Author Archives: Brent Huston

About Brent Huston

I am the CEO of MicroSolved, Inc. and a security evangelist. I have spent the last 20+ years working to make the Internet safer for everyone on a global scale. I believe the Internet has the capability to contribute to the next great leap for mankind, and I want to help make that happen!

Laying the Trap with HoneyPoint Personal Edition & Puppy Linux Live CD

Posted on by
Reply

Recently, I have been capturing quite a bit of attacker probes and malware signatures using a very simple (and cheap) combination of HoneyPoint Personal Edition (HPPE) and a Puppy Linux Live CD. My current setup is using an old Gateway 333MHz Pentium Laptop from the late 90’s!

The beauty of this installation is that it lets me leverage all of the ease of a Live CD with the power and flexibility of HPPE. It also breathes new usefulness into old machines from our grave yard.

So, here is how it works. I first boot the machine from the Puppy Live CD and configure the network card. From my FTP server (or a USB key) I download the binary for HPPE Linux (available to licensed HPPE users by request), the license and my existing config file. That’s it – run the binary and click Start. Now I am set to trap attack probes and malware to my heart’s content!

It really is pretty easy and the new email alerting now built into HPPE allows me to remotely monitor them as well from my iPhone email. This makes a nice, easy, quick way to throw up HoneyPoints without needing a separate console or a centralized monitoring point.

This setup is very useful to me and has even got me thinking about adding a plugin interface to HPPE in future releases. That would essentially give you the power to write custom alerting mechanisms and even fingerprinting tools for attacking systems.

Give this setup a try and be sure to let me know your thoughts on HPPE. As always, MSI really wants to hear your ideas, input and feedback on our work.

Thanks for reading and have fun capturing attack data. Some of this stuff is pretty darn cool! 😉

Incident Reporting & Handling WorkFlows

Posted on by
Reply

I had an interesting conversation with a client today and they are planning to implement a web site that would give their internal employees a centralized resource for looking up how to report security incidents, building/facilities issues, HR problems, policy violations, etc.

They picture this as a web page with a list of phone numbers, intranet applications and other contact mechanisms for their staff to use to report issues. The conversation was around attempting to create a workflow or flowchart for decision making about how to report an issue and how to decide which contact method to use.

I know a few other organizations have created formal incident reporting and such for their employees. Would anyone care to share their decision trees or the like for incident handling and user training around this topic (sanitized, of course!)?

Thanks, in advance, for any insight on this. The client will be monitoring the thread and it may help others as well.

Risk Increase in Laptop Loss with Encryption?

Posted on by
Reply

There has been a bunch of buzz in the last few days about researchers who figured out how to retrieve crypto keys from RAM on stolen laptops. Several analysts have talked about this raising the risk for data loss from laptop theft and some are even questioning the effectiveness of crypto as a control. I think that much of this is hype and will prove to be overblown in the coming months.

First, the attack has some difficulty and knowledge requirements. This essentially makes it equivalent to a forensic technique and as such is well beyond the capabilities of basic attackers. It requires knowledge deeper than an average computer user or power user would possess. While this does not eliminate the risk, it does significantly reduce the pool of attackers capable of exploiting the vulnerability. Further risk reductions could be gained by understanding that the attackers must gain access to the device (what controls are in place for this?, what training have you done on laptop loss control?)  and the device must be in a sleep state or recently powered down (have you taught users to power down laptops completely when removing them from the office or other controlled areas?). Each step in training and additional controls further serves to reduce the risks from this vulnerability.

Vendors are also reacting to the problem. Many are identifying the key management processes in their products and moving to change them in such a way as to make them more effective with this attack in mind. Their results and effectiveness are likely to vary, but at least many of them are trying.

So, while laptop loss remains a potential data theft risk, even with crypto in place, it is likely to remain a manageable and acceptable risk if proper awareness controls are in place. So before you put too much stock in some of the “near panic” FUD levels some security analysts are shouting, step back, take a look at it from a rational risk standpoint and then identify what you can do about it.

