STE WILLIAMS

Facebook Tops Imitated Brands as Attackers Target Tech

Brand impersonators favor Facebook, Yahoo, Network, and PayPal in phishing attempts to steal credentials from victims.

Facebook is the most popular company to impersonate among cybercriminals launching brand phishing attacks, which most commonly spoof major organizations in the technology industry.

Eighteen percent of brand phishing attempts in the fourth quarter of 2019 were designed to mimic Facebook. In these attacks, criminals imitate an official company by creating a website and domain or URL similar to the targeted brand. The link can be sent via email or SMS, redirected while browsing, or sent from a fraudulent mobile app, Check Point analysts report.

Following Facebook in popularity were Yahoo (10%), Netflix (5%), PayPal (5%), Microsoft (3%), Spotify (3%), Apple (2%), Google (2%), Chase (2%), and Ray Ban (2%). Web-based attacks made up 48% of total brand phishing instances, followed by email (27%), and mobile (25%) attacks.

Brands’ popularity varied depending on how the attack was conducted. Attackers favored Chase and Facebook for mobile attacks, for example, but preferred Spotify and Microsoft for Web-based attacks. Yahoo and Ray Ban were frequently seen in attacks on email inboxes.

Researchers who compiled the Check Point Research Brand Phishing Report for Q4 advise readers to avoid clicking promotional links and instead use Google to get to retailers’ websites, paying attention to links in Google results. Beware of special offers – an 80% discount on a new iPhone really is too good to be true – and be wary of lookalike domains and spelling errors in emails or websites, they also say.

Read more details here.

Check out The Edge, Dark Reading’s new section for features, threat data, and in-depth perspectives. Today’s top story: “What Is a Privileged Access Workstation (PAW)?.”

Dark Reading’s Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/threat-intelligence/facebook-tops-imitated-brands-as-attackers-target-tech/d/d-id/1336990?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Cybersecurity Vendor Landscape Transforming as Symantec, McAfee Enter New Eras

Two years ago, Symantec and McAfee were both primed for a comeback. Today, both face big questions about their future.

During the past two decades, the cybersecurity technology landscape has become astoundingly vast, numbering thousands of companies around the world. Throughout that time, two of the companies that have been at the center of that ecosystem have been Symantec and McAfee. This pair of industry bedrocks pioneered and refined many of the security capabilities that remain fundamental today, and their brands have become synonymous with security.

Today, their halcyon days have long faded. After struggling to adapt to change and overcome adversity for more than a decade, both companies are now charting new paths. But the ramifications have triggered seismic shifts in the vendor landscape, signaling what may be the start of the cybersecurity industry’s next era.

Despite successful endpoint and identity businesses, Symantec has sought to reinvent itself for most of this century with little success. Its 2005 merger with Veritas seemed to create a cybersecurity software-hardware powerhouse, but the synergies never developed; Symantec divested Veritas a decade later.

Symantec then hoped the acquisitions of web-proxy giant Blue Coat Systems in 2016 and consumer anti-fraud specialist LifeLock just months later would provide an infusion of both technology and revenue. But when Symantec finally seemed to be turning things around, Symantec’s brash CEO Greg Clark and his former Blue Coat management team found themselves in a series of scandals, including improper revenue recognition, a subsequent shareholder lawsuit, and alleged unethical executive behavior. In May, Clark stepped down, Symantec had its sixth CEO in 10 years, and key shareholders had had enough.

When Richard Hill, a noted corporate teardown artist, was appointed as Clark’s successor, it was only a matter of time before Symantec found new ownership and new direction. Sure enough, just weeks later, Broadcom announced the acquisition of Symantec’s enterprise business for $10.7 billion, a deal that was finalized in November. Symantec’s products and brand would live on; Symantec the company is no more.

McAfee’s Tumultuous Journey
A long-running accounting scandal in the late 2000s stunted McAfee’s momentum, and Intel pounced on the opportunity, acquiring the company in 2010 for nearly $7.7 billion. However, Intel’s aspirations of integrating the renamed Intel Security unit with its own budding hardware security capabilities never came to fruition, leaving the former McAfee underfunded and losing its competitive edge.

Seven years later, Intel struck a $4.2 billion deal with private equity firms TPG Capital and Thoma Bravo to spin McAfee back out as an independent company. But when it reemerged in 2017, it had a lot of catching up to do. Finally empowered to fix McAfee’s ills, CEO Chris Young acted decisively, nixing nearly a dozen non-core products, releasing a slew of new and updated commercial offerings, and refreshing its brand and go-to-market strategy.

Then in 2018, McAfee went all-in on cloud security, acquiring cloud access security broker (CASB) Skyhigh Networks in a deal believed to be in excess of $300 million. Finally, McAfee was positioned as burgeoning leader in increasingly critical areas including cloud security and best-of-breed third-party integration.

But McAfee’s private equity owners grew impatient, frustrated by a turnaround perceived to be taking too long and a Skyhigh Networks deal in January 2018 that wasn’t delivering enough return on investment. Last month, Young stepped down as CEO, replaced by veteran technology executive Peter Leav, a turnaround specialist whose expertise lies in resuscitating struggling companies like BMC and Polycom and ultimately preparing them for sale.

What’s next for these two industry titans? The future remains uncertain, but both seem further and further away from a second renaissance. Symantec, now a division of Broadcom and separate from its now-independent consumer division, NortonLifeLock, had shed, conservatively, 50% of its employees in the past year.

What’s Ahead
Broadcom is refocusing Symantec on its core competencies such as endpoint, identity, and data protection, with a bend toward courting Fortune 1000 customers. However, following the newly announced sale of Symantec’s managed services business to Accenture, it is unclear if Broadcom is willing to reinvest in Symantec and rebuild trust among customers and partners, or if Broadcom merely intends to squeeze every last drop of revenue out of what’s left.

As for McAfee, all options are on the table, including another sale, a long-rumored IPO, or even a merger with a rival such as NortonLifeLock or Sophos. Regardless, like Symantec, more change is coming to McAfee, sooner rather than later.

What does all this mean for the industry? In short, no vendor is safe. In cybersecurity, where the constantly shifting threat landscape fosters a steady stream of innovative technologies and hungry startups to peddle them, the pace of change is only accelerating. For established vendors, there’s no such thing as playing it safe anymore.

Meanwhile, a new generation of industry titans is rising, vendors such as CrowdStrike, Fortinet, Palo Alto Networks, and Trend Micro. Their success will be measured not only in customers, revenue, and profits, but also their ability to embrace disruption and harness innovation.

Enterprises must come to grips with the pace of change as well. For example, the era of the five-year and perhaps even the three-year vendor contract may be coming to an end. Enterprises can’t afford to risk a long-term commitment to a vendor or provider that may lose its ability to execute and innovate, which is something that can happen increasingly quickly. Ask Symantec and McAfee. Two years ago, both seemed to be primed for a comeback. Their days may not be numbered, but their reversals of fortune are a lesson in how quickly and dramatically the business of cybersecurity can change.

Related Content:

Check out The Edge, Dark Reading’s new section for features, threat data, and in-depth perspectives. Today’s top story: “C-Level Studying for the CISSP.”

Eric Parizo supports Ovum’s Cybersecurity Accelerator, its research practice supporting vendor, service provider, and enterprise clients in the area of enterprise cybersecurity. Eric covers global cybersecurity trends and top-tier vendors in North America. He has been … View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/cybersecurity-vendor-landscape-transforming-as-symantec-mcafee-enter-new-eras/a/d-id/1336961?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Forescout Acquired by Private Equity Team

The deal, valued at $1.9 billion, is expected to close next quarter.

Forescout Technologies has announced it will be acquired by private equity investors Advent International, with participation by Crosspoint Capital Partners. Advent will pay $33 per share for a total all-cash transaction of $1.9 billion.

Forescout was valued at $25.45 on Oct. 18, the last full day of trading before Corvex Management L.P. and Jericho Capital Asset Management L.P. released 13-D forms announcing their intent to acquire a 14.5% stake in the company. Advent’s purchase represents a 30% premium over the closing price.

The transaction is expected to close in the second quarter of 2020. Michael DeCesare will continue as president and CEO after the acquisition.

Read more here.

Check out The Edge, Dark Reading’s new section for features, threat data, and in-depth perspectives. Today’s top story: “What Is a Privileged Access Workstation (PAW)?.”

Dark Reading’s Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/analytics/forescout-acquired-by-private-equity-team/d/d-id/1336991?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Android pulls 24 ‘dangerous’ malware-filled apps from Play Store

Android users: got a mobile app named Weather Forecast?

If so, you should squash it like a bug. Google’s Play Store has already swatted it, along with 23 other vermin apps, all of which have cumulatively been downloaded more than 382 million times.

Their commonalities: they all come from a Chinese parent company that’s tucked behind a handful of app developers, and they all have a penchant to ask for dangerous permissions, harvest data and send it back to Chinese servers, sneakily launch browser windows and click on ads, and/or sign you up for pricey premium phone numbers.

Researchers from VPN Pro recently discovered the bad apps when looking into the dangerous permissions that popular free antivirus apps request.

Such apps are called rogueware. As Sophos’s Roland Yu has explained in this whitepaper, the term describes apps that pretend to detect and fix problems… while also trying to convince you to pay money or even to add more malware. They ask for permission to upload files to your system – a permission that can lead to an app adding malware to your device that, insult added to injury, you’ll have to pay to remove.

VPN Pro Researcher Jan Youngren said in a blog post on Monday that when his team analyzed 23 companies behind 100+ VPN products, a developer called Hi Security with three VPN products under its name popped up. As the researchers kept digging into the excessive, unnecessary, dangerous permissions these apps ask for, the name Hi Security popped up again.

VPN Pro found that Hi Security was just the tip of the iceberg. It turns out that, tucked away behind the app developer Hi Security, is its owner: a Chinese company called Shenzhen HAWK that has yet another four app developers. Shenzhen HAWK is behind the two dozen apps on VPN Pro’s list of apps to steer clear of, some of which are known for containing malware and rogueware.

Youngren said that the Weather Forecast app is infected with malware: during testing, it was seen harvesting users’ data and sending it to a server in China; subscribing users to premium phone numbers, leading to stiff charges on their phone bills; launching hidden browser windows; and clicking on ads.

These apps have been around for years. Youngren cited another case of one of Hi Security’s bad apps, Virus Cleaner. In 2017, the Indian government told its military to delete the app after it was identified as being spyware or other malware.

Then, in 2018, default apps on Alcatel phones – as in, apps that were foisted on users and weren’t downloaded out of their own, free will – were updated to spew adware. The source of the new, adware-gushing default apps? They too were developed by Shenzhen HAWK.

Named and shamed

After Google got a heads-up from a Forbes writer on Tuesday, it yanked all of the 24 apps in the Shenzhen network from the Play store. These are the apps that it removed:

  • HI VPN, Free VPN
  • Soccer Pinball
  • Dig It
  • Laser Break
  • Word Crush
  • Music Roam
  • Word Crossy!
  • Puzzle Box
  • World Zoo
  • Private Browser
  • Calendar Lite
  • Turbo Browser
  • Joy Launcher
  • Virus Cleaner 2019
  • Super Cleaner
  • Hi Security 2019
  • Candy Selfie Camera
  • Super Battery
  • Candy Gallery
  • Hi VPN Pro
  • Net Master
  • filemanager
  • Sound Recorder
  • Weather Forecast

Google had this to say about reports of the apps’ security and privacy violations:

If we find behavior that violates our policies, we take action.

Well, it’s certainly had practice at that.

Examples include that time in September 2019, when we heard about fleeceware in the Play Store that was automatically charging up to $250 to continue using it beyond its three-day trial period.

As we’ve noted before when covering rogue apps in Play Store, Google often doesn’t seem to notice the problem at all until researchers report the apps for malicious or exploitative behavior.

Unfortunately, bad apps often fall through the automatic screening in the app stores if they themselves don’t flagrantly pull malicious stunts but instead pave the way for a device’s compromise, as pointed out by SophosLabs malware analyst Jagadeesh Chandraiah:

Because the apps themselves aren’t engaging in any kind of traditionally malicious activity, they skirt the rules that would otherwise make it easy for Google to justify removing them from the Play Market.


Latest Naked Security podcast

LISTEN NOW

Click-and-drag on the soundwaves below to skip to any point in the podcast. You can also listen directly on Soundcloud.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nakedsecurity/~3/8tR9brfQrYs/

Google’s Chrome 80 clamps down on cookies and notification spam

Version 80 of the Chrome browser is out with some new features designed to save your security and your sanity.

The latest version of Google’s browser rolled out this Tuesday, 4 February. There are several key changes, but one of the most significant is that it delivers on a promise it made in 2019 about how it handles cookies.

Cookies are the small files websites store in your browser to identify you on future visits. Two kinds of site can request a cookie from your browser. The first is the first-party site that you are visiting, which needs those cookies for things like logging you back in automatically. The second is a third-party site, which the original site might call out to.

There are many reasons for a first-party site to tell a third-party site that you are visiting. Some of them are annoying, like telling advertising companies where you are going online (tracking). Others are more innocuous, such as downloading scripts and fonts from third-party sites to give you a better experience. Either way, if the third-party site doesn’t manage cookies properly, or if another site manages to impersonate a legitimate third-party site, it could introduce security problems. So, Google has introduced tighter third-party cookie controls in Chrome.

The changes pivot around the SameSite tag, which is a draft Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) standard proposed by Google and Mozilla. Developers can use it to tell browsers that cookies should not be sent with cross-site requests. It helps to eliminate things like cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks.

Under the new rules, Chrome 80 will introduce secure-by-default cookie classification using SameSite. If a cookie doesn’t come with an attached SameSite value, then the browser will treat that as though they were tagged SameSite=Lax. That’s the same as forbidding them to be sent to a third-party site.

For a cookie to be sent to a third party, a website developer will have to tag it as SameSite=None; Secure. That means it can only be sent to sites using HTTPS, which is the more secure, encrypted version of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol that web servers use to send a browser their web page data.

This won’t happen all at once. Google will roll it out to a small population of Chrome 80 users later in February, gradually increasing its coverage over time. If all the rows show up green on this page, then you’re in that group.

Other changes in Chrome 80 include an alteration in the way that it handles website notifications. These are the small windows that pop up in your browser with things like news and messages. In existing versions of Chrome, you have to give a site express permission before it sends you notifications, but even that initial permission request can be annoying. A lot of sites pop them up as soon as you load them, and malicious sites can also use them for scams and malware.

Last month, the Chromium blog announced that Chrome 80 will include a new, quieter notification permission interface. Instead of a box that blares at you, interrupting your flow, you’ll see a polite little bell icon in the address bar to warn you that notifications are blocked. If you click the bell, you’ll still be able to see the content.

It sounds like Chrome will learn from your behaviour when offering this feature. Typically, you’ll have to opt-in manually using Chrome’s settings (go to Settings Site Settings Notifications), but the browser will also turn it on automatically if it sees you blocking notification permission requests as a matter of course. It will also enable it for sites that have very low opt-in rates.

Chrome 80 also sees some changes in the way that the browser handles HTTPS requests. The problem is many pages using HTTPS still load some of the content they contain using insecure HTTP. This is called mixed content and it’s a particular problem for images, audio, and video, Google has said. It’s all very well loading a page securely, but if it loads a secure image that compromises your browser, you may as well not have bothered with HTTPS at all.

The company moved towards blocking all mixed content by default in Chrome 79, but it’s doing it in stages. In Chrome 80, mixed audio and video resources will be upgraded automatically to HTTPS. If they can’t load using that protocol, the browser will block them. Mixed images will still load, but they will prompt a “Not Secure” icon in the omnibox (that’s the address bar, to you and me).


Latest Naked Security podcast

LISTEN NOW

Click-and-drag on the soundwaves below to skip to any point in the podcast. You can also listen directly on Soundcloud.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nakedsecurity/~3/yYDlj-wH94I/

RSAC Sets Finalists for Innovation Sandbox

The 10 finalists will each have three minutes to make their case for being the most innovative, promising young security company of the year.PreviousNext

For 14 years, 10 companies have taken the stage at the RSA Conference to make their case for the most promising, innovative technology. Now, the conference has named the 10 finalists for the RSA Innovation Sandbox presentations that will give venture capitalists, investors, competitors, and conference attendees the chance to see some of the latest in technology from these young companies.

The RSAC Innovation Sandbox gives each participant 3 minutes — no more — to make their presentation. In that time, they must sell both the product or service and their company with what is typically a well-rehearsed, finely honed, and frequently high-speed spiel. This year, the Sandbox’s 15th, the presentations will take place at the Moscone Center beginning at 1:30 p.m. PST. By 4:30 p.m. that same day, one company will be preparing to celebrate.

According to RSAC, the 140 previous finalists in the Innovation Sandbox have collectively seen 48 acquisitions and raised $5.2 billion in investments. The question is how much the ten companies on the list that follows will add to those totals.

(Image: goodmoments VIA Adobe Stock)

 

Curtis Franklin Jr. is Senior Editor at Dark Reading. In this role he focuses on product and technology coverage for the publication. In addition he works on audio and video programming for Dark Reading and contributes to activities at Interop ITX, Black Hat, INsecurity, and … View Full BioPreviousNext

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/theedge/rsac-sets-finalists-for-innovation-sandbox/b/d-id/1336963?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Yahoo! hack! payout! nearly! approved! and! the! question! is! how! to! spend! 60! cents!?

Long-suffering Yahoo! customers may finally get some compensation for having their personal details exposed to hackers not once, not twice, not three times, nor four times, but five times between 2012 and 2016.

The proposed $117.5m settlement from the US class-action lawsuit brought back when Yahoo! actually existed is headed toward its final approval by a judge. Millions of customers received an email this week outlining what they have to do to get their hands on that filthy lucre.

There’s good news and bad news: the good news is that if you had a Yahoo! account between 2012 and 2016 you are eligible for “up to $358.80”; the bad news is that not only do you have to fill in a form to get it, not only do you have to remember that Yahoo! email address you stopped using years ago, but unless you have credit monitoring, you don’t get a cent.

Even if you do have credit monitoring and do fill in the form, chances are you won’t get anywhere near $358. There were 196 million people affected by the five separate security breaches, which equates to a rather pathetic 60 cents each. But everyone is confident that no one wants anything to do with Yahoo! anymore so they are saying that if you fill in the form you will get at least $100. We’ll see.

This is Yahoo!, of course, so nothing’s that easy. The lawyers have agreed to the same approach as the horrible Equifax security breach settlement, where you have to provide proof of your credit monitoring service in order to get any cash – and there are five questions you need to answer for that.

Why five and why don’t these companies just get the information from those companies directly? Because class-action lawsuits suck, that’s why.

Guess who wins?

Yet there is one group that’s happy, and that is, of course, the lawyers. They want a disgraceful 25.5 per cent payoff in the form of a roughly $30m check. And if you think that’s high, the judge agrees with you: Judge Lucy Koh refused to accept an agreed settlement this time last year because the lawyers wanted $35m.

yahoo

Yahoo! Groups’ closure and a tale of Oftel: Die-hard users ‘informally’ included telcos

READ MORE

She kicked them out the courtroom and three months later they came back with a self-compensation figure of $30m. That wasn’t the only reason Koh refused the settlement last year – she also said it was too vague and didn’t describe the website breaches sufficiently. In other words, Verizon-owned Yahoo! was trying to vague its way through the legal system. Yeah, we’re using vague as a verb.

This time the settlement language listed each website hack specifically, and gives a brief explanation for each. Although it omits the reality, which is that Yahoo! suffered all these system intrusions because it was utterly incompetent and running around like a headless chicken with Marissa Meyer as CEO.

So, if you can stand it, if you can remember your Yahoo! email address, have credit monitoring, and are willing to dig out the details, then head over to the settlement website to claim your reward for putting up with Yahoo! for all those years.

Incidentally, this reporter was able to login to his old Yahoo! account (after resetting the password he’d forgotten) using just his username but can’t remember the actual email address and – amazingly – Yahoo!’s mail system isn’t working so the workaround of sending an email to a different account to discover it doesn’t work either.

Oh, Yahoo!, how we don’t miss you. ®

Sponsored:
Detecting cyber attacks as a small to medium business

Article source: https://go.theregister.co.uk/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2020/02/06/yahoo_breach_settlement/

LCD pwn System: How to modulate screen brightness to covertly transmit data from an air-gapped computer… slowly

Boffins from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and Shamoon College of Engineering in Israel have come up with yet another TEMPEST-style attack to exfiltrate data from an air-gapped computer: leaking binary signals invisibly by slightly modulating the light coming off its monitor.

TEMPEST, or Telecommunications Electronics Material Protected from Emanating Spurious Transmission, refers to an NSA specification designed to prevent the capture of thermal, acoustic, optical, electronic, or kinetic device emanations that might convey information about a protected system.

The researchers who developed this screen illumination scheme, Mordechai Guri, Dima Bykhovsky, and Yuval Elovici, have done previous side channel transmission work: exploring ultrasonic data leakage (MOSQUITO), an escape route for Faraday-caged computers (ODINI); computer-smartphone data exchange via electrical fields (MAGNETO); acoustic signaling using fan modulation (FANSMITTER); and covert signaling via keyboard lights (CTRL-ALT-LED), among other techniques.

The latest paper from the trio, presented at the 12th CMI Conference on Cybersecurity and Privacy in November and just distributed via ArXiv, is called “BRIGHTNESS: Leaking Sensitive Data from Air-Gapped Workstations via Screen Brightness.”

The utility of this technique looks fairly limited. The assumed target is a computer that’s not connected to a network. And before the BRIGHTNESS attack can take place, this air-gapped device must be infected with malware, to install code for screen modulation. This could be achieved through an evil maid attack, prior supply chain meddling, or a USB stick drop attack, for example.

It also requires a device capable of picking up the emanations from the infiltrated target machine – a nearby video camera in this instance. There’s a further assumption that the object of the attack isn’t to capture information displayed on screen and that the camera doesn’t have a direct view of the screen.

Given those circumstances, it’s possible to modify the screen pixel intensity in a way that transmits data residing on the target machine – without anyone seeing that this is going on.

“This covert channel is invisible and it works even while the user is working on the computer,” the researchers explain in their paper. “Malware on a compromised computer can obtain sensitive data (e.g., files, images, encryption keys and passwords), and modulate it within the screen brightness, invisible to users.”

scream

Boffins: Mixed-signal silicon can SCREAM your secrets to all

READ MORE

These modulations, which involve increasing the brightness of red pixels by 3 per cent to convey a binary ‘1’ without any evident change, can nonetheless be reconstructed from video captured by a nearby security camera, smartphone camera, or webcam.

And when we say nearby, we’re talking about within nine meters if the receiving device is a security camera or webcam and within 1.5 meters if it’s smartphone.

Even if all these requirements are met, this isn’t a quick process: Guri, Bykhovsky, and Elovici managed to exfiltrate the bit sequence ‘1010101010101010’ from a 19-inch display at a bitrate of 5 bit/sec using a camera six meters from the screen.

You can see just how tediously slow this is in a YouTube video showing the attack capturing text of A.A. Milne’s “Winnie-the-Pooh” from the screen flicker coming off a PC in an office adjacent to a video camera.

Youtube Video

The boffins in their paper touch on potential countermeasures, like policies that restrict access to sensitive computers and polarized screen filters that hinder optical signaling. Would-be spies meanwhile may wish to revisit XKCD’s security analysis about the utility of a $5 wrench before embarking on an elaborate penetration exercise. ®

Sponsored:
Detecting cyber attacks as a small to medium business

Article source: https://go.theregister.co.uk/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2020/02/06/lcd_pwn_system/

Vixie: The Unintended Consequences of Internet Privacy Efforts

Paul Vixie says emerging encryption protocols for endpoints could ‘break’ security in enterprise – and even home – networks.

Internet pioneer Paul Vixie has a red flag warning for CISOs: a movement toward baking in more privacy for Internet users soon could begin to burn some enterprise security efforts.

A new generation of Internet standards in the wings aimed at protecting the privacy of end users – DNS over HTTPS (DoH), TLS 1.3 ESNI (Encrypted Server Name Indication), and HTTP/3 over the QUIC Internet transport protocol – could impede next-generation firewalls and other security tools from detecting and filtering out malicious traffic, says Vixie, the chairman, CEO, and co-founder of Farsight Security.

Industry experts like Vixie have been debating how encryption hampers the security team’s visiblity for some time now, but the real-world implications that had them concerned could soon be felt by businesses, and consumers.

DoH already is an available feature option in Chrome and Firefox browsers: it places DNS queries in encrypted HTTPS sessions so they can’t be intercepted or viewed. The TLS 1.3 ESNI encryption protocol prevents ISPs and firewalls (and nation-states) from viewing the sites user are visiting in order to track or censor their online activity and access. That protocol, according to Vixie, is at least another two years away from wide deployment.

As he explains, well-intentioned user privacy efforts in the post-Edward Snowden era don’t necessarily translate verbatim into Internet infrastructure security. The origins of the Internet in the 1970s was as an open network for government contractors, universities, and researchers, and its evolution into the massive communications platform for all users – consumer, commercial, government, and inadvertently, cybercriminals and nation-state threat groups.

“The Internet lacks admission control: it was all government contractors and universities back in the day. In the architecture and culture of the Internet, it’s almost impossible to prevent DDoSes [distributed denial-of-service attacks] or spam or any sort of uncooperative communications,” Vixie says. The Internet’s underlying model also has confounded efforts to remove malicious domains, too.

Paul Vixie, Farsight Security

“There’s this universal system of Internet resources and a lot of people who hate you or want to steal your stuff out there, and you have no recourse. Once you’re in the Internet, it’s very difficult to keep it from reaching you,” he says, describing much of today’s Internet communication as “nonconsensual.”

Today, more than half of Internet traffic to an endpoint is unwanted, Vixie notes. Later this month at the RSA Conference in San Francisco, Vixie will outline the security implications of the Internet’s privacy evolution in a presentation entitled “Consent, Alignment and Cooperation in the Internet Era.”

Technical Difficulties

Running Domain Name System (DNS) over encrypted Web sessions with DoH, for instance, complicates enterprise security. The DoH protocol handles DNS resolution over HTTPS, the encrypted Web protocol, to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks that listen in on or manipulate DNS, but it also blocks the ability for security tools to spot malware or other nefarious activity.

“Privacy and encryption are two entirely different things,” notes encryption expert Andrew Campling, director of UK-based 419 Consulting Ltd. Campling says DoH was largely an effort led by browser makers and didn’t take into consideration the network implications of that level of application-layer encryption.

For a financial services firm, for example, DoH could allow a rogue trader to bypass the firms internal systems. “If I’m a financial services firm I may have an absolute requirement to archive all incoming and outgoing communication between my traders and their customers for compliance purposes,” Campling explains. And the rogue trader’s communications couldn’t be detected and archived, thus putting the firm into dangerous compliance exposure, he says.

Service providers that offer Parental Controls also face issues with DoH since those controls couldn’t necessarily be enforced.

“It will raise the complexity for enterprise users and IT teams, but it’s not all unsurmountable,” he says. In Chrome, for example, IT can disable or “grey out” the DoH feature option, but of course that means IT has to actually be aware that this feature is out there, he says.

An industry initiative led by Comcast called the Encrypted DNS Deployment Initiative (EDDI) aims to identify the challenges with these emerging encryption technologies and how to overcome them, he notes. Other major players in EDDI include Akamai, ATT, Cox, Microsoft, Sprint, Verizon, and Vixie’s company.

Meantime, Vixie worries that once corporate users start running DoH in their browsers, it will be difficult to flag botnet activity, for instance. “The inability to know what the agents, or employees, or intruders are doing is a big problem for your average CISO,” he says. “So DNS over HTTPS [DoH] is another prime example of that. Using DNS lookups as an early indicator of trouble has become pretty common.”

While Encrypted SNI is at least two years away from landing full-force in enterprises, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be on enterprise radar screens: “We are about one year away from this being enough to cause a problem, even though it will not be a majority of traffic,” he says.

Vixie says ESNI will “break” next-generation firewalls. “It will not be possible to transparently intercept outbound traffic in a next-generation firewall,” he says. That’s by design, he notes, due to concerns of cybercriminals and nation-states intercepting traffic as well. “Now the system [will have] … a resistance to that transparent interception model,” he says.

He worries that there’s not much awareness about these technologies that are just around the corner, either. “Nobody is really aware of this. When I talk to a roomful of CISOs, their eyes get wide,” he says, when they realize that means that could break their regulatory and legal compliance.

“They’ve got a lot of planning and reinvestment to do before this technology gets out into the wild,” Vixie says.

What to Do About It
Vixie recommends that organizations start to build a managed private network in the next six months that allows them to still employ next-generation firewall functions, for example, and to remain compliant with regulations and enforce their BYOD policies. That in somce cases means creating a private DNS for the access side of their user traffic, he says.

“You’re going to have to install a proxy HTTPS” server so that your endpoints that need access to sites inside “dangerous and shared IP ranges” can do so, he says. “There is no good choice.”

To date, organizations have had mostly free range in how they intercept traffic at the gateway and perimeter of the network. “We’ve gotten a fairly free ride,” Vixie notes. “Now we have to make a more complicated, more expensive perimeter” with more proxy-type communications.

Related Content:

 

Kelly Jackson Higgins is the Executive Editor of Dark Reading. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise … View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/risk/vixie-the-unintended-consequences-of-internet-privacy-efforts-/d/d-id/1336985?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Time to patch your lightbulb? Researchers demonstrate Philips Hue exploit

Researchers at Check Point have demonstrated how to infect a network with malware via a simple IoT device, a Philips Hue smart lightbulb.

This is an exercise in escalation. There are a couple of vulnerabilities involved. One is CVE-2020-6007 which is a buffer overflow in the Philips Hue Bridge controller firmware, in the part of the software that adds new devices to the controller. The other is based on 2016 research on how to persuade a Hue lightbulb to change its affinity from one controller to another. In order to pull this off, you need a Zigbee transmitter in close proximity to the target (Zigbee is the mesh-networking standard used by the Hue system).

The attack described by Check Point involves first taking over the lamp, updating it with malicious firmware, and then making it misbehave. The user then follows the procedure to reset the lamp by removing it and then re-adding to their Hue controller. This triggers the buffer overflow vulnerability via the specially crafted firmware, executing malware on the Hue Bridge. The bridge is connected to the local TCP/IP network, so the malware can now look for computers to compromise. In the example, the EternalBlue exploit is successfully used against a Windows PC.

Escalating the attack to compromise a Windows PC

Escalating the attack to compromise a Windows PC

Philips has already made a patch available for its Hue Bridge, but Check Point said it was postponing “the release of the full technical details” to give more time for it to be downloaded and installed on affected products. There is an auto-update mechanism but it may not always be enabled.

Although a colourful attack, the requirement to first attack a lightbulb over Zigbee sounds like it will limit its potential impact in most homes. The 2016 security paper envisaged a drone-based attack.

“By flying such a drone in a zig-zag pattern high over a city, an attacker can disable all the Philips Hue smart lamps in city centers within a few minutes,” it said. Philips, however, responded with an update that reduces infection range to 1m or less, making the drone idea ineffective. It is not possible to assess the risk fully until more details are published.

The real purpose of Check Point’s post is to sell businesses on the idea of IoT security using its “on-device runtime protection,” though the prospect of having to maintain anti-malware agents on every smart lightbulb is not an appealing one.

What may give pause for thought, though, is that the Philips Hue devices are described as “very hard targets for finding and exploiting software vulnerabilities” by the 2016 researchers, but still proved to be vulnerable. There are no doubt plenty of easier targets out there, bearing in mind the proliferation of low-cost IoT devices like cameras and home appliances. ®

Sponsored:
Detecting cyber attacks as a small to medium business

Article source: https://go.theregister.co.uk/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2020/02/05/time_to_patch_your_lightbulb_researchers_demonstrate_philips_hue_exploit/