theft that was still pending on the bitcoin investment platform SwanBitcoin. In response, Junseth tagged SwanBitcoin in a post about his podcast on Twitter/X, and the CEO of Swan quickly replied that they caught the $1.2 million transaction that morning.

Apparently, Daniel didn’t appreciate having his voice broadcast to the world (or his $1.2 million bitcoin heist disrupted) because according to Junseth someone submitted a baseless copyright infringement claim about it to Soundcloud, which was hosting the recording.

The complaint alleged the recording included a copyrighted song, but that wasn’t true: Junseth later posted a raw version of the recording to Telegram, and it clearly had no music in the background. Nevertheless, Soundcloud removed the audio file.

“All these companies are very afraid of copyright,” Junseth explained in a May 2024 interview with the podcast whatbitcoindid.com, which features some of the highlights from his recorded call with Daniel.

“It’s interesting because copyright infringement really is an act that you’re claiming against the publisher, but for some reason these companies have taken a very hard line against it, so if you even claim there’s copyrighted material in it they just take it down and then they leave it to you to prove that you’re innocent,” Junseth said. “In Soundcloud’s instance, part of declaring your innocence is you have to give them your home address and everything else, and it says right on there, ‘this will be provided to the person making the copyright claim.'”

AFTERMATH

When Junseth asked how potential victims could protect themselves, Daniel explained that if the target doesn’t have their Google Authenticator synced to their Google cloud account, the scammers can’t easily pivot into the victim’s accounts at cryptocurrency exchanges, as they did with Griffin.

By default, Google Authenticator syncs all one-time codes with a Gmail user’s account, meaning if someone gains access to your Google account, they can then access all of the one-time codes handed out by your Google Authenticator app.

To change this setting, open Authenticator on your mobile device, select your profile picture, and then choose “Use without an Account” from the menu. If you disable this, it’s a good idea to keep a printed copy of one-time backup codes, and to store those in a secure place.

You may also wish to download Google Authenticator to another mobile device that you control. Otherwise, if you turn off cloud synching and lose that sole mobile device with your Google Authenticator app, it could be difficult or impossible to recover access to your account if you somehow get locked out.

Griffin told KrebsOnSecurity he had no idea it was so easy for thieves to take over his account, and to abuse so many different Google services in the process.

“I know I definitely made mistakes, but I also know Google could do a lot better job protecting people,” he said.

In response to questions from KrebsOnSecurity, Google said it can confirm that this was a narrow phishing campaign, reaching a “very small group of people.”

“We’re aware of this narrow and targeted attack, and have hardened our defenses to block recovery attempts from this actor,” the company said in a written statement, which emphasized that the real Google will never call you.

“While these types of social engineering campaigns are constantly evolving, we are continuously working to harden our systems with new tools and technical innovations, as well as sharing updated guidance with our users to stay ahead of attackers,” the statement reads.

Both Griffin and Tony say they continue to receive “account security” calls from people pretending to work for Google or one of the cryptocurrency platforms.

“It’s like you get put on some kind of list, and then those lists get recycled over and over,” Tony said.

Griffin said that for several months after his ordeal, he accepted almost every cryptocurrency scam call that came his way, playing along in the vain hope of somehow tricking the caller into revealing details about who they are in real life. But he stopped after his taunting caused one of the scammers to start threatening him personally.

“I probably shouldn’t have, but I recorded two 30-minute conversations with these guys,” Griffin said, acknowledging that maybe it wasn’t such a great idea to antagonize cybercriminals who clearly already knew everything about him. “One guy I talked to about his personal life, and then his friend called me up and said he was going to dox me and do all this other bad stuff. My FBI contact later told me not to talk to these guys anymore.”

Sound advice. So is hanging up whenever anyone calls you about a security problem with one of your accounts. Even security-conscious people tend to underestimate the complex and shifting threat from phone-based phishing scams, but they do so at their peril.

When in doubt: Hang up, look up, and call back. If your response to these types of calls involves anything other than hanging up, researching the correct phone number, and contacting the entity that claims to be calling, you may be setting yourself up for a costly and humbling learning experience.

Understand that your email credentials are more than likely the key to unlocking your entire digital identity. Be sure to use a long, unique passphrase for your email address, and never pick a passphrase that you have ever used anywhere else (not even a variation on an old password).

Finally, it’s also a good idea to take advantage of the strongest multi-factor authentication methods offered. For Gmail/Google accounts, that includes the use of passkeys or physical security keys, which are heavily phishing resistant. For Google users holding measurable sums of cryptocurrency, the most secure option is Google’s free Advanced Protection program, which includes more extensive account security features but also comes with some serious convenience trade-offs.

A California man who lost $100,000 in a 2021 SIM-swapping attack is suing the unknown holder of a cryptocurrency wallet that harbors his stolen funds. The case is thought to be first in which a federal court has recognized the use of information included in a bitcoin transaction — such as a link to a civil claim filed in federal court — as reasonably likely to provide notice of the lawsuit to the defendant. Experts say the development could make it easier for victims of crypto heists to recover stolen funds through the courts without having to wait years for law enforcement to take notice or help.

Ryan Dellone, a healthcare worker in Fresno, Calif., asserts that thieves stole his bitcoin on Dec. 14, 2021, by executing an unauthorized SIM-swap that involved an employee at his mobile phone provider who switched Dellone’s phone number over to a new device the attackers controlled.

Dellone says the crooks then used his phone number to break into his account at Coinbase and siphon roughly $100,000 worth of cryptocurrencies. Coinbase is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit, which alleges the company ignored multiple red flags, and that it should have detected and stopped the theft. Coinbase did not respond to requests for comment.

Working with experts who track the flow of funds stolen in cryptocurrency heists, Dellone’s lawyer Ethan Mora identified a bitcoin wallet that was the ultimate destination of his client’s stolen crypto. Mora says his client has since been made aware that the bitcoin address in question is embroiled in an ongoing federal investigation into a cryptocurrency theft ring.

Mora said it’s unclear if the bitcoin address that holds his client’s stolen money is being held by the government or by the anonymous hackers. Nevertheless, he is pursuing a novel legal strategy that allows his client to serve notice of the civil suit to that bitcoin address — and potentially win a default judgment to seize his client’s funds within — without knowing the identity of his attackers or anything about the account holder.

In a civil lawsuit seeking monetary damages, a default judgment is usually entered on behalf of the plaintiff if the defendant fails to respond to the complaint within a specified time. Assuming that the cybercriminals who stole the money don’t dispute Dellone’s claim, experts say the money could be seized by cryptocurrency exchanges if the thieves ever tried to move it or spend it.

The U.S. courts have generally held that if you’re going to sue someone, you have to provide some kind of meaningful and timely communication about that lawsuit to the defendant in a way that is reasonably likely to provide them notice.

Not so long ago, you had track down your defendant and hire someone to physically serve them with a copy of the court papers. But legal experts say the courts have evolved their thinking in recent years about what constitutes meaningful service, and now allow notification via email.

On Dec. 14, 2023, a federal judge in the Eastern District of California granted Dellone permission to serve notice of his lawsuit directly to the suspected hackers’ bitcoin address — using a short message that was attached to roughly $100 worth of bitcoin Mora sent to the address.

Bitcoin transactions are public record, and each transaction can be sent along with an optional short message. The message uses what’s known as an “OP RETURN,” or an instruction of the Bitcoin scripting language that allows users to attach metadata to a transaction — and thus save it on the blockchain.

In the $100 bitcoin transaction Mora sent to the disputed bitcoin address, the OP RETURN message read: “OSERVICE – SUMMONS, COMPLAINT U.S. Dist. E.D. Cal. LINK: t.ly/123cv01408_service,” which is a short link to a copy of the lawsuit hosted on Google Drive.

“The courts are adapting to the new style of service of process,” said Mark Rasch, a former federal prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice. “And that’s helpful and useful and necessary.”

Rasch said Mora’s strategy could force the government to divulge information about their case, or else explain to a judge why the plaintiff shouldn’t be able to recover their stolen funds without further delay. Rasch said it could be that Dellone’s stolen crypto was seized as part of a government asset forfeiture, but that either way there is no reason Uncle Sam should hold some cybercrime victims’ life savings indefinitely.

“The government doesn’t need the crypto as evidence, but in a forfeiture action the money goes to the government,” Rasch said. “But it was never the government’s money, and that doesn’t help the victim. The government should be providing information to the victims of cryptocurrency theft so that their attorneys can go get the money back themselves.”

Nick Bax is a security researcher who specializes in tracing the labyrinthine activity of criminals trying to use cryptocurrency exchanges and other financial instruments to launder the proceeds of cybercrime. Bax said Mora’ method could allow more victims to stake legitimate legal claims to their stolen funds.

“If you get a default judgment against a bitcoin address, for example, and then down the road that bitcoin gets sent to an exchange that complies with or abides by U.S. court orders, then it’s yours,” Bax said. “I’ve seen funds with a court order on them get frozen by the exchanges that decided it made sense to comply with orders from a U.S. federal court.”

Bax’s research was featured in a Sept. 2023 story here about how experts now believe it’s likely hackers are cracking open some of the password vaults stolen in the 2022 data breach at LastPass.

“I’ve talked to a lot victims who have had life-changing amounts of money being seized and would like that money back,” Bax said. “A big goal here is just making civil cases more efficient. Because then people can help themselves and they don’t need to rely solely on law enforcement with its limited resources. And that’s really the goal: To scale this and make it economically viable.”

While Dellone’s lawsuit may be the first time anyone has obtained approval from a federal judge to use bitcoin to notify another party of a civil action, the technique has been used in several recent unrelated cases involving other cryptocurrencies, including Ethereum and NFTs.

The law firm DLAPiper writes that in November 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida “authorized service of a lawsuit seeking the recovery of stolen digital assets by way of a non-fungible token or NFT containing the text of the complaint and summons, as well as a hyperlink to a website created by the plaintiffs containing all pleadings and orders in the action.”

In approving Dellone’s request for service via bitcoin transaction, the judge overseeing the case cited a recent New York Superior Court ruling in a John Doe case brought by victims seeking to unmask the crooks behind a $1.3 million cyberheist.

In the New York case, the state trial court found it was acceptable for the plaintiffs to serve notice of the suit via cryptocurrency transactions because the defendants regularly used the Blockchain address to which the tokens were sent, and had recently done so. Also, the New York court found that because the account in question contained a significant sum of money, it was unlikely to be abandoned or forgotten.

“Thus the court inferred the defendants were likely to access the account in the future,” wrote Judge Helena M. March-Kuchta, for the Eastern District of California, summarizing the New York case. “Finally, the plaintiff had no alternative means of contacting these unknown defendants.”

Experts say regardless of the reason for a cryptocurrency theft or loss — whether it’s from a romance scam or a straight-up digital mugging — it’s important for victims to file an official report both with their local police and with the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (ic3.gov). The IC3 collects reports on cybercrime and sometimes bundles victim reports into cases for DOJ/FBI prosecutors and investigators.

The hard truth is that most victims will never see their stolen funds again. But sometimes federal investigators win minor victories and manage to seize or freeze crypto assets that are known to be associated with specific crimes and criminals. In those cases, the government will eventually make an effort to find, contact and in some cases remunerate known victims.

It might take many years for this process to unfold. But if and when they do make that effort, federal investigators are likely to focus their energies and attention responding to victims who staked a claim and can support it with documentation.

But have no illusions that any of this is likely to happen in a timeframe that is meaningful to victims in the short run. For example, in 2013 the U.S. government seized the assets of the virtual currency Liberty Reserve, massively disrupting a major vehicle for laundering the proceeds of cybercrime and other illegal activities.

When the government offered remuneration to Liberty Reserve account holders who wished to make a financial loss claim and supply supporting documentation, KrebsOnSecurity filed a claim. There wasn’t money much in my Liberty Reserve account; I simply wanted to know how long it would take for federal investigators to follow up on my claim, or indeed if they would at all.

In 2020 KrebsOnSecurity was contacted by an investigator with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) who was seeking to discuss my claim. The investigator said they would have called sooner, but that it had taken that long for the IRS to gain legal access to the funds seized in the 2013 Liberty Reserve takedown.

When KrebsOnSecurity recently explored how cybercriminals were using hacked email accounts at police departments worldwide to obtain warrantless Emergency Data Requests (EDRs) from social media firms and technology providers, many security experts called it a fundamentally unfixable problem. But don’t tell that to Matt Donahue, a former FBI agent who recently quit the agency to launch a startup that aims to help tech companies do a better job screening out phony law enforcement data requests — in part by assigning trustworthiness or “credit ratings” to law enforcement authorities worldwide.

A sample Kodex dashboard. Image: Kodex.us.

Donahue is co-founder of Kodex, a company formed in February 2021 that builds security portals designed to help tech companies “manage information requests from government agencies who contact them, and to securely transfer data & collaborate against abuses on their platform.”

