Archive for the ‘Security’ Category

Getting the most value from your next penetration test

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009

We here at True Digital Security conduct quite a lot of engagements around penetration testing, or “Pen-Tests”. Usually this testing is driven by compliance requirements like the Payment Card Industry (PCI) DSS or security audit requests from potential new clients. Unfortunately, penetration testing is perhaps the most confusing and misunderstood type of security engagement. Don’t quite know what I mean?  Try this little experiment: Google for “Penetration Testing” and try to determine the scope, and more importantly, the goal of a penetration test. Go ahead, I’ll wait ….  Confused yet? The vast array of methods, styles, and differing  goals can be overwhelming. Even security experts themselves don’t agree on what the purpose or goal of a penetration test should be.

If experts don’t agree on penetration testing, how can we expect clients and customers to understand how this type of testing leads to increased security? If you have ever created an RFP for penetration testing services, you will have seen the vast differences in vendor’s scope, methodology, and pricing. Since penetration testing is fairly undefined, there exists a myriad of testing “styles”. Internal vs. external, network vs. application, white box, black box, gray box,  red team, tiger team, fuchsia team. Ok, I made that last one up.

The point is penetration testing is not a one size fits all solution. Each engagement should be custom tailored to your organization.  During the vendor selection of your next penetration engagement, include vendor flexibility in your evaluation and make sure they take the time to really understand your needs and goals. Leverage their expertise to define a custom penetration testing style and methodology that will provide the most benefit to your unique infrastructure and organization.

Now that you have a vendor selected who has designed a penetration test for your organization, it’s time to actually conduct the penetration testing. Whatever style and methodology was designed for you, at its core, penetration testing is about ethically hacking or attacking your organization’s security controls. Your security program has put in place security controls designed to reduce organizational risk and protect against potential threats. The penetration test should evaluate and test those security controls in order to measure their effectiveness.

One aspect of penetration testing that is rarely discussed is the role of the client during the engagement. Many clients simply schedule a window of time in which to conduct the engagement and wait for the final report documents. In my opinion, this is a missed opportunity to greatly increase the value of your penetration test. Additional benefits and value can be realized by playing an active role and being engaged throughout the engagement. Below are two areas where being an active participant can increase the value from your next engagement.

1. Treat the engagement as a live-fire opportunity and conduct active response.

  • Actively attempt to defend and prevent the vendor from gaining access. View them as you would any outside attacker.
  • Implement your CSIRT (Computer Security Incident Response Team) procedures and treat this as a live exercise for them. Do they respond properly? Do your procedures provide adequate coverage?
  • Conduct and evaluate your incident response plan. Were any gaps identified?
  • Did you have the visibility to respond to the attackers? What steps can be taken to increase that visibility?

2. Map the engagement to your security controls and evaluate their effectiveness. Ask questions about how and why the controls succeeded or failed.

  • Did your IDS system detect or prevent the access? Why or why not? Do the rules need to be tuned? Do additional rules need to be created? Was it monitoring the correct networks?
  • Did your firewall stop the intruders? Why or why not? Do the rules need updating or tuning?
  • Did your log monitoring solution alert the right personnel? Were the right logs captured for your incident response? What logs did you need?
  • Did your file-integrity monitor perform as expected? Did it detect or prevent the compromise?
  • Were your policies and procedures properly followed? Did they provide meaningful guidance and direction?
  • Were your employees properly trained? What training areas need to be addressed or refreshed?

These questions and activities are just a sampling of the benefits that can be obtained from participating in your penetration test. At the end of the day, many clients only view the penetration test from a vulnerability standpoint. They want to know what vulnerabilities were discovered so they can patch and move on. While correcting vulnerabilities is always an important remediation step, by playing an active role and custom tailoring the testing to your organization, you can get the most value from your next penetration test.

Michael Oglesby

Adobe Acrobat products update available

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

Adobe has released updates for the Acrobat suite of products. The update fixes over two dozen vulnerabilities[adobe.com], at least one of which is being actively exploited. The version number of the fixed Acrobat and Acrobat Reader products are 9.2, 8.1.7, and 7.1.4.

