After the discussion about my last post and my omission of appsec, I wanted to make up for it not being in the list. Certainly, application security is important and as pointed out, I should have added it to the list of primary concerns for organizations.

By now, I hope everyone understands that attacks like SQL injection, cross-site scripting and the rest of the OWASP top 10 can have devastating effects. Often, when these vulnerabilities come into play, data loss soon follows. Sometimes, the attacker is able to gain direct access to the data targets they are seeking. For example, if SQL injection grants them access to a database that contains credit card information or identity data, then the initial compromise may be all that the attacker needs to obtain their goal.

But, even when the initial compromise does not directly yield them the data they seek, the initial SQL injection compromise often allows them access to and/or control over other systems and components. They then use a variety of technologies and techniques (from keylogging to sniffing and from pivot attacks to trojans) to leverage the initial problem into the compromise of the data they seek. In many cases, the attackers prove themselves to be both creative and patient as they slowly crawl towards their goals.

Even if your site does not have the targets they want, the SQL injection can be quite damaging for your organization. Not only do you have the compromise itself, but quite often, the application or web server with the vulnerability is manipulated to propagate malware that infects the visitors to your site, turning their machines into victims as well. As a client recently told me, “You don’t want to have to explain to upper management why your web site is responsible for infecting your customer’s computers with a virus. It is not really good for your career.”

These are just a few of the reasons that your organizations should take web application security seriously. If you have some more you would like to share, please leave a comment below.

Welcome to 2010. A new decade, for sure, but one likely to contain many of the traditional security problems that we have grown used to.

How would I rate the top three things you should be paying attention to as we begin the new year? Glad you asked. 🙂

1. Malware – malware is the current serious scourge of infosec. It is becoming increasingly clear that prevention is a losing battle. Detection is often not even up to par, so personally, I would be thinking about response. How can we leverage egress filtering, data leak protection and other controls in depth to limit the amount of damage that an infected machine can do? Can we perform alternative forms of detection, like HoneyPoints and HoneyBees to identify when things are “not quite right” in our environment? These approaches have a proven track record for helping. Check out the SANS CAG for more tips down this line of thinking.

2. Partner network connections – Are you sure they are secure? Do you treat them (and their traffic) like a DMZ? If not, get a move on, because the statistics show this is a major source of issues and data loss.

3. Do you have “production blinders” on? – Are all of your systems in scope for your ongoing assessments? You need at least monthly ongoing vulnerability assessments of every machine in your environment. Not just from the Internet, but also from the internal network(s). Why the inside too? Review point number 1. The inside is the new outside….. Give us a call to discuss assessments if you need help. Our GuardDog appliance can provide you with ongoing assessments that are affordable and results focused. Together, we can help you get to a comfort point where security is a manageable task.

Those are the big three. They are what I would focus on if I were a CIO or network manager. Welcome to 2010, where everything is different, except the things that aren’t. 🙂

PS – I hope you had a wonderful holiday season!

I loved this story. The idea that some “hackers” hack for political or social causes is not new. This idea stems back several years and has evolved from simple web defacements with social and political messages to the “new breed” of information theft, data disclosure and possibly even sabotage to further one’s views.

Today, all of the experts in the security field, myself included spend a great deal of time teaching people that the primary data theft threat is more organized crime than teenage vandalism. But, that said, we certainly can’t forget the idea that hacktivism is still alive and well. In fact, given the explosive growth of the Internet, the continually expanding dependence on technology for everyday life and the common availability of so much data and access, hacktivism is likely to gain in popularity, not shrink.

That brings us to a huge issue. How do we know where some of the data that hacktivists would be interested in lives? Given that people are involved today in a myriad of social activities, use of social networks and such, how do we know who might have information that a hacktivist would want and who doesn’t? The answer of course, is that we have to assume that someone in our organization might have data that is relevant to this threat, so we have to account for it when we create our threat models. If we happen to be a philanthropic organization, a government agency or a federal group, we definitely can’t overlook hacktivism as a threat, because our very existence yields reputational risk for us and a reputational trophy for many hacktivists if they make us a poster child.

While the hacktivism threat model is likely more one of opportunistic nature than dedicated, focused attacks against a given organization, that may not always hold true. One day it may not be all about what data YOU have and hold, but what data the people who WORK FOR YOU have and what roles they play in their personal lives. While this is not necessarily true today, the idea that hacktivists might one day target individuals to achieve social goals is not out of the question.

So, all of that said, how much thought have you given hacktivism? Does your risk assessment cover that as a threat? Have you done any threat models around politically or socially motivated attackers? If not, it might be a good idea to take a look at this threat vector. Their aims and goals may be different than what you had in mind when you last updated your threat models.

It’s tempting to gravitate toward security vendors who offer assessments on the “we find holes or it’s free” basis. I wanted to take a moment and express my thoughts on this approach.

First off, security testing choices should not be based on price. They should be based on risk. The goal is to reduce the risk that any given operation (application, network, system, process, etc.) presents to the organization to a level that is manageable. Trust me, I have been in the security business for 20 years and all vendor processes are NOT created equal. Many variations exist in depth, skill level, scope, reporting capability, experience, etc. As such, selecting security testing vendors based upon price is a really bad idea. Matching vendors specific experience, reporting styles and technical capabilities to your environment and needs is a far better solution for too many reasons to expound upon here.

Second, the “find vulnerabilities or it’s free” mentality can really back fire for everyone involved. It’s hard enough for developers and technical teams to take their lumps from a security test when holes emerge, but to now also tie that to price makes it doubly difficult for them to take. “Great, I pay now because Tommy made some silly mistake!” is just one possibility. How do you think management may handle that? What about Tommy? Believe me, there can be long term side effects for Tommy’s career, especially if he is also blamed for breaking the team’s budget in addition to causing them to fail an audit.

Thirdly, it actually encourages the security assessment team to make mountains out of mole hills. Since they are rewarded only when they find vulnerabilities and the customer expectations of value are automatically built on severity (it’s human nature), then it certainly (even if only unconsciously) behooves the security team to note even small issues as serious security holes. In our experience, this can drastically impact the perceived risk of identified security issues in both technicians and management and has even been known to cause knee-jerk reactions and unneeded panic when reports arrive that show things like simple information leakage as “critical vulnerabilities”. Clearly, if the vendor is not extremely careful and mindful of ethical behavior among their teams, you can get seriously skewed views between perceived risk and real-world risk, again primarily motivated by the need to find issues to make the engagement profitable.

In my opinion, let’s stick to plain old value. My organization helps you find and manage your risk. We help you focus on the specific technical vulnerabilities in networks, systems, applications and operations that attackers could exploit to cause you damage. To do this, my company employs security engineers. These deeply skilled experts earn a wage and thus cost money. Our services are based around the idea that the work we do has value. The damages that we prevent from occurring save your company money. Some of that money pays us for our services and thus, we pay our experts. Value. End of story.