STE WILLIAMS

Marriott: Good news. Hackers only took 383 million booking records … and 5.3m unencrypted passport numbers

Hotel megachain Marriott International has gone into further detail on the cyber-raid on its reservation database, including the number of payment cards and passport details siphoned off by hackers.

In an update today to its November 30 disclosure, Marriott now says the (allegedly Chinese) miscreants who broke into its Starwood guest database made off with a total of 5.25 million unencrypted passport numbers and 20.3 million encrypted numbers.

While the passport numbers would be considered sensitive personal information that should not be made public, the numbers and names of guests alone would not be enough for a criminal to create a forged passport. Still, Marriott will be covering the cost for anyone who has had to get a new passport as a result of the data theft.

In addition to the passport numbers, Marriott says the criminals made off with 8.6 million encrypted payment card numbers. While there would be the chance for fraud should those numbers be decrypted, most would be useless by now as, according to Marriott, all but 354,000 of the lifted numbers were expired by September 2018, which was when the heist was discovered. On the other hand, the hackers were in Marriott’s systems from 2014 to that date, so many of those cards were likely active during the database infiltration, we reckon.

“There is no evidence that the unauthorized third party accessed either of the components needed to decrypt the encrypted payment card numbers,” Marriott said in its statement.

Book ’em, Danno

If there is some good news to be had for Marriott, it is that the total number of stolen records is a bit lower than first feared. The resort chain has revised its original estimate of 500 million hacked records to a slightly less-catastrophic 383 million. That’s 383 million reservations, not 383 million unique people: some folks obviously stayed in the hotels more than once during the mega-hack.

Those stolen records potentially include: unencrypted names, mailing addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, passport numbers, Starwood Preferred Guest account information, dates of birth, genders, arrival and departure information, reservation dates, and communication preferences.

“Marriott now believes that the number of potentially involved guests is lower than the 500 million the company had originally estimated,” the chain was keen to stress.

“Marriott has identified approximately 383 million records as the upper limit for the total number of guest records that were involved in the incident. This does not, however, mean that information about 383 million unique guests was involved, as in many instances, there appear to be multiple records for the same guest.

“The company has concluded with a fair degree of certainty that information for fewer than 383 million unique guests was involved, although the company is not able to quantify that lower number because of the nature of the data in the database.”

The security breach will mean the end of the road for the Starwood Reservations system at the center of the hack. “The company has completed the phase out of the operation of the Starwood reservations database, effective the end of 2018,” Marriott said.

“With the completion of the reservation systems conversion undertaken as part of the company’s post-merger integration work, all reservations are now running through the Marriott system.”

Anyone who believes their personal information to have been involved in the data theft is advised to visit Marriott’s support site. The biz is also offering to cover a year of identity-theft monitoring service. ®

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/04/marriott_stolen_passport_numbers/

Microsoft’s ‘Project Bali’ Wants to Let You Control Your Data

Currently in private beta, Bali is designed to give users control over the data Microsoft collects about them.

Microsoft Research reportedly has a new offering in the works intended to improve users’ privacy by giving them greater control over the information it collects about them.

The tool, codenamed Project Bali, currently appears to be in private beta testing. It was mentioned in a tweet on Jan. 2 by Twitter user Longhorn, who called it “a project that can delete your connection and account information (inverseprivacyproject).” ZDNet’s Mary Jo Foley found a link to Bali’s project page, which lets users sign in or request codes to gain access.

While no longer available at the time of this writing, the page for Project Bali describes it as a “new personal data bank which puts users in control of all data collected about them… The bank will enable users to store all data (raw and inferred) generated by them. It will allow the user to visualize, manage, control, share and monetize the data,” ZDNet reports.

‘Inverse Privacy’

As indicated in Longhorn’s tweet, Bali is founded on the idea of “Inverse Privacy,” the subject of a 2014 paper developed by former Microsoft Research employees Yuri Gurevich, Efim Hudis, and Jeannette Wing. All were part of the research team at the time their paper was written.

According to the concept of inverse privacy, information is inversely private if another party has access to it but you do not. Meanwhile, directly private data is accessible to you and nobody else; and partially private data is accessible to you and a limited number of parties, the researchers explain.

The different organizations you interact with – your employer, township, doctor, grocery store – have legitimate reasons for collecting inversely private information (receipts, prescriptions, etc.). Over time, technology has allowed them to record and store that information better than you would. As a result, more of your data has become inversely private, yet difficult to access.

