Category Archives: Network

Applauding the President’s Cybersecurity National Action Plan

CNAP_White-House-response

The Cybersecurity industry is fundamentally broken… and the problem is not technology, but mindset.”  These recent remarks by RSA President Amit Yoran have been echoed around the country and in the halls of government in the wake of serious breaches to the Federal government. From last year’s OPM breach, to last week’s breaches impacting DHS and FBI employees – there has been concern that the mindset protecting our government’s IT systems needed a refresh.

That’s why RSA applauds the President’s Cybersecurity National Action Plan (CNAP) issued this morning and will participate in many regards, but will also watch a couple of things to see if clarity really is brought to the federal government’s efforts. First, it will be interesting to see how the role of the federal CISO pans out. What real authority, accountability and responsibility will this new position entail that couldn’t have been executed by the President’s Special Assistant and Cybersecurity Coordinator? Second, how does the role of DHS change explicitly or implicitly?

This renewed approach to securing our government from our adversaries seeks to tackle the mindset that has limited cybersecurity effectiveness to-date. RSA has publicly endorsed one of the signature components of the President’s plan: driving widespread adoption of multi-factor authentication for email and other critical applications and systems. I’m proud of RSA’s efforts to raise awareness on this important issue. Multifactor authentication – even going beyond the government’s CAC/PIV infrastructure – is a vital step to delivering increased security. Organizations such as the National Cyber Security Alliance and many other organizations have worked hard to keep this issue on the forefront of our IT security consciousness.

Other components of today’s announcement are also very important to tackle, including:

  • Increased funding for cybersecurity.
  • A broad plan to modernize the government’s IT defenses.
  • Creation of a Federal CISO (empowered to cut through silos across civilian government, DOD, and the Intelligence community).
  • Activity promoting adoption of the NIST Cybersecurity framework, especially to the critical infrastructure community.
  • Efforts to enhance the quantity and capability of the Federal cyber workforce.

One additional aspect of today’s announcement is the launch of a Bipartisan Commission – with input from the private sector – that will focus on developing solutions to our most significant cyber challenges. RSA looks forward to supporting the work of this Commission. As the President noted in his OpEd in The Wall Street Journal, “we still don’t have in place all the tools we need, including ones many businesses rely on every day.” It’s imperative that funding and momentum focus on the capabilities that matter most in today’s advanced threat world. In broad terms, our vision to secure the Federal government consists of three pillars:

  1. Complete, real-time, visibility into threats across our critical infrastructure at the Federal CISO level and at the agency and program level.
  2. Deployment of new identity assurance and access governance technologies that are built natively for the cloud and mobile era.
  3. A mature enterprise risk management approach to identifying and prioritizing efforts to mitigate risk.

Today’s announcement by the president and previous efforts by our legislative branch show that our government and elected officials in congress are taking a renewed focus on “operationalizing cybersecurity.” Each one of us in the IT security industry has a role in this mission. I know it will be a key topic at this year’s RSA Conference – and it is certainly a ‘contest’ we can’t afford to lose.

Hiding in Plain Sight – Obfuscation Techniques in Phishing Attacks

Phishing
Unfortunately for the organizations and individuals they target, it’s no longer necessary for cybercriminals to code up their own sophisticated attacks. Phishing and spam kits, for example, are complete, off the shelf tools that even inexperienced cybercriminals can use to deploy fake websites and spam massive user lists to lure them to these sites. And these sites and lures are effective, especially when they resemble legitimate websites like Dropbox or Google.

These sites aren’t just effective, though. They are also increasingly difficult to detect, making use of advanced obfuscation techniques to hide their real purpose. Phishing kits use a variety of encoding and JavaScript to prevent both users and security vendors from determining that the landing pages are anything other than harmless text or benign functions for rendering HTML.

Proofpoint researchers analyzed seven different obfuscation techniques on phishing landing pages, ranging from a base64 refresh to multibyte xor encoding. The complete analysis can be found here with deep dives into the code behind these techniques that are appearing in modern phishing kits.

