STE WILLIAMS

CISA’s Palace: Congress backs new cybersecurity nerve-center for cyber-America’s cyber-future

The US House of Representatives has unanimously passed a bipartisan bill that would create a new agency to lead the federal government’s cybersecurity efforts.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Act, passed earlier this year by the Senate, would overhaul the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)’s National Protection and Programs Directorate to create CISA as a new, stand-alone agency under the umbrella of the DHS.

The House bill, H.R. 3359, was sponsored by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), and cleared the House on Tuesday.

Having already passed through the Senate in a unanimous vote, the bill now heads to the White House where, should the President side with both houses of Congress and approve of the act, it will be signed into law.

“Today’s vote is a significant step to stand up a federal government cybersecurity agency,” said DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.

“The cyber threat landscape is constantly evolving, and we need to ensure we’re properly positioned to defend America’s infrastructure from threats digital and physical. It was time to reorganize and operationalize NPPD into the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.”

America

White House cyber-general says US must be able to cyber-nuke the worst of the cyber-worst

READ MORE

The new CISA (not to be confused with the 2015 surveillance bill of the same acronym) will solidify the name and role of the DHS’ cybersecurity operation, consolidating both infosec and physical infrastructure security operations into a unified agency.

“Elevating the cybersecurity mission within the Department of Homeland Security, streamlining our operations, and giving NPPD a name that reflects what it actually does will help better secure the nation’s critical infrastructure and cyber platforms,” said Christopher Krebs, the current NPPD under secretary and presumptive head of the new agency.

“The changes will also improve the Department’s ability to engage with industry and government stakeholders and recruit top cybersecurity talent.”

While the bill has yet to be signed into law, the fact that it passed through both houses of Congress without a single dissenting vote would indicate it should have little trouble getting President Trump’s signature. ®

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/15/congress_passes_cisa/

Want to hack a hole-in-the-wall cash machine for free dosh? It’s as easy as Windows XP

ATM machines are vulnerable to an array of basic attack techniques that would allow hackers to lift thousands in cash.

This according to researchers at Positive Technologies, who studied more than two dozen different models of ATMs and found (PDF) nearly all would be vulnerable to network or local access attacks that would allow raiders to pillage the cash dispensers.

The study, out today, pitted Positive researchers against 26 machines from various manufacturers and service providers. Among the more noteworthy results:

  • 15 were found to be running Windows XP.
  • 22 were vulnerable to a “network spoofing” attack where an attacker connects locally to the machine’s LAN port and conduct fraudulent transactions. Such an attack takes around 15 minutes to complete.
  • 18 were vulnerable to ‘black box’ attacks where an attacker physically connects a device to the machine and tricks it into spitting out cash. Positive notes these attacks can be carried out in about ten minutes with aftermarket compute boards (such as a Raspberry Pi).
  • 20 could be forced to exit out of kiosk mode via a USB or PS/2 connection. From there, an attacker could access the underlying OS of the machine and execute additional commands.
  • 24 had no data encryption in place on the hard drive, allowing an attacker who had access to the drive (see above) to pull any stored data and configuration info from the machine.

In general, the research found that, for the most part, the protections used by ATMs to prevent theft and tampering were more or less security theater, and anyone who really wanted to get into a machine could often do so in under an hour.

“More often than not, security mechanisms are a mere nuisance for attackers: our testers found ways to bypass protection in almost every case,” the researchers said.

“Since banks tend to use the same configuration on large numbers of ATMs, a successful attack on a single ATM can be easily replicated at greater scale.”

ATM money shot

IBM, ATMs – WTF? Big Blue to probe cash machines, IoT, vehicles, etc in new security labs

READ MORE

One of the top recommendations the report makes to banks is to harden up the physical security of the machines themselves. By physically securing the cabinets to lock away access to the inputs and compute hardware of the machines, many of the techniques used in the study could be thwarted.

Additionally, the researchers recommend banks keep on top of logging and monitoring security events on their networks.

While many of these physical attacks are largely theoretical – banks take a dim view of customers hanging out at ATMs for longer than a few minutes – the report does highlight the shameful lack of security for ATMs, particularly on the software side.

