Security Unlocked


Contact Us; Phish You!

Ep. 28


Threat actors are pesky and, once again, they’re up to no good. A new methodology has schemers compromising online forms where users submit their information like their names, email addresses, and, depending on the type of site, some queries relating to their life. This new method indicates that the attackers have figured out a way around the CAPTCHA’s that have been making us all prove we’re not robots by identifying fire hydrants since 1997. And what’s more, we’re not quite sure how they’ve done it.  

In this episode, hosts Natalia Godyla and Nic Fillingham sit down with Microsoft threat analyst, Emily Hacker, to discuss what’s going on behind the scenes as Microsoft begins to dig into this new threat and sort through how best to stop it.  


In This Episode You Will Learn: 

  • Why this attack seems to be more effective against specific professionals. 
  • Why this new method of attack has a high rate of success. 
  • How to better prepare yourself for this method of attack 

Some Questions We Ask: 

  • What is the endgame for these attacks?  
  • What are we doing to protect against IceID in these attacks? 
  • Are we in need of a more advanced replacement for CAPTCHA? 


Emily Hacker: 

Investigating a Unique ‘Form’ of Email Delivery for IcedID Malware 

Nic Fillingham’s LinkedIn: 

Natalia Godyla’s LinkedIn: 

Microsoft Security Blog: 



Security Unlocked: CISO Series with Bret Arsenault 


[Full transcript can be found at]

Nic Fillingham: (00:08)

Hello and welcome to Security Unlocked, a new podcast from Microsoft where we unlock insights from the latest in news and research from across Microsoft security, engineering and operations teams. I'm Nick Fillingham.

Natalia Godyla: (00:20)

And I'm Natalia Godyla. In each episode we'll discuss the latest stories from Microsoft Security, deep dive into the newest threat intel, research, and data science.

Nic Fillingham: (00:30)

And profile some of the fascinating people working on artificial intelligence in Microsoft Security.

Natalia Godyla: (00:36)

And now, let's unlock the pod.

Nic Fillingham: (00:40)

Hello, the internet. Hello, listeners. Welcome to episode 28 of Security Unlocked. Nic and Natalia back with you once again for a, a regular, uh, episode of the podcast. Natalia, how are you?

Natalia Godyla: (00:50)

Hi, Nic. I'm doing well. I'm stoked to have Emily Hacker, a threat analyst at Microsoft back on the show today.

Nic Fillingham: (00:58)

Yes, Emily is back on the podcast discussing a blog that she co-authored with Justin Carroll, another return champ here on the podcast, called Investigating a Unique Form of Email Delivery for IcedID Malware, the emphasis is on form was, uh, due to the sort of word play there. That's from April 9th. Natalia, TLDR, here. What's, what's Emily talking about in this blog?

Natalia Godyla: (01:19)

In this blog she's talking about how attackers are delivering IcedID malware through websites contact submission forms by impersonating artists who claim that the companies use their artwork illegally. It's a new take targeting the person managing the submission form.

Nic Fillingham: (01:34)

Yeah, it's fascinating. The attackers here don't need to go and, you know, buy or steal email lists. They don't need to spin up, uh, you know, any e- email infrastructure or get access to botnets. They're, they're really just finding websites that have a contact as form. Many do, and they are evading CAPTCHA here, and we talk about that with, with, with, uh, Emily about they're somehow getting around the, the CAPTCHA technology to try and weed out automation. But they are getting around that which sort of an interesting part of the conversation.

Nic Fillingham: (02:03)

Before we get into that conversation, though, a reminder to Security Unlock listeners that we have a new podcast. We just launched a new podcast in partnership with the CyberWire. It is Security Unlocked: CISO Series with Bret Arsenault. Bret Arsenault is the chief information security officer, the CISO, for Microsoft, and we've partnered with him and his team, uh, as well as the CyberWire, to create a brand new podcast series where Bret gets to chat with security and technology leaders at Microsoft as well as some of his CISO peers across the industry. Fantastic conversations into some of the biggest challenges in cyber security today, some of the strategies that these big, big organizations are, are undertaking, including Microsoft, and some practical guidance that really is gonna mirror the things that are being done by security teams here at Microsoft and are some of Microsoft's biggest customers.

Nic Fillingham: (02:52)

So, I urge you all to, uh, go check that one out. You can find it at the CyberWire. You can also go to, and that's CISO as in C-I-S-O. CISO or CISO, if you're across the pond,, but for now, on with the pod.

Natalia Godyla: (03:12)

On with the pod.

Nic Fillingham: (03:18)

Welcome back to the Security Unlocked Podcast. Emily Hacker, thanks for joining us.

Emily Hacker: (03:22)

Thank you for having me again.

Nic Fillingham: (03:24)

Emily, you are, uh, coming back to the podcast. You're a returning champion. Uh, this is, I think your, your second appearance and you're here-

Emily Hacker: (03:30)

Yes, it is.

Nic Fillingham: (03:30)

... on behalf of your colleague, uh, Justin Carroll, who has, has also been on multiple times. The two of you collaborated on a blog post from April the 9th, 2021, called Investigating a Unique Form-

Emily Hacker: (03:43)


Nic Fillingham: (03:43)

... in, uh, "Form", of email delivery for IcedID malware. The form bit is a pun, is a play on words.

Emily Hacker: (03:51)

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Nic Fillingham: (03:51)

I- is it not?

Emily Hacker: (03:53)

Oh, it definitely is. Yeah.

Nic Fillingham: (03:54)

(laughs) I'm glad I picked up on that, which is a, you know, fascinating, uh, campaign that you've uncovered, the two of you uncovered and you wrote about it on the blog post. Before we jump into that, quick recap, please, if you could just reintroduce yourself to the audience. Uh, what, what do you do? What's your day-to-day look like? Who do you work with?

Emily Hacker: (04:09)

Yeah, definitely. So, I am a threat intelligence analyst, and I'm on the Threat Intelligence Global Engagement and Response team here at Microsoft. And, I am specifically focused on mostly email-based threats, and, as you mentioned on this blog I collaborate with my coworker, Justin Carroll, who is more specifically focused on end-point threats, which is why we collaborated on this particular blog and the particular investigation, because it has both aspects. So, I spend a lot of my time investigating both credential phishing, but also malicious emails that are delivering malware, such as the ones in this case. And also business email, compromise type scam emails.

Nic Fillingham: (04:48)

Got it. And so readers of the Microsoft Security Blog, listeners of Security Unlocked Podcast will know that on a regular basis, your team, and then other, uh, threat intelligence teams from across Microsoft, will publish their findings of, of new campaigns and new techniques on the blog. And then we, we try and bring those authors onto the podcast to tell us about what they found that's what's happened in this blog. Um, the two of you uncovered a new, a unique way of attackers to deliver the IcedID malware. Can you walk us through this, this campaign and this technique that you, you both uncovered?

Emily Hacker: (05:21)

Yeah, definitely. So this one was really fun because as I mentioned, it evolved both email and endpoint. So this one was, as you mentioned, it was delivering IcedID. So we initially found the IcedID on the endpoint and looking at how this was getting onto various endpoints. We identified that it was coming from Outlook, which means it's coming from email. So we can't see too much in terms of the email itself from the endpoint, we can just see that it came from Outlook, but given the network connections that the affected machines were making directly after accessing Outlook, I was able to find the emails in our system that contains emails that have been submitted by user 'cause either reported to junk or reported as phish or reported as a false positive, if they think it's not a phish. And so that's where I was actually able to see the email itself and determined that there was some nefarious activity going on here.

Emily Hacker: (06:20)

So the emails in this case were really interesting in that they're not actually the attacker sending an email to a victim, which is what we normally see. So normally the attacker will either, you know, compromise a bunch of senders and send out emails that way, which is what we've seen a lot in a lot of other malware or they'll create their own attacker infrastructure and send emails directly that way. In this case, the attackers were abusing the contact forms on the websites. So if you are visiting a company's website and you're trying to contact them a lot of times, they're not going to just have a page where they offer up their emails or their phone numbers. And you have to fill in that form, which feels like it goes into the void sometimes. And you don't actually know who it went to in this case, the, the attackers were abusing hundreds of these contact forms, not just targeting any specific company.

Emily Hacker: (07:08)

And another thing that was unique about this is that for some of the affected companies that we had observed, I went and looked at their websites and their contact form does require a CAPTCHA. So it does appear that the attackers in this case have automated the filling out of these contact forms. And that they've automated a way around these CAPTCHAs, just given the, the sheer volume of these emails I'm seeing. This is a good way of doing this because for the attacker, this is a much more high fidelity method of contacting these companies because they don't have to worry about having an incorrect email address if they have gotten a list off of like Pastebin or a list, you know, they purchased a list perhaps from another criminal.

Emily Hacker: (07:52)

A lot of times in those cases, if they're emailing directly, there's gonna be some, some false emails in those lists that just don't get delivered. With the contact form, they're designed to be delivered. So it's gonna give the attacker a higher chance of success in terms of being delivered to a real inbox.

Natalia Godyla: (08:11)

And so when we, we talk about the progression of the attack, they're automating this process of submitting to these contact forms. What are they submitting in the form? What is the, and what is the end goal? So there's malware somewhere in their-

Emily Hacker: (08:27)

Mh-mm-hmm (affirmative).

Natalia Godyla: (08:27)

... response. What next?

Emily Hacker: (08:29)

Yeah. It's a really good question. So the emails or rather the contact form submissions themselves, they're all containing a, a lore. So the contents themselves are lore that the attacker is pretending to be a, um, artist, a photographer, and illustrator, something along those lines. There's a handful of different jobs that they're pretending to be. And they are claiming that the company that they are contacting has used an image that belongs to the artist, illustrator, photographer on their website without permission. And so the attacker is saying, "You used my art without permission. I'm going to sue you if you don't take this down, if you wanna know what aren't talking about, click on this link and it'll show you the exact art that I'm talking about or the exact photo." What have you, all of the emails were virtually identical in terms of the content and the lore.

Emily Hacker: (09:21)

The attacker was using a bunch of different fake emails. So when you fill out a contact form, you have to put your email so the, the company can contact you, I guess, in reply, if they need to. And the attackers, almost every single email that I looked at had a different fake attacker email, but they did all follow a really consistent pattern in terms of the, the name, Mel and variations on that name. So they had like Melanie, I saw like Molina, like I said, there was hundreds of them. So the email would be Mel and then something relating to photography or illustration or art, just to add a little bit more credence, I think to their, to their lore. It made it look like the email address was actually associated with a real photographer. The, the attacker had no need to actually register or create any of those emails because they weren't sending from those emails. They were sending from the contact form. So it made it a lot easier for the attacker to appear legitimate without having to go through the trouble of creating legitimate emails.

Emily Hacker: (10:16)

And then the, um, the email itself from the recipients view would appear other than the fact that it felt fishy, at least to me, but, you know, I literally do this for a living. So maybe just everything feels fishy to me. Other than that, the email itself is going to appear totally legitimate because since it's coming through the contact form, it's not going to be from an email address. They don't recognize because a lot of times these contact forms are set up in a way where it'll send from the recipient's domain. So for example, a contact form, I don't know if this is how this works, but just as an example at Microsoft might actually send from or the other large percentage of these that I saw were sent from the contact form hosting provider. So there are a lot of providers that host is kind of content for companies. And so the emails would be coming from those known email addresses and the emails themselves are gonna contain all of the expected fields, all in all. It's basically a legitimate email other than the fact that it's malicious.

Nic Fillingham: (11:17)

And, and just reading through the sample email that you, that you have in the blog post here, like sort of grammatically speaking it's, it reads very legitimately like, the-

Emily Hacker: (11:26)

Mh-mm-hmm (affirmative).

Nic Fillingham: (11:27)

... you know, the s- the, the grammar and the spelling is, it's colloquial, but it's, but it seems, you know, pretty legitimate. The idea of a photographer, a freelance photographer, stumbling upon their images being used without permission. You know, you hear stories of that happening. That seems to be somewhat plausible, not knowing how to contact the, the infringing organization. And then therefore going to the generic contact us form like this all, this all seems quite plausible.

Emily Hacker: (11:52)

And, definitely. And it's als one of those situations where even though, like I said, I do this for a living, so I read this and I was like, there's no way that's legit. But if my job was to be responsible for that email inbox, where stuff like this came in, it would be hard for me to weigh the consequences of like, is it more likely that this is like a malicious email? Or is it yeah. Is it possible that this is legit? And if I ignore it, my company is gonna get sued. Like, I feel like that kind of would give the recipient that, that weird spot of being like, "I don't want to infect the company with malware, or, you know, I don't wanna click on a phishing link if that's what this is, but also if I don't and then we get sued, is it my fault?"

Emily Hacker: (12:33)

I just, I, I feel for the recipient. So I, I understand why people would be clicking on this one and infecting themselves. And speaking of clicking on that is the other thing that's included in this email. So that was the last bit of this email that turns us from just being weird/legitimate, to totally malicious. All of the emails contain a link. And, um, the links themselves are also abusing legitimate infrastructure. So that's, uh, the next bit of abused, legitimate infrastructure that just adds that next bit of like believability if that's a word to this campaign.

Nic Fillingham: (13:05)

It is a word.

Emily Hacker: (13:06)

Okay, good believability. Is that the, the links, you know, we're, if you don't work insecurity, and even if you do work in security, we're all kind of trained like, "Oh, check the links, hover over the links and make sure it's going somewhere that you expect and make sure it's not going to like bad site dot bad, dot bad or something," you know, but these don't do that. All of the emails contained a link. And I've looked at literally hundreds of these, and they all contain, um, a different URL, but the same domain. If you click on the link, when you receive the email, it'll take you actually to a legitimate Google authentication page that'll ask you to log in with your Google credentials, which again, every step along the way of this, of the email portion of this, of this attack, the attacker just took extra steps to make it seem as real as possible, or to almost like every piece of security advice.

Emily Hacker: (14:01)

I feel like they did that thing. So it seemed more legitimate because it's not a phishing page. It's not like a fake Google page that's stealing your credentials. It's a real where you would log in with your real Google credentials. Another thing that this does outside of just adding an air of legitimacy to the emails, it also can make it difficult for some security automation products. So a product that would be looking at emails and detonating the link to see if they're malicious and this case, it would detonate the link and it would land on, you know, a real Google authentication page. And in some cases it may not be able to authenticate. And then it would just mark these as good, because it would see what it expected to see. So, outside of just seeming legit, it also makes, you know, security products make this think it's more legit as well. But from there, the, uh, user would be redirected through a series of attacker own domains and would eventually download a zip file, which if they unzipped, they would find the IcedID payload.

Emily Hacker: (15:06)

So in this case, it's delivering IcedID, although this technique could be used to deliver other stuff as well, but it's not necessarily surprising that it's delivering IcedID right now, because pretty much everything I feel like I'm seeing lately as I study. And I don't think I'm alone in that there's murmurings that IcedID might be replacing Emotets now that you Emotet has been taken down in terms of being, you know, the annoyingly present malware. (laughs) So this is just one of many delivery methods that we've seen for IcedID malware lately. It's certainly in my opinion, one of the more interesting ones, because in the past, we've seen IcedID delivered a lot via email, but, um, just delivered via, you know, the normal type of malicious email if you will, with a compromised email sending with a, a zip attachment, this is much more interesting.

Emily Hacker: (15:56)

But in this case, if the user downloaded the payload, the payload would actually do many things. So in this case, it was looking for machine information. It was looking to see what kind of security tools were in place to see what kind of antivirus the machine was running. It was getting IP and system information. It was getting, you know, domain information and also looking to access credentials that might be stored in your browser. And on top of that, it was also dropping Cobalt Strike, which is another fun tool that we see used in every single incident lately. It feels like, um, which means that this can give attacker full control of a compromised device.

Natalia Godyla: (16:38)

So, what are we doing to help protect customers against IcedID? In the blog you stated that we are partnering with a couple of organizations, as well as working with Google.

Emily Hacker: (16:52)

Yes. So we have notified Google of this activity because it is obviously abusing some of their infrastructure in terms of the sites at And they seem to be doing a pretty good job in terms of finding these and taking them down pretty quickly. A lot of times that I'll see new emails come in, I'll go to, you know, click on the link and see what it's doing. And the site will already be taken down, which is good. However, the thing about security is that a lot of times we were playing Catch Up or like, Whack-A-Mole, where they're always just gonna be a step ahead of us because we can't pre block everything that they're going to do. So this is still, um, something that we're also trying to keep an eye on from, from the delivery side as well.

Emily Hacker: (17:34)

Um, one thing to note is that since these are coming from legitimate emails that are expected is that I have seen a fair bit like, uh, a few of these, uh, actually, um, where the, the customers have their environment configured in a way where even if we mark it as phish, it still ends up delivered. So they have a, what is like a mail flow rule that might be like allow anything from our contact form, which makes sense, because they wouldn't wanna be blocking legitimate requests from co- from customers in their contact form. So with that in mind, we also wanna be looking at this from the endpoint. And so we have also written a few rules to identify the behaviors associated with the particular IcedID campaign.

Emily Hacker: (18:16)

And it will notify users if the, the behaviors are seen on their machine, just in case, you know, they have a mail flow rule that has allowed the email through, or just in case the attackers change their tactics in the email, and it didn't hit on our rule anymore or something, and a couple slipped through. Then we would still identify this on the endpoint and not to mention those behaviors that the rules are hitting on are before the actual IcedID payload is delivered. So if everything went wrong in the email got delivered and Google hadn't taken the site down yet, and the behavioral rule missed, then the payload itself is detected as I study by our antivirus. So there's a lot in the way of protections going in place for this campaign.

Nic Fillingham: (18:55)

Emily, I, I wanna be sort of pretty clear here with, with folks listening to the podcast. So, you know, you've, you've mentioned the, the a, a couple of times, and really, you're not, you're not saying that Google has been compromised or the infrastructure is compromised simply that these attackers have, uh, have come up with a, a, you know, pretty potentially clever way of evading some of the detections that Google, uh, undoubtedly runs to abuse their, their hosting services, but they could just evasively has been targeting OneDrive or-

Emily Hacker: (19:25)

Mh-mm-hmm (affirmative).

Nic Fillingham: (19:25)

... some other cloud storage.

Emily Hacker: (19:25)

That's correct. And we do see, you know, attackers abusing our own infrastructure. We've seen them abusing OneDrive, we've seen them abusing SharePoint. And at Microsoft, we have teams, including my team devoted to finding when that's occurring and remediating it. And I'm sure that Google does too. And like I said, they're doing a pretty done a good job of it. By the time I get to a lot of these sites, they're already down. But as I mentioned, security is, is a game of Whack-A-Mole. And so for, from Google point of view, I don't envy the position they're in because I've seen, like I mentioned hundreds upon hundreds of these emails and each one is a using a unique link. So they can't just outright block this from occurring because the attacker will just go and create another one.

Natalia Godyla: (20:05)

So I have a question that's related to our earlier discussion. You, you mentioned that they're evading the CAPTCHA. I thought that the CAPTCHA was one of the mechanisms in place to reduce spam.

Emily Hacker: (20:19)

Mh-mm-hmm (affirmative).

Natalia Godyla: (20:19)

So how is it doing that? Does this also indicate that we're coming to a point where we need to have to evolve the mechanisms on the forms to be a little bit more sophisticated than CAPTCHA?

Emily Hacker: (20:33)

I'm not entirely sure how the attackers are doing this because I don't know what automation they're using. So I can't see from their end, how they're evading the CAPTCHA. I can just see that some of the websites that I know that they have abused have a CAPTCHA in place. I'm not entirely sure.

Nic Fillingham: (20:52)

Emily is that possible do you think that one of the reasons why CAPTCHA is being invaded. And we talked earlier about how the, sort of the grammar of these mails is actually quite sophisticated. Is it possible? This is, this is a hands on keyboard manual attack? That there's actually not a lot of automation or maybe any automation. And so this is actually humans or a human going through, and they're evading CAPTCHA because they're actually humans and not an automated script?

Emily Hacker: (21:17)

There was another blog that was released about a similar campaign that was using the abusing of the contact forms and actually using a very similar lore with the illustrators and the, the legal Gotcha type thing and using That was actually, it was very well written and it was released by Cisco Talos at the end of last year, um, at the end of 2020. So I focused a lot on the email side of this and what the emails themselves looked like and how we could stop these emails from happening. And then also what was happening upon clicks over that, like I said, we could see what was happening on the endpoint and get these to stop.

Emily Hacker: (21:55)

This blog actually focused a lot more on the technical aspect of what was being delivered, but also how it was being delivered. And one thing that they noted here was that they were able to see that the submissions were performed in an automated mechanism. So Cisco Talos was able to see that these are indeed automated. I suspected that they were automated based on the sheer volume, but I Talos is very good. They're very good intelligence organization. And I felt confident upon reading their blog that this was indeed automated, how it's being captured though, I still don't know.

Natalia Godyla: (22:35)

What's next for your research on IcedID? Does this round out your team's efforts in understanding this particular threat, or are, are you now continuing to review the emails, understand more of the attack?

Emily Hacker: (22:52)

So this is certainly not the end for IcedID. Through their Microsoft Security Intelligence, Twitter account. I put out my team and I put out a tweet just a couple of weeks ago, about four different IcedID campaigns that we were seeing all at the same time. I do believe this was one of them. They don't even seem related. There was one that was emails that contained, um, zip files. There was one that contained emails that contained password protected zip files that was targeting specifically Italian companies. There was this one, and then there was one that was, um, pretending to be Zoom actually. And that was even a couple of weeks ago. So there's gonna be more since then. So it's something that, like I mentioned briefly earlier, IcedID almost feels to be kind of, it feels a little bit like people are calling it like a, the next wave of replacement after Emotech are taken down.

