Tracking the Syrian Electronic Army

Brian Krebs is digging into the SEA and trying to out individuals: A hacking group calling itself the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA) has been getting an unusual amount of press lately, most recently after hijacking the Web sites of The New York Times and The Washington Post, among others. But surprisingly little light has been shed on the individuals behind these headline-grabbing attacks. Beginning today, I’ll be taking a closer look at this organization, starting with one of the group’s core architects. He’s just getting started, and his techniques wouldn’t stand forensic or legal scrutiny, but are still very interesting. Very similar to the stuff Mandiant dug up on Chinese hackers. Everyone leaves tracks. Everyone. Share:

Read Post

Firewall Management Essentials: Introduction [New Series]

It starts right there in PCI-DSS Requirement 1. Install and maintain a firewall configuration to protect cardholder data. Since it’s the first requirement, firewalls must be important, right? Not that PCI is the be all, end all of security goodness, but it does represent the low bar of controls you should have in place to defend against attackers. As the line of first defense on a network, it’s the firewall’s job to enforce a set of access policies that dictate what traffic should be allowed to pass. It’s basically the traffic cop on your network, as well as acting as a segmentation point between separate networks. Given the compliance mandates and the fact that firewalls have been around for over 20 years, they are a mature technology which every company has installed. It may be called an access router or UTM, but it provides firewall functionality. The firewalls run on a set of rules that basically define what ports, protocols, networks, users, and increasingly applications, can do on your network. And just like a closet in your house, if you don’t spend time sorting through old stuff it can become a disorganized mess, with a bunch of things you haven’t used in years and don’t need any more. That metaphor fits your firewall rule base – when we talk to security administrators and they admit (often in a whisper) to having thousands of firewall rules, many of which haven’t been looked at in years. The problem is that, like your closet, this issue just gets worse if you put off addressing the issue. And it’s not like rule bases are static. You have new requests coming in to open this port or allow that group of users to do something new or different pretty much every day. The situation can get out of control quickly, especially as you increase the number of devices in use. That creates significant operational and security problems, including: Attack Surface Impact: When a change request comes in, how many administrators actually do some work to figure out whether the change would create any additional attack surface or contradict existing rules? Probably not enough, so firewall management – first and foremost – must maintain the integrity of the protection the firewall provides. Performance Impact: Every extra rule in the rule base means the firewall may need to do another check on every packet that comes through, so more rules impact device the performance. Keep in mind that the order of your rule set also matters, as the sooner you can block a packet, the less rules you will have to check, so the rules should be structured to eliminate connections as quickly as possible. Verification: If a change was made, was it made correctly? Even if the change is legitimate and your operational team is good there will still be human errors. So another problem with firewall management at scale is verifying each change. Weak Workflow and Nonexistent Authorization: What happens when you receive a rule change? Do you have a way to ensure each change request is legit? Or do you do everything via 10 year old forms and/or email? Do you have an audit trail to track who asked for the change and why? Can you generate documentation to show why each change was made? If you can’t it is probably an issue, because your auditor is going to need to see substantiation. Scale: The complexity of managing any operational device increases exponentially with every new device you add. Firewalls are no exception. If you have a dozen or more devices, odds are you have an unwieldy situation with inconsistent rules creating security exposure. Heterogeneity: Many enterprises use multiple firewall vendors, which makes it even more difficult to enforce consistent rules across a variety of devices. As with almost everything else in technology, innovation adds a ton of new capabilities but increases operational challenges. The new shiny object in the firewall space is the Next-Generation Firewall (NGFW). At a very high level, NGFWs add the capability to define and enforce policies at the *application( layer. That means you can finally build a rule more granular than ALLOW port 80 traffic – instead defining which specific web-based applications are permitted. Depending on the application you can also restrict specific behaviors within an application. For example you might allow use of Facebook walls but block Facebook chat. You can enforce polices for users and groups, as well as certain content rules (we call this DLP Lite). The NGFW is definitely not your grand-pappy’s firewall, which means they dramatically complicate firewall policy management. But network security is going through a period of consolidation. Traditionally separate functions such as IPS and web filtering are making their way onto a consolidated platform that we call the Perimeter Security Gateway (PSG). Yup, add more functions to the device and you increase policy complexity – making it all the more important to maintain solid operational discipline when managing these devices. In any sizable organization the PSG rule base will be difficult to manage manually. Automation is critical to improving speed, accuracy, and effectiveness of these devices. We are happy to get back to our network security roots and documenting our research on the essentials of managing firewalls. This research is relevant both to classical firewalls and PSGs. In Firewall Management Essentials we will cover the major areas of managing your installed base of firewalls. Here is our preliminary plan for posts in the series: Automating Change: Firewall management comes down to effectively managing exceptions in a way that provides proper authorization for each change, evaluating each one to ensure security is maintained (including ensuring new attack paths are not introduced), auditing all changes, and rolling back in the event of a problem. Optimizing Performance: Once the change management process is in place, the next step is to keep the rule set secure and optimized. We will discuss defining the network topology and identifying ingress and egress points to help prioritize rule sets, and point out potential weaknesses in security posture. Managing Access: With a strong change control process and optimized

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.