Posts Tagged ‘attack’

QoTW #53 How can I punish a hacker?

2016-02-05 by roryalsop. 4 comments

Elmo asked:

I am a small business owner. My website was recently hacked, although no damage was done; non-sensitive data was stolen and some backdoor shells were uploaded. Since then, I have deleted the shells, fixed the vulnerability and blocked the IP address of the hacker.Can I do something to punish the hacker since I have the IP address? Like can I get them in jail or something?

This question comes up time and time again, as people do get upset and angry when their online presence has been attacked, and we have some very simple guidance which will almost always apply:

Terry Chia wrote:

You don’t punish the hacker. The law does. Just report whatever pieces of information you have to the police and let them handle it.

And @TildalWave asked

What makes you believe that this IP is indeed a hacker’s IP address, and not simply another hacked into computer running in zombie mode? And who is to say, that your own web server didn’t run in exactly the same zombie mode until you removed the shells installed through, as you say, later identified backdoor? Should you expect another person, whose web server was attempted to be, or indeed was hacked through your compromised web server’s IP, thinking exactly the same about you, and is already looking for ways to get even like you are?

justausr takes this even further:

Don’t play their game, you’ll lose I’ve learned not to play that game, hackers by nature have more spare time than you and will ultimately win. Even if you get him back, your website will be unavailable to your customers for a solid week afterwards. Remember, you’re the one with public facing servers, you have an IP of a random server that he probably used once. He’s the one with a bunch of scripts and likely more knowledge than you will get in your quest for revenge. Odds aren’t in your favor and the cost to your business is probably too high to risk losing.

Similarly, the other answers mostly discuss the difficulty in identifying the correct perpetrator, and the risks of trying to do something to them.

But Scott Pack‘s answer does provide a little side-step from the generally accepted principles most civilians must follow:

The term most often used to describe what you’re talking about is Hacking Back. It’s part of the Offensive Countermeasures movement that’s gaining traction lately. Some really smart people are putting their heart and soul into figuring out how we, as an industry, should be doing this. There are lots of things you can do, but unless you’re a nation-state, or have orders and a contract from a nation-state your options are severely limited.

tl;dr – don’t be a vigilante. If you do, you will have broken the law, and the police are likely to be able to prove your guilt a lot more easily than that of the unknown hacker.

Like this question of the week? Interested in reading more detail, and other answers? See the question in full. Have questions of a security nature of your own? Security expert and want to help others? Come and join us at

QoTW #46: CTRL+ALT+DEL Login – Rationale behind it?

2013-05-10 by roryalsop. 1 comments

CountZero asked this interesting question: Why is CTRL+ALT+DEL required at login on Windows systems?

His perspective was that it adds an extra step before login, so is bad from a usability perspective, so there must be a reason.

This got a lot of attention, but looking at the top answers:

Adnan‘s answer briefly describes the Secure Attention Key – the Windows kernel will only notify the Winlogon process about this key combination, which prevents it being hijacked by an application, malware or some other process.  In this way, when you press Ctrl+Alt+Del, you can be sure that you’re typing your password in the real login form and not some other fake process trying to steal your password. For example, an application which looks exactly like the windows login. An equivalent of this in Linux is Ctrl+Alt+Pause

Polynomial‘s comment on the answer further expands on the history of this notification:

As a side note: when you say it’s “wired”, what that actually means is that Ctrl+Alt+Del is a mapped to a hardware defined interrupt (set in the APIC, a physical chip on your motherboard). The interrupt was, historically, triggered by the BIOS’ keyboard handler routine, but these days it’s less clear cut. The interrupt is mapped to an ISR which is executed at ring0, which triggers the OS’s internal handler for the event. When no ISR for the interrupt is set, it (usually) causes an ACPI power-cycle event, also known as a hard reboot.

ThomasPornin describes an attack which would work if the Secure Attention Key didn’t exist:

You could make an application which goes full-screen, grabs the keyboard, and displays something which looks like the normal login screen, down to the last pixel. You then log on the machine, launch the application, and go away until some unsuspecting victim finds the machine, tries to log on, and gives his username and password to your application. Your application then just has to simulate a blue screen of death, or maybe to actually log the user on, to complete the illusion.

There is also an excellent answer over on ServerFault, which TerryChia linked to in his answer:

The Windows (NT) kernel is designed to reserve the notification of this key combination to a single process: Winlogon. So, as long as the Windows installation itself is working as it should – no third party application can respond to this key combination (if it could, it could present a fake logon window and keylog your password 😉

So there you have it – as long as your OS hasn’t been hacked, CTRL+ALT+DEL protects you.

