[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 5901

Network Working Group                                            P. Cain
Internet-Draft                               The Cooper-Cain Group, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                               D. Jevans
Expires: May 27, 2010                    The Anti-Phishing Working Group
                                                       November 23, 2009


     Extensions to the IODEF-Document Class for Reporting Phishing
                 draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns-07

Abstract

   This document extends the Incident Object Description Exchange Format
   (IODEF) defined in RFC5070 to support the reporting of phishing
   events, which is a particular type of fraud.  These extensions are
   flexible enough to support information gleaned from activities
   throughout the entire electronic fraud cycle - from receipt of the
   phishing lure to the disablement of the collection site.  Both simple
   reporting and complete forensic reporting are possible, as is
   consolidating multiple incidents .































Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


RFC 2129 Keywords

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 27, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the BSD License.








Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.1.  Why a Common Report Format is Needed . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.2.  Processing of Exchanged Data not Defined . . . . . . . . .  6
     1.3.  Relation to the INCH IODEF Data Model  . . . . . . . . . .  6
   2.  Terminology Used in This Document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   3.  Interesting Fraud Event Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.1.  The Elements of a Phishing/Fraud Event . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.2.  Useful Data Items In a Fraud Event . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  Fraud Activity Reporting via IODEF-Documents . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.1.  Fraud Report Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.2.  Fraud Report XML Representation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.3.  Syntactical Correctness of Fraud Activity Reports  . . . . 12
   5.  PhraudReport Element Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.1.  PhraudReport Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.2.  Reuse of IODEF-defined Elements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.3.  Element and Attribute Specification Format . . . . . . . . 14
     5.4.  Version attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.5.  FraudType attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.6.  PhishNameRef element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.7.  PhishNameLocalRef element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.8.  FraudedBrandName element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.9.  LureSource element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.10. OriginatingSensor Element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     5.11. The DCSite element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     5.12. TakeDownInfo element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     5.13. ArchivedData element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     5.14. RelatedData element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     5.15. CorrelationData element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     5.16. PRComments element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     5.17. EmailRecord element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   6.  Mandatory IODEF and PhraudReport Elements  . . . . . . . . . . 33
     6.1.  Guidance on Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     7.1.  Transport-specific concerns  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     7.2.  Using the iodef:restriction attribute  . . . . . . . . . . 35
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
   9.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
   Appendix A.  Appendix A. Phishing Extensions XML Schema  . . . . . 39
   Appendix B.  Example Virus Report  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
     B.1.  Received Email . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
     B.2.  Generated Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
   Appendix C.  Sample Phishing Report  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
     C.1.  Received Lure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


     C.2.  Phishing Report  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

















































Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


1.  Introduction

   Deception activities, such as receiving an email purportedly from a
   bank requesting you to confirm your account information, are an
   expanding attack type on the Internet.  The terms phishing and fraud
   are used interchangeably in this document to characterize broadly-
   launched social engineering attacks in which an electronic identity
   is misrepresented in an attempt to trick individuals into revealing
   their personal credentials ( e.g., passwords, account numbers,
   personal information, ATM PINs, etc.).  A successful phishing attack
   on an individual allows the phisher (i.e., the attacker) to exploit
   the individual's credentials for financial or other gain.  Phishing
   attacks have morphed from directed email messages from alleged
   financial institutions to more sophisticated lures that may also
   include malware.

   This document defines a data format extension to the Incident Object
   Description Exchange Format (IODEF) [RFC5070] that can be used to
   describe information about a phishing or other type of fraudulent
   incident.  Sections 2 of this document provide an overview of the
   terminology and process of a phishing event.  Section3 introduces the
   high-level report format and how to use it.  Sections 4 and 5
   describe the data elements of the fraud extensions.  The appendices
   includes an XML schema for the extensions and a few example fraud
   reports.

   The extensions defined in this document may be used to report the
   social engineering victim lure, the collections site, and credential
   targeted ('spear') phishing, broad multi-recipient phishing, and
   other evolving Internet-based fraud attempts.  Malware and other
   malicious software included within the lure may also be included
   within the report

1.1.  Why a Common Report Format is Needed

   To combat the rise in malicious activity on the Internet, service
   providers and investigative agencies are sharing more and more
   network and event data in a coordinated effort to identify
   perpetrators and compromised accounts, coordinate responses, and
   prosecute attackers.  As the number of data sharing parties increases
   the number of party-specific tools, formats, and definitions multiply
   rapidly until it overwhelms the investigative and coordination
   abilities of those parties.

   By using a common format, it becomes easier for an organization to
   engage in this coordination as well as correlation of information
   from multiple data sources or products into a cohesive view.  As the
   number of data sources increases, a common format becomes even more



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   important, since multiple tools would be needed to interpret the
   different sources of data.  A big win in a common format is the
   ability to automate many of the analysis tasks an significantly speed
   up the response and persecution activities.

1.2.  Processing of Exchanged Data not Defined

   While the intended use of this specification is to facilitate data
   sharing between parties, the mechanics of this sharing process and
   its related political challenges are out of scope for this document.

1.3.  Relation to the INCH IODEF Data Model

   Instead of defining a new report format, this draft defines an
   extension to [RFC5070].  The IODEF defines a flexible and extensible
   format and supports a granular level of specificity.  These phishing
   and fraud extensions reuse subsets of the IODEF data model and, where
   appropriate, specifies new data elements.  Leveraging an existing
   specification allows for more rapid adoption and reuse of existing
   tools in organizations.  For clarity, and in order to eliminate
   duplication, only the additional structures necessary for describing
   the exchange of phishing and e-crime activity are provided.





























Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


2.  Terminology Used in This Document

   Since many people use different but similar terms to mean the same
   thing, we use the following terminology in this document.

   a.  Phishing

          The overall process of identifying victims, contacting them
          via a lure, causing a victim to send a set of private
          credentials to a collection site, and storing those
          credentials is called phishing.

   b.  Fraud event

          A fraud event is the combination of Phishing and subsequent
          fraudulent use of the private credentials.

   c.  Lure

          A lure is the decoy used to trick a victim into performing
          some activity such as providing their private credentials.
          The lure relies on social engineering concepts to convince the
          victim that the lure is genuine and its instructions should be
          followed.  A lure includes a pointer or link to a collection
          site.

   d.  Collection Site

          The web site, email box, SMS number, phone number, or other
          place where a phished victim sends their private credentials
          for later fraudulent use by a criminal.

   e.  Credentials

          A credential is data that is transferred or presented to
          establish either a claimed identity or the authorizations of a
          system entity.  Many websites requires a user name and
          password -- combined they are a credential -- to access
          sensitive content.

   f.  Message

          Although primarily email, a Lure can be transported via any
          messaging medium such as Instant message, Voice Over IP, or
          text via an SMS service.  The term message is used as a
          generic term for any of these transport mediums.





Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


3.  Interesting Fraud Event Data

   Before defining the structure of the IODEF extensions we identify the
   'interesting' data in phishing and other fraudulent activities.

3.1.  The Elements of a Phishing/Fraud Event

   +-----------+        +------------------+
   | Fraudster |<---<-- | Collection Site  |<---O--<----<----+
   +----+------+        +------------------+    |            |
        |                                       |            |
        |                                    +--|-----+      ^
        |                                    | Sensor | Credentials
        |                                    +-|------+      |
        |      +---------------+               |        +-------+
        \--->--| Attack Source |--Lure--->-----O------> | User/ |
               +---------------+                        |Victim |
                                                        +-------+

            Figure 3.1: The Components of Internet Fraud


   Internet-based Phishing and Fraud activities are normally comprised
   of at least six components:

   1.  The Phisher, Fraudster, or party perpetrating the fraudulent
       activity.  Most times this party is not readily identifiable.

   2.  The Attack Source, the source of the phishing email, virus,
       trojan, or other attack is masked in an enticing manner.

   3.  The Lure used to trick the victim into responding.

   4.  The User, Victim, or intended target of the fraud or phish.

   5.  The credentials, personal data, or other information the victim
       has surrendered to the phisher.

   6.  The collection site, where the victim sends their credentials or
       personal data if they have been duped by the lure of the phisher.
       This may be a website, mailbox, phone operator, or a database.

   If we take a holistic view of the attack, there are some additional
   components:

   o  The sensor, the means by which the phish is detected.  This
      element may be an intrusion detection system, firewall, filter,
      email gateway, or human analyst.



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   o  A forensic or archive site (not pictured) where an investigator
      has copied or otherwise retained the data used for the fraud
      attempt or credential collection.

3.1.1.  Fraudulent Activity Extensions to the IODEF-Document

   Fraud events are reported in a Fraud Activity Report which is an
   instance of an XML IODEF-Document Incident element with added
   EventData and AdditionalData elements.  The additional fields in the
   EventData specific to phishing and fraud are enclosed into a
   PhraudReport XML element.  Fraudulent activity may include multiple
   emails, instant messages, or network messages, scattered over various
   times, locations, and methodologies.  The PhraudReport within an
   EventData may include information about the email header and body,
   details of the actual phishing lure, correlation to other attacks,
   and details of the removal of the web server or credential collector.
   As a phishing attack may generate multiple reports to an incident
   team, multiple PhraudReports may be combined into one EventData
   structure and multiple EventData structures may be combined into one
   Incident Report.  One IODEF Incident report may record one or more
   individual phishing events and may include multiple EventData
   elements.

   This document defines new extension elements for the EventData and
   Record Item IODEF XML elements and identifies those required in a
   PhraudReport.  The Appendices contain sample Fraud Activity Reports
   and a complete Schema.

   The IODEF Extensions defined in this document comply with section 4,
   "Extending the IODEF Format" in [RFC5070].

3.2.  Useful Data Items In a Fraud Event

   There are a number of subtle and non-obvious datum to capture from a
   fraud event that makes the event analysis and correlation with other
   events more useful.  These datum can be grouped into categories:

3.2.1.  Data about the Lure

   If a lure was presented as part of the fraud event, this category
   includes the original received lure, the means that the lure was
   received ( e.g., email, phone, or SMS), and the source addresses that
   sent the lure.  Other useful data includes DNS data about the lure
   source, identification of any accompanying malware, and the Brand
   name defrauded.






Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


3.2.2.  Credential Collection Site Data

   The collection site contains victim identifications along with copies
   of data supplied by the victims such as account names or numbers,
   passwords, date of birth, etc.  This category of useful data includes
   these credentials along with information about the collections site
   itself such as its type, site DNS data, DNS registrant data, and site
   physical location.  The location and registrant information is
   particularly important if law enforcement assistance is expected.
   Additionally, an entire site archive can be gathered to allow a
   collector on a shared web site to be disabled without impacting other
   users.

3.2.3.  Detection Information

   This is a non-obvious data category and contains data on how the lure
   or collection site was detected.  Understanding how the lure was
   detected allows us to design and implement better detection systems.

3.2.4.  Analysis Output

   In an environment where time is critical, it is imperative that
   analysis from one party can be reliably explained and shared to other
   investigative parties.  This grouping includes data that an
   investigator found interesting or could be useful to others.


























Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


4.  Fraud Activity Reporting via IODEF-Documents

   A Fraud Activity Report is an instance of an XML IODEF-Document with
   additional extensions and usage guidance as specified in Section 4 of
   this document.  These additional extensions are implemented through
   the PhraudReport XML element.

   As described in the following sections, reporting Fraud Activity has
   three primary components: choosing a report type; a format for the
   data; and how to check correctness of the format.

4.1.  Fraud Report Types

   There are three actions relating to reporting phishing events.
   First, a reporter may *create* and exchange a new report on a new
   event.  Secondly, a reporter may *update* a previously exchanged
   report to indicate new collection sites, site take down information,
   or related activities.  Lastly, a reporter may have realized that the
   report is in error or contain significant incorrect data and the
   prudent reaction is to *delete* the report.

   The three types of reports are denoted through the use of the ext-
   purpose attribute of an Incident element.  A new report contains an
   empty or a "create" ext-purpose value; an updated report contains a
   ext-value value of "update"; a request for deletion contains a
   "delete" ext-purpose value.  Note that this is actually an advisory
   marking for the report originator or recipient as operating
   procedures in a report life cycle is very environment specific.

4.2.  Fraud Report XML Representation

   The IODEF Incident element [RFC5070, Section 3.2] is summarized
   below.  It and the rest of the data model presented in Section 4 is
   expressed in Unified Modeling Language (UML) syntax as used in the
   IODEF specification.  The UML representations is for illustrative
   purposes only; elements are specified in XML as defined in Appendix A















Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   +--------------------+
   | Incident           |
   +--------------------+
   | ENUM purpose       |<>----------[ IncidentID ]
   | STRING ext-purpose |<>--{0..1}--[ AlternativeID ]
   | ENUM lang          |<>--{0..1}--[ RelatedActivity ]
   | ENUM restriction   |<>--{0..1}--[ DetectTime ]
   |                    |<>--{0..1}--[ StartTime ]
   |                    |<>--{0..1}--[ EndTime ]
   |                    |<>----------[ ReportTime ]
   |                    |<>--{0..*}--[ Description ]
   |                    |<>--{1..*}--[ Assessment ]
   |                    |<>--{0..*}--[ Method ]
   |                    |<>--{1..*}--[ Contact ]
   |                    |<>--{0..*}--[ EventData ]
   |                    |              |<>--[ AdditionalData ]
   |                    |                     |<>--[ PhraudReport ]
   |                    |<>--{0..1}--[ History ]
   |                    |<>--{0..*}--[ AdditionalData ]
   +------------------+

           Figure 4.1: The IODEF XML Incident Element (modified)


   A Fraud Activity Report is composed of one iodef:Incident element
   that contains one or more related PhraudReport elements embedded in
   iodef:AdditionalData element of iodef:EventData.  The PhraudReport
   element is added to the IODEF using its defined extension procedure
   documented in Section 5 of [RFC5070].

   One IODEF-Document may contain information on multiple incidents with
   information for each incident contained within an iodef:Incident
   element [RFC5070], Section 3.12].

4.3.  Syntactical Correctness of Fraud Activity Reports

   The Fraud Activity Report MUST pass XML validation using the schema
   defined in [RFC5070] and the extensions defined in<AppendixA> of this
   document.












Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


5.  PhraudReport Element Definitions

   A PhraudReport consists of an extension to the
   Incident.EventData.AdditionalData element with a dtype of "xml".  The
   elements of the PhraudReport will specify information about the six
   components of fraud activity identified in Section 2.  Additional
   forensic information and commentary can be added by the reporter as
   necessary to show relation to other events, to show the output of an
   investigation, or for archival purposes.

5.1.  PhraudReport Structure

   A PhraudReport element is structured as follows.  The components of a
   PhraudReport are introduced in functional grouping as some parameters
   are related and some elements may not make sense individually.
   +------------------+
   |   PhraudReport   |
   +------------------+
   | STRING Version   |<>--{0..1}--[ PhishNameRef ]
   | ENUM FraudType   |<>--{0..1}--[ PhishNameLocalRef ]
   | STRING ext-value |<>--{0..1}--[ FraudParameter ]
   |                  |<>--{0..*}--[ FraudedBrandName ]
   |                  |<>--{1..*}--[ LureSource ]
   |                  |<>--{1..*}--[ OriginatingSensor ]
   |                  |<>--{0..1}--[ EmailRecord ]
   |                  |<>--{0..*}--[ DCSite ]
   |                  |<>--{0..*}--[ TakeDownInfo ]
   |                  |<>--{0..*}--[ ArchivedData ]
   |                  |<>--{0..*}--[ RelatedData ]
   |                  |<>--{0..*}--[ CorrelationData ]
   |                  |<>--{0..1}--[ PRComments ]
   +------------------+

           Figure 5.1: The PhraudReport Element

   Relevant information about a phishing or fraud event can be encoded
   by encoding the six components as follows:

   a.  The PhishNameRef and PhishNameLocalRef elements identify the
       fraud or class of fraud.

   b.  The LureSource element describes the source of the attack or
       phishing lure, including host information and any included
       malware.

   c.  The DCSite describes the technical details of the credential
       collection site.




Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   d.  The Originating Sensor element describes the means of detection.

   The RelatedData, ArchivedData, and TakeDownInfo fields allow optional
   forensics and history data to be included.

   A specific phish/fraud activity can be identified using a combination
   of the FraudType, FraudParameter, FraudedBrandName, LureSource, and
   PhishNameRef elements.

5.2.  Reuse of IODEF-defined Elements

   Elements, attributes, and parameters defined in the base IODEF
   specification were used whenever possible in the definition of the
   PhraudReport XML element.  This specification does not introduce any
   new variable types or encodings to the IODEF data model, but extends
   the IODEF Contact and System elements.

   The data model schema contains a copy of the iodef:System element.
   Although we would like to just extend the System element, it is
   defined in RFC5070 with an unable-to-extend anonymous type so we
   copied the element, named its underlying type, and then generated the
   extension to it.

   Note: Elements that are imported from the base IODEF specification
   are prefaced with an "iodef" XML namespace and are noted with the
   section defining that element in [RFC5070].  Each element in a
   PhraudReport is used as described in the following sections.

5.3.  Element and Attribute Specification Format

   The following sections describe the components of a PhraudReport XML
   element.  Each description is structured as follows.

   1.  A terse XML-type identifier for the element or attribute.

   2.  An indication of whether the element or attribute is REQUIRED or
       optional.  Mandatory items are noted as REQUIRED.  If not
       specified, elements are optional.  Note that when optional
       elements are included, they may REQUIRE specific sub-elements.

   3.  A description of the element or attribute and its intended use.

   Elements that contain sub-elements or enumerated values are further
   sub-sectioned.  Note that there is no 'trickle-up' effect in
   elements.  That is, the required elements of a sub-element are only
   populated if the sub-element is used.





Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


5.4.  Version attribute

   REQUIRED.  STRING.  The version shall be the value 0.06 to be
   compliant with this document.

5.5.  FraudType attribute

   REQUIRED.  One ENUM.  The FraudType attribute describes the type of
   fraudulent activity described in this PhraudReport.  The FraudType
   chosen determines the value of the FraudParameter filed.  This field
   contains one of the following values:

   1.  phishing.  The FraudParameter should be the subject line of the
       phishing lure email or value of a lure IM or VoIP message.  This
       type is a standard phishing lure, usually sent as email, and is
       intended to derive financial loss to the recipient.

