Heartbleed, the OpenSSL vulnerability that potentially exposes data in otherwise secure transactions, has raised once again the question of security in open source software. Some maintain that open source, because of all the eyes looking at it, is likely to be more secure. Others say that with anyone able to tamper with it, of course it can’t be trusted.
The truth is that neither open source nor proprietary software is inherently more secure. A recent report by Coverity from security scans of 750 million lines of code on 700 open source projects found for the first time that the quality of open source surpassed proprietary projects, with an error density of .59 per 1,000 lines of code for open source compared to .72 for proprietary code scanned.
But that is not the whole story, said Zack Samocha, Coverity’s senior director of products. The quality of the code depends on the commitment to security, he said. “You need to be really committed and fix issues as they come.”
Proprietary code produced under pressure of market demands also can be buggy. Users should test the products they are using to make sure they do what they are supposed to do. And if you are using open source, review the code and take part in its development, said Barrett Lyon, founder and CTO of Defense.Net.
“You should contribute,” Lyon said. “If it’s open source and it’s not secure, it’s partly your fault.”
With all of the eyes that could have looked at OpenSSL, the surprising thing is that Heartbleed escaped detection for two years. How did it happen in the first place? Like many security problems, it was the result of a trade-off with performance. Earlier versions of OpenSSL had a feature called memory management security that prevented memory leaks. But Lyon, in reviewing the code, saw that in version 1.0.1 a developer disabled the feature because it hurt performance in some implementations.
“It comes down to humans making mistakes,” said Jonathan Rajewski, an assistant professor and director of the Leahy Center for Digital Investigation at Champlain College. “This is an ‘ah-ha!’ moment that we can learn from, because it will happen again.”
The “fix” that caused the problem is in versions 1.0.1 through 1.01f of OpenSSL. The “fix” was fixed in version 1.0.1g
One of the most serious concerns for agencies using affected versions of OpenSSL is the possibility of digital certificates being exposed, which could allow an attacker to spoof a government site, not only putting visitors to the site at risk, but damaging the agency’s reputation.
But there are a few bright spots. Although security experts preach the gospel of the timely update, this is a situation where procrastination could be a blessing. Many government administrators are conservative in their updating; a diplomatic way of saying they don’t have time to keep their software up-to-date, and if something is working they ignore it. This means that many agencies are running OpenSSL 1.0.0 versions, which are not vulnerable.
Another bright spot is that there are tools to detect vulnerable implementations of the software. The Nessus scanner from Tenable, for example, will detect it through its remote and local checks. And although exploits of the vulnerability don’t leave direct footprints, there are some telltale signs. Because exposed memory is gathered in 64 kilobyte chunks, it takes a large number of repeated log-ins to gather useful information, and this kind of anomalous behavior should be detected by logs.
For those affected, updating OpenSSL in your applications, revoking and replacing digital certificates and reissuing keys will be a chore. But there is yet another challenge. Because users are being advised to replace their passwords, a flood or reset requests could overwhelm help desks or automated reset systems.
“It’s going to be interesting,” Lyon said.
Posted by William Jackson on Apr 18, 2014 at 11:33 AM1 comments
When it comes to cybersecurity, government defenses tend to be measured against broad threats such as cyberespionage and possible nation state attacks on the country’s critical infrastructure. As recent studies show, however, that focus may be a bit wayward.
Symantec’s 2014 Internet Security Threat Report shows yet again why it’s the smaller, oft-used threats that likely remain the biggest problem for agencies. Those have grown in number, but also continue to evolve in response to the development of better defenses.
Spear phishing, for example, was a major problem in the past but had been seen as diminishing as other threats grew and took up more of organizations’ attention. Not so, according to Symantec, which called reports of the death of spear phishing “greatly exaggerated.” In fact, while the total number of emails used per phishing campaign decreased, along with the number of targets, the total number of campaigns almost doubled in 2013.
“This ‘low and slow’ approach (campaigns also run three times longer than those in 2012) are a sign that user awareness and protection technologies have driven spear phishers to tighten their targeting and sharpen their social engineering, Symantec said.
The even worse news? Government is in the top three targets for these kinds of attacks, the report said, with odds of 1 in 3.1 that at any given time a government employee is being subject to a phishing attack (though, admittedly, the method they used to come up with that ratio is a little fishy!).
The rest of the Symantec report is not more hopeful, and its conclusions make for scary reading:
- More zero-day vulnerabilities were discovered in 2013 than any other year, in fact 2013 registered more of those than the previous two years combined.
