Security I want around my online banking experience…

UPDATE 3/7/12:  So hitting the banks up on twitter went no where, they didn’t even approve my comments.  I have a good disscussion going on in the “Internet Banking” group on LinkedIn if you want to join.  Next step might be a reddit post or possible emailing some of the bank CSOs directly.  Wish me luck.

Online banking and bill pay are two of the conveniences of the information age. I have memories of seeing my mom paying the monthly bills late at night filling out checks, opening and addressing envelopes, putting on stamps etc. She then of course had to manually balance her checkbook with a calculator. I cringe at the thought of having to spend several hours a month in such a manner, with online banking and bill pay it usually takes me 30 mins to send out the money with little or no writing or mailing. As with many conveniences, however it comes with a risk of potential abuse. Individuals certainly aren’t the only ones being victimized, especially vulnerable are small to medium-sized business who have relatively a lot of money compared to the average Joe Schomo like me and unfortunately for them they are not covered by the FDIC or the bank’s policy. Here’s a Bloomberg article from August last year that goes into several examples of theft and how the banks don’t always reimburse those companies like they do you when your CC is stolen. Bloomberg article

So without further ado here is what I humbly ask from my bank, 3 fairly quick wins that should be implemented as soon as possible. I’ll let you know if I hear anything back from them. I plan on hitting some of the bigger ones up on Twitter and LinkedIn to see if any of that social media mumbo jumbo works for me and my little blog.

(more…)

Detecting the Bad from the Good…

UPDATE 4/3/12: I worked with Joel Elser on Snort-sigs mailing list to develop the below signature. However there’s been some concern around system resources of Regexing every GET request to the internet.  I’m thinking I might have to adjust the rule to exempt .com and .net TLDs.  Less effective I know but at least it won’t kill the sensor. This technique is probably better for offline static analysis of logs then realtime IDS.  Damballa has two good papers on their work around detecting DGA (Domain generation algos) and how they haven’t gone away now that Conficker is out of the news.  Links
alert tcp $HOME_NET any -> $EXTERNAL_NET $HTTP_PORTS (msg:”WEB-MISC http header with 9 or more consonants”; flow:to_server,established; content:”GET”; http_method; content:”Host: “; http_header; pcre:”/^Host:\s[tnrshdlfcmgpwbvkxjyqz0-9]{9,}$/Hi”; metadata:service http; classtype:bad-unknown;)
_________________________________________________________________________________
In security monitoring it’s your job to use your creativity to design rules and dashboards so you can identify evidence of malicious activity.  In general there are two strategic ways to do this, detect the bad (blacklisting) or detect the good (whitelisting).  It doesn’t take a genius to realize that whitelisting is the more effective strategy overall, although its much harder to implement.  Even so blacklisting is still useful to use for increasing defense in depth.   Speaking about getting creative to detect the bad guys, a recent thought I had is looking for one of the tactics they use to avoid being taken offline.  Namely registering and using a large number of domains so that content filtering and whitehat organizations can’t keep up.  You could see this during the Conficker worm battles, where early versions were programmed to connect to 250 domains a day, and when the Conficker Cabal launched an effort to pre-register those names later worm versions came out in direct response with algorithms for 50,000 domains per day.
The flaw I see in the “I can register more domains, faster then you can” tactic is often the make up of those domains. By their nature they frequently are a collection of puesdo random letters not valid strung together words in your language, like a normal domain.
For Example: (consonants in a row in red)
jxnrxlwmulpefpjt.org
qqwfddgtgfbafgnhnusmz.cx.cc
fhgis7afg7s6d7fgs76 odf.ws
khetttttttt.coom.in

The startup that didn’t start…

So I have requested Hostgator to rm -rf my VPS for a web application I created called https://mycloudwallet.com after about a year of building and trying to get it to catch on.  Basically I was attempting to be a middle man between consumers and vendors, adding value to both around transaction security and accuracy.  By having users fill out one or more forms on my site with various types of information about them and then picking a text string (called WalletID) that they could give out to vendor’s who I would verify out of band.  This would allow the vendors to check against my site as needed for the updated info behind the WalletID.  So it’s an extra layer of sanity check before shipping a package to an address, sending a targeted email, or perhaps a pwd change request.  All checks could be verified externally (at my site) to whatever the vendor’s transaction technique was (at their website), in case it was being abused.

