A Different Take on the Defense Contractor/RSA Breach Miasma

I have been debating writing anything on the spate of publicly reported defense contractor breaches. It’s always risky to talk about breaches when you don’t have any direct knowledge about what’s going on. And, to be honest, unless your job is reporting the news it smells a bit like chasing a hearse. But I have been reading the stories, and even talking to some reporters (to give them background info – not pretending I have direct knowledge). The more I read, and the more I research, the more I think the generally accepted take on the story is a little off. The storyline appears to be that RSA was breached, seed tokens for SecurID likely lost, and those were successfully used to attack three major defense contractors. Also, the generic term “hackers” is used instead of directly naming any particular attacker. I read the situation somewhat differently: I do believe RSA was breached and seeds lost, which could allow that attacker to compromise SecurID if they also know the customer, serial number of the token, PIN, username, and time sync of the server. Hard, but not impossible. This is based on the information RSA has released to their customers (the public pieces – again, I don’t have access to NDA info). In the initial release RSA stated this was an APT attack. Some people believe that simply means the attacker was sophisticated, but the stricter definition refers to one particular country. I believe Art Coviello was using the strict definition of APT, as that’s the definition used by the defense and intelligence industries which constitute a large part of RSA’s customer base. By all reports, SecurIDs were involved in the defense contractor attacks, but Lockheed in particular stated the attack wasn’t successful and no information was lost. If we tie this back to RSA’s advice to customers (update PINs, monitor SecurID logs for specific activity, and watch for phishing) it is entirely reasonable to surmise that Lockheed detected the attack and stopped it before it got far, or even anywhere at all. Several pieces need to come together to compromise SecurID, even if you have the customer seeds. The reports of remote access being cut off seem accurate, and are consistent with detecting an attack and shutting down that vector. I’d do the same thing – if I saw a concerted attack against my remote access by a sophisticated attacker I would immediately shut it down until I could eliminate that as a possible entry point. Only the party which breached RSA could initiate these attacks. Countries aren’t in the habits of sharing that kind of intel with random hackers, criminals, or even allies. These breach disclosures have a political component, especially in combination with Google revealing that they stopped additional attacks emanating from China. These cyberattacks are a complex geopolitical issue we have discussed before. The US administration just released an international strategy for cybersecurity. I don’t think these breaches would have been public 3 years ago, and we can’t ignore the political side when reading the reports. Billions – many billions – are in play. In summary: I do believe SecurID is involved, I don’t think the attacks were successful, and it’s only prudent to yank remote access and swap out tokens. Politics are also heavily in play and the US government is deeply involved, which affects everything we are hearing, from everybody. If you are an RSA customer you need to ask yourself whether you are a target for international espionage. All SecurID customers should change out PINs, inform employees to never give out information about their tokens, and start looking hard at logs. If you think you’re on the target list, look harder. And call your RSA rep. But the macro point to me is whether we just crossed a line. As I wrote a couple months ago, I believe security is a self-correcting system. We are never too secure because that’s more friction than people will accept. But we are never too insecure (for long at least) because society stops functioning. If we look at these incidents in the context of the recent Mac Defender hype, financial attacks, and Anonymous/Lulz events, it’s time to ask whether the pain is exceeding our thresholds. I don’t know the answer, and I don’t think any of us can fully predict either the timing or what happens next. But I can promise you that it doesn’t translate directly into increased security budgets and freedom for us security folks to do whatever we want. Life is never so simple. 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.