[SecurityRatty] tag: feedback

The McAfee Secure Standard: Sort Of

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:47:00 +0000

I need your help.
I am in receipt of the McAfee Secure Standard, drafted to transparently describe the McAfee Secure service, as promised during my meeting with Joe Pierini and Kirk Lawrence of McAfee some weeks ago. I admit my attitude has soured since last I discussed it here, as the Standard is not yet ready for public release (I last said 2-3 weeks and that was five weeks ago), but bear with me. I can't publish exact quotes from the Standard, as I've promised not to, but let me give you insight on the upside, then the downside.

The upside includes all the transparency we'd hoped for. You'll read the McAfee Secure Standard and know exactly where they stand with regard as to what can be expected of the McAfee Secure Service. My discussions with Joe Pierini have been productive and respectful, he means well, and I believe he will try to drive the greater McAfee leadership to officially incorporate suggestions made in this blog.
I have even had the pleasure of reading a Researcher/Finder Policy that very succinctly describes what researchers can expect when they submit vulnerabilities found in McAfee Secure sites. That's all good stuff and to be applauded.

Now for the downside.

The McAfee Secure Standard will draw a clear distinction between "enterprise" customers and all the Ma & Pa websites who have so loved McAfee Secure / ScanAlert Hacker Safe for conversions.
The most glaring and painful distinction for me is this. While enterprise customers will have a clearly defined time line in which to remediate script injection vulnerabilities like XSS and open redirects, before losing their McAfee Secure badge, the Ma & Pa sites will have absolutely no requirement to fix their XSS issues. XSS vulnerabilities and the McAfee Secure badge will remain consistent on all those sites that care more about "convincing" their customers that they're secure with a McAfee Secure badge; a badge that, by its own pending standard, will contradict what we know to be truly secure.

My views are clear. I have made every effort to convince McAfee that this stance is counter intuitive to good web application security standards. I believe that, in their own way, they are listening. So here's your chance.
1) Is transparency enough?
2) Is holding only enterprise customers accountable acceptable?
3) Should ALL McAfee Secure customers be expected to fix their vulnerabilities, even if on different timelines?
4) What else do you want McAfee to hear, in the form of constructive feedback only?
I will publish all well written, thoughtful comments here. Let's keep it positive and see if we can help convince McAfee that script injection vulnerabilities and McAfee Secure can't exist in the same physical space. Like matter and anti-matter. ;-)
The floor is yours...

del.icio.us | digg | Submit to Slashdot

Palin and politics: lots to talk about

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:00:00 +0000

Gibbs discusses reader feedback to last week's column about the break-in of Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's e-mail account and the heady intersection of IT and politics.

Interview with Lenny Heymann, Interop General Manager

Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:47:39 +0000

Interop General Manager Lenny Heymann, took some time out of his very busy show schedule to talk with us at Interop New York this year.

We chatted about the growth of the show and how much that growth reflects the industry itself. Since the bust earlier in the decade both Interop Las Vegas and New York shows have grown year over year – not just in attendees and exhibitors but in topics covered in the conference tracks. As any of us who are in the space know, it’s a rapidly changing market and Interop strives not just to cover the latest trends but also to get ahead of them while still making sure that they are relevant.

The show’s mission overall has expanded beyond “just” networking to cover performance and new trends like virtualization, cloud computing and SAAS that all affect network performance. It is a mirror for the demands on the network (and network admins) and the convergence we see going on that make managing the network so complex today.

Responding to criticisms about the lack of interoperability at the show, Lenny says, “Our special sauce is interoperability.” And in fact the expanded mission of the show ensures that there are more interoperability issues to deal with and he invites the community to comment and share feedback on this core mission.

Last, we talked about InteropNet. We’ve loved our participation in it this year for a variety of reasons – from the opportunity to work with other cool vendors in an intensive and real-life/real-time environment to the true sense of camaraderie and “getting it done” that everyone shares on the InteropNet team to the wonderful atmosphere of hard work AND hard play that you have to experience to believe.

We talked with Lenny about how he measures InteropNet “success” and the answer was illuminating. They’ve got high expectations at Interop; they expect the network to just work, so the focus is actually not on uptime and SLAs – that’s a given. “Nothing less than perfection works here.” (Let me tell you, after my horrible experience with the super slow and inaccessible network at the VMworld conference, that is definitely not always the case. Maybe InteropNet should sell its services…hmmmm…) Rather, it’s about being able to showcase technologies and strategies for networking and interoperability – or as we’re interpreting that, basically “walking the walk – which in the end is what InteropNet is all about.

See the full video here.

SDL Press Tour Announcements

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:04:00 +0000

Steve Lipner here.

Last week I participated in a “press tour” talking to press and analysts about the evolution of the SDL. Most of our past discussions with press and analysts have centered on folks who follow security, but this time we also spoke with publications and analysts who write for software development organizations. I was struck by the extent to which the folks who focus on development have been grappling with many of the issues about developing secure software that we’ve focused on here at Microsoft.

