Below evidence that the security review made by an anonymous hacker on http://infosecurityguard.com is in facts a dishonest marketing plan by the SecurStar GmbH to promote their voice crypto product.
من در حال حاضر نوشت که در مورد تجزیه و تحلیل سری ومخفی صدا که به نظر می رسد برای من بسیار مشکوک است.
Now it's confirmed, it's a fake independent hacker security research by SecurStar GmbH, its just a marketing trick!
چگونه ما می دانیم که Infosecurityguard.com، پژوهش های امنیتی مستقل جعلی، یک ترفند بازاریابی از SecurStar شرکت است؟
1) I posted on http://infosecurityguard.com a comments to a post with a link to my blog to that article on israelian ministry of defense certification
2) The author of http://infosecurityguard.com went to approve the comment and read the link on my own blog http://infosecurity.ch
3) Reaching my blog he leaked the IP address from which he was coming 217.7.213.59 (where i just clicked on from wordpress statistic interface)
4) فعال 217.7.213.59/panel از http:// رابط PBX IP PBX SecurStar جیامبیایچ شرکت های بزرگ (آشکارا قابل دسترسی از طریق اینترنت!)
5) نام PBX داخلی تایید 100٪ است که آن را SecurStar جیامبیایچ:
6) There is 100% evidence that the anonymous hacker of http://infosecurityguard.com is from SecurStar GmbH
Below the data and reference that let us discover that it's all but a dishonest marketing tips and not an independent security research.
Kudos to Matteo Flora for it's support and for his article in Debunking Infosecurityguard identity !
The http referral tricks
When you read a link going from a website to another one there is an HTTP protocol header, the “Referral”, that tell you from which page someone is going to another webpage.
The referral demonstrated that the authors of http://infosecurityguard.com read my post, because it was coming from http://infosecurityguard.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php that's the webpage you use as a wordpress author/editor to approve/refuse comments. و در اینجا است که ابتدا ثبت نام وجود دارد.
That's the log entry:
217.7.213.59 - [30/Jan/2010: 02:56:37 -0700] "GET / 20100129/licensed-by-israel-ministry-of-defense-how-things-really-works / HTTP/1.0" 200 5795 http://infosecurityguard.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php "" Mozilla/4.0 (سازگار؛ MSIE 8.0؛ ویندوز NT 5.1؛ Trident/4.0؛ GTB6.3؛ NET CLR 1.1.4322. NET CLR 2.0.50727؛ دات نت CLR 3.0.4506.2152؛ NET CLR 3.5.30729؛ InfoPath.2) "
The PBX open on the internet tell us that's SecurStar GmbH
شرکت SecurStar PBX بر روی اینترنت باز است، آن را شامل تمام نام کارمند خود را و ما را تایید می کنند که نویسنده http:/infosecurityguard.com آن شرکت است و هکر ناشناس به نام Notrax است.
Here there is their forum post where the SecurStar GmbH guys are debugging IPCOPfirewall & Asterisk together (so we see also details of what they use) where there is the ip 217.7.213.59 .
That's also really fun!
آنها فروش تلفن امن اما شرکت سیستم تلفن خود را بر روی اینترنت است که آشکارا آسیب پذیر است. :-)
من فکر کردم به تماس مدیر عامل شرکت، هافنر، از طریق SIP PBX دسکتاپ داخلی خود را به اعلام ترفندهای او را تازه کشف کرده است .. :->
آنها فعالیت های بازاریابی خود را اندازه گیری
Looking at the logs of my website i found that they was sensing the google distribution of information for the following keywords, in order to understand how effectively they was able to attack competing products. It's reasonable, if you invest money in a marketing campaign you want to see the results :-)
They reached my blog and i logged their search:
infosecurityguard + cryptophone
infosecurityguard+gold-lock
217.7.213.59 – - [30/Jan/2010:02:22:42 -0700] “GET / HTTP/1.0″ 200 31057 “http://www.google.de/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SKPB_enDE350DE350&q=infosecurityguard+cryptophone” “Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; GTB6.3; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2)”
217.7.213.59 – - [30/Jan/2010:04:15:07 -0700] “GET /20100130/about-the-voice-encryption-analysis-phonecrypt-can-be-intercepted-serious-security-evaluation-criteria/ HTTP/1.0″ 200 15774 “http://www.google.de/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SKPB_enDE350DE350&q=gold-lock+infosecurityguard” “Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; GTB6.3; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2)”
The domain registration data
The domain have been registered on 1st December 2009, just two months to start preparing the dishonest marketing campaign:
Domain Name: INFOSECURITYGUARD.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
Updated Date: 01-dec-2009
تاریخ ایجاد: 01-Dec-2009 تاریخ
The domain is anonymously privacy protected trough a whois privacy service:
Administrative Contact: Private, Registration INFOSECURITYGUARD.COM@domainsbyproxy.com , Domains by Proxy, Inc. DomainsByProxy.com
هکر Notrax می کند در گوگل وجود ندارد
As you know any hacker that get public usually have presence of it's activity on google, attending mailinglists, forum, homepage, past research, participation to conferences, etc, etc.
The fake hacker that they wanted us to to think was writing an independent blog does NOT have any trace on google. فقط برخی آمار در مورد مرورگر ناشناس به نام Notrax اما هیچ چیزی در مورد این هکر.
Maybe when SecurStar provided the anonymity tool to their marketing agency, to help them protecting anonymity for the fake research, their provided them the anonymous browser notrax.So the marketing guy thinking about the nickname of this fake hackers used what? Notrax! :-)
"بررسی مستقل" کاملا گرا در انتشار PhoneCrypt
Of the various review don the phonecrypt review is only positive and amazing good feedback, while the other are only bad feedback and no single good point.
As you can imagine, in any kind of independent product evaluation, for all products there are goods and bad points. No. In this one there are only product that are good and product that are bad.
آنها از دست رفته به در نظر گرفتن امنیت فن آوری مورد استفاده توسط محصولات
They completely avoided to speak about cryptography and security of the products.
They do not evaluated basic security features that must be in that kind of products.That's in order not to let anyone see that they did not followed basic security rules in building up their PhoneCrypt.
The technology is closed source, no transparency on algorithms and protocols, no peer review.Read my new comparison (from the basic cryptographic requirement point of view) About the voice encryption analysis (criteria, errors and different results) .
The results are somehow different than their one .
UPDATE از: ویلفرد هافنر (بنیانگذار SecurStar)؟
I got a notice from a reader regarding Wilfred Hafner, SecurStar founder, CEO and security expert.
He was arrested in 1997 for telephony related fraud (check 2nd article on Phrack) earning from telephony fraud 254.000 USD causing damages to local telcos trough blueboxing for 1.15 Million USD.
He was not doing “Blueboxing” for the pleasure of phreaking and connecting with other hackers, but to earn money.
Hacking for profit (and not for fun) in 1997… brrr…. No hacker's ethic at all!
همه در همه، این است که قانونی است؟
Badmouthing a competitor amounts to an unfair competition practice in most jurisdictions, so it is arguable (to say the least) that SecurStar is right on a legally sound ground here.
علاوه بر این، برخی از قوانین خاص در حوزه های قضایی خاصی که برای ممنوعیت ساده در عمل ما در حال صحبت کردن در مورد ارائه وجود دارد. به عنوان مثال در انگلستان موسسه بریتانیایی پزشکان در تبلیغات - در انطباق با حمایت از مصرف کننده از مقررات تجارت ناعادلانه - حکم داد که:
”falsely claiming or creating the impression that the trader is not acting for the purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession, or falsely representing oneself as a consumer” is a criminal offense .
We have no doubt that PRPR (which is the UK-based *PR company for SecurStar GmbH, led by Peter Rennison and Allie Andrews as stated in SecurStar Press Release ) did provide their client with this information. Heck, they *are* in the UK, they simply cannot ignore that!
IANAL, but I would not be surpised if someone filed a criminal complaint or start civil litigation for unfair competition against SecurStar GmbH.
Whether this is going to be a matter for criminal and/or civil Courts or not is not that important. However, it is clear enough that SecurStar GmbH appears to be at least ethically questionable and not really worth of trust.
Nice try, gentlemen… however, next time just do it right (whether “right” for them means “in a honest manner” or “in a fashion not to be caught” I will let them choose)”
Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)
