Stop Using Internet Explorer 7 (For Now), Or Deploy Workarounds

There is an unpatched vulnerability for Internet Explorer 7 being actively exploited in the wild. The details are public, so any bad guy can take advantage of this. It’s a heap overflow in the XML parser, for you geeks out there. It affects all current versions of Windows. Microsoft issued an advisory with workarounds that prevent exploitation: Set Internet and Local intranet security zone settings to “High” to prompt before running ActiveX Controls and Active Scripting in these zones. Configure Internet Explorer to prompt before running Active Scripting or to disable Active Scripting in the Internet and Local intranet security zone. Enable DEP for Internet Explorer 7. Use ACL to disable OLEDB32.DLL. Unregister OLEDB32.DLL. Disable Data Binding support in Internet Explorer 8. Share:

Read Post

Friday Summary: 12-12-2008

When I was little, I remember seeing an interview on television of a Chicago con man who made his living by scheming people out of their money. Back when the term was in vogue, the con man was asked to define what a ‘Hustle’ was. His reply was “Get get as much as you can, as fast as you can for as little as you can”. December is the month when the hustlers come to my neighborhood. I live in a remote area where most of the roads are dirt, and the houses are far apart, so we never see foot traffic unless it is December. And every year at this time the con men, hucksters, and thieves come around, claiming they are selling some item or collecting for some charity. Today was an example, but our con man was collecting for a dubious sounding college fund dressed as a Mormon missionary, which was not a recipe for success. Rich had a visitor this week claiming to be a student from ASU, going door to door for bogus charity efforts. Last year’s prize winner at my place was a guy with a greasy old spray bottle, half-filled with water and Pinesol, claiming he was selling a new miracle cleaning product. He was more interested in looking into the windows of the houses, and we guess he was casing places to rob during Christmas as he neither had order forms nor actual product to sell. Kind of a tip off, one which gets my neighbors riled enough to point firearms. The good hustlers know all the angles, have a solid cover story & reasonable fake credentials, and dress for the part. And they are successful as there are plenty of trusting people out there, and hustlers work hard at finding ways to exploit your trust. If you read this blog, you know most of the good hustlers are not walking door to door, they work the Internet, extending their reach, reducing their risk, and raising their payday. All they need are a few programming skills and a little creativity. I was not surprised by the McDonald’s phish scam this week, for no other reason than that I expect it this time of year. The implied legitimacy of a URL coupled with a logo is a powerful way to leverage recognition and trust. Sprinkle in the lure of an easy $75, and you have enough to convince some to enter their credit card numbers for no good reason. This type of scam is not hard to do, as this mini How-To discussion on GNUCitizen shows how simple psychological sleight-of-hand , when combined with a surfjacking attack, is an effective method of distracting even educated users from noticing what is going on. If you want to give your non-technical relatives an inexpensive gift this holiday season, help them stay safe online. On a positive note I have finally created a Twitter account this month. Yeah, yeah, keep the Luddite jokes to yourself. Never really interested in talking about what I am doing at any given moment, but I confess I am actually enjoying it; both for meeting people and as an outlet to share some of the bizarre %!$@ I see on any given week. Here is the week’s security summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences: On the Network Security Podcast this week, with Martin in absentia, Rich and Chris Hoff discuss CheckFree, Microsoft, and EMC, plus a few other topics of interest. Chris makes some great points about outbound proxies and security about halfway through, and how it would be great to have bookmarks into these podcasts so we can fast forward when he goes off on some subject no one is interested in. Worth a listen! Favorite Securosis Posts: Rich: Is it too narcissistic to pick my own post? How the Cloud Destroys Everything I Love (About Web Application Security). Adrian: As it encapsulates the program we are working on and I am happy with the content overall, Part 4: The Web Application Lifecycle. Favorite Outside Posts: Adrian: And not because the title was one of my favorite Monty Python skits, this discussion was a very interesting give and take on Pen Testing on Rich: A two parter from me. First, Amrit on Amazon AWS security. Then, Hoff on virtualized network security in the cloud. Top News and Posts: A 50 BILLION dollar Ponzi scheme? How does this go unnoticed? The Automaker bail-out dies in the Senate. Hack A Day provided nice coverage on the WordPress update. Koobface worm targets MySpace and other social networking sites. This is the future of malware, folks. An Internet Explorer 7 0day on Windows XP is being exploited in the wild. Anton has a must read short post on HIPAA. HP and Symantec lose unencrypted laptops. Both companies are in the process of deploying encryption, but too late for these incidents. Blog Comment of the Week: Skott on our Building a Web Application Security Program series (too long for the entire comment, here’s the best bit): Tools and plain old testing are going to run into the same void without risk analysis (showing what’s valuable) and policy (defining what needs to be done for everything that’s valuable). Without them, you’re just locking the front door and leaving the windows, and oh, by the way, you probably forgot to put on the roof. Share:

Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.