[SecurityRatty] tag: property

Scary criminal activity and data theft

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:28:00 +0000

Even though one knows that criminals are increasingly behind some of the larger data breaches, it not until we get hit on the head do we pay attention. I just read this recent article from USA Today about the latest attacks on corporate intellectual property - I tell you, this is serious stuff.
Any organization not taking this very seriously is doing a disservice to its stakeholders and shareholders.

The problem seems intractable - for every hole you think you have blocked two open up to allow these criminals to grab data. What does any organization do?

I think the answer lies in the data itself - one cannot go about protecting the periphery to protect the asset. One has to protect the asset itself - in this case the data. If the data itself is always encrypted, at rest as well as in motion (even when it is grabbed of the computer by malware), we might have a shot at preventing this.

Else we are putting our collective heads in the sand thinking that encrypting the laptop drive or USB device is enough...

PasswordTextBox

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:49:54 +0000

Chris Sells used to poke fun at me when we worked together in my former life. He used to call my security class, "Essential Access Denied". His point was a good one: when they aren't applied carefully, security countermeasures often just get in the way of getting work done. I don't know about you, but password-mode text boxes in web forms have always been one of those annoyances.

I'm not complaining about the fact that I can't see what I'm typing. I understand and laud that feature, because I don't want someone looking over my shoulder at the password I'm typing, and this even applies when I'm at home. I love my children, but I certainly don't want them knowing the password to my bank account!

No, what I'm bothered by is how a typical password text box behaves on a form that may incur multiple post-backs before it's finally submitted. If you use the built in ASP.NET TextBox control, it purposely does not repopulate the password text, which means if you press a button on the form that performs a post-back, or if you have a multi-page form that posts back on every step, that password disappears, and the user typically has to re-enter it. You could solve this with liberal use of ASP.NET Ajax UpdatePanels, but that adds its own complexities. I wanted a simpler solution.

So I did a little research to see what others had discovered about this problem, and I ended up deriving my own custom control from TextBox to make a much more user-friendly (and developer-friendly) TextBox control. I called it PasswordTextBox, and it acts just like a TextBox in password mode, but it retains the password while still giving the user the same level of protection the standard TextBox supplies.

My PasswordTextBox operates very simply: it stores the password in control state, and renders a series of fixed characters (with the same length as the actual password) into the text box so that it "looks" like the user's password has been rendered. Since control state is part of view state, and since view state is stored in a hidden field on the form, I encrypt the password before putting it into control state.

The result is quite nice - the user can post your form back as many times as she needs to, perhaps moving back and forth across wizard steps or tabs, and when she finally presses the "Finish" button (or whatever you call the last step of your input form), your code will be able to read the password by simply accessing the Text property on the PasswordTextBox. The user will believe that her password is sitting there on the form while she's working, as the same number of obfuscated characters will show up in the field as she typed in originally (what she doesn't know is that those characters aren't her real password anymore, but what she doesn't know won't hurt her!)

Note that to keep this simple, I used DPAPI to encrypt the password, which suited my purposes. But if you have a web farm, that won't work well at all if you don't know which machine the user's going to post back to, so you'll want to replace that with something more robust. I could see looking up the for entropy, as that tends to be sync'd already across the farm, but I've not yet spent the cycles to go down that road, since unfortunately all of the code for generating keys based on that config section are off limits in ASP.NET (most of the useful stuff is marked internal). I don't think it'd be that hard to do though.

Anyway, without further ado, here's the code, which you'll see is quite simple. I'd love feedback, especially if you see any glaring problems with the idea or the implementation!

public class PasswordTextBox : TextBox
{
    // unlikely that a string of these would be used for a password
    const char PasswordPlaceholderChar = '}';

    string password; // stored encrypted in control state

    protected override void OnInit(EventArgs e)
    {
        base.OnInit(e);
        Page.RegisterRequiresControlState(this);
    }

    protected override object SaveControlState()
    {
        byte[] encryptedPassword = ProtectPassword(password);

        object baseControlState = base.SaveControlState();
        if (null == baseControlState)
            return encryptedPassword;
        else return new Pair(baseControlState, encryptedPassword);
    }

    protected override void LoadControlState(object savedState)
    {
        byte[] encryptedPassword;

        Pair pair = savedState as Pair;
        if (null != pair)
        {
            base.LoadControlState(pair.First);
            encryptedPassword = pair.Second as byte[];
        }
        else encryptedPassword = savedState as byte[];

        password = UnprotectPassword(encryptedPassword);
    }

    /// 
    /// This control always uses TextMode=Password
    /// 
    public override TextBoxMode TextMode
    {
        get
        {
            return TextBoxMode.Password;
        }
        set { }
    }

    /// 
    /// TextBox doesn't render value attribute for TextMode=Password
    /// So we add code that renders a placeholder text instead
    /// 
    /// 
    protected override void AddAttributesToRender(HtmlTextWriter writer)
    {
        base.AddAttributesToRender(writer);

        string text = Text;
        if (text.Length > 0)
            writer.AddAttribute(HtmlTextWriterAttribute.Value,
                GetPlaceholderPassword(text));
    }

    /// 
    /// TextBox doesn't save the "Text" viewstate in
    /// TextMode=Password and we don't want our behavior to break
    /// if ViewState is turned off so we store the password in
    /// Control State, encrypted with MachineKey
    /// 
    public override string Text
    {
        get
        {
            return password ?? string.Empty;
        }
        set
        {
            // this prevents us overwriting the actual
            // password with a placeholder
            if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(password) &&
                value.Equals(GetPlaceholderPassword(password)))
                return;

            password = value;
        }
    }

    private string GetPlaceholderPassword(string realPassword)
    {
        int length = 12;
        if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(realPassword))
            length = realPassword.Length;

        StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
        sb.Append(PasswordPlaceholderChar, length);

        return sb.ToString();
    }

    public byte[] ProtectPassword(string password)
    {
        if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(password))
            return null;
        byte[] cleartext = Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(password);
        return ProtectedData.Protect(cleartext, null,
            DataProtectionScope.LocalMachine);
    }

    public string UnprotectPassword(byte[] ciphertext)
    {
        if (null == ciphertext)
            return null;
        byte[] cleartext = ProtectedData.Unprotect(ciphertext, null,
            DataProtectionScope.LocalMachine);
        return Encoding.UTF8.GetString(cleartext);
    }
}

Information security in bad economy

Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:37:40 +0000

Economy looks grim. The headlines are very discouraging. Capitalism does not guarantee wealth and success all the time. The talking heads on TV blame the greed in the stock market. I wish stock market is made of just computers that are not greedy human beings. These are bound to happen when there are human beings that participate! Money flows will eventually correct itself I hope, capitalism will be healthy again. This will take time. I am not an economist, but I do understand that people part with money for a period of time to collect higher return in the horizon based on their aptitude for risk. Simple is it not! But, all these complex financial instruments and its machinations seem to blur the reality and make even the brainiest act dumb - or are they just plain greedy?

Setting the context for this post, it is a tough economic situation all over the world. IT spending has reduced and will reduce significantly. In one of earlier posts, I had referred to information security as an overhead of an overhead (IT). What is a good approach for security practice in this type of economy?

I don't have a magic wand to pull a rabbit out of a hat. I have always been told that: tough economy is the time for real smart people to make money. Coming back to information security topic, with a bit of common sense, it is wise for information security professionals to offer services in those areas that does not involve capital expenditure. As a Security Manager, you may be already aware that your people are willing to go an extra mile in the current economic times.

- No budget or lack of budget, means no new capital expenditure. Spend time wisely in building a future technology strategy and keep it in the back pocket when the economy turns around.

- This is a good time to create roles/responsibilities and ownership for various areas. Create operating procedures. Make your team to automate tasks. This will help your operations become more efficient.

- This is time for security awareness education. Create pamphlets/brochures/presentations for an online or classroom training. Engage your and your team's time to impart training.

- Leverage already invested technology platforms. Leverage utilized features that reduce costs. If you have already invested in technology such as VMware, this is the time to get the best out of it. You can use VMware's toolkit to build your lab and staging environment and optimize on hardware cost.

- Off shoring has been the mantra of senior executives, this is the time to revisit those services and measure their performance closely and assess your satisfaction level. This is a good time to build a case for not off shoring if it makes sense.

- Companies are more vulnerable in bad economic times. You are in a better position to influence senior management about information security risks under these circumstances and drive home the value of protecting your intellectual property under these kinds of circumstances. management will be all ears for such a pitch.

- Time to engage your architect to optimize your security architecture, revisit standards and optimize design for cost efficiency.

- Revisit various controls and see if there are some risks that you could optimize spending on.

- Training budget is an unfortunate victim of this type of economy. Encourage employees to take free webinars offered by various security vendors and encourage them to share the summary across the team. This will put your employees in touch with latest happenings in security at the same time there is some learning that is imparted despite zero training budget.

- Since there are very few projects in action, this is a good time to have conversations with cross functional teams and educate them about your services and solicit feedback on how to do better.

- Revisit your vendor logistics and identify whether you can renegotiate some of your already existing contracts.

The above are some good ways by which you can optimize costs, this will also enhance your team's competence level in the long run. And this approach is better than letting people go, if you can pull this.

Security breaches: 3 tools for preventing data loss

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:00:00 +0000

When it comes to protecting data, there isn't one end-all, be-all solution. That's more true now than ever, when your most likely threat is your own employees. As more workers blur the line that surrounds the workday and bring their laptops, smartphones and other devices home, they are potentially putting their companies' data at risk. In a recent CIO survey, 34 percent of respondents had a security breach where their own current employee was the culprit. More on CIO.com Why Technology Isn't The Answer To Better Security The Rising Threat of Intellectual Property and What You Can Do About It [

Bush signs PRO-IP antipiracy law

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0000

President Bush signed into law a bill designed to increase protection of intellectual property.

Proxy Caches are a Challenging Threat to Internet Security

Sun, 05 Oct 2008 06:41:52 +0000

Proxy caches, combined with poorly written session management code, can easily leads to serious security flaws similar to what we highlighted in A New Security Breach in Google Docs Revealed.

Web developers have no control over proxy caches in the Internet. However, developers do have control of the code they write and their admin teams have configuration control of their web servers. Developers must assume the worst case Internet scenario with aggressive Internet cache management policies that serve cached data for economic and performance reasons.

As a consequence, this fact-of-life on the Internet sometimes results in multiple web clients being sent the same Set-Cookie HTTP headers, for example. Caching proxy servers should obtain a fresh cookie for the each new client request. Ideally, proxy caches should not cache session management cookies and distribute cached cookies to multiple clients. However, application developers cannot assume that proxy caches are well behaved, especially for applications where security and privacy are required.

Web developers cannot know whether their content is consumed directly or via a proxy cache. Developers also cannot assume that the HTTP responses will be delivered to the intended browser. Moreover, developers cannot be sure that the intended browser even receives the intended content. For example, a session ID issued to a client gets used while it is valid or until abandoned and expired. If it is served and delivered in response to an unencrypted HTTP GET request, there’s no guarantee it will be consumed by the intended web browser.

Ideally, SSL should be used on all web transactions that require confidentiality and privacy, including our recent Google Docs breach. On the other hand, even SSL is not foolproof. For example, many web developers do not correctly set the “Encrypted Sessions Only” cookie property. These incorrectly configured “secure” servers will send HTTPS cookies in the open, unencrypted.

There be dragons …

Note: Reposted from the (ISC)2 blog.

Copycat Web Malware Exploitation Kit Comes with Disclaimer

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:58:01 +0000

Such disclaimers make you wonder what's the point of including a notice forwarding the responsibility for the upcoming cybercrime activities to the buyer, when the seller himself is offering daily updates with undetected bots, and is promising to include new exploits within the kit.

For the time being, this recently released copycat web exploitation malware kit, includes two PDF exploits, IE snapshot, and naturally MDAC, with a DIY builder for the binary. Here's the disclaimer, greatly reminding us of Zeus's copyright notice :

"Purchasing this product, you hold the full responsibility for its usage and for consequences which may have been caused by incorrect usage or the usage with some evil intent or violation of the usage rules. The author excludes the placement of the scripts somewhere on the Internet, you can only place them on localhost, virtual machine or on a test botnet (minibotnet). WARNING! The usage of this product with evil intent leads to the criminal responsibility!"

What happens when the buyer tries to resell the kit? - "If you try to resell, decode, remove the boundaries, you will lose all the support, updates and guarantees." which is surreal considering that the kit is open source one, and just like we've seen with a recent modification of Zeus if it were to include unique features -- which it doesn't -- others would build upon its foundations.

Going through the exploitation statistics of a sample campaign, you can clearly see that out of the 859 unique visits 250 got exploited with outdated and already patched vulnerabilities. Therefore, diversifying the exploits set would have increased the number of exploited hosts.

With IE6 visitors exploited at 46% as a whole, it would be hard not to notice that just like Stormy Wormy's historical persistence of using outdated vulnerabilities, a great majority of today's botnets have been aggregated using old exploits.

Trying to enforce the intellectual property of a malware kit means you're claiming ownership, and therefore the disclaimer becomes irrelevant.

Bill allows victims of identity theft to obtain restitution

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:28:07 +0000

Finally, criminals can be held responsible for the theft of our personal data.

clipped from www.eweek.com

Congress Approves Computer Fraud Bill

The bill amends the federal criminal code to expand
interstate and foreign jurisdiction for prosecution of computer fraud offenses
and imposes criminal and civil forfeitures of property used to commit computer
fraud offenses. In addition, the legislation makes it a felony to damage 10 or
more protected computers used by or for the federal government or a financial
institution.

The legislation also expands the federal definition of
cyber extortion to include a demand for money in relation to damage to a
protected computer, where such damage was caused to facilitate the extortion.
It also allows victims of identity theft to obtain restitution for time and
money spent to restore credit and imposes a fine and imprisonment for
installing spyware on a computer.

The opt-out from hell

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:22:03 +0000

One problem with making your email address available (which I will continue to do, don't worry) is that folks with something to sell assume you're interested in their stuff. To wit, let's consider an email I received today (copied, headers and all, after my griping).

Note that if I want to opt out of further communications, I have to do two separate things -- which actually becomes three things.

First I have to click the last link to opt out of future TechTarget spam. (Yes, I deleted the actual links. But certainly none of my trustworthy readers would attempt to re-subscribe me, right...?
But that isn't enough -- I also have to separately opt out of future Avaya spam! (Why does the no-more-from-Avaya link live on a techtargetmail.com server? Whatever.) Clicking on that link eventually does land me on an avaya.com page, where I have to confirm my email address and indicate they don't have my permission to send me spam. Hmm, too difficult to embed my email in that link, when the other techtargetmail.com link did embed my email?
Then after submitting it, another page pops up telling me that I'll soon receive an email with additional instructions! In this email there's a link -- to avaya.com with my email address embedded -- that I must click, I guess to double plus confirm that yes, I really really really do wish never to hear from you again. Clicking that link takes me to a page that promises my "permissions have successfully been set. Thank you."

A pox on both your houses, TechTarget and Avaya. I never asked for your stuff. Go away.

Spam, my friends, is only going to get worse. It was so easy to ban junk faxes in 1991. But even those regulations were weakened in 2005. So do you really think we'll see anything even remotely logical for outlawing spam? I doubt it, unless we the citizens foment a revolt. Let's get cracking!

Received: from SVC-EXGWY-E801.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.24.242)
by tk5-exhub-c102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.18.53) with Microsoft
SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.291.1; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:27:56 -0700
Received: from mail139-wa4-R.bigfish.com (216.32.181.113) by
mail04.microsoft.com (10.253.160.184) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id
8.1.291.1; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:27:55 -0700
Received: from mail139-wa4 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])    by
mail139-wa4-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 018C11184C2    for
; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:27:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-BigFish: ps16(zz18c1K1936K2b7wcak69jzzzz2af1jz2fh6bh5eh65h)
X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 4:0
Received: by mail139-wa4 (MessageSwitch) id 1221589667478982_28100; Tue, 16
Sep 2008 18:27:47 +0000 (UCT)
Received: from pp.techtargetmail.com (pp.techtargetmail.com [65.211.80.227])
    by mail139-wa4.bigfish.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 46566978071    for
; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:27:47 +0000 (UTC)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=pp.techtargetmail.com; b=iOmibOrM91/1Ugy2gj3QbWo74T2m3GuhmwxZCXJQpFT+nwRES8QKg+4vjt48SNp7WWJExG61Ge+DtnKD3KVI3KwqTKzkPRVrEBF0DCHhYot6VAG/EyEr5vb5RhBz+91yvNhbIqITzGnuQ+uBDJzyc6gU0FHfBl0Fa3S/phcPELM=;
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:27:47 -0400
thread-index: a818b044.724694.236c8ee748f7dd97.1.n.4
Reply-To: Avaya
From: Avaya
To: Steve Riley
Subject: 7 Tips to Ensure Readiness for UC Deployment
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
Importance: normal
Priority: normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.4133
Return-Path: a818b044.724694.236c8ee748f7dd97.1.n.4@pp.techtargetmail.com
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-PRD: pp.techtargetmail.com
Received-SPF: Pass (SVC-EXGWY-E801.partners.extranet.microsoft.com: domain
of Avaya@pp.techtargetmail.com designates 65.211.80.227 as permitted sender)
receiver=SVC-EXGWY-E801.partners.extranet.microsoft.com;
client-ip=65.211.80.227; helo=mail139-wa4-R.bigfish.com;
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-PCL: 2
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-Antispam-Report: DV:3.3.6916.600;SV:3.3.6916.813;SID:SenderIDStatus Pass;OrigIP:65.211.80.227
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: 2
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SenderIdResult: PASS

The following message was sent to you as a subscriber to third party offers from a TechTarget property, including our network of Search sites, Bitpipe.com, CIO Decisions Magazine, Information Security Magazine, Storage Magazine, KnowledgeStorm, TheServerSide.com and/or TheServerSide.NET. To unsubscribe, see below.
____________________________________________________________

How should you evaluate the move to unified communications (UC)? Who within which parts of an organization will benefit? Will UC reduce the time to market? Read this E-Guide for answers to these questions and a better look at how the value of UC will, at first, be less of a financial issue and more of a productivity improvement issue that translates into financial benefits. Download this white paper now: http://pp.techtargetmail.com/c.asp?724694&236c8ee748f7dd97&1

When implementing unified communications, there are a number of important issues to think about and questions to ask. This E-Guide analyzes seven phases to ensure you reap the full benefits of UC in each. If you're ready to take the plunge but you're not sure your business or your infrastructure is - download this E-Guide now.

Click here to learn more: http://pp.techtargetmail.com/c.asp?724694&236c8ee748f7dd97&1

"If you do not wish to receive future promotions directly from Avaya please forward this e-mail to {link removed} ; please note that there is a separate opt-out procedure below to be removed from the list from which this email originated."
____________________________________________________________

Please do not reply to this email. To unsubscribe from all future third party offers from all TechTarget properties, simply click here: {link removed}

TechTarget | 117 Kendrick Street, Suite 800 | Needham, MA 02494

Modelling Shoplifting

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 03:30:15 +0000

The other day I was thinking that I should write about specific situation models and by coincident Marc Adler pens CEP and Shoplifting. In Marc’s post, Marc begins to model shoplifting as if shoplifting is “market data,” with Level 1 to Level 4 shoplifting “quotes” - the natural approach for a brilliant guy from Citi. In reality, this model does not work very well, and I’ll touch on a few reasons why today.

Marc’s initial shoplifting model in his post is based on John Colapinto’s concepts of matching a pattern of customer movements in the store with their estimated patterns of shoplifting behavioral patterns. Marc’s asks how Coral8 might address this. We are not ready to seek a vendor solution. We do not yet have a workable detection model.

As indicated above, I don’t think the example situation cited by John and Marc is a viable model for automated processing. Tracking the behavior of customer’s movements, by machine, would require some very sophisticated image processing technology that would be too expensive compared to any possible loss at most retails stores. This type of behavioral pattern recognition. in retail stores, is performed by people (security personnel), not machines, observing people.

To develop a machine pattern recognition application to detect retail shoplifting we need to build detection models that are economically feasible. If we are going to use a model of shoplifting pattern recognition versus anomaly detection, we need to define the objects we must track.

In the most simple model, we have merchandise-objects. Stores normally (physically) track merchandise-objects only at the exit/entry points of the store using some electromagnetic proximity detection technology. In this model, the detection configuration is a combination of simple alerting with humans watching the store (”minding the store”). This is not complex event processing.

However, if we added another object to our model, the customer-object, then we start to get more “complex,” but we have not defined “complexity” yet because we have not defined the object properties, the possible states of the objects, and the relationships between the objects that are the basis for estimated situations.

Hence, model building is constrained by available resources, simple economics and risk (cost-benefit). If we are detecting shoplifting in Walmart the cost-benefit model for implementing an automated shoplifting detection system would be different than at a top diamond store on 5th Avenue in NYC. Protecting loss at a weapons-grade uranium respository follows a different model than protecting loss at a handicraft shop, naturally.

Like Marc, I find models to automatically detect shoplifting interesting, so permit me to close with a general discussion of shoplifting in the context of our CEP/EP reference model.

One approach would be do determine what objects will be represented in our model. For example, if we are going to track merchandise, we need to model the ”merchandise-object”. If we are going to track people, we need to define the properties of this “person object.” If we are going to represent the store layout, we need to define all these objects (store-object, table-object, shelf-object, entry-object and so forth). The model can get “complex” quite quickly.

Editorial Note: An object-oriented approach greatly assists complex model building because we can benefit from OO properties such as encapsulation and polymorphism. For example, we can define a basic “person object class” and then create superclasses of this object for “customer-object”, “manager-object”, “or criminal-object.”

Generally speaking, each object we define will require a state-model, for example, in Marc’s example of a customer moving around the store, we would need to model the possible states (customer at the entrance, at table 1, at table 2, at shelf 1, in the bathroom, at the cashier, etc.) Indeed Marc, this is complex event processing if we have modelled multiple objects and defined object-object relationships that indicate situations of interest. For example, customer-object at table2 where merchandise-object has the property of ”very expensive, high risk” and then customer-object changes state to “in bathroom”. Of course, we need more key indicators, but you get the idea.

Right now, I am typing from the Taste from Heaven Vegetarian Restaurant in Chiang Mai and my battery is running low. The owner of this excellent restaurant also runs the Elephant Nature Park, a non-profit organization advocating and acting on behalf of the rights of the mighty elephants in Thailand. Would be great if we could also automatically detect the situation of “elephant abuse” by poachers and other crimes against nature. Time to get back to my delicious mushroom salad, Northeastern Thai style.

As always, thanks for reading, time for me to get back to eating!