Securosis

Research

Reminder- There Are No Trusted Sites

Just a short, friendly reminder that there is no such thing as a trusted website anymore, as demonstrated by BusinessWeek. We continue to see trusted websites breached, and rather than leaving a little graffiti on the site the attackers now use that as a platform to attack browsers. It’s one reason I use FireFox with NoScript and only enable the absolute minimum to get a site running. Share:

Share:
Read Post

The Fallacy of Complete and Accurate Risk Quantification

Wow. The American taxpayer now owns AIG. Does that mean I can get a cheap rate? The economic events of the past few days transitioned the months-long saga of financial irresponsibility past merely sturn ing into the realm of truly terrifying. We’ve leaped past the predictable into a maelstrom of uncertainty edging on a black hole of unknowable repercussions. True, the system could stabilize soon; allowing us to rebuild before the shock waves topple the relatively stable average family. But right now it seems the global economy is so convoluted we’re all moving forward like a big herd navigating K2 in a blinding snowstorm with the occasional avalanche. Yeah, I’m scared. Frightened and furious that, yet again, the group think of the financial community placed the future of my family at risk. That we, as taxpayers, will have to bail them out like Chrysler in the 70’s, and the savings and loan institutions of the 80’s. That, in all likelihood, no one responsible for the decisions will be held accountable and they will all go back to lives of luxury. One lesson I’m already taking to heart is that I believe these events are disproving the myth of the reliability of risk management in financial services. On the security side, we often hold up financial services as the golden child of risk management. In that world, nearly everything is quantifiable, especially with credit and market risk (operational is always a bit more fuzzy). Complex equations and tables feed intelligent risk decisions that allow financial institutions to manage their risk portfolios while maximizing profitability. All backed by an insurance industry, also using big math, big heads, and big computers; capable of accepting and distributing the financial impact of point failures. But we are witnessing the failure of that system of risk management on an epic scale. Much of our financial system revolves around risk- distributing, transferring, and quantifying risk to fuel the economy. The simplest savings and loan bank is nothing more than a risk management tool. It provides a safe haven for our assets, and in return is allowed to use those assets for it’s own profitability. Banks make loans and charge interest. They do this knowing a certain percentage of those loans will default, and using risk models decide which are safest, which are riskiest, and what interest rate to charge based on that level of risk. It’s just a form of gambling, but one where they know the odds. We, the banks customers, are protected from bad decisions through a combination of diversification (spreading the risk, rather than just one big loan to one big customer), and insurance (the FDIC here in the US). It’s a system that’s failed before; once spectacularly (the Depression), and again in the 80’s, but overall works well. Thus we have empirical proof that even the simplest form of financial risk management can fail. Fast forward to today. Our system is infinitely more complex than a simple S&L; interconnected in ways that we now know no one completely understands. But we do know some of the failures: Risk ratings firms knowingly under-rated risks to avoid losing the business of financial firms wanting to make those investments. Insurance firms, like AIG, backed these complex financial tools without fully understanding them. Financial firms themselves traded in these complex assets without fully understanding them. The entire industry engaged in massive group think which ignored clear risks of relying on a single factor (the mortgage industry) to fuel other investments. Lack of proper oversight (government, risk rating companies, and insurance companies) allowed this to play out to an extreme. Reduced compartmentalization in the financial system allowed failures to spread across multiple sectors (possibly a deregulation failure). Let’s tie this back to information security risk management. First, please don’t take this as a diatribe against security metrics- of which I’m a firm supporter. My argument is that these events show that complete and accurate risk quantification isn’t really possible, for two big reasons. It is impossible to avoid introducing bias into the system; even a purely mathematical system. The metrics we choose, how we measure them, and how we rate them will always be biased. As with recent events, individual (or group) desires can heavily influence that bias and the resulting conclusions. We always game the system. Complexity is the enemy of risk, yet everything is complex. It’s nearly impossible to fully understand any system worth measuring risk on. Which leads to my message of the day. Quantified risk is no more or less valuable or effective than qualified risk. Let’s stop pretending we can quantify everything, because even when we can (as in the current economic fiasco) the result isn’t necessarily reliable, and won’t necessarily lead to better decisions. I actually think we often abuse quantification to support bad decisions that a qualified assessment would prevent. Now I can’t close without injecting a bit of my personal politics, so stop reading here if you don’t want my two sentence rant… rant I don’t see how anyone can justify voting for a platform of less regulation and reduced government oversight. Now that we own AIG and a few other companies, it seems that’s just a good way to socialize big business. It didn’t work in the 80’s, and it isn’t working now. I support free markets, but damn, we need better regulation and oversight. I’m tired of paying for big business’s big mistakes and people pretending that this time it was just a mistake and it won’t happen again if we just get the government out of the way and lower corporate taxes. Enough of the fracking corporate welfare! /rant Share:

