CounterMeasures - A Security Blog � vulnerability

The best form of defence?

Rik Ferguson — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 16:19:41 +0000

Mutation by woodleywonderworks

A report in the Daily Yomiuri suggests that the Japanese government have commissioned Fujitsu Ltd to create a “defensive virus” and that after 3 years of work and a budget of $2.3 million, the project is nearing completion.

Technical details in the article are necessarily thin on the ground but it appears that the “cyberweapon” is designed to “springboard” from one compromised computer to another, tracing back to the original source of the attack and shutting down malicious processes en route.

Whilst I can see the attractiveness of the principle and have some sympathy for the thinly veiled claims in the article that “everyone else is doing it”, the concept of the “good” computer virus has been the subject of debate for many years and it has never gained widespread support.

Even a “good” virus or worm must execute on a machine without the permission of the owner of that machine. If that “good” virus has the objective of terminating malicious processes and/or patching security holes then, by definition it must modify or delete critical processes, memory content or files. If its design is to spread autonomously then system owners will have no opportunity to test whether its supposedly altruistic activities will have any negative impact on a running system. It will also consume bandwidth, disk space, memory and processor cycles, all adding to the load, just as a malicious worm does effectively creating a Denial of Service condition.

The “good” virus may also be hindered by effective security software, many of the actions it will be carrying out, such as modifying system components and terminating process, will be precisely those which are designed to be recognised and stopped by security programs.

Finally it really wouldn’t take much effort for criminal groups to take these white-hat tools and modify them for more malicious use, blurring the line even more between the “good” and the bad and putting professional grade carrier mechanisms in the hands of criminals.

The Japanese government seem less than coordinated right now on the actual use such a technology would be put to, the article reports them as saying that they are “not considering outside applications for the program as it was developed for more defensive uses, such as identifying which terminal within the Self-Defense Forces was initially targeted in a cyber-attack“. This is hardly surprising, as the creation of malware is currently a violation of Japan’s criminal code.

You have to wonder though, even in that limited scenario, wouldn’t such an automated “sprinkler system” pose a huge risk of destroying valuable forensic evidence in the case of a breach? Wouldn’t effective real-time monitoring of computers and networks, reporting to a centralised SIEM console provide as much intelligence in a less inherently risky way?

Post Script:

In 2004 Cyrus Peikari made a seemingly good case for Fighting Fire with Fire, but I feel that the medical analogy breaks down completely under close examination. In the digital case we are talking about releasing a self-replicating virus into the wild, whereas in the medical case we talk about manual and controlled introduction of an attenuated virus on an individual (and voluntary) basis.

Conficker, Duqu, Stuxnet, Aliens, Confuxnet!

Rik Ferguson — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 14:37:21 +0000

I have just read a Reuters news story where respected “cyber warfare expert” John Bumgarner is reported to claim that Conficker was devised and released to act as a global smokescreen for the surgical attack, using Stuxnet on nuclear facilities in Iran.

Bumgarner claims that initial reconnaissance work was carried out using Duqu in 2007 to identify targets relevant to a later attack by Stuxnet. In November 2008 Conficker was released globally to infect as many machines as possible. When a Conficker infection phoned home, if the victim machine was found to be in a apposite location (Iran) it was flagged as a later target for Stuxnet. He further states that Conficker did no damage to machines outside Iran and that on the infamous April 1st “activation date” (of the third variant from March 2009) it was used to pull down Stuxnet to those machines located in interesting locations in Iran.

Here is the evidence, all of it unsubstantiated as far as I can ascertain, that Bumgarner presents to support his claim:

1- Both Stuxnet and Conficker show evidence of “unprecedented sophistication” leading him to believe that they are related.

2- Both Stuxnet and Conficker use the same vulnerability to infect machines (MS08-67)

3 – Unspecified “key dates” in timestamps of unspecified “different versions” of Conficker and Stuxnet overlap and also “helped him to identify April 1 2009 as the launch date for the attack“.

