Hoaxicane Sandy
- At October 30, 2012
- By Josh More
- In Business Security, Psychology
- 5
It’s that time again.
Whenever a major media event happens (like hurricane Sandy), we are inundated with news. Sometimes that news is useful, but often it merely exists to create FUD… Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. While I have not personally seen any malware campaigns capitalizing on the event yet, it is inevitable. The pattern is generally as follows:
- Event hits the news as media outlets try to one-up one another to get the word out.
- People spread the warnings, making them just a little bit worse each time they are copied.
- Other people create hoaxes to ride the wave of popularity.
- Still other people create custom hoaxes to exploit the disaster financially.
A few minutes ago, at least in my little corner of the Internet, we hit stage 3 where this image was posted:
( From here. )
Now, as someone who plays with photography, I was a bit suspicious, but as a security person, I can actually prove some things here.
The first tool I want to discuss is FotoForensics. Check out their analysis.
See how the statue of liberty and land on which she stands is much brighter than the background? That indicates that that image has been pasted on top of the other, so we know it’s fake.
Sometimes, though, this trick doesn’t work. If someone is making a good hoax, they can change the error levels to prevent easy detection. That’s where our next tool comes in. TinEye is awesome.
Look what happens when I do a reverse image search on the suspicious file: here. (TinEye results expire after 72 hours, so if you’re slow to read this, just past the URL of the photo into their search box.)
TinEye, by default, is going to try to find the best match. But that’s not what we want. We want the original. Luckily, when people make hoaxes, they usually shrink the image to make it harder to find the signatures of a hoax. So we just click to sort by size and there we have what it likely the original:
ETA: Original can be found in this set by Mike Hollingshead.
Then it lists a bunch of sites that have stolen this image to use without credit. (That’s a different post.) You can then click on the “Compare” link for the likely original and see what they did. By flipping between the versions, you can see that they added the statue of liberty, the water and the boat, shrunk the image and made it darker… ’cause darker is scarier, apparently.
The important thing to realize here is that the attacker is trying to manipulate you. By spreading fear, they are making you more susceptible to future attacks. By taking advantage of your uncertainty and doubt, they put you in a position where you will do unwise things to gain an element of certainty in your life. Does this matter that much in an image hoax? Probably not. Does it matter when you start getting emails exhorting you to “click here” to help victims of the hurricane, it’ll matter a whole lot more.
Uncertainty and doubt can work against you, but it can also work for you. When the attacks come… likely in a few hours, approach them with suspicion. If you’re in the path of the storm, trust the names you recognize, like Google and The National Weather Service. If you’re not in the path of the storm and want to send aid, go with The Red Cross. If anyone else you don’t know asks for your money or your clicks, ask yourself what they have to gain.
ministerdod
THe people posting these pictures and spreading these lies need to be fined or jailed
Kenny
@Josh — I don’t get it. If the image is stolen, how am I seeing it right here????
@miniterdod — fined or jailed? Really? That seems a bit of a harsh reaction.
I thought this time around the exposing-the-hoax photos came pretty much on the heels of the hoaxes themselves. People want to know they’ve been hoaxed more than they want to believe the hoax.
Josh
@Kenny, In order to get this post out fast enough yesterday, I had to skim a bit on the research. I have since tracked down the original (and verified) and was able to provide credit to the original photographer. Sorry it took so long.
Kenny
@Josh, It wasn’t even that I was nitpicking on, but props on updating with the info.
I was more pointing out the terminology “stolen”. Technically it’s “infringing”, no? :)
Josh
Well, it’s only technically “infringing” if you can track down the original, find how it was licensed and verify that it is being used in a manner contrary to law. Of course, “stolen” has the same issues. :)
I probably should have said “Then it lists a bunch of sites that are using this image without credit.”, but what’s done it done.