As some of you may have noticed, Google has received some heat the last couple of weeks due to claims that they intercepted private data from open wifi-networks when driving around to complete Google Street View coverage. One of the many articles on this subject can be found here: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9176810/Google_stops_sniffing_Wi_Fi_data_after_privacy_gaffe

First off: I am very much against any form of privacy infringement and believe quite strongly that most forms of proactive surveillance against non-criminals are futile at best and damaging for national security at worst. However this whole case is just somewhat ridiculous.

Yes, Google made a mistake in not disabling that specific piece of software, but calling the data they gathered private is a bit of a joke. What they gathered was data sent unencrypted over a public network. If you’re sending confidential information over a public network unencrypted, Google stealing your deep-dark secrets is the least of your worries. They did it by mistake – many others do it intentionally!

In fact where I’m sitting right now, I can see no less than 7 open wifi-networks. Most are private homes and most of them have, according to Kismet, traffic flowing over them right now. This means that if I wanted to, I could activate software like Kismet or Wireshark and use this to steal every single bit of unencrypted data sent over this network. In fact, I would be able to do this with almost no chance of ever being detected in doing so. Even if the network owners tried to catch me, they most likely would not be able to. That’s simply how easy and risk-free it is.

The reason why I can do this, is because wifi-networks work by transmitting data outward on a given frequency and then let all clients in that network receive all data. It’s then the client’s computer that needs to filter out what was meant for it and what was meant for everyone else. If a computer behaves “nicely” it’ll discard anything not meant for it, but if it’s been put up to intentionally receive everything, you’ve created a so called “sniffer” and all unencrypted data is up for graps.

While software like Wireshark allows you to only “sniff” data sent over the network you’re connected to, Kismet let’s you “sniff” from any network without ever connecting to that network. This effectively makes you completely invisible to the network owners, so they have no way of knowing, that you’re stealing everything they send.

Sadly, most users are completely oblivious to these facts and use open networks as if they we’re their home networks. And sadly in some cases they even are (as was the case with most of the 7 networks here). So effectively, when Google was driving around gathering private data from open wifi-networks, they weren’t really “sniffing” because they had no intention of gathering that data. The users on those networks were however shouting every single bit of so called “private” information in all directions, forcing Google wifi-analysis software to capture and save it.

Now, to be fair: Google weren’t really being smart here and should not have captured data sent over unencrypted networks. It was a bad move and while they didn’t intend to do so, it probably still didn’t give them a boost in their reputation!

That being said, I must however still say, that the real problem here is the user and the open networks. If you don’t want your data to be scooped up by Google, don’t send it unencrypted over an open network. Chances are someone far worse than Google is listening in – especially if it’s a public network near train stations or the like. Sending data over a open wifi-network is, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of shouting the same information out your office window.

Back in April 2010 we published a blog post describing the secure way of working from open wifi-networks – We recommend you read up on that and use the techniques mentioned there in order to keep private data private in the future.

I recently came across this article which talks about an ongoing trial concerning a “hack” in 2008.

Now this “hack” is made especially interesting by the fact that the victim was the, at the time, 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Now you may have noticed I write “hack” instead of hack or security break-in, and the reason for this is actually quite simple: It really wasn’t a hacker attack!

What this kid (David C. Kernell) did, was that he simply used the “Forgot your password?” feature on Yahoo Mail to guess his way in to change Sarah Palins password and gain access to her mails. In the end, he actually gained access by using publicly available information and subsequently reacted by bragging on a discussion board while posting pictures of Sarah Palins e-mails. That’s not hacking! What he did was, at best, correctly estimating Sarah Palin’s knowledge of proper password policy.

Now what would an appropriate reaction be to such an incident? He’s clearly a reckless idiot, so some action should probably be made. Yet, at the same time, he showed Sarah Palin knows very little about basic security, thereby making a quite powerful (and perhaps needed) political point. If she can’t even secure her e-mail against amateurs, how is she going to secure the nation against ruthless psychopaths?