Emily Hacker: (23:43)

And I don't know necessarily that that's true. I don't know that this will be the new Emotech so to speak, Emotech was Emotech And IcedID is IcedID but it does certainly feel like I've been seeing it a lot more lately. A lot of different attackers seem to be using it and therefore it's being delivered in different ways. So I think that it's gonna be one that my team is tracking for awhile, just by nature of different attackers using it, different delivery mechanisms. And it'll be, it'll be fun to see where this goes.

Nic Fillingham: (24:13)

What is it about this campaign or about this particular technique that makes it your Moby Dick-

Emily Hacker: (24:17)


Nic Fillingham: (24:17)

... if I may use the analogy.

Emily Hacker: (24:20)

I don't know. I've been thinking about that. And I think it has to do with the fact that it is so, like, it just feels like a low blow. I don't know. I think that's literally it like they're abusing the company's infrastructure. They're sending it to like people whose job is to make sure that their companies are okay. They're sending a fake legal threat. They're using legit Google sites. They're using a legit Google authentication, and then they're downloading IcedID. Like, can you at least have the decency, descend to crappy like unprotected zip attachment so that-

Nic Fillingham: (24:49)


Emily Hacker: (24:49)

... we at least know you're malicious, like, come on. It's just for some reason it, I don't know if it's just 'cause it's different or if it's because I'm thinking back to like my day before security. And I, if I saw this email as this one that I would fall for, like maybe. And so I think that there's just something about that and about the, the fact that it's making it harder to, to fully scope and to really block, because we don't want to block legitimate contact emails from being delivered to these companies. And obviously they don't want that either. So I think that's it.

Nic Fillingham: (25:22)

What is your guidance to customers? You know, I'm a security person working at my company and I wanna go run this query. If I run this, I feel like I'm gonna get a ton of results. What do I do from there?

Emily Hacker: (25:33)

That's a good question. So this is an advanced hunting query, which can be used in the Microsoft Security portal. And it's written in advanced hunting query language. So if a customer has access to that portal, they can just copy and paste and search, but you're right. It is written fairly generically to a point where if you don't have, you know, advanced hunting, you can still read this and search and whatever methodology, whatever, you know, searching capabilities you do have, you would just have to probably rewrite it. But what this one is doing the top one, 'cause I, I have two of them written here. The first one is looking specifically at the email itself. So that rejects that's written there is the, um,

Emily Hacker: (26:16)

All of the emails that we have seen associated with this have matched on that rejects. There was this morning, like I said, I was talking to a different team that was also looking into this and I'm trying to identify if she found, um, a third pattern, if she did, I will update the, um, AHQ and we have, we can post AHQ publicly on the Microsoft advanced hunting query, get hub repo, which means that customers can find them if we, if we change them later and I'll be doing that if that's the case, but point being this rejects, basically it takes the very long, full URL of this and matches on the parts that are fairly specific to this email.

Emily Hacker: (27:02)

So they all contain, you know, some of them contain ID, some of them don't, but they all contain that like nine characters, they all contain view. It's just certain parts of the URL that we're seeing consistently. And that's definitely not by itself going to bubble up just the right emails, which is why have it joined on the email events there. And from there, the, I have instructed the users to replace the following query with the subject line generated by their own contacts, their own websites contact submission form. What I have in there are just a few sample subject lines. So if your website contact form generates the subject line of contact us or new submission or contact form, then those will work. But if the website con-, you know, contact form, I've seen a bunch of different subject lines. Then what this does is that it'll join the two. So that it's only gonna bubble up emails that have that with that specific pattern and a subject line relating to the contact form.

Emily Hacker: (28:02)

And given the searching that I've done, that should really narrow it down. I don't think there's going to be a ton in the way of other contact emails that are using that are showing up for these people. I wouldn't be surprised if this did return one email and it turned out to be a malicious email related to this campaign. But if the contact form generates its own subject line per what the user inputs on the website, then, you know, the screenshots that are in the blog may help with that, but it might be more difficult to find in that case. There's a second advanced hunting query there, which we'll find on the endpoint.

Natalia Godyla: (28:37)

And I know we're just about at time here, but one quick question on endpoint security. So if a customer is using Microsoft Defender for endpoint, will it identify and stop IcedID?

Emily Hacker: (28:49)

Yes, it will. The IcedID payload in this case, we're seeing Defender detecting it and blocking it. And that was what, one of the things I was talking about earlier is that Defender is actually doing such a good job. That it's a little bit difficult for me to see what's, uh, gonna happen next because I'm limited to, um, seeing kind of what is happening on customer boxes. And so, because our products are doing such a good job of blocking this, it means that I don't have a great view of what the attacker was going to do next because they can't, 'cause we're blocking it. So it's of mostly a win, but it's stopping me from seeing if they are planning on doing, you know, ransomware or whatever, but I'd rather not know if it means that our customers are protected from this.

Nic Fillingham: (29:32)

Well, Emily Hacker, thank you so much for your time. Thanks to you and Justin for, for working on this. Um, we'd love to have you back again on Security Unlocked to learn more about some of the great work you're doing.

Emily Hacker: (29:41)

Definitely, thank you so much for having me.

Natalia Godyla: (29:47)

Well, we had a great time unlocking insights into security, from research to artificial intelligence. Keep an eye out for our next episode.

Nic Fillingham: (29:54)

And don't forget to tweet us @msftsecurity or email us at, with topics you'd like to hear on a future episode. Until then, stay safe.

Natalia Godyla: (30:05)

Stay secure.

More Episodes


Discovering Router Vulnerabilities with Anomaly Detection

Ep. 37
Ready for a riddle? What do 40 hypothetical high school students and our guest on this episode have in common?Whythey can help you understand complex cyber-attack methodology, of course!In this episode of Security Unlocked, hostsNic FillinghamandNatalia Godylaare brought back to school byPrincipalSecurityResearcher,Jonathan Bar Or who discusses vulnerabilities in NETGEAR Firmware. During the conversation Jonathan walks through how his teamrecognized the vulnerabilities and worked with NETGEAR to secure the issue,andhelps usunderstand exactly how the attack workedusing an ingenious metaphor.In This Episode You Will Learn: How a side-channel attack worksWhy attackers are moving away fromoperating systemsand towards network equipmentWhy routers are an easy access point for attacksSome Questions We Ask: How do you distinguish an anomaly from an attack?What are the differences between a side-channel attack and an authentication bypass?What can regular users do to protect themselvesfrom similarattacks? Resources: Jonathan Bar Or’s Blog Post: Bar Or’s LinkedIn: Fillingham’s LinkedIn: Godyla’s LinkedIn: Security Blog: Related: Security Unlocked: CISO Series with Bret Arsenault

Securing the Internet of Things

Ep. 36
Thereused to bea time when our appliances didn’t talk back to us, but it seems like nowadays everything in our home is getting smarter.Smart watches, smart appliances,smart lights-smart everything! Thisconnectivity to the internetis what we call the Internet of Things(IoT).It’s becoming increasingly common for our everyday items to be “smart,” and while thatmay providea lot of benefits, like your fridge reminding you when you may need to get more milk, it alsomeans thatall ofthose devices becomesusceptible to cyberattacks.On this episode of Security Unlocked, hostsNic FillinghamandNatalia Godylatalk toArjmandSamuelabout protecting IoT devices, especially with a zero trust approach.Listenin to learnnot onlyaboutthe importance of IoT security,but also what Microsoft is doing to protect againstsuchattacks and how you canbettersecurethesedevices.In This Episode You Will Learn: Whatthe techniquesareto verify explicitly on IoT devicesHow to apply the zero trust model in IoTWhat Microsoft is doing to protect against attacks on IoTSome Questions We Ask:What isthedifference between IoT and IT?Why is IoT security so important?What are the best practices for protecting IoT?Resources:ArjmandSamuel’s LinkedIn: Fillingham’s LinkedIn: Godyla’s LinkedIn: Security Blog: Unlocked: CISO Series with Bret Arsenault[Full transcript can be found at]Nic Fillingham:(music) Hello and welcome to Security Unlocked, a new podcast from Microsoft where we unlock insights from the latest in new and research from across Microsoft's security, engineering and operations teams. I'm Nic Fillingham.Natalia Godyla:And I'm Natalia Godyla. In each episode, we'll discuss the latest stories from Microsoft Security, deep dive into the newest threat intel, research and data science.Nic Fillingham:And profile some of the fascinating people working on artificial intelligence in Microsoft Security.Natalia Godyla:And now, let's unlock the pod. (music)Natalia Godyla:Welcome everyone to another episode of Security Unlocked. Today we are joined by first time guest, Arjmand Samuel, who is joining us to discuss IoT Security, which is fitting as he is an Azure IoT Security leader a Microsoft. Now, everyone has heard the buzz around IoT. There's been constant talk of it over the past several years, and, but now we've all also already had some experience with IoT devices in our personal life. Would about you, Nic? What do you use in your everyday life? What types of IoT devices?Nic Fillingham:Yeah. I've, I've got a couple of smart speakers, which I think a lot of people have these days. They seem to be pretty ubiquitous. And you know what? I sort of just assumed that they automatically update and they've got good security in them. I don't need to worry about it. Uh, maybe that's a bit naïve, but, but I sort of don't think of them as IoT. I just sort of, like, tell them what I music I want to play and then I tell them again, because they get it wrong. And then I tell them a third time, and then I go, "Ugh," and then I do it on my phone.Nic Fillingham:I also have a few cameras that are pointed out around the outside of the house. Because I live on a small farm with, with animals, I've got some sheep and pigs, I have to be on the look out for predators. For bears and coyotes and bobcats. Most of my IoT, though, is very, sort of, consummary. Consumers have access to it and can, sort of, buy it or it comes from the utility company.Natalia Godyla:Right. Good point. Um, today, we'll be talking with Arjmand about enterprise grade IoT and OT, or Internet of Things and operational technology. Think the manufacturing floor of, uh, plants. And Arjmand will walk us through the basics of IoT and OT through to the best practices for securing these devices.Nic Fillingham:Yeah. And we spent a bit of time talking about zero trust and how to apply a zero trust approach to IoT. Zero trust, there's sort of three main pillars to zero trust. It's verify explicitly, which for many customers just means sort of MFA, multi factorial authentication. It's about utilizing least privilege access and ensuring that accounts, users, devices just have access to the data they need at the time they need it. And then the third is about always, sort of, assuming that you've been breached and, sort of, maintaining thing philosophy of, of let's just assume that we're breached right now and let's engage in practices that would, sort of, help root out a, uh, potential breach.Nic Fillingham:Anyway, so, Arjmand, sort of, walks us through what it IoT, how does it relate to IT, how does it relate to operational technology, and obviously, what that zero trust approach looks like. On with the pod.Natalia Godyla:On with the pod. (music) Today, we're joined by Arjmand Samuel, principle program manager for the Microsoft Azure Internet of Things Group. Welcome to the show, Arjmand.Arjmand Samuel:Thank you very much, Natalia, and it's a pleasure to be on the show.Natalia Godyla:We're really excited to have you. Why don't we kick it off with talking a little bit about what you do at Microsoft. So, what does your day to day look like as a principle program manager?Arjmand Samuel:So, I am part of the Azure IoT Engineering Team. I'm a program manager on the team. I work on security for IoT and, uh, me and my team, uh, we are responsible for making sure that, uh, IoT services and clients like the software and run times and so on are, are built securely. And when they're deployed, they have the security properties that we need them and our customers demand that. So, so, that's what I do all a long.Nic Fillingham:And, uh, we're going to talk about, uh, zero trust and the relationship between a zero trust approach and IoT. Um, but before we jump into that, Arjmand, uh, we, we had a bit of a look of your, your bio here. I've got a couple of questions I'd love to ask, if that's okay. I want to know about your, sort of, tenure here at Microsoft. Y- y- you've been here for 13 years. Sounds like you started in, in 2008 and you started in the w- what was called the Windows Live Team at the time, as the security lead. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about your, your entry in to Microsoft and being in security in Microsoft for, for that amount of time. You must have seen some, sort of, pretty amazing changes, both from an industry perspective and then also inside Microsoft.Arjmand Samuel:Yeah, yeah, definitely. So, uh, as you said, uh, 2008 was the time, was the year when I came in. I came in with a, a, a degree in, uh, security, in- information security. And then, of course, my thinking and my whole work there when I was hired at Microsoft was to be, hey, how do we actually make sure that our product, which was Windows Live at that time, is secure? It has all the right security properties that, that we need that product to have. So, I- I came in, started working on a bunch of different things, including identity and, and there was, these are early times, right? I mean, we were all putting together this infrastructure, reconciling all the identity on times that we had. And all of those were things that we were trying to bring to Windows Live as well.Arjmand Samuel:So, I was responsible for that as well as I was, uh, working on making sure that, uh, our product had all the right diligence and, and security diligence that is required for a product to be at scale. And so, a bunch of, you know, things like STL and tech modeling and those kind of things. I was leading those efforts as well at, uh, Windows Live.Natalia Godyla:So, if 2008 Arjmand was talking to 2021 Arjmand, what would he be most surprised about, about the evolution over the past 13 years, either within Microsoft or just in the security industry.Arjmand Samuel:Yeah. Yeah. (laughs) That's a great, great question, and I think in the industry itself, e- evolution has been about how all around us. We are now engulfed in technology, connected technology. We call it IoT, and it's all around us. That was not the landscape 10, 15 years back. And, uh, what really is amazing is how our customers and partners are taking on this and applying this in their businesses, right? This meaning the whole industry of IoT and, uh, Internet of Things, and taking that to a level where every data, every piece of data in the physical world can be captured or can be acted upon. That is a big change from the last, uh, 10, 15 to where we are today.Nic Fillingham:I thought you were going to say TikTok dance challenges.Arjmand Samuel:(laughs)Natalia Godyla:(laughs)Nic Fillingham:... because that's, that's where I would have gone.Arjmand Samuel:(laughs) that, too. That, too, right? (laughs)Nic Fillingham:That's a (laughs) digression there. So, I'm pretty sure everyone knows what IoT is. I think we've already said it, but let's just, sort of, start there. So, IoT, Internet of Things. Is, I mean, that's correct, right? Is there, is there multiple definitions of IoT, or is it just Internet of Things? And then, what does the definition of an Internet of Things mean?Arjmand Samuel:Yeah, yeah. It;s a... You know, while Internet of Things is a very recognized acronym these days, but I think talking to different people, different people would have a different idea about how Internet of Thing could be defined. And the way I would define it, and again, not, not, uh, necessarily the authority or the, the only definition. There are many definitions, but it's about having these devices around us. Us is not just people but also our, our manufacturing processes, our cars, our, uh, healthcare systems, having all these devices around, uh, these environments. They are, these devices, uh, could be big, could be small. Could be as small as a very small temperature sensor collecting data from an environment or it could be a Roboticom trying to move a full car up and down an assembly line.Arjmand Samuel:And first of all, collecting data from these devices, then bringing them, uh, uh, using the data to do something interesting and insightful, but also beyond that, being able to control these devices based on those insights. So, now there's a feedback loop where you're collecting data and you are acting on that, that data as well. And that is where, how IoT is manifesting itself today in, in, in the world. And especially for our customers who are, who tend to be more industrial enterprises and so on, it's a big change that is happening. It's, it's a huge change that, uh, they see and we call it the transformation, the business transformation happening today. And part of that business transformation is being led or is being driven through the technology which we call IoT, but it's really a business transformation.Arjmand Samuel:It's really with our customers are finding that in order to remain competitive and in order to remain in business really, at the end of the day, they need to invest. They need to bring in all these technologies to bear, and Internet of Things happens that technology.Nic Fillingham:So, Arjmand, a couple other acronyms. You know, I think, I think most of our audience are pretty familiar with IoT, but we'll just sort of cover it very quickly. So, IoT versus IT. IT is, obviously, you know, information technology, or I think that's the, that's the (laughs) globally accepted-Arjmand Samuel:Yeah, yeah.Nic Fillingham:... definition. You know, do you we think of IoT as subset of IT? What is the relationship of, of those two? I mean, clearly, there are three letters versus two letters, (laughs) but there is relationship there. Wh- wh- what are your thoughts?Arjmand Samuel:Yeah. There's a relationship as well as there's a difference, and, and it's important to bring those two out. Information technology is IT, as we know it now for many years, is all about enterprises running their applications, uh, business applications mostly. For that, they need the network support. They need databases. They need applications to be secured and so on. So, all these have to work together. The function of IT, information technology, is to make sure that the, there is availability of all these resources, applications, networks and databases as well as you have them secured and private and so on.Arjmand Samuel:So, all of that is good, but IoT takes it to the next level where now it's not only the enterprise applications, but it's also these devices, which are now deployed by the enterprise. I mentioned Roboticoms. Measured in a conference room you have all these equipment in there, projection and temperature sensors and occupancy sensors and so on. So, all of those beco- are now the, the add on to what we used to call IT and we are calling it the IoT.Arjmand Samuel:Now, the interesting part here is in the industrial IoT space. Th- this is also called OT, operation technology. So, you know, within an organization there'll be IT and OT. OT's operation technology and these are the people or the, uh, function within an organization who deal with the, with the physical machines, the physical plant. You know, the manufacturing line, the conveyor belts, the Roboticoms, and these are called OT functions.Arjmand Samuel:The interesting part here is the goal of IT is different from the goal of OT. OT is all about availability. OT's all about safety, safety so that it doesn't hurt anybody