Hacking Software – FOCA

Software: FOCA

Description: FOCA (Fingerprinting Organizations with Collected Archives) is a Windows only forensic tool used to extract and analyze metadata from common file types. Metadata is basically descriptive information about data. For example, if you created a Word file in Microsoft Word, Microsoft Word would automatically include metadata in your Word file that would give out information like – when the file was created, using what program, what operating system was used to run the program, the username of the person creating the file, etc.. FOCA can extract this type of meta data from most common file types and analyze it, spitting back a report of very valuable information that can aid hackers during penetration tests.

Screenshot:












Features:

• Extracts metadata from Open Office, MS Office, PDF, EPS and Graphic documents.
• Uses Google, Bing and Exalead to find and examine the following file types on a target website – doc, ppt, pps, xls, docx, pptx, ppsx, xlsx, sxw, sxc, sxi, odt, ods, odg, odp, pdf, wpd, svg, svgz, indd, rdp , and ica.
• From the extracted metadata, FOCA can find information on users, folders, printers, software, emails ,operating systems, passwords, servers and more.
• Network Discovery
• Fingerprinting
• DNS Cache Snooping – discover what websites the internal users of a network are browsing on.
• Exports data into a Report

Download: Click here and enter your email on the bottom of the page to receive a download link.
 

Password Cracking – Part 5 – Dictionary Attack

What is a dictionary attack?

A dictionary attack is password attack where every word from the dictionary is attempted against a password hash. Good dictionary attacks use wordlists with dictionaries of other languages (depending on the target), the most commonly used passwords (many of which aren’t words in the dictionary), and order the wordlists with the most commonly used passwords on top to save cracking time.

For those of you who are visual learners, a dictionary attack is like approaching a woman or man using a pickup line from a list in you pocket, being shot down and kicked in the face, trying again, being shot down and smacked in the face, until finally one of the pickups on your list work and you have yourself a date.

When should you I use a dictionary attack?

When performing a password cracking attack, dictionary attacks usually are, and should be the first attack type used. Why? Because most people create shitty passwords due to the “huge” effort it takes to remember and type in a bit longer and more complex password. Due to this laziness factor, dictionary attacks can usually crack a good percentage of the hashes they are run against. Dictionary attacks are also the first and many times the only type of attack used in online attacks. This is because, as you’ve learned before, online attacks can be very slow and noisy.

What are Input Validation Attacks ?

Input Validation Attacks :-

Input Validation Attacks are where an attacker intentionally sends unusual input in the hopes of confusing the application.
The most common input validation attacks are as follows-
1) Buffer Overflow :- Buffer overflow attacks are enabled due to sloppy programming or mismanagement of memory by the application developers. Buffer overflow may be classified into stack overflows, format string overflows, heap overflows and integer overflows. It may possible that an overflow may exist in language’s (php, java, etc.) built-in functions.
To execute a buffer overflow attack, you merely dump as much data as possible into an input field. The attack is said to be successful when it returns an application error. Perl is well suited for conducting this type of attack.
Here’s the buffer test, calling on Perl from the command line:
$ echo –e “GET /login.php?user=\
> `perl –e ‘print “a” x 500’`\nHTTP/1.0\n\n” | \
nc –vv website 80
This sends a string of 500 “a” characters for the user value to the login.php file.
Buffer overflow can be tested by sending repeated requests to the application and recording the server’s response.
2) Canonicalization :- These attacks target pages that use template files or otherwise reference alternate files on the web server. The basic form of this attack is to move outside of the web document root in order to access system files, i.e., “../../../../../../../../../boot.ini”. This type of functionality is evident from the URL and is not limited to any one programming language or web server. If the application does not limit the types of files that it is supposed to view, then files outside of the web document root are targeted, something like following-
/menu.asp?dimlDisplayer=menu.asp
/webacc?User.asp=login.htt
/SWEditServlet?station_path=Z&publication_id=2043&template=login.tem
/Getfile.asp?/scripts/Client/login.js
/includes/printable.asp?Link=customers/overview.htm
3) Cross-site Scripting (XSS) :- Cross-site scripting attacks place malicious code, usually JavaScript, in locations where other users see it. Target fields in forms can be addresses, bulletin board comments, etc.
We have found that error pages are often subject to XSS attacks. For example, the URL for a normal application error looks like this:
http://website/inc/errors.asp?Error=Invalid%20password
This displays a custom access denied page that says, “Invalid password”. Seeing a string
on the URL reflected in the page contents is a great indicator of an XSS vulnerability. The attack would be created as:
http://website/inc/errors.asp?Error=<script%20src=…
That is, place the script tags on the URL.
4) SQL Injection :- This kind of attack occurs when an attacker uses specially crafted SQL queries as an input, which can open up a database. Online forms such as login prompts, search enquiries, guest books, feedback forms, etc. are specially targeted.
The easiest test for the presence of a SQL injection attack is to append “or+1=1” to the URL and inspect the data returned by the server.
example:- http://www.domain.com/index.asp?querystring=sports’ or 1=1–

