Posts Tagged ‘Cyber Security’

Google Analytics Update

Wednesday, August 29th, 2012

Last year I wrote about taking apart a MySpace cookie.  Included in that posting was some discussion on Google analytics tools found within the cookie.  It was interesting and I got some good feedback about the blog entry.  I was contacted by Jim Meyer of the DoD Cyber Crime Center about some further research they had done on the Google analytics within cookies and a presentation they were preparing at the time for the 2012 DoD Cybercrime conference (if you saw the presentation at DoD let me know how it went).

They were able to determine more information about the specific pieces of the Google analytics cookie placed on a user’s computer when they go to a webpage that contains Google Analytics.

The Google Analytics Cookie collects stores and reports certain information about a user’s contact with a webpage that has the embedded Google analytics java code. This includes:

  • Data that can determine if a user is a new or returning user
  • When that user last visited the website
  • How long the user stayed on the website
  • How often the user comes to the site, and
  • Whether the user came directly to the website,
    •  Whether the user was referred to the site via another link
    • Or, whether the user located the site through the use of keywords.

Jim Meyer and his team used Googles open source code page to help define several pieces of the code and what exactly it was doing when downloaded. Here is some of what they were able to determine (The examples are the ones I used in my last posting with a little more explanation about what everything means. I explained how I translated the dates and times in my last posting). For a complete review of their findings contact Jim at the DoD Cyber Crime Center.  

Example

Cookie:            __utma

102911388.576917061.1287093264.1287098574.1287177795.3

__utma This records information about the site visited and is updated each time you visit the site.
102911388 This is a hash of the domain you are coming from
576917061 This is a randomly generated number from the Google cookie server
1287093264 This is the actual time of the first visit to the server
576917061.1287093264 These two together make up the unique ID for Google track users. Reportedly Google not track by person information or specific browser information.
1287098574 This is the time of the previous visit to the server
1287177795 This is the time last visited the server
3 This the number of times the site was been visited

 Example

Cookie:            __utmz

102911388.1287093264.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none) 

__utmz This cookie stores how you got to this site.
102911388  Domain hash
1287093264 Timestamp of when the cookie was last set
1 # of sessions at this time
1 # of different sources visitor has used to get to the site.
utmcsr Last website used to access the current website
=(direct) This means I went direct to the website, “Organic” would be from a google search, “Referring link” may show link coming from Search terms may.
|utmccn=(direct)  Adword campaign words can be found here
|utmcmd=(none) Search terms used to get to site may be in cookie here.

 Example

Cookie:            __utmb

102911388.0.10.1287177795 

__utmb This is the session cookie which is only good for 30 minutes.
102911388 This is a hash of the domain you are coming from
0 Number of pages viewed
10 meaning unknown
1287177795 The last time the page was visited

Remember though all of this can be different if the system deletes the cookies or the user runs an application that cleans the cookies out.  Also, it is all relative and depends on system and user behavior and when and how many times they have visited a particular site.

You can also go to find out more about the description of the cookies http://code.google.com/apis/analytics/docs/concepts/gaConceptsCookies.html#cookiesSet

Google Analytics can set four main cookies on the users machine:      

__utma Unique Visitors
__utmb Session Tracking
__utmc Session Tracking
__utmz Traffic Sources

Optional cookies set by Google Analytics:

__utmv Custom Value
__utmx Website Optimizer

Google Analytics creates varying expiration times for its cookies: 

__utma The information on unique user detection expire after 2 years
__utmz The information on tracking expire until 6 months).
__utmv The information on “Custom Tracking” will expire after 2 years
__utmx The information on the “Website Optimizer” will expire after 2 years
  The information about a current visit (visits) will expire after 30 minutes after the last pageview on the domain.

The original code schema written by Urchin was called UTM (Urchin Traffic Monitor) JavaScript code. It was designed to be compatible existing cookie usage and all the UTM cookie names begin with “_utm” to prevent any naming conflicts. 

Tracking the Urchin- from an investigative point of view

Okay so for some additional new stuff on Google analytics when examining the source code of a webpage. What is the Urchin? Google purchased a company called Urchin who had a technology to do traffic analysis. The technology is still referred in the cookies Urchin’s original names.

When examining a live webpage that contains Google analytics code embedded in the website you will come across code that looks similar to this:

<script type=”text/javascript”><!–var gaJsHost = ((”https:” == document.location.protocol) ? “https://ssl.” : “http://www.”);document.write(unescape(”%3Cscript src=’” + gaJsHost + “google-analytics.com/ga.js’ type=’text/javascript’%3E%3C/script%3E”));// –></script><script type=”text/javascript”><!–try {

var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker(”UA-9689708-5″);

pageTracker._trackPageview();

} catch(err) {}

// –></script> 

Search the source code for “getTracker” and you will find the following line: var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker(”UA-9689708-5″); which contains the websites assigned Google analytics account number “UA-9689708-5”. So what does this mean and how can it be of value to me when I am investigating a website? Let’s identify what the assigned number means: 

UA Stands for “Urchin Analytics” (the name of the company Google purchased to obtain the technology)
9689708 Google Analytics account number assigned by Google
5 Website profile number

How can I use this Google analytics number in an investigation? First you can go to http://www.ewhois.com/ to run the UA # and identify the company/person assigned the number.

The reponse you will get is something similar to this:

google analytics

Then run the Google Analytics number through Reverseinternet.com:

urchin

This is a little more of investigative use in that it is showing domains that use the same Google analytics Id, the Internet Protocol addresses assigned to the domains and the DNS servers used by the domains.

Using Reverseinternet.com allows you to identify any webpage where this Google Analytics Id has been embedded in the source code.  This can be of investigative value if the target has used the same Id on more than one webpage they control or monitor. Why would this occur? Google allows the user to monitor data from multiple sites from a single control panel.

So how does Google analytics work?

Google is probably a better place to find this out. You can go to http://code.google.com/apis/analytics/docs/concepts/gaConceptsOverview.html for a complete overview of how it works.

In short Google Analytics java code embedded in the webpage you visit collects information from the following sources when you connect to a webpage:

  • The HTTP request of the visitors browser
  • Browser/system information from the visitor
  • And it sends a cookie to the visiting system

All of this gives the webpage owner the ability to track persons going to their webpage. From an investigative point of view there is a certain amount of exposure due to the browser tracking that occurs and the fact that a cookie is placed on your investigative system. But there is the possibility from examining the page source code to tie the website through the Google Analytics Id to other webpages of interest.

A forensic look at the installed IDrive backup service files

Thursday, August 16th, 2012

I didn’t intend on dissecting files when I started looking at IDrive. My intent was to look at its operation and determine a method of file acquisition as a “Cloud” service. That is still an ongoing project. What I found though is a little disturbing from a user point of view, and fantastic from a forensic point of view. I originally wrote this last year and never got it posted.  When I originally looked at IDrive I found some interesting information. I thought after a year they would have changed their methods of obscuring their client information on the local machine. Alas, no….Here is what I found.

IDrive Background

From their corporate information page IDrive identifies them as a “service” of Pro Softnet Corporation based in Calabasas, California. Pro Softnet has been around since 1995 providing Internet-based solutions. They have several other products including IBackup and RemotePC.

Disturbing Findings or not so disturbing for the Forensic examiner

I downloaded the “Free” version of IDrive’s software.  I wanted to test it and potentially include it in our training as a discussion item on cloud investigation issues. IDrive is unique among the “Online Backup” providers in that they offer “Free” storage of up to 5 GB of data. The other companies in this space seem to only offer a free trial period of their product. IDrive was unique enough that I thought I needed to try it.

This short blog entry is not a review of the entire installation of the software. I did not look in to the registry or examine ever file. I did however find a few things that are worth mentioning for the forensic examiner. I quickly and easily installed their software and easily uploaded some test data into their storage.  I then started to poke around on my machine to identify where IDrive put files.  I did not have to go far. IDrive’s files are found on the local system hard drive under the IDrive folder in the “Program Files” folder.

In the main IDrive folder is the 128 bit “rc4.key” encrypted key file I am sure that is used by the system to communicate with the IDrive server. RC4 is almost 25 years old as an encryption scheme. It however is still in common use today.  I did not examine further its implementation in the communication scheme of the product or try to crack it..

IDrive Temp Folder

In the IDrive “Temp” folder there were two folders with files similarly named. The file “DLLOutput1.txt” contained only an IP address of 206.221.210.66 (and what appears to be a port number of 11663) which belongs to IDrives parent company Pro-Softnet.

The file DLLIntput1.txt similarly contained a small amount of important information. The format was: 

8-16-2012 11-52-21 AM

 We will discuss the username and password translation below.

LDB Folder

In the LDB folder is a file titled “IDriveLDB.IDr”. The file is an SQlite database containing file paths of the data to be backed up.

Log Folder

Under the “Log” folder is another file containing a file named “Realtime Trace.txt”. This file is a log file with connection dates and times.   This file contained the backup up operation to IDrive, which included the IDrive User name, data files names and paths, the start and end time of the backup, the number of files backed up and any excluded files from the backup.

Folder with local computer name

In the folder with the local computers name was found a file titled “Backupfile.txt”. This file contained a list of the files backed up to the IDrive server. In this same folder was another file “BackupSet.txt” that appeared to contain the dates and times of the backups.

