Red October or Red Herring

Kaspersky Labs has announced that someone had been conducting a hitherto unknown campaign wide-scale international espionage, dubbed Red October, for many years. Except it that I don’t think it has.

The story broke quietly on Friday in the Washington Post and has been repeated over some Internet news sites and blogs, almost verbatim, yesterday and today. Although keen for breaking news (especially where international intrigue is concerned), one should really take a step back and match the claims with the substance.

You can find the report here, although not the the Kaspersky site. It’s not the subject of any press release I’ve seen. No one could be contacted at Kaspersky for comment. Hmm. Specialist IT security sites, like Steve Gold’s IT Security Pro, aren’t treating this as a top story either. The only reason I’m hitting the keyboard is that people keep drawing it to my attention.

The report (assuming it isn’t a hoax) does contain a good analysis of what appears to be a new-ish botnet, although one that’s not very widespread (we’re not talking about Flame V2 here). Kaspersky has a lot of smart cookies working for them, and they do some very valuable research, but reading the posts on the subject you’d think they’d uncovered the next Watergate or similar. Perhaps they have, but all I’m seeing details so far  is of another botnet.

If their analysis is correct, the perpetrators do seem to be targeting government and diplomatic sites in particular, but this isn’t actually novel. They’ve identified targets in most of the developed world, with the interesting exception of England and China. As the code appears to be of Russian origin, and not particularly well obfuscated, it’s also noteworthy that the majority of the attacks have been launched against Russian targets.

So, as it stands, this looks like a competent investigations of a botnet. Well done Kaspersky. Now lets get some sleep.

 

New Java exploit in the wild

Today AlienVault reported yet another vulnerability in Java, similar to CVE-2012-4681. Their head of Labs Jaime Blasco got hold of it and has been playing with it on a fully patched Java installation, and according to them, it works. If you fancy trying  it yourself, here are the details.

With Java embedded in to most web browsers (and if you don’t know about yours, it’s probably is), this is serious stuff. All you need do is go to a web page with some nasty embedded Java on it (by following a link in an email) and your machine is vulnerable to takeover. If you want to check whether Java is enabled on your browser, click here and check the version. If it returns “”No working Java was detected on your system…” then you’re okay. Right now, the only good Java is a dead one.

When Java first appeared as a cross-platform application language, much play was made of it being “sandboxed”, so a Java application was insulated from other applications and the host operating system. It didn’t take long for features to be added to allow it to manipulate files on the local system, providing obvious ways to break out. Security consists of guessing the ways this may occur and blocking them. This is a recipe for disaster unless the code is very taught. Opening the gates and then screening is the opposite of secure system design.

I realised something was wrong when a Sun evangelist tried to sell me on the idea of embedded Java – “We’ve reduced the footprint to 4Mb”. This was back in 1998, and 4Mb of ROM  on an embedded system was a hell of a lot. And it’s not just the size – 4Mb of code for doing what should be pretty straightforward stuff rang alarm bells. I don’t know about embedded Java, but the current JVM running on PCs is now talking in Gb. It’s hugely inefficient, which is a price you might choose to pay, but from a security point of view there’s no way you’re going to have that much code without all sorts of nasty stuff lurking away forgotten. Which explains why it keeps on coming out to bite us.

The only way to avoid your PC (or Macintosh or Linux box) being compromised is to disable the JVM until Oracle issue a patch for it.

 

Bitlocker, PGP and TrueCrypt encryption broken (sort-of)

ElcomSoft has released a utility called Forensic Disk Decryptor that can get the data off encrypted hard drives without knowing the password. According to their web site it:

  • Decrypts information stored in three most popular crypto containers
  • Mounts encrypted BitLocker, PGP and TrueCrypt volumes

Amazing!

In complete decryption mode, Elcomsoft Forensic Disk Decryptor will automatically decrypt the entire content of the encrypted container, providing investigators with full, unrestricted access to absolutely all information stored on encrypted volumes.

Wow!

Elcomsoft Disk Decryptor PackageReading the technical details further, it’s not quite so amazing – they haven’t found a back-door to these encryption algorithms. Instead they’re examining the machine’s core (memory/RAM in user-land parlance) and pinching the key when they find it. This does, unfortunately, require that the machine in question is already running and decryption to be taking place ‘cos its user has already entered the password. This isn’t has hopeless as it sounds as there may be a core-dump (hibernation file) kicking around on an unencrypted hard disk, and indeed this is a known technique (one of very few) for getting data off these drives. Other methods are  scaring your suspect with a slap on the wrist if they don’t cough up the password, or running a trojan on the suspect’s PC (questionable legality).

According to ElcomSoft’s CEO, Vladimir Katalov, “Our customers asked us for a tool like this for a long, long time. We’re finally releasing a product that’s able to access encrypted volumes produced by all three popular crypto containers.”

ElcomSoft is a company that certainly knows what it’s doing, and this tool appears to automate a process that’s a PITA to do manually, but Mr. Katalov’s miraculous claims for the product shouldn’t unduly worry the user’s of this technology. It’s probably a good tool but it can’t do anything that wasn’t possible before.

Government’s Daft Communications Bill

Never mind the privicy aspects, the communication’s bill is worrying because it shows the government has no idea at all about how communications on the Internet work. They seem to thing that passing a law allowing agencies to record the fact of, and possibly intercept, Internet communications will make it technically possible for them to do so. It will not. It’s as daft as passing a law to ban “recreational” drug use and then expecting the problem to disappear.

My name is Elena and I live in small city in Russia.

You may have seen one or more of these in your inbox in the last few days:

Hello,
 
My name is Elena and I live in small city in Russia. I have a little daughter and no husband since he left us. Due to deep crisis recently I losted job and can not pay the heating bills for our home anymore. I finded your address at website and decided to write you from a public library. We urgent need heating because winter arriving and the temperature in our home is very cold. We can heat our home with a portable woodburner, but we unable buy it because it cost too much for us. If you own any old transportable woodburner from cast iron which you don’t use anymore, I pray you can gift to us and transport of it to us.
 
I hope for your answer.
 
Elena.

Okay – it’s obviously a scam, but it’s interesting as it’s getting through most spam filters. It actually originates from Tellas in Greece, from mail servers that aren’t blacklisted – although today it moved on to ADSL lines.

Reading the text, it’s  reminiscent of various “I’m a poor Russian in trouble” panhandles that appear annually at about this time of year. If you reply (it’s been tried) the person at the other end will suggest that instead of sending the stove you just send the money as she can buy one from the local market for a figure just under $200.

What I’m not so sure of is that the scammer is actually even Russian in this instance, as the language isn’t quite right. Russian speakers (in fact most East Europeans) are notoriously bad at using the definite or indefinite article (‘it’ or ‘a’) because it doesn’t exist in their language. This person fails to use it pretty consistently  thus sounding like a Russian trying to speak English, but slips up with “…buy it because it cost…”. She also has “…a little daughter…”. It suggests American, as a linguist friend pointed out, because of the use of “home” instead of “house” and “woodburner” instead of “wood burning stove”.

You might wonder why on earth the request is for a cast iron stove. Are the collecting them from scrap iron? Well, no – when you think about it, if you offer them a stove the shipping will be prohibitively expensive (they are heavy) so you can save money by simply sending the cash.

Anyone up on this kind of thing will  have been thinking “Valentin Mikhaylin” from the start. Okay, he changed the name to Elana in 2007 (or sometimes Valentin and his mother, Elana), but the stove story has been used for at least ten years. It has all the hallmarks, except one: This year the spams are getting through. This could be the scammer’s undoing – as everyone is receiving multiple copies it’s lost all plausibility in 2012. So what will 2013 be about, one wonders?

Don’t use your real birthday on web sites

You’d have to be completely crazy to enter your name, address and date-of-birth when registering on a web site if you had any inkling of the security implications. Put simply, these are security questions commonly used by your bank and you really don’t want such information falling in to the wrong hands. So, security-savvy people use a fake DOB on different web sites. If you want to play fair with a site that’s asking this for demographic research, use approximately the correct year by all means, but don’t give them you mother’s real maiden name or anything else used by banks or government agencies to verify your identity, or the criminals will end up using it for their own purposes (i.e. emptying your bank account).