This issue again reinforces that there aren’t any silver bullets in security. Nothing is “absolute protection”, even high level math. The only real way to do security is through proper, rational risk management…

Security Team Leadership Matters

Posted on by
Reply

Leading a team of security technicians can be a tough job, but in most corporations the manager of the team must also be an evangelist. The task of leading a security team often requires that the leader have a vision of the goals of the team and is capable of “selling” that vision both to upper management and the user base of the entire organization. Since many teams are led by technicians who have ascended through the ranks, they often have limited understanding of management needs and marketing approaches.

If you are such a security manager, here are a few tips to help you get started. The first one is a quick list of required reading. Leading the team means being a management consultant and an evangelist. To help strengthen or develop these skills, check out a couple of these titles:

The Macintosh Way by Guy Kawasaki – this is the Bible of evangelism from one of the greatest evangelists of the silicon age

The Idea Virus by Seth Godin – this book’s insight is the basis for viral marketing and can be a powerful tool for selling ideas inside of an organization, all of Seth’s work is great and could be helpful

A book about corporate structure and management goals – these are easy to come by and can vary by industry and organization type but a quick Amazon.com search is likely to reveal several that fit the needs

It is essential and critical that security team managers and leaders come up to speed on the needs and goals of management. It should be an immediate goal to learn the style and language of your management team. Only when you can act as a liaison and converse with them on their own terms can you begin the process of “selling” them on the security plan and process. Only when you understand them and have earned their trust can you begin to align security operations with the various lines of business and move further towards adding perceived value to their bottom line.

SQL Worms Continue to Raise Their Ugly Heads

Posted on by
Reply

For the last few weeks I have been watching old versions of SQL attacks, worms and probes continue to circulate around the Internet. For a year or so now, I have continued to be fascinated by the life span of old attacks and worms. I have written a couple of articles about how our HoneyPoints continue to capture both NIMDA and Code Red worm traffic.

The thing about these SQL worms is that their traffic is so large, even today. According to popular sources like ATLAS, they represent nearly 70% of all malicious traffic on the Internet today. 70% is a large number, especially for vulnerabilities that date back to 2002. Here we are more than 5 years later and these threats are still propagating!

Port UDP/1434 is still the most commonly threatened port according to ATLAS, which I find hard to believe. Our HoneyPoint experience shows that ports 25 and 80 are the most frequently attacked, unless you add in the myriad of Windows RPC noise you get on the Windows SMB and RPC ports. Maybe ATLAS does not include spam or PHP probes in their attack statistics?

While I am unsure of the frequency of global 1434 attacks, it is very true that the traffic is still around. Our HoneyPoints often detect Slammer worm activity and illicit SQL probes from the Internet. These probes originate from all around the world and no particular region seems to emerge as the most common, though we should study these frequency statistics more deeply when time allows.

But what of targets? How many SQL server instances are still exposed to the raw Internet? Our assessment technicians say they almost never run into one in corporate environments today. I suppose that they still exist in more than a few cable modem or other systems without proper firewalls, but certainly the availability of SQL services to the raw Internet has to have dwindled to almost none. If that is true, then why all the scanning activity?

I have made a few attempts to backtrack hosts that perform the scans and at first blush many show the signs of common bot-net infections. Most are not running exposed SQL themselves, so that means that the code has likely been implemented into many bot-net exploitation frameworks. Perhaps the bot masters have the idea that when they infiltrate a commercial network, the SQL exploits will be available and useful to them? My assessment team says this is pretty true. Even today, they find blank “sa” passwords and other age old SQL issues inside major corporate clients. So perhaps, that is why these old exploits continue to thrive.

