Tag Archives: vulnerability

Another Spectre-Like CPU Vulnerability

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/05/another_spectre.html

Google and Microsoft researchers have disclosed another Spectre-like CPU side-channel vulnerability, called “Speculative Store Bypass.” Like the others, the fix will slow the CPU down.

The German tech site Heise reports that more are coming.

I’m not surprised. Writing about Spectre and Meltdown in January, I predicted that we’ll be seeing a lot more of these sorts of vulnerabilities.

Spectre and Meltdown are pretty catastrophic vulnerabilities, but they only affect the confidentiality of data. Now that they — and the research into the Intel ME vulnerability — have shown researchers where to look, more is coming — and what they’ll find will be worse than either Spectre or Meltdown.

I still predict that we’ll be seeing lots more of these in the coming months and years, as we learn more about this class of vulnerabilities.

Details on a New PGP Vulnerability

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/05/details_on_a_ne.html

A new PGP vulnerability was announced today. Basically, the vulnerability makes use of the fact that modern e-mail programs allow for embedded HTML objects. Essentially, if an attacker can intercept and modify a message in transit, he can insert code that sends the plaintext in a URL to a remote website. Very clever.

The EFAIL attacks exploit vulnerabilities in the OpenPGP and S/MIME standards to reveal the plaintext of encrypted emails. In a nutshell, EFAIL abuses active content of HTML emails, for example externally loaded images or styles, to exfiltrate plaintext through requested URLs. To create these exfiltration channels, the attacker first needs access to the encrypted emails, for example, by eavesdropping on network traffic, compromising email accounts, email servers, backup systems or client computers. The emails could even have been collected years ago.

The attacker changes an encrypted email in a particular way and sends this changed encrypted email to the victim. The victim’s email client decrypts the email and loads any external content, thus exfiltrating the plaintext to the attacker.

A few initial comments:

1. Being able to intercept and modify e-mails in transit is the sort of thing the NSA can do, but is hard for the average hacker. That being said, there are circumstances where someone can modify e-mails. I don’t mean to minimize the seriousness of this attack, but that is a consideration.

2. The vulnerability isn’t with PGP or S/MIME itself, but in the way they interact with modern e-mail programs. You can see this in the two suggested short-term mitigations: “No decryption in the e-mail client,” and “disable HTML rendering.”

3. I’ve been getting some weird press calls from reporters wanting to know if this demonstrates that e-mail encryption is impossible. No, this just demonstrates that programmers are human and vulnerabilities are inevitable. PGP almost certainly has fewer bugs than your average piece of software, but it’s not bug free.

3. Why is anyone using encrypted e-mail anymore, anyway? Reliably and easily encrypting e-mail is an insurmountably hard problem for reasons having nothing to do with today’s announcement. If you need to communicate securely, use Signal. If having Signal on your phone will arouse suspicion, use WhatsApp.

I’ll post other commentaries and analyses as I find them.

EDITED TO ADD (5/14): News articles.

Slashdot thread.

Critical PGP Vulnerability

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/05/critical_pgp_vu.html

EFF is reporting that a critical vulnerability has been discovered in PGP and S/MIME. No details have been published yet, but one of the researchers wrote:

We’ll publish critical vulnerabilities in PGP/GPG and S/MIME email encryption on 2018-05-15 07:00 UTC. They might reveal the plaintext of encrypted emails, including encrypted emails sent in the past. There are currently no reliable fixes for the vulnerability. If you use PGP/GPG or S/MIME for very sensitive communication, you should disable it in your email client for now.

This sounds like a protocol vulnerability, but we’ll learn more tomorrow.

News articles.

Drupwn – Drupal Enumeration Tool & Security Scanner

Post Syndicated from Darknet original https://www.darknet.org.uk/2018/05/drupwn-drupal-enumeration-tool-security-scanner/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=darknetfeed

Drupwn – Drupal Enumeration Tool & Security Scanner

Drupwn is a Python-based Drupal Enumeration Tool that also includes an exploit mode, which can check for and exploit relevant CVEs.

Drupwn Drupal Enumeration Tool Hacking Features

Drupwn can be run, using two separate modes which are enum and exploit. The enum mode allows performing enumerations whereas the exploit mode allows checking and exploiting CVEs.

Enum mode

  • User enumeration
  • Node enumeration
  • Default files enumeration
  • Module enumeration
  • Theme enumeration
  • Cookies support
  • User-Agent support
  • Basic authentication support
  • Request delay
  • Enumeration range
  • Logging

Exploit mode

  • Vulnerability checker
  • CVE exploiter

For scanning Drupal sites there is also:

– Droopescan – Plugin Based CMS Security Scanner

You can download Drupwn here:

drupwn-master.zip

Or read more here.

Read the rest of Drupwn – Drupal Enumeration Tool & Security Scanner now! Only available at Darknet.

Security Vulnerabilities in VingCard Electronic Locks

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/04/security_vulner_14.html

Researchers have disclosed a massive vulnerability in the VingCard eletronic lock system, used in hotel rooms around the world:

With a $300 Proxmark RFID card reading and writing tool, any expired keycard pulled from the trash of a target hotel, and a set of cryptographic tricks developed over close to 15 years of on-and-off analysis of the codes Vingcard electronically writes to its keycards, they found a method to vastly narrow down a hotel’s possible master key code. They can use that handheld Proxmark device to cycle through all the remaining possible codes on any lock at the hotel, identify the correct one in about 20 tries, and then write that master code to a card that gives the hacker free reign to roam any room in the building. The whole process takes about a minute.

[…]

The two researchers say that their attack works only on Vingcard’s previous-generation Vision locks, not the company’s newer Visionline product. But they estimate that it nonetheless affects 140,000 hotels in more than 160 countries around the world; the researchers say that Vingcard’s Swedish parent company, Assa Abloy, admitted to them that the problem affects millions of locks in total. When WIRED reached out to Assa Abloy, however, the company put the total number of vulnerable locks somewhat lower, between 500,000 and a million.

Patching is a nightmare. It requires updating the firmware on every lock individually.

And the researchers speculate whether or not others knew of this hack:

The F-Secure researchers admit they don’t know if their Vinguard attack has occurred in the real world. But the American firm LSI, which trains law enforcement agencies in bypassing locks, advertises Vingcard’s products among those it promises to teach students to unlock. And the F-Secure researchers point to a 2010 assassination of a Palestinian Hamas official in a Dubai hotel, widely believed to have been carried out by the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad. The assassins in that case seemingly used a vulnerability in Vingcard locks to enter their target’s room, albeit one that required re-programming the lock. “Most probably Mossad has a capability to do something like this,” Tuominen says.

Slashdot post.

Secure Build with AWS CodeBuild and LayeredInsight

Post Syndicated from Asif Khan original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/devops/secure-build-with-aws-codebuild-and-layeredinsight/

This post is written by Asif Awan, Chief Technology Officer of Layered InsightSubin Mathew – Software Development Manager for AWS CodeBuild, and Asif Khan – Solutions Architect

Enterprises adopt containers because they recognize the benefits: speed, agility, portability, and high compute density. They understand how accelerating application delivery and deployment pipelines makes it possible to rapidly slipstream new features to customers. Although the benefits are indisputable, this acceleration raises concerns about security and corporate compliance with software governance. In this blog post, I provide a solution that shows how Layered Insight, the pioneer and global leader in container-native application protection, can be used with seamless application build and delivery pipelines like those available in AWS CodeBuild to address these concerns.

Layered Insight solutions

Layered Insight enables organizations to unify DevOps and SecOps by providing complete visibility and control of containerized applications. Using the industry’s first embedded security approach, Layered Insight solves the challenges of container performance and protection by providing accurate insight into container images, adaptive analysis of running containers, and automated enforcement of container behavior.

 

AWS CodeBuild

AWS CodeBuild is a fully managed build service that compiles source code, runs tests, and produces software packages that are ready to deploy. With CodeBuild, you don’t need to provision, manage, and scale your own build servers. CodeBuild scales continuously and processes multiple builds concurrently, so your builds are not left waiting in a queue. You can get started quickly by using prepackaged build environments, or you can create custom build environments that use your own build tools.

 

Problem Definition

Security and compliance concerns span the lifecycle of application containers. Common concerns include:

Visibility into the container images. You need to verify the software composition information of the container image to determine whether known vulnerabilities associated with any of the software packages and libraries are included in the container image.

Governance of container images is critical because only certain open source packages/libraries, of specific versions, should be included in the container images. You need support for mechanisms for blacklisting all container images that include a certain version of a software package/library, or only allowing open source software that come with a specific type of license (such as Apache, MIT, GPL, and so on). You need to be able to address challenges such as:

·       Defining the process for image compliance policies at the enterprise, department, and group levels.

·       Preventing the images that fail the compliance checks from being deployed in critical environments, such as staging, pre-prod, and production.

Visibility into running container instances is critical, including:

·       CPU and memory utilization.

·       Security of the build environment.

·       All activities (system, network, storage, and application layer) of the application code running in each container instance.

Protection of running container instances that is:

·       Zero-touch to the developers (not an SDK-based approach).

·       Zero touch to the DevOps team and doesn’t limit the portability of the containerized application.

·       This protection must retain the option to switch to a different container stack or orchestration layer, or even to a different Container as a Service (CaaS ).

·       And it must be a fully automated solution to SecOps, so that the SecOps team doesn’t have to manually analyze and define detailed blacklist and whitelist policies.

 

Solution Details

In AWS CodeCommit, we have three projects:
●     “Democode” is a simple Java application, with one buildspec to build the app into a Docker container (run by build-demo-image CodeBuild project), and another to instrument said container (instrument-image CodeBuild project). The resulting container is stored in ECR repo javatestasjavatest:20180415-layered. This instrumented container is running in AWS Fargate cluster demo-java-appand can be seen in the Layered Insight runtime console as the javatestapplication in us-east-1.
●     aws-codebuild-docker-imagesis a clone of the official aws-codebuild-docker-images repo on GitHub . This CodeCommit project is used by the build-python-builder CodeBuild project to build the python 3.3.6 codebuild image and is stored at the codebuild-python ECR repo. We then manually instructed the Layered Insight console to instrument the image.
●     scan-java-imagecontains just a buildspec.yml file. This file is used by the scan-java-image CodeBuild project to instruct Layered Assessment to perform a vulnerability scan of the javatest container image built previously, and then run the scan results through a compliance policy that states there should be no medium vulnerabilities. This build fails — but in this case that is a success: the scan completes successfully, but compliance fails as there are medium-level issues found in the scan.

This build is performed using the instrumented version of the Python 3.3.6 CodeBuild image, so the activity of the processes running within the build are recorded each time within the LI console.

Build container image

Create or use a CodeCommit project with your application. To build this image and store it in Amazon Elastic Container Registry (Amazon ECR), add a buildspec file to the project and build a container image and create a CodeBuild project.

Scan container image

Once the image is built, create a new buildspec in the same project or a new one that looks similar to below (update ECR URL as necessary):

version: 0.2
phases:
  pre_build:
    commands:
      - echo Pulling down LI Scan API client scripts
      - git clone https://github.com/LayeredInsight/scan-api-example-python.git
      - echo Setting up LI Scan API client
      - cd scan-api-example-python
      - pip install layint_scan_api
      - pip install -r requirements.txt
  build:
    commands:
      - echo Scanning container started on `date`
      - IMAGEID=$(./li_add_image --name <aws-region>.amazonaws.com/javatest:20180415)
      - ./li_wait_for_scan -v --imageid $IMAGEID
      - ./li_run_image_compliance -v --imageid $IMAGEID --policyid PB15260f1acb6b2aa5b597e9d22feffb538256a01fbb4e5a95

Add the buildspec file to the git repo, push it, and then build a CodeBuild project using with the instrumented Python 3.3.6 CodeBuild image at <aws-region>.amazonaws.com/codebuild-python:3.3.6-layered. Set the following environment variables in the CodeBuild project:
●     LI_APPLICATIONNAME – name of the build to display
●     LI_LOCATION – location of the build project to display
●     LI_API_KEY – ApiKey:<key-name>:<api-key>
●     LI_API_HOST – location of the Layered Insight API service

Instrument container image

Next, to instrument the new container image:

  1. In the Layered Insight runtime console, ensure that the ECR registry and credentials are defined (click the Setup icon and the ‘+’ sign on the top right of the screen to add a new container registry). Note the name given to the registry in the console, as this needs to be referenced in the li_add_imagecommand in the script, below.
  2. Next, add a new buildspec (with a new name) to the CodeCommit project, such as the one shown below. This code will download the Layered Insight runtime client, and use it to instruct the Layered Insight service to instrument the image that was just built:
    version: 0.2
    phases:
    pre_build:
    commands:
    echo Pulling down LI API Runtime client scripts
    git clone https://github.com/LayeredInsight/runtime-api-example-python
    echo Setting up LI API client
    cd runtime-api-example-python
    pip install layint-runtime-api
    pip install -r requirements.txt
    build:
    commands:
    echo Instrumentation started on `date`
    ./li_add_image --registry "Javatest ECR" --name IMAGE_NAME:TAG --description "IMAGE DESCRIPTION" --policy "Default Policy" --instrument --wait --verbose
  3. Commit and push the new buildspec file.
  4. Going back to CodeBuild, create a new project, with the same CodeCommit repo, but this time select the new buildspec file. Use a Python 3.3.6 builder – either the AWS or LI Instrumented version.
  5. Click Continue
  6. Click Save
  7. Run the build, again on the master branch.
  8. If everything runs successfully, a new image should appear in the ECR registry with a -layered suffix. This is the instrumented image.

Run instrumented container image

When the instrumented container is now run — in ECS, Fargate, or elsewhere — it will log data back to the Layered Insight runtime console. It’s appearance in the console can be modified by setting the LI_APPLICATIONNAME and LI_LOCATION environment variables when running the container.

Conclusion

In the above blog we have provided you steps needed to embed governance and runtime security in your build pipelines running on AWS CodeBuild using Layered Insight.

 

 

 

No, Ray Ozzie hasn’t solved crypto backdoors

Post Syndicated from Robert Graham original https://blog.erratasec.com/2018/04/no-ray-ozzie-hasnt-solved-crypto.html

According to this Wired article, Ray Ozzie may have a solution to the crypto backdoor problem. No, he hasn’t. He’s only solving the part we already know how to solve. He’s deliberately ignoring the stuff we don’t know how to solve. We know how to make backdoors, we just don’t know how to secure them.

The vault doesn’t scale

Yes, Apple has a vault where they’ve successfully protected important keys. No, it doesn’t mean this vault scales. The more people and the more often you have to touch the vault, the less secure it becomes. We are talking thousands of requests per day from 100,000 different law enforcement agencies around the world. We are unlikely to protect this against incompetence and mistakes. We are definitely unable to secure this against deliberate attack.

A good analogy to Ozzie’s solution is LetsEncrypt for getting SSL certificates for your website, which is fairly scalable, using a private key locked in a vault for signing hundreds of thousands of certificates. That this scales seems to validate Ozzie’s proposal.

But at the same time, LetsEncrypt is easily subverted. LetsEncrypt uses DNS to verify your identity. But spoofing DNS is easy, as was recently shown in the recent BGP attack against a cryptocurrency. Attackers can create fraudulent SSL certificates with enough effort. We’ve got other protections against this, such as discovering and revoking the SSL bad certificate, so while damaging, it’s not catastrophic.

But with Ozzie’s scheme, equivalent attacks would be catastrophic, as it would lead to unlocking the phone and stealing all of somebody’s secrets.

In particular, consider what would happen if LetsEncrypt’s certificate was stolen (as Matthew Green points out). The consequence is that this would be detected and mass revocations would occur. If Ozzie’s master key were stolen, nothing would happen. Nobody would know, and evildoers would be able to freely decrypt phones. Ozzie claims his scheme can work because SSL works — but then his scheme includes none of the many protections necessary to make SSL work.

What I’m trying to show here is that in a lab, it all looks nice and pretty, but when attacked at scale, things break down — quickly. We have so much experience with failure at scale that we can judge Ozzie’s scheme as woefully incomplete. It’s not even up to the standard of SSL, and we have a long list of SSL problems.

Cryptography is about people more than math

We have a mathematically pure encryption algorithm called the “One Time Pad”. It can’t ever be broken, provably so with mathematics.

It’s also perfectly useless, as it’s not something humans can use. That’s why we use AES, which is vastly less secure (anything you encrypt today can probably be decrypted in 100 years). AES can be used by humans whereas One Time Pads cannot be. (I learned the fallacy of One Time Pad’s on my grandfather’s knee — he was a WW II codebreaker who broke German messages trying to futz with One Time Pads).

The same is true with Ozzie’s scheme. It focuses on the mathematical model but ignores the human element. We already know how to solve the mathematical problem in a hundred different ways. The part we don’t know how to secure is the human element.

How do we know the law enforcement person is who they say they are? How do we know the “trusted Apple employee” can’t be bribed? How can the law enforcement agent communicate securely with the Apple employee?

You think these things are theoretical, but they aren’t. Consider financial transactions. It used to be common that you could just email your bank/broker to wire funds into an account for such things as buying a house. Hackers have subverted that, intercepting messages, changing account numbers, and stealing millions. Most banks/brokers require additional verification before doing such transfers.

Let me repeat: Ozzie has only solved the part we already know how to solve. He hasn’t addressed these issues that confound us.

We still can’t secure security, much less secure backdoors

We already know how to decrypt iPhones: just wait a year or two for somebody to discover a vulnerability. FBI claims it’s “going dark”, but that’s only for timely decryption of phones. If they are willing to wait a year or two a vulnerability will eventually be found that allows decryption.

That’s what’s happened with the “GrayKey” device that’s been all over the news lately. Apple is fixing it so that it won’t work on new phones, but it works on old phones.

Ozzie’s solution is based on the assumption that iPhones are already secure against things like GrayKey. Like his assumption “if Apple already has a vault for private keys, then we have such vaults for backdoor keys”, Ozzie is saying “if Apple already had secure hardware/software to secure the phone, then we can use the same stuff to secure the backdoors”. But we don’t really have secure vaults and we don’t really have secure hardware/software to secure the phone.

Again, to stress this point, Ozzie is solving the part we already know how to solve, but ignoring the stuff we don’t know how to solve. His solution is insecure for the same reason phones are already insecure.

Locked phones aren’t the problem

Phones are general purpose computers. That means anybody can install an encryption app on the phone regardless of whatever other security the phone might provide. The police are powerless to stop this. Even if they make such encryption crime, then criminals will still use encryption.

That leads to a strange situation that the only data the FBI will be able to decrypt is that of people who believe they are innocent. Those who know they are guilty will install encryption apps like Signal that have no backdoors.

In the past this was rare, as people found learning new apps a barrier. These days, apps like Signal are so easy even drug dealers can figure out how to use them.

We know how to get Apple to give us a backdoor, just pass a law forcing them to. It may look like Ozzie’s scheme, it may be something more secure designed by Apple’s engineers. Sure, it will weaken security on the phone for everyone, but those who truly care will just install Signal. But again we are back to the problem that Ozzie’s solving the problem we know how to solve while ignoring the much larger problem, that of preventing people from installing their own encryption.

The FBI isn’t necessarily the problem

Ozzie phrases his solution in terms of U.S. law enforcement. Well, what about Europe? What about Russia? What about China? What about North Korea?

Technology is borderless. A solution in the United States that allows “legitimate” law enforcement requests will inevitably be used by repressive states for what we believe would be “illegitimate” law enforcement requests.

Ozzie sees himself as the hero helping law enforcement protect 300 million American citizens. He doesn’t see himself what he really is, the villain helping oppress 1.4 billion Chinese, 144 million Russians, and another couple billion living in oppressive governments around the world.

Conclusion

Ozzie pretends the problem is political, that he’s created a solution that appeases both sides. He hasn’t. He’s solved the problem we already know how to solve. He’s ignored all the problems we struggle with, the problems we claim make secure backdoors essentially impossible. I’ve listed some in this post, but there are many more. Any famous person can create a solution that convinces fawning editors at Wired Magazine, but if Ozzie wants to move forward he’s going to have to work harder to appease doubting cryptographers.

[$] A page-table isolation update

Post Syndicated from corbet original https://lwn.net/Articles/752621/rss

Dave Hansen did much of the work to get kernel page-table isolation
(PTI) into the kernel in response to the Meltdown CPU vulnerability. In the
memory-management track of the
2018 Linux Storage, Filesystem, and Memory-Management Summit, he ran a
discussion on how PTI came about, what the costs are, and what can be done
to minimize its performance impact.

[$] The impact of page-table isolation on I/O performance

Post Syndicated from corbet original https://lwn.net/Articles/752587/rss

Ever since kernel page-table isolation
(PTI)
was introduced as a mitigation for
the Meltdown CPU vulnerability, users have worried about how it affects the
performance of their systems. Most of that concern has been directed
toward its impact on computing performance, but I/O performance also
matters. At the 2018 Linux Storage, Filesystem, and Memory-Management
Summit, Ming Lei presented some preliminary work he has done to try to
quantify how severely PTI affects block I/O operations.

OMG The Stupid It Burns

Post Syndicated from Robert Graham original https://blog.erratasec.com/2018/04/omg-stupid-it-burns.html

This article, pointed out by @TheGrugq, is stupid enough that it’s worth rebutting.

The article starts with the question “Why did the lessons of Stuxnet, Wannacry, Heartbleed and Shamoon go unheeded?“. It then proceeds to ignore the lessons of those things.
Some of the actual lessons should be things like how Stuxnet crossed air gaps, how Wannacry spread through flat Windows networking, how Heartbleed comes from technical debt, and how Shamoon furthers state aims by causing damage.
But this article doesn’t cover the technical lessons. Instead, it thinks the lesson should be the moral lesson, that we should take these things more seriously. But that’s stupid. It’s the sort of lesson people teach you that know nothing about the topic. When you have nothing of value to contribute to a topic you can always take the moral high road and criticize everyone for being morally weak for not taking it more seriously. Obviously, since doctors haven’t cured cancer yet, it’s because they don’t take the problem seriously.
The article continues to ignore the lesson of these cyber attacks and instead regales us with a list of military lessons from WW I and WW II. This makes the same flaw that many in the military make, trying to understand cyber through analogies with the real world. It’s not that such lessons could have no value, it’s that this article contains a poor list of them. It seems to consist of a random list of events that appeal to the author rather than events that have bearing on cybersecurity.
Then, in case we don’t get the point, the article bullies us with hyperbole, cliches, buzzwords, bombastic language, famous quotes, and citations. It’s hard to see how most of them actually apply to the text. Rather, it seems like they are included simply because he really really likes them.
The article invests much effort in discussing the buzzword “OODA loop”. Most attacks in cyberspace don’t have one. Instead, attackers flail around, trying lots of random things, overcoming defense with brute-force rather than an understanding of what’s going on. That’s obviously the case with Wannacry: it was an accident, with the perpetrator experimenting with what would happen if they added the ETERNALBLUE exploit to their existing ransomware code. The consequence was beyond anybody’s ability to predict.
You might claim that this is just the first stage, that they’ll loop around, observe Wannacry’s effects, orient themselves, decide, then act upon what they learned. Nope. Wannacry burned the exploit. It’s essentially removed any vulnerable systems from the public Internet, thereby making it impossible to use what they learned. It’s still active a year later, with infected systems behind firewalls busily scanning the Internet so that if you put a new system online that’s vulnerable, it’ll be taken offline within a few hours, before any other evildoer can take advantage of it.
See what I’m doing here? Learning the actual lessons of things like Wannacry? The thing the above article fails to do??
The article has a humorous paragraph on “defense in depth”, misunderstanding the term. To be fair, it’s the cybersecurity industry’s fault: they adopted then redefined the term. That’s why there’s two separate articles on Wikipedia: one for the old military term (as used in this article) and one for the new cybersecurity term.
As used in the cybersecurity industry, “defense in depth” means having multiple layers of security. Many organizations put all their defensive efforts on the perimeter, and none inside a network. The idea of “defense in depth” is to put more defenses inside the network. For example, instead of just one firewall at the edge of the network, put firewalls inside the network to segment different subnetworks from each other, so that a ransomware infection in the customer support computers doesn’t spread to sales and marketing computers.
The article talks about exploiting WiFi chips to bypass the defense in depth measures like browser sandboxes. This is conflating different types of attacks. A WiFi attack is usually considered a local attack, from somebody next to you in bar, rather than a remote attack from a server in Russia. Moreover, far from disproving “defense in depth” such WiFi attacks highlight the need for it. Namely, phones need to be designed so that successful exploitation of other microprocessors (namely, the WiFi, Bluetooth, and cellular baseband chips) can’t directly compromise the host system. In other words, once exploited with “Broadpwn”, a hacker would need to extend the exploit chain with another vulnerability in the hosts Broadcom WiFi driver rather than immediately exploiting a DMA attack across PCIe. This suggests that if PCIe is used to interface to peripherals in the phone that an IOMMU be used, for “defense in depth”.
Cybersecurity is a young field. There are lots of useful things that outsider non-techies can teach us. Lessons from military history would be well-received.
But that’s not this story. Instead, this story is by an outsider telling us we don’t know what we are doing, that they do, and then proceeds to prove they don’t know what they are doing. Their argument is based on a moral suasion and bullying us with what appears on the surface to be intellectual rigor, but which is in fact devoid of anything smart.
My fear, here, is that I’m going to be in a meeting where somebody has read this pretentious garbage, explaining to me why “defense in depth” is wrong and how we need to OODA faster. I’d rather nip this in the bud, pointing out if you found anything interesting from that article, you are wrong.

[$] Finding Spectre vulnerabilities with smatch

Post Syndicated from corbet original https://lwn.net/Articles/752408/rss

The furor over the Meltdown and Spectre vulnerabilities has calmed a bit —
for now, at least — but that does not mean that developers have stopped
worrying about them. Spectre variant 1 (the bounds-check bypass
vulnerability) has been of particular concern because, while the kernel is
thought to contain numerous vulnerable spots, nobody really knows how to
find them all. As a result, the defenses that have been developed for
variant 1 have only been deployed in a few places. Recently, though,
Dan Carpenter has enhanced the smatch tool to enable it to find possibly
vulnerable code in the kernel.

My letter urging Georgia governor to veto anti-hacking bill

Post Syndicated from Robert Graham original https://blog.erratasec.com/2018/04/my-letter-urging-georgia-governor-to.html

April 16, 2018

Office of the Governor
206 Washington Street
111 State Capitol
Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Re: SB 315

Dear Governor Deal:

I am writing to urge you to veto SB315, the “Unauthorized Computer Access” bill.

The cybersecurity community, of which Georgia is a leader, is nearly unanimous that SB315 will make cybersecurity worse. You’ve undoubtedly heard from many of us opposing this bill. It does not help in prosecuting foreign hackers who target Georgian computers, such as our elections systems. Instead, it prevents those who notice security flaws from pointing them out, thereby getting them fixed. This law violates the well-known Kirchhoff’s Principle, that instead of secrecy and obscurity, that security is achieved through transparency and openness.

That the bill contains this flaw is no accident. The justification for this bill comes from an incident where a security researcher noticed a Georgia state election system had made voter information public. This remained unfixed, months after the vulnerability was first disclosed, leaving the data exposed. Those in charge decided that it was better to prosecute those responsible for discovering the flaw rather than punish those who failed to secure Georgia voter information, hence this law.

Too many security experts oppose this bill for it to go forward. Signing this bill, one that is weak on cybersecurity by favoring political cover-up over the consensus of the cybersecurity community, will be part of your legacy. I urge you instead to veto this bill, commanding the legislature to write a better one, this time consulting experts, which due to Georgia’s thriving cybersecurity community, we do not lack.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Robert Graham
(formerly) Chief Scientist, Internet Security Systems

DARPA Funding in AI-Assisted Cybersecurity

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/04/darpa_funding_i.html

DARPA is launching a program aimed at vulnerability discovery via human-assisted AI. The new DARPA program is called CHESS (Computers and Humans Exploring Software Security), and they’re holding a proposers day in a week and a half.

This is the kind of thing that can dramatically change the offense/defense balance.

Obscure E-Mail Vulnerability

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/04/obscure_e-mail_.html

This vulnerability is a result of an interaction between two different ways of handling e-mail addresses. Gmail ignores dots in addresses, so [email protected] is the same as [email protected] is the same as [email protected] (Note: I do not own any of those email addresses — if they’re even valid.) Netflix doesn’t ignore dots, so those are all unique e-mail addresses and can each be used to register an account. This difference can be exploited.

I was almost fooled into perpetually paying for Eve’s Netflix access, and only paused because I didn’t recognize the declined card. More generally, the phishing scam here is:

  1. Hammer the Netflix signup form until you find a gmail.com address which is “already registered”. Let’s say you find the victim jameshfisher.
  2. Create a Netflix account with address james.hfisher.
  3. Sign up for free trial with a throwaway card number.
  4. After Netflix applies the “active card check”, cancel the card.
  5. Wait for Netflix to bill the cancelled card. Then Netflix emails james.hfisher asking for a valid card.
  6. Hope Jim reads the email to james.hfisher, assumes it’s for his Netflix account backed by jameshfisher, then enters his card **** 1234.
  7. Change the email for the Netflix account to [email protected], kicking Jim’s access to this account.
  8. Use Netflix free forever with Jim’s card **** 1234!

Obscure, yes? A problem, yes?

James Fisher, who wrote the post, argues that it’s Google’s fault. Ignoring dots might give people an enormous number of different email addresses, but it’s not a feature that people actually want. And as long as other sites don’t follow Google’s lead, these sorts of problems are possible.

I think the problem is more subtle. It’s an example of two systems without a security vulnerability coming together to create a security vulnerability. As we connect more systems directly to each other, we’re going to see a lot more of these. And like this Google/Netflix interaction, it’s going to be hard to figure out who to blame and who — if anyone — has the responsibility of fixing it.

A serious Drupal security issue

Post Syndicated from corbet original https://lwn.net/Articles/750324/rss

The Drupal security team has sent out a “highly critical”
alert
: “A remote code execution vulnerability exists within
multiple subsystems of Drupal 7.x and 8.x. This potentially allows
attackers to exploit multiple attack vectors on a Drupal site, which could
result in the site being completely compromised.
” This seems worth
avoiding; updating to the current version is the way to do that. There is
an FAQ page
with a little more information.

Israeli Security Attacks AMD by Publishing Zero-Day Exploits

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/03/israeli_securit.html

Last week, the Israeli security company CTS Labs published a series of exploits against AMD chips. The publication came with the flashy website, detailed whitepaper, cool vulnerability names — RYZENFALL, MASTERKEY, FALLOUT, and CHIMERA — and logos we’ve come to expect from these sorts of things. What’s new is that the company only gave AMD a day’s notice, which breaks with every norm about responsible disclosure. CTS Labs didn’t release details of the exploits, only high-level descriptions of the vulnerabilities, but it is probably still enough for others to reproduce their results. This is incredibly irresponsible of the company.

Moreover, the vulnerabilities are kind of meh. Nicholas Weaver explains:

In order to use any of the four vulnerabilities, an attacker must already have almost complete control over the machine. For most purposes, if the attacker already has this access, we would generally say they’ve already won. But these days, modern computers at least attempt to protect against a rogue operating system by having separate secure subprocessors. CTS Labs discovered the vulnerabilities when they looked at AMD’s implementation of the secure subprocessor to see if an attacker, having already taken control of the host operating system, could bypass these last lines of defense.

In a “Clarification,” CTS Labs kind of agrees:

The vulnerabilities described in amdflaws.com could give an attacker that has already gained initial foothold into one or more computers in the enterprise a significant advantage against IT and security teams.

The only thing the attacker would need after the initial local compromise is local admin privileges and an affected machine. To clarify misunderstandings — there is no need for physical access, no digital signatures, no additional vulnerability to reflash an unsigned BIOS. Buy a computer from the store, run the exploits as admin — and they will work (on the affected models as described on the site).

The weirdest thing about this story is that CTS Labs describes one of the vulnerabilities, Chimera, as a backdoor. Although it doesn’t t come out and say that this was deliberately planted by someone, it does make the point that the chips were designed in Taiwan. This is an incredible accusation, and honestly needs more evidence before we can evaluate it.

The upshot of all of this is that CTS Labs played this for maximum publicity: over-hyping its results and minimizing AMD’s ability to respond. And it may have an ulterior motive:

But CTS’s website touting AMD’s flaws also contained a disclaimer that threw some shadows on the company’s motives: “Although we have a good faith belief in our analysis and believe it to be objective and unbiased, you are advised that we may have, either directly or indirectly, an economic interest in the performance of the securities of the companies whose products are the subject of our reports,” reads one line. WIRED asked in a follow-up email to CTS whether the company holds any financial positions designed to profit from the release of its AMD research specifically. CTS didn’t respond.

We all need to demand better behavior from security researchers. I know that any publicity is good publicity, but I am pleased to see the stories critical of CTS Labs outnumbering the stories praising it.

EDITED TO ADD (3/21): AMD responds:

AMD’s response today agrees that all four bug families are real and are found in the various components identified by CTS. The company says that it is developing firmware updates for the three PSP flaws. These fixes, to be made available in “coming weeks,” will be installed through system firmware updates. The firmware updates will also mitigate, in some unspecified way, the Chimera issue, with AMD saying that it’s working with ASMedia, the third-party hardware company that developed Promontory for AMD, to develop suitable protections. In its report, CTS wrote that, while one CTS attack vector was a firmware bug (and hence in principle correctable), the other was a hardware flaw. If true, there may be no effective way of solving it.

Response here.

QualysGuard – Vulnerability Management Tool

Post Syndicated from Darknet original https://www.darknet.org.uk/2018/03/qualysguard-vulnerability-management-tool/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=darknetfeed

QualysGuard – Vulnerability Management Tool

QualysGuard is a web-based vulnerability management tool provided by Qualys, Inc, which was the first company to deliver vulnerability management services as a SaaS-based web-service.

From reviews, it seems like a competent tool with a low rate of false positives that is fairly easy to work with and keep the more ‘dangerous’ parts of vulnerability scanning out of the hands of users, but with the flexibility for expert users to do what they need.

Read the rest of QualysGuard – Vulnerability Management Tool now! Only available at Darknet.

Using JWT For Sessions

Post Syndicated from Bozho original https://techblog.bozho.net/using-jwt-sessions/

The topic has been discussed many times, on hacker news, reddit, blogs. And the consensus is – DON’T USE JWT (for user sessions).

And I largely agree with the criticism of typical arguments for the JWT, the typical “but I can make it work…” explanations and the flaws of the JWT standard..

I won’t repeat everything here, so please go and read those articles. You can really shoot yourself in the foot with JWT, it’s complex to get to know it well and it has little benefits for most of the usecases. I guess for API calls it makes sense, especially if you reuse the same API in a single-page application and for your RESTful clients, but I’ll focus on the user session usecase.

Having all this criticism, I’ve gone against what the articles above recommend, and use JWT, navigating through their arguments and claiming I’m in a sweet spot. I can very well be wrong.

I store the user ID in a JWT token stored as a cookie. Not local storage, as that’s problematic. Not the whole state, as I don’t need that may lead to problems (pointed out in the linked articles). In fact, I don’t have any session state apart from the user data, which I think is a good practice.

What I want to avoid in my setup is sharing sessions across nodes. And this is a very compelling reason to not use the session mechanism of your web server/framework. No, you don’t need to have millions of users in order to need your application to run on more than one node. In fact, it should almost always run on (at least) two nodes, because nodes die and you don’t want downtime. Sticky sessions at the load balancer are a solution to that problem but you are just outsourcing the centralized session storage to the load balancer (and some load balancers might not support it). Shared session cache (e.g. memcached, elasticache, hazelcast) is also an option, and many web servers (at least in Java) support pluggable session replication mechanisms, but that introduces another component to the archtecture, another part of the stack to be supported and that can possibly break. It is not necessarily bad, but if there’s a simple way to avoid it, I’d go for it.

In order to avoid shared session storage, you need either the whole session state to be passed in the request/response cycle (as cookie, request parameter, header), or to receive a userId and load the user from the database or a cache. As we’ve learned, the former might be a bad choice. Despite that fact that frameworks like ASP.NET and JSF dump the whole state in the HTML of the page, it doesn’t intuitively sound good.

As for the latter – you may say “ok, if you are going to load the user from the database on every request this is going to be slow and if you use a cache, then why not use the cache for the sessions themselves?”. Well, the cache can be local. Remember we have just a few application nodes. Each node can have a local, in-memory cache for the currently active users. The fact that all nodes will have the same user loaded (after a few requests are routed to them by the load balancer in a round-robin fashion) is not important, as that cache is small. But you won’t have to take any care for replicating it across nodes, taking care of new nodes coming and going from the cluster, dealing with network issues between the nodes, etc. Each application node will be an island not caring about any other application node.

So here goes my first objection to the linked articles – just storing the user identifier in a JWT token is not pointless, as it saves you from session replication.

What about the criticism for the JWT standard and the security implications of its cryptography? Entirely correct, it’s easy to shoot yourself in the foot. That’s why I’m using JWT only with MAC, and only with a particular algorithm that I verify upon receiving the token, thus (allegedly) avoiding all the pitfalls. In all fairness, I’m willing to use the alternative proposed in one of the articles – PASETO – but it doesn’t have a Java library and it will take some time implementing one (might do in the future). To summarize – if there was another easy to use way for authenticated encryption of cookies, I’d use it.

So I’m basically using JWT in “PASETO-mode”, with only one operation and only one algorithm. And that should be fine as a general approach – the article doesn’t criticize the idea of having a user identifier in a token (and a stateless application node), it criticizes the complexity and vulnerabilities of the standard. This is sort of my second objection – “Don’t use JWT” is widely understood to mean “Don’t use tokens”, where that is not the case.

Have I introduced some vulnerability in my strive for architectural simplicity and lack of shared state? I hope not.

The post Using JWT For Sessions appeared first on Bozho's tech blog.

Setting up bug bounties for success

Post Syndicated from Michal Zalewski original https://lcamtuf.blogspot.com/2018/03/setting-up-bug-bounties-for-success.html

Bug bounties end up in the news with some regularity, usually for the wrong reasons. I’ve been itching to write
about that for a while – but instead of dwelling on the mistakes of the bygone days, I figured it may be better to
talk about some of the ways to get vulnerability rewards right.

What do you get out of bug bounties?

There’s plenty of differing views, but I like to think of such programs
simply as a bid on researchers’ time. In the most basic sense, you get three benefits:

  • Improved ability to detect bugs in production before they become major incidents.
  • A comparatively unbiased feedback loop to help you prioritize and measure other security work.
  • A robust talent pipeline for when you need to hire.

What bug bounties don’t offer?

You don’t get anything resembling a comprehensive security program or a systematic assessment of your platforms.
Researchers end up looking for bugs that offer favorable effort-to-payoff ratios for their skills and given the
very imperfect information they have about your enterprise. In other words, you may end up with a hundred
people looking for XSS and just one person looking for RCE.

Your reward structure can steer them toward the targets and bugs you care about, but it’s difficult to fully
eliminate this inherent skew. There’s only so far you can jack up your top-tier rewards, and only so far you can
go lowering the bottom-tier ones.

Don’t you have to outcompete the black market to get all the “good” bugs?

There is a free market price discovery component to it all: if you’re not getting the engagement you
were hoping for, you should probably consider paying more.

That said, there are going to be researchers who’d rather hurt you than work for you, no matter how much you pay;
you don’t have to win them over, and you don’t have to outspend every authoritarian government or
every crime syndicate. A bug bounty is effective simply if it attracts enough eyeballs to make bugs statistically
harder to find, and reduces the useful lifespan of any zero-days in black market trade. Plus, most
researchers don’t want their work to be used to crack down on dissidents in Egypt or Vietnam.

Another factor is that you’re paying for different things: a black market buyer probably wants a reliable exploit
capable of delivering payloads, and then demands silence for months or years to come; a vendor-run
bug bounty program is usually perfectly happy with a reproducible crash and doesn’t mind a researcher blogging
about their work.

In fact, while money is important, you will probably find out that it’s not enough to retain your top talent;
many folks want bug bounties to be more than a business transaction, and find a lot of value in having a close
relationship with your security team, comparing notes, and growing together. Fostering that partnership can
be more important than adding another $10,000 to your top reward.

How do I prevent it all from going horribly wrong?

Bug bounties are an unfamiliar beast to most lawyers and PR folks, so it’s a natural to be wary and try to plan
for every eventuality with pages and pages of impenetrable rules and fine-print legalese.

This is generally unnecessary: there is a strong self-selection bias, and almost every participant in a
vulnerability reward program will be coming to you in good faith. The more friendly, forthcoming, and
approachable you seem, and the more you treat them like peers, the more likely it is for your relationship to stay
positive. On the flip side, there is no faster way to make enemies than to make a security researcher feel that they
are now talking to a lawyer or to the PR dept.

Most people have strong opinions on disclosure policies; instead of imposing your own views, strive to patch reported bugs
reasonably quickly, and almost every reporter will play along. Demand researchers to cancel conference appearances,
take down blog posts, or sign NDAs, and you will sooner or later end up in the news.

But what if that’s not enough?

As with any business endeavor, mistakes will happen; total risk avoidance is seldom the answer. Learn to sincerely
apologize for mishaps; it’s not a sign of weakness to say “sorry, we messed up”. And you will almost certainly not end
up in the courtroom for doing so.

It’s good to foster a healthy and productive relationship with the community, so that they come to your defense when
something goes wrong. Encouraging people to disclose bugs and talk about their experiences is one way of accomplishing that.

What about extortion?

You should structure your program to naturally discourage bad behavior and make it stand out like a sore thumb.
Require bona fide reports with complete technical details before any reward decision is made by a panel of named peers;
and make it clear that you never demand non-disclosure as a condition of getting a reward.

To avoid researchers accidentally putting themselves in awkward situations, have clear rules around data exfiltration
and lateral movement: assure them that you will always pay based on the worst-case impact of their findings; in exchange,
ask them to stop as soon as they get a shell and never access any data that isn’t their own.

So… are there any downsides?

Yep. Other than souring up your relationship with the community if you implement your program wrong, the other consideration
is that bug bounties tend to generate a lot of noise from well-meaning but less-skilled researchers.

When this happens, do not get frustrated and do not penalize such participants; instead, help them grow. Consider
publishing educational articles, giving advice on how to investigate and structure reports, or
offering free workshops every now and then.

The other downside is cost; although bug bounties tend to offer far more bang for your buck than your average penetration
test, they are more random. The annual expenses tend to be fairly predictable, but there is always
some possibility of having to pay multiple top-tier rewards in rapid succession. This is the kind of uncertainty that
many mid-level budget planners react badly to.

Finally, you need to be able to fix the bugs you receive. It would be nuts to prefer to not know about the
vulnerabilities in the first place – but once you invite the research, the clock starts ticking and you need to
ship fixes reasonably fast.

So… should I try it?

There are folks who enthusiastically advocate for bug bounties in every conceivable situation, and people who dislike them
with fierce passion; both sentiments are usually strongly correlated with the line of business they are in.

In reality, bug bounties are not a cure-all, and there are some ways to make them ineffectual or even dangerous.
But they are not as risky or expensive as most people suspect, and when done right, they can actually be fun for your
team, too. You won’t know for sure until you try.