4 – April 1st 2009 was the 30th anniversary of the declaration of an Islamic Republic in Iran. Other unspecified dates also corresponded with days when “Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his nation would pursue its nuclear program despite international objections, and another with the day that he made a highly controversial appearance at Columbia University in New York“.

As regards the end-game, the eventual infection of machines physically located in the right place inside nuclear facilities, Bumgarner concedes that at this point the malware wasn’t yet “in the target“. So to make that final crucial leap, Stuxnet was designed to infect USB drives, in the hope that someone would later take the same USB drive from a Conficker/Stuxnet infected machine and plug it into a machine located in an air-gapped network in nuclear facility. At that point, Bumgarner states, “it was checkmate“.

Phew, what a ride! You’ll forgive me I hope if I say that this account stretches my credulity to breaking point. Let me list a few reasons why.

1 – If targets outside of Iran were surplus to requirements, why did the first iteration of Conficker only exclude computers based in the Ukraine? Why was that restriction later removed? Why not only infect machines in Iran in the first place? It is also not true to say that machines infected with Conficker were all unharmed, Conficker was used to deliver Fake AV and had a functional relationship with Waledac botnet C&C

2 – The levels of sophistication in Conficker and Stuxnet are in different leagues. The original version of Conficker used a single already patched Windows vulnerability to spread, the second variant added the capability to spread via removable drives and by brute forcing passwords against a list of common password variants, neither method sophisticated. There was a level of sophistication in the scale of pseudo-random domains that were generated by the malware as potential C&C locations, but nothing that wasn’t quickly reverse engineered and understood. In the third variant of Conficker the propagation methods were actually removed, only to reappear again in the fourth significant variant. Stuxnet was a far more sophisticated animal, taking advantage of zero-day vulnerabilities and requiring specialist knowledge of SCADA systems and nuclear facilities.

3 – I would theorise that the creators of Stuxnet chose to also use the MS08-67 vulnerability because its effectiveness is demonstrated by the fact that Conficker is still one of the most prevalent infections in enterprise networks, three years after its initial appearance. Why would you make two pieces of malware that propagate using the same vulnerability and yet rely on one to download the other?

4 – The “activation date” of April 1 was coded into the third variant of Conficker. You don’t need unspecified time-stamps on unspecified files to tell you that.

5 – April 1st is also April Fool’s day in many countries around the world, it’s also the anniversary of the founding of Apple Inc., the founding of the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) in the UK, the birth of the Republic of Ireland and the land blockade of West Berlin by the East German military. Get my point? As regards President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying that his country would continue to pursue it’s nuclear program, well surely, pick a day, pick any day…

Then of course there’s the difficult conclusion, relying on persons unknown to plug a USB device into a Confuxnet infected machine, then unknowingly taking that same USB drive and plugging it into a PLC in a nuclear facility. Given the “unprecedented sophistication” of everything that has gone before, it’s this one just a tiny bit of a shot in the dark? A little bit “hit and hope”?

Sorry Mr. Bumgarner, it could be true, of course it could, and it could be that you have been misreported, but on the evidence you present so far, I just don’t buy it.

If I were a government with this kind of resource at my disposal, wouldn’t it make sense for one of my operatives in the target facility to simply take the USB containing Stuxnet right there for me?

I know, there weren’t any aliens.

How to check if you are a victim of Ghost Click

Rik Ferguson — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:27:22 +0000

used by permission from flattop341 Flickr photostream

Trend Micro and the FBI are very pleased to announce today the dismantling of a criminal botnet, in what is the biggest cybercriminal takedown in history.

This concerted action against an entrenched criminal gang is highly significant and represents the biggest cybercriminal takedown in history. Six people have been arrested through multinational law enforcement cooperation based on solid intelligence supplied by Trend Micro and other industry partners. more than 4 million victims in over 100 countries have been rescued from the malign influence of this botnet and an infrastructure of over 100 criminal servers has been dismantled with minimal disruption to the innocent victims.

If you are worried that you might have been a victim of this criminal activity, the FBI have made an online tool available which will allow you to check if your DNS server settings have been tampered with.

