barbazoo an hour ago

> Be skeptical of unknown calls. If something feels off, hang up and restart the conversation by contacting the company directly.

I wonder sometimes how many scams I've avoided simply by pretty much never answering my phone when someone calls unless I'm expecting a call or it's someone I know.

> The attacker already had access to my Gmail, Drive, Photos — and my Google Authenticator codes, because Google had cloud-synced my codes.

Ugh, google

  • arethuza an hour ago

    I usually don't answer calls from numbers I don't recognise - but a couple of days back it was a scammer claiming to be from Amazon - said I had ordered an iPhone for £600 and was it a real order.

    I was pretty suspicious but thought I would get them to authenticate their identity as someone really from Amazon by telling me the last thing I had really ordered was...

    I must have stayed on the call for 20 minutes, eventually they ended up swearing at me - all the time I could hear other people in the same room trying the same lines on different people. I have no idea why I stayed on for so long....

    • zamadatix 14 minutes ago

      Would (the actual) Amazon even agree to provide this kind of information over the phone to someone?

      • mmmlinux 9 minutes ago

        is talking to amazon on the phone at all even actually possible?

  • crawftv 41 minutes ago

    The biggest red flag in all these stories is getting a call from a customer support person trying to help you. When it seems like it’s impossible to get ahold of them in a real emergency.

    • fkskammerz 5 minutes ago

      It doesnt seem to be a red-flag. The caller was calling as an Attorney from Google General Counsel responding to an estate request. They followed up with a spoofed @google.com email with their name corroborating the call.

  • atm3ga 28 minutes ago

    I've set my phone to not answer unknown callers (those not in my address list) and more importantly, I've done this for my parents as well and further instruct them as often as possible to not believe anything they get in email. With all of this, my mom still will reach out at least once or twice a year in a panic about some scam email she thinks is real.

    • general1465 5 minutes ago

      Well easy to say, but if you are working in the real world, then unknown callers may be important - i.e. FedEx trying to push your package through the customs and if they can not contact you, your package goes either back or is destroyed.

    • atlanta90210 11 minutes ago

      If you have an iPhone, the latest iOS 26 will answer unknown numbers not in your address book for you and ask what they want and then alert you to see if you want to take the call.

  • throwaway7783 an hour ago

    I didn't quite understand this part. Attacked has access to Google accounts because Google had cloud-synced my codes? What does that mean?

    • remus 42 minutes ago

      They gained access to the Google account by stealing the verification code over the phone, but then they had easy access to other accounts (e.g. coinbase) because they had access to 2FA codes because Google authenticator was backed up to the users Google account.

      • throwaway7783 40 minutes ago

        Ah, makes sense. The victim was social engineered first.

    • riffraff 40 minutes ago

      The other way around.

      The attacker had access to the Google account which includes passwords from Chrome and also the 2fa codes stored in Google Authenticator, because those were synced to Google without the author noticing it.

      So with passwords and 2fa the attacker could login to Coinbase too.

  • paleotrope an hour ago

    I have a 1-2 second rule. I pick up I say hello, if someone doesn't respond in 1-2 seconds, I hang up.

    They have the scammers working off phone queues, it takes a little bit of time to get the call to the scammer, who has to start off with a script, so there's a delay.

    Remember, the scammer, also likely not a native english speaker, also probably bored out of their mind, has to spin up, they have to read the name, understand how to say it and then say it out loud. Their is a mental startup time that a normal conversation doesn't have.

    If someone calls you and isn't ready to immediately respond to "hello" it's a scammer.

    • zamadatix 10 minutes ago

      I try to avoid picking up and saying anything because it seems like an advertisement "yes, this number is not only active but a real person who answers random calls - try calling back (possibly from a different number) later".

  • golan an hour ago

    As of late, I have one rule: Any unknown number I'm not expecting I let it go to voicemail, where I have a message along the lines of: leave your message and your number, and if it's important I'll call you back. The only time I pick up is when I am expecting, say, a delivery, or a doctor's call, etc, and in those cases I'm only expecting to hear about a delivery or a doctor's call, etc. Hoping that can filter and help on this front.

wcoenen 6 minutes ago

Thanks for sharing. I already had it in the back of my mind that this cloud sync thing in Google Authenticator was not very secure. I'm getting rid of it right now.

I do see why Google did it; it's going to be difficult to educate users to always set up 2FA both on a primary and a backup device. Much easier and convenient to automatically sync different devices. But your story makes it obvious that something isn't quite right here.

  • jgilias 3 minutes ago

    Authy has solved this though. The cloud sync is opt-in, and encrypted with a password. This makes it immensely more involved to compromise.

QuadmasterXLII an hour ago

The load bearing question is, why didn't the attacker also clear out OP's bank account, retirement savings, and max out his credit cards? Unfortunately, the difference is that banks care literally at all about their customers accounts being emptied.

  • QuadmasterXLII 33 minutes ago

    What I specifically mean by "care literally at all" : banks have a policy of reimbursing people who had their accounts emptied despite taking reasonable precautions. This creates sane, linear incentives: banks care 1000x more about a $100,000 fraud than a $100 fraud; they care 1000x more about a scam affecting 100 people than a scam affecting one person, etc.

    Unrelated, but for added spice, here's a thread from ten months where everyone agrees you're a fool unless you secure your coinbase account with google authenticator

    https://www.reddit.com/r/CoinBase/comments/1h65zuh/account_h...

    • thrill 6 minutes ago

      In my actual real world experience of digging my elderly mother out of $25,000+ of scam debt, banks do not care at all unless they can be shown to be at fault, and then they weigh the loss expense vs the likely legal expense.

    • 3D30497420 9 minutes ago

      This is one of the main reasons I don't like crypto. If you get hacked, even if you did everything right, then you're out of luck. The funds are (generally) unrecoverable.

      With my bank, I've been able to recover several thousand after a thief was able to bypass the 2FA app used to verify large transfers. (I still don't know how they were able to bypass the verification, and after investigating our bank never told us. Not sure that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, but at least I was made whole with minimal fuss.)

  • calmbell 39 minutes ago

    And transferring money from a bank or brokerage account takes time. Enough time that anyone paying attention should be able to report the transfer as fraudulent before it completes and have the account frozen.

  • bdangubic an hour ago

    the banks don’t give two shits about it :)

    • fn-mote 12 minutes ago

      The difference is that you have leverage to force the banks to care.

      There isn't any federal regulation at all covering your Bitcoin.

      • wmf a few seconds ago

        Bitcoin exchanges like Coinbase are regulated by the CFTC in the US. This case is more of a Google problem though.

      • thrill 5 minutes ago

        Fraud is fraud. There’s plenty of laws against it.

Imnimo an hour ago

I notice none of the pieces of advice are "don't keep a hundred thousand dollars in a Coinbase account".

  • atm3ga 26 minutes ago

    I split my crypto assets between Coinbase and what is now a corrupted hard-drive I've yet to recover.

quantified an hour ago

Mistake cost him 80k. Author is feeling burnt, but the cost is the cost at transaction time.

  • saaaaaam 35 minutes ago

    Extending this further, based on the stated value it looks like he probably had 40 or 50 ethereum. He might have bought them for a fraction of today's price - say $50 - so might only be out $2500 based on cost at transaction time...

  • shocks 40 minutes ago

    Incorrect. Author may not have had the required savings to rebuy the position he wanted.

rwmj an hour ago

Does anyone know how the email from (or appearing to be from) @google.com works? Wouldn't the Apple account reject it because it fails DKIM/etc?

  • fastest963 an hour ago

    Yeah, I don't understand how it passed DMARC and why it wasn't rejected immediately by his mail server (Apple Mail?).

    • youngtaff an hour ago

      From the article he uses gmail I think

  • neuronflux an hour ago

    They probably sent it from gmail which would pass the SPF check (google.com and gmail.com have the same SPF). They wouldn't have it signed to pass DKIM, but google doesn't use strict alignment checking so to pass DMARC either SPF or DKIM are acceptable.