   2.  recruiting.  The FraudParameter is the subject line of the
       recruit, or mule, email or message.

   3.  malware distribution.  The FraudParameter is the email subject
       line of the phishing email.  This type of email phish does not
       pose a potential financial loss to the recipient, but lures the
       recipient to an infected site.

   4.  fraudulent site.  This identifies a known fraudulent site that
       does not necessarily send spam but is used to show lures.  The
       FraudParameter may be used to identify the website.

   5.  dnsspoof.  This choice does not have a related FraudParameter.
       This value is used when a DNS system component responses with an
       untrue IP address for the requested domain name due to either
       cache poisoning, ID spoofing, or other manipulation of the DNS
       system.

   6.  archive.  There is no required FraudParameter for this choice,
       although the FraudParameter of the original phish could be
       entered.  The data archived from the phishing server is placed in
       the ArchiveInfo element.

   7.  other.  This is used to identify not-yet-enumerated fraud types.

   8.  unknown.  This choice may have an associated FraudParameter.  It
       is used to cover confused cases.

   9.  ext-value.  This choice identifies an unidentified FraudType.
       The FraudType should be captured in the ext-value attribute.




Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


5.5.1.  ext-value attribute

   OPTIONAL.  This STRING may be populated with a FraudType that has not
   been predefined.

5.5.2.  FraudParameter element

   Zero or one value of iodef:MLStringType.  The contents of this
   element are dependent on the FraudType choice.  It may be an email
   subject line, VoIP lure, link in an IM message, or a web URL.  Note
   that some phishers add a number of random characters onto the end of
   a phish email subject line for uniqueness; reporters should delete
   those characters before insertion into the FraudParameter field.

5.6.  PhishNameRef element

   Zero or one value of iodef:MLStringType.  The PhishNameRef element is
   the common name used to identify this fraud event.  It is often the
   name agreed upon by involved parties or vendors.  Using this name can
   be a convenient way to reference the activity collaborating with
   other parties, the media, or engaging in public education.

5.7.  PhishNameLocalRef element

   Zero or one value of iodef:MLStringType.  The PhishNameLocalRef
   element describes a local name or Unique-IDentifier (UID) that is
   used by various parties before a commonly agreed term is adopted.
   This field allows a cross-reference from the submitting
   organization's system to a central repository.

5.8.  FraudedBrandName element

   Zero or more values of iodef:MLStringType.  This is the identifier of
   the recognized brand name or company name used in the phishing
   activity (e.g., XYZ Semiconductor Corp).

5.9.  LureSource element

   REQUIRED.  One or more values.  The LureSource element describes the
   source of the PhraudReport lure.  It allows the specification of IP
   Addresses, DNS names, domain registry information, and rudimentary
   support for the files that might be downloaded or registry keys
   modified by the crimeware.








Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   +-------------+
   | LureSource  |
   +-------------+
   |             |<>--(1..*)--[ System ]
   |             |<>--(0..*)--[ DomainData ]
   |             |<>--(0..1)--[ IncludedMalware  ]
   |             |<>--(0..1)--[ FilesDownloaded  ]
   |             |<>--(0..1)--[ WindowsRegistryKeysModified  ]
   +-------------+

           Figure 5.2: The LureSource element


5.9.1.  System element

   REQUIRED.  One or more values of the iodef:System [RFC5070, Section
   3.15].  The system element describes a particular host involved in
   the phishing activity.  If the real IP Address can be ascertained, it
   should be populated.  A spoofed address may also be entered and the
   spoofed attribute SHALL be set.

   Multiple System elements may be used to identify the DNS Name, IP
   Address(es) of the lure source.

5.9.2.  DomainData element

   Zero or more element values.  The DomainData element describes the
   registration, delegation, and control of a domain used to source the
   lure and can identify the IP address associated with the System
   element URI.  Capturing the domain data is very useful when
   investigating or correlating events.

   The structure of a DomainData element is as follows:

   +--------------------+
   | DomainData         |
   +--------------------+
   |                    |<>----------[ Name ]
   |                    |<>--(0..1)--[ DateDomainWasChecked ]
   | ENUM SystemStatus  |<>--(0..1)--[ RegistrationDate ]
   | ENUM DomainStatus  |<>--(0..1)--[ ExpirationDate ]
   |                    |<>--(0..*)--[ Nameservers ]
   |                    |<>--(0..1)--[ DomainContacts ]
   +--------------------+

                Figure 5.3 The DomainData element





Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


5.9.2.1.  Name

   REQUIRED.  One value of iodef:MLStringType.  The Name element
   contains the host DNS name used in this event.  Its value should be
   the complete DNS host address, e.g., if an event targeted
   www.example.com the value would be www.example.com.

5.9.2.2.  DateDomainWasChecked

   Zero or One value of DATETIME.  This element includes the timestamp
   of when this domain data was checked and entered into this report as
   many phishers modify their domain data at various stages of a
   phishing event.

5.9.2.3.  RegistrationDate element

   Zero or one value of DATETIME.  The RegistrationDate element shows
   the date of registration for a domain.

5.9.2.4.  ExpirationDate element

   Zero or one value of DATETIME.  The ExpirationDate element shows the
   date the domain will expire.

5.9.2.5.  Nameservers element

   Zero or more values.  These fields hold name servers identified for
   this domain.  Each entry is a sequence of DNSNameType and iodef:
   Address pairs as specified below.

   +--------------------+
   | Nameservers        |
   +--------------------+
   |                    |<>----------[ Server]
   |                    |<>--(1..*)--[ iodef:Address ]
   +--------------------+

                Figure 5.4 The Nameservers element


   The use of one Server value and multiple Address values is used to
   note multiple IPAddreses associated with one DNS entry for the domain
   nameserver.

5.9.2.5.1.  Server element

   One value of iodef:MLStringType.  This field contains the DNS name of
   the domain nameserver.



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


5.9.2.5.2.  iodef:Address element

   One or more values of iodef:Address.  This field lists the IP
   Address(es) associated with this Server element.

5.9.2.6.  DomainContacts element

   REQUIRED.  Choice of either a SameDomainContact or one or more
   Contact elements.  The DomainContacts element allows the reporter to
   enter contact information supplied by the registrar or returned by
   Whois queries.  For efficiency of the reporting party, the domain
   contact information may be marked to be the same as another domain
   already reported using the SameDomainContact element.

   +----------------+
   | DomainContacts |
   +----------------+
   |                |<>--(0..1)--[ SameDomainContact ]
   |                |<>--(1..*)--[ Contact ]
   +----------------|

             Figure 5.5 The DomainContacts element


5.9.2.6.1.  SameDomainContact

   REQUIRED.  One iodef:MLStringType.  The SameDomainContact element is
   populated with a domain name if the contact information for this
   domain is identical to that name in this or another report.
   Implementors are cautioned to only use this element when the domain
   contact data returned by a registrar or registry is identical.

5.9.2.6.2.  Contact Element

   REQUIRED.  One or more iodef:Contact elements.  This element reuses
   and extends the iodef:Contact elements for its components.  Each
   component may have zero or more values.  If only the role attribute
   and the ContactName component are populated, the same (identical)
   information is listed for multiple roles.












Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   +--------------------+
   | Contact            |
   +--------------------+
   |                    |<>----------[ iodef:ContactName ]
   |                    |<>--(0..*)--[ iodef:Description ]
   | ENUM role          |<>--(0..*)--[ iodef:RegistryHandle ]
   |                    |<>--(0..1)--[ iodef:PostalAdress ]
   | ENUM Restriction   |<>--(0..*)--[ iodef:Email ]
   | ENUM ext-role      |<>--(0..*)--[ iodef:Telephone ]
   | ENUM type          |<>--(0..1)--[ iodef:Fax ]
   | ENUM ext-type      |<>--(0..1)--[ iodef:Timezone ]
   |                    |<->----------[ AdditionalData ]
   |                    |                  +<-> [ Confidence ]
   +--------------------+

           Figure 5.6: The Contact element


   Each Contact has optional attributes to capture the sensitivity and
   role for which the contact is listed.  Elements reused from [RFC5070]
   are not discussed in this document.

5.9.2.6.2.1.  Confidence element

   REQUIRED.  ENUM.  The Confidence element describes a qualitative
   assessment of the veracity of the contact information.  This
   attribute is an extension to the iodef:Contact element and is defined
   in this document.  There are five possible confidence values as
   follows.

   1.  known-fraudulent.  This contact information has been previously
       determined to be fraudulent, either as non-existent physical
       information or containing real information not associated with
       this domain registration.

   2.  looks-fraudulent.  The contact information has suspicious
       information included.

   3.  known-real.  The contact information has been previously
       investigated or determined to be correct.

   4.  looks-real.  The contact information does not arouse suspicion
       but has not been previously validated.

   5.  unknown.  The reporter cannot make a value judgment on the
       contact data.





Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


5.9.2.6.2.2.  Ext-role attribute

   REQUIRED.  ENUM.  The ext-role attribute is extended from the iodef:
   ext-role attribute with values identified in RFC3982 [RFC3982].  The
   ext-value value of the role attribute should be used, with the ext-
   role attribute value chosen from one of the following values:

   1.  billingContacts

   2.  technicalContacts

   3.  administrativeContacts

   4.  legalContacts

   5.  zoneContacts

   6.  abuseContacts

   7.  securityContacts

   8.  otherContacts

   9.  hostingProvider.  This contact is the hosting provider of this
       server.  Although not in RFC3982, it is useful in investigations
       to note where the server is located and who operates it.  Load
       balanced, multicast or anycast servers may have multiple
       hostingProvider contact entries.

5.9.3.  SystemStatus attribute

   REQUIRED.  ENUM.  The SystemStatus attribute assesses a system's
   involvement in this event.  The value is chosen from this list:

   1.  spoofed.  This domain or system did not participate in this
       event, but its address space or DNS name was simply used by
       another party.

   2.  fraudulent.  The system is operated with fraudulent intentions,
       e.g., the domain name is a homophone.

   3.  innocent-hacked.  The system was compromised by a third party and
       used in this event.

   4.  innocent-hijacked.  The IP Address or domain name was
       deliberately hijacked via BGP or DNS and used in this event to
       source the lure or host the collection site.




Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 21]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   5.  unknown.  No conclusions are inferred from this event.

5.9.4.  DomainStatus attribute

   ENUM.  The DomainStatus attribute describes the registry status of a
   domain at the time of the report.  The below enumerated list is taken
   from the 'domainStatusType' of `[RFC3982].  An extra 'unknown' value
   was added in case the Status is undeterminable.

   1.   reservedDelegation

   2.   assignedAndActive

   3.   assignedAndInactive

   4.   assignedAndOnHold

   5.   revoked

   6.   transferPending

   7.   registryLock

   8.   registrarLock

   9.   other

   10.  unknown

5.9.5.  IncludedMalware element

   Zero or One Value.  The IncludedMalware element allows for the
   identification and optional inclusion of the actual malware that was
   part of the lure.  The goal of this element is not to detail the
   characteristics of the malware but rather to allow for a convenient
   element to link malware to a phishing campaign.















Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 22]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   +------------------+
   | IncludedMalware  |
   +------------------+
   |                  |<>--(1..*)--[ Name ]
   |                  |<>--(0..1)--[ ds:Reference ]
   |                  |<>--(0..1)--[ Data ]
   +------------------+

   +-----------------------+
   | Data                  |
   +-----------------------+
   | hexBinary XORPattern  |
   +-----------------------+

       Figure 5.7: The Included Malware element


5.9.5.1.  Name element

   REQUIRED.  One or more value of iodef:MLStringType.  This field is
   used to identify the lure malware by its known name.  Unnamed malware
   may be identified by a value of 'unknown'.

5.9.5.2.  Reference element

   Zero or one value of the Reference.  This optional field is used to
   hold the Algorithm identification and value of a hash computed over
   the malware executable.  This entire element is imported from
   [RFC3275].  Implementations SHOULD support the use of SHA-1 [SHA] as
   a DigestMethod.

5.9.5.3.  Data element

   Zero or one value.  The optional Data element is used to include the
   lure malware, which is encoded as a hexBinary type and XORed with a
   pattern to render it harmless.

5.9.5.3.1.  XORPattern attribute

   One value of hexBinary.  The Data Element includes a 16 hexadecimal
   character XOR Pattern attribute to support disabling the included
   malware to bypass anti-virus filters.  The default value is
   0x55AA55AA55AA55BB which would be XOR-ed with the malware datastring
   to recover the actual malware.







Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 23]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


5.9.6.  FilesDownloaded element

   Zero or One value of a sequence of File elements.

   +---------------------+
   | FilesDownloaded     |
   +---------------------+
   |                     |<>--(1..*)--[ File ]
   +---------------------+

       Figure 5.8: The FilesDownloaded element


5.9.6.1.  File element

   One or more values of iodef:MLStringType.  The File element value is
   the name of a file downloaded by this lure.

5.9.7.  WindowsRegistryKeysModified element

   One or more valuev of the Key sequence.  The contents of the
   WindowsRegistryKeysModified element are sequences of Key elements.

   +------------------------------+
   | WindowsRegistryKeysModified  |
   +------------------------------+
   |                              |<>--(1..*)--[ Key ]
   +------------------------------+

   +--------------+
   | Key          |
   +--------------+
   |              |<>-----[ Name ]
   |              |<>-----[ Value ]
   +--------------+

       Figure 5.9: The WindowsRegistryKeysModified element


5.9.7.1.  Key element

   One or more Sequences.  The key element is a sequence of Name and
   Value pairs representing an operating system registry key and its
   value.  The key and value are encoded as in Microsoft .reg files.
   [KB310516]






Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 24]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


5.9.7.1.1.  Name element

   One STRING, representing the WINDOWS Operating System Registry Key
   Name.  The value is encoded as in Microsoft .reg files, e.g.,
   [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Test\KeyName].

5.9.7.1.2.  Value element

   One STRING, representing the value of the associated Key encoded as
   in Microsoft .reg files, e.g., REG_BINARY:01.

5.10.  OriginatingSensor Element

   REQUIRED.  The OriginatingSensor element contains the identification
   and cognizant data of the network element that detected this fraud
   activity.  Note that the network element does not have to be on the
   Internet itself (i.e., it may be a local IDS system) nor is it
   required to be mechanical (e.g., humans are allowed).

   Multiple OriginatingSensor Elements are allowed to support detection
   at multiple locations.

   +---------------------+
   | OriginatingSensor   |
   +---------------------+
   | ENUM OrigSensorType |<>------------[ DateFirstSeen ]
   |                     |<>------------[ iodef:System ]
   +---------------------+

           Figure 5.10: The OriginatingSensor element


   The OriginatingSensor requires a type value and identification of the
   entity that detected this fraudulent event.

5.10.1.  OrigSensorType attribute

   REQUIRED.  ENUM.  The value is chosen from the following list,
   categorizing the function of this sensor:

       1. web.  A web server or service detected this event.

       2. webgateway.  A proxy, firewall, or other network gateway
       detected this event.

       3. mailgateway.  The event was detected via a mail gateway or
       filter




Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 25]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


       4. browser.  The event was detected at the user web interface or
       browser-type element..

       5. ispsensor.  The event was detected by an automated system in
       the network such as Intrusion Detection System, Intrusion
       Protection System, or other Internet Service Provider device.

       6. human.  A non-automated system (e.g., a human, manual
       analysis, etc) detected this event.

       7. honeypot.  The event was detected by receipt at a decoy
       device.

       8. other.  The detection was performed via a non-listed method.

5.10.2.  DateFirstSeen element

       REQUIRED.  DATETIME.  This is the date and time that this sensor
       first saw this phishing activity.

5.10.3.  iodef:System element

       REQUIRED.  One or more iodef:System.  This is identification
       information (such as the IPVersion, IPAddress, etc) of the entity
       that detected this event.  The ability to identify multiple
       detectors is supported.

5.11.  The DCSite element

   Zero or more DCSite elements.  The DCSite captures the type,
   identifier, location, and other pertinent information about the
   credential gathering process, or data collection site, used in the
   phishing incident.  The data collection site is identified by four
   elements: the type of collector, the network location, information
   about its DNS Domain, and a confidence factor.  Further details about
   the domain, system, or owner of the DCSite can be inserted into the
   DomainData sub-element.

   If the DCSite element is present, a value is required.  Multiple
   DCSite elements are allowed to indicate multiple collection sites for
   a single collector.  Multiple URLs pointing to the same DNS entry can
   be identified with multiple SiteURL elements.









Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 26]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   +--------------+
   | DCSite       |
   +--------------+
   | ENUM DCType  |<>--+--------[ SiteURL ]
   |              |    +--------[ Domain ]
   |              |    +--------[ EmailSite ]
   |              |    +--------[ System ]
   |              |    +--------[ Unknown ]
   |              |<>--(0..*)---[ iodef:Node ]
   |              |<>--(0..1)---[ DomainData ]
   |              |<>--(0..1)---[ iodef:Assessment ]
   +--------------+

        Figure 5.11: The DCSite element


5.11.1.  DCType attribute

   REQUIRED.  ENUM.  The DCType attribute identifies the method of data
   collection as determined through the analysis of the victim computer,
   lure, or malware.  This attribute coupled with the DCSite content
   identifies the data collection site.

   1.  web.  The user is redirected to a website to collect the data.

   2.  email.  The victim sends an email with credentials enclosed.

   3.  keylogger.  Some form of keylogger is downloaded to the victim.

   4.  automation.  Other forms of automatic data collection, such as
       background OLE automation, are used to capture information on the
       user's machine.

   5.  unspecified.

5.11.2.  DCSite values

   REQUIRED.  The DCSite element contains the IPAddress, URL, emailsite,
   or other identifier of the credentail or data collection site.  The
   Domain choice may be used to identify entire 'phishy' domains like
   those used for the RockPhish and related malware.  Each DCSite
   element also includes a confidence attribute to convey the reporter's
   assessment of their confidence that this DCSite element is valid, and
   involved with this event.  The confidence value is a per-DCSite value
   as multiple-site data collectors may have different confidence
   values.

