In this audio post, Brent Huston, CEO and Security Evangelist, interviews MSI’s Constance Matthews and Chris Lay about choosing the right security partner. Also discussed is MicroSolved’s backstory with the State of Ohio’s voting system and how clients benefit from MSI’s partnership philosophy.
Click here to listen: How to Choose the Best Security Partner
After several discussions the last few days with a number of folks around mobile technologies and the security risks they pose to organizations, I thought I might be able to help folks by putting forth a quick a dirty (“back of the napkin”) framework diagram.
This time it was a Certificate Authority (again). Not just any CA, either, but an official CA that manages the “PKIOverheid” for the government of the Netherlands. In other words, a really important CA, even in a league where most, if not all, CA’s are important.
What happened? They got breached. They got breached in a way that allowed attackers to create at least 531 rogue certificates with their trust models. How did they get breached? It seems to stem from a combination of attackers exploiting basic issues to gain access, then leveraging more advanced custom skills to get the certificates generated and extrude them. I am basing that opinion on the Fox-IT report located here. (The report itself is well worth a read).
The critical issues identified?
If you follow our blog, attend our talks or listen to our podcasts, you should be seeing this as another reminder of just how critical it is to do the basics. Having powerful tools that no one watches, engaging vendors to do assessments that you ignore and spending money on controls that don’t matter won’t create an effective information security program. Getting the basic controls and processes in place might not protect you from breaches against resourced, skilled attackers completely, either, but it will go a long way toward giving you some protection from the most common threat models. In this case, it might have helped a CA know when they were under attack and take action against their threat sources to mitigate the breach before they got to the crown jewels or in this case, the crown certificates.
The attacker has been posting to Pastebin, (presumably the attacker), that they have access to other CA providers. If you are a CA or run a certificate system, now might be a good time to have someone take an independent third-party look around. It might be a good time to spend a few extra cycles on “just checking things out”.
If your organization is still stuck chasing vulnerabilities and hasn’t done a holistic review of their overall program, this would be a good impetus to do so. It should become an action item to look at your program through the lens of something like the SANS CAG or our 80/20 of Information Security lens and ensure that you have the basics covered in an effective manner. If you have questions or want to discuss the impacts or issues some of these recent breaches have against your organization, give us a call. As aways, thanks for reading and stay safe out there.
We are pleased to announce the immediate availability of a special edition of HoneyPoint that is designed to help organizations identify hosts infected with the Morto worm that is currently circulating.
HPMorto works like this: It opens a TCP listener HoneyPoint on port 3389/TCP (check to make sure that port is NOT in use before running HPMorto). Once in place, the tool will report the source IP of any systems who attempt to connect to it. Identified sources should be investigated as possible infected hosts.
This version will only listen for 3389 connections and will only function through February 28, 2012.
Versions of HPMorto are available for FREE download for:
Windows
Linux
Mac OSX
Give it a try and we hope that this tool help folks manage the problems being caused by Morto around the world.
I was fascinated by this article that came across my newsfeed earlier this week. In it, McAfee says that they have hit 65 million malware samples in the 2nd quarter of 2011. I have heard similar stories in my frequent conversations with other AV vendors this year. It seems, that the malware cat, truly is out of the bag. I don’t know about you, but it seems like someone forgot to warn the crimeware world about opening Pandora’s box.
One of the things that I think is still interesting about the number of signatures that AV vendors are creating are that they are still hitting only a small portion of the overall mountain of malware. For example, many of the AV vendors do not cover very many of the current PHP and ASP malware that is making the rounds. If you follow me on twitter (@LBHuston), then you have likely seen some of the examples I have been posting for the last year or so about this missing coverage. In addition, in many of the public talks I have been giving, many folks have had wide discussions about whether or not AV vendors should be including such coverage. Many people continue to be amazed at just how difficult the role of the AV vendor has become. With so much malware available, and so many kits on the market, the problem just continues to get worse and worse. Additionally, many vendors are still dealing with even the most simple evasion techniques. With all of that in mind, the role and work of AV vendors is truly becoming a nightmare.
Hopefully, this report will give some folks insight into the challenges that the AV teams are facing. AV is a good baseline solution. However, it is critical that administrators and network security teams understand the limitations of this solution. Simple heuristics will not do in a malware world where code entropy, encoding and new evasion techniques are running wild. AV vendors and the rest of us must begin to embrace the idea of anomaly detection. We must find new ways to identify code, and its behavior mechanisms that are potentially damaging. In our case, we have tried to take such steps forward in our HoneyPoint line of products and our WASP product in particular. While not a panacea, it is a new way of looking at the problem and it brings new visibility and new capability to security teams.
I enjoyed this article and I really hope it creates a new level of discussion around the complexities of malware and the controls that are required by most organizations to manage malware threats. If you still believe that simple AV or no malware controls at all are any kind of a solution, quite frankly, you’re simply doing it wrong. As always, thanks for reading and stay safe out there.
A lot of folks have written in asking for a simple methodology overview of how to use the spreadsheet we published in a previous post. Here is a quick and dirty overview of the methodology we use to manage the security trust state of systems in our work. Check out the diagram and let us know if you have any questions or feedback.
Thanks for reading and we hope this helps your team in a meaningful way! Click to enlarge image. Click here to downlaod the PDF.
While working incidents and also during daily operations of a network environment, it is often useful to track the trust you have in components. For that reason, we frequently use a spreadsheet to contain the various elements. It also serves as a basic record of what has happened on a system or component. I usually track my trust in a system to three levels: trusted (I believe it has security), semi-trusted (it is recovering from an event or is acting funny but investigation did not yield results (I usually leave it in this state with additional ongoing monitoring for ~90 days at least), untrusted (I believe it is suffering an insecure state, is “acting funny” and is under investigation, etc.).
I hope this spreadsheet helps folks looking for an easy way to do this. Complex tools like databases and such are out there too, but this might serve as a quick and dirty tool to get you what you need if you need to undertake this exercise (and I suggest you do…. ). Hope it helps you and your team. Thanks for reading and take care of each other out there.
For about a year now we have been getting questions from folks about basic trust maps, what they are and how they are used. After answering several times person to person, we thought it might be time for a simple blog post to refer folks to.
The purpose of a trust map is to graphically demonstrate trust between components of your organization or business process. It is a graphic map of how authentication occurs, what systems share accounts and what systems trust what other systems in an environment.
Trust maps are very useful for explaining your organization to new IT folks, helping auditors understand your authentication and security models, and especially for using as reference in incident response. Done properly, they become a powerful tool with a real payoff. For example, when an attack occurs and some mechanism gets compromised in your environment, you can use your trust map to quickly examine how to isolate the affected portions of the authentication model and learn what additional systems the attacker may have been able to trivially leverage given the access they gained. It really makes incident response much more effective and truly helps your teams respond to problems in a more intelligent and effective way.
It might take a little time to map complex organizations. If that proves to be a challenge, try starting with key business processes until you get to a point where you can create a holistic map with drill down process maps. This has proven to be an effective approach for larger/more complex organizations. If you need assistance with gathering the data or getting some additional political alliances to help the project along, our experience has been that the Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity folks usually have good starting data and are often easy to get engaged pushing the project through, especially since, in the long run, they get value from the maps too!
Here is an example map for you to use. It is pretty simple, but should give you the idea.
For more information or help creating your own trust maps, drop us a line or give us a call. We’d be happy to help or even get engaged to make the maps for you as a part of other security testing and projects. As always, thanks for reading and stay safe out there!
From Brent Huston’s recent webinar, “How To Create A Threat-Centric Focus For Your Information Security Initiatives”:
Want to know why many information security programs are failing today? Yesterday, on our webinar, we got a lot of feedback on these issues and most folks agreed on these causes. A few said it was high time some one said what we did. For those of you who want to know why the attackers are winning, here is quick summary of the slide that caused all of the rukus on the webinar. Wanna see what all of the fuss was about? Drop us a line if you would like to be in the next session or stay tuned for a video of the talk in the next couple of weeks!
As always, thanks for the feedback. We are glad you enjoyed the talk and we look forward to giving it more often. It’s time we all started talking candidly about the problems we face and the real reasons that attackers are winning the race!
We hear a lot of questions about how organizations should handle the increasing consumer use of IT services based on the cloud. Services like Dropbox, Google Apps, Github and many others offer unique and powerful tools for users that they have come to depend on in their personal lives, and thus, some of those tools “leak” into their work lives as well. Often this means that data that was once considered corporate in nature is increasingly in play in these largely consumer-focused services. In fact, with the coming iCloud integration from Apple on the horizon into all iOS devices, some organizations are in a down right panic about how to manage these new services in their user populations.
We want to offer up three suggestions for organizations facing these issues (most of us):
We know these three suggestions have a “soft skills” feel. Maybe you expected a suggestion for more firewalls, detection tools or crypto? But, the real story here is, we need not only better tactical approaches and toolkits to solve the coming security issues we face, but we need a holistic strategy to do it effectively as well. That said, before you invest in another round of cloud-based detection thingees or a new quantum cryptography system with geo-spacial locations for keys, how about we all take a moment, sit down, discuss how users are really working now and what they want for the future? Maybe if we think this next huge step forward through a bit more and take a more strategic approach, we can figure out how to make users happy AND secure their data. Hey, I can dream, can’t I? 🙂