For individuals and organizations, the dealing with this level of sophistication requires a multifaceted approach. Not only should both endpoints and networks be protected against phishing email lures and potentially malicious web pages, but users need to be savvy about the warning signs of a phishing attack. Strange URLs and sites asking for personal information unexpectedly are both red flags, but comprehensive user education remains critical to protecting networks and users alike.

Skimmers Hijack ATM Network Cables

ATM

Two network cable card skimming devices, as found attached to the ATM.

If you have ever walked up to an ATM to withdraw cash only to decide against it after noticing a telephone or ethernet cord snaking from behind the machine to a jack in the wall, your paranoia may not have been misplaced: ATM maker NCR is warning about skimming attacks that involve keypad overlays, hidden cameras and skimming devices plugged into the ATM network cables to intercept customer card data.

In an alert sent to customers Feb. 8, NCR said it received reliable reports of NCR and Diebold ATMs being attacked through the use of external skimming devices that hijack the cash machine’s phone or Internet jack.

“These devices are plugged into the ATM network cables and intercept customer card data. Additional devices are attached to the ATM to capture the PIN,” NCR warned. “A keyboard overlay was used to attack an NCR ATM, a concealed camera was used on the Diebold ATM. PIN data is then likely transmitted wirelessly to the skimming device.”

The ATM maker believes these attacks represent a continuation of the trend where criminals are finding alternative methods to skim magnetic strip cards. Such alternative methods avoid placing the skimmer on the ATM card entry bezel, which is where most anti-skimming technology is located.

NCR said cash machine operators must consider all points where card data may be accessible — in addition to the traditional point of vulnerability at the card entry bezel — and that having ATM network communications cables and connections exposed in publicly accessible locations only invites trouble.

network_Box

A closer look at the two network cable card skimming devices that were attached to the stand-alone ATM pictured at the top of this story.

If something doesn’t look right about an ATM, don’t use it and move on to the next one. It’s not worth the hassle and risk associated with having your checking account emptied of cash. Also, it’s best to favor ATMs that are installed inside of a building or wall as opposed to free-standing machines, which may be more vulnerable to tampering.

There’s a lot of debate about how much data breaches and hacks cost companies – except when there’s not, as with the hack of UK firm TalkTalk, which put the cost at around $88 million.

 

talktalk-data-breach-hack-costs-88-millionOne of the big questions that bedevil corporate executives is how much a cyber “incident” might cost the company. Indeed: the “cost of breach” as it is often termed is the subject of determined study by folks like The Ponemon Institute (and sponsors like IBM), as well as Verizon, consultancies like Kroll, and so on.

The question isn’t academic. Knowing how much a cyber incident will cost your company helps executives, board members and staff “price” risk and justify expenditures on security software and services.

But the surprisingly simple question of how much malicious cyber activity costs belies a surprisingly complex puzzle. Incidents like a denial of service attack might be easy to price: just figure out how much money you make from being online (if you’re an online retailer like Amazon.com, that’s a big number), then figure out how long the DDoS attack took you offline, add in the cost to get back online, investigate the incident and remediate, and you have it.

With other kinds of attacks – like data theft – the question is a lot more difficult to answer. Few public firms disclose “material” cyber incidents that affect them, even though the law in the U.S. would seem to mandate it. Some of the biggest cost drivers of breaches – like credit monitoring for affected customers and employees – end up costing much less than you would think. And, while corporate boards may be bracing for more cyber regulations that impost costs on breaches and data theft, there’s been little progress on that, at least at the federal level, nor is there likely to be any in an election year.

But there’s no doubt that hacks and other incidents do cost companies considerably and, every so often, the curtains part to give us a glimpse of how significant those costs are. That’s what happened this week in the case of UK telecommunications firm TalkTalk.

As you may recall, TalkTalk was the victim of a cyber attack in the final months of 2014 that resulted in the theft of personal data on 150,000 customers, including names, addresses, phone numbers and TalkTalk account numbers. At the time, the company said that some of that data was used in follow on attacks aimed at extracting bank account and credit card information from victims.