In either case, significant efforts should be made to reduce or eliminate these older vulnerabilities and to remove them from our current threats that we face today. So long as we have this noisy attack traffic from the past circulating, it makes it even harder for us to focus on emerging threats and risks that affect our Internet facing systems today. It is simply one more set of alerts, log entries and intrusion deception emails to sort through…

Three Examples of Thinking Differently About InfoSec

Posted on by
Reply

Today, I am putting my money where my mouth is. I have been talking about thinking differently about infosec as being a powerful tool in the future for several months now, but here are three concrete examples of how security folks need to think differently than they do today. (Note that some of you may have already begun to embrace these ideas – if so, awesome, you are ahead of the curve!)

#1 – Think like attackers AND defenders – We as infosec folks often get so caught up in our statements of ethics, credos and agreements about behavior that we get trapped inside them and become blind to the methods and ways of attackers. Many security folks I meet have taken such steps to distance themselves from attackers and they often show utter disdain for attackers, tools and techniques that they are essentially blind to the way attackers think. This is a dangerous paradox. If you don’t understand your opposition, you have no way of being effective in measuring your defensive capabilities. If you can’t think like an attacker, maneuver like an attacker and understand that they are not bound by the rules that you attempt to impose on them – then you will likely have little success in defending your organization against them. To better defend our assets, we have to be able and willing to understand our enemies. We have to have a realistic knowledge and capability to replicate, at the very least, their basic tools, techniques and attitudes. Otherwise, we are simply guessing at their next move. Essentially without insight and understanding, we are playing the “security lottery” in hopes of hitting the big defensive jackpot!

#2 – Deeper defenses are better defenses – We must extend defense in depth beyond an organizational approach to a data-centric approach. The closer to the data the controls are implemented, the more likely they are to be able to add security to the core critical data. (Of course, normal rationality applies here. The controls have to be rational, effective and properly implemented and managed – as always!) This is why security mechanisms like enclaving, data classification and eventually tagging are the future of enterprise security. If we start to think about our security postures, deployments and architectures with these ideas in mind today, we will be able to leverage them in their present state and eventually gain the maximum from them when they are fully ready for integration.

#3 – Think risk, not compliance – I am going to continue to talk about this, no matter how much heat I get from the “compliance guru set”. Striving for compliance with various regulations or standards is striving for the minimum. Guidance, regulations and law are meant to be the MINIMUM BASELINE for the work we need to do to separate liability from negligence.  Compliance is a milestone, not a goal. Effective understanding and management of risk is the goal. Don’t be deceived by the “compliance guru set’s” argument that meeting baselines if effective risk management. It is NOT. Regulatory compliance, ISO/PCI compliance pays little attention to and has little management for attacker techniques like vulnerability chaining, management/analysis of cascading failures or zero-day/black swan (Thanks, Alex!) evolutionary capabilities. This step requires upper management education and awareness as well, since those that control the budgets must come to see compliance as a mile marker and not the end of the race ribbon!

I hope this helps folks understand more about what I am saying when I assert than in 2008, we have to think differently if we want infosec to improve. Of course, thought has to precede action, but action is also required if we are going to change things. What is clear, from the problems of 2007 and further back, is that what we are doing now is NOT WORKING. It should be very clear to all infosec practitioners that we are losing the race between us at attackers!

Bandwagon Blog: Why Isn’t Compliance & Regulation Working?!?

Posted on by
Reply

Everyone else seems to be blogging about it, so why not a “me too” blog from a different angle?

The main security questions people seem to be asking over the last few days are “Why are data theft and compromise rates souring? I thought that regulations like GLBA, HIPAA, various state laws, PCI DSS and all the other myriad of new rules, guidelines and legislation were going to protect us?”

The answers to these questions are quite complex, but a few common answers might get us a little farther in the discussion. Consider these points of view as you debate amongst yourselves and with your CIO/COO/CEO and Board of Directors in the coming months.

What if compliance becomes another mechanism for “doing the minimum”? The guidance and legal requirements are meant to be minimums. They are the BASELINES for a reason. They are not the end-all, be-all of infosec. Being compliant does not remove all risk of incidents, it merely reduces risk to a level where it should be manageable for an average organization. This absolutely does NOT mean, “have some vendor certify us as compliant and then we are OK.” That’s my problem with compliance driven security – it often leaves people striving for the minimum. But, the minimum security posture is a dangerous security posture in many ways. Since threats constantly evolve, new risks continually emerge and attackers create new methods on an hourly basis – compliance WILL NOT EVER replace vigilance, doing the right thing and driving defense in depth deep into our organizations. Is your organization guilty of seeing compliance as the finish line instead of a mile marker?

Not all vendors “do the right thing”. Vendors (myself included) need to sell products and services to survive. Some (myself NOT included) will do nearly anything to make this happen. They will confuse customers with hype, misleading terminology or just plain lie to sell their wares. For example, there are some well known PCI scanning vendors who never seem to fail their clients. Ask around, they are easy to find. If your organization is interested in doing the minimum and would rather pass an assessment than ensure that your client data is minimally protected, give them a call. They will be happy to send you a passing letter in return for a check. Another example of this would be the “silver bullet technology” vendors that will happily sell their clients the latest whiz-bang appliance or point solution for fixing an existing security need, rather than helping clients find holistic, manageable security solutions that make their organization’s security posture stronger instead of the vendor richer….

Additionally, many compliance issues reinforce old thinking. They focus on perimeter-centric solutions, even as the perimeter crumbles and is destroyed by disruptive technologies. Since regulations, laws and guidance are often much slower to adjust to changes than Internet-time based attackers and techniques, the compliance driven organization NEVER really catches up with the current threats. They spend all of their time, money and resources focused on building security postures and implementing controls that are often already ineffective due to attacker evolutions.

Lastly, I would reinforce  that there are still many organizations out there that just simply will not “do the right thing”. They believe that profit surpasses the need to protect their assets and/or client data. They do not spend resources on real security mechanisms, fail to leverage technologies appropriately, remain careless with policy and processes and do little in terms of security awareness. There are a lot of these organizations around, in nearly every industry. They do security purely by reaction – if they have an incident, they handle that specific issue, then move on. Since consumer apathy is high, they have little to no incentive to change their ways. The only way to enhance the security of these folks is when everyday buyers become less apathetic and veto insecure organizations with their spending. All else will fall short of causing these organizations to change.

So there you have it. A few reasons why regulation is not working. I guess the last one I would leave you with comes from my 16+ years in the industry – good security is hard work. It takes dedication, vigilance, attention to detail, creative AND logical thinking and an ability to come to know the enemy. Good security, far beyond compliance, is just plain tough. It costs money. It is rarely recognized for its value and is always easier to “do the minimum” or nothing at all…

0wned By a Picture Frame & Other Digital Errata

Posted on by
Reply

First it was Trojan firmware on network routers, firewalls and other network appliances. That was followed by attackers installing trojans and malware on USB keys and then dumping them back into those sale bins by the registers. Now, SANS is reporting that a number of digital picture frames sold by retailers were pre-infected with malware, just waiting to be mounted on a PC during the picture loading process.

As we have been predicting in the State of the Threat presentations for more than a year, the attackers have found new and insidious ways to turn the newest and seemingly most benign technologies into platforms of attack. Now that just about everything from refrigerators to washing machines and from toasters to picture frames have memory, CPU and connectivity – the vectors for malware introduction and propagation are becoming logarithmically more available. As computers, mesh networks and home automation continue to merge, we have to think differently about risk, threats and vulnerabilities.

