
Credit Unions and Small Banks Need Strong Security Relationships

I had an interesting conversation this week over email with a security admin still fighting Conficker.
If you haven’t recalled Conficker in a while, take a moment and read the wikipedia entry here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conficker). Back in 2008, this nasty bugger spread across the net like wild fire. It was and is, quite persistent.
Because of the evolving nature of the attacker populace and their adoption of social media and open source mechanisms for crime ware tool development; new threat models are being applied across the board to sites that either had no attention on threat management or were woefully unprepared for the threat models that got focused against them. Hacktivism is indeed an extended threat for information security.
You can be targeted for your business partnerships, role in the supply chain, political leanings, or public position — OR simply to steal CPU cycles/storage from your systems because of your valuable data or simply because you have a common vulnerability. There are a myriad of reasons from the directly criminal to the abstract.
Social media and the traditional media cycles are simply amplifying the damage and drawing attention to the compromises that would not have made the news a few years ago. Web site defacements get linked to conspiracy groups. Large attacker movements get CNN headlines whereas they were basically ignored by most just a short while ago.
Recently, I found another new mutation of a PHP bot infector, with zero percent detection by anti-virus software. There was an anti-security tool code included, as well.
For those interested, you can view this link to see that the total number of anti-virus detections was 0.
However, when I decoded the PHP backdoor, I got 17 anti-virus hits on it. It seems they locked into the c99 backdoor code remnants, which is a pretty old backdoor PHP trojan. This leads to the question about evasion techniques and how effective anti-virus applications are at doing code de-obfuscation. For example, if you want a currently effective AV evasion technique in PHP, it comes down to this simple line of code: (gzinflate(str_rot13(base64_decode($code)))); – There’s the cash money key in terms of evading most, if not all, current anti-virus tools.
However, if you have a process that runs grep against your files looking for base64_decode and alerts you to new ones, you’ll get visibility to it and many, many others like it. Base64 encoding is still quite a popular call in PHP attack and compromise tools.
Here are some examples of this specific trivial control — here, and here. Now you have a real life example of how it pays off. So simple, yet so effective at detecting these slippery backdoors.
Finding specific nuance controls that pay off against specific threats to your assets is a key way to better security. It’s a win, all around!
Many of our assessment customers have benefitted in the last several years from having their important network devices and critical systems undergo a configuration review as a part of their assessments. However, a few customers have begun having this work performed as a subscription, with our team performing ongoing device reviews of one to three devices deeply per month, and then working with them to mitigate specific findings and bring the devices into a more trusted and deeply hardened state.
From credit unions to boards of elections and from e-commerce to ICS/SCADA teams, this deep and focused approach is becoming a powerful tool in helping organizations align better with best practices, the 80/20 Rule of Information Security, the SANS CAG and a myriad of other guidance and baselines.
On Twitter, Brent Huston (@lbhuston), CEO and Security Evangelist, posed this question: Does the introduction of speed bumps into a neighborhood reduce overall burglaries and petty crime?
There was some speculation that it may not impact burglaries but could impact violent crime. An Oakland study showed that bumps decrease the casual traffic pattern by 33%. As it turns out, speed bumps decrease speeding by 85%. Less casual traffic means less scouting for break-ins. So, speed bumps make you more secure. A study done by the Portland Bureau of Transportation shows a full examination of the impact of speed bumps.
Although speed bumps may deter criminal traffic, there’s a good possibility that the criminals just head toward an area that doesn’t have speed bumps. The same can be true with hardening your home security. If you take precautions and make your home more difficult to enter, the burglar may instead target one of your neighbor’s homes.
Although there may be instances where criminal activity increased due to speed bumps, those are not common and serve as the exception rather than the rule. Still, logic dictates that with more controls comes a decrease in crime. (Less speeding, less petty crime.)
And if you do find yourself in a neighborhood with speed bumps, slow down. They can sometimes break the cars of speeders.
This leads us to the next question: What do speed bumps tell us about information security?
After I published the blog posts about the sample IT maps a few weeks back, questions started to come in about how those maps could be created for ICS/SCADA deployments.
Input validation is the single best defense against injection and XSS vulnerabilities. Done right, proper input validation techniques can make web-applications invulnerable to such attacks. Done wrongly, they are little more than a false sense of security.
The bad news is that input validation is difficult. White listing, or identifying all possible strings accepted as input, is nearly impossible for all but the simplest of applications. Black listing, that is parsing the input for bad characters (such as ‘, ;,–, etc.) and dangerous strings can be challenging as well. Though this is the most common method, it is often the subject of a great deal of challenges as attackers work through various encoding mechanisms, translations and other avoidance tricks to bypass such filters.
Over the last few years, a single source has emerged for best practices around input validation and other web security issues. The working group OWASP has some great techniques for various languages and server environments. Further, vendors such as Sun, Microsoft and others have created best practice articles and sample code for doing input validation for their servers and products.
Check with their knowledge base or support teams for specific information about their platform and the security controls they recommend. While application frameworks and web application firewalls are evolving as tools to help with these security problems, proper developer education and ongoing training of your development team about input validation remains the best solution.
Today, many sites are protesting PIPA/SOPA and the like. You can read Google or Wikipedia for why those organizations and thousands of others are against the approach of these laws. But, this post ISN’T about that. In fact, censorship aside, I am personally and professionally against these laws for an entirely different reason all together.
My reason is this; they will simply speed up the crime stream. They will NOT shut down pirate sites or illicit trading of stolen data. They will simply force pirates, thieves and data traders to embrace more dynamic architectures and mechanisms for their crimes. Instead of using web sites, they will revert to IRC, bot-net peering, underground message boards and a myriad of other ways that data moves around the planet. They will move here, laws will pass to block that, they will move there, lather, rinse and repeat…
In the meantime, piracy, data theft, data trading and online crimes will continue to grow unabated, as they will without PIPA/SOPA/Etc. Nary a dent will be made in the amount or impact of these crimes. Criminals already have the technology and incentives to create more dynamic, adaptable and capable tools to defy the law than we have to marshall against them in enforcing the law.
After all that, what are we left with? A faster, more agile set of criminals who will actively endeavor to shorten the value chain of data, including intellectual property like movies, music and code. They will strive to be even faster to copy and spread their stolen information, creating even more technology that will need to be responded to with the “ban hammer”. The cycles will just continue, deepen and quicken, eventually stifling legitimate innovation and technology.
Saddest of all, once we determine that the legislative process was ineffective against the crime they sought to curtail, we still will have a loss of speech during that time, even if the laws were to ever be repealed. That’s right, censorship has a lasting effect, and we might lose powerful ideas, ideals and potentially world changing innovations during the time when people feel they are being censored. We lose all of that, even without a single long term gain against crime.
Given the impacts I foresee from these laws, I can not support them. I do believe in free speech. I do believe in free commerce on the Internet as a global enabler. But all of those reasons aside, I SIMPLY DO NOT BELIEVE that these laws will in any way affect the long term criminal viability or capability of pirates, thieves and data traders. Law is simply not capable of keeping pace with their level of innovation, adaptation and incentives. I don’t know what the answer is, I just know that this approach is not likely to be it.
So, that said, feel free to comment below on your thoughts on the impacts of these laws. If you are against the enactment of these laws, please contact your representatives in Congress and make your voice known. As always, thanks for reading and stay safe out there!
These are my opinions, as an individual – Brent Huston, and as an expert on information security and cyber-crime. They do not represent the views of any party, group or organization other than myself.