Subsequent reporting suggested that the company was the victim of a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack coupled with a SQL injection attack against application servers containing customer data.

According to a report on Tuesday, however, we now know how much all that malicious activity cost the company: $88 million at current exchange rates.

Where did that figure come from? TalkTalk said that most of the costs were only indirectly linked to the breach. For example, the company lost 101,000 customers in the months following the breach, 95,000 of which it estimates were because of the hack.

It should be noted that those costs are much higher than the $35 million price tag that TalkTalk initially put on the incident, which considered the cost of recovery and additional customer support.

Is this important? It should be: firm data on the cost of hacks is notoriously hard to come by and, absent strong federal legislation in the U.S., many firms that are the victim of cyber incidents find ways to sweep the details of the incident under the rug. It’s also worth noting that the TalkTalk revelation underscores the cost to businesses of cyber incidents that have little to do with recovery from the incident itself: loss of customers, reputation damage, fines and other penalties all add to the (hidden) cost of incidents. In cases where attackers make off with intellectual property or other sensitive data, we can expect the costs to mount even more.

 

Hacker Plans to Dump Alleged Details of 20,000 FBI, 9,000 DHS Employees

FBI

A hacker, who wishes to remain anonymous, plans to dump the apparent names, job titles, email addresses and phone numbers of over 20,000 supposed Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) employees, as well as over 9,000 alleged Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees, Motherboard has learned.

The hacker also claims to have downloaded hundreds of gigabytes of data from a Department of Justice (DOJ) computer, although that data has not been published.

On Sunday, Motherboard obtained the supposedly soon-to-be-leaked data and called a large selection of random numbers in both the DHS and FBI databases. Many of the calls went through to their respective voicemail boxes, and the names for their supposed owners matched with those in the database. At one point, Motherboard reached the operations center of the FBI, according to the person on the other end.

One alleged FBI intelligence analyst did pick up the phone, and identified herself as the same name as listed in the database. A DHS employee did the same, but did not feel comfortable confirming his job title, he said.

A small number of the phones listed for specific agents or employees, however, went through to generic operator desks in various departments. One FBI number that Motherboard dialled did go through to a voicemail box, but the recorded message seemed to indicate it was owned by somebody else. This also applied to two of the DHS numbers.

After several calls, Motherboard was passed through to the State and Local desk at the National Operations Centre, part of the DHS. That department told Motherboard that this was the first they had heard about the supposed data breach.

The job titles included in the data cover all sorts of different departments: contractors, biologists, special agents, task force officers, technicians, intelligence analysts, language specialists, and much more.

The data was obtained, the hacker told Motherboard, by first compromising the email account of a DoJ employee, although he would not elaborate on how that account was accessed in the first place. (On Monday, the hacker used the DoJ email account to contact this reporter).

“I clicked on it and I had full access to the computer.”

From there, he tried logging into a DoJ web portal, but when that didn’t work, he phoned up the relevant department.

“So I called up, told them I was new and I didn’t understand how to get past [the portal],” the hacker told Motherboard. “They asked if I had a token code, I said no, they said that’s fine—just use our one.”

The hacker says he then logged in, clicked on a link to a personal computer which took him to an online virtual machine, and entered in the credentials of the already hacked email account. After this, the hacker was presented with the option of three different computers to access, he claimed, and one was the work machine of the person behind the originally hacked email account.

“I clicked on it and I had full access to the computer,” the hacker said. Here the hacker could access the user’s documents, as well as other documents on the local network.

The databases of supposed government workers were on a DoJ intranet, the hacker claimed. It is not fully clear when the hacker intends to dump the databases.

The hacker also said that he downloaded around 200GB of files, out of 1TB that he had access to.

“I HAD access to it, I couldn’t take all of the 1TB,” he said. He claimed that some of the files’ contents included military emails, and credit card numbers. This supposed data was not provided to Motherboard.