“Your inversely private information, whether collected or derived, allows institutions to serve you better,” researchers argue. “But access to that information – especially if it were presented to you in a convenient form – would do you much good.”

This type of data access would allow its owners to correct possible errors and gain a better idea of various health and lifestyle metrics so they can make improvements where they see fit, they continue. Researchers note that in some cases, the inaccessibility of inversely private data can be justified to protect the privacy of other people and protect the interests of organizations.

However, they add, these cases are relatively few. In most situations, people would be better off with access to the information companies have on them. Further, they say it’s in businesses’ interests to share data: people want to work with companies that value transparency.

“We argue that there are numerous scenarios where the chances to hurt other parties by providing you access to your data are negligible,” they write. The idea behind Project Bali is to decrease the amount of inversely private data and give users more control over information.

The project is currently in its “initial stage,” ZDNet reports, an indication that researchers are working on helping people collect and view their information from different sites. At this time, Bali is invitation-only; it remains to be seen whether Microsoft will take further steps to make the initiative more public in the future.

Related Content:

Kelly Sheridan is the Staff Editor at Dark Reading, where she focuses on cybersecurity news and analysis. She is a business technology journalist who previously reported for InformationWeek, where she covered Microsoft, and Insurance Technology, where she covered financial … View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/endpoint/microsofts-project-bali-wants-to-let-you-control-your-data/d/d-id/1333586?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Managing Security in Today’s Compliance and Regulatory Environment

Instead of losing sight of the cybersecurity forest as we navigate the compliance trees, consolidate and simplify regulatory compliance efforts to keep your eyes on the security prize.

Two cause-and-effect trends have become increasingly apparent to many industry observers over the past 10 years: (1) cybersecurity compliance and regulatory requirements will only continue to increase in coverage, stringency, and number to address the (2) multitude of threats, vulnerabilities, data handling scandals, and cyber exploits present in today’s cyber landscape.

While it has become accepted that “compliance does not equal security,” it’s also generally accepted that there is some correlation between the two. One recent survey by SolarWinds found that over 70% of security professionals in the federal government — one of the most heavily regulated cyber domains in the world — agreed with the statement that “compliance has helped me improve my cybersecurity capabilities.” But for many organizations, complying with one regulation — say, PCI — isn’t always the end. Countries, states, specific industries, customer vendor management programs and nongovernmental bodies like the Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council impose regulatory requirements and compliance obligations on private sector organizations from all sorts of industries.

Beyond obvious industries that traditionally have been heavily regulated (including finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure), cybersecurity compliance and regulatory requirements now most heavily affect technology-focused industries that depend on customer trust to sell services: namely, cloud service providers. AWS alone publicly discloses compliance with almost 35 different cybersecurity regulations and compliance frameworks, while the market for compliant cloud services generates tremendous interest because of the ongoing shift to cloud IT prevalent in many industries.

Cloud service providers have an incentive to comply with as broad and deep a set of cybersecurity compliance and regulatory requirements as feasible because of the growing recognition that cybersecurity and public disclosure of compliance certification and regulatory adherence in data-dependent and IT-rich industries is a business enabler, not necessarily an inhibitor or a cost center.

But not every industry has the same drivers, and the impact of cybersecurity regulations extends far beyond industries who drive revenue with technology. Recent changes to the Department of Defense acquisition regulations and the advent of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, for instance, have promulgated cybersecurity requirements to sectors of the economy that traditionally had little to concern themselves with cybersecurity. And the effects of all of this are expected to continue to manifest as high-profile breaches, misuse of data, and critical security vulnerabilities continue to make front-page headlines around the world.

