Showing posts with label Vulnerability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vulnerability. Show all posts

Sunday, March 16, 2014

Hackers & Stuxnet: Education & Best Practices can Change Perspectives

Speaking of hackers in general, the video "Creating panic in Estonia" was well done.  It speaks to aspects of cyber security I have touched on personally with peers and users who are generally unaware of how dangerous the Internet can be, and do not understand how they should be protecting themselves and in turn the rest of the user community at large.  The global dependency on the Internet as a necessary aspect of daily life can, and may, eventually lead to its demise.  It used to be seen as a tool, something that made research easier or necessitated more efficient processing of goods and services to customers.  The global Internet is far more interconnected than most people can comprehend.  We, as IT pros and field experts, find ourselves at a unique crossroads when it comes to the cyber realm.  On one hand, we are users who find entertainment and conduct business transactions through the Internet.  We keep in touch with friends, relatives, and associates.  Pay bills and send gifts to people, through the Internet.  We curiously investigate other perspectives on anything we can think of, reachable with a simple search string.  On another hand we develop and/or service information systems and are responsible for ensuring that the users are not their own worst enemy, and the executive stakeholders understand why expenses are necessary to ensure seamless operations while maintaining data security and integrity through digital interactions across the company or across the Internet.  Yet another proverbial fork is that of a hacker.  Not necessarily one that breaks into systems with malicious intent, which are primarily the hackers (criminals) most people hear about, but the white hat hacker who, like the man who works for Kaspersky in Russia, looks to improve the quality and safety of the Internet.  In order to beat a hacker, one must be able to think like a hacker, and have the intimately specific knowledge of software and systems, how they interconnect, and how users interact with them.  This whole-view perspective on digital communications is necessary in order to properly safeguard oneself, and also the global user community.  Education and repetitive reinforcement have been the successful combination for me in getting users at all levels to start to invest in cyber security and take a different view on what they share on the web.  People contact me regularly to clean infections from their systems and networks.  Unfortunately, most of these users are of the mindset that "it should just work, and never give me problems, regardless of what I do" which has no substantive basis in reality.  In reality, it takes the combination of dozens, if not hundreds, of software applications to make a system function the way it does today.  Since no user situation is ever the lab-tested "ideal" situation, users must be educated on not only how to use their system, but a basic level understanding of how their use affects everyone connected to their system, and the subsequent systems the collective interacts with.  As experiences and exposure to different interactive scenarios manifest, continued education is the key which not only makes a better user but a better system as a whole.

The Stuxnet event could have been avoided with the right engineer designing security protocols, establishing policies, and integrating hardware solutions designed specifically at denying access to unauthorized devices on a network.  Granted, Estonia may not have had access to the technology necessary to affect such a system, but those types of systems do exist.  It is this reason why companies like Symantec, McAfee, and Kaspersky have integrated a feature into their anti-everything software packages to instantly scan any removable device attached to a protected system.  Granted, the Stuxnet did not yet have a known signature and thus could not be specifically scanned for, but those packages also have zero-day detection capabilities, meaning they have an algorithm designed into the software to detect virus-like patterns and flag them as suspicious - which is how Stuxnet was ultimately found, through a zero-day detection algorithm.  While they are highly effective, they can only be detected on a system with this type of software installed.  Unfortunately, there is a large number of users who do not have protective software, let alone hardware solutions, installed in their systems and/or networks which leaves them, and anyone they connect to, highly vulnerable.  Here again, education is the key - once the people can be made to understand the risks involved, they will be willing to learn how to best safeguard themselves, which protects everyone else they interact with digitally.  It is like getting an immunization for a disease - if everyone gets the shot, then no one can transfer it or get it from someone who is infected or has not had their immunization.  The shot cures any carriers of the disease, prevents spreading of the disease to others, and does not allow the inoculated to become carriers again.  That is the same philosophy of security software, and important for the same reasons.

~Geek

Reference: Video On Demand - http://digital.films.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?aid=7967&xtid=50121&loid=182367

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

What security issues must be resolved now which cannot wait for the next version of Windows® to arrive?

A recent discussion in my Operating Systems class prompted an interesting response on my part to what the main security issues afflicting Microsoft's systems are. Here's my 2 cents:

The most common threats to Microsoft systems on the consumer and business side is through Internet Explorer and Microsoft Office vulnerabilities. When reviewing this months Microsoft Security Bulletin, there are critical updates to patch various vulnerabilities across all releases of the Windows OS for Internet Explorer versions 6 through 9, and Microsoft Office version 2003 through 2010 SP1. The not-so-seen critical updates are for the .NET Framework, which supports interactive sessions with users through browser windows, are related to the Internet Explorer issues of an attacker being able to execute remote code by having a user visit a spoofed website and/or clicking on a link/banner that contains the malformed code. What I find interesting in this months report is that the majority of the notices that Microsoft put out have to do with the same vulnerability, namely the ability to allow an attacker to remotely execute code through a browser session. As many other of my classmates have mentioned in their posts this week, this is part of the evolution of operating system software in particular. Microsoft spends millions of dollars and thousands of man hours developing, and hardening, their kernels. With a user-base of Microsoft software reported at over 1 billion users world-wide, there are only so many scenarios that can be built into software testing labs making it impossible to correct every problem before the product is released to manufacture. Plus, many of these users have advanced knowledge of systems and software who can find vulnerabilities under scenarios impossible to test for under lab conditions. A lot of these users report those vulnerabilities to the development team so a patch can be created and released to the masses, others are not found out until a virus or some malware is put into the wild to exploit them. Security companies like Symantec and McAfee use intuitive software to track these attacks and inform the developers of the issues while generating their own patch, or cure as it were, to the impeding exploit. In the cases of major global attacks, Microsoft works with the security companies, and government entities, to create a cohesive solution to not only cure infected systems, but also protect unexposed systems from future exploitation.

With the great investment it takes to create a major operating system release, patching makes the best sense for providing important updates to a system, without disrupting the flow of user adoption and education on best practices. In some instances, such as when a system issue deals with deadlocked processes, a workaround could be implemented, such as adding a forced delay in processing time with processes competing for the same resource. This is why some of the Windows Updates sent out are related to changing registry values or adding a batch file to affect a process workaround while the development team evaluates whether this is an isolated or potentially wide-spread issue. If they determine that the issues can be replicated over a majority of the systems, then they will create a patch to permanently change the process and resolve the condition, otherwise they will leave the workaround in place for the limited cases that do come up under unusual scenarios.

What do you think? Am I on point, or way off base?

~Geek