Don't Click That Link!

Why did you just click that link? Most likely you have came to this site by clicking a link from another site. Why did you do that? Did you trust the person who sent you the link? Did you click a link from twitter, facebook, or an email someone sent you?

When you click a link, you are telling your browser, "I trust this person." However, this is not the way we use the internet. We click on links all the time. We click on links from "untrusted" sources. We click links from people we don't know and we even click on URL's that have been modified. On Twitter, a person is much more inclined to click the shortened link http://bit.ly/5hXRW then they are to click http://somewherebank.com/transfer.jsp?amount=1000&to_account=56777564. Even though the shortened link could redirect to the somwherebank.com site.

But, why would someone trick you into clicking a cleverly disguised link? The site that you are redirected to may seem harmless. It could also be extremely malicious.

What happens if this page, (the one you are currently viewing), was filled with Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) links? This web page could be setup with all types of malicious intent. However, you didn't know that when clicking the link. Now, it is too late.

If this site did have Cross-Site Requests, I could do things such as:

• Change the password on your facebook account
• Transfer the money from your online bank account to another account
• Enact trades from a financial institution such as E*Trade

The sites that I exploit would have to be vulnerable to CSRF. But researchers, such as Mike Bailey and Russ McRee, are constantly finding CSRF vulnerabilities in web applications.

An example of how clicking links from untrusted sources is never good was demonstrated in Billy Rios and Nitesh Dhanjani, Bad Sushi talk. In their presentation they described sending phishers a word document stating their account numbers were inside. They sent this email to 25 known phishers. 10 of the phishers opened the word document and were presented with this. In additon, there was another link that said, "Actually, my account information is here." 3 of the 10 clicked on that link. Even the phishers click links they shouldn't.

What should be done? Who knows. It is human nature to trust people and we can't get things done if everytime someone sends us a link we open up a VMware image to view a link. So continue using the Internet the way you have been and remember, "These aren't the droids your looking for."

Graph Theory: Analyzing Social Networks

Social networking applications are among the most popular websites that are used on the Internet. Facebook.com and myspace.com are both in the top 20 most visited pages on the internet. According to Alexa, 17% of global internet users visit facebook.com on a daily basis.

How can attackers use the abundant amounts of information that is available on these websites to aid in their attacks?

One method is by analyzing a victims social network using network analysis.

Network analysis is a way to infer information from the social connections that someone makes. An attacker could use a social applications data set to:

• identify positive and negative relationships
• identify their victims mood
• identify individuals that are most influential in a group

By assigning people and organizations to nodes and linking nodes based on relationships, attackers can begin to infer information from these social graphs.

Who is the Most Influential?
It is beneficial for an attacker to know who is the most influential person in their victim's social network. Constructing a malicious instant message or email that requires user intervention (think Reflective Cross-Site Scripting) will have a higher success rate, if it is sent from the victim's most influential friend.

In order to analyze the victim's social network from an influential perspective, the attacker begins by constructing a graph with the victim in the center and each of the victim's friends as node off of the victim.

In this example, Sam is the attacker's target. Sam has five friends, Alice, Bart, Charlie, Dave, and Ed. This would create a star graph that would look like this.

The next step is for the attacker to analyze the connections between Sam's friends. The attacker identifies that Alice communicates with Bart on a regular basis, so a link is made between Alice and Bart.

It is also easier for the attacker to understand who is the most influential by assigning a value to each vertice. Alice and Bart's vertice would change from 0 to 1, since they know one of Sam's friends. In this example, we have made the vertice larger and assigned it a number. Once the social network is analyzed the attacker will have a graph similiar to this.

Since Ed knows 3 of Sam's friends, it can be infered that Ed is the most influential in Sam's network. If an attacker wanted to send a malicious instant message or email to Sam, the attacker would have the highest rate of success if the malicious message was from Ed.

This is a simple example. In reality, social networks are vastly more complicated. However, with the use of certain API's an attacker could use network analysis to his benefit.

Quantifying XSS - Why Merchants Won't Fix Their Cross-Site Scripting Vulnerabilities

From previous articles, you should be aware that Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) is an issue that is not going away any time soon.

Unlike it's buzzword predecessor, SQL injection, Cross-Site Scripting is a difficult vulnerability to quantify. What is the risk of not remediating a Cross-Site Scripting vulnerability in your web application?

If you have recently gone through a web application assessment, the report most likely indicates the risk factor of having XSS is high. But, what evidence does the report writer have to support this statement?

Basic security teaches us that risk can be quantified as:

Risk = (Probability of the event occurring) x (The impact if the event occurs)

To support the consultants statement, we would need to identify the probability of an attacker using a Cross-Site Scripting vulnerability as an attack vector and what the impact is, if the user is exploited.