At this year’s DEF CON hacking conference one researcher explained how he’d approached banks about flaws in their ATMs, only to be told such things weren’t possible. It was only when he told them he was going public with the research that the flaws were fixed. ®

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/14/atm_security_lousy/

Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean hackers won’t nuke your employer into the ground tomorrow

The number one thing worrying infosec bods right now is… yup, you guessed it, a giant targeted attack that KOs their employers’ systems.

This fear was seconded – though not closely – by the threat posed by the people with whom they make small talk at the water cooler: their org’s very own blabby, policy-swerving, “oh-I’ll-just-email-it-to-my-Yahoo!-address-update-it-on-my-phone-over-public-Wi-Fi.. oh-never-mind-I’ll-use-this-USB-stick-I-found-on-the-floor” staffers. (Oh snap, they’ve just clicked on the malware-laden “fake PDF invoice” email – even though they’re not in accounts. Great.)

So reckon the people behind the Black Hat cybersecurity knees-up, who polled 130 European infosec folk to find out what keeps them awake at night.

The survey’s finding – that a targeted, sophisticated attack aimed directly at their particular organisation is the thing turning bright-eyed young cyber-defenders into grey-haired worriers – will surprise few, though worries corporate networks are not locked down tightly enough to user-proof them have risen markedly since last year.

Just over half (52 per cent) of respondents were worried about the cyber-attack-of-doom scenario, while a quarter stressed over “accidental data leaks by end users who fail to follow security policy”. The latter was up from 17 per cent last year.

Intriguingly, not many infosec bods think the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation will do much to improve online privacy. 42 per cent reckoned it would help “somewhat”, as opposed to the quarter who thought it would “substantially improve” privacy. Nearly a third (30 per cent) thought it would either help a little or wouldn’t make much of a difference. Black Hat opined this shows “growing scepticism among European security professionals with regard to the ability to protect user privacy”.

More than two-thirds (70 per cent) of insfoseccers surveyed said they’d devoted some corporate resources to GDPR compliance, suggesting that the harsh legal penalties for non-compliance have focused minds across the sector. Despite that, just a third thought their employers’ compliance was good.

Another question, asked for the first time this year, was whether infosec bods are worried about mission-critical cloud services being compromised. Just 16 per cent thought that was one of their top three worries, suggesting that – for now – public cloud vendors’ security posturing is enough to reassure the masses.

Just 2 per cent gave a monkey’s about “cryptocurrency mining and its potential impact on my enterprise network”, which, while probably a sensible position to take, doesn’t fully reflect what might be going on in hidden corners of the enterprise network.

And if all that leaves you feeling generally OK about infosec, two-thirds of respondents believed that a “major attack on critical infrastructure spanning multiple European countries” will take place in the next couple of years.

Stay paranoid, yo. ®

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/14/black_hat_survey_state_hackers_top_infosec_fear/

Did you by chance hack OPM back in 2015? Good news, your password probably still works!

More than three years after suffering one of the largest cyber-attacks in US government history, the Office of Personnel Management has yet to adopt dozens of the security measures investigators ordered – including basic stuff like changing passwords.

A report issued this week by Government Accountability Office (GAO) disclosed that the OPM has failed to comply with more than a third of recommendations its investigators made for improving the office’s network security and data protection.

The GAO audit (PDF) looked over a series of four reports its investigators issued between 2015 and 2017 concerning the massive theft of sensitive records on around 21.5 million current, former, and prospective government workers from Uncle Sam’s computer systems.

Since the last report was written in August of 2017, GAO says that OPM has only complied with 51 of those 80 items. Far from being abstract, bureaucratic measures, the lapses noted by the audit include some very basic security practices.

Among the recommendations that have not been implemented was the call for OPM to reset its passwords after the network was ransacked, as well as the failure to “install critical patches in a timely manner, periodically evaluate accounts to ensure privileged access is warranted, and assess controls on selected systems as defined in its continuous monitoring plan.”

Judge with gun

Slain: Unions’ US OPM mega-hack lawsuit against Uncle Sam

READ MORE

In other words, more than three years after it was hacked, apparently by the Chinese, and relieved of the sensitive personal details of more than 20 million Americans, including their intelligence clearance paperwork, the OPM still can’t be bothered to change passwords or install Windows updates.