That banks, or anyone else, use personal details that can be uncovered with a bit of research at the public record office is a worry in itself. It’s only a minor hindrance to fraudulent criminals unless you provide random strings and insist to your bank that your father married a Miss Iyklandhqys. The bank might get uppity about it, but they should be more interested in security than genealogy.

This common knowledge, and common sense advice was repeated by civil servant from the Cabinet Office called Andy Smith at the Parliament and the Internet Conference at Portcullis House a few days ago. I’ve never met him, but he seems to have a better grasp of security than most of the government and civil service.

Enter Ms Goodman – Labour MP for Bishop Auckland. She heard this and declared his advice as “totally outrageous”, and went on to say that “I was genuinely shocked that a public official could say such a thing.”

I wish I was genuinely shocked at the dangerous ignorance of many MPs, but I can’t say that I am. Her political masters (New Labour) haven’t acted nearly quickly enough to suppress this foolish person. In her defence, she used the context that people used anonymous account to bully others. This doesn’t bear any scrutiny at all.

When are we going to find a politician with the faintest clue about how cyber security works? The fact that this ignoramus hasn’t disappeared under a barrage of criticism suggests that this isn’t an isolated problem – they’re all as culpable. Her biography shows just how qualified she is to talk about cyber security (or life outside of the Westminster bubble). I’ve no idea what she’s like as a person or MP, but a security expert she isn’t.

I do hope they listen to Andy Smith.

 

BA e-ticket malware spam

Starting yesterday evening I’ve been seeing hundreds of emails sent to normally spam-free addresses claiming to be British Airways e-tickets. They are, of course, some new malware. It’s coming for a network of freshly compromised servers around the world (with a slight preference for Italy), so spam detection software won’t pick it up, and it’s new malware so virus scanners won’t find it either. As usual it’s a ZIP file containing an EXE, written in Borland Delphi I think.

The spambot code itself appears to be compiled on whatever Linux target the script attack has succeeded on, masquerading as “crond”.

Internet Explorer – new vulnerability makes it just too dangerous to use

There’s a very serious problem with all versions of Internet Explorer on all versions of Windows. See here for the osvdb entry.

In simple terms, it involves pages with Flash content, and all you’ve got to do is open a page on a dodgy web site and it’s game over for you. There’s no patch for it.

Microsoft’s advice can be found in this technet article. It’s pathetic. Their suggested work-around is to deploy the Microsoft Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit (EMET). Apparently this is a utility that “helps prevent vulnerabilities in software from successfully being exploited by applying in-box mitigations”. Microsoft continues “At this time, EMET is provided with limited support and is only available in the English language.”

Here’s my advice – just don’t use Internet Explorer until its been fixed.

Update

21-Sep-12

Microsoft has released a fix for this. See MS Security Bulletin MS 12-063.

If you have a legitimate copy of Windows this will download and install automatically, eventually. Run Windows Update manually to get it now – unfortunately it will insist on rebooting after installation.

 

TLS used in web browsers is vulnerable to cookie grabbing

I heard something really worrying yesterday – someone’s got a proof-of-concept that defeats TLS (previously known as SSL) encryption. Security researchers Thai Duong and Juliano Rizzo are planning to demonstrate this at Ekoparty in Argentina this week.

Fortunately this isn’t as bad as it sounds as it doesn’t actually involve breaking TLS, but it’s still pretty bad. It only applies to some web browsers, but it does allow the theft of supposedly encrypted login cookies and it seems to me a very practical method, although details aren’t officially published as yet. Basically, it involves putting some Javascript on a web site which causes the browser to fetch something from the site being targeted – say Paypal. The browser sends the request, encrypted along with the login cookie – compressed and then encrypted using TLS. You can’t read what’s in the TLS packets, but you can see how long they are.

Fundamentally, compression works by removing repeated information found in the uncompressed data. Therefore if you have repetition, the data compresses better. By making a number of requests for differing data (like bogus image file names) you’ll know by the size of the compressed packet if data in the unknown login cookie contains data repeated in the file requested simply because the combined encrypted packet will get shorter. In other words, because the unknown cookie and known file request are compressed into the same packet, you can determine whether there is any repetition simply by comparing the size of the compressed data – when it gets shorter you’ve got a match. Apparently you need make as few a six bogus requests for each letter in the login cookie to work out its contents.

You obviously need to be eavesdropping on the line, and your victim must be running your Javascript on their browser, but as TLS is there to prevent eavesdropping then this is a serious failure. It’s not the fault of TLS, but that of browser protocol writers, hoping that implementing TLS gives them security without further consideration.

Some people have suggested that this attack would be difficult to implement in practice, but I disagree. Why not simply hijack the DNS at an Internet Cafe (with a fake DCHP server) and force everyone to run the Javascript from the first web site they tried to open, and either snoop the WiFi or sniff the packets off the wire using traditional methods of circumventing switches.

Apparently this flaw doesn’t affect IE, but the others were vulnerable until tipped off about it. Make sure you’re running a current version

Chip and Pin is Definitely Not Safe

I’ve always had my doubts about Chip and Pin (or EMV to give it its proper name). We’ve all heard stories of people having cards stolen and used, when this should be impossible without the PIN. There are also credible stories of phantom withdrawals. The banks, as usual, stonewall; claiming that the victim allowed their PIN to be known, and that it was impossible for criminals to do this while you still had the card so someone close to you must be “borrowing” it.

In the old days it was very easily  to copy a card’s magnetic strip – to “clone” the card. Then all the criminals needed was the PIN, which could be obtained by looking over someone’s shoulder while they entered it. Cash could then be withdrawn with the cloned card, any time, any place, and the victim wouldn’t know anything about it. Chip and Pin was designed to thwart this, because you can’t clone a chip.

Well, it turns out that you don’t have to clone the card. All you need to do is send the bank the same code as the card would, and it will believe you’re using the card. In theory this isn’t possible, because the communications are secure between the card and the bank. A team of researchers at Cambridge University’s Computer Lab has just published a paper explaining why this communication isn’t secure at all.

I urge to you read the paper, but be warned, it’s unsettling. Basically, the problem is this:

The chip contains a password, which the bank knows (a symmetric key) and a transaction counter which is incremented each time the card is used. For an ATM withdrawal this data is encrypted and sent to the bank along with the details of the proposed transaction and the PIN, and the bank sends back a yes or no depending on whether it all checks out. It would be fairly easy to simply replay the transaction to the bank and have it send back the signal to dispense the money, except that a  random number (nonce) is added before its encrypted so no two transactions should be the same. If they are, the bank knows it’s a replay and does nothing.

What the researchers found was that with some ATMs, the random number was not random at all – it was predictable. All you need do is update your transaction with the next number  and send it to the bank, and out comes the dough. It’s not trivial, but its possible and criminals are known to be very resourceful when it comes to stealing money from ATMs.

What’s almost as scary is how the researchers found all this out: partly by examining ATM machines purchased on eBay! (I checked, there are machines for sale right now). There’s a bit of guidance on what random means in the latest EMV specification; the conformance test simply requires four transactions in a row to have different numbers.

It’s inconceivable to me that no one at the banks knew about this until they were tipped off by the researchers earlier this year. Anyone with the faintest clue about cryptography and security looking at code for these ATMs would have spotted the flaw. This begs the question, who the hell was developing the ATMs?

In the mean time, banks have been trying to pretend to customers than phantom withdrawals on their accounts must be their fault and refusing to refund the money, claiming that Chip and Pin is secure. It’s not, and a day of reckoning can’t come too soon.

Credit for the research goes to  Mike Bond, Omar Choudary, Steven J. Murdoch,Sergei Skorobogatov, and Ross Anderson at Cambridge. Unfortunately they’re probably not the first to discover it as it appears the criminals have know about it for some time already.