What is more damning than the 29 vulnerabilities fixed is that it appears that many of the vulnerabilities have existed since the Acrobat 7.x and are just now being discovered and/or addressed. I have a suggestion for Adobe: Get your developers some secure coding training. Stop all coding at your company until all your developers have taken one month of secure coding classes.

Cybersecurity Act of 2009 – Professional Licenses?

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009[opencongress.org] was introduced April 1, 2009, by Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV). The act is:

A bill to ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communications, to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes, to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cybersecurity defenses against disruption, and for other purposes.

One of the more talked about provisions of this bill is the granting of authority to the POTUS to “declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network.” Perhaps that will be another blog post, but the provision currently bothering me is the one in Section 7[opencongress.org] of the bill. That section directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish a “national licensing, certification, and periodic recertification program for cybersecurity professionals” and that, after 3 years, makes it “unlawful for any individual to engage in business…as a provider of cybersecurity services…who is not licensed and certified under the program.” The provision only applies to professionals providing services to Federal agencies, their networks, or a network deemed as “critical infrastructure” by the POTUS.

Why does this bother me? Well, to start off with, licensing and certification sure sound like there will be some exchange of money involved, just as private certifications like CISSP, CCNA, MCSE, etc., require you to fork over some cash to take the test and/or maintain membership. If the Federal Government steps in and does the same thing either

  1. the Feds are getting a de facto tax from cyber security professionals; or
  2. if an already existing certification is chosen, that certification body essentially gets public welfare.

In the latter case, whoever spends the most money lobbying the Congress Critters (probably) wins.

This sounds like some unnecessary meddling to me. Yes, the Feds need some well-trained cyber geeks to shore up their defenses. A lot of the cyber security professionals that are already in the government are incompetent–I’ve taken various educational courses and met them, and also worked around some of them–but the way to fix that problem is to make it possible for the Feds to fire people. Right now, if you get in to the Federal government, you’re employed for life unless you do something extremely stupid and illegal.

But even the NSF Scholarship for Service (AKA CyberCorps) program (which this act evidently re-authorizes) won’t help. First of all, you can’t train enough cyber security professionals fast enough to make a difference. More importantly, the lack of people is not the real issue. The real issue is the politics, red-tape, and managerial incompetence that restricts the competent CSPs that are already in the Federal government from securing their networks.

To defend a network, you have to be able to react quickly. To defend a network that has little or no existing defense in place, you have to be able to rapidly re-configure the network with up-to-date tools and hardware. It takes entirely too long to get approval for purchasing those devices, and entirely too long to get approval to deploy them. Then some manager can’t understand that some things are going to break and take a while to fix, and pretty soon you have a half-deployed three year-old “security is in the blinky thingy” device that can’t keep up with the volume of traffic transiting the new OC-128 the Undersecretary for Porn Surfing demanded be put in place.

I just don’t see this going well. Someone’s going to get very rich, another 1500 jobs are going to be added to the federal government to oversee this program, more tax money is going to be wasted, CSPs are still going to be frustrated in their attempts to repair Federal networks, and the Internet is still going to be a DANGEROUS PLACE with unfriendlies from all points south of our border and across the oceans trying to steal our information.

YAAV (Yet Another Adobe Vulnerability)

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

Another Adobe Acrobat vulnerability is being exploited in the wild. All versions up to and including 9.1.3 are vulnerable. The current exploit targets Acrobat and Acrobat Reader on Windows specifically, but all Acrobat variants (those for Linux and Mac OS X) are vulnerable. Apparently, using DEP (Data Execution Prevention) in Windows may thwart the attack (at the moment). DEP is an optional setting. Here is the Microsoft KB article about DEP, but their server is saying it’s “too busy” at the moment (4:11p). More information from the ISC is here.

Adobe is set to release an update on October 13. Until then, keep on your toes!

TRUE Network Security Monitoring customers: rest easier: if your resources are successfully attacked, we should see the results.

