30.04.2013 Views

Global Phishing Survey: Trends and Domain Name Use in 2H2012

Global Phishing Survey: Trends and Domain Name Use in 2H2012

Global Phishing Survey: Trends and Domain Name Use in 2H2012

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Global</strong> <strong>Phish<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>Survey</strong> <strong>2H2012</strong>:<br />

<strong>Trends</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Doma<strong>in</strong></strong> <strong>Name</strong> <strong>Use</strong><br />

middle ground, with scores above 5.0 <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g TLDs with <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly prevalent phish<strong>in</strong>g. 6<br />

The top TLDs by score are:<br />

Top 10 <strong>Phish<strong>in</strong>g</strong> TLDs by <strong>Doma<strong>in</strong></strong> Score, <strong>2H2012</strong><br />

M<strong>in</strong>imum 25 phish<strong>in</strong>g doma<strong>in</strong>s <strong>and</strong> 30,000 doma<strong>in</strong> names <strong>in</strong> registry<br />

TLD<br />

TLD<br />

Location<br />

# Unique<br />

<strong>Phish<strong>in</strong>g</strong><br />

attacks<br />

<strong>2H2012</strong><br />

Unique<br />

<strong>Doma<strong>in</strong></strong><br />

<strong>Name</strong>s used<br />

for phish<strong>in</strong>g<br />

<strong>2H2012</strong><br />

<strong>Doma<strong>in</strong></strong>s <strong>in</strong><br />

registry,<br />

November<br />

2012<br />

An APWG Industry Advisory<br />

http://www.apwg.org ● <strong>in</strong>fo@apwg.org<br />

PMB 246, 405 Waltham Street, Lex<strong>in</strong>gton MA USA 02421<br />

Score:<br />

<strong>Phish<strong>in</strong>g</strong><br />

doma<strong>in</strong>s per<br />

10,000<br />

doma<strong>in</strong>s<br />

<strong>2H2012</strong><br />

1 th Thail<strong>and</strong> 210 136 63,400 21.5<br />

2 hu Hungary 1,701 1,192 625,701 19.1<br />

3 cl Chile 902 731 399,073 18.3<br />

4 pe Peru 130 93 64,100 14.5<br />

5 ec Ecuador 41 38 30,500 12.5<br />

6 np Nepal 42 32 31,710 10.1<br />

7 sg S<strong>in</strong>gapore 136 120 143,887 8.3<br />

8 br Brazil 3,129 2,435 3,058,648 8.0<br />

9 <strong>in</strong> India 1,638 1,352 1,713,812 7.9<br />

10 ma Morocco 37 33 43,211 7.6<br />

<strong>Doma<strong>in</strong></strong>s <strong>in</strong> South American TLDs cont<strong>in</strong>ued to experience a rash of server compromises,<br />

cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g a trend that began <strong>in</strong> 1H2012. Thail<strong>and</strong>’s .TH cont<strong>in</strong>ues to rank highly, as it has for<br />

many years, suffer<strong>in</strong>g especially from compromised government <strong>and</strong> university Web servers.<br />

At number eight, compromised .BR doma<strong>in</strong>s were used to phish 184 targets, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g a<br />

wide range of South American banks. India’s .IN TLD ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed its position at number<br />

n<strong>in</strong>e, used to attack 97 different targets via a mix of compromised <strong>and</strong> maliciously<br />

registered doma<strong>in</strong>s.<br />

6 Notes regard<strong>in</strong>g the statistics:<br />

• A small number of phish can <strong>in</strong>crease a small TLD’s score significantly, <strong>and</strong> these push up the<br />

study’s median score. The larger the TLD, the less a phish <strong>in</strong>fluences its score.<br />

• A registry’s score can be <strong>in</strong>creased by the action of just one busy phisher, or one vulnerable<br />

or <strong>in</strong>attentive registrar.<br />

• For more background on factors that can affect a TLD’s score, please see “Factors Affect<strong>in</strong>g<br />

<strong>Phish<strong>in</strong>g</strong> Scores” <strong>in</strong> our earlier studies.<br />

10

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!