path: root/doc/rfc/rfc5901.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                           P. Cain
Request for Comments: 5901                   The Cooper-Cain Group, Inc.
Category: Standards Track                                      D. Jevans
ISSN: 2070-1721                          The Anti-Phishing Working Group
                                                               July 2010


     Extensions to the IODEF-Document Class for Reporting Phishing

Abstract

   This document extends the Incident Object Description Exchange Format
   (IODEF) defined in RFC 5070 to support the reporting of phishing
   events, which is a particular type of fraud.  These extensions are
   flexible enough to support information gleaned from activities
   throughout the entire electronic fraud cycle -- from receipt of the
   phishing lure to the disablement of the collection site.  Both simple
   reporting and complete forensic reporting are possible, as is
   consolidating multiple incidents.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5901.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.



Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                    [Page 1]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................3
      1.1. Why a Common Report Format Is Needed .......................3
      1.2. Processing of Exchanged Data Not Defined ...................4
      1.3. Relation to the INCH IODEF Data Model ......................4
   2. Terminology Used in This Document ...............................4
      2.1. Requirements Language ......................................5
   3. Interesting Fraud Event Data ....................................5
      3.1. The Elements of a Phishing/Fraud Event .....................6
      3.2. Useful Data Items in a Fraud Event .........................7
   4. Fraud Activity Reporting via IODEF-Documents ....................8
      4.1. Fraud Report Types .........................................8
      4.2. Fraud Report XML Representation ............................9
      4.3. Syntactical Correctness of Fraud Activity Reports ..........9
   5. PhraudReport Element Definitions ...............................10
      5.1. PhraudReport Structure ....................................10
      5.2. Reuse of IODEF-Defined Elements ...........................11
      5.3. Element and Attribute Specification Format ................11
      5.4. Version Attribute .........................................12
      5.5. FraudType Attribute .......................................12
      5.6. PhishNameRef Element ......................................13
      5.7. PhishNameLocalRef Element .................................13
      5.8. FraudedBrandName Element ..................................13
      5.9. LureSource Element ........................................14
      5.10. OriginatingSensor Element ................................22
      5.11. The DCSite Element .......................................23
      5.12. TakeDownInfo Element .....................................25
      5.13. ArchivedData Element .....................................27
      5.14. RelatedData Element ......................................28
      5.15. CorrelationData Element ..................................28
      5.16. PRComments Element .......................................28
      5.17. EmailRecord Element ......................................28
   6. Mandatory IODEF and PhraudReport Elements ......................29
      6.1. Guidance on Usage .........................................30
   7. Security Considerations ........................................31
      7.1. Transport-Specific Concerns ...............................31
      7.2. Using the iodef:restriction Attribute .....................31
   8. IANA Considerations ............................................32
   9. Contributors ...................................................32
   10. References ....................................................32
      10.1. Normative References .....................................32
      10.2. Informative References ...................................33
   Appendix A.  Phishing Extensions XML Schema .......................34
   Appendix B.  Example Virus Report .................................43
      B.1.  Received Email ...........................................43
      B.2.  Generated Report .........................................44




Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                    [Page 2]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


   Appendix C.  Sample Phishing Report ...............................46
      C.1.  Received Lure ............................................46
      C.2.  Phishing Report ..........................................48

1.  Introduction

   Deception activities, such as receiving an email purportedly from a
   bank requesting you to confirm your account information, are an
   expanding attack type on the Internet.  The terms "phishing" and
   "fraud" are used interchangeably in this document to characterize
   broadly-launched social engineering attacks in which an electronic
   identity is misrepresented in an attempt to trick individuals into
   revealing their personal credentials (e.g., passwords, account
   numbers, personal information, ATM PINs, etc.).  A successful
   phishing attack on an individual allows the phisher (i.e., the
   attacker) to exploit the individual's credentials for financial or
   other gain.  Phishing attacks have morphed from directed email
   messages from alleged financial institutions to more sophisticated
   lures that may also include malware.

   This document defines a data format extension to the Incident Object
   Description Exchange Format (IODEF) [RFC5070] that can be used to
   describe information about a phishing or other type of fraudulent
   incident.  Sections 2 and 3 of this document provides an overview of
   the terminology and process of a phishing event.  Section 4
   introduces the high-level report format and how to use it.  Sections
   5 and 6 describe the data elements of the fraud extensions.  The
   appendices include an XML schema for the extensions and a few example
   fraud reports.

   The extensions defined in this document may be used to report the
   social engineering victim lure, the collection site, credential
   targeted ("spear") phishing, broad multi-recipient phishing, and
   other evolving Internet-based fraud attempts.  Malware and other
   malicious software included within the lure may also be included
   within the report.

1.1.  Why a Common Report Format Is Needed

   To combat the rise in malicious activity on the Internet, service
   providers and investigative agencies are sharing more and more
   network and event data in a coordinated effort to identify
   perpetrators and compromised accounts, coordinate responses, and
   prosecute attackers.  As the number of data-sharing parties
   increases, the number of party-specific tools, formats, and
   definitions multiply rapidly until they overwhelm the investigative
   and coordination abilities of those parties.




Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                    [Page 3]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


   By using a common format, it becomes easier for an organization to
   engage in this coordination as well as correlation of information
   from multiple data sources or products into a cohesive view.  As the
   number of data sources increases, a common format becomes even more
   important, since multiple tools would be needed to interpret the
   different sources of data.  A big win in a common format is the
   ability to automate many of the analysis tasks and significantly
   speed up the response and prosecution activities.

1.2.  Processing of Exchanged Data Not Defined

   While the intended use of this specification is to facilitate data
   sharing between parties, the mechanics of this sharing process and
   its related political challenges are out of scope for this document.

1.3.  Relation to the INCH IODEF Data Model

   Instead of defining a new report format, this document defines an
   extension to [RFC5070].  The IODEF defines a flexible and extensible
   format and supports a granular level of specificity.  These phishing
   and fraud extensions reuse subsets of the IODEF data model and, where
   appropriate, specify new data elements.  Leveraging an existing
   specification allows for more rapid adoption and reuse of existing
   tools in organizations.  For clarity, and in order to eliminate
   duplication, only the additional structures necessary for describing
   the exchange of phishing and e-crime activity are provided.

2.  Terminology Used in This Document

   Since many people use different but similar terms to mean the same
   thing, we use the following terminology in this document.

   a.  Phishing

       The overall process of identifying victims, contacting them via a
       lure, causing a victim to send a set of private credentials to a
       collection site, and storing those credentials is called
       phishing.

   b.  Fraud Event

       A fraud event is the combination of phishing and subsequent
       fraudulent use of the private credentials.








Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                    [Page 4]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


   c.  Lure

       A lure is the decoy used to trick a victim into performing some
       activity, such as providing their private credentials.  The lure
       relies on social engineering concepts to convince the victim that
       the lure is genuine and its instructions should be followed.  A
       lure includes a pointer or link to a collection site.

   d.  Collection Site

       The website, email box, SMS number, phone number, or other place
       where a phished victim sends their private credentials for later
       fraudulent use by a criminal.

   e.  Credentials

       A credential is data that is transferred or presented to
       establish either a claimed identity or the authorizations of a
       system entity.  Many websites require a user name and password --
       combined, they are a credential -- to access sensitive content.

   f.  Message

       Although primarily email, a lure can be transported via any
       messaging medium, such as instant messages, Voice over IP (VoIP),
       or text via an SMS service.  The term "message" is used as a
       generic term for any of these transport mediums.

2.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

3.  Interesting Fraud Event Data

   Before defining the structure of the IODEF extensions, we identify
   the "interesting" data in phishing and other fraudulent activities.













Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                    [Page 5]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


3.1.  The Elements of a Phishing/Fraud Event

   +-----------+        +------------------+
   | Fraudster |<---<-- | Collection Site  |<---O--<----<----+
   +----+------+        +------------------+    |            |
        |                                       |            |
        |                                    +--|-----+      ^
        |                                    | Sensor | Credentials
        |                                    +-|------+      |
        |      +---------------+               |        +-------+
        \--->--| Attack Source |--Lure--->-----O------> | User/ |
               +---------------+                        |Victim |
                                                        +-------+

            Figure 3.1.  The Components of Internet Fraud

   Internet-based phishing and fraud activities are normally comprised
   of at least six components:

   1.  The phisher, fraudster, or party perpetrating the fraudulent
       activity.  Most times this party is not readily identifiable.

   2.  The attack source -- the source of the phishing email, virus,
       trojan, or other attack -- is masked in an enticing manner.

   3.  The lure used to trick the victim into responding.

   4.  The user, victim, or intended target of the fraud or phish.

   5.  The credentials, personal data, or other information the victim
       has surrendered to the phisher.

   6.  The collection site, where the victim sends their credentials or
       personal data if they have been duped by the lure of the phisher.
       This may be a website, mailbox, phone operator, or database.

   If we take a holistic view of the attack, there are some additional
   components:

   o  The sensor -- the means by which the phish is detected.  This
      element may be an intrusion detection system, firewall, filter,
      email gateway, or human analyst.

   o  A forensic or archive site (not pictured), where an investigator
      has copied or otherwise retained the data used for the fraud
      attempt or credential collection.





Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                    [Page 6]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


3.1.1.  Fraudulent Activity Extensions to the IODEF-Document

   Fraud events are reported in a fraud activity report, which is an
   instance of an XML IODEF-Document Incident element with added
   EventData and AdditionalData elements.  The additional fields in the
   EventData specific to phishing and fraud are enclosed in a
   PhraudReport XML element.  Fraudulent activity may include multiple
   emails, instant messages, or network messages, scattered over various
   times, locations, and methodologies.  The PhraudReport within an
   EventData may include information about the email header and body,
   details of the actual phishing lure, correlation to other attacks,
   and details of the removal of the web server or credential collector.
   As a phishing attack may generate multiple reports to an incident
   team, multiple PhraudReports may be combined into one EventData
   structure, and multiple EventData structures may be combined into one
   incident report.  One IODEF incident report may record one or more
   individual phishing events and may include multiple EventData
   elements.

   This document defines new extension elements for the EventData IODEF
   XML elements and identifies those required in a PhraudReport.  The
   appendices contain sample fraud activity reports and a complete
   schema.

   The IODEF Extensions defined in this document comply with Section 4,
   "Extending the IODEF Format" in [RFC5070].

3.2.  Useful Data Items in a Fraud Event

   There are a number of subtle and non-obvious data to capture from a
   fraud event that make the event analysis and correlation with other
   events more useful.  These data can be grouped into categories:

3.2.1.  Data about the Lure

   If a lure was presented as part of the fraud event, this category
   includes the original received lure, the means by which the lure was
   received (e.g., email, phone, or SMS), and the source addresses that
   sent the lure.  Other useful data includes DNS data about the lure
   source, identification of any accompanying malware, and the brand
   name defrauded.

3.2.2.  Credential Collection Site Data

   The collection site contains victim identifications, along with
   copies of data supplied by the victims, such as account names or
   numbers, passwords, dates of birth, etc.  This category of useful
   data includes these credentials, along with information about the



Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                    [Page 7]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


   collection site itself, such as its type, site DNS data, DNS
   registrant data, and site physical location.  The location and
   registrant information is particularly important if law enforcement
   assistance is expected.  Additionally, an entire site archive can be
   gathered to allow a collector on a shared website to be disabled
   without impacting other users.

3.2.3.  Detection Information

   This is a non-obvious data category and contains data on how the lure
   or collection site was detected.  Understanding how the lure was
   detected allows us to design and implement better detection systems.

3.2.4.  Analysis Output

   In an environment where time is critical, it is imperative that
   analysis from one party can be reliably explained to and shared with
   other investigative parties.  This grouping includes data that an
   investigator found interesting or could be useful to others.

4.  Fraud Activity Reporting via IODEF-Documents

   A fraud activity report is an instance of an XML IODEF-Document with
   additional extensions and usage guidance, as specified in Section 4
   of this document.  These additional extensions are implemented
   through the PhraudReport XML element.

   As described in the following subsections, reporting fraud activity
   has three primary components: choosing a report type, a format for
   the data, and how to check the correctness of the format.

4.1.  Fraud Report Types

   There are three actions relating to reporting phishing events.
   First, a reporter may *create* and exchange a new report on a new
   event.  Secondly, a reporter may *update* a previously exchanged
   report to indicate new collection sites, site takedown information,
   or related activities.  Lastly, a reporter may have realized that the
   report is in error or contains significant incorrect data and that
   the prudent reaction is to *delete* the report.

   The three types of reports are denoted through the use of the
   ext-purpose attribute of an Incident element.  A new report contains
   an empty or a "create" ext-purpose value; an updated report contains
   an ext-value value of "update"; a request for deletion contains a
   "delete" ext-purpose value.  Note that this is actually an advisory
   marking for the report originator or recipient, as operating
   procedures in a report life cycle are very environment specific.



Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                    [Page 8]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


4.2.  Fraud Report XML Representation

   The IODEF Incident element ([RFC5070], Section 3.2) is summarized
   below.  It and the rest of the data model presented in Section 4 is
   expressed in Unified Modeling Language (UML) syntax as used in the
   IODEF specification.  The UML representation is for illustrative
   purposes only; elements are specified in XML as defined in
   Appendix A.

   +--------------------+
   | Incident           |
   +--------------------+
   | ENUM purpose       |<>----------[ IncidentID ]
   | STRING ext-purpose |<>--{0..1}--[ AlternativeID ]
   | ENUM lang          |<>--{0..1}--[ RelatedActivity ]
   | ENUM restriction   |<>--{0..1}--[ DetectTime ]
   |                    |<>--{0..1}--[ StartTime ]
   |                    |<>--{0..1}--[ EndTime ]
   |                    |<>----------[ ReportTime ]
   |                    |<>--{0..*}--[ Description ]
   |                    |<>--{1..*}--[ Assessment ]
   |                    |<>--{0..*}--[ Method ]
   |                    |<>--{1..*}--[ Contact ]
   |                    |<>--{0..*}--[ EventData ]
   |                    |              |<>--[ AdditionalData ]
   |                    |                     |<>--[ PhraudReport ]
   |                    |<>--{0..1}--[ History ]
   |                    |<>--{0..*}--[ AdditionalData ]
   +------------------+

           Figure 4.1.  The IODEF XML Incident Element (Modified)

   A fraud activity report is composed of one iodef:Incident element
   that contains one or more related PhraudReport elements embedded in
   the iodef:AdditionalData element of iodef:EventData.  The
   PhraudReport element is added to the IODEF using its defined
   extension procedure documented in Section 5 of [RFC5070].

   One IODEF-Document may contain information on multiple incidents with
   information for each incident contained within an iodef:Incident
   element ([RFC5070], Section 3.12).

4.3.  Syntactical Correctness of Fraud Activity Reports

   The fraud activity report MUST pass XML validation using the schema
   defined in [RFC5070] and the extensions defined in Appendix A of this
   document.




Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                    [Page 9]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


5.  PhraudReport Element Definitions

   A PhraudReport consists of an extension to the
   Incident.EventData.AdditionalData element with a dtype of "xml".  The
   elements of the PhraudReport will specify information about the six
   components of fraud activity identified in Section 3.1.  Additional
   forensic information and commentary can be added by the reporter as
   necessary to show relation to other events, to show the output of an
   investigation, or for archival purposes.

5.1.  PhraudReport Structure

   A PhraudReport element is structured as follows.  The components of a
   PhraudReport are introduced in functional grouping, as some
   parameters are related and some elements may not make sense
   individually.

   +------------------+
   |   PhraudReport   |
   +------------------+
   | STRING Version   |<>--{0..1}--[ PhishNameRef ]
   | ENUM FraudType   |<>--{0..1}--[ PhishNameLocalRef ]
   | STRING ext-value |<>--{0..1}--[ FraudParameter ]
   |                  |<>--{0..*}--[ FraudedBrandName ]
   |                  |<>--{1..*}--[ LureSource ]
   |                  |<>--{1..*}--[ OriginatingSensor ]
   |                  |<>--{0..1}--[ EmailRecord ]
   |                  |<>--{0..*}--[ DCSite ]
   |                  |<>--{0..*}--[ TakeDownInfo ]
   |                  |<>--{0..*}--[ ArchivedData ]
   |                  |<>--{0..*}--[ RelatedData ]
   |                  |<>--{0..*}--[ CorrelationData ]
   |                  |<>--{0..1}--[ PRComments ]
   +------------------+

           Figure 5.1.  The PhraudReport Element

   Relevant information about a phishing or fraud event is encoded into
   six components as follows:

   a.  The PhishNameRef and PhishNameLocalRef elements identify the
       fraud or class of fraud.

   b.  The LureSource element describes the source of the attack or
       phishing lure, including host information and any included
       malware.





Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 10]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


   c.  The DCSite element describes the technical details of the
       credential collection site.

   d.  The OriginatingSensor element describes the means of detection.

   The RelatedData, ArchivedData, and TakeDownInfo fields allow optional
   forensics and history data to be included.

   A specific phish/fraud activity can be identified using a combination
   of the FraudType, FraudParameter, FraudedBrandName, LureSource, and
   PhishNameRef elements.

5.2.  Reuse of IODEF-Defined Elements

   Elements, attributes, and parameters defined in the base IODEF
   specification were used whenever possible in the definition of the
   PhraudReport XML element.  This specification does not introduce any
   new variable types or encodings to the IODEF data model, but extends
   the IODEF Contact and System elements.

   The data model schema contains a copy of the iodef:System element.
   Although we would like to just extend the System element, it is
   defined in RFC 5070 with an unable-to-extend anonymous type, so we
   copied the element, named its underlying type, and then generated the
   extension to it.

   Note: Elements that are imported from the base IODEF specification
   are prefaced with an "iodef" XML namespace and are noted with the
   section defining that element in [RFC5070].  Each element in a
   PhraudReport is used as described in the following sections.

5.3.  Element and Attribute Specification Format

   The following sections describe the components of a PhraudReport XML
   element.  Each description is structured as follows.

   1.  A terse XML-type identifier for the element or attribute.

   2.  An indication of whether the element or attribute is REQUIRED or
       optional.  Mandatory items are noted as REQUIRED.  If not
       specified, elements are optional.  Note that when optional
       elements are included, they may REQUIRE specific sub-elements.

   3.  A description of the element or attribute and its intended use.







Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 11]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


   Elements that contain sub-elements or enumerated values are further
   sub-sectioned.  Note that there is no "trickle-up" effect in
   elements.  That is, the required elements of a sub-element are only
   populated if the sub-element is used.