Voice Over IP Security

Friday, September 18th, 2009

According to NIST, with the proliferation of VOIP, the demands for security are significantly compounded.  Now, network administrators must protect two invaluable assets – our data and our conversations. Federal agencies are required by law to protect a great deal of information, even if it is unclassified. The current Internet architecture does not provide the same physical wire security as the phone lines. What’s the solution? Encryption! Encryption! Encryption!

Encrypting VOIP traffic and running it over a virtual private network provides excellent security when dealing with external communications. Architecture decision, like locating IP Telephones behind NATs and Firewalls, are also important.

President Obama’s Cyber Security Policy

Thursday, July 9th, 2009

President Obama’s new cyber security policy and the creation of a White House office for cyber defense is a step in the right direction. I think the new cyber boss can be effective regardless of title or hierarchical position within the White House.

According to the Cyberspace Policy Review referenced above, the Federal government cannot succeed in the many facets of securing cyberspace if it works in isolation. The public and private sectors’ interests are intertwined with a shared responsibility for ensuring a secure, reliable infrastructure upon which businesses and government services depend. Government and industry leaders both nationally and internationally need to delineate roles and responsibilities, integrate capabilities, and take ownership of the problem to develop holistic solutions. Only through such partnerships will the United States be able to enhance cyber security and reap the full benefits of the digital revolution.

Whatever the outcome cyber security need the same attention of law enforcement as other crimes.

Microsoft’s banned function calls

Thursday, May 21st, 2009

After reading Michael’s earlier post about SDL, I started digging a bit deeper into Microsoft’s SDL documentation and came across this pretty cool page.  I wonder if anyone has a similar page for Unix-like OSes?

Why spyware IDS alerts are useful

Thursday, May 21st, 2009

As you may know, our company provides 24×7 Network Security Monitoring services to many customers.  Our clients vary widely in size, industry, and information security maturity.   Even so, we see many similar successes, failures, and trends in security monitoring alerts between these customers.  Spyware infections tendsto be a significant number of the incident reports we generate.  Today, I would like to write about the reason spyware alerts are a threat to your organization, why you should take them seriously and respond timely, and what you can do to decrease these incidents on your network.

The danger of spyware is two-fold.   First, it indicates a deficiency on the part of the user in general information security knowledge and specific corporate information security policies.  A spyware infection means that the user likely installed unapproved software on his/her system.  Perhaps the user was doing non-business related web surfing and found the “Totally Awesome Change Your Life Toolbar” from hAcme Software, Inc.  Or maybe the user was tricked into installing this software via social engineering.  (“Click here to install a media player to see Jane E. Celebrity in a bikini!”)  Either way, the user was not aware of the dangers of his/her actions wrt. information security and wrt. corporate security policies.  (You do have policies defining acceptable use of corporate information resources and punishment for misuse, right?)

The second danger (related to the first–in fact, the first is a consequence of the second, so maybe I should have reversed these points–oh well) indicated by a spyware infection is that the user has sufficient rights to execute unapproved software on his/her system that can modify his/her settings and hijack information.  With these rights the user may be delivered and subsequently execute much more damaging malware that exfiltrates personal and/or corporate information or receives and executes instructions from external attackers.  This malware may be delivered by the spyware itself.  Regardless of how it is delivered, your organization has a problem, and it needs to be fixed.

For these two reasons above you should take spyware infections seriously and respond to them in a timely manner.  But what can you do to limit future infections?

  1. Limit user rights.  Do not make them a member of the local Administrator or Power Users groups.  If you have applications that require Administrator privileges to run (QuickBooks, I’m looking in your diretion), get rid of them.  That is a poorly designed application and is likely going to have far worse flaws.
  2. One word: Education.  Provide it to your users.  If you don’t have a sufficiently trained and knowledgeable employee who can teach one day classes on information security, there are plenty of companies that provide that service–and you won’t have to develop the curriculum.  Google is your friend, here.
  3. Follow the hardening guidelines from Microsoft, NIST and NSA on how to secure your Windows systems and networks.
  4. Use Group Policy or other enforcement mechanisms available from companies like Cisco, Symantec, etc., to whitelist applications.  Only applications listed in the whitelist can be executed by the user. Use Group Policy to disable all but a few approved Internet Explorer BHOs (Browser Helper Objects).  This will prevent a lot of the toolbar spyware software from infecting your systems.
  5. Get serious about your corporate information security posture.  Convince upper management to dedicate sufficient time and money to sustaining a CISO position.

Two simple outbound firewall rules

Wednesday, May 20th, 2009

It amazes me that there are some simple firewall rules that everyone can do to aid in the defense of their internal network, yet seem to be rarely implemented.  These rules limit *outbound* traffic.  It seems, unfortunately, many network administrators neglect to limit traffic from their internal network to less-trusted (e.g., VPN, DMZ, and Internet) networks.  Too often this is due to the fact that the admins are too busy trying to keep upper management happy by ensuring that public services (web and e-mail) are accessible to customers and potential customers with five-nines uptime.  This is a sad state of affairs.

How many customers are you really going to lose if your website is down for 5 minutes?  If a customer finds that your website is inaccessible for a short time, they are likely going to first suspect their PC or their ISP network before they blame your organization.  Even if it they do eventually blame you before the problem is resolved, who is really going to be that mad about it?  If Google goes down for 15 minutes (as recently happened), I just chalk it up to bad luck.  I don’t fault Google.  So what, I wasn’t able to hit GMail for 15 minutes?  My life is not over.  Computers suck.  Stuff happens.  Services become inaccessible.  Big deal.

Now, think about how many customers are you going to lose if your organization is in disarray and can’t close sales deals due to some malware spreading internally?  How about your reputation when all your customer information is stolen and posted on the Internet for your competitors (and customers) to see?  What if you lose personal data like SSNs or bank account numbers?  The list of damaging items that can be lost from inside your network is long and scary.  A reasonable person (like myself) would much rather your organization’s Internet services be down for a few minutes (or, heck, even a few hours) than for your organization to lose their confidential data.  Even if you are providing me a service (VoIP or spam filtering, for example), I can stand a few minutes of unexpected downtime (albeit a very few minutes…like 5).  That’s just life.

So enough of the rant.  Here are two simple rules to aid you in detecting malware spreading inside your network.  Of course, you’ll have to be paying some attention to your firewall logs to notice.  You are paying attention, aren’t you?

  1. Block outbound SMTP that does not originate from your internal e-mail server(s).
  2. Block outbound DNS requests that do not originate from your internal DNS server(s).

Simple.  Quick.  Powerful.  But why are these rules helpful?

The first rule above will catch spambots.  Spambots are malware that sit on a PC and spew tons of spam.  If you have an internal machine spewing e-mail to the Internet, and it’s not your internal mail relay, then that machine is h0sed and you need to examine it.  It’s likely to have more than just one piece of malicious software on it.

The second rule will catch malware that is exploiting the fact that most organizations don’t block outbound DNS.  These malware will use hardcoded public DNS servers to resolve hostnames, all the while avoiding being logged by the legitimate internal DNS server(s).  The hostnames the malware are resolving are often used to aid an attacker in maintaining command and control.

If you can identify infected internal machines through your firewall logs, you can clean the malware and identify further holes in your internal security posture (like foolish users who installed “Whack-a-mole 2009″ from  hAcme Games, Inc., on their corporate PC).

New SDL templates for Visual Studio Team System

Wednesday, May 20th, 2009

This week Microsoft released a set of SDL (Secure Development Lifecycle) process templates designed to make it easier for software teams to integrate SDL into their development processes.    These templates integrate with Visual Studio Team System by adding SDL workflows and processes and providing the ability to measure and audit the results.

It can be difficult to transition from general SDL concepts and theory to actual workable processes.  Perhaps you read a book on SDL or an auditor told you that you need to perform SDL on your projects. How do you make the move from theory to practice?  These templates will let you hit the ground running by providing a strong basic SDL workflow that you can customize to your needs.

If your development team is already using Visual Studio Team System, I highly recommend you evaluate how these templates can help your project or team. And hey, they’re free! I always like free tools that make security simpler and easier to achieve.