How To Make an External Mac Book Battery Pack for $60

If you use a Mac Book and are out on the road a lot, chances are the battery doesn't last quite as long as you'd like. One solution is a commercially available battery pack, but they're not cheap. So how about making your own for $60?  to watch video click
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I-nmY4DCWrQ

EU plans tougher punishment for hackers – and their bosses

Biz could be criminally liable if it 'profits' from employees' cyber attacks

The European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee overwhelmingly voted to approve proposals to criminalise certain activity relating to cyber attacks last week. The proposals contain plans to make specified "legal persons" within companies liable for certain offences.
"Legal persons would be liable for offences committed for their benefit (e.g. a company would be liable for hiring a hacker to get access to a competitor's database), whether deliberately or through a lack of supervision," the European Parliament said in a statement. "They would also face penalties such as exclusion for entitlement to public benefits or judicial winding-up."

EU member countries will be required to "ensure that their networks of national contact points are available round the clock" and that they can "respond to urgent requests within a maximum of eight hours" in order to prevent cyber-attacks spreading across borders.

The Committee's proposals would make it a criminal offence to conduct cyber attacks on computer systems. Individuals would face at least two years in jail if served with the maximum penalty for the offence.
A maximum penalty of at least five years in jail could apply if "aggravating circumstances" or "considerable damage ... financial costs or loss of financial data" occurred, the Parliament said in a statement.
One aggravating circumstance in which the heavier penalty could be levied is if an individual uses 'botnet' tools "specifically designed for large-scale attacks". Considerable damage may be said to have occurred through the disruption of system services, according to plans disclosed by the Parliament.
Individuals found in possession of or distributing hacking software and tools also face criminal charges under the Committee's proposals.
"Illegal access, interference or interception of data should be treated as a criminal offence," the MEPs said, according to the Parliament.
Using another person's "electronic identity" in order to commit an attack that causes "prejudice to the rightful identity owner" could result in offenders serving a minimum of three years in jail if they are under the maximum penalties that could be imposed.
"Tougher penalties" would be imposed on criminal organisations. Those harsher penalties will also be imposed for attacks on "critical infrastructure such as the IT systems of power plants or transport networks," the Parliament said. If damage caused by attacks is "insignificant" then no criminal sanctions "should" apply.
Criminal offences will also apply for the sale or production of tools that are used to commit cyber-attack crimes, it said.
"We are dealing here with serious criminal attacks, some of which are even conducted by criminal organisations," Monika Hohlmeier MEP said. "The financial damage caused for companies, private users and the public side amounts to several billions each year. No car manufacturer may send a car without a seatbelt into the streets. And if this happens, the company will be held liable for any damage. These rules must also apply in the virtual world," she said.
The Committee's rapporteur hopes to form agreement on a new EU Directive by the summer. Both the European Parliament and Council of Ministers would have to back the proposals for this to happen.
In the UK individuals can face up to 10 years in jail for serious offences under the Computer Misuse Act.
Under the Act it is an offence for a person to knowingly cause "a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer, or to enable any such access to be secured" without authorisation.
Under the Act a person is also guilty of an offence if the unlawful computer access is used to commit, or facilitate, some other offences regardless of whether that subsequent offence is to take place in the future or is indeed possible to commit. A person is also guilty of an offence if they commit any unauthorised act with intent to impair the operation of any computer, prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer, impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data, or enabling those acts to be done.
Making, adapting, supplying or offering to supply any electronic program or data intending it, or knowingly it is likely, to be used or to assist in the commission of unlawful computer access or impairment is also an offence. Supplying electronic programs or data "with a view to its being supplied for use to commit, or to assist in the commission" of unlawful computer access or impairment is also an offence under the Act.

Hackers Steal Account Details From 1.5 Million US Credit Cards

Over the weekend, Global Payments—a massive international credit-card processor—announced that it suffered a security breach. Hackers managed to acquire customer information from up to 1.5 million accounts across North America.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the news came to light when Visa withdrew from using the company's services as a result of the problem. Though card and account information was exported from the the servers of Global Payment, it's currently thought that the criminals didn't obtain card-holder names, addresses or Social Security numbers.
A spokesperson from Global Payments told the Wall Street Journal that "[b]ased on the forensic analysis to date, network monitoring and additional security measures, the company believes that this incident is contained."
The move by Visa to stop using the services of Global Payment is a big one: it's a rare occurrence in the industry, so signals a complete lack of trust. It's not yet clear whether others will follow suit. As of Friday, banks were taking extra care to monitor accounts for suspicious activity. [Wall Street Journal]