But basically, no matter what the appropriate reaction was, the prosecutors and Sarah Palin went with, for all intents and purposes, ending this person’s life! They went to court and tried to get him convicted for crimes with a combined punishment of up to 21 years and 250000$ in fines. All for guessing a password!

Until now he’s been convicted of felony destruction of records to hamper a federal investigation and of a misdemeanor charge that he unlawfully accessed a protected computer. He was however acquitted of a federal wire fraud charge. What level of punishment he’ll end up getting is hard to guess at, at the moment. But almost no matter what kind of punishment he gets, there’s a high likelihood it’ll be grave overkill.

Let’s face it: This 22 year old man is a moron – he did something enormously stupid. Not so much because he showed a grave lack of security understanding from the possible future vice president, but because he didn’t inform her, or her people, and didn’t give them sufficient time to correct the issue before sending it to the proper media channels. All in all he should have been a lot smarter! But that being said: What harm did this person really do?

Now, I’m all for punishing criminals and putting dangerous people behind bars. However a person like this isn’t really dangerous, he’s just not well-mannered. Had there been a proper, legal and well-documented process for reporting security issues in systems or procedures, then he would most likely have used these to get what he wanted: To show Sarah Palin knew little about security! Bare in mind, almost all IT-security professionals have learned primarily by doing – as in, they’ve tested their methods in more or less moral ways. Personally, I’ve always tried to keep to the moral part, however many others have been somewhat morally challenged – yet are now enormously talented and hard working. In fact, some of the best security professionals I’ve met are former “criminal” hackers to some degree.

So what’s my point with all this? Well basically: A young man/woman who “hacks” into a system and flaunts about it, is a person who lacks a place to be. We have full-fledged university degrees for biochemists, computer scientists, lawyers, politicians, engineers etc., yet we don’t have one for a hacker? We even educate police and military in the tactics of their enemies and how the enemy operates – even to the degree that certain soldiers have to act like the enemy in training in order to simulate combat. Yet we still don’t have any equivalent program to educate military hackers or security experts, even though we know for a fact that hacking has been used to attack a country’s infrastructure.

My five cents here is that David C. Kernell shouldn’t be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. He should get a slap on the wrist for handling it stupidly and for publishing/reading the content of Sarah Palin’s e-mails, and should then be thanked for showing the problem and put into a training program for IT and Security somewhere in the US. Even though this “hack” was enormously simple, he might still have some talent that could be used for so much good, instead of just throwing a 22 year old kid in jail and wasting his life.

We’re in a very problematic place in our society if showing the government aren’t doing some task well enough, results in oneself being imprisoned for the majority of one’s adult life.

Such a society is quite surely insecure!

As we have stated several times before (New OWASP guide: Secure Application Development on Facebook and Ruby on Rails Security Guide) OWASP, The Open Web Application Security Project, is a great organization tasked with providing comprehensive security knowledge for companies, individuals, organizations and developers.

This week they came out with a new finished OWASP Project: The Top 10 Security Threats of 2010.

The project website is located here and the full 22 page report can be found here: OWASP Top 10 for 2010 (pdf)

Basically what this is, is a break down of the most severe security issues in web applications for the year 2010. What’s especially scary about it is however, that these 10 security issues have stayed largely unchanged since the Top 10 of 2007. In fact only two issues have been replaced on the list, making the OWASP top 10 security threats of 2010 (the new ones are bold):

1. Injection
2. Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
3. Broken Authentication and Session Management
4. Insecure Direct Object References
5. Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
6. Security Misconfiguration
7. Insecure Cryptographic Storage
8. Failure to Restrict URL Access
9. Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
10. Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards

What this shows us is that despite the efforts of OWASP, Aconiac and similar organizations, the security field has stayed largely unchanged and developers are still making the same mistakes in their designs and code. It might very well not be entirely possible to change this fact in general, even given 10 years from now.

But while companies in general may be making these mistakes, you don’t have to! The OWASP report includes several pages describing the security issues in detail, including an analysis of the risk it imposes on your business and what impact a breach might result in. We encourage you to download and read the entire 22 page PDF and make it mandatory reading for every developer and designer in your organization.