working on the manufacturing line. OT's all about environmental concerns. So, it should not leak bad chemicals and so on. A while, if you talk about security, and this is, like, a few years back when we would talk about security with an OT person, the, the person who's actually... You know, these are people who actually wear those, uh, hard hats, you know, on, uh, a manufacturing plant. And if you talk about security to an OT person, they will typically refer to that guard standing outside and, and, uh, the-Nic Fillingham:Physical security.Arjmand Samuel:The physical security and the, the walls and the cameras, which would make sure that, you know, and then a key card, and that's about all. This was OT security, but now when we started going in and saying that, okay, all these machines can be connected to, to each other and you can collect all this data and then you can actually start doing something interesting with this data. That is where the definition of security and the functions of OT evolved. And not evolving, I mean different companies are at different stages, but they're now evolving where they're thinking, okay, it's not only about the guard standing outside. It's also the fact that the Roboticom could be taken over remotely and somebody outside, around the world, around the globe could actually be controlling that Roboticom to do something bad. And that realization and the fact that now you actually have to control it in the cyber sense and not only in the physical sense is the evolution that happened between OT.Arjmand Samuel:Now, IT and OT work together as well because the same networks are shared typically. Some of the applications that use the data from these devices are common. So, IT and OT, this is the other, uh, thing that has changed and, and we are seeing that change, is starting to work and come closer. Work together more. IoT's really different, but at the same time requires a lot of stuff that IT has traditionally done.Natalia Godyla:Hmm. So, what we considered to be simple just isn't simple anymore.Arjmand Samuel:That's life, right? (laughs) Yeah.Natalia Godyla:(laughs)Arjmand Samuel:(laughs)Natalia Godyla:So, today we wanted to talk about IoT security. So, let's just start with, with framing the conversation a little bit. Why is IoT security important and what makes it more challenging, different than traditional security?Arjmand Samuel:As I just described, right, I mean, we are now infusing compute and in every environment around us. I mean, we talked a little bit about the conveyor belt. Imagine the conference rooms, the smart buildings and, and all the different technologies that are coming in. These are technologies, while they're good, they're serve a scenario. They, they make things more efficient and so on, but they're also now a point of, uh, of failure for that whole system as well as a way for malicious sectors to bring in code if possible. And to either, uh, imagine a scenario where or an attack where a malicious sector goes into the conveyor belt and knows exactly the product that is passing through. And imagine that's something either takes the data and sells it to somebody or, worse case, stops the conveyor belt. That is millions of dollars of loss very, uh, that data that the company might be incurring.Arjmand Samuel:So, now that there's infused computer all around us, we are now living in a target which in a environment which can be attacked, and which can be used for bad things much more than what it was when we were only applications, networks and databases. Easy to put a wall around. Easy to understand what's going on. They're easy to lock down. But with all these devices around us, it's becoming much and much harder to do the same.Nic Fillingham:And then what sort of, if, if we think about IoT and IoT security, one of the things that, sort of, makes it different, I- I th- think, and here I'd love you to explain this, sort of... I- I'm thinking of it as a, as a, as a spectrum of IoT devices that, I mean, they have a CPU. They have some memory. They have some storage. They're, they're running and operating system in some capacity all the way through to, I guess, m- much more, sort of, rudimentary devices but do have some connection, some network connection in order for instruction or data to, sort of, move backwards and forwards. What is it that makes this collection of stuff difficult to protect or, you know, is it difficult to protect? And if so, why? And then, how do we think about the, the, the potential vectors for attack that are different in this scenario versus, you know, protecting lap tops and servers?Arjmand Samuel:Yeah, yeah. That's a good one. So, uh, what happens is you're right. Uh, IoT devices can be big and small, all right. They could be a small MCU class device with a real-time operating system on it. Very small, very, uh, single purpose device, which is imagine collecting temperature or humidity only. Then we have these very big, what we call the edge or heavy edge devices, which are like server class devices running a Roboticom or, or even a gateway class device, which is aggregating data from many devices, right, as a, a, and then take, taking the data and acting on it.Arjmand Samuel:So, now with all this infrastructure, one of the key things that we have seen is diversity and heterogeneity of these devices. Not just in terms of size, but also in terms of who manufactured them, when they were manufactured. So, many of the temperature sensors in environments could be very old. Like, 20 years old and people are trying to use the same equipment and not have to change anything there. And which they can. Technically they could, but then those devices were never designed in for a connected environment for these, this data to actually, uh, be aggregated and sent on the network, meaning they per- perhaps did not have encryption built into it. So, we have to do something, uh, additional there.Arjmand Samuel:And so now with the diversity of devices, when they came in, the, the feature set is so diverse. Some of them were, are more recent, built with the right security principles and the right security properties, but then some of them might not be. So, this could raise a, a challenge where how do you actually secure an infrastructure where you have this whole disparity and many different types of devices, many different manufacturers, many of ages different for these devices. Security properties are different and as we all know talking about security, the attack would always come from the weakest link. So, the attacker would always find, within that infrastructure, the device which has the least security as a entry point into that infrastructure. So, we can't just say, "Oh, I'll just protect my gateway and I'm fine." We have to have some mitigation for everything on that network. Everything. Even the older ones, older devices. We call them brownfield devices because they tend to be old devices, but they're also part of the infrastructure.Arjmand Samuel:So, how do we actually think about brownfield and the, the newer ones we call greenfield devices? Brownfield and greenfield, how do we think about those given they will come from different vendors, different designs, different security properties? So, that's a key challenge today that we have. So, they want to keep those devices as well as make sure that they are secure because the current threat vectors and threat, uh, the, and attacks are, are much more sophisticated.Natalia Godyla:So, you have a complex set of devices that the security team has to manage and understand. And then you have to determine at another level which of those devices have vulnerabilities or which one is the most vulnerable, and then, uh, assume that your most vulnerable, uh, will be the ones that are exploited. It, so, is that, that typically the attack factor? It's going to be the, the weakest link, like you said? And h- how does an attacker try to breach the IoT device?Arjmand Samuel:Yeah, yeah. And, and this is where we, we started using the term zero trust IoT.Natalia Godyla:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Arjmand Samuel:So, IoT devices are deployed in an environment which can not be trusted, should not be trusted. You should assume that there is zero trust in that environment, and then all these devices, when they are in there, you will do the right things. You'll put in the right mitigations so that the devices themselves are robust. Now, another example I always give here is, and, uh, I, your question around the attack vectors and, and how attacks are happening, typically in the IT world, now that we, we have the term defined, in the IT world, you will always have, you know, physical security. You will always put servers in a room and lock it, and, and so on, right, but in an IoT environment, you have compute devices. Imagine these are powerful edge nodes doing video analytics, but they're mounted on a pole next to a camera outside on the road, right? So, which means the physical access to that device can not be controlled. It could be that edge node, again, a powerful computer device with lots of, you know, CPU and, and so on, is deployed in a mall looking at video streams and analyzing those video streams, again, deployed out there where any attacker physically can get a hold of the device and do bad things.Arjmand Samuel:So, again, the attack vectors are also different between IT and OT or IoT in the sense that the devices might not be physically contained in a, in an environment. So, that puts another layer of what do we do to protect such, uh, environments?Nic Fillingham:And then I want to just talk about the role of, sort of, if we think about traditional computing or traditional, sort of, PC based computing and PC devices, a lot of the attack vectors and a lot of the, sort of, weakest link is the user and the user account. And that's why, you know, phishing is such a massive issue that if we can socially engineer a way for the person to give us their user name and password or whatever, we, we, we can get access to a device through the user account. IoT devices and OT devices probably don't use that construct, right? They probably, their userless. Is that accurate?Arjmand Samuel:Yeah. That's very accurate. So, again, all of the attack vectors which we know from IT are still relevant because, you know, if you, there's a phishing attack and the administrator password is taken over you can still go in and destroy the infrastructure, both IT and IoT. But at the same time, these devices, these IoT devices typically do not have a user interacting with them, typically in the compute sense. You do not log into an IoT device, right? Except in sensor with an MCU, it doesn't even have a user experience, uh, a screen on it. And so, there is typically no user associated with it, and that's another challenge. So you need to still have an identity off the device, not on the device, but off the device, but that identity has to be intrinsic off the device. It has to be part of the device and it has to be stable. It has to be protected, secure, and o- on the device, but it does not typically a user identity.Arjmand Samuel:And, and that's not only true for temperature sensors. You know, the smaller MCU class devices. That's true for edge nodes as well. Typically, an edge node, and by the way, when I say the edge node, edge node is a full blown, rich operating system. CPU, tons of memory, even perhaps a GPU, but does not typically have a user screen, a keyboard and a mouse. All it has is a video stream coming in through some protocol and it's analyzing that and then making some AI decisions, decisions based on AI. And, and, but that's a powerful machine. Again, there might never ever be a user interactively signing into it, but the device has an identity of its own. It has to authenticate itself and it workload through other devices or to the Cloud. And all of that has to be done in a way where there is no user attached to it.Natalia Godyla:So, with all of this complexity, how can we think about protecting against IoT attacks. You discussed briefly that we still apply the zero trust model here. So, you know, at a high level, what are best practices for protecting IoT?Arjmand Samuel:Yeah, yeah. Exactly. Now that we, we just described the environment, we described the devices and, and the attacks, right? The bad things that can happen, how do we do that? So, the first thing we want to do, talk about is zero trust. So, do not trust the environment. Even if it is within a factory and you have a guard standing outside and you have all the, you know, the physical security, uh, do not trust it because there are still vectors which can allow malicious sectors to come into those devices. So, that's the first one, zero trust.Arjmand Samuel:Uh, do not trust anything that is on the device unless you explicitly trust it, you explicitly make sure that you can go in and you can, attest the workload, as an example. You can attest the identity of the device, as an example. And you can associate some access control polices and you have to do it explicitly and never assume that this is, because it's a, uh, environment in a factory you're good. So, you never assume that. So, again, that's a property or a principle within zero trust that we always exercise.Arjmand Samuel:Uh, the other one is you always assume breach. You always assume that bad things will happen. I- it's not if they'll happen or not. It's about when they're s- uh, going to happen. So, for the, that thinking, then you're putting in place mitigations. You are thinking, okay, if bad things are going to happen, how do I contain the bad things? How do I contain? How do I make sure that first of all, I can detect bad things happening. And we have, and we can talk about some of the offerings that we have, like Defender for IoT as an example, which you can deploy on to the environment. Even if it's brownfield, you can detect bad things happening based on the network characteristics. So, that's Defender for IoT.Arjmand Samuel:And, and once you can detect bad things happening then you can do something about it. You get an alert. You can, you can isolate that device or take that device off the network and refresh it and do those kind of things. So, the first thing that needs to happen is you assume that it's going breach. You always assume that whatever you are going to trust is explicitly trusted. You always make sure that there is a way to explicitly trust, uh, uh, uh, either the workload or the device or the network that is connected onto the device.Nic Fillingham:So, if we start with verify explicitly, in the traditional compute model where it's a user on a device, we can verify explicitly with, usually, multi factor authentication. So, I have my user name and password. I add an additional layer of authentication, whether it's an, you know, app on my phone, a key or something, some physical device, there's my second factor and I'm, I'm verified explicitly in that model. But again, no users or the user's not, sort of, interacting with the device in, sort of, that traditional sense, so what are those techniques to verify explicitly on an IoT device?Arjmand Samuel:Yeah. I, exactly. So, we, in that white paper, which we are talking about, we actually put down a few things that you can actually do to, to, en- ensure that you have all the zero trust requirements together. Now, the first one, of course, is you need, uh, all devices to have strong identity, right? So, because identity is a code. If you can not identi- identify something you can not, uh, give it an access control policy. You can not trust the data that is coming out from that, uh, device. So, the first thing you do is you have a strong identity. By a strong identity we mean identity, which is rooted in hardware, and so, what we call the hardware based root of trust. It's technologies like TPM, which ensure that you have the private key, which is secured in our hardware, in the hardware and you can not get to it, so and so on. So, you, you ensure that you have a, a strong identity.Arjmand Samuel:You always have these privilege access so you do not... And these principles have been known to our IT operations forever, right? So, many years they have been refined and, uh, people know about those, but we're applying them to the IoT world. So, these privilege access, if our device is required to access another device or data or to push out data, it should only do that for the function it is designed for, nothing more than that. You should always have some level of, uh, device health check. Perhaps you should be able to do some kind of test station of the device. Again, there is no user to access the device health, but you should be able to do, and there are ways, there are services which allow you to measure something on the device and then say yes it's good or not.Arjmand Samuel:You should be able to do a continuous update. So, in case there is a device which, uh, has been compromised, you should be able to reclaim that device and update it with a fresh image so that now you can start trusting it. And then finally you should be able to securely monitor it. And not just the device itself, but now we have to technologies which can monitor the data which is passing through the network, and based on those characteristics can see if a device is attacked or being attacked or not. So, those are the kind of things that we would recommend for a zero trust environment to take into account and, and make those requirements a must for, for IoT deployments.Natalia Godyla:And what's Microsoft's role in protecting against these attacks?Arjmand Samuel:Yeah, yeah. So, uh, a few products that we always recommend. If somebody is putting together a new IoT device right from the silicone and putting that device together, we have a great secure be design device, which is called Azure Sphere. Azure Sphere has a bunch of different things that it does, including identity, updates, cert management. All these are important functions that are required for that device to function. And so, a new device could use the design that we have for Azure Sphere.Arjmand Samuel:Then we have, a gateway software that you put on a gateway which allows you to secure the devices behind that gateway for on time deployments. We have Defender for IoT, again as I mentioned, but Defender for IoT is on-prem, so you can actually monitor all the tracks on the network and on the devices. You could also put a agent, a Micro Agent on these devices, but then it also connects to Azure Sentinel. Azure Sentinel is a enterprise class user experience for security administrators to know what bad things are happening on, on-prem. So, it, the whole end to end thing could works all the way from the network, brownfield devices to the Cloud.Arjmand Samuel:We also have things like, uh, IoT Hub Device Provisioning service. Device provisioning service is an interesting concept. I'll try to briefly describe that. So, what happens is when you have an identity on a device and you want to actually put that device, deploy that device in your environment, it has to be linked up with a service in the Cloud so that it can, it knows the device, there's an identity which is shared and so on. Now, you could do it manually. You could actually bring that device in, read a code, put it in the Cloud and your good to go because now the Cloud knows about that device, but then what do you do when you have to deploy a million devices? And we're talking about IoT scale, millions. A fleet of millions of devices. If you take that same approach of reading a key and putting it in the Cloud, one, you'd make mistakes. Second, you will probably need a lifetime to take all those keys and put them in the cloud.Arjmand Samuel:So, in order to solve that problem, we have the device provisioning service, which it's a service in the Cloud. It is, uh, linked up to the OEMs or manufacturing devices. And when you deploy our device in your field, you do not have to do any of that. Your credentials are passed between the service and the, and the device. So, so, that's another service. IoT Hub Device Provisioning Service.Arjmand Samuel:And then we have, uh, a work, the, uh, a piece of work that we have done, which is the Certification of IoT Devices. So, again, you need the devices to have certain security properties. And how do you do that? How do you ensure that they have the right security properties, like identity and cert management and update ability and so on, we have what we call the Edge Secured-core Certification as well as Azure Certified Device Program. So, any device which is in there has been tested by us and we certify that that device has the right security properties. So, we encourage our customers to actually pick from those devices so that they, they actually get the best security properties.Natalia Godyla:Wow. That's a lot, which is incredible. What's next for Microsoft's, uh, approach to IoT security?Arjmand Samuel:Yeah, yeah. So, uh, one of the key things that we have heard our customers, anybody who's going into IoT ask the question, what is the risk I'm taking? Right? So, I'm deploying all these devices in my factories and Roboticom's connecting them, and so on, but there's a risk here. And how do I quantify that risk? How do I understand th- that risk and how do I do something about that risk?Arjmand Samuel:So, we, we got those questions many years back, like four, five years back. We started working with the industry and together with the Industrial Internet Consortium, IIC, which a consortium out there and there are many companies part of that consortium, we led something called The Security Maturity Model for IoT. So, so, we put down a set of principles and a set of processes you follow to evaluate the maturity of your security in IoT, right? So, it's a actionable thing. You take the document, you evaluate, and then once you have evaluated, it actually give you a score.It says you're level one, or two, or three, or four. Four, that's the authentication. All else is controlled management. And then based on th- that level, you know where you care, first of all. So, you know what your weaknesses are and what you need to do. So, that's a very actionable thing. But beyond that, if you're at level two and you want to be at level four, and by want to means your scenario dictates that you should be at level four, it is actionable. It gives you a list of things to do to go from level two to level four. And then you can reevaluate yourself and then you know that you're at level four. So, that's a maturityArjmand Samuel:Now, In order to operationalize that program with in partnership with IAC, we also have been, and IAC's help, uh, has been instrumental here, we have been working on a training program where we have been training auditors. These are IoT security auditors, third party, independent auditors who are not trained on SMMs Security Maturity Model. And we tell our customers, if you have a concern, get yourself audited using SMM, using the auditors and that will tell you where you are and where you need to go. So, it's evolving. Security for IoT's evolving, but I think we are at the forefront of that evolution.Nic Fillingham:Just to, sort of, finish up here, I'm thinking of some of the recent IoT security stories that were in the news. We won't mention any specifically, but there, there have been some recently. My take aways hearing those stories reading those stories in the news is that, oh, wow, there's probably a lot of organizations out here and maybe individuals at companies that are using IoT and OT devices that maybe don't see themselves as being security people or having to think about IoT security, you know T security. I just wonder if do you think there is a, a population of folks out here that don't think of themselves as IoT security people, but they really are? And then therefore, how do we sort of go find those people and help them go, get educated about securing IoT devices?Arjmand Samuel:Yeah, that's, uh, that's exactly what we are trying to do here. So, uh, people who know security can obviously know the bad things that can happen and can do something about it, but the worst part is that in OT, people are not thinking about all the bad things that can happen in the cyber world. You mentioned that example with that treatment plant. It should never have been connected to the network, unless required. And if it was connected to the, uh, to the network, to the internet, you should have had a ton a mitigations in place in case somebody was trying to come in and should have been stopped. And in that particular case, y- there was a phishing attack and the administrative password was, was taken over. But even with that, with the, some of our products, like Defender for IoT, can actually detect the administrative behavior and can, can detect if an administrator is trying to do bath things. It can still tell other administrators there's bad things happening.Arjmand Samuel:So, there's a ton of things that one could do, and it all comes down, what we have realized is it all comes down to making sure that this word gets out, that people know that there is bad things that can happen with IoT and it's not only your data being stolen. It's very bad things as in that example. And so, the word out, uh, so that we can, uh, we can actually make IoT more secure.Nic Fillingham:Got it. Arjmand, again, thanks so much for your time. It sounds like we really need to get the word out. IoT security is a thing. You know, if you work in an organization that employs IoT or OT devices, or think you might, go and download this white paper. Um, we'll put the link in the, uh, in the show notes. You can just search for it also probably on the Microsoft Security Blog and learn more about cyber security for IoT, how to apply zero trust model. Share it with your, with your peers and, uh, let's get as much education as we can out there.Arjmand Samuel:Thank you very much for this, uh, opportunity.Nic Fillingham:Thanks, Arjmand, for joining us. I think we'll definitely touch on cyber security for IoT, uh, in future episodes. So, I'd love to talk to you again. (music)Arjmand Samuel:Looking forward to it. (music)Natalia Godyla:Well, we had a great time unlocking insights into security from research to artificial intelligence. Keep an eye out for our next episode.Nic Fillingham:And don't forget to Tweet us @MSFTSecurity or email us at with topics you'd like to hear on a future episode. (music) Until then, stay safe.Natalia Godyla:Stay secure. (music)