The GAO audit goes on to note other poor security practices, including shared admin accounts shared by multiple staffers, encrypting passwords (both stored and in-transit), and installing the latest patches for network devices that connect to “high impact” machines with sensitive data.

“Implementing all of the remaining open recommendations expeditiously is essential to OPM ensuring that appropriate security controls are in place and operating as intended,” the GAO report concludes.

“Until OPM implements these recommendations, its systems and information will be at increased risk of unauthorized access, use, disclosure, modification, or disruption.”

The OPM, for its part, is working to get caught up on the recommendations. The GAO says the agency plans to address 25 of the 29 outstanding items by the end of the year and address another three in 2019. ®

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/14/opm_hack_failure/

Another Meltdown, Spectre scare: Data-blabbing holes continue to haunt Intel, AMD, Arm

Computer security researchers have uncovered yet another set of transient execution attacks on modern CPUs that allow a local attacker to gain access to privileged data, fulfilling predictions made when the Spectre and Meltdown flaws were reported at the beginning of the year.

In short, these processor security flaws can be exploited by malicious users and malware on a vulnerable machine potentially to lift passwords, encryption keys, and other secrets, out of memory that should be off-limits. To date, we’re not aware of any software nasties exploiting these holes in the wild, but nonetheless they have been a wake-up call for the semiconductor industry, forcing redesigns of silicon and changes to toolchains.

The bit boffins responsible for uncovering these latest vulnerabilities – Claudio Canella, Jo Van Bulck, Michael Schwarz, Moritz Lipp, Benjamin von Berg, Philipp Ortner, Frank Piessens, Dmitry Evtyushkin, and Daniel Gruss, from Graz University of Technology, imec-DistriNet at KU Leuven, and the College of William and Mary – include some of the same computer scientists who discovered the original Spectre and Meltdown weaknesses.

They argue that the term “transient execution” is preferable to other terminology like “speculative execution” to describe the Spectre, Meltdown, and Foreshadow attacks.

“‘Speculative execution’ is often falsely used as an umbrella term for attacks based on speculation of the outcome of a particular event (i.e., conditional branches, return addresses, or memory disambiguation), out-of-order execution, and pipelining,” they explain in a paper distributed through ArXiv on Tuesday.

“However, Spectre and Meltdown exploit fundamentally different properties of CPUs. A CPU can be vulnerable to Spectre but not Meltdown (e.g. AMD), and vice versa. The only common property of both attacks is that they exploit side effects within the transient execution domain, i.e., within never-committed execution.”

The not-so-magnificent seven

The researchers describe seven new transient execution attacks, consisting of two new Meltdown variants (Meltdown-PK on Intel, and Meltdown-BR on Intel and AMD) and five new Spectre branch predictor mistraining strategies for previously disclosed flaws known as Spectre-PHT (Bounds Check Bypass) and Spectre-BTB (Branch Target Injection). They say they’ve responsibly disclosed their findings to chip vendors.

Where Spectre exploits branch prediction to gain access to transient data, Meltdown bypasses the isolation between applications and the operating system by evaluating transient out-of-order instructions following a CPU exception to read kernel memory.

Previously, there were five publicly disclosed Meltdown variants: Meltdown-US (Meltdown), Meltdown-P (Foreshadow), Meltdown-GP (Variant 3a), Meltdown-NM (Lazy FP), and Meltdown-RW (Variant 1.2).

The researchers propose two more: Meltdown-PK and Meltdown-BR.

The Meltdown-PK attack can defeat a defense in Intel Skylake-SP server chips called memory-protection keys for user space (PKU), which lets processes alter the access permissions of a page of memory from user space, without a syscall/hypercall.

spectre

Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flaw forces Linux, Windows redesign

READ MORE

“Meltdown-PK shows that PKU isolation can be bypassed if an attacker has code execution in the containing process, even if the attacker cannot execute the wrpkru instruction (e.g., due to blacklisting),” the researchers explain. “Moreover, in contrast to cross-privilege level Meltdown attack variants, there is no software workaround. Intel can only fix Meltdown-PK in new hardware or possibly via a microcode update.”

Meltdown-BR provides a way to bypass bound checks, which raise exceptions when an out-of-bound value is found. It exploits transient execution after such an exception to capture out-of-bounds secrets that wouldn’t otherwise be accessible.