   The DCSite element is a choice of:



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 27]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   1.  SiteURL.  One value of iodef:MLStringType.  This choice supports
       URIs and other web-based identifiers.

   2.  Domain.  One value of iodef:MLStringType.  This choice allows the
       entry of a DNS Domain name.

   3.  EmailSite.  One value of iodef:MLStringType.  This choice
       includes an email address if the site used email communications.

   4.  iodef:Address.  One value of iodef:Address element.  This choice
       is used to capture the IP Address of a site.

   5.  Unknown.  One value of iodef:MLStringType.  The unknown entry is
       used for exception to the preceding choices.

5.11.2.1.  Confidence attribute

   One Value of STRING.  The confidence attribute is a value between 0
   and 100 representing the reporter's certainty that this is a genuine
   phishing site.  A value of 0 represents a false positive; a value of
   100 signifies that the reporter has independently verified this site.

5.11.3.  iodef:Node

   Zero or more values of iodef:Node.  This element is used to identify
   the IP Address(es) or DNS Names associated with the DCSite element
   value.

5.11.4.  DomainData element

   Zero or One value of DomainData Section 5.9.2.  This element allows
   for the identification of data associated with the data collection
   site.

5.11.5.  iodef:Assessment element

   Zero or One value of iodef:Assessment.  This element is used to
   designate different confidence levels of multiple-site data
   collectors.

5.12.  TakeDownInfo element

   Zero or more TakeDownInfo elements.  This element identifies the
   agent or agency that performed the removal, DNS domain disablement,
   or ISP-blockage of the phish or fraud collector site.  A PhraudReport
   may have multiple TakeDownInfo elements to support activities where
   multiple take down activities are involved on different dates.  Note
   that the term "Agency" is used to identify any party performing the



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 28]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   blocking or removal such as ISPs or private parties, not just
   government entities.

   The TakeDownInfo element allows one date element with multiple
   TakeDownAgency and Comment elements to support operations using
   multiple agencies.

   +-------------------+
   | TakeDownInfo      |
   +-------------------+
   |                   |<>---(0..1)--[ TakeDownDate ]
   |                   |<>---(0..*)--[ TakeDownAgency ]
   |                   |<>---(0..*)--[ TakeDownComments ]
   +-------------------+

      Figure 5.12: The TakeDownInfo element

5.12.1.  TakeDownDate

   Zero or one DATETIME.  This is the date and time that take down of
   the collector site occurred.

5.12.2.  TakeDownAgency

   Zero or more iodef:MLStringType elements.  This is a free form string
   identifying the agency, corporation, or cooperative that performed
   the take down.

5.12.3.  TakeDownComments

   Zero or more iodef:MLStringType elements.  A free form field to add
   any additional details of this take down effort or to identify
   parties that assisted in the effort at an ISP, CERT, or DNS Registry.

5.13.  ArchivedData element

   Zero or more values of the ArchivedData element are allowed.

   +-------------------+
   | ArchivedData      |
   +-------------------+
   | ENUM type         |<>---(0..1)--[ URL ]
   |                   |<>---(0..1)--[ Comments ]
   |                   |<>---(0..1)--[ Data ]
   +-------------------+

            Figure 5.13: The ArchivedData element




Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 29]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   The ArchivedData element is populated with a pointer to the contents
   of a data collection site, base camp (i.e., development site), or
   other site used by a phisher.  The ArchivedDataInfo may also include
   a copy of the archived data recovered from a phishing system.  This
   element will be populated when, for example, an ISP takes down a
   phisher's web site and has copied the site data into an archive file.

   There are four types of archives currently supported, as specified in
   the type field.

5.13.1.  type attribute

   REQUIRED.  This parameter specifies the type of site data pointed to
   by the ArchivedDataURL, from the following list:

   1.  collectionsite.  The archive is a set of files from the
       collection site.

   2.  basecamp.  The contents of a criminal development site are
       included in the archive.

   3.  sendersite.  The archive is a set of files or data from a
       phishing lure sending site.

   4.  credentialInfo.  The included archive are recovered private
       credentials.

   5.  unspecified.  The archive contents does not fit into one of the
       above categories and will be described in the DataComments
       element.

5.13.2.  URL element

   Zero or one value of anyURL.  As the archive of an entire site can be
   quite large, the URL element points to an Internet-based server where
   the actual content of the site archive can be retrieved.  Note that
   this element just points out where the archive is and does not
   include the entire archive in the report.  This is the URL where the
   archive file is located.

5.13.3.  Comments element

   Zero or one value of iodef:MLStringType.  This field is a free form
   area for comments on the archive and/or URL.







Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 30]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


5.13.4.  Data element

   Zero or one value of xs:Base64Binary.  This field contains a base64
   encoded version of the data described in the comment field above.

5.14.  RelatedData element

   Zero or more value of anyURI.  This element allows the listing of
   other web or net sites that are related to this incident (e.g.,
   victim site, etc.).

5.15.  CorrelationData element

   Zero or more value of iodef:MLStringType.  Any information that
   correlates this incident to other incidents can be entered here.

5.16.  PRComments element

   Zero or one value of iodef:MLStringType.  This field allows for any
   comments specific to this PhraudReport that does not fit in any other
   field.

5.17.  EmailRecord element

   This element supports the inclusion of the actual email message
   received as a phishing lure.  Inclusion of the actual mail message is
   supported by two methods; either the message may be included as one
   large string, or the header and body components may be dissected and
   included as a series of strings.

   +--------------------+
   | EmailRecord        |
   +--------------------+
   |                    |<>--------------[ EmailCount ]
   |                    |<>--(0..1)------[ EmailMessage ]
   |                    |<>--(0..1)------[ EmailComments ]
   +--------------------+

             Figure 5.14: The EmailRecord element


5.17.1.  EmailCount element

   REQUIRED.  INTEGER.  This field enumerates the number of email
   messages identified in this record as detected by the reporter.






Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 31]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


5.17.2.  EmailMessage element

   Zero of one value of iodef:MLStringType.  The entire SMTP mail
   message - RFC822 header followed by body as specified in [RFC5322] -
   should be inserted as one large text string.  In some communities
   this combination is known as the message contents and full headers.

5.17.3.  EmailComments element

   Zero or one value of iodef:MLStringType elements.  This field
   contains comments or relevant data not placed elsewhere about the
   phishing email.







































Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 32]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


6.  Mandatory IODEF and PhraudReport Elements

   A report about fraud or phishing requires certain identifying
   information which is contained within the standard IODEF Incident
   data structure and the PhraudReport extensions.  The following table
   identifies attributes required to be present in a compliant
   PhraudReport to report phishing or fraud.  The required attributes
   are a combination of those required by the base IODEF element, as
   shown in figure 6.1, and those required by this document, shown in
   figure 6.2.  Attributes identified as required SHALL be populated in
   conforming phishing activity reports.

   A compliant IODEF PhraudReport SHALL contain the following elements
   and attributes:
   +--------------+
   | Incident     |
   +--------------+
   | ENUM Purpose |---[ IncidentID ]
   |              |---[ ReportTime ]
   |              |---[ Assessment ]
   |              |   ---> [ Impact ]
   |              |---[ Contact ]
   |              |   ---> [ @type ]
   |              |   ---> [ @role ]
   |              |   ---> [ * ]
   |              |---[ EventData ]
   |              |   ---> [ DetectTime ]
   |              |   ---> [ AdditionalData ]
   |              |        ---> [ PhraudReport ]
   +--------------+
       Figure 6.1. IODEF Required classes for a PhraudReport


   +----------------+
   | PhraudReport   |
   +----------------+
   | ENUM FraudType |---[ LureSource ]
   | STRING Version |   ---> [ iodef:System ]
   |                |---[ OriginatingSensor ]
   |                |   --> [ DateFirstSeen ]
   |                |   --> [ iodef:System ]
   |                |       --> [ iodef:Node ]
   |                |
   +----------------+

           Figure 6.2 PhraudReport Required Elements.





Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 33]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   * Note that the iodef:Contact element is required, but none of its
   sub-elements are required.  For proper XML correctness, one of the
   sub-elements is required; pick one.

6.1.  Guidance on Usage

   It may be apparent that the mandatory attributes for a PhraudReport
   make for a quite sparse report.  As incident forensics and data
   analysis require detailed information, the originator of a
   PhraudReport SHOULD include any tidbit of information gleaned from
   the attack analysis.  Information that is considered sensitive can be
   marked as such using the restriction parameter of each data element.

   The reporting party is encouraged to provide more than just the
   minimally required data elements about an event in a PhraudReport.
   The additional information may be volatile and not recoverable in the
   future, and may be useful in answering investigation questions or in
   performing correlation with other reported events.

































Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 34]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


7.  Security Considerations

   This document specifies a format for encoding a particular class of
   security incidents appropriate for exchange across organizations.  As
   merely a data representation, it does not directly introduce security
   issues.  However, it is guaranteed that parties exchanging instances
   of this specification will have certain concerns.  For this reason,
   the underlying message format and transport protocol used MUST ensure
   the appropriate degree of confidentiality, integrity, and
   authenticity for the specific environment.

   Organizations that exchange data using this document are URGED to
   develop operating procedures that document the following areas of
   concern.