Security beat reporters, whom we have been working with for years, have been exposed to a regular stream of news on the latest bugs, worms and viruses, and Microsoft’s ability to react quickly to customers affected by those attacks with patches has been the industry story for many years. Last week, I had an opportunity to get out and tell the other side of the story – what we are doing proactively as a major software vendor and platform provider to help eliminate vulnerabilities during the development process. Based on feedback from reporters and analysts who know this space, our work to take Microsoft’s SDL best practices and share them externally has clearly been a need in the industry for a long time.

The specific occasion that motivated me to spend a week in conference rooms, airplanes and hotel rooms was today’s announcement of new initiatives in sharing aspects of the SDL with the development community. These initiatives don’t make secure development a “cut and dried” process, but I believe they will take things one step further toward enabling developers to build more secure software. I’d encourage you to look at our announcements. I’m really excited that we’re taking these new steps to share more of our secure development practices and tools with developers who need them.

As always, we’d welcome your feedback about these new programs and what we should do next.

RSA enVision and the Security Operations Center

Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:00:00 +0000

Last week I did a podcast with Glenn Williamson of Canadian MSSP Cyberclix. I put forward what I thought a SOC ought to look like, and then Glenn talked about some of the things he and his team were doing with RSA enVision in his SOC.

We've had some good feedback on the event, and if anyone missed it, it's available here.

Customers Being Heard Dell OEM Customer Advisory Council

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:54:54 +0000

It was a surprise and a great honor when Dell asked us to participate on their Industry Solutions Group (ISG) OEM Customer Advisory Council – even more so when I met some of the other members from companies like Google, Teradata, Siemens Medical and Cisco. Not so shabby.

I arrived in Austin Sunday night to get ready for a factory tour on Monday, a kickoff dinner and then two days of briefings from Dell executives, including Michael Dell himself! Dell’s ISG business is growing at a very fast pace and continues to build momentum and focus within the broader organization.

We had a nice overview of the product roadmap, including some of the exciting enhancements Dell is making to their storage products such as the MD3000 and the new EqualLogic PS5000 series iSCSI solutions.

I really enjoyed the Council meeting and it reminds me all over again; what I admire about Dell is the way they and Michael Dell himself stay close to the customer. The entire purpose of this event is to “get it right” and determine meaningful ways to embrace change (including change in the manufacturing process) in order to make their customers more successful. Ah shucks, you may say that all companies behave this way… well I must tell you that is not true and at times, I find it difficult as we continue to grow to stay as close as I would like to all of our customers varying needs and directions.

This concept of gathering, internalizing and embracing customer feedback is a simple principle of Business Success stories. Always trying to improve the pace of change and build meaningful sticky relationships with customers. Dell’s very successful Ideastorm site where customers post product feedback and are active participants in the Dell community is a great example of how to do this right. No other hardware vendor that we have worked with or attempted to work with has ever gone to the extent of embracing change that Dell has during our 5-year relationship.

From the custom factory integration services to the attention to detail in the order and manufacturing, and logistics processes, Dell helps us execute for our customers and I must admit that we could not have built the business as quickly or efficiently without Dell!

So thank you Michael Dell for building a business that embraces change and is focused on helping your ISG customers succeed.

Blue Box SE#026 - Astricon 2007 presentation on VoIP security and Asterisk

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:54:03 +0000

Synopsis: Blue Box Special Edition #26: Astricon 2007 presentation - "Hacking and Attacking VoIP Systems: What you need to worry about"

Welcome to Blue Box: The VoIP Security Podcast Special Edition #26, a 55-minute podcast from Dan York and Jonathan Zar covering VoIP security news, comments and opinions.

Download the show here (MP3, 6MB) or subscribe to the RSS feed to download the show automatically.

You may also listen to this podcast right now:

Show Content:

A year ago in September 2007, I (Dan York) spoke at Astricon 2007 in Arizona, USA, about "Hacking and Attacking VoIP Systems: What You Need To Worry About" My presentation covered a lot of the typical VoIP security threats, tools and best practices but also expanded a bit into specific security issues with Asterisk. Please do keep in mind that it has been a year since this presentation and so some of the issues I mention have been addressed. (Astricon, for those who don't know, is an annual developer conference for those who work with the Asterisk open source telephony platform. Astricon 2008 is, in fact, coming up in about 3 weeks but I will not be attending this year.)

The slides for this talk are available from Slideshare:

Hacking and Attacking VoIP Systems - What You Need To Know

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: voip voipsecurity)

(And yes, at some point I'll sync the audio with the slides.)

Production assistance on this Special Edition was provided by Michael Graves who had a very tough task given the poor quality of the recording that I gave to him! Kudos to Michael for getting it to sound as good as it does.

Comments, suggestions and feedback are welcome either as replies to this post or via e-mail to blueboxpodcast@gmail.com. Audio comments sent as attached MP3 files are definitely welcome and will be played in future shows. You may also call the listener comment line at either +1-415-830-5439 or via SIP to 'bluebox@voipuser.org' to leave a comment there.

Thank you for listening and please do let us know what you think of the show.

Blue Box SE#026 - Astricon 2007 presentation on VoIP security and Asterisk

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:54:03 +0000

Synopsis: Blue Box Special Edition #26: Astricon 2007 presentation - "Hacking and Attacking VoIP Systems: What you need to worry about"

Welcome to Blue Box: The VoIP Security Podcast Special Edition #26, a 55-minute podcast from Dan York and Jonathan Zar covering VoIP security news, comments and opinions.

Download the show here (MP3, 6MB) or subscribe to the RSS feed to download the show automatically.

You may also listen to this podcast right now:

Show Content:

The slides for this talk are available from Slideshare:

Hacking and Attacking VoIP Systems - What You Need To Know

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: voip voipsecurity)

(And yes, at some point I'll sync the audio with the slides.)

Thank you for listening and please do let us know what you think of the show.

My First Rogue Cleaner Popup Of The Month

Mon, 01 Sep 2008 04:24:51 +0000

Click to Enlarge

...courtesy of Secureonlinetags(dot)com, seemingly associated with popups from rogue antispyware hijacks. The feedback isn't particularly positive on Siteadvisor either, so you might want to block this domain.

McIrony: An unexpected response from McAfee

Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:04:00 +0000

Irony: incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.

Right before Black Hat, I put together what I believed was a pretty strong arguement against McAfee Secure - Hacker Safe, at a level heretofore unexplored. I believe it was more damaging than anything I've said to date, and as such, presented potential risk for me. So I ran it by some friends before publishing it. Then a most extraordinary thing happened. I had a long chat with Nate McFeters, who described an awakening he'd recently experienced. He shared with me the belief that a better approach to potentially negative security research might be to try to create a positive outcome, and worry less about press cycles or exposure, the 15 minutes of fame if you will. He pointed to people like Mark Dowd as an example of people who conduct crushingly good research, and steer clear of the petty, ego driven bulls**t.
There I sat, repose like the thinking man, frozen for minutes. "Nate", I said, "I think you're right."
What do I aspire to as an information security professional; more readership or street cred than the next guy, or the respect of my peers for contributing to the greater good? Attention, press cycles, 15 minutes...it all has its allure, trust me on this.
But at the end of the day, I really do want to contribute to the greater good.
So I did something different. I sent my findings to McAfee and offered them an opportunity to respond, rather than publish first, ask questions later.
Here's the real kicker.
They responded.
I had a three hour lunch this past Thursday with two gentlemen from McAfee, who flew up from the Bay Area to Seattle to have a face to face with me. This, all by itself, speaks volumes to me. In addition to meeting with Kirk Lawrence, the new Director of Product Management for McAfee Secure, there I sat with, of all people, Joe Pierini, the very guy who has suffered more than his share of abuse, up to and including the Pwnie. As I have been a direct contributor and participant in heckling Joe, you can imagine our meeting could have been uncomfortable. It was not.
I have had expectations of McAfee and Scan Alert that to date have not been met, or my (your) perception has been that they have not been met.
This meeting was designed as an opportunity to voice some of these expectations, and see if McAfee, in turn, believed there was any merit to them.
Surprisingly, at least as spoken, we weren't all that far apart.
While, as a naive idealist, I believe that security should come before conversions, I am also grounded enough of a realize that the most attainable goal can be a marriage of both. This premise frames my expectations of McAfee.
Can they not be more of a "thought leader" for all the Ma & Pa websites who rely on McAfee Secure, first for a higher conversion rate, then security?
Can they not hold merchants to a higher standard, without alienating them and losing business?
Can they not embrace the security research community in a fashion that McAfee, the security community, the merchants, and consumers can all benefit from?
Can they not be more transparent in their approach, providing more details and feedback about their methods, their findings, and their vision?
I know McAfee Secure - Hacker Safe scans can find vulnerabilities.
I know they report the vulnerabilities to merchants.
What happens thereafter is where things begin to break down.
Can the scan engine be improved to find more vulns? Sure. That's really not that big a deal; technology can always be improved.
But, regarding holding merchants to a higher standard; therein is the whole point of this debate.
Anyone can throw a badge on a site.
But what happens when the site proves vulnerable is the key. I'll be candid here: I don't give a damn about the merchant at that point; it's the consumer who is at risk and needs something better from McAfee and their peers.
So, here begins a different approach. I know that making changes at a company the size of McAfee can be likened to the three miles it takes to turn around an aircraft carrier. I'm willing to work with them, and allow for a positive outcome.
I have been told that, in two or three weeks, we can expect a published standard, that clearly defines exactly what the McAfee Secure product offering adheres to, inclusive of their expectations for merchant remediation timelines, potential badge downgrades for unresolved vulnerabilities, and hopefully even a more clear stance on XSS.
I have been told that I will have the opportunity to discuss this standard, and invite feedback. Any standard is better than no standard.
I have also been told that this is just the beginning of changes that will lead to more of what I have hoped for in my expectations, over the next 6 months or so.
I am hopeful that we can take McAfee at their word, and even if slowly, see a positive outcome.

del.icio.us | digg