Former Barclays CISO to Head WEF’s Global Center for Cybersecurity

Troels Oerting to Head the Global Centre for Cybersecurity

The 48th annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) at Davos, Switzerland, in January announced the formation of a new Global Centre for Cybersecurity. Today it announced that Troels Oerting will be its first Head, assuming the role on April 2, 2018.

Oerting has been the group chief information security officer (CISO) at Barclays since February 2015. Before that he was head of the European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) — part of Europol formed in 2013 to strengthen LEA response to cross-border cybercrime in the EU — and head of the Europol Counter Terrorist and Financial Intelligence Center (since 2012). He also held several other law enforcement positions (such as Head of the Serious Organised Crime Agency with the Danish National Police), and also chaired the EU Financial Cybercrime Coalition.

Oerting brings to WEF’s Global Center for Cybersecurity a unique combination of hands-on cybersecurity expertise as Barclay’s CISO, together with experience of and contacts within European-wide cyber intelligence organizations, and a deep knowledge of the financial crimes that will be of particular significance to WEF’s members. It is a clear statement from the WEF that the new center should be taken seriously.

“The Global Centre for Cybersecurity is the first global platform to tackle today’s cyber-risks across industries, sectors and in close collaboration with the public sector. I’m glad that we have found a proven leader in the field who is keen and capable to help us address this dark side of the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” said Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum.

WEF’s unique position at the heart of trans-national business, with the ear of governments, provides the opportunity to develop a truly global approach to cybersecurity. Most current cybersecurity regulations and standards are based on national priorities aimed against an adversary that knows no national boundaries. The aims of the new center are to consolidate existing WEF initiatives; to establish an independent library of best practices; to work towards an appropriate and agile regulatory framework on cybersecurity; and to provide a laboratory and early-warning think tank on cybersecurity issues.

Related: World Economic Forum Announces New Fintech Cybersecurity Consortium 

Related: World Economic Forum Publishes Cyber Resiliency Playbook 

Kevin Townsend is a Senior Contributor at SecurityWeek. He has been writing about high tech issues since before the birth of Microsoft. For the last 15 years he has specialized in information security; and has had many thousands of articles published in dozens of different magazines – from The Times and the Financial Times to current and long-gone computer magazines.

sponsored links

Continue reading Former Barclays CISO to Head WEF’s Global Center for Cybersecurity

Ransomware Hits City of Atlanta

A ransomware attack — possibly a variant of SamSam — has affected some customer-facing applications and some internal services at the City of Atlanta. The FBI and incident response teams from Microsoft and Cisco are investigating. The city’s police department, water services and airport are not affected.

The attack was detected early on Thursday morning. By mid-day the city had posted an outage alert to Twitter. In a press conference held Thursday afternoon, mayor Keisha Bottoms announced that the breach had been ransomware. She gave no details of the ransomware demands, but noticeably declined to say whether the ransom would be payed or refused.

Bottoms could not at this stage confirm whether personal details had also been stolen in the same breach, but suggested that customers and staff should monitor their credit accounts. Questions on the viability of data backups and the state of system patches were not clearly answered; but it was stressed that the city had adopted a ‘cloud first’ policy going forwards specifically to improve security and mitigate against future ransomware attacks.

A city employee obtained and sent a screenshot of the ransom note to local radio station 11Alive. The screenshot shows a bitcoin demand for $6,800 per system, or $51,000 to unlock all systems. It is suggested that the ransom note is similar to ones used by the SamSam strain of ransomware. Steve Ragan subsequently tweeted, “1 local, 2 remote sources are telling me City of Atlanta was hit by SamSam. The wallet where the ransom is to be sent (if they pay) has collected $590,000 since Jan 27.”

SamSam ransomware infected two healthcare organizations earlier this year. SamSam is not normally introduced via a phishing attack, but rather following a pre-existing breach. This could explain the concern over data theft on top of the data encryption. It also raises the question over whether the initial breach was due to a security failure, an unpatched system, or via a third-party supplier.

Ransomware is not a new threat, and there are mitigations — but it continues to cause havoc. Official advice is, wherever at all possible, refuse to pay. The theory is if the attackers cease getting a return on their attacks, they will turn to something easier with a better ROI on their time. This approach simply isn’t working.

Sometimes payment can be avoided by recovering data from backups. But this isn’t always possible with SamSam. In the Hancock Health SamSam incident earlier this year, the organization decided to pay the ransom “to expedite our return to full operations”, despite having backups. In the event, the SamSam attackers had already closed this route. “Several days later,” announced CEO Steve Long, “it was learned that, though the electronic medical record backup files had not been touched, the core components of the backup files from all other systems had been purposefully and permanently corrupted by the hackers.”

It isn’t yet known whether the City of Atlanta attack is definitely a SamSam attack, whether the system was breached prior to file encryption, nor whether backup files have been corrupted. These details should become clear over time. The fact that Hancock Health decided to pay the ransom, and had its systems back up and running within days, may become part of Atlanta’s decision on whether to pay or not.

Apart from recovering from backups or paying the ransom, the only other option (assuming that there are no decryptors available from the NoMoreRansom project) is to stop the encryption the moment it starts. Traditional anti-malware perimeter detection will not stop modern malware. That means prevention requires very rapid and early detection.

“Ransomware spreads like wild fire, and is the most time critical of cyber threats,” comments Matt Walmsley, EMEA Director at Vectra. “The ability to detect the pre-cursor behaviors of ransomware is the only way to get ahead of the attack. Unfortunately, that’s almost impossible to do using traditional manual threat hunting techniques. That’s why forward-thinking enterprises are increasingly using an automated approach, using AI-powered threat detection. You need to detect and respond at machine speed.”

Timely patching is also vital, especially where the attacker breaches the system prior to encryption. “When you are told to patch months before and witness precursor warnings like WannaCry and NotPetya going by,” exhorts Yonathan Klijnsma, threat researcher at RiskIQ, “well, you damn well better patch. If your organization’s patch management is so problematic that it takes this long, you have to change it. Events of this potential magnitude and impact require management to respond by elevating maintenance and patching to mission critical status until they are resolved. The ROI is clear, consider the costs and material loss of your company going down for a day, versus shifting priorities to give your engineers more time to manage patches properly. It’s not a good time to roll the dice.”

Connected cities are becoming increasingly like large corporations. “A city has some hallmark characteristics of a large enterprise,” suggests Rapid7’s chief data scientist, Bob Rudis: “there are a large number of employees and contractors with a diverse array of operating systems, hardware and data types that all need protection. Beyond financial account information and general personally identifiable information (PII), city-related systems and networks can and do contain court and criminal records, tax records, non-public information on police and other protective services employees, department activities/plans and more. Much of this is extremely sensitive data and would be treasure trove of information, capable of being used in a diverse array of disruptive, targeted attacks against both individuals and entire departments.”

What all this means is anti-ransomware preparations require at least three layers of defense: off-site backups; an efficient patch regime; and real-time anomaly detection. Relying on IT staff ‘noticing something peculiar’ (as happened with the City of Atlanta) is simply not good enough.

Related: Insurance Firm Directs Response in Madison County Ransomware Attack  

view counter

Kevin Townsend is a Senior Contributor at SecurityWeek. He has been writing about high tech issues since before the birth of Microsoft. For the last 15 years he has specialized in information security; and has had many thousands of articles published in dozens of different magazines – from The Times and the Financial Times to current and long-gone computer magazines.

Continue reading Ransomware Hits City of Atlanta

18.5 Million Websites Infected With Malware at Any Time

There are more than 1.86 billion websites on the internet. Around 1% of these — something like 18,500,000 — are infected with malware at a given time each week; while the average website is attacked 44 times every day.

Sitelock has published its Q4 2017 Website Security Insider analysis of malware and websites based on statistics from 6 million of its 12 million customers. All these customers use at least one of Sitelock’s malware scanners, while a smaller subset also use the firm’s cloud-based web application firewall (WAF). The WAF provides insight into DDoS attacks against websites, while the sca≈nners provide insight to the state of malware in websites.

The analysis shows an increase of around 20% in the number of infected websites over Q3 2017. “We went from about 0.8% of our user base in Q3 to a little over 1% in Q4,” Sitelock research analyst Jessica Ortega told SecurityWeek. A 0.2% increase seems a small number, but it implies that up to 18.5 million websites worldwide may be infected with malware at any given time.

Despite the increase in infected sites, continued Ortega, “The total number of attacks or attempted attacks actually decreased by about 20% — so what we’re seeing is that it takes fewer attack attempts to compromise the websites. Attackers are becoming sneakier, and more difficult-to-decode malware is coming through.”

The majority of Sitelock’s customers are typically small businesses and blogs. “Many website owners remain unaware that website security is their responsibility and rely too heavily on popular search engines and other third parties to notify them when they’ve been compromised,” said Ortega. This doesn’t work — less than 1 in 5 infected websites are blacklisted by the search engines.

Other owners rely on their CMS software provider to keep them secure with security updates. But according to Sitelock, 46% of WordPress sites infected with malware were up to date with the latest core updates. Those also using plug-ins were twice as likely to be compromised. 

It is the sheer volume of both threats and compromises that is most surprising. During Q4 2017, Sitelock cleaned an average of 672,655 malicious files every week. It found an average of 309 infected files per site. Sixteen percent of malware results in site defacements, while more than 12% are backdoors facilitating the upload of thousands of other malicious files including exploit kits and phishing pages.

Jessica Ortega, research analyst at Sitelock, comments that the malicious files are often stored on websites in zip files. Even if active files are removed, the site can be compromised again, and the zip file extracted for the attacker to continue precisely as before.

One of the problems is that the average website is very easy to compromise. Sitelock’s analysis in Q4 found an average of 414 pages per site containing cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities; 959 pages per site containing SQL injection (SQLi) vulnerabilities; and 414 pages per site containing cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities. 

Even CSM security updates can be used against the website if they are not immediately installed. “Attackers can see what vulnerabilities have been patched in the latest update, and develop an exploit for those vulnerabilities. They then scan the internet for, for example, WordPress sites that haven’t yet been updated, and compromise them.”

Understanding the attackers’ motives is key to understanding the threat to small business websites. “A lot of attackers go for the low-hanging fruit, and small business websites are among the softest and easiest targets because so many owners don’t even realize they need security,” explains Ortega. One of the primary motivations is to improve the search engine rankings of the attackers’ own customers, by inserting backlinks to the customer website.

“Or they use it to attack the website’s visitors — for example, by phishing credentials,” she continued; “and obviously the longer that a phishing site stays up, the greater the number of credentials it can potentially steal. Or they’re just trying to further spread their malware to visitors via exploit kits.”

Compromising small business websites is a numbers game for the criminals. Each site has a relatively small reach in the volume of visitors that can be exploited; but the sheer number of sites combined with the ease of compromise makes it worthwhile. And it is complicated by being perhaps the last refuge of the skiddie. As large companies improve their own security, small companies increasingly attract low-skilled skiddies who hack for personal aggrandizement — those who do it because they can, and then boast about it. 

Sixteen percent of infected sites were subsequently defaced, often with a political or religious message, often by such skiddies.