What cybersecurity regulatory bodies appear to be slowly inducing in the industries they regulate and oversee is the problem of audit fatigue — poor security or operational outcomes due to a preoccupation with positive compliance outcomes instead of positive security outcomes, or the exhaustion of valuable security and engineering time and resources due to audit demands. For some highly regulated organizations, this is not a new problem — the 2015 US Office of Personnel Management data breach post-mortem even attributed part of the cause of the incident to the problem of audit fatigue. This phenomenon isn’t exclusive to regulation-intensive industries and technology-driven organizations; it can realistically be diagnosed at organizations that are just now encountering their first regulatory requirements around cybersecurity and are struggling to cope

There are many proposed solutions to the problem of audit fatigue in a cybersecurity setting. Concepts such as consolidated audits and assessments, coordinated regulatory and compliance mappings, evidence-based compliance management, more effectively modeled GRC (governance, risk management, and compliance) tooling, compliance automation, and security outcome-based efforts all show promise. Regulatory bodies (most notably the federal government) have also shown progress in moving in the direction of risk-based compliance certification and continuous monitoring emphasis as opposed to point-in-time auditing, allowing organizations some much-needed flexibility when working to comply with new requirements.

Recommendations
For organizations that aren’t experienced with cybersecurity regulatory or compliance obligations, however, there isn’t necessarily a panacea to address the problem of learning to comply with compliance overhead in the first place or proactively planning for a future where the regulatory landscape becomes more stringent and more imposing. Before exploring industry solutions and techniques that are often oriented at organizations already well versed in compliance and regulatory requirements, here are a few recommendations for security professionals who are just beginning to dive into compliance and regulatory requirements that affect their organization (and some helpful reminders for those of us who have had to navigate a regulatory regime in the past):

1. Remember that security principles and core concepts haven’t changed much. There are still high-impact security initiatives that can demonstrate immediate results, such as the deployment of multifactor authentication, implementation of security training, or clear definition of network security boundaries and access authorization. When in doubt, prioritize security concerns that have traditionally been considered high-impact. The CIS (previously SANS) top 20 security controls and other industry standard checklists often provide a good starting point when beginning such an undertaking.

2. Conduct your own cursory assessment of risk and regulatory concern as soon as feasible. Even in security-immature organizations, many security professionals already have a good idea of where “the bodies are buried.” Taking stock of processes, norms, data stores, access structures, and systems that are considered high risk can formalize this implicit understanding of what’s at stake and which efforts to prioritize.

3. Whether or not you’re subject to regulatory or compliance pressure (but especially if you are), develop a 1-/3-/5-year compliance road map to augment the existing IT or security investment and implementation road map. Having a plan of action not only provides directional clarity to internal management stakeholders who may just be learning of what impact a new requirement has on the underlying business, it also provides external regulatory bodies and auditors assurance that you are taking your obligations seriously and has been known to reduce pressure on organizations that can’t feasibly comply with a particular obligation within the expected time frame.

Related Content:

Andrew Williams is the product director for the Cyber Risk Advisory and FedRAMP Assessment Services teams at Coalfire.  As product director, Andrew oversees Coalfire’s sales, delivery, and professional development strategy for all advisory and assessment personnel … View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/perimeter/managing-security-in-todays-compliance-and-regulatory-environment/a/d-id/1333566?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

EU to offer nearly $1m in bug bounties for open-source software

The internet runs on open-source, and it’s often hardworking volunteer developers who spend long hours keeping the projects alive. Unfortunately, they don’t always have the time or resources they need to hunt down the bugs that inevitably spring up in these large, complex code bases.

The European Commission (EC) just made a move to improve the situation: it’s ponying up serious money for bug hunters who track down vulnerabilities in some of the most popular free and open source software around.

The full list of 15 bounty programs includes the file archiver 7-zip, the Java servlet container Apache Tomcat, the content management framework Drupal, the cross-platform FTP application Filezilla, the media player VLC, the password manager KeePass, the text/source code editor Notepad++, plus other popular tools. Rewards start at €25,000 and go on up to €90,000 ($28,600 to $103,000), for a total offered amount of €851,000 ($973,000).

Fourteen of the programs will launch this month, while the 15th will start in March.

As with other bug bounties, the amount paid by the EC will depend on the severity of the discovered vulnerabilities and how important the given software is.

EU Member of Parliament Julia Reda, member of the Pirate Party Germany and co-founder of the Free and Open Source Software Audit (FOSSA) project, announced the bounties a week ago. She said that the software programs were chosen after being identified in a public survey and from inventories that FOSSA conducted in 2015-2016 to see what free software everybody is relying on.

OpenSSL bugs like Heartbleed were a wake-up call

FOSSA was itself formed in 2015, following a sobering year of vulnerability discoveries in open source.