7.1.  Transport-specific concerns

   The critical security concerns are that phishing activity reports may
   be falsified or the PhraudReport may become corrupt during transit.
   In areas where transmission security or secrecy is questionable, the
   application of a digital signature and/or message encryption on each
   report will counteract both of these concerns.  We expect that each
   exchanging organization will determine the need, and mechanism, for
   transport protection..

7.2.  Using the iodef:restriction attribute

   In some instances data values in particular elements may contain data
   deemed sensitive by the reporter.  Although there are no general-
   purpose rules on when to mark certain values as "private" or "need-
   to-know" via the iodef:restriction attribute, the reporter is
   cautioned to not apply element-level sensitivity markings unless they
   believe the receiving party (i.e., the party they are exchanging the
   event report data with) has a mechanism to adequately safeguard and
   process the data as marked.  For example, if the PhraudReport element
   is marked private and contains a phishing collector URL in the
   DCSite/SiteURL element, can that URL be included within a block list
   distributed to other parties?  No guidance is provided here except to
   urge exchanging parties to review the IODEF and PhraudReport
   documents to decide on common marking rules.











Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 35]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


8.  IANA Considerations

   This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas
   conforming to a registry mechanism described in "RFC3688".

   Registration request for the IODEF phishing namespace:

       URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-phish-1.0

       Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this
       document.

       XML: None.

   Registration request for the IODEF phishing extension XML schema:

       URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:iodef-phish-1.0

       Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this
       document.

       XML: See the "Phishing Extensions Schema Definition" in the
       <Appendix A> section of this document.




























Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 36]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


9.  Contributors

   The extensions are an outgrowth of the Anti-Phishing Working Group
   (APWG) activities in data collection and sharing of phishing and
   other ecrime-ware.  (The APWG has no relationship to an IETF working
   group.)

   This document has received significant assistance from members of the
   IETF INCH working group and two groups addressing the phishing
   problem: members of the APWG and participants in the Financial
   Services Technology Consortium's Counter-Phishing project.  A special
   thanks goes to the hardy people who supplied valuable feedback after
   using this format to report phishing.






































Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 37]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3275]  Eastlake, D., Reagle, J., and D. Solo, "(Extensible Markup
              Language) XML-Signature Syntax and Processing", RFC 3275,
              March 2002.

   [RFC3982]  Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "IRIS: A Domain Registry (dreg)
              Type for the Internet Registry Information Service
              (IRIS)", RFC 3982, January 2005.

   [RFC5070]  Danyliw, R., Meijer, J., and Y. Demchenko, "The Incident
              Object Description Exchange Format", RFC 5070,
              December 2007.

   [SHA]      National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S.
              Department of Commerce, "Secure Hash Standard",
              FIPS 180-2, August 2002.

10.2.  Informative References

   [KB310516]
              Microsoft Corporation, "How to add, modify, or delete
              registry subkeys and values by using a registration
              entries (.reg) file", December 2007.

   [RFC3688]  Mealing, M., "The IETF XML Registry", RFC 3688,
              January 2004.



















Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 38]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


Appendix A.  Appendix A. Phishing Extensions XML Schema


<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xs:schema attributeFormDefault="unqualified"
           elementFormDefault="qualified"
           targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-phish-1.0"
           xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-1.0"
           xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
           xmlns:phish="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-phish-1.0"
           xmlns:iodef="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-1.0"
           xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#">
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"
     schemaLocation=
"http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmldsig-core-20020212
            /xmldsig-core-schema.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-1.0"
      schemaLocation=
"http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/schema/iodef-1.0.xsd"/>

  <!--

  This Schema complies with draft-cain-post-inch-phishingextns-07.txt

  ==========================================================
  ===  Top Level Class:  PhraudReport                    ===
  ==========================================================

  It is incorporated within an
  IODEF.Incident.EventData.AdditionalData element.

  All the top-level or major elements are defined as xs:types to make
  future extension easier.

  -->

  <xs:element name="PhraudReport">
    <xs:complexType>
      <xs:sequence>
        <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="PhishNameRef"
                type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
        <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="PhishNameLocalRef"
                type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
        <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="FraudParameter"
                    type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0"
                    name="FraudedBrandName" type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="1"



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 39]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


                    name="LureSource" type="phish:LureSource.type"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="1"
                    name="OriginatingSensor"
                    type="phish:OriginatingSensor.type"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="EmailRecord"
                    type="phish:EmailRecord.type"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0"
                    name="DCSite"  type="phish:DCSite.type"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0"
                    ref="phish:TakeDownInfo"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0"
                    ref="phish:ArchivedData"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0"
                    name="RelatedData" type="xs:anyURI"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0"
                    name="CorrelationData" type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="PRComments"
                    type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
      </xs:sequence>

      <xs:attribute default="1.0" name="Version" use="optional"/>

      <xs:attribute name="FraudType" type="phish:FraudType.type"
                    use="required"/>

      <xs:attribute name="ext-value" type="xs:string" use="optional"/>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>

  <xs:simpleType name="FraudType.type">
    <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
      <xs:enumeration value="phishing"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="recruiting"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="malware distribution"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="fraudulent site"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="dnsspoof"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="archive"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="other"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="unknown"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="ext-value"/>
    </xs:restriction>
  </xs:simpleType>

  <!--
==========================================================
===           End of the Top-Level Element             ===
==========================================================




Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 40]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


-->

  <!--
  ==========================================================
  ===           The Lure Source Element                  ===
  ==========================================================
  -->

  <xs:complexType mixed="false" name="LureSource.type">
    <xs:sequence>
      <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="1"
              ref="iodef:System"/>

      <xs:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"
              ref="phish:DomainData"/>

      <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="IncludedMalware"
                  type="phish:IncludedMalware.type"/>

      <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="FilesDownloaded">
        <xs:complexType>
          <xs:sequence>
            <xs:element minOccurs="1" name="File"
                   type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
          </xs:sequence>
        </xs:complexType>
      </xs:element>

      <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="WindowsRegistryKeysModified">
        <xs:complexType>
          <xs:sequence>
            <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" name="Key">
              <xs:complexType>
                <xs:sequence>
                  <xs:element name="Name" type="xs:string"/>
                  <xs:element name="Value" type="xs:string"/>
                </xs:sequence>
              </xs:complexType>
            </xs:element>
          </xs:sequence>
        </xs:complexType>
      </xs:element>
    </xs:sequence>
  </xs:complexType>

  <!--
  ===    LureSource sub-elements    ===
  -->



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 41]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


  <xs:complexType name="IncludedMalware.type">
    <xs:sequence>
      <xs:element name="Name"
              maxOccurs="unbounded" type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
      <xs:element minOccurs="0" ref="ds:Reference"/>
      <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="Data">
        <xs:complexType >
            <xs:simpleContent>
                  <xs:extension base="xs:hexBinary">
                      <xs:attribute default="55AA55AA55AA55BB"
                           name="XORPattern" type="xs:hexBinary"/>
                   </xs:extension>
            </xs:simpleContent>
       </xs:complexType>
      </xs:element>
    </xs:sequence>
  </xs:complexType>

  <!--
 ===========================================================
 ===  The EmailRecord Element                            ===
 ===========================================================
  -->

  <xs:complexType name="EmailRecord.type">
    <xs:sequence>
      <xs:element name="EmailCount" type="xs:integer"/>
      <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="EmailMessage"
                    type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
      <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="EmailComments"
                  type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
    </xs:sequence>
  </xs:complexType>

  <!--
 ===========================================================
 ===  The Data Collection Site (DCSite) Info Element     ===
 ===========================================================
  -->

  <xs:complexType name="DCSite.type">
    <xs:sequence>
      <xs:choice>
        <xs:element name="SiteURL">
          <xs:complexType>
            <xs:simpleContent>
              <xs:extension base="iodef:MLStringType">
                <xs:attribute ref="phish:confidence"/>



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 42]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


              </xs:extension>
            </xs:simpleContent>
          </xs:complexType>
        </xs:element>

        <xs:element name="Domain">
          <xs:complexType>
            <xs:simpleContent>
              <xs:extension base="iodef:MLStringType">
                <xs:attribute ref="phish:confidence"/>
              </xs:extension>
            </xs:simpleContent>
          </xs:complexType>
        </xs:element>

        <xs:element name="EmailSite">
          <xs:complexType>
            <xs:simpleContent>
              <xs:extension base="iodef:MLStringType">
                <xs:attribute ref="phish:confidence"/>
              </xs:extension>
            </xs:simpleContent>
          </xs:complexType>
        </xs:element>

        <xs:element name="System">
         <xs:complexType id="SystemType">
            <xs:sequence>
              <xs:element ref="iodef:Address"/>
            </xs:sequence>
            <xs:attribute ref="phish:confidence"/>
         </xs:complexType>
        </xs:element>

        <xs:element name="Unknown">
          <xs:complexType>
            <xs:simpleContent>
              <xs:extension base="iodef:MLStringType">
                <xs:attribute  ref="phish:confidence"/>
              </xs:extension>
            </xs:simpleContent>
          </xs:complexType>
        </xs:element>
      </xs:choice>
      <xs:element ref="iodef:Node" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xs:element minOccurs="0" ref="phish:DomainData"/>

