Police body cameras are only one piece of the video equation

Police body cameras are only one piece of the video equation

President Obama this month proposed a $263 million program for training and equipment to help make police departments more accountable after recent high-profile incidents of police violence in Ferguson, Mo., New York City and elsewhere. It includes $75 million over three years to help purchase 50,000 wearable body cameras for officers.

The cameras are light-weight, high-resolution alternatives to dashboard-mounted video systems already in use in many police cruisers. But the new cameras are only the first step in supporting a new video system for police. Once the cameras have been bought, departments will have to store, manage and secure terabytes of data, sometimes for decades. And because the quality of the video the cameras produce is improving, the amount of storage needed is likely to be much greater.

Many departments are familiar with the requirements of older black and white surveillance and dash-mounted video systems. But new body cameras can produce high-definition, full motion, wide-area color images. This is great for evidence but can quickly overwhelm current storage systems.

One camera can produce 2.3 gigabytes per hour, or 18.4 gigabytes per shift, said Dave Frederick, senior director of product marketing for Quantum, a storage solution provider. Because most cameras will be activated only during an incident, they probably will not be used eight hours at a stretch. But they still could produce 9 gigabytes of data per shift, he said.

How much storage this will require depends on a number of variables: The number of cameras in use, their format and resolution and the video retention policies. Department policies can call for saving video for anywhere from a month to a year, but if the video is used in court, rules of evidence can require that it be kept for years and – in the case of a conviction – possibly for the lifetime of the defendant.

One department with 1,500 officers found that it would need 700 terabytes of storage to accommodate body cameras, Frederick said, more than double what was needed by its older dash-cam system.

Quantum proposes a tiered-storage solution that balances the cost of  storage with performance. Such a system typically would include a high-performance ingest system, typically using more expensive spinning disks to quickly take in new video and make it accessible.

Subsequent storage tiers could include lower-performance spinning disks and tape for archival storage, which is not as fast but is less expensive. Making such a system practical depends on the ability to automatically move data from one tier to another as needed, without violating chain of possession rules for video used as evidence.

Another consideration is that video being archived as evidence might have to be readable 25 years or more from now, when technology is likely to have changed dramatically. Anyone who has been stuck with a shelf of Betamax tapes can appreciate the challenge of future-proofing video archives.

The cloud could be an attractive short-term solution for storing police video, as long as security and management requirements can be met. But at some point, the long-term cost of renting storage space is likely to overwhelm the initial savings, and any department expecting to use video for the long haul will have to decide how best to acquire and manage its own storage system.

These challenges do not mean that police departments cannot or should not take advantage of new video technology to better document activities on the street. But they should remember that the camera is only the front end of a larger system, and once the “record” button is pushed, there will be an obligation to manage the video for years to come.

Posted by William Jackson on Dec 19, 2014 at 10:07 AM0 comments


Cyberattack ‘platforms’ call for defense in depth – and breadth

Cyberattack ‘platforms’ call for defense in depth – and breadth

It’s getting a lot harder to be impressed by the latest piece of malware or cyber threat that hits the streets, given the already formidable arsenal that has been created for hackers to choose from. The every day distributed denial of service (DDoS) threat now seems almost quaint. Then along comes Regin.

To be more precise, along comes Backdoor.Regin, recently discovered and described in detail by Symantec. What astounds about this Trojan is not just its complexity, but the time it’s taken for it to mature into its current state.

Symantec has traced attacks back to at least 2008, and some reports suggest components of Regin go as far back as 2003.

That takes the definition of Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) to a new level. And it may go even further since Symantec warns that analysis of it will probably reveal much more.

“Threats of this nature are rare and only comparable to the Stuxnet/Duqu family of malware,” it said. “Many components of Regin remain undiscovered, and additional functionality and versions may exist.”

The company describes Backdoor.Regin as a multi-staged threat, with all but the first stage hidden and encrypted. It also uses a modular approach and can be tailored with custom features for specific targets. Based on what’s been discovered so far, it has dozens of potential payloads.

In its own analysis, security researcher Kaspersky Labs said malware is not an accurate description of Regin. It should instead be seen as a cyberattack platform, which attackers deploy to gain total remote control of networks at all levels. According to Kaspersky, Regin is one of the most sophisticated it has analyzed.

“The ability of this [Regin] group to penetrate and monitor [Global System for Mobile] networks is perhaps the most unusual and interesting aspect of these operations,” the company said. “Although GSM networks have mechanisms embedded that allow entities such as law enforcement to track suspects, there are other parties which can gain this ability and then abuse it to launch other types of attacks against mobile users.”

GSM is the most widespread mobile standard, and has over a 90 percent share of the world’s mobile market. Other than the United States, which primarily uses the Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) standard, most countries that have mobile networks use GSM.

At first glance, one would think that makes the United States safe from Regin attacks. Looking at the list of infections so far, big countries such as Russia and Germany are among the victims, along with some smaller ones. The United States is notably absent.

But as it turns out, that shouldn’t necessarily offer any comfort. As a recent column here indicated, many of the most sophisticated attacks now come through the exploitation of privileged network accounts. That means that while government organizations may not be direct victims of an attack, if  attackers get into the network of a trusted partner, they can eventually get to government data.

With the kind of global reach that government agencies now have to have to do business – even at the state and local level – no one should presume they are safe from bad guys getting into their networks and systems and stealing data.

And even if they haven’t been directly attacked, that doesn’t mean their partners have not been, nor the trusted partners of those partners and so on down the line.

Defense-in-depth has become the solution du jour for protecting data from malware and Trojans such as Regin that organizations now have to assume will penetrate their networks. Perhaps that should now be extended to a “defense-in-breadth” in order to cover vulnerabilities posed by threats outside the organization.

Modern organizations, including government agencies, have to do business with those lateral partners, so it should make sense to have such protections in place.

Posted by Brian Robinson on Dec 12, 2014 at 10:27 AM0 comments


Cyberecurity’s not done until the paperwork is finished

Cybersecurity’s not done until the paperwork is finished

The Veterans Affairs Department has been dinged once again by the Government Accountability Office for  lack of follow-through in its cybersecurity operations. In a recent report, VA Needs to Address Identified Vulnerabilities,  the GAO warned that unless VA’s security weaknesses are fully addressed, “its information is at heightened risk of unauthorized access, modification and disclosure, and its systems at risk of disruption.”

The problem cited in the report is not so much that VA is doing a bad job securing its networks and systems, but that it has not properly documented security activities and has not developed action plans and milestones for correcting problems.

Documentation and planning are more than busywork. Although it is true that checking boxes and creating reports will not by themselves improve IT security, without them it can be difficult if not impossible to assure what has been done, that it has been done properly and that it can be repeated if necessary.

These processes can make the difference between constantly fighting brushfires and being able to effectively protect an agency enterprise and improve  its security posture.

To quote a rule well-known to every government worker: The job’s not finished until the paperwork is done.

Because of its size and the amount of personal and other sensitive information it maintains, the VA is a high-value target. In January, a defect in VA’s web-based eBenefits system exposed personal data of thousands of veterans and their dependents. And in 2010, a nation-state-sponsored attack took advantage of weak technical controls to gain “unchallenged and unfettered access” to VA systems, the GAO said.

These were fairly recent hits, but the fact remains that development of an effective information security program has been a major management challenge for the department since the late 1990s.

This does not mean that VA has no information security. VA’s Network Security Operations Center in 2012 responded to an attack by outsiders, analyzing the scope of the incident and documenting its responses. Even so, “VA could not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that these actions were effective,” GAO said.

This problem is not limited to VA. A recent governmentwide review by GAO found that agencies were not able to document effectiveness of their incident response about 65 percent of the time.

In the case of the 2012 VA incident cited, forensics analysis data was not available because of a lack of storage space. The department’s incident response policies also did not provide the incident response team with access to systems logs needed to fully assess the extent of the breach, which raises questions about the effectiveness of the response.

The problems are part of a vicious circle in government cybersecurity. Incident response teams are stretched thin, and their top priority is responding to the problem at hand. Documentation and policy enforcement often take a back seat. But without effective documentation and policies, it can be hard to move beyond crisis management to effectively managing risk.

As I have said before, regulatory compliance does not equal security, but it can provide an essential baseline for achieving more effective security.

Posted by William Jackson on Dec 05, 2014 at 1:08 PM0 comments


Look for more attacks coming from privileged accounts

Look for more attacks coming from privileged accounts

Abuse of privileged accounts has been understood for a long time to be a major security concern, since it opens up broad access to an organization’s data and IT resources. Up to now, however, the focus has mainly been on how this applies to the so-called insider threat.

Perhaps that has to change. A new report from security solutions vendor CyberArk, which surveyed many of the world’s top security forensics experts, makes the worrisome claim that most, if not all, of the more sophisticated, targeted attacks from the outside are due to exploitation of privileged accounts. And it’s something that many agencies are unaware of.

What’s more, attackers have become adept at using an organization’s business and trading partners to gain access to systems. Even if the organization itself has built its security to make direct attacks on its privileged accounts hard, small and medium-sized partners will probably not have the same experience and expertise. However, they may well have been given privileged access to the organization’s systems just because it’s the easier way to do business.

The oft-cited Target breach, for example, which resulted in the theft of millions of customers’ credit card account data, was due to attackers first getting Target network credentials through its air conditioning vendor.

In August this year, Department of Homeland Security contractor USIS, which does background checks on the agency’s employees, revealed a breach that had “all the markings of a state-sponsored attack” and bled details on up to 25,000 DHS workers.

Even more startling is the report’s assertion that, on average, organizations have as many as three to four times the number of privileged accounts as they do employees. That makes for a very broad field from which attackers can gain access to those accounts.

This is often overlooked in organizations, according to Udi Mokady, CyberArk’s chief executive, since privileged accounts are rightly seen as the key to the IT kingdom and therefore are naturally assumed to be limited.

“In fact, there are many of them,” he said. “They are built into every piece of information technology so, at a minimum, there is one for every desktop system in the organization. But they are also built into every server and every application, operating system, network device, database and so on.”

Those all come with built-in accounts for a system administrator to monitor and control them. But in the modern environment of virtualized IT, every time a new system is spun off, yet another operating system and set of applications is created, along with the virtualization layer with its administrative functions. So the number of privileged accounts tends “to grow exponentially,” Mokady said.

If all of this isn’t enough to give security professionals nightmares, the report also points out that the Internet of Things (IoT) is coming – and quickly. That speaks to allthe embedded systems organizations will have to account for outside of the regular IT infrastructure, “the pieces of technology with a brain,” as Mokady put it.

Critical infrastructure organizations are just one example of what this will entail, with energy companies having privileged accounts also to manage, for example, industrial control systems that take care of power plants and electricity grids.

“These are computers, though not the typical idea of a computer, but they are often targeted by attackers even more than the regular pieces of the IT infrastructure,” Mokady said.

They are also probably more vulnerable than regular IT systems. The report points out that embedded devices require regular firmware updates and typically have more complex quality assurance cycles, which may in turn cause them to lag behind other products as far as security is concerned.

The basic problem for an organization’s security defense is that when attackers gain access to privileged accounts they can penetrate systems undetected, without throwing up alarms and red flags. Intrusion detection tools now are useless. Agencies  have to assume that breaches have occurred, that attackers are already inside their networks, and hunt for them.

Managing this situation will mean both a turnaround in traditional thinking about security, though the idea of first stopping attacks at the network perimeter is fast losing ground to the idea that the focus has to be on the inside, which will help. Still, to guard against the privileged account threat, organizations have to spread their arms wide enough to actively monitor and manage those accounts.

No question, that’s a major headache. But some of the current tools can be reworked to help, Mokady said, such as using firewalls to segment user access within an organization, and using encryption to more closely guard data. There are also automated tools now on the market, like those from CyberArk itself, that can detect and count the number of privileged accounts within an organization, and also to automate and change credentials and encrypt and segregate them in secure vaults.

The report lays out generic guidelines that organizations can follow that, just by tightening the regular security practices they follow, will greatly improve their ability to defend against attacks:

  • Inventory privileged accounts.
  • Make it harder to get privileged access.
  • Proactively monitor privileged accounts.
  • Perform regular, recurrent housekeeping.
  • Monitor and limit the privilege of service accounts.
  • Apply patches as quickly as possible.
  • Practice classic defense in depth.

Posted by Brian Robinson on Nov 21, 2014 at 9:50 AM0 comments