Impact
It is important to realize that XSS is a means, not an end. XSS is simply a transportation mechanism. It is used to facilitate the actual attack which could be system compromise or stealing a users session. The only limitation on XSS is that it operates in a browser enviroment.

Do to the numerous things an attacker can do with XSS, it is hard to quantify an impact for all XSS vulnerabilities. Since XSS has different severities in regards to impact, an orginization should always choose the impact that is most severe. In other words, the worst-case-scenario.

If a user is exploited through an XSS attack, an orginzation can assume the attacker is doing the most damaging thing imaginable. Therefore, if a user is compromised from XSS, the impact is high.

Probability of the Attack Occuring
We have now identified that the impact of Cross-Site Scripting is high. But, what about the probability of it actually occuring?

It is difficult to find evidence of people using Cross-Site Scripting as an an attack vector? There are cases where XSS was used, in conjunction with SQL injection, to insert an offsite iframe into a web page in order to attempt a traditional overflow. Should these attacks be included into the equation for probability of it happening? Since it can be argued that these attacks used SQL injection, and not XSS for propigation, these attacks need to be excluded.

The only evidence I can find is Verizon's 2009 Data Breach Investigation Report. That docuement however, doesn't go into much detail about the specifics of the XSS attack.

Due to the lack of overwhelming evidence, XSS currently is not a common attack method. The probability of a Cross-Site Scripting attack occuring is low.

Cost-Benefit Justification of Fixing Cross-Site Scripting
Since it is difficult to quantify the cost of having an XSS, it is just as difficult to do a cost-benefit analysis on fixing XSS vulnerabilities.

Why should merchants spend money on remediating their XSS vulnerabilities when there is no supporting evidence of attacks occuring?

Until more web applications are compromised through XSS vectors and there is more evidence to support this happening, not much security budget will go towards remediating Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities.

Top Five Web Application Security Blogs

Today, I thought I would post great resources for information. If you want to be good at security, it means you need to be well read.

Here are the top five web application security blogs in no particular order.

• Jeremiah Grossman - Probably the most read web application security blogger. Jeremiah reads all of the material so you don't have too.
  
• Rsnake / Robert Hansen - The other most read web application security blogger. Interesting Note: Graduated my alma mater.
  
• Holistic InfoSec - Russ McRee's blog. Russ puts people on the stove. He posts are controversial and exciting. According to ISS, Russ was one of the Top Vulnerability Discoverers in 2008. Keep an eye on him, it is interesting to see what he will do next.
• Billy Rios - Also known as the XS-Sniper! Billy is behind some of the most innovative research as of late. He is the man behind Gifars and URI overflows. He is also known to smuggle olives on occasion.
• Nitesh Dhanjani - Although he covers a wide range of topics outside of web application security, Nitesh continually blogs about topics that are thought-provoking.

What Motivates Hackers? Why, Money of Course.

Attackers are motivated by multiple factors. Previously, "experts" believed most attackers were social outcasts who were writing malicious software out of their parent's basement. These attackers were not driven by any particular motive. They were more driven by the problem-solving aspect. They wanted to know if they could do it. This idea that attackers are socially inept kids based in the United States is quickly becoming inaccurate.

Most security articles are focused on the means of the attack. They don't address what attackers are actually after.

The four motivating factors for attackers that have been identified are:

1. Financial Gain
   
2. Notoriety
3. Political
4. Vengeance

Financial Gain
Hacking, Malware, and Worm Creation is a money making opportunity. Worms, such as Conficker, are being tied to organized crime based in Soviet republics.

The tightly managed criminal organizations behind such scams—often based in Russia and former Soviet republics—treat malware like a business. They buy advanced code on the Internet’s black market, customize it, then sell or rent the resulting botnet to the highest bidders. They extend the worm’s life span as long as possible by investing in updates—maintenance by another name. This assembly line–style approach to crime works: of all the viruses that Symantec has tracked over the past 20 years, 60 percent of them have been introduced in the past 12 months.

This shouldn't be suprising. If criminals have no problem killing another human and taking their wallet, why would they have problems stealing massive amounts of money electronically?

However, organized criminals aren't the only attackers driven by financial gain. There is also evidence of financially driven attackers being petty criminals. These are the types that don't have a great understanding of what they are doing. They can be found on websites specifically setup for trading credit card numbers or other Personally Identifiable Information (PII). Some researchers, such as Rios and Dhanjani, have done research into this subgroup.