(more…)

Detecting emails spoofing your domain using Outlook Rules…

The concern over targeted emails from sophisticated attackers is only increasing after the Aurora attacks, not to mention the latest Google vs. China row, and RSA’s compromise. One technique the attacker’s use to make their targeted email more legitimate is to fake or spoof the email’s from address using the recipient’s own domain, so it is more likely to be opened. The constant message from security about the dangers of email can make opening a spoofed message cause much alarm for the average user, which of course is usually only evident after the message has been opened. Which is quickly followed by the usual questions, why am I getting this email Joe said he didn’t send it? It says I sent it! It’s not in my sent items, am I infected? Spoofing email addresses has a long history of being allowed by the SMTP protocol and many companies currently rely on that “feature” to deliver mail legitimately, think surveys, send this link to a friend, web page forms, mailing lists etc. So it’s not as simple as just blocking everything with an internal domain that comes from the Internet; because it’s not all bad. It’s also made more difficult in how SMTP works, where the MAIL FROM (aka. Smtp from, RFC2821, envelope from) is often is what is evaluated at the mail gateway/server level, but the user will just see the FROM (aka. RFC2822, message from).

(more…)

Cybersecurity challenge and update…

 

So I saw an interesting link on the interwebs, it is a packet analysis challenge with promise of invitations to  summer 2011 USCC Cyber Camps training in various locations (Delaware for East Coast folks, I believe) for the winners.  I registered and hope to complete the challenge this weekend; you have 24 hrs once you get the .pcap file to answer 30 questions about evidence of intrusion in the traffic.  You can read more about it here. https://quiz-uscc.cyberquests.org and http://www.uscyberchallenge.org The contest is over May 1st 2011.

 

UPDATE:  I did well enough to be invited to the Virginia camps in early August, with full tutition, room, and board paid.  An awesome opportunity that I’m looking forward to.

Facebook Faux pas?

So Facebook’s been in the news recently about their ever degrading privacy protections and coding screwups (EFF link and Tech Crunch link). I’m not a big fan of the service but it is a unique way to keep in touch with people you are far away from, as well as get updates on the “normal” part of their lives that don’t exactly warrant a phone call or email.  Anyway, I’ve already erased most all my personal info because I’m a paranoid.  I also check up on the privacy settings to see if I’m inadvertently leaking personal info because of my mistake or Facebook’s frequent policy changes.

I noticed an interesting feature yesterday that allows you to get an email when a computer that hasn’t been “authorized” authenticates to your account ( Click Account Button…Account Settings…Account Security). Facebook also allows you to see a log of the computers that have authenticated to your Facebook (security guys love logs) which is cool.  The log is weak on the technical side, no IP address, DNS hostname, or Useragent etc.  But it is an interesting feature that I believe banks should offer as well.

(more…)

Countering the new threats…

The SANS Incident handling steps are

  • Preparation
  • Identification
  • Containment
  • Eradication
  • Recovery
  • Lessons Learned

I’m going to talk about Preparation and Identification today. See I enjoy the challenge of having a network and resources to protect.   Its funny to see how that translates into my non-work life, for example I always like RTS type games and often take a defensive posture by default.  Called turtling in the gaming world it’s more than likely to get you a loss because most games I played seem to favor the noob friendly kamikaze aggressive style, or rushing. However, that just makes me enjoy defense even more, who wants to take the uneducated inexperienced easy way out?  In the real world all out no fear, attack is not a legitimate info sec strategy for obvious reasons.

First it’s well documented how the “bad guys” have changed over the last 2 decades from notoriety seeking weekend hackers, to “hey I can make money at this” full time hackers, to organized criminal gangs.  What I don’t hear enough about is the current migration from gangs to an underground criminal marketplace, and that is just plain frightening.  Organized crime is dangerous and hard to stamp out but it’s a threat that can be met with equal good guy organization and cooperation.  Like when it took Elliot Ness and the federal government to stamp out the mobs and corruption of the 30’s.   Complicated Bad can be fought with complicated Good, hard but doable.  But how do you fight a decentralized economy of goods/service providers with a specialized skillset, profiting off loose, dynamic, and temporary connections to others?  That is really hard to do. Now throw in more recent fully state sponsored agencies targeting small subsets of the internet (Advanced Persistent Threat [APT] attacks on Google) and you’ll see why Information Security is so much in the news these days.