IDdrive\”Username”

In the IDrive user folder there is a file called “IDriveE.ini”. The contents are a little lengthier but it is revealing.  At first glance there is the same IP address identified above, the port and much more information. I looked at the lines in the file and realized that some encryption scheme was used. The question is what was it?  Thinking I would not easily find out what the scheme was that was implemented, I used a program to simply try various cyphers common in obfuscation. Without much effort I revealed my passwords and my user name from the text. The obfuscation used by IDrive was a simple 2 position Cesar Cypher.

Text in File Translation
user 2 position Cesar Cypher and is my login user name
User Password=xxxxxxx 2 position Cesar Cypher and is my login password
gpercuuyqtf=xxxxxxxx 2 position Cesar Cypher and is “encpassword=mypassword”
Enc password=xxxxxx 2 position Cesar Cypher and is my encrypted Idrive password but only the first 6 characters of my password
wugtgocknkf=vqffBxgtguqhvyctg0eqo useremailid;todd@veresoftware.com

(Real password has been removed for my security….)

These were not the only lines that used the 2 position Cesar Cypher. In going through the entire file, the lines not in plaintext all used this same cypher to encode their data.

IDriveEUsername_Folder

In reviewing a file named “SerTraceFile.txt” I found a log file with more interesting information about the service and what it collects about my system. The file contained many pieces of information about the IDrive service and the local machine including the local PC name and the NIC card’s MAC address.

Conclusion

WOW….So in looking at IDrive, the “Encrypted” backup service, I found from a forensic point of view, some substantially important failings on the local machine. Well not failings from an investigative point of view, this is actually some great information.  I made no attempt at the writing of this blog entry to use the file information to login from a separate machine. Until Prosoft changes the IDrive local machine files Digital Forensic examiners will have access to some useful information from the IDrive files.

Post script

I am sure this will be changed in a follow-on version by Pro-Soft (at least I hope so), but for the record what I found is limited to my examination of these specific versions on a Windows 7 machine. The IDrive versions I used in this testing were 3.3.4 and3.4.1.

Some thoughts on Howard Schmidt’s appointment as Cyber Security Coordinator

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

I first met Howard Schmidt around 1999 at one of the many National Institute of Justice (NIJ) cybercrime programs we eventually served on together. Howard was someone I looked up to and sought advice from when we saw each other. I have always been impressed by his demeanor and his ability to simplify the complex cybercrime problem when he speaks.

So, I thought initially that I should jump out and comment on my friend Howard’s new appointment as the U.S. Cyber Security Coordinator and congratulate him on the appointment.  But, I then I thought I should wait and not be part of the pack.

After the announcement of his appointment, I surfed the Web to see what kind of reaction his appointment would cause in the media and the blogosphere.  What I have seen so far is fairly tame for an Obama appointment. 

For the most part the traditional media have been fairly benign in their response to the announcement. It appears to them it is just another Obama “Czar”. Most seemed interested in his introduction as the new Cyber Security Coordinator through a videotaped presentation on the White House’s website rather than his ability to do the job. 

Indeed, Howard’s overall non-political stances appear to have placed him in the right place at the right time. And his extensive back ground in the cyber crime fighting arena is encouraging for a lot us involved in the cyber crime fight.

But some people are not as encouraged. The attacks on Howard have already started, as evidenced by the comments on Bruce Schneier’s  blog. (Ironic that the very technology he is asked to defend is the same anonymous place used to attack him.)If he was involved as part of the Bush administration, this promises to NOT be an improvement. Others here have correctly observed that it is a position completely set up to fail. Schmidt has never stayed in any one position very long. What has he ever actually accomplished over the years?

By taking this job, Schmidt is able to cash out of eBay without having to pay some taxes on gains he made there.

Howard, like so many in the public eye, takes a beating for being able to stand up and offer themselves to the wolves of criticism.  He is a fine man, a veteran federal and military investigator, an experienced law enforcement officer, and a Chief Security Officer in large corporations.

In other words, he has seen the problems from multiple levels within and from without government. His appointment will give him the opportunity to put a varied background of experience to work on a problem affecting everyone. How many people considered by the Obama administration had a resume to compare? 

So what should Howard focus on and attempt to accomplish? First of all, he could help to define better the understanding in this country of the differences between Cyber-Security and Cyber-Crime. All too often they get melded into the same concept or believed they are the same thing.

Some think that Cyber Security matter are the only issues he has or should deal with. Investigating Cyber Crime is a complex issue with just as many complex, multi-level facets as Cyber Security.  Howard’s clear understanding of the issues related to both give him an advantage. I would just like to see Cyber Crime investigation given the attention it needs and deserves.

Given his background and the infighting amongst the current bureaucrats governing IT security and cybercrime in the United States, Howard has a rough road ahead. Even though he  does seem to want  to remain out of the politics of the job (as evidenced by his release of a videotaped statement rather than a press conference),  many feel the job is all title and no authoritative bite.

With the dissatisfaction of Melissa Hathaway and others that where standing in line or considered for the job this year, I hope the Obama administration gives Howard the latitude and support  to do the work that needs to be done.  Good luck Howard…..

Surprise!!! The White House Acting Cybersecurity Czar Resigns

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

A not so good announcement today from came from Washington, about the resignation of Melissa Hathaway as Acting Cyberczar. This certainly isn’t a surprise given the inability for the White House to find a candidate. As reported a few weeks ago on Forbes.com the Whitehouse has had some difficulty in recruiting the significant high level Industry executive it’s wanted.

So what does this do for cybersecurity and cybercrime investigation in the U.S.? Nothing, but that is what has been happening for some time now. The direction of the past two administrations has focused in other issues (Bush the War in Iraq and Obama the Economy). Both important distractions but multitasking should the name of the game. The Federal government employs enough people to be able to focus on more than one politicized problem. Simplifying the problem and involve multiple stakeholders in addressing the core issues would be of some help. Unfortunately as an outside observer I’ll I see is a waiting game. Wait until the Czar is appointed and wait until he/she develops a plan, and wait until it is reviewed and wait until we can get the plan funded and wait until congress approves the funding and wait until we can build a bureaucracy to support the project and wait and wait and wait….

Obama may shortly appoint his Cyberczar and we might get some progress on cybercrime but, we also may have to wait awhile.

Threat of Cyber Crime Continues to Increase

Friday, February 13th, 2009

Jim Kouri, formerly the Chief of Police of the New York City housing project in Washington Heights, wrote recently in MensNewsDaily.com about Cyber Crime and its increasing popularity as a criminal endeavor. He rightfully identified that there is a difference between critical infrastructure protection (Cyber security threats) and Cyber crimes (traditional crimes committed through the use of technology). This is far too often overlooked at the national level and appropriate consideration given to both areas. Threats to our critical infrastructure are not the same as Cyber criminals stealing from our citizens. However, from the initial look at a crime, say a “Phishing” scam against a bank, a law enforcement investigator does not know if this criminal act is a foreign state attacking our economic system by trying to make the bank fail, or a teenager from one of the old eastern block countries simply scamming unsuspecting customers out of their funds.

Law enforcement from the outset often ignores these crimes due to the investigative complexity of the crime and the lack of training and tools to effective pursue the evidence. The current economic situation is making things even worse for those agency’s who do attempt to address Internet based crime. In California High Tech Crime Task Forces are being shut down due to the budget crisis. The Northern California Computer Crime Task Force has shut down and the San Diego area CATCH Team will shut down on February 16th. Both of these task forces have made a significant impact on criminals using the Internet to commit crimes. Yet, we are allowing them to close and very little is being done to stop it.

The new administration is due to announce the appointment of its new Cyber Czar. I don’t have a hope for the near future with the President saying one thing before his inauguration:

“As president, I’ll make cyber security the top priority that it should be in the 21st century,” … “I’ll declare our cyber-infrastructure a strategic asset and appoint a National Cyber Adviser who will report directly to me.” (from a speech at Purdue University last July)

And doing another, which is by most accounts putting the new Cyber Czar post several layers down in the Department of Homeland Security. If it does end up in DHS it will be another function unable to deal with the national problem, because the appointee will have to facilitate conversations with the FBI and other organizations outside of DHS responsible for Cyber crime investigation. In addition the new Cyber Czar would have to fight for funding within his or her own organization.

As with the intelligence collection and review issues, as determined by the 911 commission, Cyber crime is another area not coordinated nationally with the many different stake holders in the arena. The better model would be to have the Cyber Czar in the White House with positive control over budgets and agency actions responding to the problem. The National Intelligence Director’s position is the best model for this issue. The problem is not for a single agency to try and solve but it should be the responsibility of a single entity to coordinate the response nationally. Cyber crime is dealt with at all levels of law enforcement in this country, from the City police investigator looking into Vice crime on Craig’s list to International Child Porn rings investigated by the FBI. Yet with all this crime occurring there is no coordination of cyber criminal intelligence or investigations from the bottom to the top.

Lastly, the person selected as Cyber Czar should have a concept of operational response to both the Infrastructure Protection space as well as the Cyber crime arena. They are two different animals and require different skill sets, but complementary responses. We will have to wait and see if the President’s pick is up to the challenge and given the proper authority and resources required to accomplish the mission.

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,