In 2014 we saw multiple vulnerabilities in the widely deployed cryptographic library known as OpenSSL. The first vulnerability was the data-leaking buffer overflow known as Heartbleed, followed by six more vulnerabilities that could have led to denial of service, information disclosure and remote code execution.

OpenSSL provides standard functions to “a huge number” of other software, Reda notes, and those programs subsequently suffered because of the vulnerabilities. The library also plays an important role in encrypting internet traffic, making it crucial for protecting data such as people’s personal communications or their payment details when they shop online.

The silver lining of the OpenSSL bugs is that they were a wake-up call, Reda writes:

The issue made lots of people realise how important Free and Open Source Software is for the integrity and reliability of the Internet and other infrastructure. Like many other organisations, institutions like the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission build upon Free Software to run their websites and many other things.

In 2015, the year after the OpenSSL bugs were discovered, EU authorities approved FOSSA.

In 2017, after FOSSA’s inventories had been carried out, the EC extended the project for another three years. At that point, the project decided to “go one step further,” Reda said, by instituting bug bounties on important free and open software projects and planning a series of hackathons, with the goal of getting software developers from EU institutions to work alongside free software project developers so they could collaborate directly on their software.

Ready, set, BUG HUNT!

Readers, if you want to participate, you can find links to the bug bounty programs on Reda’s blog post. Each of the bug bounties will go live on the ethical hacking platforms Intigriti and HackerOne. Best of luck!

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nakedsecurity/~3/odmK3F6qj-M/

Vein authentication beaten by wax hand and photograph

For anyone who believes vein authentication is more secure than fingerprints or facial recognition, we have good news – researchers have just showed how the technology can be beaten.

Before we explain why that statement isn’t a contradiction, let’s dive a bit deeper into what researchers Jan Krissler and Julian Albrecht reportedly outlined at last weekend’s Chaos Communication Congress (CCC) in Germany.

As with fingerprints, faces, or the iris of the human eye, the complex shape, size and position of veins in someone’s palm is unique to each person, including for identical twins.

These patterns are read using near-infrared light (i.e. almost visible as opposed to the non-visible ‘far’ infrared emitted by warm objects) and are less prone to physical injury than fingerprints. Unlike fingerprints, we also don’t leave them on the objects we touch for someone to copy.

There are disadvantages: vein patterns change slightly as people age, ambient light can interfere with recognition, and the precision needed to make the technology work makes it expensive.

That last issue might explain why, beyond a handful of banks and high-end users such as the HQ of Germany’s Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) intelligence agency, few people are currently likely to encounter the use of vein authentication.

And the hack?

According to Motherboard, Krissler and Albrecht’s presentation showed how vein authentication systems could be fooled using nothing more complicated than a faked-up wax hand model and a printout of their own veins photographed using a good-quality SLR camera which had had its infrared filter removed.

This sounds like a simple hack – print off a picture of the target’s veins, and mock up something that looks like a hand to cover it.

The fact this can be done at all doesn’t sound like a great advert for vein authentication until you read the extended testing the pair had to go through simply to get to that point.

To get an accurate print of the veins, the pair admitted they’d had to experiment with 2,500 pictures over a one-month period to get to an image that worked. Explained Krissler to Motherboard:

It’s enough to take photos from a distance of five meters, and it might work to go to a press conference and take photos of them.

Presumably, this would require a clear view, minimal interference from other light sources, and the ability to take full images of someone’s hand without that being detected.

Krissler was pleased with their achievement:

When we first spoofed the system, I was quite surprised that it was so easy.

Not that easy. What they’ve really demonstrated is that with enough resources, time, and a motive, an attacker would have a fair chance of beating vein authentication for a single person.

This doesn’t mean that using a fake handprint in a real-world situation also using other security measures (i.e. a security guard) would be straightforward.

It’s true that vein authentication systems are vulnerable to bypasses but so are all other systems yet invented, including fingerprint and facial recognition (Apple’s Face ID), and almost any authentication system when used in isolation.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nakedsecurity/~3/9yHh3uBIYgI/

Don’t fall victim to the Chromecast hackers – here’s what to do

If you ever used dial-up networking to access the internet, you probably remember it mostly for being cumbersome and slow.

But it was also astonishingly insecure, because your computer – which was probably running Windows 95, Windows 3, or even good old DOS – ended up with a public-facing IP number, connected straight onto to the internet.

Other users out there could, literally and figuratively, reach out and probe your computer directly.

In recent years, however, we’ve got used to the idea that home computers don’t get plugged directly onto the internet – they typically connect through a router instead, and it’s the router that’s plugged into the internet connection.

Indeed, it’s tempting to assume that home routers came about specifically to address the security risks inherent in connecting laptops and other home devices straight onto the internet…

…but the truth is that the main reason for having a home router is to support multiple devices through connection sharing.

That means your ISP only needs to hand out one IP number per household, rather than one IP number per device.

Connection sharing explained

The “trick” used for internet connection sharing is called NAT, short for Network Address Translation, and it’s a way to allow a single home router to divide up your internet connection automatically between any number of devices.

The NAT software on your router keeps track of which internal devices have made what outbound network requests to which external servers, and sorts out the inbound replies so that they get back to the right place.

But NAT doesn’t work automatically for inbound traffic.

If a brand new network request arrives from the outside asking to be sent to your mail server or your web server, for instance, there’s no way for your router to know in advance where to redirect that packet inside the network.

NAT therefore has the handy side-effect, in theory at least, of boosting security – by default, your internal devices can’t be probed directly from the outside.

Unless and until you configure your router to tell it where and how to redirect inbound connection requests, NAT basically acts as a firewall that causes incoming connections to fail harmlessly.

Invisible by default?

It’s easy to assume that any internal devices behind your router are “invisible by default”, and thus that anything you connect to the private part of your network is safe from discovery and attack – including your computers, phones, tablets, file servers, thermostats, webcams, printers…

..and your Chromecast media streaming devices.

In practice, however, NAT alone simply isn’t enough to keep the crooks out.

Firstly, some routers come with externally-facing services of their own, such as a web interface, turned on by default.

In this case, crooks can attack your network by probing for bugs on the router itself.

If they can figure out how to run unauthorised commands on your router, they can reconfigure the router to enable inbound access for future attacks.

Secondly, some routers come with a system called Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) turned on by default.

UPnP is a protocol that devices inside separate, NATted networks can use to identify and communicate with each other, with their respective routers co-operating to open up the necessary connectivity and packet forwarding automatically.

Thirdly, many routers end up with inbound network ports opened up and then forgotten about.

As a result, crooks can automatically find and potentially exploit services that are accessible through holes that aren’t supposed to be there.

Unfortunately, probing for unexpected remote access holes is as easy as running through a list of IP numbers one by one (or million by million) and seeing what happens if you try to connect.

Sometimes, you will not only find out that a particular port is open on a particular computer, but also receive a snippet of data back that gives away what sort of service is listening, even if the port number isn’t one usually associated with that service.

For example, email servers listen by convention on port 25, and web servers on port 80, but it’s easy enough to spot those services if they’re “hidden” on non-standard port numbers.

In the example below, we’ve probed and found a mail server on port 10025 and a web server on port 10026:

For better or worse, search engines exist that repeatedly sweep through the internet, keeping track of which IP numbers had what network ports open, and what service, if any, seemed to be listening for connections.

By querying these search engines (two well-known ones are Censys and Shodan), would-be hackers can download ready-made lists of networks to start probing – the hackers don’t even need to do the initial reconaissance, known as port scanning, themselves.

Scanning for mischief

Sadly, some “researchers” can’t resist using port scans for mischief, thinly disguised as attempts to make a serious security point.

For example, in December 2018 a hacker going by the name TheHackerGiraffe decided to “warn” networks with internet-connected printers by printing out a “notification page”, entirely without permission.

The notification message included an advert for a well-known, high-traffic YouTube video blogger called PewDiePie.

PewDiePie, real name Felix Kjellberg, wasn’t the perpetrator of the hack, just the unexpecting recipient of an “endorsement” by the hackers.

At the start of 2019, TheHackerGiraffe couldn’t resist having another go at incorrectly-configured networks, probing for and finding tens of thousands of publicly-visible Chromecast devices.

This time, it seems the Giraffe was aided and abetted by an online chum going by the name j3ws3r (whether that’s an anti-semitic slur or just hacker-style spelling of the word “user”, where the j is pronounced as y, is an open question).

According their own website, the pair identified more than 72,000 vulnerable Chromecast and Google Home devices:

They also unlawfully played “warning videos” on 65,000 of the Chromecasts, once again promoting PewDiePie:

(We’ve redacted the link in the video – when we tried it, it was a rickroll, redirecting to a video of singer Rick Astley performing Never Gonna Give You Up.)

