Special Edition is the blog for security testing business SE Labs. It explains how we test security products, reports on the internet threats we find and provides security tips for businesses, other organisations and home users.

Monday, 5 December 2016

How To Really Stop Phishing


If phishing sites want data, they'll get it!

Running a honeypot, you soon realise there are four types of spam. The first is basically just adverts. Next comes social engineering spam, which is mostly advanced fee fraud. There's a ton of cash or a pretty girl waiting if you send a small processing fee. By far the largest category is ransomware, but this is closely followed by that perennial favourite, phishing spam.

Phishing works. Its "product" nets huge profits in two ways. First, by direct use of the stolen data. Second, from sales of that data to other criminals. This got me thinking about how to fight back.

Phishing sites tend to be static replicas of the real thing, with a set of input boxes and a submit button. That is their major weakness. Another is that, though the inputs might be scrubbed to remove the possibility of a sneaky SQL injection, the information being entered might not be checked. Who's to say that the date of birth, password, bank details etc. that you enter are real? What if you were to enter a thousand different sets of bogus information? How about a million, or even ten million?


What I propose is that when a phishing site is discovered, it would be fun to deploy a script to flood it with random data of the appropriate format for each input field. Finding real data in the collected noise would become nearly impossible, and so would help protect the innocent. If such poor-quality data is sold on to third parties, then Mr Big will soon want his money back and probably a lot more besides.

Diluting phished data to homeopathic strengths is one thing, but the general idea could be applied in other ways. One of the main tasks in running a spam honeypot is "seeding". This involves generating email addresses to accidentally-on-purpose leave in plain sight for later harvesting by spammers. If someone were to set up a honeypot with a huge number of domains pointing to it, and with a huge number of active login accounts, those accounts can be leaked or even sold (with all profits going to charity, naturally!) as being demonstrably live and real. If the buyer tests any of them, they'll work. Set up the honeypot in enough interesting detail, and Mr Big won't be able to tell he's been duped for quite some time.

Phishing is popular because it's easy, relatively safe for the perpetrator, and highly profitable. Frustrating the efforts of criminals, casting doubt on the phished data being sold, and hopefully causing wars between cybergangs is certainly one potentially very entertaining way of fighting back.

Of course, flooding phishing sites with bogus data may already be quietly happening. I certainly hope so…


Monday, 28 November 2016

What is Machine Learning?

What is machine learning, and how do we know it works?

What's the difference between artificial intelligence and machine learning? Put simply, artificial intelligence is the area of study dedicated to making machines solve problems that humans find easy but digital computers find hard, such as driving cars, playing chess or recognising sarcasm. Machine learning is a subset of AI dedicated to developing techniques for making machines learn to solve these and other "human" problems without the insanely complex task of explicitly programming them.

A machine is said to learn if, with increasing experience, it gets better at solving a problem. Let's take identifying malware as an example. This is known as a classification problem. Let's also call into existence a theoretical machine learning program called Mavis. Consistent malware classification is difficult for Mavis because it is deliberately evasive and subtle.

For it to successfully classify malware, we need to show Mavis a huge number of files that are known to be malicious. Once Mavis has digested several million examples, it should be an expert in what makes a file "smell" like malware.

The spectrum of ways in which Mavis might be programmed to learn this task is very wide indeed, and filled with head-spinning concepts and algorithms. Suitable approaches all have advantages and disadvantages. All that counts, however, it's whether Mavis can spot and stop previously unknown malware even when the "smell" is very faint or deliberately disguised to confuse it into an unfortunate misclassification.

A major problem for developers lies in proving that their implementation of Mavis intelligently detects unknown malware. How much training is enough? What happens when their Mavis encounters a completely new threat that smells clean? Do we need a second, signature-based system until we're 100% certain it's getting it right every time? Some vendors prefer a layered approach, while others go all in with their version of Mavis.

Every next generation security product vendor using machine learning says their approach is the best, which is entirely understandable. Like traditional AV products, however, the proof is in the testing. To gain trust in their AI-based products, vendors need to hand them over to independent labs for a thorough, painstaking work out. It's the best way for the public, private enterprises, and governments to be sure that Mavis in her many guises will protect them without faltering.


Friday, 18 November 2016

Recovering From Password Fatigue

How do we solve the need for lots of strong passwords?

Mention password strength online and someone will usually reference the famous XKCD password cartoon. If you haven't seen it, the idea is that the entropy of the password must be as high as possible, and that this can be adequately achieved by stapling together easily-remembered conjunctions of words
rather than difficult-to-remember strings of meaningless symbols. Some commentators have since pointed out flaws in the logic behind that cartoon.

Entropy is a head-twisting concept. Put simply, it is a measure of the chaos, disorder or unpredictability something contains. In information theory, entropy can be calculated and boils down to how many unknowns there are in a piece of data.

Consider a game of hangman. At the beginning of the game, none of the letters are known. Because there are many different possibilities, we can say that the unknown word contains high entropy. As you reveal each letter, the entropy quickly drops because of the way the English language works. Q is usually followed by U, for example, and not P or S or J. After revealing surprisingly few letters, we can usually infer the full word and win the game.

Passwords need high entropy. There should be no relationship between letters, so that if one character becomes known, it does not compromise the rest. If someone shoulder surfs you and spots you typing something like "M4nch3st" and they know you're a Manchester City or United fan from glancing at your coffee mug, then your carefully placed capital and number substitutions are all for naught.

Many people still think that strong passwords are required to protect from brute force attacks, but this is largely false. When cybercriminals want passwords, they either take them by the million using attacks such as SQL injections, or have people hand them over in phishing attacks. Because of this, we need lots of passwords to compartmentalise our lives into discrete blocks. Compromise one account and the others stay secure. Re-use them across accounts, and one key fits many locks.

There are lots of strategies for generating and remembering high entropy passwords. One successful technique is as follows:

1: Take a long line from a favourite book, play, song, nursery rhyme, whatever.
2: Take the initial letters from the words in the line and put them together.
3: Change vowels into numbers and other symbols, capitalise others.

Et voila! A long, high entropy password you cannot forget. Here's an example based on an episode of a sitcom that came to mind just now quite by chance:

In the Fawlty Towers episode The Germans, the Major says something like: "I must have been keen on her; I took her to see India!"

The 13 initials in this phrase are: imhbkohithtsi

Changing some letters to symbols and capitalising others gives: !mHbK0H1ThTsI

The online password strength meters I tried claim this password is strong or even very strong. Someone would have to know you were keen on that episode of that sitcom, guess the exact line from it, and guess exactly how you'd mangled the initials to stand a chance of recovering the generated password.

Now do that for the dozens of sites you need to log into, even those sites you intend to use very little but for which you must still set up an account. Ideally, each password must be different and unrelated. It's just not practical, is it? In fact, that sinking feeling you're probably experiencing has a name: password fatigue.

We could just store all our passwords in our browsers and create a master password to protect them. But what if we want to log in from another laptop, tablet or phone? This problem has led to the rise of the password manager.

A good password manger needs to securely store all your passwords, and to sync across all your devices. It should automatically capture the passwords you enter as it goes, and should contain some nice-to-have features. For example, the option to generate random, very high entropy passwords would be good. Intelligent form filling would also be useful.

There are other potential advantages to password managers. Because they recognise the sites you visit, if you get taken in by a phishing email and click on a link to enter your password, the manager will not recognise it, and should fail to cough up the creds. If you've allowed the manager to generate random passwords that you never see, there's no danger of you overriding it either.

I'm not going to recommend a single password manager, but you should check them out sooner rather than later. Instead I will point you to a comparison chart for you to make your own decision.

There are pros and cons to using password managers, however. Some people, like our own Simon Edwards, have argued that caution is needed. Last year, for example, cloud-based password manager LastPass was hacked and user data spilled (including security questions and encrypted passwords). Malware has also targeted local password managers such as KeepPass that do not use a cloud service.

Because of these weaknesses and attacks, passwords and password managers may not be enough. A good password manager also needs to feature 2-factor authentication. Biometric authentication would be even better as this is substantially harder to subvert.

Friday, 11 November 2016

Trump's Cybersecurity Policy

What does a Trump presidency mean for global cybersecurity?

Washington is nervous. No one knows if President Trump understands cybersecurity, or whether he'll listen to those who do.


Some pundits are already suggesting that his first 100 days in office will include a cyber emergency.

How he responds is crucial, but his comments so far have instilled little confidence.
"Cyber is becoming so big today, it's becoming something that a number of years ago, a short number of years ago wasn't even a word."
"We have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is — it is a huge problem. I have a son. He’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it’s hardly doable."
To be fair, Trump's campaign site does say that he'll order a review of "all U.S. cyber defences and vulnerabilities" by a specially assembled Cyber Review Team formed from "the military, law enforcement and the private sector".

But Washington needs to know if he will implement or even believe the Cyber Review Team's recommendations. After all, this is the man who, when experts discovered Russian-backed groups attacking the Democratic National Committee, said:
"I don’t think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. She’s saying Russia, Russia, Russia, but I don’t — maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK?"
According to The Washington Post, a sense of dread is descending on the US intelligence community. Former CIA director Michael Hayden summed up the mood:
"I cannot remember another president-elect who has been so dismissive of intelligence received during a campaign or so suspicious of the quality and honesty of the intelligence he was about to receive."
Trump's policy also places an onus on deterring attacks by state and non-state actors, and he has a has a particular thing about China's hackers. He seems openly irritated by the country's refusal to observe intellectual property law. His plan here is to:
"Enforce stronger protections against Chinese hackers … and our responses to Chinese theft will be swift, robust, and unequivocal."
By this logic, it's apparently difficult to attribute an attack when it's Russia, but not when it's China. This kind of thinking will need to change or it could damage superpower relationships at a uniquely dangerous point in world history.

Part of the danger is that a sufficiently irked President could order a pre-emptive cyber-strike against China to show everyone who's boss. How will he pick the right target if he doesn't listen to his advisors? China's a very big place, and what looks like state-sponsored hacking to some might in fact turn out to be private enterprise. Such actions could be taken as an act of war, and even a limited cyberwar could leave swathes of the internet useless until rebuilt.

Trump also famously likes to abandon the script and simply ad lib during speeches, but national security depends on secrecy. Will he blurt out something in a speech that gives an enemy state a clue about America's capabilities or, even worse, her vulnerabilities?

Trump's view that "torture works" could also irreparably damage the relationship between GCHQ and the NSA. Torture is a no-no for the UK. The Cheltenham Doughnut is expressly forbidden from sharing intelligence with countries that openly engage in torture.

A change in policy by the US would further compromise the flow of intelligence already put at risk by Brexit. The Open Rights Group also believes that Trump will exert a great deal of influence over the UK's intelligence community.

Retaining skilled infosec talent from abroad is also about to become more of a problem for US companies, because Trump plans a crackdown on H-1B work visas. Taking up the slack means boosting cybersecurity degree courses, but any increase in trained manpower will take time to trickle through. In the meantime, who will fill the skills gap?

Ultimately, Trump is going to have to stop threatening and promising things he can't deliver, and start listening to his advisors. To do so, he must leave his preconceptions at the door to the Oval Office and think calmly and clearly before acting. Whether that will happen is anyone's guess, but it's not hyperbole to suggest that a huge amount depends on it.

Monday, 7 November 2016

How The Clinton Campaign Was Really Hacked

The 2016 US Presidential Election may not be the first held in the shadow of Wikileaks, but it is the most entertaining.

When John Podesta received an email apparently from Google in March this year warning that someone had used his password to sign into his account, events began to resemble an episode of Veep, with Chinese whispers quickly replacing information.

Not knowing any better, Podesta forwarded the email to a member of staff to deal with. After a hop or two, the email was passed to the Clinton campaign's IT Helpdesk Manager. He in turn made the rookie mistake of not inspecting the message's header or checking the Bit.ly  link it contained. Both would have shown this to be a phishing attack. 

Instead, the Helpdesk Manager concluded that the email was real, and Mr Podesta should change his password right away. However, the reply also contained the advice that Podesta should ignore the email and log in directly to Google. He even supplied the correct URL to do this and explicitly said that Podesta should turn on 2-factor authentication at the same time.

The Helpdesk Manager has since been somewhat unfairly vilified in the press. The fact is that his explicit advice was lost in favour of a simpler message as his reply began to filter back up the chain of command.



According Wikileaks, Sara Latham seems to have been the person who actually contacted the helpdesk on Podesta's behalf. She also received the Manager's reply, and added her own endorsement of the phishing link.

Having been told it was real, it seems that either Special Assistant Milia Fisher or Podesta himself then clicked on the original phishing link and attempted to change the password. The rest has been pundit fodder ever since.



You can bet that the Clinton campaign  spent money on insurance, health and safety training, and other measures to ensure a safe working environment, so why not basic cybersecurity training? Maybe it did, and the people concerned simply didn't attend. It seems sensible that in future campaigns, no one should get access to devices without first demonstrating that they can spot a simple phishing email, IT helpdesk Managers included.

Tuesday, 1 November 2016

Does your anti-malware stop hacking attacks?

An attack rarely ends when the malware runs. That's just the beginning...

Latest reports now online.

Testing security software is a challenging task and it's tempting to take clever shortcuts. However, while doing so might save the tester time and other resources, it doesn't always produce useful results. And if the results aren't accurate then the test becomes less valuable to you when you're choosing which product to use.

We are big supporters of the idea of full product testing. This means installing the security product the way it was intended to be used, on systems commonly used in the real world and ensuring that every component of that product has a chance to defend the system.

In practice this means that we installed the anti-malware products tested in this report on regular PCs that are connected to a simple network that has unfiltered internet access. We visit malicious websites directly, where possible, and use a special replay system when the bad guys start to interfere with our activities.

Since the beginning of this year we started including targeted attacks in our testing. These types of attacks try to compromise the target using infected documents and browser exploits. Once an exploit has succeeded we then continue ‘hacking' the target. This step is crucial because in many cases it is these post-exploitation hacking activities that can trigger an alert.

Full product testing doesn't just mean turning on (or leaving enabled) all of a product's features. It also means running a full attack as realistically as possible. Testers should not make assumptions about how a product works. You need to act like a real bad guy to understand how these products protect the system.

Our latest reports, for enterprises, small businesses and home users are now available for free from our website. Please download them and follow us on Twitter to receive updates and future reports.

Monday, 31 October 2016

Monitor Unknown Connections with Currports


Uncover dodgy connections and malicious activity with this handy, free utility.

If you've ever downloaded an unknown executable or suspect something may have subverted your defences, you need to know of any malicious connections. Written and maintained by Nir Sofer, Currports gives you a clear, interactive view of all TCP and UDP connections being made by your Windows computer. Unlike Process Monitor, which is part of the excellent Windows Sysinternals suite, Currports isn’t a massive firehose of events that needs taming to be of any use.


You can download Currports from its homepage. The link is near the bottom. If you run a 64-bit architecture, be sure to download the 64-bit version. You can run Currports from anywhere including the desktop. It will create a configuration file called cports.cfg in whichever folder you run it from (including the desktop).

Setting Up
Run Currports and expand the display. By default, the listing is unsorted and doesn't automatically update, but we can change that. Press Alt + 1 to set an update time of one second, Alt + 2 for two seconds and so on.

Scroll across the display to see the information offered on each connection. Each time you press CTRL+Plus (on the keypad) the columns will auto-resize themselves.

If you double click on a line, a pop-up appears giving details of the process. This basically summarises the data in each of the columns. You can highlight a piece of information, then copy and paste it into other documents etc.

If you grab a column header with the mouse, you can pull it to wherever you want. I advise pulling "Process Created On" to the very left of the display because this acts as a handy time index to events. You can also go to View -> Choose Columns and re-order them, or switch off those you don't require. If you find it difficult to follow lines across the screen, you can also mark every other line in light grey, and add gridlines from this menu.

There's another useful column way over to the right of the display. It's the Remote IP Country column. This will give you the country each remote IP address is assigned to, but it doesn’t display anything until we download the legacy GeoLite City Database. Download the Binary/xz version of the file and place it in the same directory as the same folder as Currports. Re-run Currports, move the Remote IP Country column to a place where you can see it, and you should see the column start to populate as connections are made. If not, you probably downloaded the wrong database. It's the Binary/xz format you need. You don't have to unpack it; just place it in the same directory as Currports.

To test the setup, open the Edge browser to generate lots of connections. Sure enough, the screen fills with new connections to different IP addresses as it accesses news, adverts and lots of other guff from multiple countries. The names of servers are resolved into host names where possible, as are city and country names if you downloaded the GeoLite City Database.


Setting Options
Currports has a range of useful options. Most control what's displayed. Particularly useful is Mark Ports of Unidentified Applications, which is set by default. Any suspicious ports are coloured pink. Suspicious in this context means no icon, no version information, and so on.

To save you from having to sit and actively monitor Currports waiting for an infection to make its move, you can set the Beep on New Ports option. This can become quite noisy on a busy system, but if you just need to know if a suspect process on a specially prepared victim system is making outside connections without you having to stare at the screen for hours, this is the option for you.

You can also log activity by selecting File -> Log Changes. This begins writing to cports.log, which is a plain text file. It logs new connections and connections that close. The log file is written to the same folder from which you started Currports.

You can also filter Currports' on-screen output. The format of a filter varies slightly depending on what you filter.

For example, to remove all instances of svchost.exe from the display, enter the following line:

exclude:process:svchost.exe

To only show HTTP and HTTPS traffic and exclude all other connected processes:

include:remote:tcp:80
include:remote:tcp:443

You can use local, remote or both to define which end of the connection you're interested in.  Similarly, the allowed protocols are TCP, UDP and TCPUDP (both).

The include directive means that everything else is excluded, so you'll need to build up the output using multiple include lines.


Nice Touches
The icon bar gives you quick access to some useful functionality. For example, select a process, hit the red cross, and its connections will drop. This isn't recommended in normal use, but if you want to see if a piece of malware automatically re-establishes its connection it's what you need.

Select one or more processes and hit the floppy disk icon. This allows you to save all the data from those lines as a text file.

Drag and drop the target icon onto an application and it should highlight the processes for you. On a fresh installation of Windows 10 Home this didn't work, but your mileage may vary.

You can set and toggle the display filter with the next two icons. This second option is very useful in cases where you need to clear down the display to just the processes that interest you, then open it back up to all processes. 


The next two icons deal with copying the details for one or more processes into the paste buffer for inclusion in another document, and viewing a process' properties (double clicking also displays the properties).

Searching for strings is accomplished with the binoculars icon, which allows you to specify case sensitivity.

Finally, you can export the entire display into HTML format, which is then opened in your default browser.

All pretty interesting stuff, but what can you do with Currports other than satisfy your curiosity?


Using Currports
Currports comes into its own as part of the behavioural analysis of potential malware. If you've downloaded a piece of older, unsupported application, it's immensely useful to see if it's leaking information or calling home.

Depending on the type of infection, several things may happen. A botnet client will try to contact its command server for instructions, a payload and a target list. Ransomware might also call home for an encryption key, but much of it also explores your network looking for other machines with unprotected shares to hold hostage. If it does so, you'll see multiple connection attempts to lots of other addresses on the subnet.

It's not unusual for some forms of malware to open connections to the site router while attempting to find vulnerabilities to exploit. It's easier to attack your router from the inside of the network than from the (supposedly) hardened public side. If it can install a fake certificate or subvert DNS caching, it can redirect traffic to attack servers.

Many drive-by infections need somewhere to download and run their payloads. They can't use the system directories, so tend to use your temporary directory. In a similar vein, much of today's malware likes to masquerade as legitimate system processes, such as svchost.exe. A Svchost with a process path leading to your temporary directory instead of WINDOWS\System32 is clearly not legitimate, for example. Anything out of the ordinary (Excel making connections to Romania?) should be investigated.

There are also times where all hell seems to let loose, but which are completely benign. Windows Update, for example. For this reason, it's useful to install Windows in a VM, download and set Currports running, and just get a feel for what happens during various major operating system events. Also, install an antivirus product and watch the connections fly as it updates itself.

So, there we have it: a simple, useful utility to give you a clear 1,000-foot view of the connections being made. I may have missed one or two options, but if you have any interesting uses for Currports, please feel free to post them in the comments.



Friday, 14 October 2016

Interview With The Bank Manager

Pundits pontificating about online fraud is all well and good, but what do the banks think, and how do they protect us? 

To find the truth, we talked candidly to a branch manager from UK bank NatWest.


SE: First of all, what's the scale of the online fraud problem from the bank's perspective?


I won’t lie. It's massive. We're always being told about phishing emails, and you can report them to us online. Scam phone calls pretending to be the bank and asking for your account details and passwords are also huge. Just to be sure, we never ask for passwords. No one does Well, no one legitimate anyway.




SE: If you're scammed can you get your money back?

  
It all depends. The basic thing is if it's not a transaction you've made, its fraud and we can help. If it's something you've done yourself that's it, the money's gone. Where it gets tricky is when you think you're signing up to a one-off payment but the small print says it's every month and you don't realise. It might be cleverly worded, but it's up to you to read what it is you're buying.  If there's any doubt, don't do it or bring it in for us to check.


SE: How do you protect people's money in general? 

The monitoring systems now are really good. They put blocks on cards when something suspicious happens, and block dodgy transactions while we find out if they're legitimate. Tell us you're going to France for the week and we'll know not to block your cards if we see a cash withdrawal from Paris. If you tell us you usually go to France about now then we can keep the card active for you. It's just when we see things out of the ordinary that the system will react. A lot of the time people get their cards blocked on holiday because they forgot to tell us. It's a pain for them, but if you tell us what you're doing it's usually fine.



We see a lot of "Make $2000 a month from home"-style spam. What's the scam there?


It's usually money laundering. A foreign gang wants your bank details to put money into your account, then you send it on to someone either at home or abroad but keep an agreed percentage as commission. It's an old one, that. Sometimes, they want you to physically receive and send on stolen bank cards as well, or ones that have been obtained fraudulently. But you're being used. Basically, if you're caught acting as a money mule, then you're as guilty as the bloke who gave you the money to carry. We have a legal obligation to report anything over a certain amount transferred from abroad into people's accounts. Again, it's one of the things the system looks for that's out of the ordinary.



Can the banks stop people being duped into sending money to scammers abroad?


You mean like rich Nigerian princes and lottery wins that need a processing fee? At the end of the day, it's their money. We can only advise. We can say: look, we think this looks like a scam. But if they want to send it abroad then we have to do it for them. If it's a large amount, we'll ask them in to sit down and think is this really what they want. [We try to] find out how well they understand what they're doing and where they're sending it. We have had cases where people have lost considerable amounts because they're convinced it's real.



What's the most outrageous thing you've seen?


I was asked to look at the cash machine outside the branch I was managing once, and there was a piece of wire hanging out of the card slot. That's all it was. But it prevented the card from being returned, so people walk off thinking the machine's swallowed it. You pull on the wire and the card pops out. It's called a Lebanese Loop.  Simple and easy. Once you've got the card you've got the expiry date and the CVV number on the back and you can go shopping.



What's your personal message to customers?


Basically, it’s always a scam. If it looks like something where you think you can get one over on the sender, it's still a scam. These people aren't stupid. No one wants to give you free money. You haven't won a foreign lottery, either. There's no pot of gold. They may only want a small processing fee, but if they get a lot of fees, it's very profitable for them. Start with the idea that everything's a scam, ask us to confirm anything you get that you don't understand and you'll be alright.



What other guidance is there for people?


There's lots about but it's a bit scattered. Barclays did a good TV advert about phone scams. We've published a really comprehensive leaflet about online scams in conjunction with the police that covers all the different frauds. You can download that, and we have a web site for reporting scams. But if you have any questions the best thing is to just call the bank or walk into a branch and ask. That's the best thing.

Tuesday, 4 October 2016

A Modest Proposal

IoT security is a mess, but who's to blame?
 

The internet of things is quickly becoming every cybercriminal's wet dream, especially given the release of the Mirai botnet source code. The cause is shockingly insecure devices, but can shaming manufacturers avert the coming chaos?
 

Last year, Symantec released a damning report revealing security flaws in common IoT devices. Some, like not using SSL to communicate and not signing updates, are shot through with incompetence and hubris. The report also described basic flaws in some IoT web portals. It's uneasy reading unless you're building a botnet, in which case it's pure gold.
 

Many IoT devices call home for instructions and updates but don't bother with chains of trust. Using ARP cache poisoning, an army of devices is yours to update with new firmware, and to then command.
 

So, how big is the coming IoT cyber-storm? According to Gartner, by 2020 there will be a staggering 13 billion IoT consumer items online. Driving this growth is a gold rush that will be worth $263bn to manufacturers by the end of the decade.
 

To put this into context, the recent 1Tb/s DDoS against French hosting provider OVH involved just 152,000 hacked devices. To borrow from Al Jolson, we ain't seen nothin' yet. 


We could simply build stronger defences, such as Google's Project Shield, but this does nothing to address the underlying problem: insecure products.
 

Cybersecurity professionals increasingly spend excessive time and energy defending against those products. And apart from bad publicity, there seems to be little consequence for manufacturers.

Ah, but surely responsible IoT companies provide updates as they become available? Well, yes. Up to a point.
 

Do your parents have any idea how to locate and install a firmware update from a support site? Mine neither. Why should they? They bought white goods, not a system administration course. By now, all IoT updates should just happen automatically, using a chain of trust that begins with code locked securely into the CPU and ends via client and server identity verification with cryptographically signed firmware images.
 

Online safety is at the heart of the problem. Consumers have a right to safe goods. IoT manufacturers have a responsibility to prevent their products harming others online. Do baby monitors that can be accessed by anyone sound safe to you?
 

The lamps in your lounge won't randomly explode and set the curtains on fire. They meet legally enforceable standards. But a smart lightbulb can be hacked. We live in a changed world, and mere lightbulbs serving ransomware is becoming possible.
 

It's not as if good IoT security is difficult to implement. Because of this, there's an obvious and urgent need to enforce legal cyber-safety standards against manufacturers. One potential and very detailed testing methodology comes from the OWASP Internet of Things Project.
 

My modest proposal is that IoT manufacturers be made to implement strong security in their products in order to offer them for sale. For this, we need independent testing bodies. Those products that fail would be denied a safety certificate, just like any other consumer item. Foreign imports would be subject to trading standards examination, with sellers facing prosecution for selling insecure goods just as they do for selling fakes.
 

Maybe then, as older devices fail and are replaced, will the IoT will slowly revert to the consumer paradise it was meant to be.

Friday, 30 September 2016

A Very Sophisticated Hack...

If you search for the phrase "very sophisticated hack" and do a little digging, you'll soon discover that what are initially claimed to be diabolical plots by fiendish cybercriminals often turn out to be nothing more than incompetence or naivety on the part of the victims. They only appear sophisticated to the average Joe.

Banks, casinos, hospitals, health insurers, dating sites, even telecoms providers have all fallen in the past year. Digging reveals SQL injections (I'm looking at you, TalkTalk) to second hand switches with no firewalls protecting the SWIFT network in Bangladesh.
 

While these issues are bread and butter to security testing and code review companies, there is one piece of the IT security puzzle that can never be truly secured, no matter how hard you try. It weighs about 1.3Kg (about 3lbs in old money) and it sits in front of every endpoint, every BYOD, every spam email, everything, wondering whether to click that link, install that program, insert the flash drive it found, or type in its credentials.


It's been said that your brain starts working the moment you wake, and doesn't stop until you get to work. Many incidents reported as "sophisticated" confirm this truism, along with the one about not being able to make anything idiot proof because idiots are so ingenious. Fooling someone into doing or telling you something they shouldn't is the oldest hack in the book, but it's no less potent for its age. For that reason, the unwitting symbiosis of naive user and cybercriminal is virtually unbeatable.

Part of my work involves maintaining the company spam honeypot network. By the time you've seen your 100th identical, badly-spelt phishing email whizz by in the logs, you can't believe anyone would fall for them. But they do, especially spear phishing attacks. There's a ransomware epidemic, and it's making millions a day.

I'm left concluding that people don't approach their inboxes with a high enough degree of

cynicism. Would HR really summon you to a disciplinary meeting by sending you an email demanding you click a link to an external web site and enter your corporate username and password to prove it's you?

Like suspiciously quiet toddlers, the human element will always be the unpredictable elephant in the cybersecurity room. At SE Labs, we test the endpoint protection that keeps users safe from themselves. To do so, we use fresh threats caught painstakingly in the wild on a daily basis. We can always help build better protection, but cybercriminals will always strive to make better toddlers out of users.

But users are not toddlers; they're responsible, busy adults. To them, cybersecurity is just a very dull art practised by dull people in IT, and their equally friends who come in with laptops every so often to check everything.

This point leads me to one final truism: get them laughing, get them learning. All the user security training in the world will fail to change behaviours if it's dull. People best remember what they enjoy. Make cyber security fun for users, and you may just get them to apply a healthy dose of cynicism to their inboxes.


Tuesday, 27 September 2016

Went The Day Well?

 

In The Great Escape, a Gestapo officer wishes Gordon Jackson's character "good luck" in English as he attempts to board a bus.

In A Book About a Thousand Things, George Stimpson says that during WWII, US guards used the word "lollapalooza" to spot Japanese spies amongst Pilipino allies.

Judges 12-6: "Then said they unto him, 'Say now Shibboleth' And he said Sibboleth, for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan".

These are all examples of shibboleths, named after the final example, in which a group of Gileadites identify an enemy Ephraimite from how he says a word.

Could subtle shibboleths also buy time until we can properly resolve the password reuse crisis? To answer that, we need a sprinkle of theory.

To log into a service, you must authenticate yourself by presenting certain bona fides. These fall into three broad categories:

  • Something you know
  • Something you have
  • Something you are
Passwords fall into the first category, as do your mother's maiden name, your first pet, and so on.

To shore up authentication, two factor authentication is becoming more popular, and usually involves a password backed by something you have, such as a mobile phone to receive a passcode. Something you have could also be a special device that generates a one-time code. Some banks insist on such devices being present when transferring money from accounts.


What about things you are? Biometrics are the best known examples, but gait recognition has also been examined as a method of identifying people. Early research focused on thwarting smartphone theft, but has since been used in other applications.

The trouble with all this is that everything beyond simple passwords make the user do something extra or use special hardware. Everyday users tend to resist being made to change their ways for someone else's convenience. There are also parts of the world where secondary authentication is impossible. Are we condemning those users to a second class, less secure internet. This is where shibboleths could help.

When your bank identifies rogue transactions, it's identifying shibboleths in normal spending patterns. If you've ever had a text asking you to confirm unusual payments after some toerag has cloned your card, you'll be thankful for this.

Think about this in terms of passwords. If a typical user types the same password for many years, he naturally falls into a predictable rhythm of key presses. If anyone else enters that password, the timing data will be different.


Encrypt the timing data before storing it, and it must be included in any password decryption effort. Remote brute force attacks would become impossibly difficult. Dumb phishing campaigns that don't collect timing data would also be rendered useless overnight, and God knows that'd be a good thing.

It's far from a perfect solution. You can probably think of a dozen difficulties (keyloggers, for example), but competent client-side shibboleth-spotting could at least buy the world time while someone clever creates a solution to password reuse that doesn't divide the internet into secure haves and insecure have-nots.

Tuesday, 20 September 2016

The Great Anti-Virus Conspiracy

One problem with the internet is that anyone can set themselves up as an expert. There's money to be made from convenient messages. Examples abound in nutrition and health, as well as many other areas.

Despite widespread public ridicule, such sites thrive and make their owners rich because they play into what people already believe. The tendency being exploited is called confirmation bias, and it can even exert enough power over us to compromise the online safety of entire nations. 

Take this post from the Above Top Secret forum from 2008. The author began with the hunch that the biggest beneficiaries of malware are the anti-virus (AV) companies themselves. However, Google only returned stories explaining why this view was incorrect. This raised the author's suspicions. Did anyone else have any information?

The ensuing nine pages of comments were a tour de force of ideas, theories and claims, but a recurring theme was distrust. Many commenters simply don't trust what they don't understand, and they don't understand computers or AV. 





It took a few seconds to find similar examples from other forums, some dating back to 2005 and even 2002. There are many more and they usually cover the same ideas, but a common theme is still distrust. Compounding this, some commenters vaguely remember something about John McAfee once claiming to have written viruses to create demand for his first AV product, which of course proves everything.



That was a decade or more ago, but with phishing and ransomware now firmly in the public eye, the benefit of online protection will be obvious, right? Not necessarily.

In August 2016, the Daily Mail reported that some AV products can fail to adequately secure your computer. The research being reported actually identified the potential for man-in-the-middle certificate attacks. It's something our own Simon Edwards wrote about in a more general context in his own blog over 18 months earlier

As usual, the comment section of the Daily Mail's report was far more revealing than the article:






And so on. Perhaps what's most disturbing is that despite living in a world now publicly trying to cope with a grand cybercrime epidemic, such uninformed views are so mainstream. There's even a certain pride to some of them.

The McAfee virus-writing story is also still doing the rounds. Mr McAfee hasn't helped matters by claiming to have planted keyloggers in laptops he then gave away to government officials in Belize. But did he really write malware to create demand for his own AV software?

In March 2014, McAfee went on the Alex Jones show to talk conspiracies (what else?). A caller asked if he was indeed responsible for writing early malware. Despite Jones talking over portions of his answer, this was the nub of his reply:
"There were at the time thousands of computer viruses," he said. "We could barely keep up with the viruses that were out there, so we certainly had no time to build new ones. It would just be a senseless thing to do. So I can categorically say, and you can talk to any of the McAfee employees that were there are the time, that thought never crossed anyone's mind."
Indeed, in his book Computer Viruses and Malware, John Aycock of the University of Calgary in Canada also points out that if AV companies really are writing malware and yet simultaneously failing to detect some of it, then what's the point in all that effort being expended for zero gain? 

So, how do you protect the distrustful, the misinformed, and even the downright cynical online? One solution is to do it automatically, but this demands that governments, their intelligence agencies, and the ISPs become involved in actively blocking malicious content. Public reaction to any such suggestion is predictably very bad.

When GCHQ recently proposed their DNS filtering technology to block malicious domains, there was instant outrage. The Guardian, which broke the Edward Snowden story, has little love for the Cheltenham Doughnut, and was predictably upset. As usual, it's the public's comments that are really interesting. 


So, we're at an impasse. Despite their poor reputations, governments and the intelligence agencies they run are the only entities with the authority and capabilities to attempt to protect entire nations online. However, the tools they use are by their very nature shadowy, double-edged and closed to scrutiny. The public at large worries that policing cyberspace means the erosion of freedom and privacy. Nothing will convince us that this isn't the start of a dictatorship or a new world order. Too much evidence of past lies and misdeeds confirms this deep-seated bias. 


If the public won't listen to the government, who will it listen to? Who is it listening to?
Something about the caller who asked John McAfee if he wrote early viruses keeps coming back to me. He seemed to remember being told something by "some old OSS guy". This idea of an unnamed source vaguely remembered is a common feature of discussions where facts are scarce and conjecture runs free. It's a feature of the threads I referenced above.

That being the case, maybe it's down to us, as infosec professionals, to be those sources in future. Maybe it's down to us to engage friends and family, to explain how cybercrime works, how it relies on them not protecting themselves, and what to do about it.

But then again, I would say that wouldn't I. ;)

Thursday, 15 September 2016

All Your File...


Back in the salad days of early summer, JavaScript was usually employed to download ransomware payloads. Now, however, JavaScript is the ransomware.

The reason is the direct nature of the attack. There’s no connection to a suspicious subdomain, no payload to download and no relying on the user to run a suspicious "upgrade" to a Windows component.

Simply open the email attachment promising unexpected riches and, to misquote the 1980s game Zero Wing, "All your file are belong to us".


By hiding the true nature of the file with a second, benign extension, JavaScript attachment attacks become even more likely to detonate. Spew millions of such emails from a rented botnet for a few days at a time, and then simply wait for the Bitcoins to come rolling in.

It’s little wonder that ransomware gangs are setting up customer helplines for bemused punters queuing up to get their files back.


But surely your browser’s sandbox should contain any malicious JavaScript? Sadly, this is not so for JavaScript email attachments. JavaScript downloaded as part of a browsed web page is run in the browser. Email attachments are nothing to do with a web page. Double click them and they’re passed to the Windows Based Script Host, which is obviously outside the browser’s authority and control.


It is, however, very simple for you as an end user to stop JavaScript email attachments from automatically being accidentally run. Simply open notepad and create a new file. Save it as dummy.js. Notepad will complain about the extension, but continue anyway. Next, right click the .js file and select "Open With…". As you can see from the image below, by default Windows will open all such files with Windows Based Script Host, which is what we need to prevent.




To do so, first click "More Apps" and select Notepad from the list. Tick the check box for "Always use this app to open .js files" and click OK. Now, whenever you absent-mindedly click on a JavaScript email attachment it will safely open in Notepad and display its bad self.


You can also selectively prevent the JavaScript downloaded as part of a web page from running in your browser. This gives you more control over your browsing experience and can speed up web page loading.


For Firefox, the go-to solution here is the NoScript plugin (which is the one I’m most familiar with). By default, NoScript blocks everything on a domain-by-domain basis. It’s easy and quick to unblock trusted domains as you go, while leaving all others (including those called by the primary domain) securely blocked. This not only serves as an extra line of defence, but also prevents some adverts from being displayed without sites accusing you of using an ad blocker. It’s also very interesting, and sometimes worrying, to see just how many secondary domains some of your favourite web sites rely on to deliver content.