GAO Report on Equifax

by nsadmin on October 12, 2018

I have regularly asked why we don’t know more about the Equifax breach, including in comments in “That Was Close! Reward Reporting of Cybersecurity ‘Near Misses’.” These questions are not intended to attack Equifax. Rather, we can use their breach as a mirror to reflect, and ask questions about how defenses work, and learn things we can bring to our own systems.

Ian Melvin was kind enough to point out a GAO report, “Actions Taken by Equifax and Federal Agencies in Response
to the 2017 Breach
.” As you’d expect of a GAO report, it is level headed and provides a set of facts.


However, I still have lots of questions. Some very interesting details start on page 11:

Equifax officials added that, after gaining the ability to issue system-level commands on the online dispute portal that was originally compromised, the attackers issued queries to other databases to search for sensitive data. This search led to a data repository containing PII, as well as unencrypted usernames and passwords that could provide the attackers access to several other Equifax databases. According to Equifax’s interim Chief Security Officer, the attackers were able to leverage these credentials to expand their access beyond the 3 databases associated with the online dispute portal, to include an additional 48 unrelated
databases.

The use of encryption allowed the attackers to blend in their malicious actions with regular activity on the Equifax network and, thus, secretly maintain a presence on that network as they launched further attacks without being detected by Equifax’s scanning software. (Editor’s note: I’ve inverted the order of the paragraphs from the source.)

So my questions include:

  • How did the attackers get root?
  • Why wasn’t the root shell noticed? Would our organization notice an extra root sell in production?
  • How did they get access to the other 48 databases?
  • Why didn’t the pattern of connections raise a flag? “As before, Equifax
    officials stated that the attackers were able to disguise their presence by
    blending in with regular activity on the network.” I find this statement to be surprising, and it raises questions: Does the dispute resolution database normally connect to these other databases and run the queries which were run? How was that normal activity characterized and analyzed? Encryption provides content confidentiality, not meta-data confidentiality. Would we detect these extra connections?

Specifically, while Equifax had installed a device to inspect network traffic for evidence of malicious activity, a misconfiguration allowed encrypted traffic to pass through the network without being inspected. According to Equifax officials, the misconfiguration was due to an expired digital certificate. The certificate had expired about 10 months before the breach occurred, meaning that encrypted traffic was not being inspected throughout that period.

Would your organization notice if one of hundreds or dozens of IDSs shut up for a week, or if one ruleset stopped firing?

Does PCI Matter?

by nsadmin on October 9, 2018

There’s an interesting article at the CBC, about how in Canada, “More than a dozen federal departments flunked a credit card security test:”

Those 17 departments and agencies continue to process payments on Visa, MasterCard, Amex, the Tokyo-based JCB and China UnionPay cards, and federal officials say there have been no known breaches to date.

There are some interesting details about the who and why, but what I want to focus on is the lack of (detected) breaches to date, and the impact of the audit failure.

The fact that there have been no breaches detected is usually a no-op, you can’t learn anything from it, but with credit cards, there’s a “Common Point of Purchase” analysis program that eventually turns a spotlight on larger “merchants” who’ve been breached. So the lack of detection tells us something, which is that a large set of PCI failures don’t lead to breaches. From that we can, again, question if PCI prevents breaches, or if it does so better than other security investments.

The second thing is that this is now a “drop everything and fix it” issue, because it’s in the press. Should passing PCI be the top priority for government agencies? I generally don’t think so, but likely it will absorb the security budget for the year for a dozen departments.

Threat Modeling in 2018: Attacks, Impacts and Other Updates

by nsadmin on August 13, 2018

The slides from my Blackhat talk, “Threat Modeling in 2018: Attacks, Impacts and Other Updates” are now available either as a PDF or online viewer.

CSO on AppSec at the Speed of Devops

by nsadmin on August 6, 2018

20 Ways to Make AppSec Move at the Speed of DevOps” is in CSO. It’s a good collection, and I’m quoted.

CyberSecurity 2.0 Humble Bundle

by nsadmin on July 30, 2018

Cybersecurity 2.0 is a new promo from Humble Bundle. Nearly $800 worth of books, including my Threat Modeling, Schneier’s Secrets and Lies, and a whole lot more!

Threat Modeling Thursday: 2018

by nsadmin on July 26, 2018

Since I wrote my book on the topic, people have been asking me “what’s new in threat modeling?” My Blackhat talk is my answer to that question, and it’s been taking up the time that I’d otherwise be devoting to the series.

As I’ve been practicing my talk*, I discovered that there’s more new than I thought, and I may not be able to fit in everything I want to talk about in 50 minutes. But it’s coming together nicely.


The current core outline is:

  • What are we working on
    • The fast moving world of cyber
    • The agile world
    • Models are scary
  • What can go wrong? Threats evolve!
    • STRIDE
    • Machine Learning
    • Conflict

And of course, because it’s 2018, there’s cat videos and emoji to augment logic. Yeah, that’s the word. Augment. ????

Wednesday, August 8 at 2:40 PM.

* Oh, and note to anyone speaking anywhere, and especially large events like Blackhat — as the speaker resources say: practice, practice, practice.

Also, something about the stylesheet for this blog break emoji. Try https://adam.shostack.org/blog/2018/07/threat-modeling-thursday-2018-2/.

Threat Modeling Thursday: 2018

by nsadmin on July 13, 2018

So this week’s threat model Thursday is simply two requests:

  1. What would you like to see in the series?
  2. What would you like me to cover in my Blackhat talk, “Threat Modeling in 2018?”

“Attacks always get better, and that means your threat modeling needs to evolve. This talk looks at what’s new and important in threat modeling, organizes it into a simple conceptual framework, and makes it actionable. This includes new properties of systems being attacked, new attack techniques (like biometrics confused by LEDs) and a growing importance of threats to and/or through social media platforms and features. Take home ways to ensure your security engineering and threat modeling practices are up-to-date.”

Threat Model Thursdays: Crispin Cowan

by nsadmin on July 5, 2018

Over at the Leviathan blog, Crispin Cowan writes about “The Calculus Of Threat Modeling.” Crispin and I have collaborated and worked together over the years, and our approaches are explicitly aligned around the four question frame.

What are we working on?

One of the places where Crispin goes deeper is definitional. He’s very precise about what a security principal is:

A principal is any active entity in system with access privileges that are in any way distinct from some other component it talks to. Corollary: a principal is defined by its domain of access (the set of things it has access to). Domains of access can, and often do, overlap, but that they are different is what makes a security principal distinct.

This also leads to the definition of attack surface (where principals interact), trust boundaries (the sum of the attack surfaces) and security boundaries (trust boundaries for which the engineers will fight). These are more well-defined than I tend to have, and I think it’s a good set of definitions, or perhaps a good step forward in the discussion if you disagree.

What can go wrong?

His approach adds much more explicit description of principals who own elements of the diagram, and several self-check steps (“Ask again if we have all the connections..”) I think of these as part of “did we do a good job?” and it’s great to integrate such checks on an ongoing basis, rather than treating it as a step at the end.

What are we going to do about it?

Here Crispin has assessing complexity and mitigations. Assessing complexity is an interesting approach — a great many vulnerabilities appear on the most complex interfaces, and I think it’s a useful strategy, similar to ‘easy fixes first’ for a prioritization approach.

He also has “c. Be sure to take a picture of the white board after the team is done describing the system.” “d. Go home and create a threat model diagram.” These are interesting steps, and I think deserve some discussion as to form (I think this is part of ‘what are we working on?’) and function. To function, we already have “a threat model diagram,” and a record of it, in the picture of the whiteboard. I’m nitpicking here for two very specific reasons. First, the implication that what was done isn’t a threat model diagram isn’t accurate, and second, as the agile world likes to ask “why are you doing this work?”

I also want to ask, is there a reason to go from whiteboard to Visio? Also, as Crispin says, he’s not simply transcribing, he’s doing some fairly nuanced technical editing, “Collapse together any nodes that are actually executing as the same security principal.” That means you can’t hand off the work to a graphic designer, but you need an expensive security person to re-consider the whiteboard diagram. There are times that’s important. If the diagram will be shown widely across many meetings; if the diagram will go outside the organization, say, to regulators; if the engineering process is waterfall-like.

Come together

Crispin says that tools are substitutes for expertise, and that (a? the?) best practice is for a security expert and the engineers to talk. I agree, this is a good way to do it — I also like to train the engineers to do this without security experts each time.

And that brings me to the we/you distinction. Crispin conveys the four question frame in the second person (What are you doing, what did you do about it), and I try to use the first person plural (we; what are we doing). Saying ‘we’ focuses on collaboration, on dialogue, on exploration. Saying ‘you’ frames this as a review, a discussion, and who knows, possibly a fight. Both of us used that frame at a prior employer, and today when I consult, I use it because I’m really not part of the doing team.

That said, I think this was a super-interesting post for the definitions, and for showing the diagram evolution and the steps taken from a whiteboard to a completed, colored diagram.

The image is the frontspiece of Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, with its famous model of the state, made up of the people.

Carpenter!

by nsadmin on June 26, 2018

The decision in Carpenter v. United States is an unusually positive one for privacy. The Supreme Court ruled that the government generally can’t access historical cell-site location records without a warrant. (SCOTUS Blog links to court documents. The court put limits on the “third party” doctrine, and it will be fascinating to see how those limits play out.

A few interesting links:

As I said previously, I am thankful to the fine folks at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University for the opportunity to help with their technologists amicus brief in this case, and I’m glad to see that the third party doctrine is under stress. That doctrine has weakened the clear aims of the fourth amendment in protecting our daily lives against warrantless searches as our lives have involved storing more of our “papers” outside our homes.

Image via the mobile pc guys, who have advice about how to check your location history on Google, which is one of many places where it may be being captured. That advice might still be useful — it’s hard to tell if the UI has changed, since I had turned off those features.

Threat Model Thursday: Architectural Review and Threat Modeling

by nsadmin on June 21, 2018

For Threat Model Thursday, I want to use current events here in Seattle as a prism through which we can look at technology architecture review. If you want to take this as an excuse to civilly discuss the political side of this, please feel free.

Seattle has a housing and homelessness crisis. The cost of a house has risen nearly 25% above the 2007 market peak, and has roughly doubled in the 6 years since April 2012. Fundamentally, demand has outstripped supply and continues to do so. As a city, we need more supply, and that means evaluating the value of things that constrain supply. This commentary from the local Libertarian party lists some of them.

The rules on what permits are needed to build a residence, what housing is acceptable, or how many unrelated people can live together (no more than eight) are expressions of values and priorities. We prefer that the developers of housing not build housing rather than build housing that doesn’t comply with the city’s Office of Planning and Community Development 32 pages of neighborhood design guidelines. We prefer to bring developers back after a building is built if the siding is not the agreed color. This is a choice that expresses the values of the city. And because I’m not a housing policy expert, I can miss some of the nuances and see the effect of the policies overall.

Let’s transition from the housing crisis here in Seattle to the architecture crisis that we face in technology.

No, actually, I’m not quite there. The city killed micro-apartments, only to replace them with … artisanal micro-houses. Note the variation in size and shape of the two houses in the foreground. Now, I know very little about construction, but I’m reasonably confident that if you read the previous piece on micro-housing, many of the concerns regulators were trying to address apply to “True Hope Village,” construction pictured above. I want you, dear reader, to read the questions about how we deliver housing in Seattle, and treat them as a mirror into how your organization delivers software. Really, please, go read “How Seattle Killed Micro-Housing” and the “Neighborhood Design Guidelines” carefully. Not because you plan to build a house, but as a mirror of your own security design guidelines.

They may be no prettier.

In some companies, security is valued, but has no authority to force decisions. In others, there are mandatory policies and review boards. We in security have fought for these mandatory policies because without them, products ignored security. And similarly, we have housing rules because of unsafe, unsanitary or overcrowded housing. To reduce the blight of slums.

Security has design review boards which want to talk about the color of the siding a developer installed on the now live product. We have design regulation which kills apodments and tenement housing, and then glorifies tiny houses. From a distance, these rules make no sense. I didn’t find it sensible, myself. I remember a meeting with the Microsoft Crypto board. I went in with some very specific questions regarding parameters and algorithms. Should we use this hash algorithm or that one? The meeting took not five whole minutes to go off the rails with suggestions about non-cryptographic architecture. I remember shipping the SDL Threat Modeling Tool, going through the roughly five policy tracking tools we had at the time, discovering at the very last minute that we had extra rules that were not documented in the documents that I found at the start. It drives a product manager nuts!

Worse, rules expand. From the executive suite, if a group isn’t growing, maybe it can shrink? From a security perspective, the rapidly changing threat landscape justifies new rules. So there’s motivation to ship new guidelines that, in passing, spend a page explaining all the changes that are taking place. And then I see “Incorporate or acknowledge the best features of existing early to mid-century buildings in new development.” What does that mean? What are the best features of those buildings? How do I acknowledge them? I just want to ship my peer to peer blockchain features! And nothing in the design review guidelines is clearly objectionable. But taken as a whole, they create a complex and unpredictable, and thus expensive path to delivery.

We express values explicitly and implicitly. In Seattle, implicit expression of values has hobbled the market’s ability to address a basic human need. One of the reasons that embedding is effective is that the embedded gatekeepers can advise, interpret in relation to real questions. Embedding expresses the value of collaboration, of dialogue over review. Does your security team express that security is more important than product delivery? Perhaps it is. When Microsoft stood down product shipping for security pushes, it was an explicit statement. Making your values explicit and debating prioritization is important.

What side effects do your security rules have? What rule is most expensive to comply with? What initiatives have you killed, accidentally or intentionally?