Liked this question of the week? Interested in reading it or adding an answer? See the question in full. Have questions of a security nature of your own? Security expert and want to help others? Come and join us at

QotW #36: How does the zero-day Internet Explorer vulnerability discovered in September 2012 work?

2012-09-28 by roryalsop. 0 comments

Community member Iszi nominated this week’s question, which asks for an explanation of the issue from the perspective of a developer/engineer: What is exactly being exploited and why does it work?

Polynomial provided the following detailed, technical answer:

CVE-2012-4969, aka the latest IE 0-day, is a based on a use-after-free bug in IE’s rendering engine. A use-after-free occurs when a dynamically allocated block of memory is used after it has been disposed of (i.e. freed). Such a bug can be exploited by creating a situation where an internal structure contains pointers to sensitive memory locations (e.g. the stack or executable heap blocks) in a way that causes the program to copy shellcode into an executable area.

In this case, the problem is with the CMshtmlEd::Exec function in mshtml.dll. The CMshtmlEd object is freed unexpectedly, then the Exec method is called on it after the free operation.

First, I’d like to cover some theory. If you already know how use-after-free works, then feel free to skip ahead.

At a low level, a class can be equated to a memory region that contains its state (e.g. fields, properties, internal variables, etc) and a set of functions that operate on it. The functions actually take a “hidden” parameter, which points to the memory region that contains the instance state.

For example (excuse my terrible pseudo-C++):

class Account
 int balance = 0;
 int transactionCount = 0;
void Account::AddBalance(int amount)
 balance += amount;
void Account::SubtractBalance(int amount)
 balance -= amount;
The above can actually be represented as the following:
private struct Account
 int balance = 0;
 int transactionCount = 0;
public void* Account_Create()
 Account* account = (Account)malloc(sizeof(Account));
 account->balance = 0;
 account->transactionCount = 0;
 return (void)account;
public void Account_Destroy(void* instance)
public void Account_AddBalance(void* instance, int amount)
 ((Account)instance)->balance += amount;
public void Account_SubtractBalance(void* instance, int amount)
 ((Account)instance)->balance -= amount;
public int Account_GetBalance(void* instance)
 return ((Account)instance)->balance;
public int Account_GetTransactionCount(void instance)
 return ((Account*)instance)->transactionCount;
I’m using void* to demonstrate the opaque nature of the reference, but that’s not really important. The point is that we don’t want anyone to be able to alter the Account struct manually, otherwise they could add money arbitrarily, or modify the balance without increasing the transaction counter.

Now, imagine we do something like this:

 // ...void* myAccount = Account_Create();
Account_AddBalance(myAccount, 100);
Account_SubtractBalance(myAccount, 75);
// ...
 if(Account_GetBalance(myAccount) > 1000) // <-- !!! use after free !!!
Now, by the time we reach Account_GetBalance, the pointer value in myAccount actually points to memory that is in an indeterminate state. Now, imagine we can do the following:

  1. Trigger the call to Account_Destroy reliably.
  2. Execute any operation after Account_Destroy but before Account_GetBalance that allows us to allocate a reasonable amount of memory, with contents of our choosing.

Usually, these calls are triggered in different places, so it’s not too difficult to achieve this. Now, here’s what happens:

  1. Account_Create allocates an 8-byte block of memory (4 bytes for each field) and returns a pointer to it. This pointer is now stored in the myAccount variable.
  2. Account_Destroy frees the memory. The myAccount variable still points to the same memory address.
  3. We trigger our memory allocation, containing repeating blocks of 39 05 00 00 01 00 00 00. This pattern correlates to balance = 1337 and transactionCount = 1. Since the old memory block is now marked as free, it is very likely that the memory manager will write our new memory over the old memory block.
  4. Account_GetBalance is called, expecting to point to an Account struct. In actuality, it points to our overwritten memory block, resulting in our balance actually being 1337, so the loan is approved!

This is all a simplification, of course, and real classes create rather more obtuse and complex code. The point is that a class instance is really just a pointer to a block of data, and class methods are just the same as any other function, but they “silently” accept a pointer to the instance as a parameter.

This principle can be extended to control values on the stack, which in turn causes program execution to be modified. Usually, the goal is to drop shellcode on the stack, then overwrite a return address such that it now points to a jmp esp instruction, which then runs the shellcode.