This is just the latest in a series of hacks targeting US government employees. Back in October, hackers claiming a pro-Palestine political stance broke into the email account of CIA Director John Brennan. This was followed by a prank, in which calls to the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper would be forwarded to the Free Palestine Movement.

The Department of Justice did not respond to Motherboard’s request for comment, and the FBI was not reachable. Motherboard provided a copy of the apparent DHS data to the National Infrastructure Coordinating Center (NICC)which is part of the DHS, but it declined to comment. A DHS public affairs officer did not immediately respond to Motherboard’s request for comment.

Update 8 February 2016: After the publication of this article, a Twitter account with a pro-Palestinian message published the apparent details of the 9,000 DHS employees. The account also tweeted a screenshot supposedly from the Department of Justice computers that the hacker claimed to have accessed. List was posted to “cryptobin.org” last night 02-07-2016

Harvard study refutes ‘going dark’ argument against encryption

Unencrypted data, which will be accessible to law enforcement, will continue to dominate the Internet

An Android smartphone going through the disk encryption process

A study from Harvard released Monday largely refutes claims that wider use of encryption in software products will hamper investigations into terrorism and crime.It predicts that the continued expansion of Internet-connected devices — such as smart TVs and vehicles, IP video cameras and more — will offer fresh opportunities for tracking targets.”Law enforcement or intelligence agencies may start to seek orders compelling Samsung, Google, Mattel, Nest or vendors of other networked devices to push an update or flip a digital switch to intercept the ambient communications of a target,” it said. “These are real products now.”

The study comes from Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet Society and was signed by well-known figures, including security expert Bruce Schneier, Jonathan Zittrain of Harvard Law School and Matthew G. Olsen, former director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center.

All are members of the Berkman Center’s Berklett Cybersecurity Project, which studies surveillance and cybersecurity issues.

The technology industry has come under increasing pressure from some government officials in the U.S. and U.K., who contend that bolstering data security, primarily through encryption, will diminish their capabilities to fight terrorism and crime, and will result in those sources “going dark.”

While law enforcement can gain access to data held by service providers through warrants, some systems have been designed in a way that the service providers can’t provide any information at all.

These so-called end-to-end encryption systems leave users in sole possession of the decryption keys. Without a password, law enforcement would have to use other means to try to decrypt data.

The study, titled “Don’t Panic: Making progress on the encryption debate,” does acknowledge encryption will poses challenges in some instances but by no means will dictate the landscape of future technology products.

“To be sure, encryption and provider-opaque services make surveillance more difficult in certain cases, but the landscape is far more variegated than the metaphor suggests,” it said. “There are and will always be pockets of dimness and some dark spots — communications channels resistant to surveillance — but this does not mean we are completely ‘going dark’.”

For example, many consumer Web services are unlikely to enable end-to-end encryption because their business models rely on analyzing data and then monetizing it through advertising.

Also metadata — the information surrounding communications that makes it possible to technically transfer it — is usually not encrypted and probably won’t be on a large scale. Metadata includes email headers, phone call records and location data from phones.

“The trajectory of technological development points to a future abundant in unencrypted data,” the study said.

Big Banks Increase Cybersecurity Investment to Stop Data Breaches

 

FinanceA recent article in Forbes Magazine reports that big banks including Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase are pulling out all the stops when it comes to their cybersecurity budgets. According to the article, B of A CEO Brian Moynihan has declared that cybersecurity is the only area of his company that has no budget constraints whatsoever. Another financial giant, J. P, Morgan reportedly doubled its budget in 2015 from $250 million to $500 million.

The increased investment in cybersecurity should come as no surprise. As Infosecurity Magazine reported last year, the financial services industry is 300 times more likely to be the target of a data breach than any other sector. In another study, insurance company Lloyds of London found that cyber-attacks can cost organizations as much as $400 billion a year.