5.4.  Version Attribute

   REQUIRED.  STRING.  The version shall be the value 0.06, to be
   compliant with this document.

5.5.  FraudType Attribute

   REQUIRED.  One ENUM.  The FraudType attribute describes the type of
   fraudulent activity described in this PhraudReport.  The FraudType
   chosen determines the value of the FraudParameter filed.  This field
   contains one of the following values:

   1.  phishing.  The FraudParameter should be the subject line of the
       phishing lure email or value of a lure IM or VoIP message.  This
       type is a standard phishing lure, usually sent as email, and is
       intended to exploit the recipient's credentials for financial
       gain.

   2.  recruiting.  The FraudParameter is the subject line of the
       recruit, or mule, email or message.

   3.  malware distribution.  The FraudParameter is the email subject
       line of the phishing email.  This type of email phish does not
       pose a risk of financial loss to the recipient, but lures the
       recipient to an infected site.

   4.  fraudulent site.  This identifies a known fraudulent site that
       does not necessarily send spam but is used to show lures.  The
       FraudParameter may be used to identify the website.

   5.  dnsspoof.  This choice does not have a related FraudParameter.
       This value is used when a DNS system component responds with an
       untrue IP address for the requested domain name due to either
       cache poisoning, ID spoofing, or other manipulation of the DNS
       system.

   6.  archive.  There is no required FraudParameter for this choice,
       although the FraudParameter of the original phish could be
       entered.  The data archived from the phishing server is placed in
       the ArchivedData element.

   7.  other.  This is used to identify not-yet-enumerated fraud types.




Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 12]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


   8.  unknown.  This choice may have an associated FraudParameter.  It
       is used to cover confused cases.

   9.  ext-value.  This choice identifies an unidentified FraudType.
       The FraudType should be captured in the ext-value attribute.

5.5.1.  ext-value Attribute

   OPTIONAL.  This STRING may be populated with a FraudType that has not
   been predefined.

5.5.2.  FraudParameter Element

   Zero or one value of iodef:MLStringType.  The contents of this
   element are dependent on the FraudType choice.  It may be an email
   subject line, VoIP lure, link in an IM message, or a web URL.  Note
   that some phishers add a number of random characters onto the end of
   a phish email subject line for uniqueness; reporters should delete
   those characters before insertion into the FraudParameter field.

5.6.  PhishNameRef Element

   Zero or one value of iodef:MLStringType.  The PhishNameRef element is
   the common name used to identify this fraud event.  It is often the
   name agreed upon by involved parties or vendors.  Using this name can
   be a convenient way to reference the activity when collaborating with
   other parties, the media, or engaging in public education.

5.7.  PhishNameLocalRef Element

   Zero or one value of iodef:MLStringType.  The PhishNameLocalRef
   element describes a local name or Unique-IDentifier (UID) that is
   used by various parties before a commonly agreed-upon term is
   adopted.  This field allows a cross-reference from the submitting
   organization's system to a central repository.

5.8.  FraudedBrandName Element

   Zero or more values of iodef:MLStringType.  This is the identifier of
   the recognized brand name or company name used in the phishing
   activity (e.g., XYZ Semiconductor Corp).










Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 13]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


5.9.  LureSource Element

   REQUIRED.  One or more values.  The LureSource element describes the
   source of the PhraudReport lure.  It allows the specification of IP
   addresses, DNS names, domain registry information, and rudimentary
   support for the files that might be downloaded or registry keys
   modified by the crimeware.

   +-------------+
   | LureSource  |
   +-------------+
   |             |<>--(1..*)--[ System ]
   |             |<>--(0..*)--[ DomainData ]
   |             |<>--(0..1)--[ IncludedMalware  ]
   |             |<>--(0..1)--[ FilesDownloaded  ]
   |             |<>--(0..1)--[ WindowsRegistryKeysModified  ]
   +-------------+

           Figure 5.2.  The LureSource Element

5.9.1.  System Element

   REQUIRED.  One or more values of the iodef:System ([RFC5070],
   Section 3.15).  The system element describes a particular host
   involved in the phishing activity.  If the real IP address can be
   ascertained, it should be populated.  A spoofed address may also be
   entered, and the spoofed attribute SHALL be set.

   Multiple System elements may be used to identify the DNS name and IP
   address(es) of the lure source.

5.9.2.  DomainData Element

   Zero or more element values.  The DomainData element describes the
   registration, delegation, and control of a domain used to source the
   lure and can identify the IP address associated with the System
   element URI.  Capturing the domain data is very useful when
   investigating or correlating events.













Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 14]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


   The structure of a DomainData element is as follows:

   +--------------------+
   | DomainData         |
   +--------------------+
   |                    |<>----------[ Name ]
   |                    |<>--(0..1)--[ DateDomainWasChecked ]
   | ENUM SystemStatus  |<>--(0..1)--[ RegistrationDate ]
   | ENUM DomainStatus  |<>--(0..1)--[ ExpirationDate ]
   |                    |<>--(0..*)--[ Nameservers ]
   |                    |<>--(0..1)--[ DomainContacts ]
   +--------------------+

                Figure 5.3.  The DomainData Element

5.9.2.1.  Name Element

   REQUIRED.  One value of iodef:MLStringType.  The Name element
   contains the host DNS name used in this event.  Its value should be
   the complete DNS host address; e.g., if an event targeted
   www.example.com, the value would be www.example.com.

5.9.2.2.  DateDomainWasChecked Element

   Zero or one value of DATETIME.  This element includes the timestamp
   of when this domain data was checked and entered into this report, as
   many phishers modify their domain data at various stages of a
   phishing event.

5.9.2.3.  RegistrationDate Element

   Zero or one value of DATETIME.  The RegistrationDate element shows
   the date of registration for a domain.

5.9.2.4.  ExpirationDate Element

   Zero or one value of DATETIME.  The ExpirationDate element shows the
   date the domain will expire.

5.9.2.5.  Nameservers Element

   Zero or more values.  These fields hold nameservers identified for
   this domain.  Each entry is a sequence of DNSNameType and iodef:
   Address pairs, as specified below.







Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 15]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


   +--------------------+
   | Nameservers        |
   +--------------------+
   |                    |<>----------[ Server]
   |                    |<>--(1..*)--[ iodef:Address ]
   +--------------------+

                Figure 5.4.  The Nameservers Element

   The use of one Server value and multiple Address values is used to
   note multiple IP addresses associated with one DNS entry for the
   domain nameserver.

5.9.2.5.1.  Server Element

   One value of iodef:MLStringType.  This field contains the DNS name of
   the domain nameserver.

5.9.2.5.2.  iodef:Address Element

   One or more values of iodef:Address.  This field lists the IP
   address(es) associated with this Server element.

5.9.2.6.  DomainContacts Element

   REQUIRED.  Choice of either a SameDomainContact or one or more
   Contact elements.  The DomainContacts element allows the reporter to
   enter contact information supplied by the registrar or returned by
   whois queries.  For efficiency of the reporting party, the domain
   contact information may be marked to be the same as another domain
   already reported using the SameDomainContact element.

   +----------------+
   | DomainContacts |
   +----------------+
   |                |<>--(0..1)--[ SameDomainContact ]
   |                |<>--(1..*)--[ Contact ]
   +----------------|

             Figure 5.5.  The DomainContacts Element

5.9.2.6.1.  SameDomainContact Element

   REQUIRED.  One iodef:MLStringType.  The SameDomainContact element is
   populated with a domain name if the contact information for this
   domain is identical to that name in this or another report.
   Implementors are cautioned to only use this element when the domain
   contact data returned by a registrar or registry is identical.



Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 16]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


5.9.2.6.2.  Contact Element

   REQUIRED.  One or more iodef:Contact elements.  This element reuses
   and extends the iodef:Contact elements for its components.  Each
   component may have zero or more values.  If only the role attribute
   and the ContactName component are populated, the same (identical)
   information is listed for multiple roles.

   +--------------------+
   | Contact            |
   +--------------------+
   |                    |<>----------[ iodef:ContactName ]
   |                    |<>--(0..*)--[ iodef:Description ]
   | ENUM role          |<>--(0..*)--[ iodef:RegistryHandle ]
   |                    |<>--(0..1)--[ iodef:PostalAddress ]
   | ENUM restriction   |<>--(0..*)--[ iodef:Email ]
   | STRING ext-role    |<>--(0..*)--[ iodef:Telephone ]
   | ENUM type          |<>--(0..1)--[ iodef:Fax ]
   | STRING ext-type    |<>--(0..1)--[ iodef:Timezone ]
   |                    |<->----------[ AdditionalData ]
   |                    |                  +<-> [ Confidence ]
   +--------------------+

           Figure 5.6.  The Contact Element

   Each Contact has optional attributes to capture the sensitivity and
   role for which the contact is listed.  Elements reused from [RFC5070]
   are not discussed in this document.

5.9.2.6.2.1.  Confidence Element

   REQUIRED.  ENUM.  The Confidence element describes a qualitative
   assessment of the veracity of the contact information.  This
   attribute is an extension to the iodef:Contact element and is defined
   in this document.  There are five possible Confidence values, as
   follows.

   1.  known-fraudulent.  This contact information has been previously
       determined to be fraudulent, as either non-existent physical
       information or containing real information not associated with
       this domain registration.

   2.  looks-fraudulent.  The contact information has suspicious
       information included.

   3.  known-real.  The contact information has been previously
       investigated or determined to be correct.




Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 17]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


   4.  looks-real.  The contact information does not arouse suspicion
       but has not been previously validated.

   5.  unknown.  The reporter cannot make a value judgment on the
       contact data.

5.9.2.6.2.2.  ext-role Attribute

   REQUIRED.  ENUM.  The ext-role attribute is extended from the iodef:
   ext-role attribute with values identified in RFC 3982 [RFC3982].  The
   ext-value value of the role attribute should be used, with the
   ext-role attribute value chosen from one of the following values:

   1.  billingContacts

   2.  technicalContacts

   3.  administrativeContacts

   4.  legalContacts

   5.  zoneContacts

   6.  abuseContacts

   7.  securityContacts

   8.  otherContacts

   9.  hostingProvider.  This contact is the hosting provider of this
       server.  Although not in RFC 3982, it is useful in investigations
       to note where the server is located and who operates it.  Load-
       balanced, multicast, or anycast servers may have multiple
       hostingProvider contact entries.

5.9.3.  SystemStatus Attribute

   REQUIRED.  ENUM.  The SystemStatus attribute assesses a system's
   involvement in this event.  The value is chosen from this list:

   1.  spoofed.  This domain or system did not participate in this
       event, but its address space or DNS name was simply used by
       another party.

   2.  fraudulent.  The system is operated with fraudulent intentions,
       e.g., the domain name is a homophone.





Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 18]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


   3.  innocent-hacked.  The system was compromised by a third party and
       used in this event.

   4.  innocent-hijacked.  The IP address or domain name was
       deliberately hijacked via BGP or DNS and used in this event to
       source the lure or host the collection site.

   5.  unknown.  No conclusions are inferred from this event.

5.9.4.  DomainStatus Attribute

   ENUM.  The DomainStatus attribute describes the registry status of a
   domain at the time of the report.  The following enumerated list is
   taken from the "domainStatusType" of [RFC3982].  An extra "unknown"
   value was added in case the status is indeterminable.

   1.   reservedDelegation

   2.   assignedAndActive

   3.   assignedAndInactive

   4.   assignedAndOnHold

   5.   revoked

   6.   transferPending

   7.   registryLock

   8.   registrarLock

   9.   other

   10.  unknown

5.9.5.  IncludedMalware Element

   Zero or one value.  The IncludedMalware element allows for the
   identification and optional inclusion of the actual malware that was
   part of the lure.  The goal of this element is not to detail the
   characteristics of the malware but rather to allow for a convenient
   element to link malware to a phishing campaign.








Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 19]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


   +------------------+
   | IncludedMalware  |
   +------------------+
   |                  |<>--(1..*)--[ Name ]
   |                  |<>--(0..1)--[ ds:Reference ]
   |                  |<>--(0..1)--[ Data ]
   +------------------+

   +-----------------------+
   | Data                  |
   +-----------------------+
   | hexBinary XORPattern  |
   +-----------------------+

       Figure 5.7.  The IncludedMalware Element

5.9.5.1.  Name Element

   REQUIRED.  One or more values of iodef:MLStringType.  This field is
   used to identify the lure malware by its known name.  Unnamed malware
   may be identified by a value of "unknown".

5.9.5.2.  Reference Element

   Zero or one value of the Reference.  This optional field is used to
   hold the algorithm identification and value of a hash computed over
   the malware executable.  This entire element is imported from
   [RFC3275].  Implementations SHOULD support the use of SHA-1 [SHA] as
   a DigestMethod.

5.9.5.3.  Data Element

   Zero or one value.  The optional Data element is used to include the
   lure malware, which is encoded as a hexBinary type and XORed with a
   pattern to render it harmless.

5.9.5.3.1.  XORPattern Attribute

   One value of hexBinary.  The Data element includes a 16-hexadecimal-
   character XORPattern attribute to support disabling the included
   malware to bypass anti-virus filters.  The default value is
   0x55AA55AA55AA55BB, which would be XORed with the malware datastring
   to recover the actual malware.








Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 20]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


5.9.6.  FilesDownloaded Element

   Zero or one value of a sequence of File elements.

   +---------------------+
   | FilesDownloaded     |
   +---------------------+
   |                     |<>--(1..*)--[ File ]
   +---------------------+

       Figure 5.8.  The FilesDownloaded Element

5.9.6.1.  File Element

   One or more values of iodef:MLStringType.  The File element value is
   the name of a file downloaded by this lure.

5.9.7.  WindowsRegistryKeysModified Element

   One or more values of the Key sequence.  The contents of the
   WindowsRegistryKeysModified element are sequences of Key elements.

   +------------------------------+
   | WindowsRegistryKeysModified  |
   +------------------------------+
   |                              |<>--(1..*)--[ Key ]
   +------------------------------+

   +--------------+
   | Key          |
   +--------------+
   |              |<>-----[ Name ]
   |              |<>-----[ Value ]
   +--------------+

       Figure 5.9.  The WindowsRegistryKeysModified Element

5.9.7.1.  Key Element

   One or more sequences.  The Key element is a sequence of Name and
   Value pairs representing an operating system registry key and its
   value.  The key and value are encoded as in Microsoft .reg files
   [KB310516].








Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 21]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


5.9.7.1.1.  Name Element

   One STRING, representing the Windows Operating System Registry Key
   Name.  The value is encoded as in Microsoft .reg files, e.g.,
   [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Test\KeyName].

5.9.7.1.2.  Value Element

   One STRING, representing the value of the associated Key encoded as
   in Microsoft .reg files, e.g., REG_BINARY:01.

5.10.  OriginatingSensor Element

   REQUIRED.  The OriginatingSensor element contains the identification
   and cognizant data of the network element that detected this fraud
   activity.  Note that the network element does not have to be on the
   Internet itself (i.e., it may be a local Intrusion Detection System
   (IDS)), nor is it required to be mechanical (e.g., humans are
   allowed).

   Multiple OriginatingSensor elements are allowed to support detection
   at multiple locations.

   +----------------------------+
   | OriginatingSensor          |
   +----------------------------+
   | ENUM OriginatingSensorType |<>------------[ DateFirstSeen ]
   |                            |<>--(1..*)----[ iodef:System ]
   +----------------------------+

           Figure 5.10.  The OriginatingSensor Element

   The OriginatingSensor requires a type value and identification of the
   entity that detected this fraudulent event.

5.10.1.  OriginatingSensorType Attribute

   REQUIRED.  ENUM.  The value is chosen from the following list,
   categorizing the function of this sensor:

   1.  web.  A web server or service detected this event.

   2.  webgateway.  A proxy, firewall, or other network gateway detected
       this event.

   3.  mailgateway.  The event was detected via a mail gateway or
       filter.




Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 22]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


   4.  browser.  The event was detected at the user web interface or
       browser-type element.

   5.  ispsensor.  The event was detected by an automated system in the
       network, such as Intrusion Detection System, Intrusion Protection
       System, or other Internet Service Provider device.

   6.  human.  A non-automated system (e.g., a human, manual analysis,
       etc.) detected this event.

   7.  honeypot.  The event was detected by receipt at a decoy device.

   8.  other.  The detection was performed via a non-listed method.

5.10.2.  DateFirstSeen Element

   REQUIRED.  DATETIME.  This is the date and time that this sensor
   first saw this phishing activity.

5.10.3.  iodef:System Element

   REQUIRED.  One or more values of iodef:System.  This is
   identification information (such as the IP version, IP address, etc.)
   of the entity that detected this event.  The ability to identify
   multiple detectors is supported.

5.11.  The DCSite Element

   Zero or more DCSite elements.  The DCSite captures the type,
   identifier, location, and other pertinent information about the
   credential gathering process, or data collection site, used in the
   phishing incident.  The data collection site is identified by four
   elements: the type of collector, the network location, information
   about its DNS domain, and a confidence factor.  Further details about
   the domain, system, or owner of the DCSite can be inserted into the
   DomainData sub-element.

   If the DCSite element is present, a value is required.  Multiple
   DCSite elements are allowed to indicate multiple collection sites for
   a single collector.  Multiple URLs pointing to the same DNS entry can
   be identified with multiple SiteURL elements.










Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 23]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


   +--------------+
   | DCSite       |
   +--------------+
   | ENUM DCType  |<>--+--------[ SiteURL ]
   |              |    +--------[ Domain ]
   |              |    +--------[ EmailSite ]
   |              |    +--------[ System ]
   |              |    +--------[ Unknown ]
   |              |<>--(0..*)---[ iodef:Node ]
   |              |<>--(0..1)---[ DomainData ]
   |              |<>--(0..1)---[ iodef:Assessment ]
   +--------------+

        Figure 5.11.  The DCSite Element

5.11.1.  DCType Attribute

   REQUIRED.  ENUM.  The DCType attribute identifies the method of data
   collection as determined through the analysis of the victim computer,
   lure, or malware.  This attribute coupled with the DCSite content
   identifies the data collection site.

   1.  web.  The user is redirected to a website to collect the data.

   2.  email.  The victim sends an email with credentials enclosed.

   3.  keylogger.  Some form of keylogger is downloaded to the victim.

   4.  automation.  Other forms of automatic data collection, such as
       background Object Linking and Embedding (OLE) automation, are
       used to capture information on the user's machine.

   5.  unspecified.

5.11.2.  DCSite Values

   REQUIRED.  The DCSite element contains the IP address, URL, email
   site, or other identifier of the credential or data collection site.
   The Domain choice may be used to identify entire "phishy" domains
   like those used for the RockPhish and related malware.  Each DCSite
   element also includes a confidence attribute to convey the reporter's
   assessment of their confidence that this DCSite element is valid and
   involved with this event.  The confidence value is a per-DCSite
   value, as multiple-site data collectors may have different confidence
   values.






Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 24]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


   The DCSite element is a choice of:

   1.  SiteURL.  One value of iodef:MLStringType.  This choice supports
       URIs and other web-based identifiers.

   2.  Domain.  One value of iodef:MLStringType.  This choice allows the
       entry of a DNS domain name.

   3.  EmailSite.  One value of iodef:MLStringType.  This choice
       includes an email address if the site used email communications.

   4.  iodef:Address.  One value of iodef:Address element.  This choice
       is used to capture the IP address of a site.

   5.  Unknown.  One value of iodef:MLStringType.  The unknown entry is
       used for exceptions to the preceding choices.

5.11.2.1.  Confidence Attribute

   One value of INTEGER.  The confidence attribute is a value between 0
   and 100, representing the reporter's certainty that this is a genuine
   phishing site.  A value of 0 represents a false positive; a value of
   100 signifies that the reporter has independently verified this site.

5.11.3.  iodef:Node Element

   Zero or more values of iodef:Node.  This element is used to identify
   the IP address(es) or DNS names associated with the DCSite element
   value.

5.11.4.  DomainData Element

   Zero or one value of DomainData (Section 5.9.2).  This element allows
   for the identification of data associated with the data collection
   site.

5.11.5.  iodef:Assessment Element

   Zero or one value of iodef:Assessment.  This element is used to
   designate different confidence levels of multiple-site data
   collectors.

5.12.  TakeDownInfo Element

   Zero or more TakeDownInfo elements.  This element identifies the
   agent or agency that performed the removal, DNS domain disablement,
   or ISP-blockage of the phish or fraud collector site.  A PhraudReport
   may have multiple TakeDownInfo elements to support activities where



Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 25]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


   multiple takedown activities are involved on different dates.  Note
   that the term "agency" is used to identify any party performing the
   blocking or removal, such as ISPs or private parties, and not just
   government entities.

   The TakeDownInfo element allows one date element with multiple
   TakeDownAgency and Comment elements to support operations using
   multiple agencies.

   +-------------------+
   | TakeDownInfo      |
   +-------------------+
   |                   |<>---(0..1)--[ TakeDownDate ]
   |                   |<>---(0..*)--[ TakeDownAgency ]
   |                   |<>---(0..*)--[ TakeDownComments ]
   +-------------------+

      Figure 5.12.  The TakeDownInfo Element

5.12.1.  TakeDownDate

   Zero or one value of DATETIME.  This is the date and time that
   takedown of the collector site occurred.

5.12.2.  TakeDownAgency

   Zero or more iodef:MLStringType elements.  This is a free-form string
   identifying the agency, corporation, or cooperative that performed
   the takedown.

5.12.3.  TakeDownComments

   Zero or more iodef:MLStringType elements.  A free-form field to add
   any additional details of this takedown effort or to identify parties
   that assisted in the effort at an Internet Service Provider (ISP),
   Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT), or DNS registry.















Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 26]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


5.13.  ArchivedData Element

   Zero or more values of the ArchivedData element are allowed.

   +-------------------+
   | ArchivedData      |
   +-------------------+
   | ENUM type         |<>---(0..1)--[ URL ]
   |                   |<>---(0..1)--[ Comments ]
   |                   |<>---(0..1)--[ Data ]
   +-------------------+

            Figure 5.13.  The ArchivedData Element

   The ArchivedData URL element is populated with a pointer to the
   contents of a data collection site, base camp (i.e., development
   site), or other site used by a phisher.  The ArchivedData Data
   element may also include a copy of the archived data recovered from a
   phishing system.  This element will be populated when, for example,
   an ISP takes down a phisher's website and has copied the site data
   into an archive file.

   There are four types of archives currently supported, as specified in
   the type field.

5.13.1.  type Attribute

   REQUIRED.  This parameter specifies the type of site data pointed to
   by the ArchivedData URL element, from the following list:

   1.  collectionsite.  The archive is a set of files from the
       collection site.

   2.  basecamp.  The contents of a criminal development site are
       included in the archive.

   3.  sendersite.  The archive is a set of files or data from a
       phishing lure sending site.

   4.  credentialInfo.  The included archives are recovered private
       credentials.

   5.  unspecified.  The archive contents do not fit into one of the
       above categories and will be described in the DataComments
       element.






Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 27]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


5.13.2.  URL Element

   Zero or one value of anyURL.  As the archive of an entire site can be
   quite large, the URL element points to an Internet-based server where
   the actual content of the site archive can be retrieved.  Note that
   this element just points out where the archive is and does not
   include the entire archive in the report.  This is the URL where the
   archive file is located.

5.13.3.  Comments Element

   Zero or one value of iodef:MLStringType.  This field is a free-form
   area for comments on the archive and/or URL.

5.13.4.  Data Element

   Zero or one value of xs:Base64Binary.  This field contains a base64-
   encoded version of the data described in the comment field above.

5.14.  RelatedData Element

   Zero or more values of anyURI.  This element allows the listing of
   other websites or net sites that are related to this incident (e.g.,
   victim site, etc.).

5.15.  CorrelationData Element

   Zero or more values of iodef:MLStringType.  Any information that
   correlates this incident to other incidents can be entered here.

5.16.  PRComments Element

   Zero or one value of iodef:MLStringType.  This field allows for any
   comments specific to this PhraudReport that do not fit in any other
   field.

5.17.  EmailRecord Element

   This element supports the inclusion of the actual email message
   received as a phishing lure.  Inclusion of the actual mail message is
   supported by two methods: either the message may be included as one
   large string, or the header and body components may be dissected and
   included as a series of strings.








Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 28]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


   +--------------------+
   | EmailRecord        |
   +--------------------+
   |                    |<>--------------[ EmailCount ]
   |                    |<>--(0..1)------[ EmailMessage ]
   |                    |<>--(0..1)------[ EmailComments ]
   +--------------------+

             Figure 5.14.  The EmailRecord Element

5.17.1.  EmailCount Element

   REQUIRED.  INTEGER.  This field enumerates the number of email
   messages identified in this record as detected by the reporter.

5.17.2.  EmailMessage Element

   Zero or one value of iodef:MLStringType.  The entire SMTP mail
   message -- rfc822 header followed by body, as specified in [RFC5322]
   -- should be inserted as one large text string.  In some communities,
   this combination is known as the message contents and full headers.

5.17.3.  EmailComments Element

   Zero or one value of iodef:MLStringType elements.  This field
   contains comments or relevant data not placed elsewhere about the
   phishing email.

6.  Mandatory IODEF and PhraudReport Elements

   A report about fraud or phishing requires certain identifying
   information that is contained within the standard IODEF Incident data
   structure and the PhraudReport extensions.  The following table
   identifies attributes required to be present in a compliant
   PhraudReport to report phishing or fraud.  The required attributes
   are a combination of those required by the base IODEF element, as
   shown in Figure 6.1, and those required by this document, shown in
   Figure 6.2.  Attributes identified as required SHALL be populated in
   conforming phishing activity reports.












Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 29]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


   A compliant IODEF PhraudReport SHALL contain the following elements
   and attributes:

   +--------------+
   | Incident     |
   +--------------+
   | ENUM Purpose |---[ IncidentID ]
   |              |---[ ReportTime ]
   |              |---[ Assessment ]
   |              |   ---> [ Impact ]
   |              |---[ Contact ]
   |              |   ---> [ @type ]
   |              |   ---> [ @role ]
   |              |   ---> [ * ]
   |              |---[ EventData ]
   |              |   ---> [ DetectTime ]
   |              |   ---> [ AdditionalData ]
   |              |        ---> [ PhraudReport ]
   +--------------+

       Figure 6.1.  IODEF Required Classes for a PhraudReport

   +----------------+
   | PhraudReport   |
   +----------------+
   | ENUM FraudType |---[ LureSource ]
   | STRING Version |   ---> [ iodef:System ]
   |                |---[ OriginatingSensor ]
   |                |   --> [ DateFirstSeen ]
   |                |   --> [ iodef:System ]
   |                |       --> [ iodef:Node ]
   |                |
   +----------------+

           Figure 6.2.  PhraudReport Required Elements

   * Note that the iodef:Contact element is required, but none of its
   sub-elements are required.  For proper XML correctness, one of the
   sub-elements is required; pick one.

6.1.  Guidance on Usage

   It may be apparent that the mandatory attributes for a PhraudReport
   make for a quite sparse report.  As incident forensics and data
   analysis require detailed information, the originator of a
   PhraudReport SHOULD include any tidbit of information gleaned from
   the attack analysis.  Information that is considered sensitive can be
   marked as such using the restriction parameter of each data element.



Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 30]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


   The reporting party is encouraged to provide more than just the
   minimally required data elements about an event in a PhraudReport.
   The additional information may be volatile and not recoverable in the
   future, and may be useful in answering investigation questions or in
   performing correlation with other reported events.

