The October 2022 issue of IEEE Spectrum is here!

Close bar

Late last month, I began an edition of This Week in Cybercrime by noting that, “The idea that cybercrimes are the work of miscreants or gangs of hackers picking targets at random is outmoded. Analysts now see a mature industry with an underground economy based on the development and distribution of ever more sophisticated tools for theft or wreaking havoc.” That updated thinking was backed up by a report released a few days earlier by researchers at 41st Parameter, a fraud detection and prevention firm.

Further reinforcement came this week when U.S. federal prosecutors filed charges against five people for orchestrating what is said to be the largest hacking/data breach/bank robbery case ever reported. “The defendants and their co-conspirators penetrated the secure computer networks of several of the largest payment processing companies, retailers and financial institutions in the world, and stole the personal identifying information of others, such as user names and passwords,” prosecutors said. The crew of cybercrooks netted at least 160 million credit and debit card numbers. Let that number sink in for a second.

The estimated financial losses stemming from the thefts reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Of the five defendants—Vladimir Drinkman, Aleksandr Kalinin, Roman Kotov, and Dmitriy Smilianets of Russia, and Mikhail Rytikov of Ukraine—only two, Drinkman and Smilianets, are in custody. The other three are on the run, which is unfortunate, because Kalinin has been prolific in his efforts to pick financial institutions clean. According to the prosecutors, from December 2005 through November 2008, Kalinin and a separate co-conspirator hacked into Citibank and PNC Bank computer systems and stole account information they subsequently used to withdraw millions of dollars from victims’ bank accounts.

For example, in January 2006, they launched a cyberattack on PNC Bank’s online banking site and walked away with hundreds of the personal identification numbers associated customers’ ATM cards. Kalinin’s partner in crime turned the data over to associates who used it to encode blank ATM cards and withdraw $1.3 million from victims’ accounts. In 2007, Kalinin repeated the feat, that time going after the network of a firm that processed ATM transactions for Citibank and other banks. He stole PINs for half a million bank accounts, including those of 100 000 Citibank customers. He and his co-conspirators used the spoofed ATM cards they created to rob Citibank—in broad daylight, without guns or masks—to the tune of $2.9 million. A year later, Citbank was again in the online bank robbers’ crosshairs. Amid a cyberattack against the bank’s website, they stole 300 000 account holders’ information. This time the haul from faked ATM cards was $3.6 million.

In a separate case, for which Kalinin was also charged on Thursday, prosecutors allege that between 2007 and the fall of 2010, malware he placed on servers used by the Nasdaq financial exchange allowed him to incrementally elevate his level of administrative access until the point, in January 2008, that he had unfettered control. He marked the occasion with a jubilant instant message: "NASDAQ is owned." The government alleges that the 26-year-old native of St. Petersburg, Russia, got his foot into the door of Nasdaq's systems when he noticed a small vulnerability on its website.

Prosecutors named 16 separate corporate victims of the Russian and Ukrainian cyberthieves’ reign of terror. Most of the damage was done in breaches of systems at: Heartland Payment Systems Inc., a credit and debit card payment processor that had 130 million card numbers stolen from its databases; Commidea Ltd., a European electronic payment processor for retailers, that had 30 million card numbers stolen; and Euronet, a Leawood, Kansas–based electronic payment processor that lost roughly 2 million card numbers to malware. Other notable names that were targeted include Visa, Discover, Dow Jones, and J.C. Penney.

The alarm with which the gang of five’s activities was reported is itself startling. It’s not as if a certain blog doesn’t update readers on what happens each week in the world of cybercrime. And it’s not as if, in 2013 alone, This Week in Cybercrime hasn’t highlighted several other techno bank robberies, in the process making it clear that financial institutions are increasingly vulnerable.

In May, for example, we reported that seven people were arrested for coordinating 40 000 fraudulent cash machine withdrawals in 27 countries (with a total haul of $45 million) within hours after they hacked into the servers of credit card processors in the United Arab Emirates and Oman. And in June, we noted that U.S. prosecutors charged a gang of Ukranian cyberthieves with stealing account information from 15 different payment processors, banks, and online brokers and using it to transfer funds to prepaid debit cards. After the transfers, they would subsequently have roving teams of “cashers” hit ATMs to withdraw cash or make purchases with the ill-gotten loot.

The banks should do a better job at securing their networks, you say? That may not be possible, says a report from the FireEye Malware Intelligence Lab, that we discussed back in April. The report, on advanced persistent threats [pdf], found that some companies (banks fit the description) have to fend off attacks as often as once every three minutes. It’s not realistic to expect them to stand up to the growing volume and increasing sophistication of digital assaults. "This nearly continuous rate of attacks and activities is indicative of a fundamental reality: these attacks are working, yielding dividends," said the report. An Ars Technica article describing the Nasdaq hack notes that,

"The indictments give a birds' eye view of the patience and meticulousness hackers employ when penetrating some of the world's most well-fortified networks."

Photo: Tim Robberts/Getty Images

The Conversation (0)

Metamaterials Could Solve One of 6G’s Big Problems

There’s plenty of bandwidth available if we use reconfigurable intelligent surfaces

12 min read
An illustration depicting cellphone users at street level in a city, with wireless signals reaching them via reflecting surfaces.

Ground level in a typical urban canyon, shielded by tall buildings, will be inaccessible to some 6G frequencies. Deft placement of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces [yellow] will enable the signals to pervade these areas.

Chris Philpot

For all the tumultuous revolution in wireless technology over the past several decades, there have been a couple of constants. One is the overcrowding of radio bands, and the other is the move to escape that congestion by exploiting higher and higher frequencies. And today, as engineers roll out 5G and plan for 6G wireless, they find themselves at a crossroads: After years of designing superefficient transmitters and receivers, and of compensating for the signal losses at the end points of a radio channel, they’re beginning to realize that they are approaching the practical limits of transmitter and receiver efficiency. From now on, to get high performance as we go to higher frequencies, we will need to engineer the wireless channel itself. But how can we possibly engineer and control a wireless environment, which is determined by a host of factors, many of them random and therefore unpredictable?

Perhaps the most promising solution, right now, is to use reconfigurable intelligent surfaces. These are planar structures typically ranging in size from about 100 square centimeters to about 5 square meters or more, depending on the frequency and other factors. These surfaces use advanced substances called metamaterials to reflect and refract electromagnetic waves. Thin two-dimensional metamaterials, known as metasurfaces, can be designed to sense the local electromagnetic environment and tune the wave’s key properties, such as its amplitude, phase, and polarization, as the wave is reflected or refracted by the surface. So as the waves fall on such a surface, it can alter the incident waves’ direction so as to strengthen the channel. In fact, these metasurfaces can be programmed to make these changes dynamically, reconfiguring the signal in real time in response to changes in the wireless channel. Think of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces as the next evolution of the repeater concept.

Keep Reading ↓Show less