[SecurityRatty] tag: secure

Browser Insecurity

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 03:02:54 +0000

This excellent paper measures insecurity in the global population of browsers, using Google's web server logs. Why is this important? Because browsers are an increasingly popular attack vector. The results aren't good.

...at least 45.2%, or 637 million users, were not using the most secure Web browser version on any working day from January 2007 to June 2008. These browsers are an easy target for drive-by download attacks as they are potentially vulnerable to known exploits.

That number breaks down as 577 million users of Internet Explorer, 38 million of Firefox, 17 million of Safari, and 5 million of Opera. Lots more detail in the paper, including some ideas for technical solutions. EDITED TO ADD (7/2): More commentary.

Tips for SQL injection protection

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:27:47 +0000

In this podcast, Scott Matsumoto, a secure coding expert with Cigital Inc. explains the tools available to software developers and security pros to protect against SQL injection.

Seven Steps to Secure and Seamless Field Mobility

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:00:00 +0000

(Source: Columbitech) This white paper examines the unique challenges of the wireless world and what an IT department should consider when evaluating a security solution for its mobile workforce. Additionally, it compares the third-generation mobile VPN with older VPN technologies, and their ability to handle these challenges.

Whats My Motivation?

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:11:47 +0000

Or more appropriately, “Why are we talking about ADMP?” In his first post on the future of application and database security, Rich talked about Forces and Assumptions heading us down an evolutionary path towards ADMP. I want to offer a slightly different take on my motivation, or belief, in this strategy.

One of the beautiful things about modern application development is our ability to cobble together small, simple pieces of code into a larger whole in order to accomplish some task. Not only do I get to leverage existing code, but I get to bundle it together in such a way that I alter the behavior depending upon my needs. With simple additions, extensions and interfaces, I can make a body of code behave very differently depending upon how I organize and deploy the pieces. Further, I can bundle different application platforms together in a seamless manner to offer extraordinary services without a great deal of re-engineering.

A loose confederation of applications cooperating together to solve business problems is the typical implementation strategy today, and I think that the security challenge needs to account for the model rather than the specific components within the model. Today, we secure components. We need to be able to ‘link up’ security in the same way that we do the application platforms (I would normally go off on an Information Centric Security rant here, but that is pure evangelism, and a topic for another day).

I have spent the last four years with a security vendor that provided assessment, monitoring, and auditing of databases and databases specifically. Do enough research into security problems, customer needs, and general market trends; and you start to understand the limitations of securing just a single application in the chain of events. For example, I found that database security issues detected as part of an assessment scan may have specific relevance to the effectiveness of database monitoring. I believe Web Application security providers witness the same phenomenon with SQL Injection as they may lack some context for the attack, or at least the more subtle subversions of the system or exploitation of logic flaws in the database or database application. A specific configuration might be necessary for business continuity and processing, but could open an acknowledged security weakness that I would like to address with another tool, such as database monitoring.

That said, where I am going with this line of thought is not just the need for detective and preventative controls on a single application like a web server or database server, but rather the Inter-application benefit of a more unified security model. There were many cases where I wanted to share some aspect of the database setup with the application or access control system that could make for a more compelling security offering (or visa-versa, for that matter).

It is hard to understand context when looking at security from a single point outside an application, or from the perspective of a single application component. I have said many times that the information we have at any single processing node is limited. Yes, my bias towards application level data collection vs. network level data collection is well documented, but I am advocating collection of data from multiple sources. A combination of monitoring of multiple information sources, coupled with a broad security and compliance policy set, would be very advantageous. I do not believe this is simply a case of (monitoring) more is better, but of solving specific problems where it is most efficient to do so. There are certain attacks that are easier to address at the web application level, and others best dealt with in the database, while others should be intercepted at the network level. But the sharing of policies, policy enforcement, and suspect behaviors, can be both more effective and more efficient.

Application and Database Monitoring and Protection is a concept that I have been considering/researching/working towards for several years now. With my previous employer, this was a direction I wanted to take the product line, as well as some of the partner relationships to make this happen across multiple security products. When Rich branded the concept with the “ADMP” moniker it just clicked with me for the reasons stated above, and I am glad he posted more on the subject last week. But I wanted to put a little more focus on the motivation for what he is describing and why it is important. This is one of the topics we will both be writing about more often in the weeks and months ahead.

Cloudsecurity.org Interviews Guido van Rossum: Google App Engine, Python and Security

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:03:10 +0000

In this interview, cloudsecurity.org talks to Guido van Rossum about Python, Google App Engine and security.

Guido is the creator of the Python programming language and more recently, Google App Engine team member. His involvement with the App Engine project was pretty late - the code “was almost ready for release” when he get involved. The security architect of App Engine was primarily project lead, Kevin Gibbs, supported by the rest of the App Engine crew and the Google Security Team.

The Interview

cloudsecurity.org: What security principles did you follow for App Engine?

GvR: While I can’t share any specifics on what we’re doing to secure App Engine, I can say that the main principle we’ve followed could be called “defense in depth”. We’re not relying exclusively on a secure interpreter, or any other single security layer, to protect our users.

cloudsecurity.org: Please provide some examples of how those principles played out in terms of the current implementation?

GvR: Sorry, we don’t divulge such information.

cloudsecurity.org: What criteria did you apply to Python module selection?

GvR: We first looked for modules that were useful and straightforward to audit. If a module was large or complex, we’d only audit it (fixing things we found) if it was deemed essential or at least useful for a large number of users; otherwise we’d exclude it.

cloudsecurity.org: What do you see as the security risks inherent in exposing an interpreter runtime in a shared environment?

GvR: I presume you’re asking about risks to users, like providing accidental access to data belonging to another app. We’ve taken extensive measures to isolate different apps from each other. For example, each app runs in a separate process, and the datastore prevents an app from accessing data belonging to other apps.

cloudsecurity.org: I recently attended a fascinating talk by Justin Ferguson (a Seattle based security consultant) at eusecwest in London. He gave a great talk exploring security vulnerabilities in language interpreters and specifically highlighted some security weaknesses in Python App Engine. What are your thoughts on his research and specifically the Python issues he highlighted? When do you anticipate they will get fixed?

GvR: We’ve anticipated all of the possibilities raised in Justin’s talk, and took measures to protect our users. Justin highlighted weaknesses in Python, but not in App Engine. Furthermore, our security model does not rely solely upon protections within the Python interpreter; there are additional protections that these external analyses have missed.

cloudsecurity.org: How do you contain an attacker that exploits bugs in App Engine from exploiting the underlying OS and potentially interfering with other users processes or attacking backend systems?

GvR: You are correct that there are strong measures in place, but I’m not at liberty to discuss details.

cloudsecurity.org: Python was the first language to get the App Engine treatment, what language is next and what are some of the language specific security challenges the team has had to deal with?

GvR: Although I can’t comment on what language is next, we are working on this, and have gotten a lot of great feedback from our developers. As far as language-specific security challenges, they stemmed mostly from the complexity of the Python interpreter. We spent a lot of time auditing this, and did a great deal more than just identifying buffer overflows. I can also add that Google is actively researching the security of interpreted languages. Google engineers routinely contribute security fixes to open source projects, including but not limited to Python.

cloudsecurity.org: How does the team decide when ‘enough is enough’ in terms of hardening the interpreter?

GvR: That’s not really how we approach it. We realize that security is an ongoing effort, and try to stay ahead of threats through continuous monitoring and testing.

cloudsecurity.org: Some commentators have suggested that perhaps the difficulty of auditing the implementation led to some modules being more heavily restricted than perhaps necessary. What are your thoughts on that and what plans, if any, are there to bring back code objects/functions that were eliminated in the initial release? (with the benefit of hindsight).

GvR: The only thing we are likely to put back is the _ast module, which was not audited based upon an underestimation of its usefulness (see my answer to question #3 above). We will also put back some dummy functions and other objects whose absence currently prevents some popular frameworks from being loaded without modifications. For example, some harmless functionality in the imp module will come back. We’re also looking into making urllib2 work (to some extent), though that’s not really a security issue but merely a matter of API adjustment.

cloudsecurity.org: It is reported that Google encourages small groups to go off and create. How involved were the Google security team with App Engine in terms of design and implementation review/testing? Given the dynamics, is it possible to have a meaningful security process that shadows the development process?

GvR: The Google Security team is involved in everything we do. They have been extremely helpful.

cloudsecurity.org: How can people report security weaknesses they discover in App Engine? What commitment does Google give in terms of dealing vulnerability reports?

GvR: There is a standard process for submitting security issues. See http://www.google.com/corporate/security.html. Google moves very fast to protect its users when a verifiable security vulnerability is reported.

cloudsecurity.org: One concern is the potential misuse of App Engine to exploit security vulnerabilities in visitors browsers. This is not a new problem per se, shared hosting providers know all about this. But with Google and other Cloud providers, the scalability potential is much higher. What are your thoughts on this and what pro-active steps is Google taking to detect and terminate evil apps?

GvR: This is high on our list of concerns. We deal with this through a combination of restrictions on what you can do (e.g. certain HTTP headers and ports are off-limits) and, again, monitoring.

cloudsecurity.org: Beyond App Engine, what role do you think Python will play in the Cloud both now and in the future?

GvR: Sorry, I’m not prone to philosophizing about the future.

cloudsecurity.org: Trust is often cited as a barrier to enterprise adoption of Cloud Computing. What role do you personally think Google can play in building that trust?

GvR: I think trust is built up over a long period of experience. Our actions in terms of being open to our users will be the most important factor in establishing trust. Of course, Google’s reputation also helps: everybody understands that Google doesn’t want its name associated with a bad product.

cloudsecurity.org: Looking at the Cloud Computing landscape beyond Google, what are your thoughts on the current state of Cloud Computing and Security?

GvR: It’s obvious that Cloud Computing is only just taking off. The next few years will be very exciting.

cloudsecurity.org: Lastly, what are some of your favourite App Engine apps?

GvR: There are too many to enumerate. If you insist on a highlight, well, I like Rietveld (http://codereview.appspot.com), a tool for collaborative code review which I (largely) wrote myself. It is open source and includes some essential components from Mondrian, a similar internal tool which I created before I joined the App Engine team.

Thanks

My thanks to Guido for his time and sharing his views.

Decrypting and Restoring GPcode Encrypted Files

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:26:39 +0000

The futile attempt to directly attack the encryption algorithm used by the GPcode ransomware, is prompting Kaspersky Labs to invest in a more pragmatic solutions to the problem, with a new version of the StopGpcode tool released last week. More info :

"It turns out that if a user has files that are encrypted by Gpcode and versions of those same files that are unencrypted, then the pairs of files (the encrypted and corresponding unencrypted file) can be used to restore other files on the victim machine. This is the method that the StopGpcode2 tool uses.

Where can these unencrypted files be found? They may be the result of using PhotoRec. Moreover, these files may be found in a backup storage or on removable media (e.g., the original files of photographs copied to the hard disk of a computer that has been attacked by Gpcode may still be on a camera’s memory card). Unencrypted files may also have been saved somewhere on a network resource (e.g., films or video clips on a public server) that the Gpcode virus has not reached."

As the customer support desk behind GPcode pointed out in an interview, the malware is prone to evolve, and the simplistic file deletion process will be replaced by secure file deletion in order to render all data recovery tols useless, unless of course backups of the affected data are available. They often aren't, and depending on the importance of the files encrypted, the successful ransom is all a matter of the momentum.

"A person, presumably the author of Gpcode, contacted at one of the e-mail addresses left behind by the program stated that future development efforts will likely increase the key size to 4,096 bits, "if AV companies or other (people) crack the current key, but (that's) impossible. The self-proclaimed author, who used the name "Daniel Robertson," also said that other standard techniques to defeat antivirus will be added, including polymorphic encryption, anti-heuristic features and the ability to self propagate, turning the program into a computer virus. It well pays back itself," he said"

There are even more pragmatic approaches to dealing with this problem, next to backups undermining their business model. Try following the virtual money for instance.

Kill Switches and Remote Control

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 02:48:37 +0000

It used to be that just the entertainment industries wanted to control your computers -- and televisions and iPods and everything else -- to ensure that you didn't violate any copyright rules. But now everyone else wants to get their hooks into your gear. OnStar will soon include the ability for the police to shut off your engine remotely. Buses are getting the same capability, in case terrorists want to re-enact the movie Speed. The Pentagon wants a kill switch installed on airplanes, and is worried about potential enemies installing kill switches on their own equipment. Microsoft is doing some of the most creative thinking along these lines, with something it's calling "Digital Manners Policies." According to its patent application, DMP-enabled devices would accept broadcast "orders" limiting capabilities. Cellphones could be remotely set to vibrate mode in restaurants and concert halls, and be turned off on airplanes and in hospitals. Cameras could be prohibited from taking pictures in locker rooms and museums, and recording equipment could be disabled in theaters. Professors finally could prevent students from texting one another during class. The possibilities are endless, and very dangerous. Making this work involves building a nearly flawless hierarchical system of authority. That's a difficult security problem even in its simplest form. Distributing that system among a variety of different devices -- computers, phones, PDAs, cameras, recorders -- with different firmware and manufacturers, is even more difficult. Not to mention delegating different levels of authority to various agencies, enterprises, industries and individuals, and then enforcing the necessary safeguards. Once we go down this path -- giving one device authority over other devices -- the security problems start piling up. Who has the authority to limit functionality of my devices, and how do they get that authority? What prevents them from abusing that power? Do I get the ability to override their limitations? In what circumstances, and how? Can they override my override? How do we prevent this from being abused? Can a burglar, for example, enforce a "no photography" rule and prevent security cameras from working? Can the police enforce the same rule to avoid another Rodney King incident? Do the police get "superuser" devices that cannot be limited, and do they get "supercontroller" devices that can limit anything? How do we ensure that only they get them, and what do we do when the devices inevitably fall into the wrong hands? It's comparatively easy to make this work in closed specialized systems -- OnStar, airplane avionics, military hardware -- but much more difficult in open-ended systems. If you think Microsoft's vision could possibly be securely designed, all you have to do is look at the dismal effectiveness of the various copy-protection and digital-rights-management systems we've seen over the years. That's a similar capabilities-enforcement mechanism, albeit simpler than these more general systems. And that's the key to understanding this system. Don't be fooled by the scare stories of wireless devices on airplanes and in hospitals, or visions of a world where no one is yammering loudly on their cellphones in posh restaurants. This is really about media companies wanting to exert their control further over your electronics. They not only want to prevent you from surreptitiously recording movies and concerts, they want your new television to enforce good "manners" on your computer, and not allow it to record any programs. They want your iPod to politely refuse to copy music to a computer other than your own. They want to enforce their legislated definition of manners: to control what you do and when you do it, and to charge you repeatedly for the privilege whenever possible. "Digital Manners Policies" is a marketing term. Let's call this what it really is: Selective Device Jamming. It's not polite, it's dangerous. It won't make anyone more secure -- or more polite. This essay originally appeared in Wired.com.

Finished? Where should I start?

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:00:00 +0000

Many of the merchants I speak with are sharply focused on addressing specific PCI security requirements. While implementing the controls needed to meet the requirements is absolutely critical, I can't stress enough the importance of taking time to aim before firing.

It's no secret that PCI compliance is focused on securing cardholder data and infrastructure. Simply put, you can't secure what you don't manage and you can't manage what you don't know about. Before you go looking for all instances of cardholder data, you must be prepared to find more than expected.

Most merchants are aware of the cardholder data in their database(s). But what about payment applications or payment portals that temporarily store the data? Or customer service reps e-mailing credit card information to confirm or dispute an order?...

Telecom Amnesty Foes Lobby Obama Using Obama Tech

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:52:00 +0000

Left-leaning opponents of amnesty for telecoms sued for helping the government warrantlessly spy on Americans are turning to Senator Barack Obama's own Web 2.0 tools to lobby him to oppose a pending bill. They wonder if the new participatory politics he's relied on to secure the Democratic nomination can sway him back to his original opposition to the spying bill, or if old-style politics will rule the day.

XSS Comedy at McAfee Secure's Expense

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:10:00 +0000

In celebration of the deadline for PCI Requirement 6.6 compliance as of June 30, 2008, I thought I'd share a little web app sec comedy at McAfee Secure's expense.
As well you should know by know, the existence of XSS vulnerabilities in a site that is required to meet PCI DSS standards means that the site IS NOT PCI COMPLIANT. Very simple, right?
Let's consider the McAfee Secure/Hacker Safe-branded site for Organize-It.
A seemingly handy site, perfect for your HGTV types, likely with healthy credit card limits. Uh-oh, here it comes. Oh yes, Organize-It handles credit cards and is thus beholden to PCI DSS.
Organize-It is also proudly displaying a current McAfee Secure badge, indicating that it's tested daily.
Given the focus of many a recent discussion it shouldn't shock you that Organize-It is vulnerable to XSS.
What's funny is what Organize-It does with regard to "handling" malformed requests.
Where a typical test string for XSS might be " script payload /script (characters removed or Blogger will let me XSS myself), you won't get much use from such a string via either direct form submittal or URL encoding. But when the site barfed up '; // LEAVE THIS VALUE var sli_cId = 90;, while under investigation, my ruh-roh meter went off.
I decided to play with my trusty marquee test and found interesting results. The actual search form field is limited to 41 characters (er?). So my complete string of " marquee message /marquee didn't fit for direct submittal BUT THE MARQUEE RENDERED ANYWAY! Basically, half the test string worked: " marquee h1 This_site_is_NOT_McAfee_S
Forget the marquee tag on the blacklist, did we?
But here's the real icing on the cake. The uber-intuitive search index reinterpreted my message with what I can only imagine are index keywords. Thus "This site is NOT McAfee Secure" scrolls across the Organize-It site as "this sit is not coffee secure".
OMG! My daily quad shot Americano has been pwn3d to the core!
Here's the URL if you don't believe me, or the video if you prefer.
Forget PCI compliance, bring on the Gong Show hook, Chuck!
Cheers.

del.icio.us | digg