Have you ever been on the road towards a meeting or a vacation, and then just suddenly stumbled upon an open network while waiting for a plane or drinking a cup of coffee? Most people probably have..

And have you even been a bit too tempted and logged onto this open network? Again, most probably have.

Now, have you then started working while on this network and directly sent corporate information or handled information on your corporate systems? Sadly, many have and if you’re one of them: Read on! Using open networks directly for sensitive data (like corporate data) is a big security no-no!

So why would this be a problem? Isn’t it just free internet for the masses? Well, yes and no. Yes it’s probably a network you are completely free to use. It might even be a network owned by the office building, hotel, airport or which ever company you’re at. But due to the way wifi-networks are designed, everything you send over this network is completely public. Every person, on the network or simply in the vicinity, can easily set up a simple network scanner like Wireshark or Kismet and directly save all the information you send over this network, including all e-mails, websites you visit, data you send to websites, data you receive – plain and simply everything! And you have no way of detecting this! None what so ever! There is absolutely no way to check for eavesdroppers on an open unencrypted network.

To add insult to injury, eavesdropping on a network is extremely easy to do and there are several easy to use tools out there that hordes of 15 year old script kiddies love to use to steal as much information as they possibly can – for no other reason than: They can!

So are we advocating not using public open wifi-networks? No, not at all – you just need to use them correctly!

You can look at it like this: A public open wifi-network gives you a gateway on which you can build a connection to your workplace and work from there. How do you do this? Well basically there are several solutions here:

• Make the network encrypted.
  Well normally you won’t have the option of doing this, but in most cases it is simply better to keep smaller networks encrypted and then only use encrypted networks. Preferably using WPA2-PSK or WPA-Enterprise as encryption schemes. This is however most likely not a possible solution!
• Use a VPN connection
  A VPN (Virtual Private Network) is a technology with which you can remotely connect to your organization’s network in a completely encrypted manner. It is by far the most transparently secure solution available and is generally the one we would suggest to companies wanting their employees to be mobile always.
  There are several VPN solutions available out there, including big corporate solutions from companies like Cisco and open source solutions like OpenVPN.
• Access resources with SSL/TLS
  While VPN applies to all network traffic sent from your computer, there is also the other option of encrypting critical parts of your work like e-mail, FTP access, critical websites etc. There are protocols to support this for almost all the different kinds of traffic including: POP3S and IMAPS for email, SFTP for FTP and HTTPS for websites.
  Using this solution may in many ways be simpler, but it assumes you know beforehand every place from which you will be needing critical information. It also puts a considerable extra security concern onto the individual employee, since this person now has to deduce whether or not the given communication he/she is doing at the moment is secure or not. Using VPN, these concerns go away in most cases.
• Remote desktop solutions
  Another option, that’s somewhat similar to the VPN option, is to have the employee make a secure connection to a server at the workplace and from there open up a terminal service running another computer remotely. Solutions like this are available in many forms like VNC, RDP and proprietary solutions from companies like Citrix. This gives the employee a remote view of his/her workstation desktop even though he/she is no way near the actual office and, most importantly, it makes it possible for him/her to work securely from any network.

So you can look at it like this: If you’re not doing any of the above, you have a problem and should take it up with your company in order to get a security policy on the matter and making it safe for the company to work from anywhere! Mobility is one of the top priorities in business these days, and you really want to use the opportunities laid before you well, without screwing yourself because of bad security.

So remember: Public open networks aren’t bad, but you need to keep your assets safe while using them!

Presenting a new company venture from Aconiac: the mobile security company Hoodgate.

For several years now,  smart phones have increased in popularity and will continue to do so for years to come. We are truly only in the beginning of this development and can expect to see even faster and better systems in the future.

One thing that is however still lacking is effective handling of mobile security for a company with more than a few employees. Most available solutions are monolithic solutions where a company buys a software suite with some number of features (anti-virus, anti-spam, locking mechanism etc.) and then has to manually install this suite onto every single employee’s phone one by one, and subsequently if any additions are made to the software later on, in most cases you’d have to do the same manual reinstall all over again. In the end this can lead to enormous financial costs for a company, simply in shear terms of man-hours used!

Hoodgate is adopting another solution to the problem! Hoodgate will be offering a service where you, as a customer, can handle all your employee’s phones through a central control panel. Through this control panel you can then create a “Mobile Security Policy” for your company.

A “Mobile Security Policy” is basically the features you want to have, e.g. the ability to find a given phone through GPS, encrypted e-mails, remote lock of the phone (in case of theft), voice logging, and much more. Once you have a customer profile you can easily buy new features, remove old or order specially developed ones, and all these changes to your “Mobile Security Policy” are automatically sent to all your employee’s phones, ultimately making management of security for your mobile workforce much easier and cheaper. It is then the Hoodgate software on these phones that take in updates and synchronizes with the company “Mobile Security Policy” stored with Hoodgate online, rather than your system administrators having to do it manually.

Hoodgate is just starting up now, and does not at the moment have a finished product. We will however be making regular updates on how the development is going, and try to continually involve future customers in the development, in order to make as good a product as humanly possible.

The platforms we intend to support are the following:

With development prioritizes more or less in that order, so that the primary platform is Android.

All the plans above are of course still preliminary and open for change, and you can easily have a say in those changes and speak your mind to us. All you have to do is comment on this blog post, contact us directly or on one of the social networks we’re on (links are farther down). We’re very curious to hear what you think, even if you’re the type of guy/girl who loves to point out flaws in plans or designs – a real hacker type person! Feel free to contact us and point out what we’ve done wrong or haven’t thought about. In the end your opinions might very well result in an even better final product.

The company website can be found at http://www.hoodgate.com/ although it’s still very preliminary. As we state several times on the page: We’d rather use our time developing the software you need rather than worry about website details at the moment. The short comings on the site will however be handled within the near future.

You can also find us at other places on the web. We invite you to get involved and get your voice heard. We’re listening!:

As we’ve covered in an earlier blogpost (http://blog.aconiac.com/2009/07/29/ruby-on-rails-security-guide/) OWASP is an organization working to improve web application security in the entire world, by means of a whole bunch of different free projects for developers, security professionals and end users.

A few weeks ago, OWASP released a guide/article with the title “Secure Application Development on Facebook”,  basically giving an outline of the security concerns involved in Facebook App development and how to make sure your application is sufficiently secure.

The guide/article can be found here: http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Facebook. The document is mainly designed for Facebook App developers, but can also be useful for decision makers wanting to understand the security architecture on Facebook (however certain sections should probably be skipped).

We highly recommend any company interested in Facebook Apps to read the guide from start to finish, and make it mandatory training for all Facebook related developers.

This is just one of many wonderful OWASP projects and in future blog posts we will look at some of the other great tools that are available to you, completely free of charge. If for some reason you don’t want to wait for these future blog posts, you can also just take a peak the the available projects straight away at: http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Project

McAfee came out with a blog post on March the 17th concerning a new scam targeted against Facebook users. An attack that had quite a significant success, and therefore clearly shows an issue that still isn’t being sufficiently adressed by private individuals as well as companies.

The original blog-post can be found here: http://www.avertlabs.com/research/blog/index.php/2010/03/17/facebook-suffers-password-reset-scam/

For the people who didn’t feel like going in and reading the original blog-post, I can give a small summary of it here:

Basically what it says is, that McAfee has been tracking a Facebook e-mail scam where users are being sent fake e-mails with the subject “Facebook Password Reset Confirmation! Customer Support.” including a message saying that the user’s password has been changed due to security reasons and that the new password is attached to the e-mail as a .zip file.

The scam is especially interesting because people generally fell for it. Within record time, it skyrocketed to number 6 on the Global Virus Map’s Top 10 list.

What this shows me, is that companies and other organizations still have a huge education task ahead of them with regards to security. Looking at the simple scam e-mail in its entirity, this is what the content says:

Dear user of facebook,

Because of the measures taken to provide safety to our clients, your password has been changed.

