I had a pretty productive week. I’ve been playing with getting kvm working well (fast/stable) on our brand new Dell AMD box - and I’m now using an guest environment under it full time as my thinclient server. We also found out this week that our offer on a new office had been accepted - so we’re looking to be moving out in the next month (which will be a great/overdue change).
So I found myself in a state of shock and awe when I arrived home tonight after a leaving late night from work. I had received a letter, purporting to be from HSBC, stating that my Internet Banking account had been suspended on the basis that there was evidence my account details had been compromised, probably due to me responding to a “phishing” email.
Now anyone who doesn’t know me might think ‘yeah, ok, I can see how the bank would close your account if there was any suspicion of you leaking your details to a phisher’ - but then those who do know me, know that I work for an IT security consultancy, and we do very real, original research into phishing attacks. So to me, the idea that I had leaked my details to someone through a phish is funny almost to the point of absurdity.
This automatically got me questioning the reality of the letter I received. It was a two sided letter - with an opening paragraph about why the account had been suspended, and then some actions for me to perform, and a reference off to HSBC’s “Security Matters” Page (this is interestingly enough the title of our - ECSC’s newsletter). Included in the letter was a form for me to write my name, address and internet banking details, aswell as pre-paid envelope for me to return the included form.
As I was already suspicious of the letter I decided to call the technical support number quoted on the letter. Even though the letter itself stated that they were only open 9am while 5pm, I was greeted with an answer, at 7.53pm. I had a short (~5 minute) chat with the guy at the other end of the phone - but what piqued my suspicions was how the call was answered. There was no ‘Welcome to HSBC - my name is john, how can I help?’ - all I received was an anonymous ‘hello’. I proceeded to explain to the guy how I’d received this letter, and I wasn’t convinced it was genuine and asked for more information about on what grounds, what their evidence was, that I had become a phishing victim. The guy, who wasn’t being defensive or attacking, explained that he wouldn’t be able to tell me those details without me giving him my account details.
I was paranoid before and this only made me more wary so I told him I wasn’t happy with giving any details out at this point. He told me I should complete the form and send it back - we reached a stalemate so I decided to end the conversation.
I started taking a close look at the letter, the paper, the quality of the print, the return address and the phone numbers stated. And my suspicion grew.
I immediately went to the HSBC website and found a contact number for their Internet Banking service. I called and was put through to another (presumably Indian at this point) call-centre. I was again greeted with a pleasent customer services advisor - I explained my situation and asked them to verify some details for me. I was asked for my account details - which I refused to give as I was still not happy my phone weren’t being intercepted (too paranoid?).
I asked the nice man whether they had any record of the signatory of the letter I received, or whether they knew of the phone number listed in the letter or whether they knew of the postcode listed in the letter. In all cases, the man had no record.
At this point I called the police.
I looked back through what I had received and started to notice things which were plainly wrong. The letter, with letterhead, but no watermark had a faint marking all the way down the left hand side (about a centimetre wide) - just like it had been through a roller (ie. copier). The letter it had arrived in was stamped as being from first direct. Even though first direct are a subsidiary of HSBC, I don’t bank with First Direct, they are very different, separate companies. The letter itself had a ’sheen’ on the seal - I suspect it had been opened (steam iron), and re-sealed. The biggest give-away was the return envelope. Like one would expect a pre-paid envelope (the ones with the ‘1′ mark in the top right) was included. It was the large blocks of ink to the right of the big ‘1′ which were suspect. There were visible (to the naked eye) streaks to the bar. There was pixelation on both sides, and they weren’t exactly straight. Anyone non-technical might’ve been fooled, but to me it was straight out an laserjet printer (and a bad quality one at that).
I utilised the technology at hand aswell and googled the address and phone number. The address turned up as somewhere in Belle Isle (not the nicest place in Leeds) - and the number was unknown apart from a ‘gmane.comp.web.netsurf-devel’ posting about a similar event (with the same number). The writers didn’t seem to know this was a scam - so I hope they weren’t duped too badly (google it yourself if you feel the need).
I am convinced at this point it is a sophisticated spear phishing attempt. I’m slightly worried that i’ve been targeted specifically; namely how the attacker knows who I bank with - it’s not a difficult thing to figure out (especially now), but I don’t bin my bank statements (I only bin the marketing junk) so I can’t see how ‘dumpster diving’ could’ve been used.
Well. I have a ‘copper’ coming round tomorrow morning - most likely to take a statement and the offending items. I’ll post the pictures for all to see should he agree with me.
Update: February 12
How stupid. It turns out it was a valid HSBC letter after all.
Even my bank manager thought it was odd until he passed it onto ‘back office’ who confirmed it was real.
Shocking. Really shocking. I’m going to leave HSBC at the next opportunity. What a bunch of lamers.
Banks really need to start getting a hold on physical and computer security. I guess i’m just over-paranoid; but then this kind of shit just teaches the un-knowing masses just to accept this kind of poor quality.