Securosis

Research

Untargeted Attack

I was perplexed by the wording of many initial reports on the recent attacks ‘against’ Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft. Sure, maybe they were targeted, but it seems just as likely that the attackers just picked popular developer sites and harvested some big fish. That is the essence of a a good piece at securityledger: Rather, the wide net of watering hole web sites pulled in employees from organizations across a broad swath of the U.S. economy, say those with knowledge of the incident. That has made the operation look more like a fishing expedition than a narrowly focused operation.   Developers are typically soft targets, with extensive access to internal resources. In this case I would bet that most Mac-based developers have Java enabled in their browsers. As a former dev myself, they spend a lot of time in various fora with crappy security and which are thus prone to compromise. I still spend a lot of time on those sites, but I am probably more careful than most devs or admins. Developers and administrators are in jobs that require deep access to sensitive resources, more control over their own systems, and a larger software attack surface (Java is essential for managing certain systems and platforms); but they aren’t necessarily more secure than average users, beyond basic attacks. Targeting job roles rather than organizations seems like a good strategy. Hit something popular enough within the development or admin communities, and the odds are very good that you will gain access to a variety of prime targets. No one works in a vacuum. Image: a real watering hole, with a croc you can’t see. Took this one myself in Africa. He/she wasn’t hungry that day. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Email-based Threat Intelligence: Analyzing the Phish Food Chain

As we discussed in Industrial Phishing Tactics, phishing is a precursor to many attacks in the wild. Phishing attacks are designed to get victims to click something, then to share the victim’s account credentials and download malware; and of course they leave a trail like everything else. Following that trail can help you prioritize remediation activities, identify adversaries, and ultimately take action to protect both your environment and your customers. But first you must be able to analyze the email to identify the patterns to look for. And that requires a lot of email – a whole lot. Sampling all the phish in the sea Email-based threat intelligence entails analyzing scads of spam emails using Big Data Analytics. You didn’t think we’d be able to resist that buzzword, did you? Of course not! But whether you call it big data or just “a lot of data,” the first step in implementing an email-based threat intelligence program is to aggregate as much email as you can. Which brings up a reasonable question: where do you get that kind of email? If you are a private enterprise it can be hard. There are various spam archives available on the Internet (Google is your friend), but not many fresh ones. Alternatively, you could establish partnerships with email service providers, who tend to have millions of blocked emails from internal spam filters lying around. Another source would be other consumer brands – perhaps some of them would be willing to swap. You give them a copy your spam mailbox in exchange for theirs. Besides the email addresses, there isn’t likely to be sensitive data in obvious spam, so this shouldn’t trip the general security aversion to sharing data. But you will likely need an intelligence feed from a third-party analysis provider. As discussed in both the Early Warning System and Network-based Threat Intelligence (NBTI) research, we see a market emerging for intelligence providers specializing in aggregating and analyzing these data sources. They provide intelligence that can be used by enterprises to shorten the window between attack and detection. Let’s dig into the kinds of intelligence we are looking for in phishing emails, and get back to the metaphor we introduced in the NBTI paper: the Who, What, Where, and When of phishing. Who? Establishing the ‘who’ behind phishing is probably the most important intelligence you can receive. Because a select few highly effective phishers (hundreds, not thousands) are behind many of the attacks you will see in the wild. So the ability to identify the author of attacks can yield all sorts of information, enabling you to profile and analyze your adversaries. Why is adversary analysis important? Motive: Is the phish part of a targeted attack (spear phishing)? Is it part of a widespread attack on a financial institution to harvest account information? Is it to steal intellectual property? Knowing your adversary allows you to determine his/her motives, and thus to more effectively judge the true threat of the attack to your organization. Tactics: Does this phisher use malware extensively? Do they just harvest account information? Is key logging their main technique? Understanding and profiling the adversary can indicate which controls to be implement to ensure protection. Also keep in mind that the ultimate target of the phishing attack is usually your customers, rather than your employees. So this helps you decide whether helping customers protect themselves is a worthwhile expense for you. Capabilities: Finally, isolating your adversary and tracking them over time (as discussed below) provides clues to their capabilities. Do they rely purely on commercial phishing kits? Are they able to package 0-day attacks? Is it something in the middle? The more you know about the attackers, the more effectively you can make decisions about how to react. The ultimate objective of adversary analysis is to more effectively prioritize remediation activities. Knowing who you are dealing with and what they are capable of is key, and can help you determine the urgency of response. What? So how do you find a specific attacker within a corpus of millions of spam and phishing messages? It all comes back to profiles. The links embedded in the phishing messages indicate the locations of phishing sites, and you will see patterns in the domains and IP addresses used in attacks. Working backwards you can analyze the phishing site to determine the attack(s) in use, the tactics and capabilities used, and if you get lucky perhaps the attacker’s identity. This next level of analysis involves looking at ‘what’ the attack does. A key development that made phishing far more accessible to unsophisticated attackers was phishing attack kits. These kits provide everything an attacker needs to launch a phishing campaign – including images, email copy, and specific tactics to capture account credentials. Of course phishing messages still need to evade an organization’s spam filters, but that tends to be reasonably straightforward given that phishing messages should look exactly like legitimate messages. That takes most of the sophisticated content analysis done by anti-spam filters out of play. But these kits leave a trail, in the form of the source code used to install the kit on a compromised server. If you get an actual phishing kit you can analyze it just like any other malware (as discussed ad nauseum in Malware Analysis Quant) for clues to the malware used and what is ultimately done with stolen account credentials – all of which can help identify the attacker’s email. Even better, profiling attack kits enables you to look for similar attack profiles, to identify the attacker far more quickly next time. Given a sufficient corpus of spam and phishing messages, you can mine the data for patterns of IP addresses and domains, to help identify the adversary and assist in identifying appropriate remediations. Where? As described above, phishing messages look like legitimate email, so much of anti-spam filters’ content analysis cannot detect them. But you can (and need to) analyze email headers to figure out where the messages come from, the path they take to your gateway, and for clues in links to phishing sites. That brings

Share:
Read Post

The BYOD problem is what?

In the immortal words of Jay-Z, you’ve got 99 problems but BYOD ain’t one of them. Colin Steele does a good job of putting the BYOD (and broader mobility) situation in proper context in You can’t solve BYOD because it’s not a problem Not a week goes by that I don’t receive a press release or read a news article about some new product or other that “solves BYOD.” Vendors and customers that look at BYOD as a problem to solve, and not an opportunity to take advantage of, are missing the point. There is a lot of truth in that statement. It’s a technology version of “Vendors are from Mars, Customers are from Venus.” Customers want to bitch and vent about things, so vendors think that means they need to solve the problem. Mobility is something all organizations need to deal with, but it’s not something you can ‘fix’ by installing an agent or bolting an appliance into a rack. BYOD is disruptive. It brings challenges. It takes control out of IT’s hands. But these issues are simply the natural fallout from IT’s inability to keep up with users’ technology needs. That is the problem that needs to be solved. Let me highlight the money quote there. “…the natural fallout from IT’s inability to keep up with users’ technology needs.” Yup. But security folks know how this movie ends much better than most other technology disciplines. Employees do what they feel they need to do, whether you like it or not. They will get around your controls. They will skirt your policies. And they will get their jobs done. Of course we don’t advocate a wild west, “do whatever the hell you want,” approach. But it is essential to place mobility in its proper context, which means an acceptance that it is happening. So get on board and work collaboratively with the right folks to apply some reasonable control. Or get run over… Photo credit: “No problems” originally uploaded by Gamma Man Share:

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

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.