What to do?

  • Turn off UPnP on your router. It’s been a recipe for trouble for many years, and you almost certainly neither want nor need to open it up to the outside world.
  • Check what network ports are opened up on your router. If you see 8008, 8009 and 8443 open, then any Chromecasts you own are probably exposed. But any open port could spell needless danger, so close any port that you aren’t 100% sure you need to keep open.
  • Don’t go around poking sticks into other people’s devices. It’s neither witty nor lawful to access other people’s computer equipment without permission.

If you’re blindly playing videos on random people’s Chromecasts, or printing out unsolicited messages on their printers, then you don’t have permission, and you jolly well know it.

Even if your intentions are good, please don’t mess with other people’s stuff – you might end up regretting it, as the Giraffe himself now seems to do, if a recent post to Pastebin is to be believed:

Yeah, I will have to disappear. Most probably for good this time. Who knows? Maybe I’ll appear in 2 weeks on this same account again. No matter how much I write, I can’t describe to you the mental stress and panic I’m going through right now. But I won’t complain about that, because people will say I brought this on myself, I did those “hacks”, I deserve the consequences. But I’m a human too, don’t just throw away all my emotions because of my “hacker” personality. I don’t deserve to be thrown under a bus for wanting to help people, but I guess that will put a smile on some people’s faces.


Chromecast image from Wikimedia commons.

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

Germany hacked: Angela Merkel’s colleagues among mass data dump victims

German politicians, journalists and other prominent public figures have been doxxed by hackers who distributed their personal data on Twitter, according to local reports.

A slew of prominent figures and organisations were seemingly targeted for the data dump operation.

“Contact details such as hundreds of mobile phone numbers and addresses of politicians from the Bundestag and partly also from state politics were reported,” according to one version of events from German TV Die Tagesschau (natürlich auf Deutsch).

“There is no system for selecting published data and information,” it continued. “Rather, it seems as if everything that came into the hackers’ [hands] has been posted on the internet.”

The dumped data ranged from internal political party communications to photographs of ID cards, letters, emails, invoices, chat transcripts, mobile phone numbers and credit card information, as well as other miscellaneous categories.

Nobody appeared sure where the data came from, though the sheer breadth and depth of it suggests a sustained operation that was ongoing for some years, judging by other reports. While Die Tagesschau presented the hack as motivated by right-wing political beliefs, other outlets looked closely at the data dump and saw that the ruling centre-right party, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, had also been targeted – something that suggests the motive may not have been entirely political.

Oddly, the only political party whose data had not been released (“yet”, as tabloid Das Bild reported) was the right-wing Alternative für Deutschland, Germany’s answer to UKIP.

The perfunctory “Russia did it” spiel hasn’t yet been wheeled out, though the initial modus operandi of leaving the AfD alone is clearly intended to point inquiring minds in their direction. Russia generally supports right-wing populist political parties in the West, either through rhetoric or murkier methods.

Das Bild quoted deputy government spokesperson Martina Fietz as warning that fake material could have been introduced into the data.

A spokesman for the far-left Linke party told newswire Reuters: “I can confirm there has been an incident,” adding that the party’s Parliamentary leader had been one of the victims.

Defiantly, the Social Democratic Party’s secretary-general, Lars Klingbeil, told Das Bild: “Any possible political motivation for this attack must be clarified. Whoever is responsible wants to intimidate politicians and [they] will not succeed. The competition between democratic parties takes place through the competition of ideas – not through the publication of sensitive, personal data.”

Although the information was being broadcast on Twitter before Christmas, the world only woke up and noticed it this year. Twitter has now reportedly deleted one of the accounts posting links to the data dumps. ®

Bootnote

During our research for this article, Google Translate threw up this gem: “It is also puzzling where the data was actually sucked off.”

With the original German here being “Rätselhaft ist auch, wo die Daten eigentlich abgesaugt wurden”, a more accurate translation would be “hoovered up” or “sucked up from” rather than “sucked off”. Nonetheless, as one Twitter wag observed: “Who amongst us hasn’t been puzzled by how we ended up getting our data actually sucked off?”

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/04/germany_mass_hack_merkel/

Hope you’re over that New Year’s hangover – there’s an Adobe PDF app patch to install

Adobe has issued its first patch of the year, emitting fixes for a pair of high-risk vulnerabilities in Acrobat and Reader.

The APSB-02 security bundle is being recommended as a high-priority fix, so install it as soon as you can. The two CVE-listed bugs haven’t been targeted in the wild yet so admins are advised to get the updates tested and installed within the next 30 days. By comparison, a critical, actively-exploited, flaw would have a 72-hour recommended install time.

Still, Mac and Windows PC owners would be well advised to install patches for the two flaws. Limiting user account privileges could also help mitigate the risk from both flaws.

The first, CVE-2018-16011, is a use-after-free() programming blunder that, if exploited, would allow a specially crafted PDF file to execute code with the privileges of the currently logged-in user. Click on the wrong attachment and an attacker can run pretty much whatever they like on the local machine.

adobe

Adobe Flash zero-day exploit… leveraging ActiveX… embedded in Office Doc… BINGO!

READ MORE

The flaw was discovered and reported to Adobe by bug-hunter Sebastian Apelt via the Trend Micro Zero Day Initiative.

The second bug, CVE-2018-19725, is a security bypass vulnerability discovered by Abdul-Aziz Hariri of the Zero Day Initiative. Hariri has done extensive research showing how specially crafted PDF files can use API calls to get around Adobe security protections and access other file paths on the system.

For MacOS and Windows boxes, the updates will be released for Acrobat and Reader DC 2015 (version 2015.006.30464), 2017 (version 2017.011.30113), and Continuous (version 2019.010.20069).

The Adobe fixes will also be advance work for next Tuesday, January 8, when Microsoft is due to kick out its first monthly update of the year for Windows, Office, and Edge/IE. Adobe typically follows suit with patches for Flash and Creative Cloud, and SAP occasionally does as well. ®

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/03/acrobat_reader_flaw/

Can’t unlock an Android phone? No problem, just take a Skype call: App allows passcode bypass

A newly disclosed vulnerability in Skype for Android could be exploited by miscreants to bypass an Android phone’s passcode screen to view photos, contacts, and even launch browser windows.

Bug-hunter Florian Kunushevci today told The Register the security flaw, which has been reported to Microsoft, allows the person in possession of someone’s phone to receive a Skype call, answer it without unlocking the handset, and then view photos, look up contacts, send a message, and open the browser by tapping links in a sent message, all without ever unlocking the phone. This is handy for thieves, pranksters, prying partners, and so on. Here’s a video demonstrating the bypass…

Youtube Video

Kunushevci, a 19-year-old bug researcher from Kosovo, said he was an everyday user of the Skype for Android app when he noticed that something appeared to be amiss with the way the VoIP app accessed files on the handset. Curious, he decided to put his white hat on, and take a closer look.

“One day I got a feeling while using the app that there should be a need to check a part which seems to give me other options than it should,” he explained. “Then I had to change the way of thinking as a regular user into something that I can use for exploitation.”

What he eventually found was that, once a Skype call has been received and opened, the application functions as normal, allowing features like photo-sharing and contact look-ups regardless of whether the rest of the phone was unlocked.

Much like the various iOS flaws spotted over the years, the bug is really down to a security oversight. In this case, the Skype app allows users to access the photo and contact features without first checking if the person using the device was authenticated.

onedrive

OneDrive Skype integration goes live aaand… OneDrive falls over in Europe

READ MORE

“For the specific bug that I have found on Skype, it is more of a bad design and also a bug in coding,” Kunushevci told El Reg. “I think to put it all together, humans make mistakes.”

Prior to going public, Kunushevci alerted Microsoft to the hole in October and waited for a patch to land. The vulnerability is fixed in the latest versions of Skype, issued December 23, so users can protect themselves by making sure they have the latest build of the app installed.

The vulnerability affects Skype on all versions of Android, according to the bug hunter. We note that the Skype app version differs depending on which version of Android you have installed, though essentially we’re told new builds of the application installed or updated after Christmas with a version number over 8.15.0.416 should be safe.

Though still a teenager, Kunushevci says he already has several years of experience in security research. Starting at the age of 12, he became interested in the reasons his own computer was crashing ,and began looking up the various causes of common security and stability flaws. Within a few years he was claiming bug bounties of his own.

“I started working in Bug Hunting when I was 15 years old trying to find web vulnerabilities for Microsoft, Apple, Dell, Intel, Adobe, Eset, Github and other companies, which I used to gain Hall of Fame status and T-Shirts in order to promote my self and learn new things,” he said.

“After some years of development I started working on CTFs (Boot2Root) which taught me the most important thing, which is realizing that what you have learned till now is nothing of what should be learned.”

A spokesperson for Microsoft was not available for immediate comment. ®

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/03/android_skype_app_unlock/

Adobe Issues Emergency Patch Following December Miss

The company released an out-of-band update to head off vulnerabilities exposed in Acrobat and Reader, one of which had been patched by the company in December.

Adobe today issued an emergency security update, kicking off the new year with an out-of-band software fix to button up two critical flaws in Adobe Acrobat and Reader.

The advisory—Security Bulletin for Adobe Acrobat and Reader (APSB19-02)—outlines two vulnerabilities, but gives very little detail on the issues. In a more detailed advisory sent out to media, the company acknowledged two researchers, Abdul-Aziz Hariri and Sebastian Apelt, who regularly submit vulnerability research to Trend Micro’s Zero Day Initiative, thanking Hariri for “his defense-in-depth contribution to hardening JavaScript API restriction bypasses.”

While Adobe typically releases updates for its software on a schedule mimicking Microsoft’s regular cadence of the second Tuesday of the month, the latest patch appears to be an emergency release. The company stated that its analysts are unaware of any exploitation of the vulnerabilities in the wild.

“These updates address critical vulnerabilities,” the company wrote in the advisory. “Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user.”

The vulnerability (CVE-2018-19725) discovered by Hariri, an internal ZDI researcher, “addresses an incomplete fix from a previous security patch,” Brian Gorenc, director of Trend Micro’s Zero Day Initiative, told Dark Reading via an e-mail interview. “It allows overwriting JavaScript Read-Only variables, which is somewhat rare.”

The second vulnerability (CVE-2018-16011) had apparently reached the 120-day disclosure deadline, after which ZDI would have released details of the issue. “By releasing a patch today, Adobe avoided the 0day disclosure and corrected the incomplete December patch,” Gorenc said. Adobe had included the vulnerability as one of the issues fixed by its Dec. 11 patch, according to a previous Adobe advisory.

Adobe did not release details of the software components fixed by the update. The vulnerabilities, however, sound similar to previous vulnerabilities investigated by the two researchers into a dynamically linked library (DLL) that allows indexing of content in PDF documents. The 2014-era library, Onix.dll, creates indexes for searching, according to one 2018 blog post by Hariri. The two researchers credited with finding the vulnerabilities had both been working on auditing the library, according to a later blog post written by Hariri in December.

“[W]hen the Catalog bugs went public, Sebastian Apelt reached out and mentioned that he was also researching the indexing attack surface,” Hariri wrote. “What was fascinating about Sebastian’s research is figuring out a way to bypass the restrictions Adobe thought they had in place to prevent parsing the Indexing files from JavaScript.”

The language almost exactly matches Adobe’s acknowledgement of Hariri’s work. 

ZDI, however, denied that the current vulnerabilities are connected to that previous research. “These bugs are unrelated to the bugs discussed in that blog,” Gorenc said.

Vulns on the Rise

In 2018, the number of overall vulnerabilities reported publicly increased by more than 13% to 16,518, according to the latest data from the National Vulnerability Database. The vulnerability count will continue to increase throughout 2019 as more issues are retroactively reported.

While software vendors usually find the best way to patch a vulnerability, failing to close off all avenues of exploitation is not an uncommon occurrence. Researchers often find ways to work around the fixes created by software firms. And, sometimes, the only way to fix the issues is to remove a feature, Hariri wrote in his December post.

“It’s amazing how much individual research can expose. Even the vendor thought that the attack surface was mitigated,” he said. “Anyway, Adobe finally figured out a scientific way to fix the bugs in this attack surface—killing the whole parsing code.”

Related Content:

 

Veteran technology journalist of more than 20 years. Former research engineer. Written for more than two dozen publications, including CNET News.com, Dark Reading, MIT’s Technology Review, Popular Science, and Wired News. Five awards for journalism, including Best Deadline … View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/vulnerabilities---threats/adobe-issues-emergency-patch-following-december-miss/d/d-id/1333582?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple