The encoded string contains the URL zelensky dot zip. Zip is one of the newer top-level domains. It itself is not a zip file, but I am not going to visit that site to find out whatever treasures it has to offer..
Curl didn't return anything. They're likely just using it to log requests since the request path contains the data they need.
Another reason to block this TLD in the firewall solution.
Yea I've got both .zip and .mov blocked on my pihole
sorry iβm missing it. why this specific TLD? canβt they just use any TLD for this and achieve the same thing? is there something special with .mov?
It's because it can cause confusion. The only difference between example.com/file.zip and example.com.file.zip is one uses a . and the other a / but both are valid domains. If somebody isn't paying much attention or they don't know much about domain names, they could click thinking to get a zip file from a legitimate site and end up going somewhere malicious instead. No other TLDs have this issue (well, I guess .com technically has it but who the hell is downloading and running com files these days) and they're pretty much exclusively used for this reason so it's a good idea to block them just to be safe.
sorry, I didn't saw your answer and also replied! I didn't remember that (.)COM was also a file extension, but now, thanks to your reminder, I will play some DOS games ;)
since .zip and .mov are recognizable file extensions, a url of the form google.com.docs.zelensky.zip could make people think that the domain is google.com pointing to a zip instead of the true domain, zelensky (dot) zip which probably would serve malicious content under that subdomain.
sorry iβm missing it. why this specific TLD? canβt they just use any TLD for this and achieve the same thing? why is this a reason to block it?
Because .zip is a commonly used file extension.
i think i understand that part but why is this specific event "another reason to block this TLD"? canβt they just use any TLD for this and achieve the same thing? is there another inherit security issue with .zip that doesn't exist with other domains?
They can and they do. Using a commonly known and used file extension to βhideβ a malicious URL is just easier.
gotcha ok i think iβm getting it. just to make sure iβm not missing anything, youβre saying that in this case it didnβt matter as in the end they could use any TLD and achieve the same effect.
but in general, threat actors hope to confuse people into thinking this β.zipβ TLDs are only referencing local files instead of web addresses. right?
but in general, threat actors hope to confuse people into thinking this β.zipβ TLDs are only referencing local files instead of web addresses. right?
Exactly!
Not just that, it looks for a navAdmin cookie in your browser and sends that to zelensky(dot)zip/save/<your cookie here> in the form of a GET request.
The encoded string contains the URL
zelensky dot zip. Zip is one of the newer top-level domains. It itself is not a zip file, but I am not going to visit that site to find out whatever treasures it has to offer..Curl didn't return anything. They're likely just using it to log requests since the request path contains the data they need.
Another reason to block this TLD in the firewall solution.
Yea I've got both
.zipand.movblocked on my piholesorry iβm missing it. why this specific TLD? canβt they just use any TLD for this and achieve the same thing? is there something special with .mov?
It's because it can cause confusion. The only difference between example.com/file.zip and example.com.file.zip is one uses a . and the other a / but both are valid domains. If somebody isn't paying much attention or they don't know much about domain names, they could click thinking to get a zip file from a legitimate site and end up going somewhere malicious instead. No other TLDs have this issue (well, I guess .com technically has it but who the hell is downloading and running com files these days) and they're pretty much exclusively used for this reason so it's a good idea to block them just to be safe.
sorry, I didn't saw your answer and also replied! I didn't remember that (.)COM was also a file extension, but now, thanks to your reminder, I will play some DOS games ;)
since .zip and .mov are recognizable file extensions, a url of the form google.com.docs.zelensky.zip could make people think that the domain is google.com pointing to a zip instead of the true domain, zelensky (dot) zip which probably would serve malicious content under that subdomain.
sorry iβm missing it. why this specific TLD? canβt they just use any TLD for this and achieve the same thing? why is this a reason to block it?
Because .zip is a commonly used file extension.
i think i understand that part but why is this specific event "another reason to block this TLD"? canβt they just use any TLD for this and achieve the same thing? is there another inherit security issue with .zip that doesn't exist with other domains?
They can and they do. Using a commonly known and used file extension to βhideβ a malicious URL is just easier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCVJsz7EODA
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=GCVJsz7EODA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
gotcha ok i think iβm getting it. just to make sure iβm not missing anything, youβre saying that in this case it didnβt matter as in the end they could use any TLD and achieve the same effect.
but in general, threat actors hope to confuse people into thinking this β.zipβ TLDs are only referencing local files instead of web addresses. right?
Exactly!
Not just that, it looks for a
navAdmincookie in your browser and sends that tozelensky(dot)zip/save/<your cookie here>in the form of a GET request.