      <xs:element minOccurs="0" ref="iodef:Assessment"/>



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 43]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


    </xs:sequence>

    <xs:attribute name="DCType" use="required">
      <xs:simpleType>
        <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
          <xs:enumeration value="web"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="email"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="keylogger"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="automation"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="unspecified"/>
        </xs:restriction>
      </xs:simpleType>
    </xs:attribute>
  </xs:complexType>

  <!--
==============================================
==== The Domain Data Element used in System =====
==============================================
-->

  <xs:element name="DomainData">
    <xs:complexType id="DomainData.type">
      <xs:sequence>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="1"
                  name="Name" type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0"
                  name="DateDomainWasChecked" type="xs:dateTime"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="RegistrationDate"
                  type="xs:dateTime"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="ExpirationDate"
                  type="xs:dateTime"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0"
                 name="Nameservers">
          <xs:complexType id="Nameservers.type">
            <xs:sequence>
              <xs:element name="Server" type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
              <xs:element ref="iodef:Address" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
            </xs:sequence>
          </xs:complexType>
        </xs:element>
        <xs:choice id="DomainContacts" maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0">
          <xs:element name="SameDomainContact"
                     type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
          <xs:sequence>
            <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="1"
                        ref="iodef:Contact"/>
          </xs:sequence>



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 44]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


        </xs:choice>
      </xs:sequence>
      <xs:attribute name="SystemStatus">
        <xs:simpleType id="SystemStatus.type">
          <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
            <xs:enumeration value="spoofed"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="fraudulent"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="innocent-hacked"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="innocent-hijacked"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="unknown"/>
          </xs:restriction>
        </xs:simpleType>
      </xs:attribute>

      <xs:attribute name="DomainStatus">
        <xs:simpleType id="DomainStatus.type">
          <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
            <xs:enumeration value="reservedDelegation"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="assignedAndActive"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="assignedAndInactive"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="assignedAndOnHold"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="revoked"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="transferPending"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="registryLock"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="registrarLock"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="other"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="unknown"/>
          </xs:restriction>
        </xs:simpleType>
      </xs:attribute>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>

  <xs:element name="Confidence">
    <xs:simpleType>
      <xs:restriction base="xs:nonNegativeInteger">
          <xs:minInclusive value="0"/>
          <xs:maxInclusive value="100"/>
       </xs:restriction>
     </xs:simpleType>
  </xs:element>

<xs:attribute name="confidence">
  <xs:simpleType>
    <xs:restriction base="xs:nonNegativeInteger">
      <xs:minInclusive value="0"/>
      <xs:maxInclusive value="100"/>
    </xs:restriction>



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 45]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


  </xs:simpleType>
</xs:attribute>

  <!--
=========================================================
= ext-role Values for use within the DomainContact Contacts element  ==
=========================================================
-->

  <xs:simpleType name="ext-role">
    <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
      <xs:enumeration value="billingContacts"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="technicalContacts"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="administrativeContacts"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="legalContacts"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="zoneContacts"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="abuseContacts"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="securityContacts"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="otherContacts"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="hostingProvider"/>
    </xs:restriction>
  </xs:simpleType>

  <!--
=================================================
===  The Originating Sensor Data Element                           ===
=================================================
-->

  <xs:complexType name="OriginatingSensor.type">
    <xs:sequence>
      <xs:element name="DateFirstSeen" type="xs:dateTime"/>
      <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="1"
                ref="iodef:System"/>
    </xs:sequence>

    <xs:attribute name="OriginatingSensorType" use="required">
      <xs:simpleType id="OriginatingSensorType.type">
        <xs:restriction base="xs:NMTOKENS">
          <xs:enumeration value="web"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="webgateway"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="mailgateway"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="browser"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="ispsensor"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="human"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="honeypot"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="other"/>
        </xs:restriction>



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 46]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


      </xs:simpleType>
    </xs:attribute>
  </xs:complexType>

  <!--
======================================================
===            The Take Down Data structure.                      ===
======================================================
-->

  <xs:element name="TakeDownInfo" type="phish:TakeDownInfo.type"/>

  <xs:complexType name="TakeDownInfo.type">
    <xs:sequence>
      <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="TakeDownDate"
                  type="xs:dateTime"/>

      <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0"
              name="TakeDownAgency"  type="iodef:MLStringType"/>

      <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0"
              name="TakeDownComments"  type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
    </xs:sequence>
  </xs:complexType>

  <!--
=========================================================
===         The Archived Data Element                           ===
=========================================================
-->

  <xs:element name="ArchivedData" type="phish:ArchivedData.type"/>

  <xs:complexType name="ArchivedData.type">
    <xs:sequence>
      <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="URL" type="xs:anyURI"/>
      <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="Comments"
              type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
      <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="Data"
                  type="xs:base64Binary"/>
    </xs:sequence>

    <xs:attribute name="type" use="required">
      <xs:simpleType id="ArchivedDataType.type">
        <xs:restriction base="xs:NMTOKENS">
          <xs:enumeration value="collectionsite"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="basecamp"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="sendersite"/>



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 47]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


          <xs:enumeration value="credentialInfo"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="unspecified"/>
        </xs:restriction>
      </xs:simpleType>
    </xs:attribute>
  </xs:complexType>

</xs:schema>











































Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 48]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


Appendix B.  Example Virus Report

   This section shows a received electronic mail message that included a
   virus in a zipped attachment and a report that was generated for that
   message.

B.1.  Received Email


   From: support@example.com
  Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 3:52 PM
  To: someone@example.com
  Subject: Account update

  To:          someone@example.com
  Date:      Sun, 10 May 2005 3:52:44 +0200


  We would like to inform you that we have released a new version of our
  Customer Form. This form is required to be completed by all customers.

  Please follow these steps:

  1.Open the form at http://www.example.com/customerservice/cform.php
  <http://www.2.example.com/customerservice/cform.php
          &amp;email=(someone@example.com)> .
  2.Follow given instructions.

  Thank you,
  Our Support Team

B.2.  Generated Report

   NOTE: Some wrapping and folding liberties have been applied to fit it
   into the margins.


  <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <IODEF-Document lang="en-US"
    xmlns:phish="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-phish-1.0"
    xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-1.0"
    xmlns:iodef="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-1.0">
  <Incident purpose="reporting" ext-purpose="create">
    <IncidentID name="example.com">PAT2005-06</IncidentID>
    <ReportTime>2005-06-22T08:30:00-05:00</ReportTime>
    <Description>This is a test report from actual data.
     </Description>
    <Assessment>



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 49]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


      <Impact type="social-engineering"/>
      <Confidence rating="high"/>
    </Assessment>
    <Contact role="creator" type="person">
      <ContactName>patcain</ContactName>
      <Email>pcain@coopercain.com</Email>
    </Contact>
    <EventData>
      <DetectTime>2005-06-21T18:22:02-05:00</DetectTime>
      <AdditionalData dtype="xml">
      <phish:PhraudReport FraudType="phishing">
        <phish:FraudParameter>
         Subject: You have successfully updated your password
        </phish:FraudParameter>
        <phish:FraudedBrandName>Cooper-Cain
        </phish:FraudedBrandName>
        <phish:LureSource>
          <System category="source">
            <Node>
             <Address>192.0.2.18</Address>
            </Node>
          </System>
          <phish:IncludedMalware>
            <phish:Name>W32.Mytob.EA@mm</phish:Name>
          </phish:IncludedMalware>
        </phish:LureSource>
        <phish:OriginatingSensor OriginatingSensorType="human">
          <phish:DateFirstSeen>2005-06-10T15:52:11-05:00
          </phish:DateFirstSeen>
          <System>
            <Node>
              <Address>192.0.2.13</Address>
            </Node>
          </System>
        </phish:OriginatingSensor>
        <phish:EmailRecord>
          <phish:EmailCount>1</phish:EmailCount>
          <phish:EmailMessage>
  Return-path: &lt;support@example.com&gt;
   to: pcain@example.com
  Delivery-date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005:52:11-0400
  Received: from dsl18-2-0-192.dsl.example.net([192.0.2.18]
   helo=example.com) by mail06.example.com esmtp (Exim) id
   1DgpXy-0002Ua-IR for pcain@example.com;,
   10 Jun 2005 15:52:10-0400
  From: support@example.com
  To: pcain@example.com
  Subject: You have successfully updated your password



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 50]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


  Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:52:00 -0700
  MIME-Version: 1.0
  Type: multipart/mixed;
   ="----=_NextPart_000_0008_0911068B.E7EB6D2A"
  X-Priority: 3MSMail-Priority: Normal
  X-EN-OrigIP: 192.0.2.18
  EN-OrigHost: dsl18-2-0-192.dsl.example.net
  Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16)
   on.example.net
  X-Spam-Level: ***** X-Spam-Status: No,
   score=5.6 required=6.0 tests=BAYES_95,CABLEDSL,HTML_20_30,
   HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,MISSING_MIMEOLE,
   NO_REAL_NAME,
   PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2

  From:support@example.com
  Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 3:52 PM
  Subject: Account update

  To:          someone@example.com
  Date:      Sun, 10 June 2005 3:52:44 +0200


  We would like to inform you that we have released a new version of our
  Customer Form. This form is required to be completed by all customers.

  Please follow these steps:

  1.Open the form at http://www.example.com/customerservice/cform.php
  &lt;http://www.2.example.com/customerservice/cform.php
          &amp;email=(someone@example.com)> .
  2.Follow given instructions.

  Thank you,
  Our Support Team
             </phish:EmailMessage>
          </phish:EmailRecord>
        </phish:PhraudReport>
      </AdditionalData>
      </EventData>
    </Incident>
  </IODEF-Document>









Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 51]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


Appendix C.  Sample Phishing Report

   A sample report generated from a received electronic mail phishing
   message in shown in this section.

C.1.  Received Lure


   Return-path: <service@example.com>
   Envelope-to: pcain@example.com
   Delivery-date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:37:22 -0400
   Received: from mail15.example.com ([10.1.1.161]
    helo=mail15.example.com)
    by mailscan38.example.com with esmtp (Exim)
    id 1Fq5Kr-0005wU-LT for pcain@example.com; Tue, 13 Jun 2006
    05:37:21 -0400
   Received: from [192.0.2.61] (helo=TSI)
   by mail15.example.com with
    esmtp (Exim) id 1Fq5Bj-0006dv-6b
   for pcain@example.com; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:37:21 -0400
   Received: from User ([192.0.2.157]) by TSI with
    Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713);
   Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:24:30 -0400
   Reply-To: <nospam@example.org>
   From: "company"<service@example.com>
   Subject: * * * Update & Verify Your Example Company Account * * *
   Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:36:34 -0400
   MIME-Version: 1.0
   Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1251"
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
   X-Priority: 1
   X-MSMail-Priority: High
   X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
   X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
   Bcc:
   Message-ID: <TSIlYbvhBISmT6QcWY90000085f@TSI>
   X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jun 2006 06:24:30.0218 (UTC)
   FILETIME=[072A66A0:01C68EB2]
   X-EN-OrigSender: service@example.com
   X-EN-OrigIP: 192.0.2.1
   X-EN-OrigHost: unknown

   Company<http://www.example.com/images/company_logo.gif>
    <http://www.example.com/images/pixel.gif>
    <http://www.example.com/images/pixel.gif>
    <http://www.example.com/images/pixel.gif>
   Account Update Request




Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 52]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   Dear Example. member:,

   You are receiving this notification because company is required by
   law to notify you, that you urgently need to update your online
   account statement, due to high risks of fraud intentions.

   The updating of your example account can be done at any time by
   clicking on the link shown below
   http://www.example.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_login-run
   <http://192.0.2.41:8080/.cgi-bin/.webscr/.secure-
   login/%20/%20/.payp
   al.com/index.htm>



   Once you log in,update your account information.
   After updating your account click on the History sub tab of your
   Account Overview page to see your most recent statement.

   If you need help with your password, click the Help link which is at
   the upper right hand side of the company website. To report errors
   in your statement or make inquiries, click the Contact Us link in the
   footer on any page of the company website, call our Customer Service
   center at (999) 555-0167, or write us at:

   Company, Inc.
   P.O. Box 0
   Anytown, MA 00000

   Sincerely,

   Big Example Company

    <http://www.example.com/images/dot_row_long.gif>


C.2.  Phishing Report


   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <IODEF-Document xmlns:phish="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-phish-1.0"
       xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-1.0"
       xmlns:iodef="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-1.0" lang="en-US">
    <Incident purpose="mitigation" ext-purpose="create"
     restriction="private">
     <IncidentID name="example.com">CC200600000002</IncidentID>
     <ReportTime>2006-06-13T21:14:56-05:00</ReportTime>
     <Description>This is a sample phishing email received report.



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 53]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


           The phish was actually received as is.</Description>
     <Assessment>
      <Impact severity="high" type="social-engineering"/>
      <Confidence rating="numeric">85</Confidence>
     </Assessment>
     <Contact role="creator" type="person">
      <ContactName>patcain</ContactName>
      <Email>pcain@example.com</Email>
     </Contact>
     <EventData>
      <DetectTime>2006-06-13T05:37:21-04:00</DetectTime>
      <AdditionalData dtype="xml">
       <phish:PhraudReport FraudType="phishing">
        <phish:FraudParameter>
          * * * Update &amp; Verify Your Company Account * * *
        </phish:FraudParameter>
        <phish:FraudedBrandName>company</phish:FraudedBrandName>
        <phish:LureSource>
         <System category="source">
          <Node>
           <Address>192.0.2.4</Address>
          </Node>
         </System>
        </phish:LureSource>
        <phish:OriginatingSensor OriginatingSensorType="mailgateway">
        <phish:DateFirstSeen>
                2006-06-13T05:37:22-04:00</phish:DateFirstSeen>
         <System>
          <Node>
           <NodeRole category="mail"/>
          </Node>
         </System>
        </phish:OriginatingSensor>
        <phish:EmailRecord>
         <phish:EmailCount>1</phish:EmailCount>
         <phish:EmailMessage>
   Return-path: &lt;service@example.com>
   Envelope-to: pcain@example.com
   Delivery-date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:37:22 -0400
   Received: from mail15.example.com ([10.1.1.161]
    helo=mail15.example.com)
    by mailscan38.example.com with esmtp (Exim)
    id 1Fq5Kr-0005wU-LT for pcain@example.com; Tue, 13 Jun 2006
    05:37:21 -0400
   Received: from [192.0.2.61] (helo=TSI)
   by mail15.example.com with
    esmtp (Exim) id 1Fq5Bj-0006dv-6b
   for pcain@example.com; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:37:21 -0400



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 54]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   Received: from User ([192.0.2.157]) by TSI with
    Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713);
   Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:24:30 -0400
   Reply-To: &lt;nospam@example.org>
   From: "company"&lt;service@example.com>
   Subject: * * * Update &amp; Verify Your Example Company Account * * *
   Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:36:34 -0400
   MIME-Version: 1.0
   Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1251"
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
   X-Priority: 1
   X-MSMail-Priority: High
   X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
   X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
   Bcc:
   Message-ID: &lt;TSIlYbvhBISmT6QcWY90000085f@TSI>
   X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jun 2006 06:24:30.0218 (UTC)
   FILETIME=[072A66A0:01C68EB2]
   X-EN-OrigSender: service@example.com
   X-EN-OrigIP: 192.0.2.1
   X-EN-OrigHost: unknown

   &lt;img src="http://www.example.com/images/company_logo.gif"&gt;
   &lt;img src="http://www.example.com/images/pixel.gif"&gt;
   &lt;img src="http://www.example.com/images/pixel.gif"&gt;
   &lt;img src="http://www.example.com/im/pixel.gif"&gt;
   Account Update Request

   Dear Example. member:,
   You are receiving this notification because company is required by
   law to notify you, that you urgently need to update your online
   account statement, due to high risks of fraud intentions.

   The updating of your example account can be done at any time by
   clicking on the link shown below
   &lt;a href="http://192.0.2.41:8080/.cgi-bin/.webscr/.secure-
   login/%20/%20/.example.com/index.htm">
   http://www.example.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_login-run &lt;/a>



   Once you log in,update your account information.
   After updating your account click on the History sub tab of your
   Account Overview page to see your most recent statement.

   If you need help with your password, click the Help link which is at
   the upper right hand side of the company website. To report errors in
   your statement or make inquiries, click the Contact Us link in the



Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 55]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


   footer on any page of the company website, call our Customer Service
   center at (999) 555-0167, or write us at:

   Company, Inc.
   P.O. Box 0
   Anytown, MA 00000

   Sincerely,

   Big Example Company

    &lt;img src="http://www.example.com/images/dot_row_long.gif">
   </phish:EmailMessage>
        </phish:EmailRecord>
        <phish:DCSite DCType="web">
         <phish:SiteURL>http://190.0.2.41:8080/.cgi-bin/.webscr/.secure-
            login/%20%20/.company.com/index.htm</phish:SiteURL>
         <phish:DomainData DomainStatus="assignedAndActive"
           SystemStatus="unknown">
          <phish:Name>bad.example.com</phish:Name>
          <phish:DateDomainWasChecked>2006-06-14T13:05:00-05:00
          </phish:DateDomainWasChecked>
          <phish:RegistrationDate>
                    2000-12-13T00:00:00</phish:RegistrationDate>
          <phish:Nameservers>
           <phish:Server>ns1.example.net</phish:Server>
           <Address>192.0.2.18</Address>
          </phish:Nameservers>
         </phish:DomainData>
        </phish:DCSite>
       </phish:PhraudReport>
      </AdditionalData>
     </EventData>
    </Incident>
   </IODEF-Document>
















Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 56]

Internet-Draft          IODEF Phishing Extensions          November 2009


Authors' Addresses

   Patrick Cain
   The Cooper-Cain Group, Inc.
   P.O. Box 400992
   Cambridge, MA
   USA

   Email: pcain@coopercain.com


   David Jevans
   The Anti-Phishing Working Group
   5150 El Camino Real, Suite A20
   Los Altos, CA 94022
   USA

   Email: dave.jevans@antiphishing.org

































Cain & Jevans             Expires May 27, 2010                 [Page 57]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/