Looking a Gift Card Horse in the Mouth

Ep. 35
Is it just me, or do you also miss the goodoledays of fraudulent activity?You remember the kind I’m talking about, theemails from princes around the world asking for just a couple hundred dollars to help them unfreeze or retrieve their massive fortune which they would share with you. Attacks havegrownmore nuanced, complex, and invasive since then, but because of the unbelievable talent at Microsoft, we’re constantly getting better at defending against it.On this episode of Security Unlocked, hosts Nic Fillingham and NataliaGodylasit down with returning champion, Emily Hacker, to discuss Business Email Compromise (BEC), an attack that has perpetrators pretending to be someone from the victim’s place of work and instructs them to purchase gift cards and send them to thescammer.Maybe it’s good tolookagift cardhorse in the mouth?In This Episode You Will Learn:Why BEC is such an effective and pervasive attackWhat are the key things to look out for to protect yourself against oneWhy BEC emails are difficult to trackSome Questions We Ask:How do the attackers mimic a true-to-form email from a colleague?Why do we classify this type of email attack separately from others?Why are they asking for gift cards rather than cash?Resources:Emily Hacker’s LinkedIn:’s2020Internet Crime Report’sLinkedIn:’sLinkedIn: Security Blog: Unlocked: CISO Series with Bret Arsenaulthttps://SecurityUnlockedCISOSeries.comTranscript:[Full transcript can be found at]Nic Fillingham:Hello, and welcome to Security Unlocked, a new podcast from Microsoft, where we unlock insights from the latest in news and research from across Microsoft security engineering and operations teams. I'm Nic Fillingham.Natalia Godyla:And I'm Natalia Godyla. In each episode, we'll discuss the latest stories from Microsoft security, deep dive into the newest thread intel, research and data science.Nic Fillingham:And profile some of the fascinating people working on artificial intelligence in Microsoft security.Natalia Godyla:And now, let's unlock the pod.Nic Fillingham:Hello listeners, hello, Natalia, welcome to episode 35 of Security Unlocked. Natalia, how are you?Natalia Godyla:I'm doing well as always and welcome everyone to another show.Nic Fillingham:It's probably quite redundant, me asking you how you are and you asking me how you are, 'cause that's not really a question that you really answer honestly, is it? It's not like, "Oh, my right knee's packing at the end a bit," or "I'm very hot."Natalia Godyla:Yeah, I'm doing terrible right now, actually. I, I just, uh- Nic Fillingham:Everything is terrible.Natalia Godyla:(laughs)Nic Fillingham:Well, uh, our guest today is, is a returning champ, Emily Hacker. This is her third, uh, appearance on Security Unlocked, and, and she's returning to talk to us about a, uh, new business email compromise campaign that she and her colleagues helped unearth focusing on some sort of gift card scam.Nic Fillingham:We've covered business email compromise before or BEC on the podcast. Uh, we had, uh, Donald Keating join us, uh, back in the early days of Security Unlocked on episode six. The campaign itself, not super sophisticated as, as Emily sort of explains, but so much more sort of prevalent than I think a lot of us sort of realize. BEC was actually the number one reported source of financial loss to the FBI in 2020. Like by an order of magnitude above sort of, you know, just places second place, third place, fourth place. You know, I think the losses were in the billions, this is what was reported to the FBI, so it's a big problem. And thankfully, we've got people like, uh, Emily on it.Nic Fillingham:Natalia, can you give us the TLDR on the, on the campaign that Emily helps describe?Natalia Godyla:Yeah, as you said, it's, uh, a BEC gift card campaign. So the attackers use typosquatted domains, and socially engineered executives to request from employees that they purchase gift cards. And the request is very vague. Like, "I need you to do a task for me, "or "Let me know if you're available." And they used that authority to convince the employees to purchase the gift cards for them. And they then co-converted the gift cards into crypto at, at scale to collect their payout.Nic Fillingham:Yeah, and we actually discuss with Emily that, that between the three of us, Natalia, myself and Emily, we actually didn't have a good answer for how the, uh- Natalia Godyla:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Nic Fillingham:... these attackers are laundering these gift cards and, and converting them to crypto. So we're gonna, we're gonna go and do some research, and we're gonna hopefully follow up on a, on a future episode to better understand that process. Awesome. And so with that, on with the pod.Natalia Godyla:On with the pod.Nic Fillingham:Welcome back to the Security Unlocked podcast. Emily hacker, how are you?Emily Hacker:I'm doing well. Thank you for having me. How are you doing?Nic Fillingham:I'm doing well. I'm trying very hard not to melt here in Seattle. We're recording this at the tail end of the heat wave apocalypse of late June, 2021. Natalia, are you all in, I should have asked, have you melted or are you still in solid form?Natalia Godyla:I'm in solid form partially because I think Seattle stole our heat. I'm sitting in Los Angeles now.Nic Fillingham:Uh huh, got it. Emily, thank you for joining us again. I hope you're also beating the heat. You're here to talk about business email compromise. And you were one of the folks that co-authored a blog post from May 6th, talking about a new campaign that was discovered utilizing gift card scams. First of all, welcome back. Thanks for being a return guest. Second of all, do I get credit or do I get blame for the tweet that enabled you to, to- Emily Hacker:(laughs) It's been so long, I was hoping you would have forgotten.Nic Fillingham:(laughs) Emily and I were going backward forward on email, and I basically asked Emily, "Hey, Emily, who's like the expert at Microsoft on business email compromise?" And then Emily responded with, "I am."Emily Hacker:(laughs)Nic Fillingham:As in, Emily is. And so I, I think I apologized profusely. If I didn't, let me do that now for not assuming that you are the subject matter expert, but that then birthed a very fun tweet that you put out into the Twitter sphere. Do you wanna share that with the listeners or is this uncomfortable and we need to cut it from the audio?Emily Hacker:No, it's fine. You can share with the listeners. I, uh- Nic Fillingham:(laughs)Emily Hacker:... I truly was not upset. I don't know if you apologized or not, because I didn't think it was the thing to apologize for. Because I didn't take your question as like a, "Hey," I'm like, "Can you like get out of the way I did not take it that way at all. It was just like, I've been in this industry for five years and I have gotten so many emails from people being like, "Hey, who's the subject matter in X?" And I'm always having to be like, "Oh, it's so and so," you know, or, "Oh yeah, I've talked to them, it's so-and-so." And for once I was like, "Oh my goodness, it me."Natalia Godyla:(laughs)Emily Hacker:Like I'm finally a subject matter in something. It took a long time. So the tweet was, was me being excited that I got to be the subject matter expert, not me being upset at you for asking who it was.Nic Fillingham:No, I, I took it in it's, I did assume that it was excitement and not crankiness at me for not assuming that it would be you. But I was also excited because I saw the tweet, 'cause I follow you on Twitter and I'm like, "Oh, that was me. That was me." And I got to use- Emily Hacker:(laughs)Nic Fillingham:... I got to use the meme that's the s- the, the weird side eye puppet, the side, side eye puppet. I don't know if that translates. There's this meme where it's like a we-weird sort of like H.R. Pufnstuf sort of reject puppet, and it's sort of like looking sideways to the, to the camera.Emily Hacker:Yes.Nic Fillingham:Uh, I've, and I've- Emily Hacker:Your response literally made me laugh a while though alone in my apartment.Nic Fillingham:(laughs_ I've never been able to use that meme in like its perfect context, and I was like, "This is it."Emily Hacker:(laughs) We just set that one up for a comedy home run basically.Nic Fillingham:Yes, yes, yes. And I think my dad liked the tweet too- Natalia Godyla:(laughs)Nic Fillingham:... so I think I had that, so that was good.Emily Hacker:(laughs)Nic Fillingham:Um, he's like my only follower.Emily Hacker:Pure success.Nic Fillingham:Um, well, on that note, so yeah, we're here to talk about business email compromise, which we've covered on the, on the podcast before. You, as I said, uh, co-authored this post for May 6th. We'll have a, a broader conversation about BEC, but let's start with these post. Could you, give us a summary, what was discussed in this, uh, blog post back on, on May 6th?Emily Hacker:Yeah, so this blog post was about a specific type of business email compromise, where the attackers are using lookalike domains and lookalike email addresses to send emails that are trying, in this particular case, to get the user to send them a gift card. And so this is not the type of BEC where a lot of people might be thinking of in terms of conducting wire transfer fraud, or, you know, you read in the news like some company wired several million dollars to an attacker. That wasn't this, but this is still creating a financial impact and that the recipient is either gonna be using their own personal funds or in some cases, company funds to buy gift cards, especially if the thread actor is pretending to be a supervisor and is like, "Hey, you know, admin assistant, can you buy these gift cards for the team?" They're probably gonna use company funds at that point.Emily Hacker:So it's still something that we keep an eye out for. And it's actually, these gift card scams are far and away the most common, I would say, type of BEC that I am seeing when I look for BEC type emails. It's like, well over, I would say 70% of the BEC emails that I see are trying to do this gift card scam, 'cause it's a little easier, I would say for them to fly under the radar maybe, uh, in terms of just like, someone's less likely to report like, "Hey, why did you spend $30 on a gift card?" Than like, "Hey, where did those like six billion dollars go?" So like in that case, "This is probably a little easier for them to fly under the radar for the companies. But in terms of impact, if they send, you know, hundreds upon hundreds of these emails, the actors are still gonna be making a decent chunk of change at the end of the day.Emily Hacker:In this particular instance, the attackers had registered a couple hundred lookalike domains that aligned with real companies, but were just a couple of letters or digits off, or were using a different TLD, or use like a number or sort of a letter or something, something along the lines to where you can look at it and be like, "Oh, I can tell that the attacker is pretending to be this other real company, but they are actually creating their own."Emily Hacker:But what was interesting about this campaign that I found pretty silly honestly, was that normally when the attacker does that, one would expect them to impersonate the company that their domain is looking like, and they totally didn't in this case. So they registered all these domains that were lookalike domains, but then when they actually sent the emails, they were pretending to be different companies, and they would just change the display name of their email address to match whoever they were impersonating.Emily Hacker:So one of the examples in the blog. They're impersonating a guy named Steve, and Steve is a real executive at the company that they sent this email to. But the email address that they registered here was not Steve, and the domain was not for the company that Steve works at. So they got a little bit, I don't know if they like got their wires crossed, or if they just were using the same infrastructure that they were gonna use for a different attack, but these domains were registered the day before this attack. So it definitely doesn't seem like opportunistic, and which it doesn't seem like some actors were like, "Oh, hey look, free domains. We'll send some emails." Like they were brand new and just used for strange purposes.Natalia Godyla:Didn't they also fake data in the headers? Why would they be so careless about connecting the company to the language in the email body but go through the trouble of editing the headers?Emily Hacker:That's a good question. They did edit the headers in one instance that I was able to see, granted I didn't see every single email in this attack because I just don't have that kind of data. And what they did was they spoofed one of the headers, which is an in-reply-to a header, which makes it, which is the header that would let us know that it's a real reply. But I worked really closely with a lot of email teams and we were able to determine that it wasn't indeed a fake reply.Emily Hacker:My only guess, honestly, guess as to why that happened is one of two things. One, the domain thing was like a, a mess up, like if they had better intentions and the domain thing went awry. Or number two, it's possible that this is multiple attackers conducting. If one guy was responsible for the emails with the mess of domains, and a different person was responsible for the one that had the email header, like maybe the email header guy is just a little bit more savvy at whose job of crime than the first guy.Natalia Godyla:(laughs)Nic Fillingham:Yeah, I li- I like the idea of, uh, sort of ragtag grubbing. I don't mean to make them an attractive image, but, you know, a ragtag group of people here. And like, you've got a very competent person who knows how to go and sort of spoof domain headers, and you have a less competent person who is- Emily Hacker:Yeah. It's like Pinky and the Brain.Nic Fillingham:Yeah, it is Pinky and the Brain. That's fantastic. I love the idea of Pinky and the Brain trying to conduct a multi-national, uh- Emily Hacker:(laughs)Nic Fillingham:... BEC campaign as their way to try and take over the world. Can we back up a little bit? We jumped straight into this, which is totally, you know, we asked you to do that. So, but let's go back to a little bit of basics. BEC stands for business email compromise. It is distinct from, I mean, do you say CEC for consumer email compromise? Like what's the opposite side of that coin? And then can you explain what BEC is for us and why we sort of think about it distinctly?Emily Hacker:Mm-hmm (affirmative), so I don't know if there's a term for the non-business side of BEC other than just scam. At its basest form, what BEC is, is just a scam where the thread actors are just trying to trick people out of money or data. And so it doesn't involve any malware for the most part at the BEC stage of it. It doesn't involve any phishing for the most part at the BEC stage of it. Those things might exist earlier in the chain, if you will, for more sophisticated attacks. Like an attacker might use a phishing campaign to get access before conducting the BEC, or an attacker might use like a RAT on a machine to gain access to emails before the actual BEC. But the business email compromise email itself, for the most part is just a scam. And what it is, is when an attacker will pretend to be somebody at a company and ask for money data that can include, you know, like W-2's, in which case that was still kind of BEC.Emily Hacker:And when I say that they're pretending to be this company, there's a few different ways that that can happen. And so, the most, in my opinion, sophisticated version of this, but honestly the term sophisticated might be loaded and arguable there, is when the attacker actually uses a real account. So business email compromise, the term might imply that sometimes you're actually compromising an email. And those are the ones where I think are what people are thinking of when they're thinking of these million billion dollar losses, where the attacker gains access to an email account and basically replies as the real individual.Emily Hacker:Let's say that there was an email thread going on between accounts payable and a vendor, and the attacker has compromised the, the vendor's email account, well, in the course of the conversation, they can reply to the email and say, "Hey, we just set up a new bank account. Can you change the information and actually wire the million dollars for this particular project to this bank account instead?" And if the recipient of that email is not critical of that request, they might actually do that, and then the money is in the attacker's hands. And it's difficult to be critical of that request because it'll sometimes literally just be a reply to an ongoing email thread with someone you've probably been doing business with for a while, and nothing about that might stand out as strange, other than them changing the account. It can be possible, but difficult to get it back in those cases. But those are definitely the ones that are, I would say, the most tricky to spot.Emily Hacker:More common, I would say, what we see is the attacker is not actually compromising an email, not necessarily gaining access to it, but using some means of pretending or spoofing or impersonating an email account that they don't actually have access to. And that might include registering lookalike domains as in the case that we talked about in this blog. And that can be typosquatted domains or just lookalike domains, where, for example, I always use this example, even though I doubt this domain is available, but instead of doing, they might do Microsoft with a zero, or like Microsoft using So it looks like an M at first glance, but it's actually not. Or they might do something like or something, which that obviously would not be available, but you get the point. Where they're just getting these domains that kind of look like the right one so that somebody, at first glance, will just look up and be like, "Oh yeah, that looks like Microsoft. This is the right person."Emily Hacker:They