Notoriety

There is still evidence of hacking for notoriety. Most of these attackers are the "13-19" year old kids described above. The reason these individuals attack systems is driven by their want to become famous.

A recent example is the Mikeyy worm created by Michael Mooney of StalkDaily. This sub-group usually will justify their attacks by stating, "I wanted to bring awareness to the problem." This is a constructed answer but demonstrates their want to become famous. They are clearly stating, they were the ones who wanted to bring awareness to the issue. These attackers typically have a Robin Hood type mentality of bringing knowledge to the uninformed.

Political
These attackers are politically focused or driven by political means. This group includes "hacktivists" and foreign nationals driven to cause damage to an enemy country. Examples of these attacks are the Titan Rain and more recently Power Grid hacking.

Political motivation is frightening. Many countries will not deter attackers from hacking a foreign country. In addition, law enforcement has a hard time tracking down or arresting these type of attackers due to the lack of cooperation of foreign countries.

Vengeance

These attackers are the most dangerous. They will attack people who have somehow made them upset. Their driving factor is causing as much pain as possible for their victim.

These attacks typcially target an ex-girlfriend or a celebrity. These are the electronic equivalent of breaking someone's windshield. There is nothing that can really be done to prevent it other than to stop using the internet.

How to Hack: Hacking by Numbers?!

A course will be offered this year at Black Hat entitled, "Hacking by Numbers: PCI Edition." A quote from the appropriate literature:

The PCI Data Security Standard (DSS) has had a huge impact on the information security industry. One effect that it has had is to make annual penetration testing mandatory in some segments, and thereby spawn a whole new class of off-the-shelf penetration testers.

The term "off-the-shelf penetration testers" makes my stomach churn. It is my belief that hacking is more of an art than a science. Hacking is methodical, but takes a specific type of person to do it. Typical hackers are very methodical and analytic. In addition, ever hacker that I have ever met has a never-give-up mentality about them. This attribute is used as a feedback loop into the problem they are working on.

Sure some security work and/or security methodologies can be taught, but to be a "breaker" you have to have a certain personality type.

What are your thoughts on this? Feel free to tweet me about the topic. @miscsecurity

Information Gathering: A Way to Identify Who Uses Social Sites

Information gathering on targets is key for attackers. They need to understand their targets to construct more successful attacks.

Recently, I came across http://namechk.com/ I was blown away with the amount of information this site reveals.

The site promotes itself as a way to "check to see if your desired username or vanity url is still available at dozens of popular Social Networking and Social Bookmarking websites."



From an attackers standpoint, lets say I want to identify all of the resources that Jeremiah Grossman, the CTO of WhiteHat Security uses. I simply type in his blogspot id, "jeremiahgrossman" and I identify that in addition to blogspot he also posts to delicious and youtube. This is great!

For an attacker, this resource provides a way to identify additional paths of research.

5 Key Factors of Complexity

Brian J. Truskowski, General Manager of Internet Security Systems (ISS), gave a keynote presentation at RSA 2009. His talk touched on an interesting topic that he referred to as the "5 Key Factors of Complexity."

He identifies that the key cause of compromise is human nature; the ability that humans are susceptible to social engineering. Instead of focusing on securing systems, Mr. Truskowski argues that we should design systems that are "resistant to human frailty." He goes on to state, that designing these systems (by reducing complexity) is difficult.

According to Mr. Truskowski, the 5 key factors of complexity and the key to designing these systems are:

1. Threats
   
2. Compliance
3. Technology
4. Economics
   
5. Business Needs

Contrary to security, Businesses have to keep focused on all of these factors or they will be unsuccessful. Vendors however, are according to Mr. Truskowski, only focused on one of these factors... Threats. He argues, If an enterprise doesn't focus on compliance, they are fined. If a business doesn't focus on business needs, the business can't change.

"It's like building the titanic. The ship's designers optimized around being able to withstand collisions at the sacrifice of maneuverability. There have been many theories over the years over why the Titanic sank, from Brittle steel to sub-standard rivets. But, in reality, it is obvious why the Titanic sank. It couldn't get out of the way of the iceberg. The Titatic's designers focused on size, strength, resilience, and luxury but not on maneuverability."

I think Mr. Truskowski's talk was the hidden gem at RSA. It is an interesting idea for security vendors to begin focusing on things other than threats. Of course, if the idea gets legs, it will be 10-15 years before any change occurs. It is great to see people thinking holistically about security.

The video/webcast can be seen here: (5 Factors of Complexity starts at 19:49)

http://media.omediaweb.com/rsa2009/webcast.htm?id=3_1

Information Gathering At Its Best: Using Google Alerts for Fun and Profit

Knowledge is Power.

