Bright Stove

Reflecting information risk journey

Posts Tagged ‘cybersecurity

When our guard is down

leave a comment »

We don’t normally feel the reality of a criminal attack on the Internet (or so called Cybercrime attack in the Cyberspace these days) until someone we know, especially when a friend, or a relative actually became a victim to such an incident. If we see an accident on the road, we actually see it. Our emotional status changes at that point, and we are likely to become more cautious for at least momentarily, and this heightened state of vigilance will likely stay with us for a short period until the image of the accident has been put behind us. Then nothing happens, and we will let our guard down. Life goes on.

The visibility of risk in the online world (aka Cyberspace) is so opaque that even after learning about an incident that is still ongoing, we go online, everything in front of us (in our own cyber landscape) still looks normal. The scene of incident is not just virtual, but changes dynamically. If the victim is an end user, the affected end device is likely her home computer, tablet, or smartphone, which doesn’t even have a web front, and there’s no network logs available to analyze like what organizations have in most cases. Unless we are physically at the same location as the victim, we have to imagine how the scene looks like. It is not as observable. So our guard will remain down.

One common thing about Cybersecurity incidents is that when we hear or read about it, it is likely that it has already happened before. Otherwise, we may not even find out, especially as an end user. By performing a search online using keywords related to the problem, and as a third person, we will then learn about the danger that we have been so lucky not being exposed, or perhaps not known to have been exposed, but now able to learn how to find out if we are truly lucky, or just being ignorant. I guess that’s one of the benefits of having the Internet.

An old friend called last night. A few hours before, he received a call from someone who claimed to be from Microsoft technical support, who informed him that his machine has been found inflected with a malware, and volunteered to help him solve it. But before they could help him, he has to renew his technical support contract, which costs S$399 to do so. Driven by fear of the unknown malware, and the urgency of the caller’s tone, he complied with the caller’s advice, and proceeded to make the payment online. He then allowed the caller to take over control of his machine remotely, who started installing stuff into it. After the person hang up the phone, while the remote installation continued, he then started to think about what just happened and decided to call me to check if Microsoft will do such a thing. Unfortunately, he had just fallen into a tech support scam 😦 and Microsoft have published quite substantively about the scam at: https://www.microsoft.com/security/online-privacy/avoid-phone-scams.aspx.

As I reflect on this incident, a question emerges on what if I receive such a call myself? Would there be a chance that I get scammed as well? I think there is always a possibility, since I’m also a human being, and can be reacting emotionally or impulsively, depending on how the caller manages the conversation. Furthermore, even as an information security worker, it is impossible for me to know every single possible ways the scammer works. Today they may use tech support, tomorrow another service, and the next day something else that can get me to respond to the way they want it. There are just too many ways to break something or someone, and often not too difficult to do. Social engineering is already a matured craft by itself. Robert B Cialdini has shown in his book “Influence“, so as Kevin D Mitnick in “The Art of Deception“.

When asked about how to stay safe online, the short answer is often “be vigilant.” Unfortunately, it is impossible to be vigilant all the time. It will be highly stressful, and the effects on our health may even be worst that suffering from an online scam. In reality, our guard is often down. We react to situation as it develops. What’s worst is that we also have a tendency to develop and use automation in our brain to take short cuts and react quickly. The default mode is often to react automatically, which is a survival instinct, especially when triggered under pressure, as what Robert B Cialdini has discovered in his research and experience described in “Influence“.

In the organizational context, readiness drills and exercises can help to heighten users’ awareness and build technical infrastructure, and enhance individuals’ competencies to enable faster detection and better responses to security attacks. For example, read my earlier blog on “Responsive Security in Action” in my blog series on Responsive Security. Many organizations have started doing this in the past few years. The security industry (for enterprise market in particular), in general, has been developing more products and services in recent years to facilitate higher security readiness as well. But for consumers at large, people who are not working for big organizations, how to get them to be ready to be safe and secure? I think this is a much more challenging area. Over the years, I have thought about a few ideas, but these are just snippets of tactics, not a complete solution.

For example, can there be virtual security signposts and posters (in the form of warning/alerts, or “watchful eyes“, instead of just advertisements) in the online environment where we browse and roam around regularly? How should the web architecture on the Internet evolve to facilitate security needs? Who should own the outcomes, which dictates the contents, and the delivery?

Who should plan, organize, and fund Cyber readiness drills/exercises activities for citizens who are online as well? How to tell if a drill is real or yet another scam? There is no simple answer to these questions, unfortunately.

What I’ve also realized through a number of incidents involving friends thus far is that money is a common denominator. That’s what most scammers are after (unless you are someone who has more to offer than money). If someone asks for money to be transferred, stop, take a deep breath, and think about it again – must I make this payment, and must it be now? This approach is similar to what Cialdini advises in “Influence” on how not to be scammed into buying things that we don’t need, i.e., turn off the automated reaction mode. Pause, think, then act. It may not be fool proof, since we are human, taking shortcut is in our DNA. But if we can remember to slow down under stressful or questionable situations, it will very likely halt the incident from progressing to a full blown one. Nevertheless, something not happening is not an observable outcome. Bear in mind that the attacker may also take less aggressive steps initially in order to gain our trust, and collect more information about us and our friends and family before executing her true mission. Question why we should trust this person (especially if he/she is someone we haven’t met previously) before proceeding.

Finally, if you are a Microsoft users, do take note of how to contact their official support: https://www.microsoft.com/en-sg/contact.aspx. Copy the contact information in your address book perhaps so it is always handy. For Apple users, I couldn’t find a local contact number for Apple support, but just their general support site: http://www.apple.com/sg/support/contact/, which could still be useful.

Best wishes and a happy new year!

Written by mengchow

January 6, 2016 at 11:19 am

A Black Swan on the ATM system

leave a comment »

This past week’s news headlines have once again been filled with a number significant cyber security incidents. Data breaches in JP Morgan, Bash shell vulnerability in a number of Unix/Linux operating systems (Apple OS X included), and many others. One that was of particular interest, not because it happened just around our neighborhood location, but one that’s concerned with a risk-based approach to information security management. That’s the Automated Teller Machine (ATM) attacks incident in Malaysia, which was reported in major newspapers online and offline on/around September 30th, 2014.

I was first curious about the ATM attacks as Malaysia had not had an ATM related fraud for quite some time then, at least a few years since all the banks there had upgraded their ATM to a chip card (smartcard) based system. Prior to the upgrade, a number of banks were seriously impacted by major organized crime attacks on their magnetic card system, which involved installation of fraudulent reader to copy the card holders’ account data on the magnetic stripe, and tiny camera overseeing the PIN pad to capture the user PIN as the cardholders enter it while using the machine. With the smartcard based system, data on chip cannot be copied easily, which makes cloning the ATM card a major challenge. Capturing the PIN via an external camera itself doesn’t serve any good when the card cannot be cloned. The smartcard based ATM card system basically “won” the war against the criminals. I was therefore interested to find out how the perpetrator did what they’ve done and got away this time. A good thing is that the news report did provide some useful information to understand the gist of the attack.

As reported in various news sources, the attack essentially involves a combination of physical and logical techniques, and of course a certain amount of courage, confidence, and luck on the part of the perpetrator. The attack begins with the perpetrator forcing open the ATM physical enclosure to reach the computer so as to insert a CD into the CDROM player to launch the logical attack. It appears that the targeted ATM systems were all using a form of weak physical protection that did not even have one of those temper resistant setup that would shutdown the machine, or intrusion detection mechanism that would trigger an alarm when it is forced open. This looks like a fundamental design failure. Otherwise, it would have to be a weak lock, or someone compromising the key.

Once the perpetrator overcomes the physical “protection”, a malware (a file named ULSSM.EXE) that resides in a CD takes over the rest of the work. At this stage, the activation of the malware requires that the machine to be using an operating systems that is compatible with it (which in this case, Windows XP), and more importantly, configured (or rather, mis-configured) in such a way that will “auto-run” the malware program in the CDROM. If it runs successfully, the perpetrator will eventually receive a code on his/her mobile phone that allows him/her to gain administrative access to the ATM to pour out whatever cash that is still in the ATM system at that point.

The perpetrator was either lucky, or had prior knowledge that the malware will work as planned, and there were sufficient cash in each machine to worth the efforts, or a combination of all this. The ATM systems were apparently running Windows XP, have a CDROM installed, and had “auto-run” enabled (a default setting in Windows XP anyway). The total loss reported ranges from 450,000 to as high as 3.1 millions Malaysian ringgits, over several (some say 17, others say 18) ATM systems across the Malaysia peninsula, including Selangor, Melaka, and Johor.

To gain more insights on the attack, I did a quick search of the malware, ULSSM.EXE, and apparently, it had been reported by quite a number of anti-virus software vendors as early as May 2014 (i.e., about four months ago). The first thing that comes to mind was, even if it was reported four months ago, how will the bank know of such a unique malware that was specifically targeted on ATM systems among the millions of malware that have emerged in the period? A subsequent report in the news confirmed our expectation — that the vendor of the ATM system should be monitoring for such vulnerability (and exploit) and inform their customers (the banks) accordingly. Whether the vendor actually contact all their customers directly, or simply post the vulnerability information on their web site is not known.

In Symantec report, the malware is diagnosed as a Trojan, and named as “Backdoor.Padpin”. Incidentally, the Trojan malware is rated as a “Very Low” risk, as shown in the screen shot captured from the Symantec web site on September 30th, 2014. The layout of the site seems to have been updated now, but the contents have remained unchanged.

14 - 1

The “Very Low” risk rating is based on three threat assessment factors: Wild level, Potential Damage, and Distribution. At the time of their assessment (first on May 9, 2014, and subsequently updated on May 20, 2014), the Wild Level is rated “Low” since the number of infections reported is between 0 and 49, number of sites infected is 2, and threat containment and removal are both assessed as “easy”. The Damage assessment is rated “Medium” as the Payload involves “opening a backdoor”, “displaying sensitive information to the attacker”, and “disables the local network to avoid triggering alarms”. Finally, the Distribution is “low” since only two sites have been reported infected at that time. If you are a security manager of a bank that uses the ATM system, how would you respond to such an advisory? My guess is that most security managers are not going to even see a report highlighting such a risk issue, given its “Very Low” risk rating, not to mention taking any precautionary step in view of the advisory that the vendor has published. There are many more “High Risk” items to pay attention to. In the online report, Symantec has also provided detailed recommendations for preventing and mitigating against the malware. They may not have been read by anyone if not for the attacks that have happened.

The risk rating (“Very Low”) appears to be largely influenced by the distribution, even though the potential impact is quite significant. What does “Medium” damage rating mean is not clear, but the capabilities of the malware appears to be sophisticated, designed for very specific purpose — being able to disable the local network and display sensitive information to the attacker at the same time. My retrospective assessment of the impact is perhaps influenced by the occurrence of the ATM attacks incident itself. As such, the incident looks very much like a Black Swan — a “low” risk, but high impact incident, which we only find it to be significant retrospective to its occurrence.

NZ-20051204 146

The Black Swan highlights one of the issues of a risk-based approach. That is, we can’t predict what will go wrong or how bad events will play out in the future. Incidents of the past are history, which tell us something about what can go wrong, but do not tell us whether they will happen again. Even if the attack is similar, their future frequency, and distribution of occurrence are basically unknown. Our risk assessments therefore can be wrong, and the worst case is when a low risk issue materializes, since we tend to ignore or give very low priority to low risk issues. Ironically, a risk-based approach relies on risk assessment to make decisions.

A continuous risk assessment approach, which builds on the risk-based approach, doesn’t fare much better either. How often do organizations re-assess their risks of an existing system? If they adopt the ISO/IEC 27001 certification standard, the normal cycle is once a year. If an organization relies on the internal control and audit function, which banks tend to be, it depends on the their schedule and priorities. In all cases, each cycle will normally look at a different scope (due to limited resources, and many new systems to review). The ATM systems security is thus unlikely to get a reassessment of its risk for a long time if the bank has not made any significant changes to it. The previous major change is likely to be the upgrade to the smartcard card system.

Getting back to the ATM incident in Malaysia, the vendor has responded as reported in the news that the banks were warned four months ago. It’s almost a week’s past since the publicity of the ATM attacks incident involving the Trojan malware, the risk information at the Symantec site has remained as “Updated: May 20th, 2014 9:44:15 PM” (as seen at the time of this writing), October 5, 2014 11:50 PM. Apparently, there’s no continuous risk assessment for such threat at its information source either.

Given our knowledge of the Black Swan, Nassim Taleb, the author of the book, “The Black Swan“, has asserted the importance of designing and building robust systems that is “anti-fragile“. Any attack on a system will occur as a change event, or a series of change events, from the perspective of the victimized systems, regardless of the outcome of the attack. A prerequisite for robustness, or antifragility is therefore responsiveness, i.e., having the ability to “see” the effects of the changes, and trigger appropriate actions for criticality alignment. We shall discuss more about Responsive Security in future blogs as the main idea of this blog is to highlight the Black Swan that was observed on the ATM system. Meanwhile, if you wish to learn more, check out the book itself from the links in the earlier blog.

12th RAISE Forum Meeting at Jinan, Shandong

leave a comment »

Talking about Shandong in the previous blog (“Before the ashes turn cold“) yesterday, in fact, I just came back from our 12th RAISE Forum meeting which was held at Jinan, the capital city of Shandong province in China on March 27 and 28, 2013. The meeting was co-sponsored and jointly organized by Beijing Powertime (北京时代新威) and Timesure, supported by the Association of China Information Security Industry (ACISI), and co-sponsored by (ISC)2.

IMG_0269

Unlike previous gatherings, the 12th meeting started with a half-day public seminar participated by about 150 professionals mainly from Shandong, and a number of other cities in China. The keynotes of the seminar were given Mr Wu Yafei, Chair of the the ACISI (who is also Executive Director of the Information Security department of the State Information Center, SIC), and Professor Lv Shuwang (the inventor of the SMS4 cryptographic hashing algorithm).

 IMG_0274 IMG_0277

Prof Lv spoke about the nature of Internet and internet, and the importance of knowledge security. In accordance to Prof Lv, knowledge security is a natural progress from information security as we evolve from an information-based economy to knowledge-based economy. Knowledge security is critical not just to organization, or individuals, but also the issues of preserving the massive knowledge from a nation’s civilization and cultural heritage perspective. Knowledge security requires a secure Cyberspace, a Cyberspace that operates on network in which its growth, reliability, maintenance, and security are accorded with national level coordination and protection, as preserving knowledge of a nation’s culture and civilization is a national issue. Today’s Internet is however rooted in the US and not a true internet network where there’s mutual connection between a nation’s public (or citizen) network and US or other nation’s public networks. To have a truly internet network, China needs to have its own public network to begin with. Currently, China’s public Internet network (as well other many other countries’ public Internet) shares a portion of the global Internet, “like a tenant on a rental property”, says Prof Lv. As such, security problems on the Internet continues to proliferate and cannot be resolved effectively. This is not an ideal condition for China’s knowledge security. Prof Lv therefore asserts that “China doesn’t have Internet”. Nevertheless, expecting the global Internet to have its root removed and made completely open is also impractical, Prof Lv concluded.

At the public seminar, Mr Ning Jiajun, retired Chief Engineer of SIC, also shared his thoughts on the Information Security issues and challenges in China, and discussed on the need for a basic Information Security Law, or Ordinance. This is necessary to address the fundamental legal principles, and basic system requirements, in support of more comprehensive information security specialization laws for the security governance of each industry sector.

In the professional certification arena, Mr Wang Xinjie of Beijing Powertime shared the status of the new work item on Information Security (IS) Professional Certification in ISO, which is still in an extended Study Period (totaling 12 months now); the status of CISSP adoption in China (which has more than 600 certified professionals as of March 2013); and the development of a new Certified Information Security Auditor (CISP-Auditor) in China. The idea of the Information Security Auditor is focused on developing a community of professionals who will be skilled at auditing (or validating) the information security practice of organizations. The practice may be based on ISO/IEC 27001 ISMS standard, or other approaches adopted by the organization, or mandated by specific industry regulations.

In addition to the China’s experts’ presentations, representatives from RAISE Forum members also spoke in the public seminar. Mr Koji Nakao presented the status of security standardization at ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 27 and ITU-T SG17, including the current work plan and the areas of focus in the near term. Prof Hueng Youl Youm of Soonchunhyang University, South Korea, presented the status of Personal Information Management Systems (PIMS) standardization in ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27 and also within Korea itself. I shared my thoughts on the Responsive Security approach for information security risk management (which I shall discuss in future blogs perhaps).

IMG_0265
  IMG_0275

The closed-door meeting of the RAISE Forum continues in the afternoon and whole day the next day at the Institute of Information and Communications Research (CIIIC). In person at the meeting were members from Japan, Singapore, South Korea, P.R. China, Thailand, and also representative of (ISC)2, while Malaysia and Chinese Taipei’s representatives joined the discussion and presentations via WebEx teleconference facility online. 

Besides the usual updates on ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27 and ITU-T SG 17 standards development activities, the meeting also discussed about some recent Cybersecurity development, such as the Obama’s Executive Order, Japan’s Cybersecurity strategy development, the very recent South Korea Cyber attack incident, and Thailand’s Cyber frauds incidents involving security of smartphone applications. The international standardization activities that are of interest includes the revision of the ISO/IEC 27001 and 27002 standards (both are currently at DIS stage, likely to be published before end of this year), cloud security standards, which includes ISO/IEC 27017, and 27036, and the new work item in WG 4 on the technology aspects), and PIMS related standards efforts. There were also much deliberation on the scope of a RAISE Forum project on “Information Security Audit Framework”, which is currently under development. The result of (ISC)2 2013 Workforce Study report, and the recent RAISE Forum initiated Information Security Management Practice survey results were also discussed. The latter will be shared in a separate update in a few weeks.

The meeting closed with the thanking of the organizers and sponsors, and also a short discussion on the 13th RAISE Forum meeting. This year is in fact the 10th year anniversary of the RAISE Forum, since its inauguration in Nov 2004. The 13th meeting is planned to be held before year-end, venue to be confirmed, and will be held as a 10th anniversary celebration event.

%d bloggers like this: