I used to work for a web hosting company and we saw this kind of attacks ALL the time.
Most of the cases was because of old CMS versions, but in same others the computer uploading the files was infected and the FTP credentials were stolen (Change your user/password and analyze ftp logs).
I would also check the database and do a clean install of the CMS.
The server could be compromised but I don't think this is the case.
Best answer I've seen so far. The takeaway from the guys on the front lines is usually that a full server compromise is rare and that FTP creds were stolen from a client via malware. The result is a simple drive-by that is relatively easy to clean up.
The Paidez thing is embarassing - we re-branded really fast and couldn't move all the services over before we launched. We're working on it now, but it sucks.
What do you mean about the HTTPS? We load ALL our content via SSL, do you mean knoxpayments.com isn't automatically loaded with SSL? There's nothing secure on it I guess, but even that should be for consistency.
Our payment process requires SSL end to end encryption, but are you suggesting that having Knox Payments not load with SSL by default it looks bad?
If I've missed something more important please tell me - if there's something (other than the atrocious switching of URLs) that is making you nervous, I NEED to fix it!
I've just sent an email to Colin about this. Will edit my comment as soon as I have a response.
EDIT: Wow, got a response in less than 5 minutes:
It's not something I'm looking at doing right now. The way the Tarsnap server
side is designed, in order to keep costs low (and performance high), data is
aggregated between multiple Tarsnap users and stored in S3 as large chunks;
keeping each user's data segregated would add a lot of additional complexity
and cost.
Not for now, but they should. The problem is that you need to take your customer to another site and that screws all the transparency (Doing everything in just one site) and simplicity that you have right now.
Indeed. Its a shame though, at least not to offer it as an option, as it places a lot more liability on the merchant. At least as an option you can profile your customers first and choose who to use it on.
I've seen some pretty scary numbers on the effect of 3-D Secure payments to conversion rates. I guess it's really hard to do The Right Thing™ on this matter.
The latter. It's probably a combination of breaking the UX by redirecting the user to his/her banks' website and the crappy forms the banks made for this.