You can find your new password in attached document.

Thanks,

Your Facebook.

There are several tell-tale signs that this is clear cut scam mail.

First and foremost, Facebook directly warns against any e-mails claiming to be from them, if they include such things as requests for account information or include attachments.  All Facebook’s information on scam prevention can actually be found at: http://www.facebook.com/security?v=app_4949752878 . All companies should consider including this document in their general security training of all personel! Given a few years, Facebook, Twitter and the like will be used by the vast majority of all internet users (even more so than now), including traditionally non-technical users that don’t necessarily have the insight to detect attempts at IT-fraud.

But even if Facebook didn’t come out with any general information about what an official e-mail from them would look like (as most companies/organizations don’t), there are still several tell-tale signs:

Looking at the e-mail as it has been sent to most people, here are a list of my observations of scam-like characteristics:

• The e-mail is not recipient specific.
  What I mean by this is that the e-mail doesn’t mention the user specifically, but only refers to this person as “user of facebook”. This is highly unusual for a website so focused on user information. A website that would easily have access to specific information about i.e. your first name. Note however, that the lack of a personalized greeting is not necessarily an indicator of spam. In several situations some companies will probably choose to send out a non-personal greeting, but in such a case it would usually be worded differently and it would definitely not have included any profile information (i.e. a new password as an attachment)
• The presence of an attachment.
  Attachments are almost never used by any company, group or organization. If attachments are used, it will generally be because the recipient requested the given attachment. If you ever receive an attachment you didn’t expect (and I do mean EVER.. no matter who it’s from), be very skeptical! Call the sender up on the phone and ask for confirmation.
• Spelling, grammar and the like.
  Another tell-tale sign is the use of language and wording in a message. Would the real Facebook really refer to themselves as “facebook”, instead of “Facebook”. The lack of correct grammar might be possible for small companies, since they might not have anyone to check such things, but for any large company you can expect, that if there are more than a few simple microscopic typos (i.e. “teh” instead of “the”), it’s most likely a scam. Call the claimed sender on the phone for confirmation.
  Also Facebook would probably not call you their “client”, but instead their “user”.
• The e-mail is in plain text.
  Not all will agree with me on this point, but I do believe that serious individuals (especially companies) will generally send an e-mail in HTML with graphics, tables and layout and not as so called “plain text”, which is just simply characters + punctuation, with no possibility for images, tables, layout, text formating or anything of that sort. This is, as most rules above here, not a general rule and should not be used exclusively to discard an e-mail as a scam.
• Odd sign offs
  Somewhat related to the issue of spelling and language use, would Facebook really end an e-mail with “Thanks, Your Facebook”? Wouldn’t it be more likely they would end an e-mail with something along the lines of “Thanks, The Facebook Team”? Again this is not a clear cut sign of a scam, but this in union with other issues should put up a red flag for you. As always: Call for confirmation if in doubt! Any serious person will not mind that you care about security, they will most likely applaud it!
• Non-authenticated requests
  Whenever an e-mail asks you for any information you wouldn’t shout out in public, then that’s usually not information you should be sending through an e-mail in any way or form. That’s basically why we have encryption and digital signing for e-mails.
  But especially whenever an e-mails asks for account information or claim to include it, you should be skeptical. Normally whenever you access your account on the website (i.e. http://www.facebook.com/) you’ve gone through some form of authentication process, usually by means of simple username and password. You haven’t done this when checking your mail, so the website has no way of knowing it has reached the correct user with the relevant information or information request. A normal request for information will therefore include you having to go to the company or organization’s website and go through a process there – not on e-mail!
  Once again, there are exceptions and some companies don’t care much about the security and therefore do request information through an e-mail. So when in doubt: Call the company and ask for confirmation!
• Sender is wrong
  Obviously there is the option of checking the domain from which the e-mail was sent, but often times most users won’t be able to tell the difference between a correct subdomain and an incorrect one. So for most users this isn’t a viable solution for training.

All in all the real problem is that people are simply not skeptical enough and trust information sent to them over e-mail, social networks and text messages.

As companies and organizations, you need to make a continuous effort to educate your employees in all forms of basic security. Security isn’t only relevant for the IT-staff. All staffers need to have some basic understanding of what a scam might look like, no matter if it comes through an e-mail, a phone call or even physically at the business location.

There are several resources available to help you design an education program for your employees and if you need professional assistance, Aconiac is always available for a consultation.

The last several months we’ve been featuring a “Did you know?” daily tweet on Twitter. For the most part of this time, our feed has been fairly popular with at current 148 followers. The whole idea behind this campaign was actually not to continually feature these tweets, but to, at some point, come up with a new strategy for the use of Twitter, more focused on sharing our knowledge and views in a more directly usable manner.

We’ve now come to the point where we’ve decided to stop featuring the “Did you know?” tweets and instead begin twittering about subjects like the following:

• Security related news from around the world
• Public discussions we have an opinion about
• Research news from the fields of information security, cryptography and IT criminal psychology
• Security & business related comments from Aconiac Security Group members
• Tutorials & Guides which we believe our readers will find especially useful

Also unlike before, we will not be focused on putting out tweets once a day (or at any other specific time), but instead when they are relevant. This may mean that some days won’t even have any tweets at all, while other days may have several.

We hope our Twitter followers will keep on enjoying our feed, even though we’re now shifting focus! Feel free to comment on our actions here or on Twitter.. we want to hear what you think!

Best Regards

Aconiac Security Group

It’s been a while since we posted anything on the blog and there’s actually a very good reason for that! We’ve been very busy handling customers and finding a new office to move into. Now, after several months of looking, we’ve moved into our new offices at Møllevangs Allé 142, 8200 Århus N..

From here we will keep on doing our work, but more importantly we will be creating a new sister company focused on developing security solutions for the mobile worker. While employees working from home was one of the big threats to a company’s security infrastructure a few years ago, now and in the future we will see that mobile employees are much more at risk of being used as entrances to the company’s infrastructure. For example by hackers hacking into (or stealing) laptops, cell phones, PDA’s etc. Most of these mobile workstations still lack crucial security and many companies are running huge risks each and every day – we hope to change that sometime in the near future. But until then, feel free to contact us concerning your company’s security policies on mobile employees.

In conclusion, here’s a few pictures from our new offices:

As is sadly often the case, well-meaning newcomers to programming take on the newest and/or most popular programming language/framework available. And as you might suspect, they usually get it wrong and make every design and security mistake possible along the way!

This is a trend that we’ve seen with pretty much every popular programming language out there – like for example PHP, which sadly still holds the record for most insecure websites written in the language.

One very popular web framework these days is Ruby on Rails, created by the very talented 29 year old Danish guy David Heinemeier Hansson. It uses a Model-View-Controller construction and emphasizes good design by such principles as DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself). By all means it’s a very good web framework! But as with PHP, a lot of newcomers get it wrong. Either by not following the Ruby on Rails conventions or by ignoring security!

Now, we’re not here to teach you about design. If you want to learn more about proper software design, a good place to start is simply your local library. Look for books on topics like Design Patterns, Software Engineering, Extreme Programming, Test Driven Development and Agile Software Development.

However what we do want to teach you about, is proper security in Ruby on Rails! Luckily, we don’t have to take out extreme amounts of time from the work we need to do, to get you trained in RoR security – instead we can simply refer to the work already done by the OWASP organization. OWASP is an organization working to improve web application security in the entire world, by means of a whole bunch of different projects for developers, security professionals and end users. One of these projects is the Ruby on Rails Security Guide V2 project which includes a PDF file detailing the different security concerns and solutions concerning Ruby on Rails development.

If you are going to develop Ruby on Rails applications (or if you’re simply curious) please download the Ruby on Rails Security Guide from OWASP and read it before doing any production deployment of applications.

Note: If you’re too busy to go to the project page on OWASP and find the download link, then here’s a direct download link instead: Download the Security Guide