A Security Breach Can Hurt You, More Than You Think!

Week after week we read about security breaches in top websites around the world, where millions of user’s data are exposed and the company not even reply with an apology. Until now nobody in management (your typical C-level) assumed any responsibility of the breach, many times due to lack of security, but this tendency is starting to change.

Some CEOs have step down due to high profile security breaches such as Target in 2014 and infamous Ashley Madison just recently, July 2015. Management needs to start speaking cybersecurity and assume responsibility of security breaches.

A security breach can really hurt you – take for example Ashley Madison attack. 36 millions of users data exposed – but let’s be honest, although many of these users were fake profiles, anyway many real users were still affected by the breach. The problem for Ashley Madison is not the attack itself but what has been reveled: the company had plans to go public but by examining the data it looks it was a scam, ouch.

Another recent high profile security breach has been Hacking Team, a security company that develops offensive solutions for LEA and has been selling their products to oppressive regimes worldwide. Hacking Team was a known company for a while of suspicious activities but was not confirmed until a security breach revealed 400 gigabytes of their data containing products source code, client contracts, emails, and much more, the dark side of this company. Really ouch!

MBA schools need to start including cybersecurity awareness into their courses so management understands the problems and how to deal with them. It is not enough to have a good CSO/CSIO these days; management needs to be involved 100%, if not a security breach could hurt your company.

Should high management be involved in cybersecurity matters?

— Simon Roses Femerling – @simonroses

Posted in Security, Technology | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Race to 0day in Nation State Operating Systems

Operating System change is coming…

We all know that Windows still dominates the desktop arena with Linux and MacOS trying to catch up and that Android dominates the mobile space with iOS and Windows Phone trying to catch up as well. What many of these OSs have in common is that they are developed by USA companies (hello NSA!).

With the silent (or not that silent :) cyber guerrilla going on in the Internet between the West and the East it is not surprising that many Nation States are developing their own operating systems to cut the dependency on USA software vendors.

The Sony cyber attack by North Korea (supposedly, not proven yet) has caught a lot of media attention -even President Obama has spoken about the need of increasing cybersecurity- and to make things more interesting the operating system used by North Korea government was leaked on Internet and it is currently being analyzed by many security companies and intelligence agencies to find 0day.

Several Nation States have announced the development of their own “secure (cough)” operating system, the ones I know of:

  • Red Star OS: Linux based (Red Hat) with a Windows XP look & feel used by North Korea.
  • China: Several custom OSs.
    • COS: China Operating System based on Linux for mobile devices.
    • Kylin: First version was based on FreeBSD but current version is based on Ubuntu.
  • Russia: Several custom OSs.
    • RoMOS: A customized Android OS for mobile devices (this OS doesn’t send any information to Google).
    • Linux: Russia government announced switching to Linux as the national OS this year.
  • France: Not really their own operating system but the French military switched to Linux Ubuntu (allegedly to save money).
  • India: Also announced their own secure OSs (not much details published).
  • United State of America: Several custom OSs.
    • The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) is developing a secure version of Android to be used in mobile devices across the government.
    • Plan X: An OS develop by DARPA to be used by the military for cyber warfare operations in real time.

The fact that Nation States are developing their own customized OS for defensive purposes forces adversaries to obtain copies of these OSs to find 0day if they want to perform offensive actions, so we can expect the 0day market to grow in the incoming years for exploits and rootkits in all of these Nation State OSs.

There is a good chance for Nation States counterintelligence to publish fake OSs and software pretending to be the real thing for adversaries so they waste their resources trying to obtain copies and time analyzing the software or why not putting offensive software inside the OS to attack the systems used to analyze the software and compromise the network.

For sure security companies and intelligence agencies from both sides (West and East) must keep an eye on the technologies used by their adversaries and have ready a bunch of 0days on these OSs as the standard/regular Windows, Android and Linux versions will probably go away.

Nation States not putting enough resources to develop their offensive capabilities will be unable to perform any actions against adversaries that use custom OSs in the future.

Reader: If you know any more Nation States OS, please let me know and if you got copies of any of them send them my way, please!! (Already got Red Star OS, thanks)

What do you think of Nation States developing their own OSs?

— Simon Roses Femerling | @simonroses

Posted in Privacy, Security, Technology | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Cyber Intelligence Universe

In recent years all “cyber” is fashionable, and intelligence applied to the cyber world could not be less! The concept of intelligence has an offensive meaning due to the use by intelligence and military agencies, but now too many security vendors position their products as intelligence solutions able to identify potential threats.

With the use of these security products many private organizations “believe” that they are getting intelligence but their vision is very limited:

  1. The intelligence is obtained by the quantity and quality of their sources (many organizations don’t know nor their sources of information).
  2. The human analysis factor is vital (is not about installing a product and expect a detailed report, like everything is automated.)
  3. The focus is just outside threats (Internet) as internal threats do not exist.

It is funny or sad (depending on how you look at it) when many organizations and security vendors talk about their ability to monitor and analyze systems logs, antivirus, firewall, IDS, Honeypots, etc. to provide intelligence and then they don’t know the number of computers, users or software installed in the organization. Intelligence applied only to the outside is insufficient when internal threats are unknown.

In VULNEX (disclaimer: cybersecurity startup founded by my) we gave it some thought and developed some solutions that help in this regard, for example BinSecSweeper: a tool to analyze Windows, Linux and MacOS binaries. We can take an operating system and analyze all the binaries to determine their security posture (for example scanning all the 7000aprox binaries in Kali Linux in 30 minutes ;) or determine if software is using obsolete libraries among other things.)

Software today is not written but composed: programmers use different libraries and commercial or open source code to compose their product in the shortest time possible and push it to market. Organizations use all kind of software without knowing whether it is safe or what is composed of, huge mistake!

bss1_cap_int_univ
Fig. 1 – Scanning software with BinSecSweeper, a peak under the hood

Another need we got in VULNEX is to obtain intelligence from source when doing code audits. These audits are complex, long and usually limited in time so it is necessary to obtain valuable information to focus on the work. In this sense we have developed Tintorera, a plugin for GCC that, while we compile a project in C, performs an analysis that helps us understand the code without having read the source itself. At this point we are not looking for vulnerabilities, but we do want to understand the relationship between functions, code metrics, complexity, and other parameters that help us be more effective to scrutinize the code and find vulnerabilities. Intelligence applied to source code! 

tintorera1
Fig. 2 – Tintorera report

tintorera2
Fig. 3 – Tintorera Graph

If you believe that your organization is doing cyber intelligence, think again and really determine your analysis capabilities and what is your vision that surely are not as good as you think…

No doubt much remains to be done in the Cyber intelligence at both internal and external sources to obtain a real and global view of threats.

Does your organization have a cyber intelligence program?

— Simon Roses Femerling @simonroses

Posted in Pentest, Security, Technology, Threat Modeling | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment