Organized retail crime costs retailers billions of dollars. In an era, where retailers are closing stores or going completely out of business, it's logical to assume that organized retail crime is a contributing factor to retailers shutting their doors and people losing their jobs. With the sour economy inspiring more and more theft and fraud, it is becoming more critical than ever before for companies to control their losses in their struggle to remain viable.
When retailers lose money to theft, the end result can be (assuming they don't go bankrupt) that jobs are cut. Payroll is normally the largest and most controllable expense in any business. When businesses start to show negative earnings — like a lot of them are right now — payroll is normally the first place they look to cut when trying to avoid shutting their doors.
In an effort to fight what experts say is a $30 billion a year organized retail crime issue, the National Retail Federation is welcoming legislation being introduced to give them more tools to fight this problem. Yesterday, three bills were introduced in Congress to assist retailers and law enforcement in this effort.
The three bills introduced are "the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act of 2009, sponsored by Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill.; the Organized Retail Crime Act of 2009, sponsored by Representative Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind.; and the E-Fencing Enforcement Act of 2009, sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Scott, D-Va. The measures are similar to legislation first introduced last summer" according to the press release and podcast on this matter by the National Retail Federation.
In case you are unfamiliar with "Organized Retail Crime," it involves organized retail theft activity for profit. Once the merchandise is stolen, it is fenced (sold) to get a cash value out of it. Traditionally, this merchandise was sold at flea markets/dishonest retailers, but more and more often nowadays, retail crime rings are turning to auction sites to unload their stolen goods.
The reason for this is if they sell it on an auction site, they make a lot more money than in the more traditional fencing venues. Experts believe they net 70 percent of the retail value by selling their stolen wares on an auction site versus the 30 percent of retail value they receive in more traditional fencing venues.
Another possible factor contributing the problem is that consumers — who are operating with ever-decreasing personal budgets — are flocking to these sites to stretch their buying dollars. Without knowing it, they might be adding fuel to the fire and unknowingly buying this stolen merchandise.
Even if the retailer can prove that merchandise on an auction site is stolen, it can be extremely difficult for them to get the site to cooperate in going after the criminals selling it. Due to a lot of red-tape imposed by these sites to release information, it requires a lot of time/effort to get the site to cooperate in an investigation. Because of this, the crooks are normally long gone before any effective investigative action is taken.
Another phenomenon called phishing makes the activity even more anonymous/hard to track on auction sites. Phishing is where a person (user) is tricked into giving up their credentials to an account. For years, eBay and PayPal have ranked as some of the most phished brands out there. Criminals use this information to take over an account and commit fraud using someone else's selling account. When investigating auction fraud, time is of the essence, otherwise the trail is often too cold to track. The crooks use one of these accounts for a short period of time and then move on to another phished account to avoid detection.
Organized retail crime is also taking advantage of the identity theft/financial crimes phenomenon and working with the hacking element that has been attacking the financial industry. Counterfeit payment cards (credit/debit), checks and identification are all being used to electronically boost merchandise and walk right out the store with it. In the TJX data breach — which was the largest hack of financial data to date — a group was caught using cloned payment cards to buy $8 million worth gift cards from Walmart. In the more recent data breach at Heartland Payment Systems — which looks like it might surpass TJX in the amount of data stolen — the only arrests made thus far were a group using the stolen data to clone gift cards. Since gift cards are redeemed at retailers, this is yet another example of how the financial hackers and organized retail crime types are working together. To me, this is evidence that organized retail crime is becoming more sophisticated in their theft techniques, which will likely make this problem get even worse than it already is.
The three bills being introduced will force auction sites to cooperate with retailers and law enforcement, define organized criminal activity as a federal offense and establish stricter sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of organized retail crime. Too frequently, under current laws, criminals involved in this activity are treated like petty thieves and get a slap on this wrist when they are caught. Last, but not least, it will hold auction sites more accountable for the sale of stolen merchandise if it could have been prevented.
Besides fencing, there is a lot of other fraud on auction sites that isn't necessarily tied in to fencing and victimizes auction customers/sellers, more personally. Legitimate e-commerce sellers are frequently ripped off with bogus financial instruments. Buyers are also defrauded in a wide variety of scams on these sites. Like the major retail types, who are behind this legislation, the more ordinary victims are often hung out to dry when they try to get any assistance from the auction sites. There is little doubt (my opinion) that auction sites need to clean up all the fraud that occurs on them. While they do provide value and a fun way to buy things, there have been too many innocent people victimized on them.
While this legislation primarily focuses on fencing, it's a start in the right direction. Perhaps other groups should join in and support this legislation, which if passed, will likely set some needed legal precedents. It will also make it a little harder for the criminally inclined to operate on auction sites.
Supporting this legislation makes a lot of sense for a lot of different reasons. These are not victimless crimes and the consequences are being felt by innocent consumers and businesses.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Are E-Commerce Merchants at Risk in Mystery Data Breach?
Days before the Heartland Data Breach was announced, volunteer computer security experts at the Open Security Foundation had already figured out what had occurred. Many believe Heartland is going to become the largest data breach in history and will surpass the TJX caper. At this point, only time will tell.
Now the folks at the Open Security Foundation are predicting another data breach at a card processor/acquirer that hasn't been announced to the public yet. For over a week, they have been speculating about this mysterious data breach based on a tip, which was corroborated by other anonymous sources.
In their latest post, they state they knew it was a card not present breach at a processor/acquirer, but didn't initally report it. They are now reporting this development based on it being revealed by another source.
On February 21, 2009, databreaches.net revealed evidence of this data breach based on information sifted from two credit union sites (TVACU.com and Pennsylvania Credit Union Association CardNet).
The only data elements at risk are account numbers and expiration dates. No track data, PIN, CVV2/CVC2 data or cardholder-identifying information was captured. The period of exposure being reported is from February to August of 2008.
It has also been written that the exposure was enabled by malicious software that was placed on the unknown acquirer/processor's system. Both of the credit union sources also state that it is being left up to the card issuers, whether to issue new cards or monitor the accounts for fraud. Reissuing cards has become a major expense to the card issuers after a data breach is discovered.
This makes me wonder if we will discover that the acquirer/processor was PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards) compliant? PCI DSS is the payment card industry's own set of standards to protect data. In many of the recent breaches, the "breached" met this standard, which has led to questions as to whether it is really effective or not.
Both articles also indicate that Visa/Mastercard are not revealing the source of this breach until the "mysterious source" of it makes their own announcement on the matter.
Given these reports, my speculation is that this information could be used in e-commerce type transactions. If only primary account information and expiration dates were exposed — counterfeiting it on cloned cards is unlikely. It simply wouldn't be feasible to do so by the criminals involved.
This doesn't mean that there are no financial risks involved to businesses in this data breach. E-commerce fraud is a big problem and its estimated impact on merchants last year was $4 billion. To fight this problem, most e-commerce merchants manually review orders to detect fraud, which can be a substantial payroll cost. The percentage loss to fraud in e-commerce has been stable for about three years, but since sales have increased, the dollars lost to it are growing.
Card-not-present chargebacks are frequently returned to merchants as chargebacks. The best way of avoiding these types of chargebacks is to verify transactions using the address verification service (AVS), the card verification value code 2 (CVV2), the card validation code 2 (CVC2), and the card identification (CID) when processing transactions. Smaller merchants — who ironically are charged the highest interchange fees for accepting card payments — are at the most risk because fraudsters count on the fact that they do not verify a lot of this data because of the associated costs and their ability to afford doing so.
Perhaps this one of the reasons why there is no rush to reissue cards. If the only information stolen can be used in card-not-present transactions, the card issuers are at little risk of suffering any financial losses. They will simply charge them back to the merchants, who failed to ensure the transaction wasn't fraudulent. It might be a good time for e-commerce merchants to be more cautious.
From what I can gather, this matter isn't exactly confidential; having said that, it appears that primarily financial institutions are being warned and not the e-commerce merchants who logically will be the primary target if this stolen information is used. The costs in the aftermath of data breaches are substantial and who bears the brunt of them is becoming a hot topic.
To close this post, I will refer to a good information source on preventing chargebacks from Wells Fargo. There are a lot of other sources, but a lot of them are selling something. If anyone has any other good sources, please feel free to leave a comment and share them with everyone!
Now the folks at the Open Security Foundation are predicting another data breach at a card processor/acquirer that hasn't been announced to the public yet. For over a week, they have been speculating about this mysterious data breach based on a tip, which was corroborated by other anonymous sources.
In their latest post, they state they knew it was a card not present breach at a processor/acquirer, but didn't initally report it. They are now reporting this development based on it being revealed by another source.
On February 21, 2009, databreaches.net revealed evidence of this data breach based on information sifted from two credit union sites (TVACU.com and Pennsylvania Credit Union Association CardNet).
The only data elements at risk are account numbers and expiration dates. No track data, PIN, CVV2/CVC2 data or cardholder-identifying information was captured. The period of exposure being reported is from February to August of 2008.
It has also been written that the exposure was enabled by malicious software that was placed on the unknown acquirer/processor's system. Both of the credit union sources also state that it is being left up to the card issuers, whether to issue new cards or monitor the accounts for fraud. Reissuing cards has become a major expense to the card issuers after a data breach is discovered.
This makes me wonder if we will discover that the acquirer/processor was PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards) compliant? PCI DSS is the payment card industry's own set of standards to protect data. In many of the recent breaches, the "breached" met this standard, which has led to questions as to whether it is really effective or not.
Both articles also indicate that Visa/Mastercard are not revealing the source of this breach until the "mysterious source" of it makes their own announcement on the matter.
Given these reports, my speculation is that this information could be used in e-commerce type transactions. If only primary account information and expiration dates were exposed — counterfeiting it on cloned cards is unlikely. It simply wouldn't be feasible to do so by the criminals involved.
This doesn't mean that there are no financial risks involved to businesses in this data breach. E-commerce fraud is a big problem and its estimated impact on merchants last year was $4 billion. To fight this problem, most e-commerce merchants manually review orders to detect fraud, which can be a substantial payroll cost. The percentage loss to fraud in e-commerce has been stable for about three years, but since sales have increased, the dollars lost to it are growing.
Card-not-present chargebacks are frequently returned to merchants as chargebacks. The best way of avoiding these types of chargebacks is to verify transactions using the address verification service (AVS), the card verification value code 2 (CVV2), the card validation code 2 (CVC2), and the card identification (CID) when processing transactions. Smaller merchants — who ironically are charged the highest interchange fees for accepting card payments — are at the most risk because fraudsters count on the fact that they do not verify a lot of this data because of the associated costs and their ability to afford doing so.
Perhaps this one of the reasons why there is no rush to reissue cards. If the only information stolen can be used in card-not-present transactions, the card issuers are at little risk of suffering any financial losses. They will simply charge them back to the merchants, who failed to ensure the transaction wasn't fraudulent. It might be a good time for e-commerce merchants to be more cautious.
From what I can gather, this matter isn't exactly confidential; having said that, it appears that primarily financial institutions are being warned and not the e-commerce merchants who logically will be the primary target if this stolen information is used. The costs in the aftermath of data breaches are substantial and who bears the brunt of them is becoming a hot topic.
To close this post, I will refer to a good information source on preventing chargebacks from Wells Fargo. There are a lot of other sources, but a lot of them are selling something. If anyone has any other good sources, please feel free to leave a comment and share them with everyone!
Friday, February 20, 2009
RSA Report Points to an Increase in Cyber Crime
According to a recent report from RSA Security, phishing attacks increased 66 percent last year when compared to 2007. One reason cited for this are the increased availability of DIY (do-it-yourself) phishing kits, which are available for sale on the Internet.
Some of these kits even come with tech support. In the past few years, these kits have enabled a lot more people to get into the phishing game.
The statistics compiled in the Anti-Fraud Command Center Phishing Trends Report recorded 135,426 phishing attacks compared to 90,000 detected in 2007. Despite these ominous numbers, the report showed a marked decrease in the number of attacks between June and July. The amount of attacks then increased steadily until the end of the year and then dropped again in December. The RSA team attributed this to a drop in activity by a notorious gang of phishermen, known as the Rock Phish.
Although, no one seems to be exactly sure, the Rock Phish are a phishing gang that are allegedly of Romanian origin. Experts believe they are responsible for up to 50 percent of the phishing seen in the wild (on the Internet) today. To avoid detection, Rock Phishing attacks often update DNS records during an attack and change URLs, which confuse take-down efforts and allow them to bypass spam filters. They also use images in their spam e-mails, which make their work harder to be detected by spam filters. A lot of spam filters do not use OCR (optical character recognition) because it slows down the filtering process.
The (temporary?) reduction in attacks was attributed to the Rock Phish upgrading their infrastructure and switching to the use of a new botnet, called the "Asprox botnet."
A lot of the newer botnets — which spew out spam in the millions using zombies (compromised computers) — are using what is known are using fast flux technology. Fast flux is a DNS technique used to hide spam e-mails behind a constantly changing network of compromised computers (zombies), which have been taken over using malicious software to send out spam. Since these spam e-mails recruit new zombies all the time, it makes shutting down this type of activity pretty difficult. According to the report, fast flux attacks now comprise about half of all the activity out there.
From a global perspective, the United Kingdom (40 percent) was the most attacked country followed by the United States (37 percent). This was attributed to a focused attack on a number of financial institutions in the UK in 2008. The report also acknowledges increased activity in Latin America and the Pacific. A lot of experts believe we will see increased activity in other parts of the world as more people from these regions are introduced to the Internet. As this takes place, more computers will be compromised (become zombies) in these countries and the statistics will shift.
It should be noted that despite the increased activity in the United Kingdom, the United States still holds the dubious honor of being number one in hosting phishing attacks. They are also number one in brand names being attacked.
Of no surprise is the statistic that financial instituions are the favorite target in these attacks. It makes sense that the phishermen will continue to go where the money is and with the sour economy, there are a lot of social engineering lures that are ripe for exploitation. Fear is a time-honored social engineering lure, which gets people to click on links they should not have.
The conclusion of the report is that online crime continues to evolve, is becoming more dangerous, and new tools are being used to further the effort. My guess is that it will continue to grow as long as we focus on defending against it instead of going after the source of it! Of course, this is merely the opinion of this observer.
Some of these kits even come with tech support. In the past few years, these kits have enabled a lot more people to get into the phishing game.
The statistics compiled in the Anti-Fraud Command Center Phishing Trends Report recorded 135,426 phishing attacks compared to 90,000 detected in 2007. Despite these ominous numbers, the report showed a marked decrease in the number of attacks between June and July. The amount of attacks then increased steadily until the end of the year and then dropped again in December. The RSA team attributed this to a drop in activity by a notorious gang of phishermen, known as the Rock Phish.
Although, no one seems to be exactly sure, the Rock Phish are a phishing gang that are allegedly of Romanian origin. Experts believe they are responsible for up to 50 percent of the phishing seen in the wild (on the Internet) today. To avoid detection, Rock Phishing attacks often update DNS records during an attack and change URLs, which confuse take-down efforts and allow them to bypass spam filters. They also use images in their spam e-mails, which make their work harder to be detected by spam filters. A lot of spam filters do not use OCR (optical character recognition) because it slows down the filtering process.
The (temporary?) reduction in attacks was attributed to the Rock Phish upgrading their infrastructure and switching to the use of a new botnet, called the "Asprox botnet."
A lot of the newer botnets — which spew out spam in the millions using zombies (compromised computers) — are using what is known are using fast flux technology. Fast flux is a DNS technique used to hide spam e-mails behind a constantly changing network of compromised computers (zombies), which have been taken over using malicious software to send out spam. Since these spam e-mails recruit new zombies all the time, it makes shutting down this type of activity pretty difficult. According to the report, fast flux attacks now comprise about half of all the activity out there.
From a global perspective, the United Kingdom (40 percent) was the most attacked country followed by the United States (37 percent). This was attributed to a focused attack on a number of financial institutions in the UK in 2008. The report also acknowledges increased activity in Latin America and the Pacific. A lot of experts believe we will see increased activity in other parts of the world as more people from these regions are introduced to the Internet. As this takes place, more computers will be compromised (become zombies) in these countries and the statistics will shift.
It should be noted that despite the increased activity in the United Kingdom, the United States still holds the dubious honor of being number one in hosting phishing attacks. They are also number one in brand names being attacked.
Of no surprise is the statistic that financial instituions are the favorite target in these attacks. It makes sense that the phishermen will continue to go where the money is and with the sour economy, there are a lot of social engineering lures that are ripe for exploitation. Fear is a time-honored social engineering lure, which gets people to click on links they should not have.
The conclusion of the report is that online crime continues to evolve, is becoming more dangerous, and new tools are being used to further the effort. My guess is that it will continue to grow as long as we focus on defending against it instead of going after the source of it! Of course, this is merely the opinion of this observer.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Sending Children to the Slammer for Profit
On February 12, 2009, two judges appeared in federal court to plead guilty to $2.6 million in income tax and wire fraud. The crimes they were charged with resulted from locking up teenagers for profit in Scranton, PA.
Judge Michael T. Conahan and Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. were the two barristers, who received kickbacks to send teens to privately run detention centers. Apparently, Conahan secured the contracts and Civarella kept them filled with fresh prisoners (victims?) from his docket (court calendar). The privately run centers in questions were PA Childcare and its sister organization, Western PA Childcare.
A press release on January 28th from the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts announced the two judges' removal from the bench. The release goes into detail about the charges that were brought against them.
In one example cited by the NY Times, a teenager was given three months for setting up a MySpace page mocking her assistant principal at a Wilkes Barre, PA high school. The student in question, Hillary Transue, was a stellar student and had never been in trouble before. At the end of the hearing, with her parents watching, she was handcuffed and taken away. In another case, a teenager got three months for giving another teenager a black eye.
This is scary in a society where Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan get a few days for doing a lot more than putting up a MySpace page or giving someone a black eye!
Senior Judge Arthur Grim has been appointed by the State Supreme Court to figure out what to do with the estimated 5,000 juveniles who have been sentenced by Judge Ciavarelli since the scheme started in 2003. A lot of these children were first time offenders and some of them are still locked up.
The case has shocked local residents, already strained by recent losses of a lot of industrial jobs and the shutting down of coal mines. It has also brought up a debate about how children are represented in the legal system when they face charges.
Just last year, a motion was filed by the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center in behalf of 500 juveniles who had appeared in front of Ciavarelli without representation. The motion was originally denied, but it has now been reopened. Statistics show that about 50 percent of the children who waived their right to counsel in front of Ciavarelli went to the slammer. The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that juveniles have a right to counsel, but in some states, including Pennsylvania, they are allowed to waive it.
Given the reduced tax base in the area, the money stolen in this instance could certainly have been put to better use, too.
Even worse, although Judge Ciavarella admitted to the kickbacks, he is contending that the juveniles in question deserved what they got. This is pretty arrogant, especially considering that the facts show that he sentenced a lot more of his cases (25%) to these privately run detention facilities than the state average of of 1 in 10.
I'm frequently amazed how people who have obviously done something terribly wrong rationalize their behavior.
If Ciavarella and Conahan (Judge titles intentionally removed) accept the plea bargain being offered by the government, they will get 87 months in the slammer, lose their pensions, and be disbarred. The executives running the privately run detention centers haven't been charged yet, but are expected to be.
I first saw a mention of this story on Alex Eckelberry's Sunbelt blog. His comment was "how sick." In closing, "I second that motion."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