Share:
Read Post

Jay Beale, Kevin Johnson, and Justin Searle Join the Network Security Podcast

Boy am I behind on my blog posts! I have a ton of stuff to get up/announce, and first up is episode 120 of the Network Security Podcast. Martin and I were joined by Justin Searle, Kevin Johnson and Jay Beale from Intelguardians. As well as discussing the news stories of the week, the guys were here to tell us about a new LiveCD they’ve developed, Samurai. It was a great episode with some extremely knowledgeable guys. Full show notes are at netsecpodcast.com. Network Security Podcast, Episode 120 for September 16, 2008 Time: 43:57 Share:

Share:
Read Post

Did They Violate Breach Disclosure Laws?

There’s been an extremely interesting, and somewhat surprising, development in the TJX case the past couple weeks. No, I’m not talking about one of the defendants pleading guilty (and winning the prisoners dilemma), but the scope of the breach. Based on the news reports and court records, it seems TJX wasn’t the only victim here. From ComputerWorld: Toey was one of 11 alleged hackers arrested last month in connection with a series of data thefts and attempted data thefts at TJX and numerous other companies. Besides TJX and BJ’s, the list of publicly identified victims of the hackers includes DSW, OfficeMax, Boston Market, Barnes and Noble, Sports Authority and Forever 21. Huh. Wacky. I don’t seem to recall seeing breach notifications from anyone other than TJX. Since I’ve been out for a few weeks, I decided to hunt a bit and learned the Wall Street Journal beat me to the punch on this story: That’s because only four of the chains clearly alerted their customers to breaches. Two others – Boston Market Corp. and Forever 21 Inc. – say they never told customers because they never confirmed data were stolen from them. The other retailers – OfficeMax Inc., Barnes and Noble Inc., and Sports Authority Inc. – wouldn’t say whether they made consumer disclosures. Computer searches of their Securities and Exchange Commission filings, Web sites, press releases and news archives turned up no evidence of such disclosures. The other companies allegedly targeted by the ring charged last week were: TJX Cos., BJ’s Wholesale Club Inc., shoe retailer DSW Inc., and restaurant chain Dave and Buster’s Inc. They each disclosed to customers they were breached shortly after the intrusions were discovered. The blanket excuse from these companies for not disclosing? “We couldn’t find any definite information that we’d been breached”. Seems to me someone has a bit of legal exposure right now. I wonder if is greater or less than the cost of notification? And don’t forget, thanks to TJX seeing absolutely no effect on their business after the breach, we can pretty effectively kill off the reputation damage argument. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Demobilized and Remotivated

After a hectic week of being locked away in a warehouse in Denver, I’m sitting in a hotel room in Vancouver getting ready to board a ship to Alaska. Now that’s it’s all over I can give a few more details as to what I was up to last week. As I’ve mentioned before, I’m on a federal emergency response team. I won’t identify the team, otherwise I’d have to get approval to write about it, but we’re one of the groups that’s called in to deal with major disasters. Our team is one of a few specialized ones, and aside from regular disaster work we’re dedicated to providing medical response to any incidents involving a weapon of mass destruction. We’re trained to provide medical care and mass decontamination under pretty much any circumstances (thus all the hazmat training). We’ve never actually responded to any WMD incidents, and sometimes I wonder how much longer we’ll have that mission. Back when the team was created there weren’t any significant decontamination resources in the country; even the military only had 1 domestic team. Now, pretty much every fire department has at least some decon capabilities. Still, we’re the most capable team out there in terms of resources and capacity, so perhaps we’ll survive a little longer. The one place we do get used is during designated National Security Events, like the DNC, where we are pre-positioned in case something happens. While it would take us up to 24 hours to travel to a random incident, when we’re pre-positioned we can be there within minutes. Thus I spent a week locked up in a warehouse (and I do mean locked up) just in case something bad happened. Since we were on clock, rather than sitting around all day we crammed in a ton of training. Since I’m just an EMT, and no longer a paramedic, it was nice to go through some of the advanced classes I normally don’t get access to any more. Nice to know I can still pass Advanced Cardiac Life Support; a class I haven’t taken in over 10 years. We covered everything from driving off road vehicles in Level A hazmat suits, to air monitoring, to disaster medicine, to pediatric advanced life support. Living in a warehouse for a week with 58 other people, spending my 12 hour shifts in training and cleaning bathrooms, was a surprisingly motivating experience. There’s really nothing more motivating than working with a well-oiled team under difficult circumstances. While emergency services doesn’t pay the bills any more, it definitely feeds the soul. While on deployment I managed to miss the 1 year anniversary of Securosis, L.L.C. It’s hard to believe a full year has passed and I’ll write more on that later. We’ve got some big plans for the coming year, and I’m excited about some of the opportunities in front of us. But right now it’s time to sign off for a week and enjoy my first real vacation in I can’t remember how long. My wife and I aren’t generally the cruising type, but we figured that’s the best way to see the glaciers on a tight timeline before they all melt. The site and business are in Adrian’s hands as I run off and play with bears and icebergs. I’ll be checking in on email, but don’t expect a response until I get back unless it’s an emergency. I hope you all have as good a week as I’m expecting, and those of you down south please stay safe with all the storms. Share:

Share:
Read Post

What’s Next?

For the record, yes, those hazmat suits are really freaking hot and sweaty. I guess that’s what they mean by, “vapor barrier”. No, nothing freaky is going on; that’s just a picture from an old practice. And that’s pretty much how I’m spending this week- training, practicing, and cleaning bathrooms. I’ve talked about the value of training before, and it’s one reason we’re constantly practicing those critical skills until they become second nature. At this point, putting on a hazmat suit (level A, B, or C) is second nature. That’s the only way to survive if I ever have to wear one during a real incident. It’s an opportunity I highly doubt I’ll ever experience, but it’s also the kind of thing you can only screw up once. One of the classes I’m taking this week is Basic Disaster Life Support. It’s a fairly new class that focuses on medical management in massive incidents from the natural (earthquakes) to the man made (blowing stuff up). The biggest lesson I’m taking away from this class isn’t some specific technique for managing a specific injury but a single general principle with direct applications in the IT world- What’s next? When donning a hazmat suit it means what’s the next step? Boots, mask, hood? Then, when something fails (and it will) what do you do next? In a disaster it means what happens after you’ve exceeded your plans. Finished getting all those patients out of your hospital when the big storm is coming in? Great, where are you going to send them next? Oh, the ambulances. Right, um, how many of them are there? Where are they going? When we plan for disasters that’s the one question we need to ask at every step, and keep asking. Forever. We need contingency plans for our contingency plans. It really isn’t any different in IT. The parallels to the business continuity side are easy to draw. What happens when the power goes out? Okay, the generators just ran out of gas, what next? The roads are flooded so you can’t get more gas, so what’s next? Same thing for security, except usually we’re talking defenses. Web application firewall? Great, what happens when some bad guy gets past it or they skip it by hitting the database from a compromised internal machine? How about if they had an 0day you didn’t know about and now own the machine? And eventually you’ll run out of answers, because at that point there’s either nothing to do or it’s time to just turn it all off, or let it burn and collect the insurance money. But through the process of constantly asking that question you’ll develop a methodical, mechanical approach to solve seemingly insurmountable problems. You’ll even learn that sometimes it isn’t just having the right answer, but continuously moving (or appropriately pausing) that eventually gets you past those obstacles. What’s next? Never assume. React faster, and better. Stay in school. Don’t do drugs. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Guest Editorial- The MBTA/MIT Disclosure Failure

Securosis Guest Editorial On occasion we invite some of our non-blogging friends to steal our thunder. Jesse Krembs, known as Agent X to those of us at DefCon, is a network engineer at undisclosed locations out East. He’s one of the guys who keeps the tubes running, and, on occasion, loves a good rant. I couldn’t sleep last night. I’ve been thinking about the MIT/MBTA hacking controversy lately. Zack Anderson, RJ Ryan, & Alessandro Chiesa are not the victims of this saga, although that plays a lot better in the media. Truth is, the MBTA is the real victim here. I can completely understand exactly where the MBTA is coming from, and why they ran to the lawyers. They are out of their depth, dealing with smart kids screwing with their systems (and livelihood) in a very public manner. The MBTA’s not in the business of running secure systems- far from it, they are the business of moving people & making the trains run on time. This is a harrowing tasking, fraught with enough complications without some kids mucking around in the back office. The MBTA didn’t request a security audit; they got audited, in the same way that a burglar cases a house before breaking in, or a mugger sizes up a mark. But unlike a burglar just looking for a single score, as far as the MBTA could tell these students were cracking the entire system and teaching the public how to do it themselves. The worst part is this was 100% avoidable. The big mistake that the MIT boys made was to treat the victim like the enemy instead of like a client. What they did is valuable; valuable enough to get an “A” from Ron Rivest, valuable enough to be presented to a crowd at Defcon 16. Valuable enough that the MBTA is willing to pay lawyers to shut them up and sort it out. If the MIT students had disclosed what they had found to the MBTA first in an honest and forthright manner, I wouldn’t be writing this. Had they done the responsible thing, everyone could win, the MIT kids could have had an awesome summer gig securing the MBTA, the MBTA & the people of Boston could be more secure. Maybe that sounds idealistic, but the MIT name carries enough weight the odds are they could have engaged in a real project, not an adversarial relationship. The baddies wouldn’t know much more then they know now. The MIT boys could even have still given their talk at DefCon. Instead, with all the arrogance of youth & higher education, the boys from MIT sco ed contact with the MBTA. They made the MBTA the enemy; the ogre in the cave, without even giving them a chance. And let’s be honest, it isn’t like this was a security issue affecting the health and safety of the train-riding public; it targeted revenue generation, and releasing the vulnerability details didn’t do anything to help the public at large. Well, the law-abiding public. Please grow up; in the connected world there are very few ogres in caves any more, and they don’t let you ride their trains. The difference between black hats and white hats is a line, and it’s a gray one. But occasionally it gets a little contrast. When you treat the person or organization with a security problem like a victim or and enemy, then you’re the bad guy. You’re basically fucking them over, sometimes hard, sometimes gently, but it’s still a screw job. When you treat them like a partner, then everyone wins. Sure, sometimes they don’t want partners, and sometimes you have to go public because they put the rest of the world at risk, but you don’t know that until you try talking to them. Finally I should note that in the end the only people winning in this case are the lawyers; the kids won’t win in the way they want, nor will the MBTA. The lawyers, on the other hand, always get paid. I understand the principle of free speech, but at the same time I also don’t believe in yelling “FIRE!” in the movie theater. The right of free speech is a gift from our Founder Fathers; use it responsibly. Finally, when you start to hack the grown-up systems of the world, be prepared to behave like adults. /rant -Jesse Share:

