[UA-discuss] IDN Implementation Guidelines [RE: Re : And now about phishing...]
Dusan Stojicevic
dusan at dukes.in.rs
Fri Apr 21 17:11:00 UTC 2017
Thanks Nalini,
Share that view, and yes, it was small number when we spoke two years ago.
Besides paypal, apple, epic, there is as much brands as you want, which can be made from just Cyrillic chars: Coca-cola, Pepsi, Opel, IBM...
And these are just brand names with Cyrillic... more of them can be made with other scripts (Armenian, Georgian, Greek, Arabic...).
Also agree entirely with Vittorio, and just want to add another layer of the problem - epic.com example use https, and while GeoTrust and at least one other CA have stopped issuing automated certificated for IDNs sometime ago for other reasons, this trend will be expected for others to follow.
So, we need to address this issue and try to explain also to end users what is this (f.e. there is one explanation, which is not entirely ok: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDN_homograph_attack).
Cheers,
Dusan
-----Original Message-----
From: ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of nalini.elkins at insidethestack.com
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 4:12 PM
To: 'Vittorio Bertola' <vittorio.bertola at open-xchange.com>; ua-discuss at icann.org; 'Asmus Freytag' <asmusf at ix.netcom.com>; Edmon Chung <edmon at registry.asia>
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] IDN Implementation Guidelines [RE: Re : And now about phishing...]
Edmon,
> it is hardly an issue statistically
I am certainly in agreement in not living in a fact-free world. So, I am collecting data on such sites. I am in the process of setting up a server to monitor 24 x 7 with a homographic domain finder product that we have written.
I can tell you from my initial testing that there are a surprising number. Currently, they appear to be for domains which are known world-wide.
More as it happens...
Thanks,
Nalini Elkins
CEO and Founder
Inside Products, Inc.
www.insidethestack.com
(831) 659-8360
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 4/21/17, Edmon Chung <edmon at registry.asia> wrote:
Subject: [UA-discuss] IDN Implementation Guidelines [RE: Re : And now about phishing...]
To: "'Vittorio Bertola'" <vittorio.bertola at open-xchange.com>, ua-discuss at icann.org, "'Asmus Freytag'" <asmusf at ix.netcom.com>
Date: Friday, April 21, 2017, 3:15 AM
Starting a separate thread to focus on the IDN Implementation Guidelines Discussion.
For the Draft IDN Guidelines you pointed to, please do submit your comments into the still open public comments period (recently extended):https://www.icann.org/public-comments/idn-guidelines-2017-03-03-en
To the specific issue of wholescript
confusables, there is a further explanation in point 17 why the current recommendation is a "may" rather than a "must"... But if we feel strongly it should move to a must, please do submit your comments in.
As for our work at UASG, I feel that it is probably a good idea to collect the counter arguments. I recall there was a phishing/security report a couple years ago that highlighted the issue and indicated that while this (used to be "paypal" example), is possible it is hardly an issue statistically. Does anyone have that report/link?
Edmon
From:
ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola
Sent: Friday, 21 April 2017 17:04 PM
To: ua-discuss at icann.org; Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] Re : And now about phishing...
Il 21 aprile 2017 alle 0.52
Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix.netcom.com>
ha scritto:
If you think about it, the following recommendation at the end is anathema to "Universal acceptance":"Zheng is encouraging Firefox users to limit their exposure to the bug by going to the browser’s about:config settings and setting network.IDN_show_punycode to true. By doing this Firefox will always display IDN domains in its Punycode form, something that should make it easier to identify malicious domains, the researcher claims."If you do that, you implicitly assume that only the "non-IDN" links are "real", in other words, you assume an English-only environment. (When stuff is displayed as punicode, you usually can't tell what domain it is, except you can guess for some European ones with very few special characters, but you can't be sure unless the Unicode form is at least also displayed, which I think is not what that config change means).Hello,excuse me if I jump into a discussion having just joined the list, but this issue is really troubling me for at least two reasons.First, many news sources are now filling up with calls and guides for disabling IDNs in browsers altogether, which is a death call for universal acceptance.
It all started with this horrible post by Wordfence's CEO, basically equating IDNs to an instrument conceived for phishing:https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2017/04/chrome-firefox-unicode-phishing/It
would be really good if anyone knew him and could have a chat with him, maybe even convince him to help spreading a better view of the issue.Secondly, browser makers are now reacting in opposite ways:1) Microsoft's browser (AFAIK) will enable or disable the display of Unicode in the URL bar depending on the operating system's language;2) Google's browser, with a newly released patch, will not display Unicode IDNs in ASCII TLDs if the IDNs are whole-script confusables ( https://codereview.chromium.org/2683793010
);3) Mozilla's browser will explicitly always display Unicode IDNs regardless of whether this may be used for phishing ( https://wiki.mozilla.org/IDN_Display_Algorithm_FAQ
and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1332714
). However, multiple online sources are now advising people to use a Firefox configuration option that allows to disable the display of IDNs altogether.(Don't know about Apple, Opera and others.)As you see, this is going to hamper the usability of IDNs in URLs and, even worse, make it entirely unpredictable, depending on the user's browser choice.The only real solution to this is that all registries treat whole script confusables as variants, so that they cannot be registered to anyone different than the owner of the equivalent ASCII domain. Unicode TR-39 allows to do this programmatically. However, I just checked the proposed draft IDN guidelines that are currently undergoing public consultation at ICANN:https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-idn-guidelines-03mar17-en.pdfAt
point 16, they say that the registry "may" do this, but that should really be a "must". If this does not happen, there will be more of these situations and the risk that all the Western world will then disable IDNs in URLs for good is quite significant. I think that this group could do several useful things:a) promote a better public understanding of the issue, countering the trend that "IDN URLs are for phishing";b) encourage browser makers to elaborate a common
approach;c) push for ICANN and the registries to free the Internet from whole-script
confusables.Regards,--
Vittorio Bertola
Research & Innovation Engineer Cell:+39 348 7015022Skype:in-skype-ox at bertola.euEmail:vittorio.bertola at open-xchange.com
Twitter: @openexchange -
Facebook: OpenXchange
- Web: www.open-xchange.comOpen-Xchange AG, Rollnerstr. 14, 90408 Nuremberg, District Court Nuremberg HRB 24738 Managing Board: Rafael Laguna de la Vera, Carsten Dirks, Uwe Reumuth Chairman of the Board: Richard Seibt
European Office:
Open-Xchange GmbH, Olper Huette 5f, D-57462 Olpe, Germany, District Court Siegen, HRB 8718 Managing Directors: Frank Hoberg, Martin Kauss
US Office:
Open-Xchange. Inc., 530 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, USA Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the UA-discuss
mailing list