First you will need to discover what your current DNS server settings are:

On a PC, open the Start menu by clicking the Start button or the Windows icon in the lower left of your screen, in the Search box type “cmd” and hit return (for Windows 95 users, select “Start“, then “Run“).This should open a black window with white text. In this window type “ipconfig /all” and hit return. Look for the entry that reads “DNS Servers” and note down the numeric addresses that are listed there.

On a Mac (yes they can be victims too), click on the Apple icon in the top left of your screen and select “System Preferences“, from the Preferences panel select the “Network” icon. Once this window opens, select the currently active network connection on the left column and over on the right select the DNS tab. note down the addresses of the DNS servers that your computer is configured to use.

You can check to see if these addresses correspond to servers used by the criminals behind Operation Ghost Click by using this online tool provided by the FBI, simply enter the IP addreses, one by one and click the “check ip” button.

If you feel that you computer may have been infected, you can visit Trend Micro’s HouseCall for a free scan and clean-up and notify the FBI by submitting this form. You should also contact your Internet Service Provider for advice on restoring your legitimate DNS settings.

Ongoing updates on this threat can be found on our Operation Ghost Click landing page.

Over 10,000 Facebook account details hacked and published

Rik Ferguson — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:02:51 +0000

An update to this investigation is available here.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
A hacking group calling themselves “Team Swastika” have published what they claim to be the usernames and passwords for over ten thousand Facebook accounts on Pastebin, an online service for sharing large quantities of text data online. It should be noted that the PR agency for Facebook in the UK gave me the following statement, “This does not represent a hack of Facebook or anyone’s Facebook profiles. Our security experts have reviewed this data and found it to be a set of e-mail and password combinations that are not associated with any live Facebook accounts“.

Team Swastika are a new arrival on the hacking scene, having announced their “launch” only six days ago. although they have only one tweet to their name they have already caused concern by publishing database tables and user credentials stolen from the websites of the Indian Embassy in Nepal and the Government of Bhutan, apparently by SQL injection attack.

This latest publication of what they claim to be more than ten thousand Facebook user credentials is without context and with no indication of the means by which they were stolen. The posts themselves have already been removed by Pastebin but I managed to get a look at them before this happened…

Stolen credentials for Facebook accounts

The compromised user accounts come from all over the globe, and a quick glance through the list of associated passwords shows that the majority of affected users are not using complex passwords, with many being simply a derivation of the user name, a favourite football club or a short numerical password.

The ongoing effect of such a large scale compromise can be disastrous for affected users, particularly if the password is shared for multiple accounts. It can lead to compromise of the victim’s email account which can act as the skeleton key for many other online services, as any password reset procedure will normally pass through the account owner’s email inbox for verification. regaining control of a compromised account can be a costly and time consuming process, as this recent victim explains.

It is never a good idea to use the same password across multiple web sites, so try to have a unique one for every site you use. While this may sound complex and impossible to remember there is simple way to achieve this. Create a complex password using upper and lower case letters, numbers and special characters such as $%&!. Devise a way to differentiate your password for each site you use, for example putting the first and last letters of the web site name at the beginning and end of your initial complex password, making it unique yet easy to remember

As for those security or password reset questions, this is also one of the most common ways to break into an account. If you are asked to provide answers to “Security questions” consider whether the answers are really secure. Secure means that you are the only person who can answer the question. If the possibility exists to create your own questions, use it. If you are obliged to answer more standard questions such as “First school”or “First pet” remember the answer doesn’t have to be the truth, it only has to be something you can remember.

I have not verified if the credentials as posted are legitimate, for reasons of privacy, but have passed the full list of affected accounts on to Facebook security so that they can warn and protect their users.

Sony (not) hacked

Rik Ferguson — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:45:25 +0000

Enter your password

News reports today are characterising an attack against the Sony PlayStation Network (PSN) and Sony Entertainment Online (SOE) as “another hack” or “Sony hacked again“. However, according to a blog post from Sony’s SVP and Chief Information Security Officer, that simply isn’t the case.