Sun Tzu stated in the Art of War, "So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will fight without danger in battles." Having intelligence on your enemy is a key to winning military battles. In business having any competitive edge, including intelligence, can be the difference between winning and losing a key-project, beating an advisory colleague, and getting a raise or promotion.

Google, a small start-up out of Mountain View, has a feature called Google Alerts that will help keep your enemies informed. Google Alerts is a way for people (or attackers) to stay informed of new pages that have been indexed by Google. When Google's bots are scanning/indexing the Internet, they will look for specific keywords that the user sets up before hand, just like issuing a Google query. When Google's bots identify these keywords they will email you a link to the page the keywords were found on.

This is a great feature that can be used to stay informed on all sorts of things. Say, you would like to stay informed of Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, running for Governor of California. You could set up a Google Alert with "Gavin newsom" and "governor" as the keywords and be emailed any new pages that Google identifies.

It seems that Sun Tzu was correct. Knowing your enemy, and knowing what he knows, is the key to winning battles.

Buzzword: Managed Services

What is the word most likely to be heard at a non-technical security conference? If you said, "Managed Services," "Managed Information technology services," "Managed Solutions" or some variant of it, then you have been spending too much time at security conferences.

Managed Services is the idea that you take some piece of your company and have someone else do it. Companies typically take something that is expensive for them to do and then outsource it. For instance, most large companies pay an accounting firm, such as a Big 4,  to do their taxes instead of having a dedicated tax department. This of course is an analog managed service, and is sometimes regulated by compliance. Another analog managed service would be a law firm.

The type of managed service this article is referring to is a digital one. The idea that you can pay someone to outsource some piece of your general solution. That could be web hosting services or security services.

Although managed services is not a new idea, it is gaining snow-ball style momentum. There are, of course, companies who have built their entire model on Managed Services such as Savvis and Akamai. More recently, larger companies are jumping on the band wagon to also offer managed solutions. These companies include, AT&T, BT, and an unlikely candidate Amazon with their S3 cloud/EC2.

So, if you want to make sure your company can play with the big boys, make sure you have a managed service solution.

Note: Totally off topic from the Buzzword itself is the site, www.managedsoultion.com. They cashed in on the buzzword and actually named the company after the buzzword. I am going to start making a note on each buzzword to see if any other companies have done the same. Great Marketing!

What businness actually want: lessons learned on the RSA floor

From a security perspective, companies want simple solutions. As I walked the RSA expo floor a few weeks ago, this became very apparent.

Vendors were pitching products that were among other things, "in the cloud", "self-maintained", and "auto-updated." It seems that companies are looking for simple solutions for complex problems. (Duh?)

As I walked around the exposition floor, I began to chuckle, realizing that there were more people in the Moscone center than there are attackers in the world. More money gets pumped into security products than actual money gets stolen. What an amazing idea.

Now, imagine I have a product that you can:

1. Plug into your network or computer.
2. Requires no "maintenance".
3. Will prevent your network/computer from being attacked.
4. Alert you after it has successfully prevented the attack.
   

This was essentially every product that was being offered at RSA.

My two-cents: No product or grouping of products will prevent an attack. You can do some preventative measures, however, if an attacker wants to get you, they will.

Good Luck!

Verizon's 2009 Data Breach Investigation Report

Verizon's annual data breach investigation report came out last week, and I finally had a chance to read through it. I read others security bloggers synopsis of it but none of them seemed to point out anything that was interesting to me.

Here is the interesting bit that I found: Verizon actually recorded someone using XSS as an attack vector.

Typically, it is very difficult to find anything online that points to people using XSS maliciously. Most of the time, XSS is used to increase page views (recent Mikeyy worm) or for popularity (Sammy Worm).

We, the security community, now have some type of hard evidence to explain how XSS could potentially be an issue for companies. Is this enough to bring awarness to management?


Technorati Tags: Verizon 2009 Data Breach Investigation report 2009 XSS Sammy Worm Mikeyy

Rsnake's Bullet Metric: A Response

A thought experiment asking the following: "If you put Anti-virus on every desktop in the world, would you stop viruses from existing?"

It seems that a critical assumption that is made is faulty. Early in the post, Rsnake answers the above question stating, "I think any reasonable person who understands how viruses work would say no. It will, however, make the bad guys work harder and iterate faster to get by the filters (boutique malware)."

But would virus developers continue to develop? At some point all attackers, and computer scientists, are generally lazy. Attackers want to follow the path of least resistance. If every desktop in the world had Anti-virus installed, would the attackers actually want to "work harder and iterate faster?"

linkage: Silver Bullet Metric ha.ckers.org web application security lab