(more…)

Blackhat SEO, The Next Generation…

UPDATE March 2012: So I was rereading my own blog and wondered if I got this post right.  I googled and turns out it was probably a FAIL.  Although Van Morrison deny’s it he bought Gigi a house in Texas and visited her and the child regularly (although she recently passed away).  Guess I should have known writing about celebrity gossip, the truth will probably never really made public.

December 29th 2009  I noticed a story come across the wires about the singer Van Morrison and Gigi Lee having a baby. This was picked up by the Associated Press and many legitimate news outlets.  Turns out it was a carefully orchestrated plan to drive traffic for keywords already seeded on hacked websites that redirected to mostly known fake AV malware servers (more on that at bottom).  Not knowing this at the time I did a quick google search out of normal user interest and got these results…

Being the paranoid security guy I am, I immediately noticed the similarity in the URLs  and that they weren’t domain’s of news sites.  For example domain.com/xxx.php?=gigi%20… or domain.com/xxx.php?=van%20…  Hmmmm, those don’t look like legit results to me.  Welcome to the world of Blackhat SEO, I don’t presume to be the end all authority on this as Dancho Danchev and others Sophos have been tracking this for years. But this was a new twist, the bad guys were not grabbing the currently hot top search results (like when a celebrity dies) and competing with other pages to get their rank high, they INVENTED the keywords  and already had the seeded keywords in Google’s page rank before attacking Van Morisson’s website!  Gotta to respect the ingenuity, wish they were on the good guys side. Whatever Google is doing to counter the bad guys from gaming their page rank algorithm it isn’t working very well, although in this instance Google was working as intended.  If a malware author can poison a person’s view of the web (search engine results) then the average user doesn’t have much of a chance.  Turns out any one of the links redirected me to a known malware page. I followed them with Malzilla, here’s an example…

…. ALL LINKS CHANGED SLIGHTLY TO PROTECT INNOCENT….

1. First the click to Google’s search results
http [break] ://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=17&ved=0CB8QFjAGOAo&url=

http%3A%2F%2Fxxxxx-law.com%2Fmvf.php%3Ft%3Dgigi%2520lee&ei=8K06S8yYFpS2swOKg_XBBA&usg=AFQjLNG7qREztsl9Fo0TC6RUCWNaB5Vp_A&sig2=48nUTmo26vz49MerFAydtg

2. Redirects to the search result

HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Location: http [break]://xxxxxx-law.com/mvf.php?t=gigi%20lee
Cache-Control: private
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:04:04 GMT

Which is a .php script that looks like it’s taking an input of “t=gigi lee”  (the %20 is an encoded space) So I tried it w/o correct input and with “wget” default user-agent and was cleverly 301 redirected to cnn.com homepage, I thought that was a nice touch by the bad guys.

3. Continuing with the correct link gets me too, (hmmm  random .pl domain not a good sign.  No offence intended to Poland)

HTTP headers:

HTTP/1.1 302
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:04:12 GMT
Content-Type: text/html
Server: Apache

Location: http [break]://vby1x4.xoeg .pl/in.php?t=cc&d=29-12-2009_tr2&h=xxxxxx-law.com&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3D…. snip….6vz49MerFAydtg

4. Then finally the below link which my endpoint HIPS stopped.  Just from the link you can tell it’s a fake AV Trojan and probably a couple exploits to go along with it (I didn’t go down the rabbit hole any farther).  Also I was impressed with Firefox WOT add-on (link) as I kept having to disable it to follow the redirects with FireFox.  Definitely recommend it, along with no_script of course

HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:08:52 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.55 (Unix) PHP/5.2.1
X-Powered-By: PHP/5.2.1
Location: http [break] ://createpc-pcscan-kokn .net/?uid=195&pid=3&ttl=e11476d0489

So I was intrigued by this .php file that they were able to upload to many websites like the example above which is a law firm in Boston Mass. I contacted several of them to tell of the infection and to ask if I could get a copy of that server side .php script, but none have done so.

So the whole thing was an elaborate scheme to get hits as it was most likely the same group of hackers that compromised the singer’s website and started the whole thing.  I was wondering how they knew to upload the files with the right keywords before the news broke and had figured they must have ongoing access to adjust the keywords or replace the .php depending on the current news story, which still could be true. The AP picking up the story must have had the bad guys celebrating for sure.

From BBC news site:

The Belfast-born 64-year-old said he had been the victim of an internet hacking attack that had placed “falsehoods” on his official website. BBC News was one of several outlets to report the hoax as fact.”The comments which appeared on my website did not come from me,” he [Van Morrison] said, in a statement issued to the media. The singer said he had asked his management team to carry out an immediate investigation, adding it was the second time his website had been hacked in the last three months.

Link to MTV talking about it.  They missed the point though it wasn’t an innocent hoax, it was motovated by the second oldest story book…..Money.

Is it Malware?

One lesson I remember learning during my teen years was the world is really shades of gray, not so much the black and white it seems when you’re younger.  The same principal applies to malware, what really is…bad?  If an AV scanner asks for payment before clears your spyware cookies and removes other fake AV installs is it malware?  What if separate 3rdparty affiliates install it w/o your or manufacturer’s permissions, through an exploit, social engineering, or by forcing you to opt-out? What if they steal other companies detection DBs as in the iobit and malwarebytes saga? Apple installs file sharing software (Bonjour) w/o notification and with opt-out techniques (Google Toolbar, Quicktime) when installing iTunes. Does that make Apple a spyware purveyor?  Again, shades of gray.

So what is the user/IT tech to do? Well there’s no easy answer, and in my humble opinion you have to trust but verify with research.  Check already trusted forums/websites of whitehats and coworkers along with other trusted IT user’s opinions.  In short, do your homework before installing any software on your machine.

Along these lines an interesting thing happened while I was dealing with a small outbreak of Vundo.Trojan at work. Our AV vendor didn’t detect the sample yet so I recommended for the IT staff to install update and run malwarebytes in safemode. For various reasons one infected computer had no immediately available IT rep so it was left up to the user.  When getting to the download link he was tricked by a deceptive (my opinion) advertisement on download.com (Right hand “Bad Link” in screenshot below) to install a “shades of gray” program called CyberDefender instead of malwarebytes (a trusted whitehat community supported malware scanner).

Tricky Tricky for the average user

This program has a history of being considered actual malware, but apparently was taken over by different management whose is supposedly trying to legitimatize it circa 2006.  I decided to check it out a bit and am suspicious enough to recommend NOT installing it.

Some issues that make me dubious to install the software…

  • Inflates the severity of the findings (ie. Detected sysinternals processmonitor as a HIGH risk)
  • Opens a high tcp port and listens on it. (In 2 separate installs and 1 reboot on a clean VMware image I saw 1stcdas.exe listening on tcp/5710, 2ndcdas45.exe on tcp/5754, and 3rdon reboot saw tcp/5779 (from THE SAME installer file))
  • Advertises with shady deceptive ads
  • Finds different threats with a program uninstall/reinstall and subsequent rescan with Cyberdefender
  • Offered me to buy the product for 250.00 after an add/remove programs uninstall (clearly a ripoff)

Cheap Website Monitoring…

A big part of being a security analyst is figuring out why something you admin is blocking what a customer is trying to get to.  I actually like those problems because I look at them like a mini-puzzle. The key to these issues, and many others for that matter, is being able to recreate the trouble with your own equipment.  I usually tell people, if it’s blocked for me too then I will be able to fix it.  The hard problems come when it’s an occasional issue, or only from one part of the network, etc.

Anyway, the latest scenario involved a city employee trying to get to a local high school’s website to get their layout.  The site was blocked with the category pornography, which seemed like a miscategorization.  After recreating the problem on my desktop I got a hunch, which leads me to the reason for this post.  I headed to google and searched “site:xxxxxx.edu nude”  and it came back with the results that would make any webmaster wince.  Pictured below (anonimized to protect the innocent)…

So that was quickly solved by making the school’s webmaster aware of the injected HTML SEO poisoning keywords and asking our vendor to re-evaluate the site once cleaned.  But more to the point such Google searches are a really cheap way to do some manual monitoring for websites under your protection. I personally do searches like these every few weeks, on the off chance one day I will get something other then no webpages found.  Don’t forget to submit requests to clear the major search engine’s cache if you’re hit or these results will stick around for a while.

PS I’ll leave it up to the reader’s imagination on which keywords to use.