Related: FBI Pushes for Small Business Information Sharing 

Related: Senate Passes MAIN STREET Cybersecurity Act for Small Business

Kevin Townsend is a Senior Contributor at SecurityWeek. He has been writing about high tech issues since before the birth of Microsoft. For the last 15 years he has specialized in information security; and has had many thousands of articles published in dozens of different magazines – from The Times and the Financial Times to current and long-gone computer magazines.

sponsored links

Continue reading 18.5 Million Websites Infected With Malware at Any Time

XM Cyber Unveils Automated Purple-Teaming at Speed and Scale

Israeli Cybersecurity Startup Launches Automated Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) Simulation Platform

Penetration testing is the most effective method of testing whether existing security policy stands up against advanced attackers, but it doesn’t scale well to large, dynamic networks, and only provides a single conclusion at a specific point in time. The solution is clearly automation.

XM Cyber is an Israeli firm founded in 2016. Its three co-founders are Tamir Pardo (formerly head of Mossad); Boaz Gorodissky (formerly head of technology for the government of Israel); and Noam Erez (who spent 25 years in Israeli intelligence). Its headquarters are in Israel, but with a presence in the U.S. and Australia. It has customers in Israel, the U.S. and Europe.

Its primary product, an automated APT simulation platform called HaXM, is unveiled today. The product simulates the possible behavior of an attacker in order to locate potential weaknesses on the system; and then, using the data gathered, provides recommendations for the remediation of those weaknesses. In this manner it provides automated red teaming with blue teaming to produce purple teaming at speed, continuously, and at scale.

“The problem we solve,” VP of Product Adi Ashkenazy told SecurityWeek, “is that when you look at modern organizations and you see the kind of security stack they have in place, you have to wonder if they are actually securing their critical assets. This is something the companies ask themselves as well. They spend a lot of money on different products and vendors; but at the end of the day, if you ask them, ‘are your critical assets secure?’, they may have hope and some belief, but they have no concrete evidence to support the idea.”

Manual penetration testing to prove the hypothesis of security, he continued, makes no sense for the modern organization that may have tens of thousands of endpoints, and hundreds of subsystems; and is continuously evolving and changing.

“This is why we founded XM Cyber,” commented Noam Erez: “to equip enterprises with a continuous 360-degree view of which critical assets are at risk, what security issues they should focus on, and how best to harness their resources to resolve them.”

HaXM places sensors only on ‘endpoints of interest’. “We don’t have to map the entire network,” said Ashkenazy. “We deploy our sensors on the endpoints of interest within the infrastructure that hackers are able or likely to use. We try to be almost religious in the way we mimic attacks — we don’t put sensors on every endpoint.”

Nor does HaXM start with any preconceived idea of a potential attack. “We don’t define the attack vectors in advance,” he said. “We act like a virtual hacker. We start from points of likely breach — which could be internet-facing servers, for example; or endpoints that receive external email. We place our virtual hacker in those starting points with a tool box that mimics the capabilities of an advanced attacker; and from that moment on the virtual hacker mimics the steps taken by a real hacker trying to find his way to critical assets. We never know in advance what will be found, but so far the virtual hacker has always eventually managed to compromise the entire network.”

This is HaXM’s simulation mode, where great care is taken not to trigger any alarms from the customer’s existing security stack. It checks for the conditions that could be used by an attacker. “This is what we use for 24/7 testing. But we also have a validation mode,” added Ashkenazy. “When you switch to validation mode, this is not continuous, but is a controlled mode, where you specify when and where you want to actually test a specific attack vector — and then we conduct the malicious activities to their full extent so that you can check the security stack in its entirety.”

HaXM provides a visualization of the route an aggressor can take from initial entry point on a network to the company’s critical assets. In doing this, it definitively presents the existence or absence of sufficient security, highlighting if and where additional security is necessary. While many security products seek to find indications of actual compromise after an initial breach, XM Cyber’s approach is to find routes of potential compromise irrespective of an existing breach. It will not locate an attacker; but it will tell the customer what an attacker could achieve.

XM Cyber has offices in Herzliya, Israel; New York; and Sydney, Australia. It has raised $15 million as initial funding in its first two years. The product will be demonstrated at the RSA Conference in San Francisco, California in April 16-19, 2018.

Related: From IDF to Inc: The Israeli Cybersecurity Startup Conveyor Belt 

Related: Using Machine Learning for Red Team Vs Blue Team Wargames 

Kevin Townsend is a Senior Contributor at SecurityWeek. He has been writing about high tech issues since before the birth of Microsoft. For the last 15 years he has specialized in information security; and has had many thousands of articles published in dozens of different magazines – from The Times and the Financial Times to current and long-gone computer magazines.

sponsored links

Continue reading XM Cyber Unveils Automated Purple-Teaming at Speed and Scale

F-Secure Looks to Address Cyber Security Risks in Aviation Industry

Aviation Cybersecurity

Aviation, as part of the transportation sector, falls within the critical infrastructure. While it may not have the same security issues as ICS/SCADA-based manufacturing and utilities, it has certain conceptual similarities; including, for example, a vital operational technology infrastructure with increasing internet connectivity, and the associated cyber risks.

It also has one major difference — the close physical proximity of its own customers. Catastrophic failure in the aviation industry has a more immediate and dramatic effect on customers — and for this reason alone, a trusted brand image is an essential and fragile part of success in the aviation industry. Without customer trust, customers will not fly with a particular airline.

Historically, aviation security has primarily focused on physical safety, and has become highly efficient in this area. But in recent years, the customization of new aircraft to provide newer and unique passenger experiences — such as the latest in internet-connected in-flight entertainment systems  — has added a new cyber risk.

Matthieu Gualino, deputy director of the International Civil Aviation Organization Aviation Security Training Center, described the three current areas of cyber risk as flight control (the critical systems needed to fly the aircraft — high impact, low likelihood); the operational cabin (systems used to operate and maintain aircraft — medium impact, medium likelihood); and passengers (systems with direct passenger interaction — low impact, high likelihood).

The problem today is that aviation security is experienced in operational technology, security and safety; but less experienced in the rapidly evolving world of cyber security. To help counter this risk, Finland’s F-Secure has launched its new Aviation Cyber Security Services to help secure not just aircraft, but the entire aviation industry: aircraft, infrastructure, data, and — most importantly to F-Secure — reputation. Customers are unlikely to fly with companies they do not trust; and successful cyber-attacks rapidly eliminate customer trust and confidence; even, suggests F-Secure, a minor breach of something like an in-flight entertainment system.

“Off-the-shelf communication technologies are finding their way into aircraft, which makes security much more complicated than in the past,” said Hugo Teso, head of aviation cybersecurity services at F-Secure and a former pilot. “Because these off-the-shelf technologies weren’t necessarily created to meet the rigorous safety requirements of airlines, the aviation industry is making cyber security a top priority. But they need a partner that understands both cyber security and the details of airline operations, because it’s an industry where those details make a big difference.”

The new service integrates security assessments of avionics, ground systems and data links, vulnerability scanners, security monitoring, incident response services, and specialized cyber security training for staff. 

The primary problem is not unknown to the security industry — the need to protect safety-critical systems from less significant but more exposed and vulnerable systems (such as those with an internet connection).  “A key protection measure is separating systems into different ‘trust domains’,” explains F-Secure’s head of Hardware Security Andrea Barisani, “and then controlling how systems in different domains can interact with one another. This prevents security issues in one domain, like a Wi-Fi service accessible to passengers, from affecting safety-critical systems, like aircraft controls or air to ground datalinks.”

Data diodes are typically used for this type of system segmentation, because they provide unidirectional data flows where complete bidirectional isolation is not possible. “It is essential for any data diode to be implemented in a manner that allows no attack, parsing errors or ambiguities, failures to affect their correct operation,” Barisani told SecurityWeek. “Our team is routinely involved in testing data diode security to provide assurance on their operation, improve their design and fix any issues well before their certification.”

Learn More at SecurityWeek’s ICS Cyber Security Conference

Diodes are part of the separation of the vulnerable passenger facilities from the critical flight operations. “In-flight entertainment and connectivity (IFE/IFC) are two of the most exposed systems in modern aircraft,” explained Teso. “Facing directly the passengers, those systems are a major cyber security concern to any operator as any incident would have important brand damage for them. Not to safety though. Due to the way aircraft are designed, built and upgraded any incident involving or originating in the cabin of the airplane will be isolated from the most critical, and safety related, systems.”

F-Secure is keen not to promote its new service with the ‘fear factor’. The aviation industry already does an excellent job at maintaining the safety of its flights. The new cyber risk is currently primarily against aviation’s brand reputation, and the threat of a cyber hijack taking over an aircraft in flight, is, suggests Teso, more likely in the movies than in reality.

But that doesn’t mean it can be dismissed or forever ignored, or even limited to civil aviation. The aviation industry, including both civil and military aircraft, shares a common core of technologies, although the threat model differs between the two. Nevertheless, commented Teso, “F-Secure aviation cyber security services is not limited to any specific part of the aviation industry. If it’s part of Aviation, our services have it covered.”

Related: Hacking Threatens Airline Safety: Aviation Chiefs 

Related: Poland Eyes Cybersecurity in Skies

Related: Proposed Cyber AIR Act Would Force Cybersecurity Standards for Aircraft 

Related: The Ever-evolving Cyber Threat to Planes

Learn More at SecurityWeek’s ICS Cyber Security Conference

Kevin Townsend is a Senior Contributor at SecurityWeek. He has been writing about high tech issues since before the birth of Microsoft. For the last 15 years he has specialized in information security; and has had many thousands of articles published in dozens of different magazines – from The Times and the Financial Times to current and long-gone computer magazines.

sponsored links

Continue reading F-Secure Looks to Address Cyber Security Risks in Aviation Industry

California Bill Seeks to Adopt Strict Net Neutrality Despite FCC Ruling

As Americans wait to see whether net neutrality can gain enough support among lawmakers to invoke disapproval via the Congressional Review Act, individual states are not waiting — several are working on state laws to maintain net neutrality within their own borders.

In December 2017, under the chairmanship of Ajit Pau, the FCC voted 3-2 to remove net neutrality protections by rolling back its earlier Obama-era classification of ISPs as telecommunications service providers (and therefor under FCC purview) to the common carriers as they had been previously classified. This has now happened. It simply means that existing FCC rules can no longer be applied to ISPs because they are not telecommunications services. This ruling won’t come into effect until April 23; that is, 60 days after publication of the ruling in the Federal Register.

In the meantime, California has now joined the number of states attempting to preserve local net neutrality regardless of federal preferences. California state senator Scott Wiener has introduced SB 822, a comprehensive proposal that would prevent ISPs from blocking websites, throttling users’ services or introducing paid priority services within California. In some ways this new bill imposes even stricter net neutrality than that being dismantled by the FCC, by, for example, imposing conditions on the practice of ‘zero rating’.

Coincidentally, the communications regulator in the UK, OFCOM, this month announced investigations into service providers Vodafone and Three. Vodafone operates a zero rating option called Vodafone Passes. “Our Passes allow customers to access their favorite content without fear of running out of data or attracting out-of-bundle charges,” says a Vodafone statement. “They are open to any content provider of video, music, chat and social. Twenty-two content providers have signed up so far, ensuring Vodafone customers can enjoy the widest selection of worry-free access to content across the industry.”

Opponents of net neutrality claim this is good for the consumer, effectively providing free bandwidth to the user. Proponents suggest it can starve new and smaller websites of the visitors they need. 

In the U.S., AT&T offers a sponsored data program that is similarly zero rated on data usage. It seems, however, that the only services actually zero rated are owned by AT&T — such as DirecTV. This gives DirecTV a huge advantage over rival services such as Hulu and Sling, since potential customers are more likely to use the service that has a zero data cost to them.

This is the whole net neutrality argument writ small. Large, established organizations can afford to starve new innovative organizations of internet traffic by paying a premium to the service providers; and will always — in a completely free market — be able to buy more of the available bandwidth. 

Knock-on concerns are that in order to guarantee bandwidth availability to the large premium-paying customers, it might be necessary to rein back availability to ordinary users — and in order to encourage those ordinary users to pay more for their bandwidth, there will be a temptation for providers to throttle what is already available.

The difficulty in policing net neutrality is that lawmakers recognize that some lee-way for ‘throttling’ (in the form of traffic management) will always be necessary. Europe’s net neutrality laws require that any such traffic management must be ‘transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate’. 

OFCOM has promised an update of its investigation into Vodafone in June, and it’s not possible to predict the outcome. Vodafone claims that its Passes service does not generate any bandwidth throttling, and indeed guarantees full service to the consumer. This may be true with just 22 signed up content providers; but may not necessarily be true with 200 signed up content providers.

In California, Senator Wiener’s proposal solves this problem, not by banning zero-rating outright, but by allowing it only for whole classes of content provider. In the AT&T example, AT&T could continue to zero-rate DirecTV only if it also zero-rates all similar content providers including Hulu and Sling.

Without doubt, SB 822 is one of the strongest net neutrality bills yet seen; and it will undoubtedly be disliked by the ISP providers. Jamie Davies, writing in Telecoms.com, considers net neutrality to be a heavy-handed approach to bandwidth problems. “The telcos have to be given the opportunity to make money,” he writes. “If the telcos are making less money, they are spending less on tackling the increased consumption of data. This is a net loss in the long-run and we do not think this is a nuance of the argument which has been considered by Weiner and his army of preachers.”

SB 822 may never happen. It may not be necessary if the Congressional Review Act can be used to overturn the FCC decision; or it may fail to get enough votes in California. Ironically, however, the FCC won’t be able to stop it. Back in December, the FCC barred states from adopting their own net neutrality rules — however, it will not be able to enforce its own rule. 

“While the FCC’s 2017 Order explicitly bans states from adopting their own net neutrality laws,” writes Barbara van Schewick, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, “that preemption is invalid. According to case law, an agency that does not have the power to regulate does not have the power to preempt. That means the FCC can only prevent the states from adopting net neutrality protections if the FCC has authority to adopt net neutrality protections itself.”

Related: Security Implications of the End of Net Neutrality 

Kevin Townsend is a Senior Contributor at SecurityWeek. He has been writing about high tech issues since before the birth of Microsoft. For the last 15 years he has specialized in information security; and has had many thousands of articles published in dozens of different magazines – from The Times and the Financial Times to current and long-gone computer magazines.

sponsored links

Continue reading California Bill Seeks to Adopt Strict Net Neutrality Despite FCC Ruling

Remotely Exploitable Vulnerability Discovered in MikroTik’s RouterOS

A vulnerability exists in MikroTik’s RouterOS in versions prior to the latest 6.41.3, released Monday, March 12, 2018. Details were discovered February and disclosed by Core Security on Thursday.

MikroTik is a Latvian manufacturer that develops routers and software used throughout the world. RouterOS is its Linux-based operating system.

The vulnerability, a MikroTik RouterOS SMB buffer overflow flaw, allows a remote attacker with access to the service to gain code execution on the system. Since the overflow occurs before authentication, an unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit it.

The vulnerability exists because the first byte of the source buffer is read and used as the size for the copy operation to the destination buffer — but ultimately, no validation is performed to ensure that the data fits into the destination buffer, potentially allowing a stack overflow.

Core’s vulnerability advisory includes a proof of concept exploit against MikroTik’s x86 Cloud Hosted Router. The function is reached by sending a NetBIOS session request message. Data execution prevention (DEP) is bypassed with a return-oriented programming (ROP) chain that calls ‘mprotect’ to mark a memory region as both writable and executable. Address space layout randomization (ASLR) can be neutralized because the base address of the heap is not randomized. This allows a payload on the heap to jump to a fixed location.

“Our testing,” says Core’s advisory, “showed this approach to be extremely reliable.” The reserved CVE number is CVE-2018-7445.

Core sent its initial vulnerability notice to MikroTik on February 19, 2018. On the same day, Core noticed the flaw was already scheduled for a fix by MikroTik in a new software release candidate. Core asked for a coordinated publication of the new version and its own advisory. It proposed March 1, 2018, which was confirmed by MikroTik. MikroTik then asked for an extension to Thursday, March 8, 2018, and then told Core it still wouldn’t be ready.

On Monday, March 12, 2018, it released the new version. It did not inform Core, and there is no apparent mention of the flaw or the fix in its new version announcement to customers — but it subsequently confirmed that the flaw has been fixed. MikroTik’s advice for customers that cannot upgrade is that they should turn off SMB.

Last week, Kaspersky Lab released a report on a hacking group it calls Slingshot. It has identified around 100 victims. The attackers gain access by first getting control of MikroTik routers, and using that position to download DLL files to the target computer via MikroTik’s Winbox management tool.

It is not clear at this point whether the Slingshot group gained access to the MikroTik routers using the CVE-2018-7445 vulnerability, but it is tempting to think so. Kaspersky Lab informed the company about its research prior to its own publication.

While the router vulnerability would be the first stage of the attack, the second stage would be the use of Winbox to get the malicious downloads. MikroTik claims on its support forum that Winbox is secure. In a thread started by a customer disturbed at learning about Slingshot from reports in the media rather than from MikroTik, MikroTik responded, “There is NO insecure Winbox v3. Winbox v3 was released in 2014. Even if somebody was using a really old Winbox v2, they still had to have an unsecured RouterOS device so that somebody could compromise it (firewall had to be removed). This is why they found only 120 affected machines since 2012.”

The bottom line is that MikroTik is quick fix to issues it knows about, but prefers to maintain a low profile over those problems. The danger here is that existing customers might not be aware of the issues, and be in no hurry to upgrade. MikroTik customers should be aware that a proven proof of concept exploit for vulnerability CVE-2018-7445 is in the public domain, and the ‘patch’ for this exploit is to upgrade RouterOS to version 6.41.3.

Related: New Mirai-Linked IoT Botnet Emerges 

Related: CIA Router Hacking Tool Exposed by WikiLeaks 

Kevin Townsend is a Senior Contributor at SecurityWeek. He has been writing about high tech issues since before the birth of Microsoft. For the last 15 years he has specialized in information security; and has had many thousands of articles published in dozens of different magazines – from The Times and the Financial Times to current and long-gone computer magazines.

sponsored links

Continue reading Remotely Exploitable Vulnerability Discovered in MikroTik’s RouterOS

Microsoft Publishes Bi-annual Security Intelligence Report (SIR)

Microsoft’s 23rd bi-annual Security Intelligence Report (SIR) focuses on three topics: the disruption of the Gamarue (aka Andromeda) botnet, evolving hacker methodologies, and ransomware. It draws on the data analysis of Microsoft’s global estate since February 2017, including 400 billion email messages scanned, 450 billion authentications, and 18+ billion Bing webpage scans every month; together with the telemetry collected from the 1.2 billion Windows devices that opt in to sharing threat data with Microsoft.

It is worth noting that Microsoft applies machine learning (ML) artificial intelligence to this data to tune its own security software. Since the efficiency of ML-based endpoint protection relies on both the algorithms employed, and the size of the data pool from which it learns, the implication is that Windows Defender has the potential to become an increasingly effective protection tool.

Gamarue

Gamarue was one of the largest botnets in the world. From 2011 it had evolved through five active versions and had been involved in distributing Petya and Cerber ransomware, Kasidet (aka the Neutrino bot), the Lethic spam bot, and data stealing malware such as Ursnif, Carberp and Fareit.

In partnership with ESET, Microsoft had been researching the Gamarue infrastructure and 44,000 associated malware samples, since December 2015. Details on 1,214 C&C domains and IPs, 464 distinct botnets and more than 80 malware families were collected and handed to law enforcement agencies around the world. On November 29, 2017, Gamarue’s C&C servers were disconnected and replaced with a sinkhole.

Since the disruption, the sinkhole has collected the IP addresses of 23 million infected devices. Microsoft has watched the number of Gamarue-infected devices reduce month by month, from around 17 million in December 2017 to 14 million in January 2018, and less than 12 million in February. Johnnie Konstantas, senior director with the Microsoft Cybersecurity Enterprise Group, told SecurityWeek, “The team reached out to ISPs, law enforcement agencies and identified companies, and told them about the infected IPs. Those organizations could identify the individual infected devices and organize the mitigations — which is what reduces the number of infected devices still connecting to the sink-hole.” Microsoft does not use the botnet to directly warn the infected users; but ESET comments, “at least no new harm can be done to those compromised PCs.”

Hacker routes

Over the last few years — not least because of the introduction of machine learning techniques — security protections have improved, and direct hacking has become more difficult and time-consuming. While still employed by well-resourced actors — such as nation-state affiliated groups — hackers in general have diverted their attention to the ‘low-hanging fruit’. The SIR describes three of these routes: social engineering, poorly-secured cloud apps, and the abuse of legitimate software platform features.

Social engineering attacks are largely synonymous with phishing attacks. The SIR notes “a significant volume of phishing-based email messages at the very end of the year 2017. Phishing was the #1 threat vector (> 50%) for Office 365-based email threats in the second half of calendar year 2017.” There are various tools available to help detect phishing, but some academics doubt that even machine learning techniques will be unable to solve the problem. 

Microsoft stresses the value of user awareness training. While users are often called ‘the weakest link’, they are also the first line of defense. Every well-trained user is effectively an individual human firewall.

The second of the low-hanging fruits is poorly secured cloud apps. “We studied about 30 of them,” said Konstantas, “looking at the security measures they employed. First you want header security, to prevent attacks like cookie poisoning or cross-site scripting that take over the session. Then you also want encryption of data in motion between the end device and the cloud, and finally encryption of data at rest.”

Microsoft found that about 79% of storage apps, and 86% of collaboration apps did not have all three measures. “They may have had one or two of the three,” she continued, “but not all three. This is a big deal, because you’re talking about potentially valuable corporate data accessible to adversaries, and also the possibility of malware infection coming back to the device.” 

The problem is intensified by shadow IT — companies may not even be aware that staff are using these insecure apps. “Mitigation here,” she said, “is focused on cloud access security brokers (CASBs) that can apply all three security measures to traffic going to the cloud, can monitor what is going on in the cloud, and can identify what unsanctioned cloud apps are being used by staff.”

The third of the low-hanging fruits is the abuse of legitimate services. The SIR gives just one example: the exploitation of DDE in October and November 2017. In one quoted example, an attached Word document was able, through DDE, to download and run malicious payloads such as the Locky ransomware. 

Surprisingly, however, there is no mention of the abuse of PowerShell. PowerShell, activated from within weaponized Office attachments, is increasingly used by hackers to deliver ‘fileless’ attacks. McAfee’s Q4 2017 Threat Report — also published this week — reports, “In 2017, McAfee Labs saw PowerShell malware grow by 267% in Q4, and by 432% year over year, as the threat category increasingly became a go-to toolbox for cybercriminals. The scripting language was irresistible, as attackers sought to use it within Microsoft Office files to execute the first stage of attacks.” Operation Gold Dragon, in December 2017, is an example of the use of PowerShell by hackers.

Ransomware

Ransomware is, not surprisingly, the third major topic discussed in SIR 23. Last year will always be remembered as the year of three particular global ransomware outbreaks: WannaCry, NotPetya and Bad Rabbit. The first two of these rapidly became global in extent using an exploit known as EternalBlue; an NSA ‘weapon’ stolen and publicly released by the Shadow Brokers.

One of the disturbing aspects of these outbreaks is that Microsoft had already patched the vulnerability used by EternalBlue to spread from machine to machine. Konstantas confirmed to SecurityWeek that the first Microsoft knew about the EternalBlue exploit used in WannaCry was when it was released by Shadow Brokers; that is, Microsoft was not informed by the NSA that this exploit had been stolen by Shadow Brokers prior to it entering the public domain. This demonstrates both the speed with which Microsoft handles serious vulnerabilities, and the slowness with which large numbers of users take advantage of available patches. Azure customers were automatically protected, confirmed Konstantas.

According to the SIR, the three most commonly encountered ransomwares in 2017 were Android LockScreen, WannaCry and Cerber. LockScreen is interesting since it is Android malware that crosses to Windows devices when users sync their phones or download Android apps, usually side loading from outside of the Google Play store, via Windows.

The report has five primary recommendations to counter the threat of ransomware: backup data; employ multi-layered security defenses; upgrade to the latest software and enforce judicious patching; isolate or retire computers that cannot be patched; and manage and control privileged credentials. A new survey from Thycotic demonstrates just how poor many organizations are at managing privileged accounts.

There is no mention of a sixth potential recommendation — if infected with ransomware, immediately visit the NoMoreRansom project website. This project aggregates known ransomware decryptors, and it is possible that victims might be able to recover encrypted files without recourse to the risky option of paying the ransom. For now, Microsoft does not appear to be a partner in this project.

;i++){e[i].style.width=”100%”;var>

Kevin Townsend is a Senior Contributor at SecurityWeek. He has been writing about high tech issues since before the birth of Microsoft. For the last 15 years he has specialized in information security; and has had many thousands of articles published in dozens of different magazines – from The Times and the Financial Times to current and long-gone computer magazines.

sponsored links

Continue reading Microsoft Publishes Bi-annual Security Intelligence Report (SIR)

Organizations Failing Painfully at Securing Privileged Accounts

Legal Requirement for Cyber Insurance May be Necessary to Protect Privileged Credentials

The need to manage privileged accounts is understood by practitioners and required by regulators, but poorly implemented in practice. Eighty percent of organizations consider privileged account management (PAM) to be a high priority; 60% are required by regulators to demonstrate privileged account management; but 70% would fail an access control audit.

According to the 2017 Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR), 81% of all hacking-related data breaches involved the use of stolen and/or weak passwords. The prize for hackers is gaining access to privileged account credentials. Once acquired, the adversary can move around the network with high capability and little visibility. Despite this, a new survey (PDF) by Thycotic demonstrates widespread poor implementation of PAM principles to protect key accounts. 

Thycotic queried nearly 500 global IT security professionals. In privileged account provisioning, it found 62% of organizations fail at processes for privileged access; 70% fail to fully discover privileged accounts (while 40% do nothing at all to discover these accounts); and 55% fail to revoke access after an employee is terminated.

Even with strong controls, the report warns, “You cannot secure and manage what you do not know you have.” However, most organizations have few and poor controls. Seventy-three percent of organizations do not require multi-factor authentication with privileged accounts; 63% do not track and alert on failed logon attempts for privileged accounts; and 70% fail to limit third-party access to privileged accounts.

Related Webcast: Live on 3/21 –  Reducing Privileges Reduces Risk

Thycotic recommends a virtuous life cycle approach to privileged account management: define; discover; manage and protect; monitor; detect anomalous use; respond to incidents; and review and audit. Without automation, this will be impossible for anything but the smallest of companies. There are several companies — including Thycotic — that provide technology to assist.

SecurityWeek spoke to the report’s author, Joseph Carson, chief security scientist at Thycotic to understand why privileged account management is failing. “Organizations,” he said, “are not measuring their security effectively. They continue to spend their budget blindly; and with limited budgets, they have difficulty in letting go of their legacy solutions and attitudes, and investing in the future.”

Sometimes, he continued, companies just use a spreadsheet or Word document to record their privileged accounts — and sometimes nothing at all. “An automated system will save money by eliminating much of the manual effort,” he suggested, “providing more complete control, making audits simpler, and reducing the risk of a serious breach.”

Nothing here is new or unknown, so it doesn’t explain why PAM hasn’t been more widely adopted. “The ultimate problem,” he said, “is a lack of enforcement by the regulators, leaving organizations free to continue doing the minimum and get away with it.” Most of the regulations that require PAM have certifications that will demonstrate compliance; but Carson is concerned that ‘certification’ is just another business with its own business pressures and its own need to make a profit.

“Are the certifiers more concerned with having certified customers than rigorously enforcing the official standards? Is,” he wonders, “certification effectively becoming a subscription service — becoming a business process rather than a serious evaluation?”

The solution, he suggests, will only come when the regulators actually enforce their own regulations. “Enforcement needs to be harsh — where a regulation requires PAM, failing companies need to be barred from further operation until the requirements are satisfied. Set the bar high, rather than the current position which is way too low.”

Carson uses car seat belts as an example. When they first began to appear, not all vehicle manufactures included them — just as not all organizations use PAM today. “What changed the situation,” he said, “so that seat belts were installed in all motor vehicles as a matter of course, was the insurance industry. Insurance companies told the motor industry that they would not insure any car that did not have seat belts.” Since motor insurance is required by law, it effectively meant no seat belt, no sale.

The difference, of course, is that cyber insurance is not a current legal requirement. Carson believes this will change over the next few years, courtesy of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). GDPR does not specify the need for privileged account management — it requires the concept of ‘least privilege’. This serves the same purpose, but couched in technology future-proof language.

GDPR comes with very high potential monetary sanctions (up to 4% of global turnover), and a regulatory body that has shown itself willing to use its powers against even the largest international organizations. To ensure it can collect the fines that it will inevitably levy, Europe may well turn to the cyber insurance industry. 

“It will be the insurance industry that will drive organizations to actually do something about effectively managing their privileged accounts. No adequate certification will mean no insurance. This, of course, will require legal insistence on cyber insurance; and GDPR will drive that. We will probably see, in about one or two years, insurance will become mandatory for those companies regulated by GDPR,” Carson said.

Related Webcast: Join SecurityWeek & Thycotic Live on 3/21 at 1PM ET –  Reducing Privileges Reduces Risk [Register Now]

RelatedPrivileged Accounts Still Poorly Managed 

RelatedCompromised Credentials: The Primary Point of Attack for Data Breaches 

Kevin Townsend is a Senior Contributor at SecurityWeek. He has been writing about high tech issues since before the birth of Microsoft. For the last 15 years he has specialized in information security; and has had many thousands of articles published in dozens of different magazines – from The Times and the Financial Times to current and long-gone computer magazines.

sponsored links

Continue reading Organizations Failing Painfully at Securing Privileged Accounts

Cyber-Attack Prevention Firm Solebit Raises $11 Million

Tel Aviv-based cyber-attack prevention firm Solebit Labs, currently establishing new global headquarters in Silicon Valley, has announced completion of an $11 million Series A funding round led by ClearSky Security.

Solebit was founded in 2014 by Boris Vaynberg, Meni Farjon, and Yossi Sara — all of whom graduated from Israel’s IDF technology units. The funding announced today will be used to accelerate adoption and deployment of the SoleGATE Security Platform from the new headquarters in Silicon Valley.

SoleGATE is an attack prevention system that can be used as a replacement or alternative to traditional endpoint protection systems. Such systems typically rely on either malware signatures or malware behavioral analysis engines — with or without benefit of machine learning AI algorithms— to detect malware; and both of these approaches can be evaded by zero-day fileless attacks. 

SoleGATE is an attack prevention system that uses neither signatures nor behavioral analysis to detect malicious code before it enters the network. Instead, it creates a logical ‘no code zone’ that inspects every data stream for executable code, no matter how encrypted or hidden. By inspecting every data stream, malicious code has nowhere to hide, and cannot evade detection. Solebit claims that it has a false positive rate of less than 0.002%.

“Attackers still possess the edge, particularly in zero-day attacks, despite considerable security investment,” said Vaynberg, CEO of Solebit. “DvC (Solebit’s patent-pending inspection engine) assumes that there is no legitimate reason for executable code to be present in any data file. DvC also accurately identifies and blocks malicious active content using advanced flow analysis, de-obfuscation techniques and deep content evaluation, to reveal threat intent within any data file covering machine, operating system and application levels, thereby rendering such sandbox-evading malware harmless to the enterprise.”

SoleGATE is a virtual appliance that can analyze data streams at high speed. For large companies, “SoleGATE supports both vertical and horizontal scaling,” Vaynberg told SecurityWeek. “Each SoleGATE virtual appliance can scan many files concurrently (based on number of CPU cores dedicated to the virtual appliance) and customers can use multiple SoleGATE instances working in Active-Active mode.” 

The technology is closer in concept to Content Disarm and Reconstruct (CDR) solutions than it is to standard malware detection products — but still has fundamental differences. “The SoleGATE DvC engine analyzes the binary content of each scanned file and reaches a conclusive verdict regarding the file, whether it is malicious or not. It covers a wide range of file formats, does not change anything in the scanned file and, of course, there is no effect on user experience,” explained Vaynberg. 

“CDR, however, is reconstructing the file, assuming that reconstruction will remove any malicious payload. This technology is generally limited in the number of supported file formats, and it can affect user experience since it is actually altering the file the user receives.”

SoleGATE does not create signatures for files or malicious behavior — all data streams are inspected as if never before seen. Nor does it share or export any data from the customer’s environment — eliminating, for example, the sequence of events that triggered Kaspersky Labs’ issues with the US government. In that instance, it is thought that files exported from an NSA contractor’s home computer for Kaspersky malware analysis somehow alerted Russian intelligence services to the presence and location of those sensitive files; which were later obtained by hacking the contractor’s computer.

SoleGATE does, however, provide IoCs to the customer, “in order,” said Vaynberg, “to leverage the customer’s entire security stack based on SoleGATE’s unique detection.” He added, “SoleGATE also supports malicious links detection and prevention. It provides customers with prevention against links that lead to malicious web pages or malicious files to be downloaded from the web. A phishing web page that seeks to socially engineer user credentials will be supported later.”

“Solebit provides the most effective, real-time, and accurate cyber-attack prevention platform that is incredibly simple to use, integrate and manage,” said Peter Kuper, Managing Director, ClearSky Security. “As organizations struggle to better manage risk against unknown threats, Solebit is ideally positioned to be a trusted partner to both enterprise and large-scale security vendors as they contend with ever increasingly sophisticated attackers.”

Related: It’s Time For Machine Learning to Prove Its Own Hype

Kevin Townsend is a Senior Contributor at SecurityWeek. He has been writing about high tech issues since before the birth of Microsoft. For the last 15 years he has specialized in information security; and has had many thousands of articles published in dozens of different magazines – from The Times and the Financial Times to current and long-gone computer magazines.

sponsored links

Continue reading Cyber-Attack Prevention Firm Solebit Raises $11 Million