Share:
Read Post

Uniform Time

As many of you know, I’m more a washed -up paramedic than a security analyst. My youthful indiscretions tended to involve ambulances and fire trucks (you’d be amazed at all the fun things you can do with them when no one is looking). Although I’m just an EMT these days, I’m still on a federal response team for disasters and other large incidents. In a couple hours I’ll be heading out to wear uniforms for a week and sleep with 60 other people in an undisclosed location (don’t worry, I’m not breaking opsec by revealing that). I’m just a low level grunt on the team but find that a little manual labor does the soul some good on occasion. I may still get some writing done since we should have a fair bit of down time, but I won’t be very responsive over email. A day after that, I head off for a real vacation – my wife and I are cruising Alaska before it all melts. If I try to work on that trip I’ve been told I better practice my cold water swimming skills. Still, I’ll be checking email for emergencies. The next couple of weeks will definitely be ones of contrasts. Share:

Share:
Read Post

The Best Incident Response Training You Can Buy. For Free.

Next week I’ll be out of the office on one of my occasional stints as a federal emergency responder. I haven’t had the opportunity to do much since we responded to Katrina, and, to be honest, am surprised the team still lets me hang on (it’s in Colorado, I’m in Arizona, and I don’t get to train much anymore). Who knows how much longer I’ll get to put a uniform on- the politics of domestic response are a freaking mess these days, with all the cash funding the war, and I won’t be surprised if some of the more expensive (and thus capable) parts of the system are dismantled. Hopefully we can hang on through the next election. Anyway, enough of my left wing liberal complaints about domestic security and on to incident management. Although I haven’t written much about it on the blog (just the occasional post), one area I talk a lot about is incident response and disaster management. Translating my experiences as a 9-1-1 and disaster responder into useful business principles. I’m frequently asked where people can get management level training on incident management. While SANS and others have some technology-oriented incident response courses, the best management level training out there is from FEMA. Yes, that FEMA. For no cost you can take some of their Incident Command Systems (ICS) courses online. I highly recommend ICS 100 and ICS 200 for anyone interested in the topic. No, not all of it will apply, but the fundamental principles are designed for ANY kind of incident of ANY scale. If nothing else, it will get you thinking. And while I’m at it, here’s a definition of “Incident” that I like to use: An incident is any situation that exceeds normal risk management processes. Although I’ve sat through a lot of the training before, I never actually went through the program and test. I’m fairly impressed- these are some of the better online courses I’ve seen. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Network Security Podcast, Episode 116 (With A Lot Of Bad Words)

A bit of a different episode this week. Since Martin is traveling, rather than a guest host this week we’re posting the last of the interviews recorded at DefCon- but this one is a doozy. David Mortman, Dave Maynor, Chris Hoff, Robert “Rsnake” Hanson, and Larry Pesce join us immediately after we all finished our DefCon panel. Martin, as the sober one, interviews us as we record what is our first clearly explicit podcast. Yes folks, we hit all 7 dirty words plus a few bonuses. Not to worry, we do include some content as we discuss what we covered in the panel and whatever other topics flew into our adult-beverage-addled brains. We had a heck of a lot of fun putting the DefCon back into DefCon, and we hope you enjoy this little slice of the unfiltered. Yes, this really is an explicit episode, so consider yourselves warned. Network Security Podcast, Episode 116 Length: 24:00 (or so) 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.