This trick works on non-DEP machines, but when DEP is enabled it prevents execution of the stack. Instead, the shellcode must be designed using Return-Oriented Programming (ROP), which uses small blocks of legitimate code from the application and its modules to perform an API call, in order to bypass DEP.

Anyway, I’m going off-topic a bit, so let’s get into the juicy details of CVE-2012-4969!

In the wild, the payload was dropped via a packed Flash file, designed to exploit the Java vulnerability and the new IE bug in one go. There’s also been some interesting analysis of it by AlienVault.

The metasploit module says the following:

> This module exploits a vulnerability found in Microsoft Internet Explorer (MSIE). When rendering an HTML page, the CMshtmlEd object gets deleted in an unexpected manner, but the same memory is reused again later in the CMshtmlEd::Exec() function, leading to a use-after-free condition.

There’s also an interesting blog post about the bug, albeit in rather poor English – I believe the author is Chinese. Anyway, the blog post goes into some detail:

> When the execCommand function of IE execute a command event, will allocated the corresponding CMshtmlEd object by AddCommandTarget function, and then call mshtml@CMshtmlEd::Exec() function execution. But, after the execCommand function to add the corresponding event, will immediately trigger and call the corresponding event function. Through the document.write("L") function to rewrite html in the corresponding event function be called. Thereby lead IE call CHTMLEditor::DeleteCommandTarget to release the original applied object of CMshtmlEd, and then cause triggered the used-after-free vulnerability when behind execute the msheml!CMshtmlEd::Exec() function.

Let’s see if we can parse that into something a little more readable:

  1. An event is applied to an element in the document.
  2. The event executes, via execCommand, which allocates a CMshtmlEd object via the AddCommandTarget function.
  3. The target event uses document.write to modify the page.
  4. The event is no longer needed, so the CMshtmlEd object is freed via CHTMLEditor::DeleteCommandTarget.
  5. execCommand later calls CMshtmlEd::Exec() on that object, after it has been freed.

Part of the code at the crash site looks like this:

637d464e 8b07 mov eax,dword ptr [edi]
 637d4650 57 push edi
 637d4651 ff5008 call dword ptr [eax+8]
The use-after-free allows the attacker to control the value of edi, which can be modified to point at memory that the attacker controls. Let’s say that we can insert arbitrary code into memory at 01234f00, via a memory allocation. We populate the data as follows:
01234f00: 01234f08
 01234f04: 41414141
 01234f08: 01234f0a
 01234f0a: c3c3c3c3 // int3 breakpoint
1. We set edi to 01234f00, via the use-after-free bug. 2. mov eax,dword ptr [edi] results in eax being populated with the memory at the address in edi, i.e. 01234f00. 3. push edi pushes 01234f00 to the stack. 4. call dword ptr [eax+8] takes eax (which is 01234f00) and adds 8 to it, giving us 01234f08. It then dereferences that memory address, giving us 01234f0a. Finally, it calls 01234f0a. 5. The data at 01234f0a is treated as an instruction. c3 translates to an int3, which causes the debugger to raise a breakpoint. We’ve executed code!

This allows us to control eip, so we can modify program flow to our own shellcode, or to a ROP chain.

Please keep in mind that the above is just an example, and in reality there are many other challenges in exploiting this bug. It’s a pretty standard use-after-free, but the nature of JavaScript makes for some interesting timing and heap-spraying tricks, and DEP forces us to use ROP to gain an executable memory block.

Liked this question of the week? Interested in reading it or adding an answer? See the question in full. Have questions of a security nature of your own? Security expert and want to help others? Come and join us at

QotW #35: Dealing with excessive “Carding” attempts

2012-09-14 by scottpack. 0 comments

Community moderator Jeff Ferland nominated this week’s question: Dealing with excessive “Carding” attempts.

I found this to be an interesting question for two reasons,

  1. It turned the classic password brute force on its head by applying it to credit cards
  2. It attracted the attention from a large number of relatively new users

Jeff Ferland postulated that the website was too helpful with its error codes and recommended returning the same “Transaction Failed” message no matter the error.

User w.c suggested using some kind of additional verification like a CAPTCHA. Also mentioned was the notion of instituting time delays for multiple successive CAPTCHA or transaction failures.

A slightly different tack was discussed by GdD. Instead of suggesting specific mitigations, GdD pointed out the inevitability of the attackers adapting to whatever protections are put in place. The recommendation was to make sure that you keep adapting in turn and force the attackers into your cat and mouse game.

Ajacian81 felt that the attacker’s purpose may not be finding valid numbers at all and instead be performing a payment processing denial of service. The suggested fix was to randomize the name of the input fields in an effort to prevent scripting the site.

John Deters described a company that had previously had the same problem. They completely transferred the problem to their processor by having them automatically decline all charges below a certain threshold. He also pointed out that the FBI may be interested in the situation and should be notified. This, of course, depends on USA jurisdiction.

Both ddyer and Winston Ewert suggested different ways of instituting artificial delays into the processing. Winston discussed outright delaying all transactions while ddyer discussed automated detection of “suspicious” transactions and blocking further transactions from that host for some time period.

Liked this question of the week? Interested in reading it or adding an answer? See the question in full. Have questions of a security nature of your own? Security expert and want to help others? Come and join us at

How can you protect yourself from CRIME, BEAST’s successor?

2012-09-10 by roryalsop. 11 comments

For those who haven’t been following Juliano Rizzo and Thai Duong, two researchers who developed the BEAST attack against TLS 1.0/SSL 3.0 in September 2011, they have developed another attack they plan to publish at the Ekoparty conference in Argentina later this month – this time giving them the ability to hijack HTTPS sessions – and this has started people worrying again.

Security Stack Exchange member Kyle Rozendo asked this question:

With the advent of CRIME, BEASTs successor, what is possible protection is available for an individual and / or system owner in order to protect themselves and their users against this new attack on TLS?

And the community expectation was that we wouldn’t get an answer until Rizzo and Duong presented their attack.

However, our highest reputation member, Thomas Pornin delivered this awesome hypothesis, which I will quote here verbatim:

This attack is supposed to be presented in 10 days from now, but my guess is that they use compression.

SSL/TLS optionally supports data compression. In the ClientHello message, the client states the list of compression algorithms that it knows of, and the server responds, in the ServerHello, with the compression algorithm that will be used. Compression algorithms are specified by one-byte identifiers, and TLS 1.2 (RFC 5246) defines only the null compression method (i.e. no compression at all). Other documents specify compression methods, in particular RFC 3749 which defines compression method 1, based on DEFLATE, the LZ77-derivative which is at the core of the GZip format and also modern Zip archives. When compression is used, it is applied on all the transferred data, as a long stream. In particular, when used with HTTPS, compression is applied on all the successive HTTP requests in the stream, header included. DEFLATE works by locating repeated subsequences of bytes.

Suppose that the attacker is some Javascript code which can send arbitrary requests to a target site (e.g. a bank) and runs on the attacked machine; the browser will send these requests with the user’s cookie for that bank — the cookie value that the attacker is after. Also, let’s suppose that the attacker can observe the traffic between the user’s machine and the bank (plausibly, the attacker has access to the same LAN of WiFi hotspot than the victim; or he has hijacked a router somewhere on the path, possibly close to the bank server).

For this example, we suppose that the cookie in each HTTP request looks like this:

> Cookie: secret=7xc89f+94/wa

The attacker knows the “Cookie: secret=” part and wishes to obtain the secret value. So he instructs his Javascript code to issue a request containing in the body the sequence “Cookie: secret=0”. The HTTP request will look like this:

POST / HTTP/1.1 Host: (…) Cookie: secret=7xc89f+94/wa (…)

Cookie: secret=0

When DEFLATE sees that, it will recognize the repeated “Cookie: secret=” sequence and represent the second instance with a very short token (one which states “previous sequence has length 15 and was located n bytes in the past); DEFLATE will have to emit an extra token for the ‘0’.

The request goes to the server. From the outside, the eavesdropping part of the attacker sees an opaque blob (SSL encrypts the data) but he can see the blob length (with byte granularity when the connection uses RC4; with block ciphers there is a bit of padding, but the attacker can adjust the contents of his requests so that he may phase with block boundaries, so, in practice, the attacker can know the length of the compressed request).

Now, the attacker tries again, with “Cookie: secret=1” in the request body. Then, “Cookie: secret=2”, and so on. All these requests will compress to the same size (almost — there are subtleties with Huffman codes as used in DEFLATE), except the one which contains “Cookie: secret=7”, which compresses better (16 bytes of repeated subsequence instead of 15), and thus will be shorter. The attacker sees that. Therefore, in a few dozen requests, the attacker has guessed the first byte of the secret value.

He then just has to repeat the process (“Cookie: secret=70”, “Cookie: secret=71”, and so on) and obtain, byte by byte, the complete secret.

What I describe above is what I thought of when I read the article, which talks about “information leak” from an “optional feature”. I cannot know for sure that what will be published as the CRIME attack is really based upon compression. However, I do not see how the attack on compression cannot work. Therefore, regardless of whether CRIME turns out to abuse compression or be something completely different, you should turn off compression support from your client (or your server).

Note that I am talking about compression at the SSL level. HTTP also includes optional compression, but this one applies only to the body of the requests and responses, not the header, and thus does not cover the Cookie: header line. HTTP-level compression is fine.

(It is a shame to have to remove SSL compression, because it is very useful to lower bandwidth requirements, especially when a site contains many small pictures or is Ajax-heavy with many small requests, all beginning with extremely similar versions of a mammoth HTTP header. It would be better if the security model of Javascript was fixed to prevent malicious code from sending arbitrary requests to a bank server; I am not sure it is easy, though.)

As bobince commented:

I hope CRIME is this and we don’t have two vulns of this size in play! However, I wouldn’t say that being limited to entity bodies makes HTTP-level compression safe in general… whilst a cookie header is an obvious first choice of attack, there is potentially sensitive material in the body too. eg Imagine sniffing an anti-XSRF token from response body by causing the browser to send fields that get reflected in that response.

It is reassuring that there is a fix, and my recommendation would be for everyone to assess the risk to them of having sessions hijacked and seriously consider disabling SSL compression support.

Exploiting ATMs: a quick overview of recent hacks

2012-08-10 by lucaskauffman. 0 comments

A few weeks ago, Kyle Rozendo asked a question on the IT Security StackExchange about Cracking a PCI terminal using a trojan based on the card. It caught my attention, so I started digging a little deeper into this matter.

There are some difficulties involved in hacking an ATM:

  • Often proprietary software
  • Often custom OS or modified embedded Windows

This means a high level of understanding is necessary, as well as access to ATMs to test on. All of the attacks I’ve dug up had some level of inside information before they were constructed.

2009: Diebold gets targeted by Skimer-A Trojan

One of the first serious hacks I came by was a Trojan found in ATMs in eastern Europe around 2009. As reported by Sophos, the attack was aimed at Diebold Opteva ATMs.

The Trojan was named Skimer-A. It’s main goals were:

  • Steal information (card numbers and PINs)
  • Allow remote access
  • Drop more malware

The hack required physical access to the machine. The perpetrators used social engineering, to persuade stores to allow them physical access to the machine after hours, so they could install the virus. After an analysis of the malware, Diebold concluded the attackers also had to have inside information about the systems. A lot of the functions used to extract information were part of the ATMs operation software, but were never documented. They also knew administrative passwords and unlocked the custom Windows CE version Diebold used as well as misconfiguring its firewall. (This was concluded from the security update by Diebold.)

2010: ATM Jackpotting by Barnaby Jack

In 2010, McAfee security expert, Barnaby Jack presented his “ATM Jackpotting” at Blackhat. He was able, after careful analysis with physical access to a few teller machines, to write a tool that could remotely exploit an ATM and patch it so you can call a custom menu with an access code or remotely start emptying the ATM’s money cassettes (hence Jackpotting).

The attack is aimed at standalone and hole-in-the-wall ATMs. The ATMs often run:

  • ARM/XSCALE processor
  • Windows CE
  • TCP/IP, Dial Up or CDMA wireless
  • Support for SSL
  • 3DES encrypted pin pad

In his research he used 3 different ATMs (he ordered these and got them delivered at home). He started his research by looking at the internal workings and, although there were some security measures in place, once a he had physical access many possibilities started to appear. He started by looking for a way to modify the boot sequence, because the ATM boots into its proprietary software. This means he has to patch the system so he can get access to a shell. He accomplished this by using a JTAG debugger.

Using the JTAG module, he was able to send a break when starting the difference services. After this he could launch a proper shell.

This work was all necessary to reverse engineer the software and develop the actual attacks:

  • Walk up attack by “upgrading” the firmware with a flashcard (this required physical access, and a key to open the machine and access the motherboard – such keys are standard, and easy to find on the Internet).
  • Remote configuration attack, firmware can be upgraded remotely

The latter is the most interesting attack, but there are some security defenses in place that make a bruteforce attack impossible. However Barnaby Jack was able to find a vulnerability in the authentication mechanism which allowed him to log in to the machine. He wrote a tool to do these attacks, named “Dillinger”. Now the problem he faced was how to find the ATMs on the internet.