- Ransomware attacks, where perpetrators pretend to be local law enforcement demanding payment of fake fines, grew by 500 percent in 2013 and “turned vicious.”
- There was explosive growth of scams and malware attacks via mobile media in 2013, though the prevalence of those is still relatively low.
- Users continue to fall for scams on social media sites, and the fear is that this behavior will have even worse consequences as the activity migrates to mobile devices.
- Attackers are now turning to the Internet of Things. With device manufactures so far not paying much attention to security, the onus falls on the user, which surely has attackers salivating at the prospects. As Symantec said, there’ll be a huge increase in data because of the IoT, and “big data is big money.”
The latest illustration of the potential for attackers came with the revelation on April 7 of the so-called OpenSSL Heartbleed bug, a vulnerability that had existed in the OpenSSL 1.01.f standard for a couple of years but that had only recently been patched.
Some high-profile sites had apparently been open to leaking information because of the bug, including the FBI’s main site. OpenSSL is a widely used SSL library, and is the basis for a lot of data encryption across the Web.
Looking ahead, Symantec makes a salient point: Even though better cooperation between law enforcement and industry is making it increasingly difficult for cyber criminals to operate, this won’t make them stop. Instead, Symantec said, e-crime is likely to move toward a new and more professional model.
That’s in line with other recent reports. As this blog recently pointed out, not only are cyber criminals becoming more professionalized, the market for the attacks tools they use is also proliferating, ramping up threats posed by a profit-based, market-driven business.
It may be tempting for those in government to throw up their hands and concede defeat. How is a ponderous and slow-turning ship like the government supposed to compete against the nimble and light-footed criminal set?
The easy answer is that it can’t. There’s no way a bureaucratic and budget-constrained organization like the government, or its agencies, can compete at that level. But it can instill a mindset that will drive government responses to cybersecurity, and even that has been missing, until recently.
The champion in this case is the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a non-regulatory body that has been pushing for a risk-based framework for cybersecurity that emphasizes limiting damage from attacks rather than trying to prevent them completely.
That approach has been adopted by the Department of Homeland Security, and private industry is also increasingly taking it up. Earlier this year, the National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO) said it was adopting NIST’s framework, which “provides states with a common platform on which to base strategic security decisions, allocate resources and build defenses against both common and sophisticated attacks.”
The final leg in the stool came with the decision by the Defense Department a few weeks ago, after several years of negotiation and discussion, to adopt NIST’s risk management framework as the basis of its cyber defense. With that, there is now a common language that all levels of government and the private sector can use to define and coordinate their cybersecurity efforts.
It won’t stop cyber criminals getting into government systems, and breaches will continue. But it provides a foundation for something that could, finally, provide a resilient defense.
Posted by Brian Robinson on Apr 11, 2014 at 7:55 AM0 comments
If a demonstration is needed that security is a process, not a product, and that it depends on management, not technology, the Veterans Affairs Department provides it.
The Government Accountability Office recently recited to a House panel a litany of weaknesses in the sprawling department’s struggling IT security program. The VA inspector general has identified development of an info security program as a “major management challenge,” and auditors have flagged inadequate security controls in financial systems as a material weakness for 12 years. GAO warnings date back to 1998, and it has reported consistent weaknesses in security control areas at VA since 2007.
“The persistence of similar weaknesses over 16 years later indicates the need for stronger, more focused management attention and action to ensure that VA fully implements a robust security program,” Gregory Wilshusen, GAO’s director of information security issues, told a House VA oversight subcommittee on March 25.
In an effort to refocus management attention, Rep. Jackie Walorski, (R-Ind.) on April 2 introduced a bill, H.R. 4370, to “improve the transparency and the governance of the information security program of the department.” The contents of the bill are not yet available, but Walorski said in a statement that it would provide “a clear roadmap for immediately securing its system.”
The department’s security shortcomings have been so consistent for so long that they merit attention. The size of the department and the scope of its mission make it one of the greatest IT security challenges in government. VA operates the nation’s largest healthcare system, providing healthcare for about 6 million veterans, administers financial benefits for millions more and manages veterans’ graves all across the country.
In June last year, the House VA Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee recommended designating the VA network a “compromised environment,” and said that VA should establish controls to reclaim it, “from nation state sponsored organizations.”