Putting more focus and dollars into data security is a wise move. However, increasing security posture depends as much on what you invest in, as it does on how much you spend. Like all industries, financial services is facing an increasing number of threat vectors and security challenges, including dependence on cloud-enabled services, an explosion of mobile devices in the workplace, and BYOD, to name a few. These vulnerabilities are being exploited by increasingly sophisticated and connected criminal hacker syndicates and nation-state attacks bent on thwarting whatever security solutions are put in their way. One only has to survey the high profile data breaches in 2015 to realize that throwing more money at blocking threats from gaining entry won’t necessarily solve the problem.

The answer is not to abandon critical preventive measures such as AV/heuristic indexes, sandboxing and IPS. These are important technologies that have a place in a sound cybersecurity strategy. But organizations need to consider adding technology that can protect the network after the evasive malware bypasses security, but before they have to call in the disaster recovery team to assess their losses. One way to accomplish this is to add traffic anomaly detection. This is technology that continuously monitors all outbound network traffic to detect anomalous behavior and contain suspicious data transfers before an active infection is discovered. Such technology can augment preventive measures like sandboxing, but it requires that banks and other organizations first accept that no security tools exists that can stop 100% of malware. Even with unlimited budgets, stronger cybersecurity readiness can’t begin without that acceptance.

NSA Chief Hacker Reveals How He Can Be Kept Away – Part 2

CIA-flag

This is the second entry in a two-part series covering the NSA’s chief hacker’s recent talk at a security conference. Rob Joyce, the head of the Tailored Access Operations program put in place by the NSA to conduct cyberespionage operations on foes and allies alike, briefly revealed how state-sponsored hackers infiltrate their targets’ networks, often successfully.

Rob Joyce quickly ran through a list of to-dos for those who are looking to make his job harder. He could be forgiven for cutting short this particular portion of his talk.

Speaking candidly, the NSA hacker-in-chief explained that special access privileges to critical systems ought to be restricted to a select few. This inherently makes the NSA’s task difficult as the number of targeted are lowered. Furthermore, he nodded toward segmenting networks and vital information and data. Such a move makes it harder for hackers to gain access to what they’re looking for.

The NSA employee also recommends patching systems regularly. Application whitelisting is also important for trust. Hardcoded passwords are a strict no-no and ought to be removed. So too should legacy protocols that aren’t updated and are still functional. More specifically, protocols that transmit passwords in the clear, should be curbed.

Joyce also pointed to roadblocks that make his job significantly harder. One such roadblock is an “out-of-band network tap.” This is a device that continually monitors network activity and maintains logs that can record anomalous activity. When these logs are being looked and read into regularly by a system administrator the game is up.

Another insight revealed by Joyce goes against popular opinion that state-sponsored hackers via the NSA or other agencies around the world. He claimed that the NSA does not rely on zero-day exploits, not extensively anyway. He says the NSA doesn’t heavily look at zero-days, simply because they don’t have to.

“[With] any large network, I will tell you that persistence and focus will get you in, will achieve that exploitation without the zero days,” he says.

There’s so many more vectors that are easier, less risky and quite often more productive than going down that route.

NSA Chief Hacker Reveals How He Can Be Kept Away – Part 1

NSA-seal

The National Security Agency’s hacking chief reveals insights and tips to block the world’s best hackers.

Here’ how NSA’s hacker-in-chief Rob Joyce began a recent security conference in San Francisco.

I will admit it is very strange to be in that position up here on a stage in front of a group of people. It’s not something often done

My talk today is to tell you, as a nation state exploiter, what can you do to defend yourself to make my life hard.

As the head of NSA’s Tailored Access Operations – the team tasked by the government to infiltrate foreign adversaries and allies’ computer systems and networks, even Joyce made light of the awkward situation. He was in a room packed with security professionals, journalists and academics, telling them exactly how they could keep state-hackers like him away from their computers and networks.

The NSA Trap

The NSA isn’t one to look for the login credentials of any targeted firm or organization’s management. Instead, the agency looks for the credentials of network and system administrators, those with high levels of network access and privileges. The NSA, as reported by Wired, also seeks to find hardcoded passwords embedded in software. Similarly, the agency also sniffs for passwords transmitted and used by legacy protocols. Basically, the entire sphere where it detects a vulnerability, none of which goes unnoticed by the agency.