The attack against PSN accounts belonging to Sony subscribers went like this… Person or persons unknown, built or obtained a database of username and password pairs which they attempted to use to log into the PSN and SOE. The “overwhelming majority” of access attempts using these pairs of credentials failed, in fact less than 0.1% were successful. For this reason Sony suspect that the credentials used were not stolen from Sony directly, either now or in past intrusions. The database in question was most probably email and password pairs that have been obtained elsewhere but were being used in a brute force attack against Sony, in the knowledge that users have the unfortunate habit of reusing passwords across multiple services.

When Sony detected this irregular activity against its servers it immediately locked out all of the affected accounts and is informing the affected users that they need to change their passwords. Only a small fraction of that 0.1% showed evidence of irregular activity before Sony locked them down, meaning that the damage was successfully contained.

In reality this story should not be characterised as a failure over at Sony, but rather a success. Through their own monitoring systems they detected anomalous behaviour, acted quickly to contain the damage and locked out the accounts affected. They are also obliging the affected users to change their service passwords to better secure themselves in the future. Of course given the past intrusion at Sony, there is every possibility that the data does relate to that stolen from Sony earlier but also indicates that the mass password reset policy it instituted after the event served to render the majority of that data unusable.

After all it is not, as Sony have learned to their cost, whether you get attacked that is important, it’s how you deal with it. The lesson for Sony customers is not that Sony hasn’t learned lessons, it is rather that we as users still have some important lessons to learn.

It is never a good idea to use the same password across multiple web sites, so try to have a unique one for every site you use. While this may sound complex and impossible to remember there is simple way to acheive this. Create a complex password using upper and lower case letters, numbers and special characters such as $%&!. Devise a way to differentiate your password for each site you use, for example putting the first and last letters of the web site name at the beginning and end of your initial complex password, making it unique yet easy to remember

As for those security or password reset questions, this is also one of the most common ways to break into an account. If you are asked to provide answers to “Security questions” consider whether the answers are really secure. Secure means that you are the only person who can answer the question. If the possibility exists to create your own questions, use it. If you are obliged to answer more standard questions such as “First school”or “First pet” remember the answer doesn’t have to be the truth, it only has to be something you can remember.

Making the most of Facebook privacy – Part I

Rik Ferguson — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:07:29 +0000

The full guide to Facebook security settings is now available for download Making the Most Out of Facebook’s Privacy Settings.

Since the long list of new features recently unveiled has begun to be rolled out for all Facebook users; I have been receiving ever-increasing amounts of questions from friends, colleagues and Countermeasures readers concerned with how their online privacy may be affected. So I have put together this guide to Making the Most of Facebook Privacy in 2011. I refer to the forthcoming Facebook feature “Timeline” a lot in this post, but don’t be fooled these settings are available right now, even if you haven’t enabled Timeline yet.

Don’t Get Facejaked

So initially, let’s get to the recommended settings for locking down your Facebook security without having a negative effect on your enjoyment of the social network. Follow the three steps in this earlier blog article to help protect your account from unauthorised access, so-called “facejacking”.

Lock Out Leakage

With that out of the way, let’s go on to tweak your account and privacy setting to better protect the content you share and control the audience with whom you share it. Let’s look at “Account Settings” which can be accessed through the drop down menu in the top right of your Facebook page.

Facebook Account Settings

App & Adverts

In this menu you should review the individual permissions that you have allowed the Apps that you have installed. Have a first pass through this list and remove any apps you no longer use. Then review individual permissions by clicking the Edit link next to each remaining App. Some permissions are required for an App to work but many optional permissions can be revoked here. At the same time, ensure that the App itself is not giving out too much information by changing the setting “Who can see posts and activity from this app” to “Friends” unless you have specific Apps that you wish to grant greater visibility.

Finally, in the Facebook Adverts section, change the Third party advert settings and Edit Social Advert settings to No one. The default setting here is Friends.

Protect Your Privacy

The changes to Facebook have radically changed the ways in which we can share content with our friends, friends of friends and the general public. There are two main ways to configure this privacy; when you post through the Facebook interface or when you post through a device or App that doesn’t allow per post privacy settings. To configure these settings select Privacy Settings which is accessed through the same drop down menu as above.

Facebook Privacy

The Default Privacy setting only applies to posts made through an interface or App that doesn’t support inline sharing controls. I recommend setting this to Friends, the default setting again is Public.

In the next part of this blog series, I detail some of the more specific settings for controlling how you share information and perhaps more importantly, how information is shared about you.

Part two of this series is available here.

Security through governmental Obscurity

Rik Ferguson — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:08:15 +0000

by permission from dingler1109 Flickr stream

Another object lesson if one is needed that security by obscurity (and fairly transparent obscurity at that) simply doesn’t work.

At the tail end of last week, journalist and historian Bram Talman managed to publish the Dutch National budget for 2012 via Twitter, a document that is not due to go before the Dutch parliament until tomorrow.

While some of the news reports describe the incident as “hacking”, it is nothing complex at all. In Mr. Talman’s own words, he simply made an informed guess at the URL where the document would be hosted, typed it into a browser and there it was in all its glory

“Last year the name of the website was miljoenennota.prinsjesdag2010.nl. I simply replaced 2010 with 2011″

He later tweeted, the following day, that he had uncovered the budget of Utrecht in the same way.

While there are many technologies that can help with securing sensitive data, such as encryption, data leakage prevention, intrusion prevention and web application firewalls just for example; one of the key steps for making sure a confidential document stays that way, would be not_hosting_it_on_a_public_website…

According to the Irish Times, Mr Rutte the Dutch Prime Misister was quoted as saying, “The leak is extremely irritating and unfortunate,” he said. The IT company, Facetbase, said the cause of the embarrassment had been human error, which it very much regretted. Normally, said its head of crisis management, Peter van der Maat, a fake version of the new document would be put online until the real one was ready – but that had not happened.

DigiNotar, Iran, Certificates and YOU

Rik Ferguson — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 11:57:50 +0000

The story that has been slowly breaking over the past few days regarding the compromise at Dutch certificate authority DigiNotar and the subsequent “theft” of many important credentials is one that is of huge importance for internet users, governments and even the trust foundation that underlies the internet in general.

What has happened exactly?

DigiNotar is a trusted authority. That means that they can issue certificates that allow websites offering secure, encrypted communications to prove that they are who they say they are. Think of it as a digital passport. When you browse to your bank, your email provider or any other secure site, in the background these certificates are exchanged before secured communications can begin. Your web browser contains a list of “root authorities” whose certificates can be trusted. If a web site presents a valid certificate then your browser will trust it and begin encrypted communications. When the certificate is valid, this all happens transparently to you, the end user. DigiNotar’s security has been compromised and a large number of fraudulent certificates have been issued. A full list can be found here (CSV file), although it should be stated that this list may yet grow over time.

What is a valid certificate?

A valid certificate is one that matches the name of the site that is using it, that has an expiry date that has not yet been exceeded and critically is signed by a trusted authority. It is this last step that is normally difficult for those with malicious intent to overcome. If I present an faked, expired or otherwise fraufdulent certificate, your browser will alert you and you may well choose not to continue the communication.

So what does this mean?

If I can set up a “man-in-the-middle”, for example a proxy server, between you and your bank it is very simple for me to intercept and read plain old HTTP traffic as it is not encrypted. However HTTPS traffic would be a problem, it is encrypted and I don’t have the keys to decrypt it, the encryption is between you and your bank. If I have a valid certificate that appears to come from your bank I can overcome this problem, my proxy can pretend to be your bank, present the right credentials and I can decrypt and read all your content, before I pass it on to the real final destination.

Who is at risk?

In a normal situation where I am browsing the internet I can connect directly from my computer to my bank I am on a network I trust and I am not at risk. If however all my traffic must pass through a proxy, either at my Internet Service Provider or at state level, which is the case in some more restrictive nations, then I am at risk. The owner of the proxy can make use of fraudulent certificates and act as a man-in-the-middle. There is also a risk on public networks such as wi-fi hotspots, again the hot-spot provider will often make use of a proxy. Under normal circumstances encrypted traffic will simply be passed through untouched, but if I have a shady certificate and malicious intent I can intercept your traffic.

Alternatively I could infect your system with malware that configures your computer to pass all your traffic through a proxy of my choice, wherever you are located. For this to be effective I would need to be able to install code on your system to make these changes. At least one of the fraudulent certificates allows “code signing” meaning it can be used to certify that a program is from a valid publisher so this possibility certainly exists in theory.

Trend Micro’s Feike Hacquebord has uncovered concrete evidence that the fraudulent certificates issued as a result of the DigiNotar compromise have disproportionately and suspiciously affected users based in Iran (link to TrendLabs blog to follow). In Iran, all web traffic must pass through state approved proxies, the perfect man in the middle. In this scenario, the “benefits” of owning fraudulent certificates are clear. All encrypted traffic for affected destinations can now be decrypted at will and the end-user will be entirely unaware. It has been reported that the fraudulent certificates obtained include certs for *.com and *.org, meaning that all traffic for any web site with one of these suffixes can be intercepted.

Is the internet broken?

Does this event undermine the foundations of trusted communication online? Not entirely, although it certainly highlights a weak link in the chain. Authorities that are trusted to certify the identity and validity of web servers have a responsibility to ensure that the security of their systems and networks is second to none; they represent the top of the food chain. Having said that, security should always be designed on the assumption that a breach will occur. The key to successfully responding to such an event lies in the honesty and transparency of an authority that has been the victim of such an attack. Details of any such breach should be made public immediately so that the bad certificates can be revoked and will no longer be accepted by browsers around the world, thus mitigating the effect of such an attack. Unfortunately in the case of DigiNotar the extent of the breach was reported as minimal at the outset and the full details are only now becoming clear, several days later. We now know that 531 bad certificates have been issued, including those for *.*.com and *.*.org, making the certificates for WindowsUpdate look tame by comparison. The compromise at DigiNotar happened in July of this year, at the time of the initial investigation the fraudulent cert for google.com was not discovered, meaning that that one at least was in the wild for over a month.

Trust in all certificates issued by DigiNotar has already been revoked by many browser and operating system manufacturers and the consequences for DigiNotar as a company are likely to be severe, possibly fatal.

5 Security Questions for your SaaS provider

Rik Ferguson — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 12:49:51 +0000

used by permission from ky_olsen's Flickr stream

Software as a Service is seeing sustained growth and sustained adoption in both enterprise and in the home. According to a Gartner release in July 2011, Software as a Service revenue reached $10 billion in 2010 and is still growing. In fact Gartner estimate growth of over 20% 10 $12.1 billion on 2011.

The Gartner definition of Software as a Service is software that is “owned, delivered and managed remotely by one or more providers. The provider delivers an application based on a single set of common code and data definitions, which is consumed in a one-to-many model by all contracted customers anytime on a pay-for-use basis, or as a subscription based on use metrics”. The example that is cited in almost every article and presentation on the subject is Salesforce.com, and while they are a major provider in the SaaS arena it is important to recognise that SaaS comes in many different flavours. Customer Relationship Management, Human Resource Management, Cloud backup, Collaboration platforms, accounting platforms, helpdesk management, managed services and web or email filtering to name but a few.

The economic benefits, to providers and customers alike are relatively obvious to spot, the cost of user provisioning (the SaaS model) when compared to the cost of application acquisition, licensing and rollout (the on-premise model) is extremely attractive. The SaaS provider is able to more quickly and easily update and manage the software and service due to its centralised nature, application improvements are easier to make as a result of the visibility the provider has of customer usage patterns and the scalability and pay-per-use is attractive for both customer and provider. In addition the possibilities for integration and open interfaces are greater, with many SaaS providers already offering social media-like collaboration functions or open interfaces (APIs).

While SaaS may offer a flexible and cost-effective alternative to a traditional application environment, it is not without risk. By moving to a hosted platform, as opposed to in-house, enterprises must necessarily sacrifice a large element of control over parts of their operating environment. With SaaS in particular, almost the only choice you have is whether you upload certain data or not, the rest is largely out of your hands. You do of course retain the legal and regulatory accountability for the security of your data.

The risks in a SaaS environment are many, and largely related to the benefits offered. As I mentioned previously, your provider has access to your usage habits of the platform, normally through some kind of web analytics, they also have the capability of accessing all of your data and this in itself presents the risk of unauthorised access or monitoring by an insider.

The centralised nature of the system and the “one configuration fits many” model of the multi-tenanted environment means that, should a vulnerability affect one customer, there is a strong possibility that other customers will be equally affected. The Epsilon breach is one of the more recent examples and it affected many Fortune 500 companies using the same SaaS provider. The scope for exploits of vulnerabilities is wide. Common protocols and the software stack are used by most SaaS providers (HTTP, XML/SOAP, JSON, CSS and JavaScript) and these are readily and regularly exploited if not correctly engineered, implemented or configured. Additionally, the more scope a platform offers for customisation and external integration (a key selling point for SaaS vendors), the more chance there is that some other customer will introduce a vulnerability from which another may suffer the consequences. Such is the nature of a multi-tenanted environment.

5 Key security questions to ask your SaaS provider:

1 – Penetration testing – How is the environment pen tested, how often and do you have the ability to independently pen test your own part of the environment? Without regular, in-depth pen testing you have no visibility of your current security posture.

2 – Data Security – How is data encrypted in storage and in transit across the shared resources of the SaaS provider data centre? Who has access to the keys? Is separation of duties and separation of keys and data maintained? Can the provider offer you a SAS 70 report?

3 – Multi-tenancy – Is there an option that provides for single tenant hosting? Also explore whether this single tenancy comprises simply the application or also the data storage?

4 –Disaster Recovery – In the event of catastrophic failure, or external intrusion and data loss what backup and recovery procedures are in place? Where is backed up data stored (and encrypted again) and how is it effectively restored?

5 – User Authentication – What is the sign on procedure for the SaaS application? Are multiple factors in use? Is it possible to integrate sign-on with authentication structures already in use by the customer?

Anti-Sec is not a cause, it’s an excuse

Rik Ferguson — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:37:53 +0000

In a move clearly inspired by LulzSec, an Italian hacker recently uploaded a torrent containing personal information of thousands of Italian university students. This information was stolen from a slew of Italian university websites. According to the press release posted by Lulzstorm this was done “to tell every Italian student how little secure their personal data are”. I can think of better ways.

The spate of recent data thefts and subsequent publication, in the name of Anonymous, Lulz Sec, LulzStorm or the umbrella movement Anti-Sec has had a tangible impact on the safety and security of thousands of innocent internet users.

While there may be sympathy in some quarters for attacks on security contractors such as HB Gary and Infraguard or government websites in oppressive states; that sympathy rapidly evaporates when the result of publishing stolen material endangers the lives of serving police officers. Or when it compromises the privacy and safety of hundreds of thousands of innocent customers of online portals or gaming services.

The call to arms to the disparate hacker community that is represented by Operation AntiSec might read like something from a cyberpunk novel but in reality it is being used by far too many to lay a thin veneer of altruism over something entirely selfish. At least LulzSec had the decency to be honest in their manifesto, they were simply courting chaos.

The truth is that the majority of people now assembling under the Anti-Sec banner are doing this simply because they can. The convenience of having a “cause” somehow making it laudable. It is true that there are far too many poorly secured and configured web-sites out there. It is also true that the customers of those websites deserve a higher degree of care than they currently receive. It is manifestly not true to say that the interests of those people are best served by pasting their personal data all over the internet.

In the ultimate irony, the original AntiSec manifesto from back in 2001 was all about the irresponsibility of full disclosure. That same manifesto was reposted when Imageshack was compromised 8 years later. The manifesto criticised the “security industry” for using full-disclosure to develop “scare tactics” to convince people into by security. Are you listening Operation AntiSec?

This is a call for responsible disclosure in the Anti-Sec community, find the flaws, publish your successes if you must, but have the decency to spare the innocent victims of your crimes. Obscure personal data before you publish; otherwise you are considerably worse than those you are attempting to shame.