Department CIO Stephen W. Warren in a November 2013 letter to subcommittee Chairman Rep. Mike Coffman, responded that “VA has in place a strong, multi-layered defense to combat evolving cybersecurity threats, including monitoring by external partners and active scanning of Web applications and source code.”
But from January 2010 through October 2013, more than 29,000 possible data breaches were reported by VA. In his letter, Warren noted that “virtually all of VA’s data breaches are paper-based, equipment loss or unencrypted e-mailing of sensitive information.”
VA is addressing the equipment loss issue by encrypting laptops and desktops, which began last year in conjunction with the department’s upgrade to the Windows 7 OS. Warren reported that as of Oct. 29, 87 percent of the computers, more than 330,000 systems, were running Windows 7 and most of the rest were expected to be upgraded by the end of January 2014. He noted, however, that some pockets were likely to remain due to what he called “blocker” applications, “applications that are not compatible with Windows 7 and have not yet been replaced.”
Whether Congress will be able to significantly improve VA’s cybersecurity with new legislation remains an open question. Wilshusen, in last month’s testimony to the subcommittee, said that “many of the actions and activities specified in the bill are sound information security practices and consistent with federal guidelines. If implemented on a risk-based basis, they could prompt VA to refocus its efforts on steps needed to improve the security of its systems and information.”
But he cautioned that security should be risk-based and not based on technology requirements that could quickly become outdated.
Posted by William Jackson on Apr 04, 2014 at 9:26 AM0 comments
Cybersecurity more and more resembles nothing less than old-fashioned warcraft, with both sides confident in the weaponry they have and in their ability to either penetrate or defend borders. As the threat of cyberconflicts ratchets up, the two modes of warfare seem at times to be getting chillingly similar.
The latest expression of confidence came from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who on March 28 spoke to an audience at the National Security Agency headquarters to mark the retirement of Gen. Keith Alexander, the head of both the NSA and the U.S. Cyber Command.
The Pentagon is well on its way to building a modern cyberforce, he said, which will be 6,000 strong by 2016.
The force will improve the U.S. ability to “deter aggression in cyberspace, deny adversaries their objectives,” and defend the country from cyberattacks. At the same time, however, he pointed out the “proliferation of destructive malware” that is being used to constantly, and aggressively, probe and disrupt networks.
More confidence shone through in a recent report that surveyed IT and security professionals in both the military and civilian agencies. Nearly all of them, some 94 percent, rated their own agency’s cybersecurity readiness as either good or excellent, saying they feel they have the right tools, processes and policies in place.
(Well, OK the survey also found 9 percent of the respondents were unsure if there even were cyberthreats that affected their agency).
Perhaps of most interest, though, was what kinds of threats they considered the most serious. Insider threats, which until relatively recently were seen as the greatest, have fallen behind those from “external hacking,” even in the age of Wikileaks and Edward Snowden.
In fact, of the six top threats, insiders come in fifth, behind external hacking, malware, social engineering and SPAM, and just ahead of distributed denial of service.
Where do the bad guys come out in all of this? It’s no secret they’ve become much more sophisticated in their ability to get on the inside of networks, but a report from the RAND Corp., Markets for Cybercrime Tools and Stolen Data, shows also just how professionalized and extensive their ability has become.
The black and gray markets for hacking tools and services, and for the ill-gotten gains they produce, are expanding and growing in complexity, the RAND report said. What was once a varied landscape of discrete, ad hoc networks of individuals motivated by little more than ego and notoriety, it said, “has emerged as a playground of financially driven, highly organized, and sophisticated groups.”
Adding to the complexity for government defenders are the rapidly emerging and highly secretive markets for zero-day vulnerabilities, RAND said, which are available in both licit and illicit markets.
The potential impact of these market-driven tools was seen in the 2013 attack on Target stores, which were confirmed earlier this year. The malware used for that was a tailored version of the “BlackPOS” malware, which according to writer Brian Krebs was available on the black market for the low, low price of $1,800 to $2,300.
Of course, Target seems to have screwed up in so many ways in its own security. A report from the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation lays it out in excruciating detail.
Nevertheless, it all makes a point. The business of creating malware and other tools to attack US networks and infrastructure now really is a business, with all of the profit-based energy and innovation that brings with it. Add the even more focused abilities of nation states, and the threat industry is vibrant.
Hagel and others are confident that government has the ability to withstand it. Are they right?
Posted by Brian Robinson on Mar 31, 2014 at 12:12 PM0 comments