Securosis

Research

Friday Summary: January 18, 2013

I will not write about Manti Te’o. I will not write about Manti Te’o. I will not write about Manti… ah hell, who am I kidding. Wednesday afternoon I was about to head out to meet a buddy for happy hour when he texted that he would be late because of getting caught up in the story (which had just broken). That was cool – I was in the middle of the same article. (If you don’t know what I’m talking about, this should get you up to speed. I admit I’m not the biggest pro sports guy in the world. I enjoy sports, especially football, and played in high school, but years of living in Colorado and spending my winter weekends hunting for fresh powder broke the habit. Living in Phoenix now, I have tried to get back into it, but even if I can snag a TV from my young kids to watch a game, the odds are very high that they will hunt me down to play with them. Seriously, I can’t even take a morning constitutional in peace anymore. Back to Te’o. It is barely conceivable to me that he wasn’t somehow in on it. If this was a catfish, it is one of the best in history (and Te’o should be sent back to community college for remedial reality training). Plus, his family also had to be in on it for their statements to make sense. And let’s not forget the lazy reporters who clearly made s–t up. No, Occam’s Razor likely applies, and Te’o had better sprint to Oprah’s couch before it cools down from Lance. That’s right, it’s liar’s week in the sports world. The buddy I met for happy hour works part time as a sportswriter, and our conversation naturally shifted from Te’o to Lance because I’m big into cycling. As the Lance saga continues I can’t but help be perplexed at the quintuple standard applied to different sports. A lot of people like to call cycling the dirtiest sport out there, but these days it has the strictest performance enhancing drug controls of any professional sport. Not that there still isn’t cheating – it is rampant. When I was out for the Tour last summer the rumor was that the only teams racing solidly clean were Garmin-Sharp-Barracuda (my hosts) and Sky. There were a lot of other clean riders, but more as individuals rather than being on a clean team that managed their own testing to keep things that way. And guess what? A rider from a clean team won the Tour despite battling the dopers. This was possible because the program limits the degree to which people can cheat. Unlike back in Lance’s day, the bio-passport system basically puts a hard limit on how much a rider can enhance without triggering alarm bells. Now go watch some football this weekend. If you think a 300+ pound lineman can legitimately runs a sub-5.0 40, I have a really cute girl on Facebook you should meet. Cycling gets a lot of guff because the riders get caught more, and for some reason people want clean riders. Maybe because, unlike football, a weekend cyclist can directly compare their stats to a pro. Talking with my sportswriter friend, he mentioned they have published articles on potential PEDs in football and no one cares. This despite the fact the increased player size and speed directly correlate to worse injuries and the current problems with traumatic brain injuries. We want our gladiators and we want them big. Sports is entertainment and Sports Center is no different than People Magazine in the end. We want our scandals, heroes, and blood sacrifices, no matter the costs. Just like our… —–, but I won’t go there. Crud. I meant this intro to end with humor. A linebacker, a cyclist, and Oprah walk into a bar… … never mind. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Mike quoted by Reuters on Cisco’s network security competitiveness. Mike quoted in the Merc about Cisco’s network security (missed) opportunity. Adrian’s Dark Reading Post on DB Threats and Countermeasures. Rich’s excellent TidBITS post on Apple’s Security Efforts in 2012. Adrian’s Dark Reading post on Big Data Security Recommendations. Favorite Securosis Posts Adrian Lane: Emotional Whiplash. Mike nailed it. And I only saw the first and fourth quarters! Mike Rothman: Does Big Data Advance Security Analytics? Adrian wins buzzword bingo this week. But the post is important because both Big Data and Security Analytics will be front and center in a lot of security marketing this year. David Mortman: Don’t be a douche… So much for family friendly, eh, Mike? Rich: A different kind of APT. Mike totally stole this one from me. Other Securosis Posts The Fifth Annual Securosis Disaster Recovery Breakfast. My DHS Beats Your FDA. Understanding IAM for Cloud Services: Integration. Time to Play Nice with SCADA Kids. Beware of Self-Proclaimed Experts. Mobile Identity–WTF? Help Me Pick My Next Paper Topic. Bolting on Security – at Scale. Let’s Get Physical – Road Rules Edition. Happy Out of Cycle IE Patch Monday. You Can’t Handle the Truth. Favorite Outside Posts Adrian Lane: Five Mitzvahs of Cloud Computing. Leverage what you’ve got, point 4, is dead-on! Mike Rothman: Steak Drop. Physics FTW. If you ever asked yourself “From what height would you need to drop a steak for it to be cooked when it hit the ground?,” then you need to read this xkcd What-if? post. I wonder if the answer changes if you use a veggie burger? James Arlen: Great stuff in here: NERC CIP V5 is Coming. Places emphasis on the automation of data collection to enable compliant operations. More automation is useful – but much like with banking, you need to be able to do it by hand before you get infatuated with a system. David Mortman: Notes on distributed systems for young bloods. Rich: The Verge on Vegas casinos battling cheating. I’m fascinated by casino security. Research

Share:
Read Post

Help Me Pick My Next Paper Topic

Hey folks, Just a quick note that I am trying to decide between a few different topics for my next paper. If you have a moment, I could use your opinion. Which will take no more than 5-15 seconds when you click this link. The options are: BYOD Security Fundamentals Defending Cloud Data – Encrypting for Dropbox, Box.net, and Friends Defending Data in Cloud Infrastructures – IaaS Encryption and Data Security Defending Enterprise Data on Mobile Devices Other (please specify) I threw it out on Twitter and IaaS encryption took an early lead, which is interesting because I expected it to be BYOD. Thus I decided to double up and push it out through the blog. Thanks. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Java Sucks. Again.

Zero-day in the wild, in a popular exploit kit. From Brian Krebs: The hackers who maintain Blackhole and Nuclear Pack – competing crimeware products that are made to be stitched into hacked sites and use browser flaws to foist malware — say they’ve added a brand new exploit that attacks a previously unknown and currently unpatched security hole in Java. Alienvault confirms: Earlier this morning @Kafeine alerted us about a new Java zeroday being exploited in the wild. With the files we were able to obtain we reproduced the exploit in a fully patched new installation of Java. As you can see below we tricked the malicious Java applet to execute the calc.exe in our lab. To the best of your ability, disable Java in browsers and keep it that way. Otherwise you need alternate compensating controls. No idea if EMET helps with this, but that’s one place to start looking. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Most Consumers Don’t Need Mac AV

I can’t believe I forgot to post here when I put the article up on TidBITS, but here you go: Do You Need Mac Antivirus Software in 2013? While Macs aren’t immune to malicious software (malware), and we even experienced one reasonably widespread incident in 2012, malware on Macs is still not nearly common enough to recommend antivirus software for everyone. And while antivirus tools are effective against certain known attacks, they often don’t provide the level of protection people expect. … If Mac antivirus tools offered 100 percent effectiveness – or even 99 percent – I might take a different position. If we ever see massive volumes of malware, as happens in the Windows world, I might change my recommendations. But at this point, there are so few Mac malware infections, and antivirus tools are so limited, that for most users of current versions of OS X, antivirus doesn’t make sense. During the Flashback infection there were accusations that Mac users were too smug, or too ill-informed, to install antivirus software. But the reality is that antivirus tools offer only limited protection, and relying on antivirus for your security is as naive as believing Macs are invulnerable. Enterprises are a different story. Share:

Share:
Read Post

DDoS: Distributed, but not evenly

It shouldn’t come as any surprise, but big financials are still suffering a wave of DDoS attacks. DDoS is like an accidental amputation – there is no question whether it’s a problem. The trick is to know ahead of time if you are on the list, and the best thing to do is keep an eye on your peers. Not everyone needs to invest proactively in DDoS protection, but you sure as heck need a plan and a vendor contact just in case. Especially if you are big, handle money, work with (or piss off) governments located “East” (Europe, Asia, Middle, whatever), or like to poke Anonymous. Update 1/9: According to the New York Times, a “former” gov official with connections says Iran is definitely behind the attacks. Backing up the rumors we’ve all been hearing from the start. Share:

Share:
Read Post

ENISA BYOD FTW

ENISA released a solid BYOD/Consumeriation of IT guide. At first I was turned off by phrases in the executive summary like: Ensure that governance aspects are derived from business processes and protection requirements, and are defined before dealing with technology. But once you get into it, this is a great starter guide that includes both policy and technical pieces. Best part: a lot of examples and links to real world projects. Worst parts: the DLP bits don’t reflect what’s available (over-estimates); and some vendor-specific language. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Prove It to Use It

“Last year, one billion dollars was stolen in the U.S. by Romanian hackers,” says American ambassador in Bucharest, Mark Gitenstein. I expect to see this used in plenty of presentations and press releases in the coming months. If you use the number, you have to prove it is real. Good luck with that. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Internet Explorer 8 0-Day Bypasses Patch

A good update at Threatpost: Their new exploit beat a fully patched Windows system running IE 8, the same version of the browser exploited by malware used in watering hole attacks against a number of political and manufacturing websites, including the Council on Foreign Relations in the U.S., and Chinese human rights site Uygur Haber Ajanski. More motivation to move to updated browsers, as difficult as that often is. I’m really hoping IE 10 can break this cycle a bit (and I bet Microsoft is as well). Still, IE 8 is only a bit over 3 years old, which isn’t all that ancient compared to XP. If you are stuck on old browsers, and have the capability, take a serious look at EMET. Kills most of these attacks cold. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Yes, honeypots are new again

The Washington Post sort-of covers honeypots, but mixes in national security issues. But one paragraph is out of place, because the article doesn’t really cover strike-back: Those actions probably would violate federal law, FBI officials said. The bureau also warns that the use of deceptive tactics could backfire – hackers who identify data as bogus may be all the more determined to target the company trying to con them. TL;DR: good guys are baiting systems with data, not just standing up honeypots. Then they can alert any time anyone touches the bait – there are a bunch of ways to do this. We talked a little about this last year. And yep, we are implementing it ourselves in a few places – no special security products needed. Don’t ask us where. Share:

Share:
Read Post

SSLpocalypse, part XXII

For the short version, read Rob Graham at Errata Security. Google detected someone attempting a man in the middle attack using a certificate issued in Turkey. TURKTRUST issued two subsidiary Certificate Authority certs which allowed whoever had them to sign any certificate they wanted, for any domain they wanted. Yes, this is how SSL works and it’s a big mess (I talked about it a little in 2011). Google likely detected this using DNS Pinning. Every version of Chrome checks any Google certificate against a list of legitimate Google certificates, which they build into Chrome itself. If there’s a mismatch, Chrome detects and can report it. Nice, eh? That’s why Rob says don’t mess with Google. You try to MitM any of their domains, and if any users run Chrome they are likely to find out. Everyone else (who can) should do this. Share:

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.