The 30-year-old Donahue said he left the FBI in April 2020 to start Kodex because it was clear that social media and technology companies needed help validating the increasingly large number of law enforcement requests domestically and internationally.

“So much of this is such an antiquated, manual process,” Donahue said of his perspective gained at the FBI. “In a lot of cases we’re still sending faxes when more secure and expedient technologies exist.”

Donahue said when he brought the subject up with his superiors at the FBI, they would kind of shrug it off, as if to say, “This is how it’s done and there’s no changing it.”

“My bosses told me I was committing career suicide doing this, but I genuinely believe fixing this process will do more for national security than a 20-year career at the FBI,” he said. “This is such a bigger problem than people give it credit for, and that’s why I left the bureau to start this company.”

One of the stated goals of Kodex is to build a scoring or reputation system for law enforcement personnel who make these data requests. After all, there are tens of thousands of police jurisdictions around the world — including roughly 18,000 in the United States alone — and all it takes for hackers to abuse the EDR process is illicit access to a single police email account.

Kodex is trying to tackle the problem of fake EDRs by working directly with the data providers to pool information about police or government officials submitting these requests, and hopefully making it easier for all customers to spot an unauthorized EDR.

Kodex’s first big client was cryptocurrency giant Coinbase, which confirmed their partnership but otherwise declined to comment for this story. Twilio confirmed it uses Kodex’s technology for law enforcement requests destined for any of its business units, but likewise declined to comment further.

Within their own separate Kodex portals, Twilio can’t see requests submitted to Coinbase, or vice versa. But each can see if a law enforcement entity or individual tied to one of their own requests has ever submitted a request to a different Kodex client, and then drill down further into other data about the submitter, such as Internet address(es) used, and the age of the requestor’s email address.

Donahue said in Kodex’s system, each law enforcement entity is assigned a credit rating, wherein officials who have a long history of sending valid legal requests will have a higher rating than someone sending an EDR for the first time.

“In those cases, we warn the customer with a flash on the request when it pops up that we’re allowing this to come through because the email was verified [as being sent from a valid police or government domain name], but we’re trying to verify the emergency situation for you, and we will change that rating once we get new information about the emergency,” Donahue said.

“This way, even if one customer gets a fake request, we’re able to prevent it from happening to someone else,” he continued. “In a lot of cases with fake EDRs, you can see the same email [address] being used to message different companies for data. And that’s the problem: So many companies are operating in their own silos and are not able to share information about what they’re seeing, which is why we’re seeing scammers exploit this good faith process of EDRs.”

NEEDLES IN THE HAYSTACK

As social media and technology platforms have grown over the years, so have the volumes of requests from law enforcement agencies worldwide for user data. For example, in its latest transparency report mobile giant Verizon reported receiving 114,000 data requests of all types from U.S. law enforcement entities in the second half of 2021.

Verizon said approximately 35,000 of those requests (~30 percent) were EDRs, and that it provided data in roughly 91 percent of those cases. The company doesn’t disclose how many EDRs came from foreign law enforcement entities during that same time period. Verizon currently asks law enforcement officials to send these requests via fax.

Validating legal requests by domain name may be fine for data demands that include documents like subpoenas and search warrants, which can be validated with the courts. But not so for EDRs, which largely bypass any official review and do not require the requestor to submit any court-approved documents.

Police and government authorities can legitimately request EDRs to learn the whereabouts or identities of people who have posted online about plans to harm themselves or others, or in other exigent circumstances such as a child abduction or abuse, or a potential terrorist attack.

But as KrebsOnSecurity reported in March, it is now clear that crooks have figured out there is no quick and easy way for a company that receives one of these EDRs to know whether it is legitimate. Using illicit access to hacked police email accounts, the attackers will send a fake EDR along with an attestation that innocent people will likely suffer greatly or die unless the requested data is provided immediately.

In this scenario, the receiving company finds itself caught between two unsavory outcomes: Failing to immediately comply with an EDR — and potentially having someone’s blood on their hands — or possibly leaking a customer record to the wrong person. That might explain why the compliance rate for EDRs is usually quite high — often upwards of 90 percent.

Fake EDRs have become such a reliable method in the cybercrime underground for obtaining information about account holders that several cybercriminals have started offering services that will submit these fraudulent EDRs on behalf of paying clients to a number of top social media and technology firms.

A fake EDR service advertised on a hacker forum in 2021.

An individual who’s part of the community of crooks that are abusing fake EDR told KrebsOnSecurity the schemes often involve hacking into police department emails by first compromising the agency’s website. From there, they can drop a backdoor “shell” on the server to secure permanent access, and then create new email accounts within the hacked organization.

In other cases, hackers will try to guess the passwords of police department email systems. In these attacks, the hackers will identify email addresses associated with law enforcement personnel, and then attempt to authenticate using passwords those individuals have used at other websites that have been breached previously.

EDR OVERLOAD?

Donahue said depending on the industry, EDRs make up between 5 percent and 30 percent of the total volume of requests. In contrast, he said, EDRs amount to less than three percent of the requests sent through Kodex portals used by customers.

KrebsOnSecurity sought to verify those numbers by compiling EDR statistics based on annual or semi-annual transparency reports from some of the largest technology and social media firms. While there are no available figures on the number of fake EDRs each provider is receiving each year, those phony requests can easily hide amid an increasingly heavy torrent of legitimate demands.

Meta/Facebook says roughly 11 percent of all law enforcement data requests — 21,700 of them — were EDRs in the first half of 2021. Almost 80 percent of the time the company produced at least some data in response. Facebook has long used its own online portal where law enforcement officials must first register before submitting requests.

Government data requests, including EDRs, received by Facebook over the years. Image: Meta Transparency Report.

Apple said it received 1,162 emergency requests for data in the last reporting period it made public — July – December 2020. Apple’s compliance with EDRs was 93 percent worldwide in 2020. Apple’s website says it accepts EDRs via email, after applicants have filled out a supplied PDF form. [As a lifelong Apple user and customer, I was floored to learn that the richest company in the world — which for several years has banked heavily on privacy and security promises to customers — still relies on email for such sensitive requests].

Twitter says it received 1,860 EDRs in the first half of 2021, or roughly 15 percent of the global information requests sent to Twitter. Twitter accepts EDRs via an interactive form on the company’s website. Twitter reports that EDRs decreased by 25% during this reporting period, while the aggregate number of accounts specified in these requests decreased by 15%. The United States submitted the highest volume of global emergency requests (36%), followed by Japan (19%), and India (12%).

Discord reported receiving 378 requests for emergency data disclosure in the first half of 2021. Discord accepts EDRs via a specified email address.

For the six months ending in December 2021, Snapchat said it received 2,085 EDRs from authorities in the United States (with a 59 percent compliance rate), and another 1,448 from international police (64 percent granted). Snapchat has a form for submitting EDRs on its website.

TikTok‘s resources on government data requests currently lead to a “Page not found” error, but a company spokesperson said TikTok received 715 EDRs in the first half of 2021. That’s up from 409 EDRs in the previous six months. Tiktok handles EDRs via a form on its website.

The current transparency reports for both Google and Microsoft do not break out EDRs by category. Microsoft says that in the second half of 2021 it received more than 25,000 government requests, and that it complied at least partly with those requests more than 90 percent of the time.

Microsoft runs its own portal that law enforcement officials must register at to submit legal requests, but that portal doesn’t accept requests for other Microsoft properties, such as LinkedIn or Github.

Google said it received more than 113,000 government requests for user data in the last half of 2020, and that about 76 percent of the requests resulted in the disclosure of some user information. Google doesn’t publish EDR numbers, and it did not respond to requests for those figures. Google also runs its own portal for accepting law enforcement data requests.

Verizon reports (PDF) receiving more than 35,000 EDRs from just U.S. law enforcement in the second half of 2021, out of a total of 114,000 law enforcement requests (Verizon doesn’t disclose how many EDRs came from foreign law enforcement entities). Verizon said it complied with approximately 91 percent of requests. The company accepts law enforcement requests via snail mail or fax.

Image: Verizon.com.

AT&T says (PDF) it received nearly 19,000 EDRs in the second half of 2021; it provided some data roughly 95 percent of the time. AT&T requires EDRs to be faxed.

The most recent transparency report published by T-Mobile says the company received more than 164,000 “emergency/911” requests in 2020 — but it does not specifically call out EDRs. Like its old school telco brethren, T-Mobile requires EDRs to be faxed. T-Mobile did not respond to requests for more information.

Data from T-Mobile’s most recent transparency report in 2020. Image: T-Mobile.