Joyce said:

Don’t assume a crack is too small to be noticed, or too small to be exploited.

If users ran penetration tests of their network and infrastructure to see 97 devices pass the test while three failed, Joyce claimed that those three seemingly harmless vulnerabilities are the ones that the NSA or other state-sponsored attackers will see as sweet spots.

We need that first crack, that first seam,” explained Joyce, noting that every single vulnerability matters. “And we’re going to look and look and look for that esoteric kind of edge case to break open and crack in.”

If a user is approached by a vendor to open the network, however brief, to fix a concern remotely, Joyce advises it. Such a situation is just one of the many opportunities that nation-state hackers are looking for as vulnerabilities, he added.

Surprisingly, Joyce also pointed to personal devices such as laptops that are used by office employees that are running gaming platform Steam, as a favorite attack target of the NSA. When the employee’s kids load Steam games on to the laptops and the works subsequently connect to the organization’s network, an attack vector is opened.

Basically, the NSA and state-sponsored spies and hackers in general are well equipped to get into a user’s network, simply because they know more about the network than most users do.

We put the time in …to know [that network] better than the people who designed it and the people who are securing it,” he stated. “You know the technologies you intended to use in that network. We know the technologies that are actually in use in that network. Subtle difference. You’d be surprised about the things that are running on a network vs. the things that you think are supposed to be there.”

Organizations Still Paying Breach Costs After Remediation

290x195securityworry2A new report from SANS Institute examines the costs that organizations deal with after they clean up from a breach.

Data breaches often result in myriad costs for victimized organizations and individuals. A new study from SANS Institute, sponsored by Identity Finder, found that even after organizations remediate the immediate cause of a breach, there will still be ongoing cost consequences.

Barbara Filkins, senior analyst at SANS Institute, wanted to take a different tact to the analysis of data breach costs than other reports, notably the Ponemon Cost of a Data Breach and Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR). (The 2015 Ponemon Cost of a Data Breach report, sponsored by IBM, found that the average cost of a data breach is $3.8 million.) In Filkins’ view, the other reports focus on the front-end costs of data breaches as opposed to what can be done to mitigate the damage after an attack.

At the top end, the SANS report found that 31 percent of the surveyed organizations incurred post-breach costs of between $1,000 and $100,000 as a result of a data breach, and 23 percent experienced costs of $100,000 to $500,000.

Looking at the root causes of the data breaches, 35 percent of respondents noted that a hacking or malware attack was the primary vector. The study also asked about how long it took organizations to fully remediate a breach, with 38 percent of respondents reporting it took three months or longer.

Going a step further, even after the breach remediation was considered to be complete, most respondents experienced residual issues, including potential litigation, fines and brand reputation concerns. Only 35 percent reported that they had no lingering effects after a breach was considered to be remediated.

As to why some organizations have no lingering effects, Filkins said it all has to do with the nature of the breach and the difficulty of understanding costs. There are some obvious items that are considered to be post-breach costs, including identity monitoring services, but when it comes to the lingering costs, it’s not as easy to quantify the impact on brand reputation and stock prices, for example, she added.

According to Todd Feinman, CEO of Identity Finder, the path to helping minimize the costs of a data breach involves classifying data so that organizations understand where the risks are. The reality is that breaches are now a fact of life and it’s difficult to prevent all breaches from happening, he said. Taking that as a baseline, Feinman suggests that just because there is a security incident, it doesn’t necessarily have to turn into a large-scale data breach.

“If organizations want to minimize the costs of an attack or a data breach, you have to know where the sensitive data is and keep it as small a footprint as possible and make sure that it doesn’t leave the organization,” he said.

Identity Finder develops its own tool for data loss prevention called Sensitive Data Manager, which was updated this week to version 9.0. The new release includes improved data classification capabilities.

“There is no single technology, including ours, that is a silver bullet to prevent data breaches and related costs,” Feinman said. “It’s all about people, process and technology.”