Friday Summary: June 22, 2012

I have been wanting to write a bunch of blog posts for the last few weeks. No, not the heavy research work we have been in up to our eyeballs, but about some of the strange and interesting stuff currently been reported. We used to do a lot more commentary and I miss it. I have a little time this Friday, so I though I would comment on a few of the past week’s articles I think warrant discussion – in many ways as interesting for what was not discussed. Here we go: The first was Google saying that the Internet is a Dangerous Place. OK. Why? Actually, “Why Now?” is a better question – Google has been making a lot of noise lately about security and privacy. I have been getting a dozen or so Google Safe Browsing warnings when visiting web sites, where Safe Browsing has supposedly detected ‘malicious’ or unreliable content. The problem is that every single one of the alerts was bogus! If you look at the details of why Safe Browsing thinks the site is bad, you ll find that all the checks Google lists were passed without detecting any unusual certificates, scripts or content. Take a look at the JavaScript or anything else in the page source, and everything looks sound. I instinctively tend to agree with Google’s assertion, but when I look at the basis for their claim, my own experience with Safe Browsing’s complete unreliability makes me question its validity. I don’t think their assertions are based on solid data. Amrit Williams made a similar tweet a couple weeks ago, saying “Chrome should just be called ‘Warning: We believe state-sponsored attackers may be attempting to compromise your account or computer.’”, and The New York Times ran an article on the same subject. My problem is not that I believe or disbelieve the existence of state sponsored censorship, but I don’t understand the recent hype. It appears to be all FUD, but what is the point? Why is Google being so noisy about security and data integrity? The cynic in me believes that they must be positioning security as a value add, or possibly looking for a legal angle to keep data pure – otherwise why the sudden clamor for attention? Which leads to the second post I found very interesting, on Bruce Schneier’s site, called Apple Patents Data-Poisoning. It appears that the US Patent and Trademark Office believed that poisoning profile data was novel and granted Apple’s patent request. In 2004/2005 I used to provide prospective customers for database activity monitoring a demo script to run against competitive products. The script would simply push SQL queries to both real and non-existent databases over the network. None of the queries would execute successfully because they we not actually part of an active database session. But competitors’ network monitors only looked for SQL queries on any known database port – without regard for whether they were actually going to a database – the monitor would capture all this fake activity. I could poison competitors’ logs with bogus activity, or flood it with false positives. It was a terribly effective way to demonstrate how early database monitoring products that watched network activity sucked. But I would never have tried to patent that idea – it feels like trying to patent network packets: good packets and bad packets are just normal network traffic. Similarly I would not patent my attempts to create “False Adrian” by showing non-random but totally bogus interest in products or services to see what sort of anti-profile I can create, a hobby I have been experimenting with on and off since 2006. This seems like a patent awarded for “urinating on the floor”, or anything else that occurs naturally but fails to identify genuine user intent. From an intellectual property standpoint, I hate to think someone could patent something like this. But from a product standpoint, if Google (and other marketing firms) surreptitiously capturing all your activity for profit pisses you off, would you buy an Apple product that poisons your activity trail? I would. A cloud based iRandomizer for browser traffic over an encrypted tunnel would be ideal! Finally, a post on MSNBC said some hacked firms are “fighting back” by hacking the hackers. Forgive me, but ‘Cloudstrike’ has a very Team America feel to it; well-intentioned but wide of the mark. First, there is a big difference between “active defense” and “strike-back” capabilities. Active defense is not an attack against hackers – it is an active scan of activities on the Internet for clues that someone is, or is about to, launch an attack against your site. Something like the CIA or NSA gathering intelligence to detect someone plotting a terrorist attack. Some large firms use this type of service for advance notice, and they hope to get an early start on their response, whatever it is. But “strike back” capabilities are totally different, and the goal of damaging an alleged attacker would certainly be outside the law. I doubt any of these plans will be effective – the New School blog raises the same question in Active Defense: Show Me the Money. The concept seems well intentioned – some of you are probably unaware that a handful of recent electronic attacks against major companies have been accompanied by physical threats against employees. So I get the desire to induce the same fear in hackers, but it seems unlikely to work, and it’s definitely illegal. Really, you can either locate the attacker(s) or you can’t, but if you can you have a good possibility of scaring them with law enforcement. Otherwise you’re pretty much out of luck. I know some attacked firms have conducted reconnaissance and analysis to help law enforcement locate the attacker, but that seems like the reasonable limit of effectiveness for counter-strike computer security. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Rich quoted on the Security Generation Gap. Mike quoted on the “Renaissance Information

Read Post

Thoughts on Active Defense, Intrusion Deception, and Counterstrikes

Earlier this week Joseph Menn published a confusing article over at Reuters that conflated “active defense” with “strike back” technologies. As Chris Hoff said on Twitter: “active defense” is not the same as “strike back.” The first sentence is a bullshit premise. Active defense, deception, and counterattacks are things I have been interested in for a long time. The principles aren’t new – just go read the Cuckoo’s Egg – but we are seeing a small revival as the nature of attackers cycles back to data theft from the decade-plus distraction of website defacements and low-end phishing & malware. Mike and I talk a lot about reacting faster and better (see React Faster and Better: New Approaches for Advanced Incident Response). As is now being recognized more broadly, no security toolset can eliminate successful attacks, so we need to focus just as heavily on incident response. The problem? We generally lack mechanisms to identify the attacks that our tools miss. I wrote in Force Attacker Perfection that we can put in more barriers and monitors to increase our chances of detecting an attack. But my premise was a bit flawed – we still need some sort of trigger to identify real attacks, with far fewer false positives than we have come to accept from our tools. No one has time to look through every SIEM or IDS alert on a day to day basis, never mind logs. One way around this is to implement active defenses, honeypots, and tripwires. To avoid Menn’s mistake, here are some possible definitions we can work with: Active defense: Altering your environment and system responses dynamically based on the activity of potential attackers, to both frustrate attacks and more definitively identify actual attacks. Try to tie up the attacker and gain more information on them without engaging in offensive attacks yourself. A rudimentary example is throwing up an extra verification page when someone tries to leave potential blog spam, all the way up to tools like Mykonos that deliberately screw with attackers to waste their time and reduce potential false positives. Intrusion deception: Pollute your environment with false information designed to frustrate attackers. You can also instrument these systems/datum to identify attacks. DataSoft Nova is an example of this. Active defense engages with attackers, while intrusion deception can also be more passive. Honeypots & tripwires: Purely passive (and static) tools with false information designed to entice and identify an attacker. Counterstrike: Attack the attacker by engaging in offensive activity that extends beyond your perimeter. These aren’t exclusive – Mykonos also uses intrusion deception, while Nova can also use active defense. The core idea is to leave things for attackers to touch, and instrument them so you can identify the intruders. Except for counterattacks, which move outside your perimeter and are legally risky. You don’t need to be highly advanced to implement some of these ideas, and you certainly don’t necessarily need products. We are starting to integrate some of these concepts into our environment, and doing so creatively with no real budget. But my biggest fear isn’t being attacked, or even breached – I worry about finding out on Pastebin or in the morning news. I know I can’t keep all attackers out, and I can’t review our forensic logs every day, and I know that no signature-based tool can detect everything, so my only choice is to drop some tripwires to hopefully figure out when someone makes it in. I’m not saying my definitions are canonical – and they need work – but it’s important to distinguish between passive deception, active deception/defense, and offensive activity. 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.