Whilst ATMs support TCP/IP, about 95% of all ATMs still connect to the internet using Dial Up. This means War Dialing using a VOIP tool like WarVox, makes it possible to go and find ATMs on the net. Most of the ATMs use a proprietary protocol, so once you identify this protocol you know an ATM is listening on the other side and you can go and try to exploit it. Once you have access to the ATM you can spawn a shell and install a rootkit. You will still need to identify where the ATM is physically located so you can go and collect the money. This is done by reading the configuration file (often the address is present on the receipts).

The rootkit to keep access to the teller is called “Scrooge”. It hides itself on the machine. One difficulty is that the kit needs to be modified for almost every version of ATM software that’s running because of different peripherals and non-standard ways to communicate. After installing the kit you can walk up to the ATM and enter a keys equence on the keypad, this brings up a custom menu that allows you to jackpot the ATM (completely empty it) or give you a specific amount of cash. This can also be done remotely.

Barnaby suggests following countermeasures:

  • Better physical locks
  • Executable signing at the kernel level
  • Implement Trusted Environment
  • Put them on a seperate, firewalled network
  • Disable the Remote Management System if you aren’t using it
  • More and better code auditing

You can find the complete presentation on Vimeo.

2012: MWR InfoSecurity reveals chip and PIN vulnerability

Chip and PIN is a system where one can insert his banking or credit card into a small machine and make an electronic payment. In the U.K. there is a government backed initiative to make these as widespread as possible. MWR InfoSecurity, a Basingstoke (U.K.) based security company, revealed a way to attack these terminals with a custom PIN card. The attacks demonstrated at Blackhat 2012:

  • Producing a fake receipt, making a cashier think the payment was successful
  • Infect PIN entry devices to collect card data and harvest these with another rogue card
  • Network and interface attack

Apparently the exploits involved were present in normal computers more than a decade ago, making you wonder why this problem was ignored or went undetected. Especially when Cambridge University researchers warned banks of the lack of security in these type of machines as early as 2010. Issues included unencrypted and unauthenticated communication between terminal and remote administration server, which makes a man in the middle attack dead easy. At the moment of writing there hasn’t appeared any white paper (I’m aware of or had access to). The devices affected were produced by VeriFone.


If we look at the attacks over time, it becomes clear that they can be deployed faster and faster. The hacks still require a high level of knowledge and understanding of these systems, but because there are some really basic security issues like bad code reviewing, unencrypted/unauthenticated communication and bad physical security, the attacks are seemingly easy to deploy. It’s up to the producers of these machines to start securing them. Companies still rely too much on security through obscurity and do not expect an attack because a hacker would need insider information. Previous articles suggest that it’s not extremely hard to get that information.


QotW #26: Malicious QR Code and Mitigation

2012-05-04 by roryalsop. 0 comments

This week’s Question of the Week was asked by Purge back in February.  His concern has been echoed in various publications – the worry that scanning one of the common QR codes you see in magazine adverts and on billboards could cause something malicious to happen as most QR scanners on smartphones take you straight to the URL encoded in the QR image. This isn’t a malicious QR (unless you count linking to a particular genre of music malicious) but how would you know?

logicalscope pointed out that a QR code was simply an encoding, so anything you could put in a URL could be encoded in a QR code. This could include XSS, SQL Injection or any other URL based attack.

handyjohn linked to a brief paper over on outlining how QR codes could be used to direct victims to an attack website. An attacker could simply print QR code stickers and place them over existing ones on popular advertising hoardings to fool people into going to a site either with malicious code, or that is a spoof of the expected website which can ask for credentials from the victim.

roryalsop focused on the mitigation, which can be very straightforward: rather than send the browser directly to the website, just display the URL that is encoded in the QR image. This way the user can make a decision whether it is a malicious website or not (within the usual bounds for Internet users.) Admittedly logicalscope’s final point, that the QR decoder application could have a vulnerability is also true, but by adding in a user validation step we can at least improve security.

How about storing this one in your phone as a Security Stack Exchange business card – assuming people trust you enough to scan it.

Liked this question of the week? Interested in reading it or adding an answer? See the question in full. Have questions of a security nature of your own? Security expert and want to help others? Come and join us at