        ~ dig _dmarc.google.com txt +short
      "v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:mailauth-reports@google.com"
  • traceroute66 an hour ago

    > Wouldn't the Apple account reject it because it fails DKIM/etc?

    Yeah, I would be curious to see the actual email headers of what was received.

    As an aside, fun fact, this would not be possible with @apple.com because Apple employees have old-school S/MIME signatures as an additional security layer.

  • davidscoville 30 minutes ago

    I’ve heard scammers use Google tools like Google forms or Google cloud to send out fraudulent emails that appear like they come from Google.

    • thrill 4 minutes ago

      The latest attempted scams I’m getting on my gmail account are fake postmaster bounces “from” google.com.

  • fkskammerz 44 minutes ago

    I use gmail and i was attacked almost identically and the email came thru to my gmail with a @google origin account

calmbell 8 minutes ago

The key takeaway from this imo should be to not use Google Password Manager or a password manager without a secret key like 1Password.

sequin an hour ago

How did they get the passwords to his Google and Coinbase accounts? He reused passwords? The same one for Google as for Coinbase? Or did they reset his Coinbase password via his Gmail? The post doesn't make this explicit, but it warns against password reuse.

  • davidscoville 31 minutes ago

    I believe they logged into coinbase with Google SSO. And then they used my Google Authenticator codes which were cloud synced as the second factor auth method.

    A warning to auth engineers: if an account is using a Gmail address, then auth codes from Google Authenticator should not be considered a second factor.

    • avree 16 minutes ago

      This isn't something "auth engineers" can control, there's no magic Google Authenticator flag on a 2fa code - it's all HMAC and numbers, you don't know if the code came from Authy, Google Auth, a homebrew code generator, a dongle, etc.

  • em500 an hour ago

    Google/Chrome Password Manager?

    • IncreasePosts 41 minutes ago

      But how did they get his Gmail password in the first place?

      I'm not sure if I have the same password reset flow as OP, but when I try to reset my password and even provide the 2fa code, it basically doesn't let me get past a certain point without contacting my backup email address or making me use a phone which I'm logged in on to complete the reset

nzeid an hour ago

> Google enabled Authenticator cloud sync by default.

Never understood this convenience and never will. This is exactly the wrong way to deal with people losing their authenticator secrets.

ninalanyon 40 minutes ago

Always confirm such things by calling the official contact number that you already have and asking about the case. Do this before you discuss the matter further.

Never act based solely on an unsolicited telephone call or email.

  • blueflow 38 minutes ago

    If someone calls and claims to be from an big tech company, its is always a scam and you are going to loose money.

RandomBacon 43 minutes ago

Coinbase STILL doesn't freeze user accounts for a token amount of time, 24 hours or so, after resetting a password‽

Part of the blame should be levied on Coinbase if this is the case.

(I'm assuming this guy at least uses unique passwords...)

  • riffraff 36 minutes ago

    The attacker had the passwords and 2fa codes from the Google account so Coinbase couldn't really distinguish them from the right person (tho presumably for large transfers they may require some extra checks, dunno)

    • RandomBacon 29 minutes ago

      The article is poorly written and not clear. It sounds like you're suggesting the author let Chrome save his Coinbase password and Google synced that to the attacker as well?

      > Google had cloud-synced my codes.

      > That was the master key. Within minutes, he was inside my Coinbase account.

      The author wrote "codes", not "passwords".

layman51 an hour ago

Can someone please explain to me what it means for authenticator codes to be “cloud-synced”? Is that solely dependent on whether you’re using the Google Authenticator app while signed in to your Google Account? Is it possible to not have them “cloud-synced” if you are signed in?

  • jazzyjackson an hour ago

    Google Authenticator app defaults to backing up the TOTP secrets so if you log in on a new device you have them there. Pretty poor default for security, and you can disable it, but not the first time I've heard of this biting someone.

    • nipponese an hour ago

      The risk of not syncing — when you lose/reset your phone, so does your OTP app. If you don't have backup codes saved, you're cooked.

      • traceroute66 an hour ago

        > The risk of not syncing — when you lose/reset your phone, so does your OTP app. If you don't have backup codes saved, you're cooked.

        Most clued-up places enable you to register a Yubikey as 2FA.

        So then it doesn't matter if you loose your OTP app and your backup codes because you've still got a Yubikey.

        (And those that don't allow Yubikey, almost certainly will have SMS as a secondary option).

      • Sayrus an hour ago

        Which is why most apps with sync have two sets of credentials: one to login on the platform and one master password for encryption. That helps in those scenarios.

      • fortran77 an hour ago

        Yes. There are other ways of syncing (I have images of the setup QR codes save in an encrypted file) but most people wouldn’t be able to manage this.

    • layman51 an hour ago

      You mean to say that if it were enabled on my Google account, then the TOTP numbers for my other accounts are visible via authenticating into Google Account on some other unknown device? Sounds like it could be convenient if you lose your phone, but still risky if an attacker can sign into your Google Account.

  • tetromino_ an hour ago

    https://security.googleblog.com/2023/04/google-authenticator...

    Google Authenticator can be local-only or synced to the cloud.

    In local-only mode, the authenticator is bound to a specific device. You can manually sync it to additional devices, but if you lose access to all those devices, it's game over, you will get locked out of whatever accounts you secured with authenticator as the second factor.

    In cloud-synced mode, it's synced to your google account, so if you lose your phone, you can restore authenticator state. But if your google account gets taken over, it's game over, the attacker has your authentication codes.

narrator 44 minutes ago

I got scammed because somebody put a fake bank location into Google Maps and so the Google voice caller ID said it was my bank. Luckily, I realized I got scammed and called the bank up right away and they got the charges reversed, which is why I still use that bank. Moral of the story: never trust inbound calls. They are the easiest vector for scammers to spoof.

dec0dedab0de 25 minutes ago

i always tell my mom that no legitimate business would ever call, email, or send a letter about anything.

throwaway7783 39 minutes ago

I never pick up calls from numbers that I don't know. If it's important they leave a message. And if I think it is important, I call them back through official phone numbers

fkskammerz an hour ago

Same exact scam happened to me three weeks ago and I almost fell for it. The guy was very sharp and sounded very authentic.

Ever since then I've been getting hundreds or thousands of Google notifications I've had to decline. Anyone know how people are able to send out hundreds of 2FA gmail notification popups without Google blocking this?

nipponese 42 minutes ago

I get scam calls with Google in the caller ID everyday.

It kinda sucks that in 2025, voice calls are now near-zero trust.

Is there really no velocity behind any open/consortium replacement to traditional voice calls?

vkou an hour ago

As soon as I read the headline, I knew that the problem was...

> In just 40 minutes, the attacker shuffled my staked ETH and other tokens through multiple transactions, then drained the account.

One of the many, many benefits of irreversible transactions.

> I made mistakes, yes

His first mistake was keeping six figures worth of 'cash' in a wallet that anyone with less than 40 minutes of access to can swipe.

  • fortran77 an hour ago

    Also if you have crypto you should never mention anywhere that you do. No forums, social media, etc.

    • RandomBacon 37 minutes ago

      They still attack tech professionals living in California. Saying you have crypto will probably move you to the top of the list, but they'll still get to you eventually.

      My brother (a tech professional in California) does not have any crypto or social media, and attackers still stole his phone number, which they used to steal his email account, which they then tried to get into a non-existent Coinbase account. He was only out of the time it took to get his phone number back (a couple of hours later).

sciencesama an hour ago

i regularly check reddit scams to know about the scams and i recently dodged one which wanted my details !

atallahw an hour ago

What did the account did the email actually come from? Was it legit from legal and he just submitted the request or was it a real spoofing

  • fkskammerz an hour ago

    It was not legit from legal, I had the same attack on me two weeks ago. They were pretending to be from Google General Counsel responding to an estate request to my Google account being handed to another party who was supposedly the inheritor.

    What clued me in was that he said he couldnt share the estate documents with me until I gave him my popup 2FA code.

nharada an hour ago

One thing I really hate is that some companies with poorly design customer service flows actually REQUIRE you to read a code they text you over the phone to a rep.

At least now more companies include a "never read this over the phone" note in their authentication texts.

londons_explore an hour ago

This would probably have helped:

https://serverthiefbait.com/

  • loloquwowndueo an hour ago

    No it wouldn’t have.

    OP said the coin base account was drained within “minutes”. Server thief bait can take up to 24h to notify you when someone takes the bait.

    > We'll put a tiny amount of cryptocurrency in a wallet, but probably still enough to attract the attention of automated scripts. We notify you when it's taken within 24 hours.

like_any_other an hour ago

> The attacker spoofed the “From” field so it looked like the emails came from @google.com — something Google’s filters should have blocked outright. On iOS, Gmail doesn’t let you view full headers, so I had no way to double-check in the moment.

Can somebody explain what exactly this means, and how it works?

  • matsemann an hour ago

    Dmarc/spf https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMARC

    Basically, the from field on an email can be anything you want. It's like sending physical mail and using a fake letterhead with someone else's info, just type what you want. No verification.

    That's sometimes a good feature. Like, a third party provider can send newsletters on behalf of company A. But can also be bad, when used for phishing.

    However, the email doesn't just appear in your mailbox. It comes to your email provider by another server connecting to it and sending the email. Spf allows the owner of A.com to specify which IPs/servers are actually acting on their behalf. So if I get an email from something@A.com, I can lookup and verify that the sending server is one to trust. If not, the email client should reject or warn the user somehow.

    • tryauuum an hour ago

      DMARC does check the from field in the mail, so I don't know how could this happen

  • goda90 an hour ago

    No clue how it works functionally these days. But it reminds me of tricks we pulled back in high school programming class. Our school was using Novell NetWare, and some students were given email addresses for various purposes. We discovered you could edit the From field, so it would display any text as your name and then your email address after it to the recipient on Novell's email client. If you added enough text, including whitespace, it would push the actual email address off screen(I don't remember if you could scroll to it or not).

    We trolled each other in class with it a bit. But at one point some student not in our class sent out a mass email, which was against the rules. I replied with a From line as "Administrator" and a bunch of whitespace, telling the girl that she broke the rule and would be suspended for it. Our teacher made me apologize, and I was lucky that I didn't get into more trouble beyond that.

  • opesorry an hour ago

    Assuming I follow what you want to know, the wikipedia page on email spoofing should provide the info you desire. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_spoofing

    I'm pretty surprised gmail didn't flag this at least. When I did it for a class in Uni, it always let me know that the FROM header didn't match the sender since that's a clear attack vector

    • like_any_other 40 minutes ago

      His phrasing is very confusing - claiming the "from" field was spoofed, but that if he could see the "full header", he could have spotted the spoofing.

      I would also assume something as prominent as the Gmail website/app for iOS, and the google.com domain, would have all possible email security features correctly configured.

      So.. is this not the case? Or is it, but due to bad UI, despite all this security, any schmoe can send email appearing to come from google.com, and I have to pore over unspecified details in the "full header" to spot a fake?

  • throw_m239339 an hour ago

    It's my understanding that emails have headers, just like http responses, and the app might have displayed that fake header instead of verifying the provenance of the email and displaying where it actually came from. So it is a UI/UX issue.

    • alaithea an hour ago

      Why email clients have started hiding/not providing access to headers is beyond me. It seems like an anti-pattern. There have been many times recently where I've wanted to check the headers because an email was suspicious, only to find I couldn't.

latchkey an hour ago

Zak just posted this eye opening behind the scenes look at what these scammers are doing...

https://x.com/0xzak/status/1967592307714379934

  • ncr100 42 minutes ago

    Wow - that is really interesting, to hear the hacker's voice, the absence of guilt, the thinking of "it's a game to steal".

    A Horrific threat.

  • clgeoio 39 minutes ago

    Is there a service that can “de-twitter” links like this?

ShrimpHawk an hour ago

One wrong point in this. Google Authenticator does not cloud sync by default. You specifically have to accept the cloud sync option that you are prompted with.