Tag: Bluehost

When it comes to SiteLock and their taking advantage of people, a critical component of that successfully happening is their partnerships with various web hosting providers. These partnership do not seem to be based on the web hosting companies thinking that SiteLock is really great company to help out people with security issues (from everything we have seen over several years they don’t even understand the basics of what they are supposed to being doing), instead the web host is getting significant amount of money when SiteLock sells services through their partnership. In the case of the parent company of Bluehost, the Endurance International Group, they disclosed to investors that they receive 55% of the revenue (they seem to unwilling to disclose that to the broader public, as one the company’s other web hosting brands won’t even acknowledge that they even are getting paid). In the case of Bluehost and the other web hosting brands owned by the Endurance International Group there is likely reason for the partnership, the majority owners of SiteLock are also the CEO and a board member of the Endurance International Group.

In theory this would likely lead to bad situation for customers, the web hosts have an incentive to treat a security issue in way that makes them the most money and SiteLock would necessarily be overcharging people, since over half the fee for the service doesn’t go them. In the real world things look a lot like that. Take for this instance, what is describe in an article from NBC’s San Francisco Bay area station when their problem solvers look into a Bluehost’s handling of hacked website:

But recently, Rose’s website was taken down. A message on the site read “temporarily unavailable.” She didn’t know how or why it happened, but she did know it would hurt business.

“It means we don’t get sales, so I don’t make money,” Rose said.

Scrambling to get her site back up, Rose called Bluehost, her hosting site, and was connected to SiteLock, a website security company.

Rose said SiteLock referenced an email it had sent her – that it detected malware on her site. Rose recalled the email, but had dismissed it as spam. After all, she didn’t do business with SiteLock; she’d never even heard of the company.

Still, Rose said SiteLock told her she had to pay upwards of $120 a month to fix the malware and get her site up and running again.

Over year that $120 a month plan would work out to $1440, which is much more than you normally pay to have a website cleaned and purchase a security service (the $648 that SiteLock would get would be more in the realm of reasonable).

When Bluehost was contacted by NBC had very different response:

Bluehost explained that SiteLock is a security partner, and it did in fact find malware on Rose’s site. So it took down the site so the malware wouldn’t spread to other websites hosted by Bluehost.

Bluehost acknowledged that the SiteLock email could be perceived as spam, so it’s working to evolve its email communications.

And eager to help out Rose, Bluehost jumped in and fixed her site for free. Boo Boo’s Best is back in business.

Thats right, Bluehost has the capability to clean up hacked websites themselves and it didn’t cost anything for the customer. Its telling how different the response from Bluehost was when what they are doing was having some light shined on. We have to wonder if they were concerned that if they didn’t get this cleared up quickly, then more digging might have be done and the reality of their partnership might get more exposure.

The takeaway seems to be if you run in to this situation you should make a public scene about it, or better yet, before that can ever happen move to a web host that isn’t partnered with SiteLock so you don’t risk running into this (properly securing your website would also limit the chance of this, but entirely as SiteLock is known to sometimes falsely claim website have been hacked).

When it comes to the security of websites we frequently see that while security basics are often not being done, security companies are pushing more advanced security products and services. Sometimes those two things come together, last month we looked at one cyber security company that claims to have “clients in the intelligence community, DoD and nearly every cabinet agency” and isn’t bothering to keep the software running the various parts of their website up to date while telling the public they need to take advanced measure to protect their websites. As we mentioned in a post the other day, by comparison the web security SiteLock does keep the software on their own websites up to date, while leaving the software out of date on their customers websites that they are supposed to be securing. We ran across another example of that while looking at one of their case studies that is supposed to show how great their services are.

The case study is missing basics details that would be needed to understand what was actually going on and if SiteLock had done anything to actual secure the website. The post claims the website in the case study was targeted by cybercriminals, but they don’t even mention what type of attack there was:

When cybercriminals began to target Airspeed-Wireless.com last year, he became alarmed. Spiridigliozzi took an investigative approach and soon determined the attacks were coming from an IP address in Iran. His host-provided security options were limited so instead he blocked the malicious IP, hoping it would solve the problem. Unfortunately it did not and the hacking attempts continued.

Most hacks are not targeted, so it is entirely possible that what was actually happening was that website was being hit as part of mass hacks that wasn’t even trying to exploit vulnerabilities relevant to the website and there wasn’t a real threat.

Blocking IP addresses is not an effective security measure because if there is a actually a vulnerability then a hacker could easily get around it by simply using another IP address. It is important to note that the web host, the one that SiteLock says has limited security options, is Bluehost, which is not only a SiteLock partner, but it’s parent company, Endurance International Group, is run by the owners of SiteLock. SiteLock’s partners get paid handsomely for pushing SiteLock services, so providing a poor security options would likely be financial advantageous for them (that might be a good reason to avoid web hosts that have partnered with SiteLock).

The case study that then moves on to another website:

During the process Spiridigliozzi was attacked again, this time on a website he was developing. The new attack came from an IP address in Morocco. The hacker injected malware into the newly developed site and taunted Spiridigliozzi by engaging him in online chat.

There is no explanation as to how the website was hacked, which would be important information for people to know to protect their own websites and to determine if SiteLock could have actually prevented it and whether there might a more effective way to do that.

In the next section the tout their TrueShield Web Application Firewall:

SiteLock also wanted to provide Spiridigliozzi with a preventative solution. They installed the SiteLock® TrueShield™ Enterprise Web Application Firewall (WAF) on Airspeed-Wireless.com. This top tier WAF blocks bad bots, the Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP) Top 10 threats, backdoor connections and meets PCI standards.

First it is worth noting that contrary to how they promote the service, this isn’t actually their service, instead they just slap their branding on Incapsula’s WAF.

Next, just the other day we discussed an instance where one of their customers using the WAF was hacked again and they were told that they don’t cover backdoor access :

Now, after we’ve been hacked yet again, I find out that is not true. SiteLock assures me that everything is set up correctly, and that the hacker must have a back door access point.  They don’t cover that. Bluehost doesn’t cover that. I’m screwed.

That obviously doesn’t match up with their claim in the case study that WAF blocks backdoor connections.

Then they claim that numerous threats were blocked:

Since it was installed, TrueShield has blocked 9,478 malicious threats, five SQLi attempts, and 27 visitors from blacklisted IP addresses.

What stands out is the fact that most of threats that were supposed be blocked are vaguely “malicious threats”, but a few SQL injections attempts are broken out even those would also be a malicious threat. That vagueness is important since the reality is that probably only a small fraction of one percent of hacking attempts have the possibility of being successful (many hacking attempts will involve trying to exploit vulnerabilities in software not being used on a website for example). A useful measure would how many of the blocked attempts would have actually lead to the website being exploited if not running through the WAF, SiteLock probably doesn’t have any clue as to that sort of things since they don’t actually provide that service.

The next section points to SiteLock odd idea of how to protect a website:

Spiridigliozzi is grateful for the upgraded security, “The SiteLock suite of security tools now allows me to be more proactive in preventing unwanted visitors and bots from accessing my website, the dashboard gives me an immediate indication of any problems and I also receive email alerts if there are any issues.”

If there is a vulnerability on a website the best way to protect against it is to fix it, trying to stop people that might exploit it is going to be harder to do and SiteLock doesn’t provide evidence of its effectiveness.

It turns out that the website is actually insecure now in an easy to check for way. It is running an outdated version of Magento with known security vulnerabilities:

Magento does provide patches for older versions, so an outdated version might be secure, but in this the website MageReport.com reports that the security patch that provides the same fixes as Magento 1.9.3 is not installed (both the security patch and Magento 1.9.3 were released on October 11):

SiteLock seems to be unaware of this as they are currently labeling the website as secure:

The Previous Case Study Is Running An Outdated Version of Joomla

In the case study that proceeding the one we just discussed, SiteLock promoted its scanning service:

The SiteLock 360-degree Security Scan was placed on bluedgebiz.com. As the name suggests, the scan provides a comprehensive scan of Wilson’s entire site. This includes a complete malware, network, spam, SQL Injection, and Cross-Site Scripting scan. With this scan, Wilson is alerted immediately if suspicious code or vulnerabilities are found.

In the past we discussed that we couldn’t find evidence that SiteLock was actually able to find vulnerabilities and a past commenter who had a gotten their scanning service ended up with their website hacked four months later. Both of which don’t point to this service being that great, but the other issue with this is that even if you are alerted vulnerabilities you would need to take action.

Clearly something hasn’t worked in the case of this website as the website is currently running an outdated version of Joomla 3.6.3:

Version 3.6.4 was released on October 25. That version fixed “three critical security vulnerabilities” and by critical, Joomla really meant it in this instance as websites still running older versions (the vulnerabilities existed back to version 3.4.4) were quickly being exploited (it should be noted that Joomla provided a heads up to everyone four days before that version was released).

We recently have been taking a close look at the practices of the web security SiteLock after finding that not only were they providing poor quality services (as is par for the course for web security companies), but a lot of what they look to be doing falls more closely to outright scamming. We thought it would be useful to show how some of what we have found comes in to play to their interactions with a customer. To do that lets look at a recent complaint from one of SiteLock’s customers that hits on a number of issues with what SiteLock is doing.

After their website had been hacked in February of last year SiteLock sold them on one of their services:

[L]ast February we purchased “SiteLock Premium” for $500/year. I was told this was the best security product available. With it, I would have a firewall that would prevent any further attacks.  And since it runs “in the cloud” it would actually make our site faster. We were assured that SiteLock has never been hacked and even if we are hacked, our site would be cleaned.

There are a number of issues we see with that.

We are not sure how SiteLock’s website never being hacked (if that were even true) would mean that their customer’s website wouldn’t be hacked, but that would seem to require the same practices being done on both, but that isn’t the case as we will get to in a later in the post.

Then there is the issue that as best we can tell SiteLock’s web application firewall (WAF) isn’t actually their own, instead there are reselling Incapsula’s WAF service. That raises several issues. One is that SiteLock promotes the service as if they are providing it, if they would lie about that, you can reasonably wonder what else they are not being honest about. Since the service involves sending the website’s traffic through the CDN, that means all the traffic is flowing through a company the SiteLock’s customers are not even aware of, much less have a relationship with. Finally you have to wonder if SiteLock is even aware of how good or bad the WAF is at protecting against attacks, since it isn’t actually something they run.

Another serious issue is that SiteLock failed to do a basic part of a proper hack cleanup, making sure that they software is brought up to date. In this case the website is still using Joomla 2.5:

That version of Joomla reached end of life on December 31, 2014 and therefore was not receiving further security updates. So any cleanup in 2015 should have included upgrading to a supported version of Joomla. (It is important to note that SiteLock is certainly not alone in doing this important part of hack cleanup, many providers cut corners like this.)

By comparison SiteLock does keep their website up to date. Both their blog and their WordPress focused sub-domain, wpdistrict.sitelock.com, are using the latest version of WordPress:

Keeping the software running your website up to date is going to provide real protection, whereas other security services may not (we haven’t seen SiteLock present any evidence that their services provide better protection then doing the security basics). Its telling that SiteLock does that for their own website, but doesn’t for their customers.

More Money

One of the things we frequently see brought up with SiteLock is after purchasing one security services that was supposed to protect the website and then doesn’t, they want to sell your more expensive services (that was even mentioned by someone who praising their service (and then deleted their post for some reason)). Remember that this person was sold a $500 a year plan that they say SiteLock claimed was the “best security product available”, then the website got hacked again and they are pushing a $720 a year plan:

We were recently informed by SiteLock that our site had sustained a Pharma attack that had inserted links directly into our code. This attack could not be automatically cleaned their software could not remove the malware systematically without risking bringing down our site. The SiteLock technician suggested that we purchase their “Infinity Scan” product for $60 /month.  That product includes manual cleaning of our site.

Again there are multiple issues raised here.

You can start with the fact that SiteLock makes a big deal about their automated malware removal in their marketing material, but never mention that it can have the serious problem of taking down a website. It also seems to us that in an instance where it isn’t up to task they shouldn’t be charging extra to deal with the situation, as it is unable to do what it is promoted to do (and considering their track record you would also have to wonder if they sometimes claim it couldn’t to get more money from people).

The other troubling aspect of this is that they have a service that provides manual hack cleaning on a repeated basis. If a website is properly cleaned then it shouldn’t get re-hacked, so unless you are not taking basic security measures or get unlucky and have get hacked thorough multiple zero-day vulnerabilities in a year you shouldn’t need multiple cleanups in one year. The fact that they provide this would be a red-flag on it own that they don’t do proper hack cleanups, but we already knew that SiteLock doesn’t proper clean up hacked websites, so you don’t have to wonder about that.

What would seems to have happened here seems to be another example of that. So how did SiteLock explain how the website was hacked again after they were brought in:

Now, after we’ve been hacked yet again, I find out that is not true. SiteLock assures me that everything is set up correctly, and that the hacker must have a back door access point.  They don’t cover that. Bluehost doesn’t cover that. I’m screwed.

The backdoor access must have either existed when SiteLock was first brought in to deal with the website and should have been handle during the cleanup or was gained after the were supposed to protecting the website. In either case we don’t understand how that wouldn’t be on them. The explanation seems to be that since things were set up correctly it couldn’t be their fault, which doesn’t make any sense to us.

Also worth noting here is that their web host, Bluehost, who pushes SiteLock services as one of their “partners”, is ultimately run by the owners of SiteLock and looks to be getting a majority of the money from services sold through their partnership (which explains the high price of SiteLock’s services and the low quality for the amount paid). That isn’t something they publicly disclose and something that one of the other web hosting owned by the same company, Hostgator, wouldn’t even acknowledge is after it was pointed out those facts were coming from their parent company.