Until we as security folks can get our head around overall strategies for securing the personal networks and tools we become more dependent upon each day, we have to rely on point tactics like wiping drives when we get them, reloading firmware on all devices – even new ones – from trusted vendor sources and doing the basics to secure home and business networks and systems. Hopefully, one day soon, we can build better, more proactive solutions like integrated hashing, malware identification and other mechanisms for alerting users to basic tampering with our devices. While we geeks are getting the wired world we always dreamed of, we are learning all too quickly that it comes with some unexpected risk…

Commentary on Security Assessment/PCI Scanning RFP Processes

Posted on by
Reply

Since MSI is a PCI scanning vendor, we are often included in various RFP/RFQ processes for the purchase of network scanning and assessment services. Over the last couple of years, one problem continually seems to raise its ugly head in RFP after RFP.

That issue is the lack of clarity in the RFP. Usually, the RFP issuer does not want to clarify the number of systems, applications, IP addresses or other relevant materials to the vendors. They want to keep that information private until after they award a contract. Below is a response I wrote this morning to a particular RFP issuer who is following this same pattern. Please read it and feel free to comment on the process, my response or any other items. I truly believe that only through communication, debate and eventual education can we find ways to take the customer and vendor pain out of these processes. Here is what I wrote in response to their posting about not wanting to reveal the number of IP addresses, except to the winner after the contract is awarded:

*Paste*

While I appreciate your process, I would suggest to you that your approach is not likely to achieve the best value for your organization.

Since you are choosing not to disclose the number of IP addresses to be assessed until after the winner is chosen, you essentially remove the very metric that the majority of scanning vendors use to create pricing models.

Thus, you force vendors to either respond with an hourly rate, or you force them to estimate the work and resources required. There is a risk to them and you in this estimation process. Their risk is that they could under estimate, thus causing themselves undue financial burdens. Your risk is that they will consistently overestimate, thus raising the prices that you get for a comparison and increasing the overall cost of the services you receive.

Of course, another possibility exists – that some vendors with ethical issues might respond to your lack of information by attempting to footprint your network and IP spaces to gather the relevant information themselves. Depending on their skills, tools and moral compass could cause a myriad of problems ranging from network congestion to denial of service attacks (inadvertent) as the various vendors who fit this model identify and map your visible Internet presence.

In our experience, the more information and clarity you can achieve in your requests for pricing information, the better. The clearer the scope of work, the more focused and relevant the responses will be and the more “real world” the costs. In every situation where we have seen prospects use the RFP process as a veil, the resulting engagements are damaged by scope creep, misunderstandings, miscommunications and higher than average costs in money AND relevant resources.

The most often quoted reason for RFP ambiguity that we have heard over the last 15 years is that the issuer did not want to “expose details to attackers”. After more than a decade and a half in this business, I have learned from experience that attackers already have exposure information. If they want it, they will simply map the network and gather it. They will also do so in ways that have little to no respect for your business processes, customer uptime commitments, maintenance schedules and other potential impacts to your business.

All of this said, again I respect your process and your right to proceed however you choose. Perhaps your intentions or requirements are not as presented above – which is fine. I simply wanted to address RFP/RFQ processes at large and I hope this information sparks discussion and comment among vendors and end-customers of security services alike.

*End Paste*

I went on to thank them for their inclusion in the process and to invite them to comment on this blog about the content. I hope they, and others do so. Please let me know your thoughts on this and other issues around RFP ambiguity. I would love to create a discussion between both vendors and customers about their ideas and feelings on the process!

** Reminder ** – New Systems Should Be Patched Before Use

Posted on by
Reply

Please remind teens, kids and adults who might receive computers for the holidays this year to patch them before general use. They should ensure that software and network firewalls are in place before connecting them to ANY network.

They should also ensure that they have anti-malware software that is up to date for any and all operating systems (even Linux and OS X) and that they follow other general guidelines of safe computing.

Remember, fight the urge to save the safety speech for another time. If the system gets compromised while they are using it for a test drive – being safe later will likely not help them be protected against bots, identity theft and other illicit computing dangers. It only takes one moment of exposure to compromise the system on an irreparable scale.

Happy and safe holidays to everyone. Have a joyous, peaceful and wonderful holiday season!