might also, more commonly, just register emails using free email services and either do one of two things, make the email specific to the person they're targeting. So let's say that an attacker was pretending to be me. They might register, or more recently and maybe a little bit more targeted, they might register like, and then they'll send an email as me. And then on the, I would say less sophisticated into the spectrum, is when they are just creating an email address that's like And then they'll use that email address for like tons of different targets, like different victims. And they'll either just change the display name to match someone at the company that they're targeting, or they might just change it to be like executive or like CEO or something, which like the least believable of the bunch in my opinion is when they're just reusing the free emails.Emily Hacker:So that's kind of the different ways that they can impersonate or pretend to be these companies, but I see all of those being used in various ways. But for sure the most common is the free email service. And I mean, it makes sense, because if you're gonna register a domain name that cost money and it takes time and takes skill, same with compromising an email account, but it's quick and easy just to register a free email account. So, yeah.Nic Fillingham:So just to sort of summarize here. So business email compromise i-is obviously very complex. There's lots of facets to it.Emily Hacker:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Nic Fillingham:It sounds like, first of all, it's targeted at businesses as opposed to targeted individuals. In targeted individuals is just more simple scams. We can talk about those, but business email compromise, targeted at businesses- Emily Hacker:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Nic Fillingham:... and the end goal is probably to get some form of compromise, and which could be in different ways, but some sort of compromise of a communication channel or a communication thread with that business to ultimately get some money out of them?Emily Hacker:Yep, so it's a social engineering scheme to get whatever their end goals are, usually money. Yeah.Nic Fillingham:Got it. Like if I buy a gift card for a friend or a family for their birthday, and I give that to them, the wording on the bottom says pretty clearly, like not redeemable for cash. Like it's- Emily Hacker:So- Nic Fillingham:... so what's the loophole they're taking advantage of here?Emily Hacker:Criminals kind of crime. Apparently- Natalia Godyla:(laughs)Emily Hacker:... there are sites, you know, on the internet specifically for cashing out gift cards for cryptocurrency.Nic Fillingham:Hmm.Emily Hacker:And so they get these gift cards specifically so that they can cash them out for cryptocurrency, which then is a lot, obviously, less traceable as opposed to just cash. So that is the appeal of gift cards, easier to switch for, I guess, cryptocurrency in a much less traceable manner for the criminals in this regard. And there are probably, you know, you can sell them. Also, you can sell someone a gift card and be like, "Hey, I got a $50 iTunes gift card. Give me $50 and you got an iTunes gift card." I don't know if iTunes is even still a thing. But like that is another means of, it's just, I think a way of like, especially the cryptocurrency one, it's just a way of distancing themselves one step from the actual payout that they end up with.Nic Fillingham:Yeah, I mean, it's clearly a, a laundering tactic.Emily Hacker:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Nic Fillingham:It's just, I'm trying to think of like, someone's eventually trying to get cash out of this gift card-Emily Hacker:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Nic Fillingham:... and instead of going into Target with 10,000 gift cards, and spending them all, and then turning right back around and going to the returns desk and saying like, "I need to return these $10,000 that I just bought."Emily Hacker:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Nic Fillingham:I guess I'm just puzzled as to how, at scale- Emily Hacker:Yeah.Nic Fillingham:... and I guess that's the key word here, at scale, at a criminal scale, how are they, what's the actual return? Are they getting, are they getting 50 cents on the dollar? Are they getting five cents on the dollar? Are they getting 95 cents on the dollar? Um, it sounds like, maybe I don't know how to ask that question, but I think it's a fascinating one, I'd love to learn more about.Emily Hacker:It is a good question. I would imagine that the, the sites where they exchange them for cryptocurrency are set up in a way where rather than one person ending up with all the gift cards to where that you have an issue, like what you're talking about with like, "Hey, uh, can I casually return these six million gift cards?" Like rather than that, they're, it's more distributed. But there probably is a surcharge in terms of they're not getting a one-to-one, but it's- Nic Fillingham:Yeah.Emily Hacker:... I would not imagine that it's very low. Or like I would not imagine that they're getting five cents on the dollar, I would imagine it's higher than that.Nic Fillingham:Got it.Emily Hacker:But I don't know. So, that's a good question.Natalia Godyla:And we're talking about leveraging this cryptocurrency model to cash them out. So has there been an increase in these scams because they now have this ability to cash them out for crypto? Like, was that a driver?Emily Hacker:I'm not sure. I don't know how long the crypto cash out method has been available.Natalia Godyla:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Emily Hacker:I've only recently learned about it, but that's just because I don't spend, I guess I don't spend a lot of time dealing with that end of the scam. For the most part, my job is looking at the emails themselves. So, the, learning what they're doing once they get the gift cards was relatively new to me, but I don't think it's new to the criminals. So it's hard for me to answer that question, not knowing how long the, the crypto cash out method has been available to them. But I will say that it does feel like, in the last couple of years, gift card scams have just been either increasing or coming into light more, but I think increasing.Nic Fillingham:Emily, what's new about this particular campaign that you discussed in the blog? I-it doesn't look like there's something very new in the approach here. This feels like it's a very minor tweak on techniques that have been employed for a while. Tell me what's, what's new about this campaign? (laughs)Emily Hacker:(laughs) Um, so I would agree that this is not a revolutionary campaign.Nic Fillingham:Okay.Emily Hacker:And I didn't, you know, choose to write this one into the blog necessarily because it's revolutionary, but rather because this is so pervasive that I felt like it was important for Microsoft customers to be aware that this type of scam is so, I don't know what word, now we're both struggling with words, I wanna say prolific, but suddenly the definition of that word seems like it doesn't fit in that sentence.Nic Fillingham:No, yeah, prolific, that makes sense. Emily Hacker:Okay.Nic Fillingham:Like, this is, it sounds like what you're saying is, this blog exists not because this campaign is very unique and some sort of cutting-edge new technique, it exists because it's incredibly pervasive.Emily Hacker:Yes.Nic Fillingham:And lots and lots of people and lots and lots of businesses are probably going to get targeted by it. Emily Hacker:Exactly.Nic Fillingham:And we wanna make sure everyone knows about it.Emily Hacker:And the difference, yes, and the, the only real thing that I would say set this one apart from some of the other ones, was the use of the lookalike domains. Like so many of the gift cards scams that I see, so many of the gift cards scams that I see are free email accounts, Gmail, AOL, Hotmail, but this one was using the lookalike domains. And that kind of gave us a little bit more to talk about because we could look into when the domains were registered. I saw that they were registered the day, I think one to two days before the attack commenced. And that also gave us a little bit more to talk about in terms of BEC in the blog, because this kind of combined a couple of different methods of BEC, right? It has the gift cards scam, which we see just all the time, but it also had that kind of lookalike domain, which could help us talk about that angle of BEC.Emily Hacker:But I had been, Microsoft is, is definitely starting to focus in on BEC, I don't know, starting to focus in, but increasing our focus on BEC. And so, I think that a lot of the stuff that happens in BEC isn't new. Because it's so successful, there's really not much in the way of reason for the attackers to shift so dramatically their tactics. I mean, even with the more sophisticated attacks, such as the ones where they are compromising an account, those are still just like basic phishing emails, logging into an account, setting up forwarding rules, like this is the stuff that we've been talking about in BEC for a long time. But I think Microsoft is talking about these more now because we are trying to get the word out, you know, about this being such a big problem and wanting to shift the focus more to BEC so that more people are talking about it and solving it. Natalia Godyla:It seemed like there was A/B testing happening with the cybercriminals. They had occasionally a soft intro where someone would email and ask like, "Are you available?" And then when the target responded, they then tried to get money from that individual, or they just immediately asked for money.Emily Hacker:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Natalia Godyla:Why the different tactics? Were they actually attempting to be strategic to test which version worked, or was it just, like you said, different actors using different methods?Emily Hacker:I would guess it's different actors using different methods or another thing that it could be was that they don't want the emails to say the same thing every time, because then it would be really easy for someone like me to just identify them- Natalia Godyla:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Emily Hacker:... in terms of looking at mail flow for those specific keywords or whatever. If they switch them up a little bit, it makes it harder for me to find all the emails, right? Or anybody. So I think that could be part of the case in terms of just sending the exact same email every time is gonna make it really easy for me to be like, "Okay, well here's all the emails." But I think there could also be something strategic to it as well. I just saw one just yesterday actually, or what day is it, Tuesday? Yeah, so it must've been yesterday where the attacker did a real reply.Emily Hacker:So they sent the, the soft opening, as you said, where it just says, "Are you available?" And then they had sent a second one that asked that full question in terms of like, "I'm really busy, I need you to help me, can you call me or email me," or something, not call obviously, because they didn't provide a phone number. Sometimes they do, but in this case, they didn't. And they had actually responded to their own email. So the attacker replied to their own email to kind of get that second push to the victim. The victim just reported the email to Microsoft so they didn't fall for it. Good for them. But it does seem that there might be some strategy involved or desperation. I'm not sure which one.Natalia Godyla:(laughs) Fine line between the two.Emily Hacker:(laughs)Nic Fillingham:I'd want to ask question that I don't know if you can answer, because I don't wanna ask you to essentially, you know, jeopardize any operational security or sort of tradecraft here, but can you give us a little tidbit of a glimpse of your, your job, and, and how you sort of do this day-to-day? Are you going and registering new email accounts and, and intentionally putting them in dodgy places in hopes of being the recipient? Or are you just responding to emails that have been reported as phishing from customers? Are you doing other things like, again, I don't wanna jeopardize any of your operational security or, you know, the processes that you use, but how do you find these?Emily Hacker:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Nic Fillingham:And how do you then sort of go and follow the threads and uncover these campaigns?Emily Hacker:Yeah, there's a few ways, I guess that we look for these. We don't currently have any kind of like Honey accounts set up or anything like that, where we would be hoping to be targeted and find them this way. I know there are different entities within Microsoft who are, who do different things, right? So my team is not the entity that would be doing that. So my team's job is more looking at what already exists. So we're looking at stuff that customers have reported, and we're also looking at open source intelligence if anyone else has tweeted or released a blog or something about an ongoing BEC campaign, that might be something that then I can go look at our data and see if we've gotten.Emily Hacker:But the biggest way outside of those, those are the two, like I would say smaller ways. The biggest way that we find these campaigns is we do technique tracking. So we have lots of different, we call them traps basically, and they run over all mail flow, and they look for certain either keywords or there are so many different things that they run on. Obviously not just keywords, I'm just trying to be vague here. But like they run on a bunch of different things and they have different names. So if an email hits on a certain few items, that might tell us, "Hey, this one might be BEC," and then that email can be surfaced to me to look into.Emily Hacker:Unfortunately, BEC is very, is a little bit more difficult to track just by the nature of it not containing phishing links or malware attachments or anything along those lines. So it is a little bit more keyword based. And so, a lot of times it's like looking at 10,000 emails and looking for the one that is bad when they all kind of use the same keywords. And of course, we don't just get to see every legitimate email, 'cause that would be like a crazy customer privacy concern. So we only get to really see certain emails that are suspected malicious by the customer, in which case it does help us a little bit because they're already surfacing the bad ones to us.Emily Hacker:But yeah, that's how we find these, is just by looking for the ones that already seem malicious kind of and applying logic over them to see like, "Hmm, this one might be BEC or," you know, we do that, not just for BEC, but like, "Hmm, this one seems like it might be this type of phishing," or like, "Hmm, this one seems like it might be a buzz call," or whatever, you know, these types of things that will surface all these different emails to us in a way that we can then go investigate them.Nic Fillingham:So for the folks listening to this podcast, what do you want them to take away from this? What you want us to know on the SOC side, on the- Emily Hacker:Mm-hmm (affirmative).Nic Fillingham:... on the SOC side? Like, is there any additional sort of, what are some of the fundamentals and sort of basics of BEC hygiene? Is there anything else you want folks to be doing to help protect the users in their organizations?Emily Hacker:Yeah, so I would say not to just focus on monitoring what's going on in the end point, because BEC activity is not going to have a lot, if anything, that's going to appear on the end point. So making sure that you're monitoring emails and looking for not just emails that contain malicious links or attachments, but also looking for emails that might contain BEC keywords. Or even better, if there's a way for you to monitor your organization's forwarding rules, if a user suddenly sets up a, a slew of new forwarding rules from their email account, see if there's a way to turn that into a notification or an alert, I mean, to you in the SOC. And that's a really key indicator that that might be BEC, not necessarily gift cards scam, but BEC.Emily Hacker:Or see if there is a way to monitor, uh, not monitor, but like, if your organization has users reporting phishing mails, if you get one that's like, "Oh, this is just your basic low-level credential phishing," don't just toss it aside and be like, "Well, that was just one person and has really crappy voicemail phish, no one's going to actually fall for that." Actually, look and see how many people got the email. See if anybody clicked, force password resets on the people that clicked, or if you can't tell who clicked on everybody, because it really only takes one person to have clicked on that email and you not reset their password, and now the attackers have access to your organization's email and they can be conducting these kinds of wire transfer fraud.Emily Hacker:So like, and I know we're all overworked in this industry, and I know that it can be difficult to try and focus on everything at once. And especially, you know, if you're being told, like our focus is ransomware, we don't want to have ransomware. You're just constantly monitoring end points for suspicious activity, but it's important to try and make sure that you're not neglecting the stuff that only exists in email as well. Natalia Godyla:Those are great suggestions. And I'd be remiss not to note that some of those suggestions are available in Microsoft Defender for Office 365, like the suspicious forwarding alerts or attack simulation training for user awareness. But thank you again for joining us, Emily, and we hope to have you back on the show many more times.Emily Hacker:Yeah, thanks so much for having me again.Natalia Godyla:Well, we had a great time unlocking insights into security from research to artificial intelligence. Keep an eye out for our next episode.Nic Fillingham:And don't forget to tweet us @msftsecurity, or email us at with topics you'd like to hear on our future episode. Until then, stay safe.Natalia Godyla:Stay secure.