skip to main content
10.1145/3617072.3617101acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageseurousecConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Vision: What the hack is going on? A first look at how website owners became aware that their website was hacked

Published:16 October 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Websites are an essential part of today’s business activities. Content Management Systems (CMS) are known for the fact that even laypersons can create good-looking websites with simple means and without huge costs. But if websites are not maintained regularly, they are prone to vulnerabilities. Such vulnerabilities can be abused, e.g., for third party redirects. Informing website owner about this type of attack is challenging. To gain more information about how website owners are informed about vulnerabilities on their websites, we invited 156 website owners to participate in an online survey. We asked those who had fixed the third party redirect before we could inform them, how they became aware of the attack. The participants could choose to answer the questionnaire via a link to an online platform, or to send their answers back to us via e-mail. Only 11 people answered our questionnaire, and only four people were already aware of the attack before our invitation e-mail. Based on these four answers, we assumed that we can confirm previous research with respect to the design of a vulnerability notification. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see if – with a bigger sample – we can also confirm our findings that a) online surveys, even if they can only be accessed by clicking an unknown link, are preferred over responding via e-mail, b) the number of responses can be increased by sending out several reminder, and c) a sender attributed with higher authority increases the response rate. Furthermore, we suggest that future research on vulnerability notifications questions the use of the term trustworthiness, and examines whether recipients distinguish between credibility and trustworthiness of notifications when remediating attacks.

References

  1. Davide Canali, Davide Balzarotti, and Aurélien Francillon. 2013. The role of web hosting providers in detecting compromised websites. (2013), 177–188.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Cosmin A. Conţu, Eduard C. Popovici, Octavian Fratu, and Mădălina G. Berceanu. 2016. Security issues in most popular content management systems. COMM 2016 (2016), 277–280.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Zakir Durumeric, Frank Li, James Kasten, Johanna Amann, Jethro Beekman, Mathias Payer, Nicolas Weaver, David Adrian, Vern Paxson, Michael Bailey, and J Alex Halderman. 2014. The Matter of Heartbleed. IMC ’14 (2014), 475–488.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. B. J. Fogg and Hsiang Tseng. 1999. The elements of computer credibility. CHI ’99 (1999), 80–87.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Anne Hennig, Heike Dietmann, Franz Lehr, Miriam Mutter, Melanie Volkamer, and Peter Mayer. 2022. “Your Cookie Disclaimer is Not in Line with the Ideas of the GDPR. Why?”. HAISA 2022 658 (2022), 218–227.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Anne Hennig, Fabian Neusser, Aleksandra Alicja Pawelek, Dominik Herrmann, and Peter Mayer. 2022. Standing out among the daily spam: How to catch website owners’ attention by means of vulnerability notifications. CHI ’22 (2022), 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Sucuri Inc.2023. 2022 Website Threat Research Report. https://sucuri.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Sucuri_2022-Website-Threat-Research-Report.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ranjita Pai Kasturi, Jonathan Fuller, Yiting Sun, Omar Chabklo, Andres Rodriguez, Jeman Park, and Brendan Saltaformaggio. 2022. Mistrust Plugins You Must: A Large-Scale Study Of Malicious Plugins In WordPress Marketplaces. USENIX Security 22 (2022), 161–178.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Marc Kührer, Thomas Hupperich, Christian Rossow, and Thorsten Holz. 2014. Exit from Hell? Reducing the Impact of Amplification DDoS Attacks. USENIX Security 14 (2014), 111–125.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Frank Li, Zakir Durumeric, Jakub Czyz, Mohammad Karami, Michael Bailey, Damon McCoy, Stefan Savage, and Vern Paxson. 2016. You’ve Got Vulnerability: Exploring Effective Vulnerability Notifications. USENIX Security 16 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Frank Li, Grant Ho, Eric Kuan, Yuan Niu, Lucas Ballard, Kurt Thomas, Elie Bursztein, and Vern Paxson. 2016. Remedying Web Hijacking: Notification Effectiveness and Webmaster Comprehension. WWW ’16 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Max Maass, Marc-Pascal Clement, and Matthias Hollick. 2021. Snail Mail Beats Email Any Day: On Effective Operator Security Notifications in the Internet. ARES 2021 (2021), 1–13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Max Maass, Alina Stöver, Henning Pridöhl, Sebastian Bretthauer, Dominik Herrmann, Matthias Hollick, and Indra Spiecker. 2021. Effective notification campaigns on the web: A matter of Trust, Framing, and Support. USENIX Security 21 (2021), 2489–2506.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Max Maaß, Henning Pridöhl, Dominik Herrmann, and Matthias Hollick. 2021. Best Practices for Notification Studies for Security and Privacy Issues on the Internet. ARES 2021 (2021), 1–10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Aakanksha Mirdha, Apurva Jain, and Kunal Shah. 2014. Comparative analysis of open source content management systems. ICCI 2014 (2014), 1–4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Marina Pasquali. 2023. E-commerce worldwide - statistics & facts. https://www.statista.com/topics/871/online-shopping/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Tse-Hua Shih and Xitao Fan. 2008. Comparing Response Rates from Web and Mail Surveys: A Meta-Analysis. Field Methods 20, 3 (2008), 249–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x08317085Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Ben Stock, Giancarlo Pellegrino, Frank Li, Michael Backes, and Christian Rossow. 2018. Didn’t You Hear Me? - Towards More Successful Web Vulnerability Notifications. NDSS ’18 (2018), 1 – 15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Ben Stock, Giancarlo Pellegrino, Christian Rossow, Martin Johns, and Michael Backes. 2016. Hey, You Have a Problem: On the Feasibility of Large-Scale Web Vulnerability Notification. USENIX Security 16 (2016), 1015–1032.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. StopBadware and Commtouch. 2012. Compromised Websites: An Owner’s Perspective. (2012), 1 – 15. https://www.stopbadware.org/files/compromised-websites-an-owners-perspective.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. W3Techs Web Technology. 2023. Usage statistics of content management systems. https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_managementGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Marie Vasek and Tyler Moore. 2012. Do Malware Reports Expedite Cleanup? An Experimental Study. CSET ’12 (2012), 1 – 8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Eric Zeng, Frank Li, Emily Stark, Adrienne Porter Felt, and Parisa Tabriz. 2019. Fixing HTTPS Misconfigurations at Scale: An Experiment with Security Notifications. WEIS 2019 (2019), 1 – 19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. F. O. Çetin, C. Hernandez Ganan, M. T. Korczynski, and M. J. G. van Eeten. 2017. Make notifications great again: learning how to notify in the age of large-scale vulnerability scanning. (2017), 1–23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Orçun Çetin, Lisette Altena, Carlos Gañán, and Michel van Eeten. 2018. Let Me Out! Evaluating the Effectiveness of Quarantining Compromised Users in Walled Gardens. SOUPS 2018 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Orçun Çetin, Carlos Gañán, Lisette Altena, Samaneh Tajalizadehkhoob, and Michel van Eeten. 2019. Tell Me You Fixed It: Evaluating Vulnerability Notifications via Quarantine Network. EuroS&P 2019 (2019), 326–339.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Orçun Çetin, Mohammad Hanif Jhaveri, Carlos Gañán, Michel van Eeten, and Tyler Moore. 2016. Understanding the role of sender reputation in abuse reporting and cleanup. Journal of Cybersecurity 2, 1 (2016), 83–98.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Vision: What the hack is going on? A first look at how website owners became aware that their website was hacked

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      EuroUSEC '23: Proceedings of the 2023 European Symposium on Usable Security
      October 2023
      364 pages
      ISBN:9798400708145
      DOI:10.1145/3617072

      Copyright © 2023 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 16 October 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)54
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)12

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format