7.  Security Considerations

   This document specifies a format for encoding a particular class of
   security incidents appropriate for exchange across organizations.  As
   merely a data representation, it does not directly introduce security
   issues.  However, it is guaranteed that parties exchanging instances
   of this specification will have certain concerns.  For this reason,
   the underlying message format and transport protocol used MUST ensure
   the appropriate degree of confidentiality, integrity, and
   authenticity for the specific environment.

   Organizations that exchange data using this document are URGED to
   develop operating procedures that document the following areas of
   concern.

7.1.  Transport-Specific Concerns

   The critical security concerns are that phishing activity reports may
   be falsified or the PhraudReport may become corrupt during transit.
   In areas where transmission security or secrecy is questionable, the
   application of a digital signature and/or message encryption on each
   report will counteract both of these concerns.  We expect that each
   exchanging organization will determine the need, and mechanism, for
   transport protection.

7.2.  Using the iodef:restriction Attribute

   In some instances, data values in particular elements may contain
   data deemed sensitive by the reporter.  Although there are no
   general-purpose rules on when to mark certain values as "private" or
   "need-to-know" via the iodef:restriction attribute, the reporter is
   cautioned not to apply element-level sensitivity markings unless they
   believe the receiving party (i.e., the party they are exchanging the
   event report data with) has a mechanism to adequately safeguard and
   process the data as marked.  For example, if the PhraudReport element
   is marked private and contains a phishing collector URL in the
   DCSite/SiteURL element, can that URL be included within a block list
   distributed to other parties?  No guidance is provided here except to
   urge exchanging parties to review the IODEF and PhraudReport
   documents to decide on common marking rules.





Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 31]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


8.  IANA Considerations

   This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas
   conforming to a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688].

   Registration request for the IODEF phishing namespace:

       URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-phish-1.0

       Registrant Contact: See the "Authors' Addresses" section of this
       document.

       XML: None.

   Registration request for the IODEF phishing extension XML schema:

       URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:iodef-phish-1.0

       Registrant Contact: See the "Authors' Addresses" section of this
       document.

       XML: See Appendix A, "Phishing Extensions XML Schema", of this
       document.

9.  Contributors

   The extensions are an outgrowth of the Anti-Phishing Working Group
   (APWG) activities in data collection and sharing of phishing and
   other e-crimeware.  (The APWG has no relationship to an IETF working
   group.)

   This document has received significant assistance from members of the
   IETF INCH working group and two groups addressing the phishing
   problem: members of the APWG and participants in the Financial
   Services Technology Consortium's Counter-Phishing project.  A special
   thanks goes to the hardy people who supplied valuable feedback after
   using this format to report phishing.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3275]   Eastlake, D., Reagle, J., and D. Solo, "(Extensible
               Markup Language) XML-Signature Syntax and Processing",
               RFC 3275, March 2002.



Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 32]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


   [RFC3982]   Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "IRIS: A Domain Registry (dreg)
               Type for the Internet Registry Information Service
               (IRIS)", RFC 3982, January 2005.

   [RFC5070]   Danyliw, R., Meijer, J., and Y. Demchenko, "The Incident
               Object Description Exchange Format", RFC 5070,
               December 2007.

   [SHA]       National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S.
               Department of Commerce, "Secure Hash Standard",
               FIPS 180-2, August 2002.

10.2.  Informative References

   [KB310516]  Microsoft Corporation, "How to add, modify, or delete
               registry subkeys and values by using a registration
               entries (.reg) file", December 2007.

   [RFC3688]   Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", RFC 3688,
               January 2004.

   [RFC5322]   Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
               October 2008.




























Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 33]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


Appendix A.  Phishing Extensions XML Schema

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xs:schema attributeFormDefault="unqualified"
           elementFormDefault="qualified"
           targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-phish-1.0"
           xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-1.0"
           xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
           xmlns:phish="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-phish-1.0"
           xmlns:iodef="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-1.0"
           xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#">
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"
     schemaLocation=
"http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmldsig-core-20020212
            /xmldsig-core-schema.xsd"/>

  <!--
  ==========================================================
  ===  Top-Level Class:  PhraudReport                    ===
  ==========================================================

  It is incorporated within an
  IODEF.Incident.EventData.AdditionalData element.

  All the top-level or major elements are defined as xs:types to make
  future extension easier.

  -->

  <xs:element name="PhraudReport">
    <xs:complexType>
      <xs:sequence>
        <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="PhishNameRef"
                type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
        <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="PhishNameLocalRef"
                type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
        <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="FraudParameter"
                    type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0"
                    name="FraudedBrandName" type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="1"
                    name="LureSource" type="phish:LureSource.type"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="1"
                    name="OriginatingSensor"
                    type="phish:OriginatingSensor.type"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="EmailRecord"
                    type="phish:EmailRecord.type"/>




Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 34]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


        <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0"
                    name="DCSite"  type="phish:DCSite.type"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0"
                    ref="phish:TakeDownInfo"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0"
                    ref="phish:ArchivedData"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0"
                    name="RelatedData" type="xs:anyURI"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0"
                    name="CorrelationData" type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="PRComments"
                    type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
      </xs:sequence>

      <xs:attribute default="1.0" name="Version" use="optional"/>

      <xs:attribute name="FraudType" type="phish:FraudType.type"
                    use="required"/>

      <xs:attribute name="ext-value" type="xs:string" use="optional"/>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>

  <xs:simpleType name="FraudType.type">
    <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
      <xs:enumeration value="phishing"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="recruiting"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="malware distribution"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="fraudulent site"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="dnsspoof"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="archive"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="other"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="unknown"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="ext-value"/>
    </xs:restriction>
  </xs:simpleType>

  <!--
==========================================================
===           End of the Top-Level Element             ===
==========================================================
-->









Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 35]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


  <!--
  ==========================================================
  ===           The LureSource Element                   ===
  ==========================================================
  -->

  <xs:complexType mixed="false" name="LureSource.type">
    <xs:sequence>
      <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="1"
              ref="iodef:System"/>

      <xs:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"
              ref="phish:DomainData"/>

      <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="IncludedMalware"
                  type="phish:IncludedMalware.type"/>

      <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="FilesDownloaded">
        <xs:complexType>
          <xs:sequence>
            <xs:element minOccurs="1" name="File"
                   type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
          </xs:sequence>
        </xs:complexType>
      </xs:element>

      <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="WindowsRegistryKeysModified">
        <xs:complexType>
          <xs:sequence>
            <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" name="Key">
              <xs:complexType>
                <xs:sequence>
                  <xs:element name="Name" type="xs:string"/>
                  <xs:element name="Value" type="xs:string"/>
                </xs:sequence>
              </xs:complexType>
            </xs:element>
          </xs:sequence>
        </xs:complexType>
      </xs:element>
    </xs:sequence>
  </xs:complexType>









Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 36]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


  <!--
  ===    LureSource sub-elements    ===
  -->

  <xs:complexType name="IncludedMalware.type">
    <xs:sequence>
      <xs:element name="Name"
              maxOccurs="unbounded" type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
      <xs:element minOccurs="0" ref="ds:Reference"/>
      <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="Data">
        <xs:complexType >
            <xs:simpleContent>
                  <xs:extension base="xs:hexBinary">
                      <xs:attribute default="55AA55AA55AA55BB"
                           name="XORPattern" type="xs:hexBinary"/>
                   </xs:extension>
            </xs:simpleContent>
       </xs:complexType>
      </xs:element>
    </xs:sequence>
  </xs:complexType>

  <!--
 ===========================================================
 ===  The EmailRecord Element                            ===
 ===========================================================
  -->

  <xs:complexType name="EmailRecord.type">
    <xs:sequence>
      <xs:element name="EmailCount" type="xs:integer"/>
      <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="EmailMessage"
                    type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
      <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="EmailComments"
                  type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
    </xs:sequence>
  </xs:complexType>

  <!--
 ===========================================================
 ===  The Data Collection Site (DCSite) Info Element     ===
 ===========================================================
  -->

  <xs:complexType name="DCSite.type">
    <xs:sequence>
      <xs:choice>
        <xs:element name="SiteURL">



Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 37]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


          <xs:complexType>
            <xs:simpleContent>
              <xs:extension base="iodef:MLStringType">
                <xs:attribute ref="phish:confidence"/>
              </xs:extension>
            </xs:simpleContent>
          </xs:complexType>
        </xs:element>

        <xs:element name="Domain">
          <xs:complexType>
            <xs:simpleContent>
              <xs:extension base="iodef:MLStringType">
                <xs:attribute ref="phish:confidence"/>
              </xs:extension>
            </xs:simpleContent>
          </xs:complexType>
        </xs:element>

        <xs:element name="EmailSite">
          <xs:complexType>
            <xs:simpleContent>
              <xs:extension base="iodef:MLStringType">
                <xs:attribute ref="phish:confidence"/>
              </xs:extension>
            </xs:simpleContent>
          </xs:complexType>
        </xs:element>

        <xs:element name="System">
         <xs:complexType id="SystemType">
            <xs:sequence>
              <xs:element ref="iodef:Address"/>
            </xs:sequence>
            <xs:attribute ref="phish:confidence"/>
         </xs:complexType>
        </xs:element>

        <xs:element name="Unknown">
          <xs:complexType>
            <xs:simpleContent>
              <xs:extension base="iodef:MLStringType">
                <xs:attribute  ref="phish:confidence"/>
              </xs:extension>
            </xs:simpleContent>
          </xs:complexType>
        </xs:element>
      </xs:choice>



Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 38]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


      <xs:element ref="iodef:Node" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xs:element minOccurs="0" ref="phish:DomainData"/>
      <xs:element minOccurs="0" ref="iodef:Assessment"/>
    </xs:sequence>

    <xs:attribute name="DCType" use="required">
      <xs:simpleType>
        <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
          <xs:enumeration value="web"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="email"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="keylogger"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="automation"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="unspecified"/>
        </xs:restriction>
      </xs:simpleType>
    </xs:attribute>
  </xs:complexType>

  <!--
=================================================
==== The Domain Data Element used in System =====
=================================================
-->

  <xs:element name="DomainData">
    <xs:complexType id="DomainData.type">
      <xs:sequence>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="1"
                  name="Name" type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0"
                  name="DateDomainWasChecked" type="xs:dateTime"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="RegistrationDate"
                  type="xs:dateTime"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="ExpirationDate"
                  type="xs:dateTime"/>
        <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0"
                 name="Nameservers">
          <xs:complexType id="Nameservers.type">
            <xs:sequence>
              <xs:element name="Server" type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
              <xs:element ref="iodef:Address" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
            </xs:sequence>
          </xs:complexType>
        </xs:element>
        <xs:choice id="DomainContacts" maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0">
          <xs:element name="SameDomainContact"
                     type="iodef:MLStringType"/>




Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 39]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


          <xs:sequence>
            <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="1"
                        ref="iodef:Contact"/>
          </xs:sequence>
        </xs:choice>
      </xs:sequence>
      <xs:attribute name="SystemStatus">
        <xs:simpleType id="SystemStatus.type">
          <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
            <xs:enumeration value="spoofed"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="fraudulent"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="innocent-hacked"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="innocent-hijacked"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="unknown"/>
          </xs:restriction>
        </xs:simpleType>
      </xs:attribute>

      <xs:attribute name="DomainStatus">
        <xs:simpleType id="DomainStatus.type">
          <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
            <xs:enumeration value="reservedDelegation"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="assignedAndActive"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="assignedAndInactive"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="assignedAndOnHold"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="revoked"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="transferPending"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="registryLock"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="registrarLock"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="other"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="unknown"/>
          </xs:restriction>
        </xs:simpleType>
      </xs:attribute>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>

  <xs:element name="Confidence">
    <xs:simpleType>
      <xs:restriction base="xs:nonNegativeInteger">
          <xs:minInclusive value="0"/>
          <xs:maxInclusive value="100"/>
       </xs:restriction>
     </xs:simpleType>
  </xs:element>






Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 40]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


<xs:attribute name="confidence">
  <xs:simpleType>
    <xs:restriction base="xs:nonNegativeInteger">
      <xs:minInclusive value="0"/>
      <xs:maxInclusive value="100"/>
    </xs:restriction>
  </xs:simpleType>
</xs:attribute>

  <!--
=====================================================================
= ext-role Values for use within the DomainContact Contacts Element =
=====================================================================
-->

  <xs:simpleType name="ext-role">
    <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
      <xs:enumeration value="billingContacts"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="technicalContacts"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="administrativeContacts"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="legalContacts"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="zoneContacts"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="abuseContacts"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="securityContacts"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="otherContacts"/>
      <xs:enumeration value="hostingProvider"/>
    </xs:restriction>
  </xs:simpleType>

  <!--
=================================================
===  The OriginatingSensor Data Element       ===
=================================================
-->

  <xs:complexType name="OriginatingSensor.type">
    <xs:sequence>
      <xs:element name="DateFirstSeen" type="xs:dateTime"/>
      <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="1"
                ref="iodef:System"/>
    </xs:sequence>

    <xs:attribute name="OriginatingSensorType" use="required">
      <xs:simpleType id="OriginatingSensorType.type">
        <xs:restriction base="xs:NMTOKENS">
          <xs:enumeration value="web"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="webgateway"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="mailgateway"/>



Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 41]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


          <xs:enumeration value="browser"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="ispsensor"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="human"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="honeypot"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="other"/>
        </xs:restriction>
      </xs:simpleType>
    </xs:attribute>
  </xs:complexType>

  <!--
======================================================
===            The TakeDown Data Structure         ===
======================================================
-->

  <xs:element name="TakeDownInfo" type="phish:TakeDownInfo.type"/>

  <xs:complexType name="TakeDownInfo.type">
    <xs:sequence>
      <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="TakeDownDate"
                  type="xs:dateTime"/>

      <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0"
              name="TakeDownAgency"  type="iodef:MLStringType"/>

      <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0"
              name="TakeDownComments"  type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
    </xs:sequence>
  </xs:complexType>

  <!--
=========================================================
===         The ArchivedData Element                  ===
=========================================================
-->
  <xs:element name="ArchivedData" type="phish:ArchivedData.type"/>

  <xs:complexType name="ArchivedData.type">
    <xs:sequence>
      <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="URL" type="xs:anyURI"/>
      <xs:element minOccurs="0" name="Comments"
              type="iodef:MLStringType"/>
      <xs:element maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0" name="Data"
                  type="xs:base64Binary"/>
    </xs:sequence>





Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 42]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


    <xs:attribute name="type" use="required">
      <xs:simpleType id="ArchivedDataType.type">
        <xs:restriction base="xs:NMTOKENS">
          <xs:enumeration value="collectionsite"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="basecamp"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="sendersite"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="credentialInfo"/>
          <xs:enumeration value="unspecified"/>
        </xs:restriction>
      </xs:simpleType>
    </xs:attribute>
  </xs:complexType>

</xs:schema>

Appendix B.  Example Virus Report

   This section shows a received electronic mail message that included a
   virus in a zipped attachment and a report that was generated for that
   message.

B.1.  Received Email

 From: support@example.com
 Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 3:52 PM
 To: someone@example.com
 Subject: Account update

 To:          someone@example.com
 Date:      Sun, 10 June 2005 3:52:44 +0200


 We would like to inform you that we have released a new version of our
 Customer Form.  This form is required to be completed by all customers.

 Please follow these steps:

 1.Open the form at http://www.example.com/customerservice/cform.php
 <http://www.2.example.com/customerservice/cform.php
         &amp;email=(someone@example.com)> .
 2.Follow given instructions.

 Thank you,
 Our Support Team







Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 43]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


B.2.  Generated Report

   NOTE: Some wrapping and folding liberties have been applied to fit it
   into the margins.

 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <IODEF-Document lang="en-US"
   xmlns:phish="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-phish-1.0"
   xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-1.0"
   xmlns:iodef="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-1.0">
 <Incident purpose="reporting" ext-purpose="create">
   <IncidentID name="example.com">PAT2005-06</IncidentID>
   <ReportTime>2005-06-22T08:30:00-05:00</ReportTime>
   <Description>This is a test report from actual data.
    </Description>
   <Assessment>
     <Impact type="social-engineering"/>
     <Confidence rating="high"/>
   </Assessment>
   <Contact role="creator" type="person">
     <ContactName>patcain</ContactName>
     <Email>pcain@coopercain.com</Email>
   </Contact>
   <EventData>
     <DetectTime>2005-06-21T18:22:02-05:00</DetectTime>
     <AdditionalData dtype="xml">
     <phish:PhraudReport FraudType="phishing">
       <phish:FraudParameter>
        Subject: Account Update
       </phish:FraudParameter>
       <phish:FraudedBrandName>Cooper-Cain
       </phish:FraudedBrandName>
       <phish:LureSource>
         <System category="source">
           <Node>
            <Address>192.0.2.18</Address>
           </Node>
         </System>
         <phish:IncludedMalware>
           <phish:Name>W32.Mytob.EA@mm</phish:Name>
         </phish:IncludedMalware>
       </phish:LureSource>
       <phish:OriginatingSensor OriginatingSensorType="human">
         <phish:DateFirstSeen>2005-06-10T15:52:11-05:00
         </phish:DateFirstSeen>
         <System>
           <Node>
             <Address>192.0.2.13</Address>



Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 44]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


           </Node>
         </System>
       </phish:OriginatingSensor>
       <phish:EmailRecord>
         <phish:EmailCount>1</phish:EmailCount>
         <phish:EmailMessage>
 Return-path: &lt;support@example.com&gt;
  Envelope-to: someone@example.com
 Delivery-date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005:52:11-0400
 Received: from dsl18-2-0-192.dsl.example.net([192.0.2.18]
  helo=example.com) by mail06.example.com esmtp (Exim) id
  1DgpXy-0002Ua-IR for someone@example.com;,
  10 Jun 2005 15:52:10-0400
 From: support@example.com
 To: someone@example.com
 Subject: Account Update
 Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:52:00 -0700
 MIME-Version: 1.0
 Content Type: text/plain;
         charset="Windows-1251"
 X-Priority: 3MSMail-Priority: Normal
 X-EN-OrigIP: 192.0.2.18
 EN-OrigHost: dsl18-2-0-192.dsl.example.net
 Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16)
  on.example.net
 X-Spam-Level: ***** X-Spam-Status: No,
  score=5.6 required=6.0 tests=BAYES_95,CABLEDSL,HTML_20_30,
  HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,MISSING_MIMEOLE,
  NO_REAL_NAME,
  PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2

 From:support@example.com
 Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 3:52 PM
 Subject: Account update

 To:          someone@example.com
 Date:      Sun, 10 June 2005 3:52:44 +0200


 We would like to inform you that we have released a new version of our
 Customer Form.  This form is required to be completed by all customers.

 Please follow these steps:

 1.Open the form at http://www.example.com/customerservice/cform.php
 &lt;http://www.2.example.com/customerservice/cform.php
         &amp;email=(someone@example.com)> .
 2.Follow given instructions.



Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 45]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


 Thank you,
 Our Support Team
            </phish:EmailMessage>
         </phish:EmailRecord>
       </phish:PhraudReport>
     </AdditionalData>
     </EventData>
   </Incident>
 </IODEF-Document>

Appendix C.  Sample Phishing Report

   A sample report generated from a received electronic mail phishing
   message in shown in this section.

C.1.  Received Lure

   Return-path: <service@example.com>
   Envelope-to: pcain@example.com
   Delivery-date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:37:22 -0400
   Received: from mail15.example.com ([10.1.1.161]
    helo=mail15.example.com)
    by mailscan38.example.com with esmtp (Exim)
    id 1Fq5Kr-0005wU-LT for pcain@example.com; Tue, 13 Jun 2006
    05:37:21 -0400
   Received: from [192.0.2.61] (helo=TSI)
   by mail15.example.com with
    esmtp (Exim) id 1Fq5Bj-0006dv-6b
   for pcain@example.com; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:37:21 -0400
   Received: from User ([192.0.2.157]) by TSI with
    Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713);
   Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:24:30 -0400
   Reply-To: <nospam@example.org>
   From: "company"<service@example.com>
   Subject: * * * Update & Verify Your Example Company Account * * *
   Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:36:34 -0400
   MIME-Version: 1.0
   Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1251"
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
   X-Priority: 1
   X-MSMail-Priority: High
   X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
   X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
   Bcc:
   Message-ID: <TSIlYbvhBISmT6QcWY90000085f@TSI>
   X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jun 2006 06:24:30.0218 (UTC)
   FILETIME=[072A66A0:01C68EB2]
   X-EN-OrigSender: service@example.com



Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 46]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


   X-EN-OrigIP: 192.0.2.1
   X-EN-OrigHost: unknown

   Company<http://www.example.com/images/company_logo.gif>
    <http://www.example.com/images/pixel.gif>
    <http://www.example.com/images/pixel.gif>
    <http://www.example.com/images/pixel.gif>
   Account Update Request

   Dear Example. member:,

   You are receiving this notification because company is required by
   law to notify you, that you urgently need to update your online
   account statement, due to high risks of fraud intentions.

   The updating of your example account can be done at any time by
   clicking on the link shown below
   http://www.example.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_login-run
   <http://192.0.2.41:8080/.cgi-bin/.webscr/.secure-
   login/%20/%20/.payp
   al.com/index.htm>

   Once you log in, update your account information.
   After updating your account, click on the History sub tab of your
   Account Overview page to see your most recent statement.

   If you need help with your password, click the Help link that is at
   the upper righthand side of the company website.  To report errors
   in your statement or make inquiries, click the Contact Us link in the
   footer on any page of the company website, call our Customer Service
   center at (999) 555-0167, or write us at:

   Company, Inc.
   P.O. Box 0
   Anytown, MA 00000

   Sincerely,

   Big Example Company

    <http://www.example.com/images/dot_row_long.gif>










Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 47]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


C.2.  Phishing Report

  <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <IODEF-Document xmlns:phish="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-phish-1.0"
      xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-1.0"
      xmlns:iodef="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-1.0" lang="en-US">
   <Incident purpose="mitigation" ext-purpose="create"
    restriction="private">
    <IncidentID name="example.com">CC200600000002</IncidentID>
    <ReportTime>2006-06-13T21:14:56-05:00</ReportTime>
    <Description>This is a sample phishing email received report.
          The phish was actually received as is.</Description>
    <Assessment>
     <Impact severity="high" type="social-engineering"/>
     <Confidence rating="numeric">85</Confidence>
    </Assessment>
    <Contact role="creator" type="person">
     <ContactName>patcain</ContactName>
     <Email>pcain@example.com</Email>
    </Contact>
    <EventData>
     <DetectTime>2006-06-13T05:37:21-04:00</DetectTime>
     <AdditionalData dtype="xml">
      <phish:PhraudReport FraudType="phishing">
       <phish:FraudParameter>
         * * * Update &amp; Verify Your Company Account * * *
       </phish:FraudParameter>
       <phish:FraudedBrandName>company</phish:FraudedBrandName>
       <phish:LureSource>
        <System category="source">
         <Node>
          <Address>192.0.2.4</Address>
         </Node>
        </System>
       </phish:LureSource>
       <phish:OriginatingSensor OriginatingSensorType="mailgateway">
       <phish:DateFirstSeen>
               2006-06-13T05:37:22-04:00</phish:DateFirstSeen>
        <System>
         <Node>
          <NodeRole category="mail"/>
         </Node>
        </System>
       </phish:OriginatingSensor>







Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 48]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


       <phish:EmailRecord>
        <phish:EmailCount>1</phish:EmailCount>
        <phish:EmailMessage>
  Return-path: &lt;service@example.com>
  Envelope-to: pcain@example.com
  Delivery-date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:37:22 -0400
  Received: from mail15.example.com ([10.1.1.161]
   helo=mail15.example.com)
   by mailscan38.example.com with esmtp (Exim)
   id 1Fq5Kr-0005wU-LT for pcain@example.com; Tue, 13 Jun 2006
   05:37:21 -0400
  Received: from [192.0.2.61] (helo=TSI)
  by mail15.example.com with
   esmtp (Exim) id 1Fq5Bj-0006dv-6b
  for pcain@example.com; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 05:37:21 -0400
  Received: from User ([192.0.2.157]) by TSI with
   Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713);
  Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:24:30 -0400
  Reply-To: &lt;nospam@example.org>
  From: "company"&lt;service@example.com>
  Subject: * * * Update &amp; Verify Your Example Company Account * * *
  Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:36:34 -0400
  MIME-Version: 1.0
  Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1251"
  Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
  X-Priority: 1
  X-MSMail-Priority: High
  X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
  X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
  Bcc:
  Message-ID: &lt;TSIlYbvhBISmT6QcWY90000085f@TSI>
  X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jun 2006 06:24:30.0218 (UTC)
  FILETIME=[072A66A0:01C68EB2]
  X-EN-OrigSender: service@example.com
  X-EN-OrigIP: 192.0.2.1
  X-EN-OrigHost: unknown

  &lt;img src="http://www.example.com/images/company_logo.gif"&gt;
  &lt;img src="http://www.example.com/images/pixel.gif"&gt;
  &lt;img src="http://www.example.com/images/pixel.gif"&gt;
  &lt;img src="http://www.example.com/im/pixel.gif"&gt;
  Account Update Request

  Dear Example. member:,
  You are receiving this notification because company is required by
  law to notify you, that you urgently need to update your online
  account statement, due to high risks of fraud intentions.




Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 49]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


  The updating of your example account can be done at any time by
  clicking on the link shown below
  &lt;a href="http://192.0.2.41:8080/.cgi-bin/.webscr/.secure-
  login/%20/%20/.example.com/index.htm">
  http://www.example.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_login-run &lt;/a>

  Once you log in,update your account information.
  After updating your account click on the History sub tab of your
  Account Overview page to see your most recent statement.

  If you need help with your password, click the Help link which is at
  the upper right hand side of the company website.  To report errors in
  your statement or make inquiries, click the Contact Us link in the
  footer on any page of the company website, call our Customer Service
  center at (999) 555-0167, or write us at:

  Company, Inc.
  P.O. Box 0
  Anytown, MA 00000

  Sincerely,

  Big Example Company

   &lt;img src="http://www.example.com/images/dot_row_long.gif">
  </phish:EmailMessage>
       </phish:EmailRecord>
       <phish:DCSite DCType="web">
        <phish:SiteURL>http://190.0.2.41:8080/.cgi-bin/.webscr/.secure-
           login/%20%20/.example.com/index.htm</phish:SiteURL>
        <phish:DomainData DomainStatus="assignedAndActive"
          SystemStatus="unknown">
         <phish:Name>bad.example.com</phish:Name>
         <phish:DateDomainWasChecked>2006-06-14T13:05:00-05:00
         </phish:DateDomainWasChecked>
         <phish:RegistrationDate>
                   2000-12-13T00:00:00</phish:RegistrationDate>
         <phish:Nameservers>
          <phish:Server>ns1.example.net</phish:Server>
          <Address>192.0.2.18</Address>
         </phish:Nameservers>
        </phish:DomainData>
       </phish:DCSite>
      </phish:PhraudReport>
     </AdditionalData>
    </EventData>
   </Incident>
  </IODEF-Document>



Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 50]
^L
RFC 5901                IODEF Phishing Extensions              July 2010


Authors' Addresses

   Patrick Cain
   The Cooper-Cain Group, Inc.
   P.O. Box 400992
   Cambridge, MA 02140
   USA

   EMail: pcain@coopercain.com


   David Jevans
   The Anti-Phishing Working Group
   5150 El Camino Real, Suite A20
   Los Altos, CA 94022
   USA

   EMail: dave.jevans@antiphishing.org

































Cain & Jevans                Standards Track                   [Page 51]
^L