The researchers demonstrated their attack on an Intel Skylake i5-6200U CPU with MPX support, an AMD 2013 E2-2000 and an AMD 2017 Ryzen Threadripper 1920X. They note this is the first time a Meltdown-style transient execution attack has been shown to be able to take advantage of delayed exception handling on AMD hardware.

As for the novel approaches to mistraining the branch predictor in Spectre-PHT and Spectre-BTB attacks, the researchers tested their proof-of-concept exploits on Intel Skylake i5-6200U and Haswell i7-4790, on AMD Ryzen 1950X and a Ryzen Threadripper 1920X, and on an Arm-based NVIDIA Jetson TX1.

All vendors have processors that are vulnerable to these variants, they claim. The same, they say is true for Spectre-BTB, though they consider potential attack scenarios far more limited. Presently, no CVEs for these issues have been assigned.

La la la we can’t hear you!

In a statement emailed to The Register, an Intel spokesperson brushed off the findings. “The vulnerabilities documented in this paper can be fully addressed by applying existing mitigation techniques for Spectre and Meltdown, including those previously documented here, and elsewhere by other chipmakers,” Intel’s spokesperson said.

“Protecting customers continues to be a critical priority for us and we are thankful to the teams at Graz University of Technology, imec-DistriNet, KU Leuven, and the College of William and Mary for their ongoing research.”

Arm’s spokesperson said, “The recent Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities identified by academic researchers can be addressed by applying existing mitigations as described previously in Arm’s white paper found here.”

AMD did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The chip vendors’ insistence that they’re not affected contradicts the researchers’ published statements. “Even with all mitigations enabled, we were still able to execute Meltdown-BR, Meltdown-PK, and Meltdown-RW,” they state in their paper, adding that “some transient execution attacks are not successfully mitigated by the rolled out patches and others are not mitigated because they have been overlooked.”

Complicating the security picture, some people have taken to disabling established mitigations because they hinder performance too much. Daniel Gruss, assistant professor at Graz University of Technology one of the researchers, said via Twitter than one of the points of the paper is to push for better fixes to resolve the root cause of transient execution attacks.

Cargo ship in port, burning

PortSmash attack blasts hole in Intel’s Hyper-Threading CPUs, leaves with secret crypto keys

READ MORE

As was suggested when Spectre and Meltdown were first disclosed, better fixes may mean redesigned hardware. In a statement emailed to The Register, Cody Brocious, a security researcher at HackerOne, said, “As long as speculative execution is performed in processors, this type of bug will continue to be discovered. It’s impossible to perform operations without side-effects on a hardware level, and abstractions that pretend such operations are side-effect-free and always going to cause security issues.”

While a remote Spectre attack called NetSpectre has been proposed by other researchers, these latest techniques appear to be local threats for the time being.

“Remote attacks are very difficult to mount for now,” said Gruss in an email to The Register.

“The threat from transient-execution attacks did not change in any way with this publication. The main thing we tried to contribute to the community was a clear way to analyze and categorize new variants, a clear way to validate and analyze defense techniques. So, this is what changed: Now we can better assess what specific defense techniques offer.” ®

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/14/spectre_meltdown_variants/

Understanding Evil Twin AP Attacks and How to Prevent Them

The attack surface remains largely unprotected from Wi-Fi threats that can result in stolen credentials and sensitive information as well as backdoor/malware payload drops.

It’s been nearly 20 years since IEEE 802.11b was released and the world got the first Wi-Fi-branded products. And yet the Layer 2 attack surface remains largely unprotected from dangerous Wi-Fi threats that can result in stolen credentials and sensitive information as well as backdoor/malware payload drops. Attackers have been exploiting a fundamental issue with Wi-Fi: Laptops, smartphones, and connected devices aren’t equipped to distinguish between two radios broadcasting the same SSID name. This allows hackers to use malicious access points (APs) that eavesdrop on traffic, establish “man-in-the-middle” (MitM) positions, and extract sensitive information, often without leaving any traces behind.  

One of the most dangerous Wi-Fi threat categories is undoubtedly “evil twin” APs, an attack technique nearly two decades old. In fact, the US Department of Justice recently charged hackers within the Russian military agency GRU with implementing evil twin AP attacks to steal credentials and “plant espionage-oriented malware” targeting organizations such as anti-doping agencies, nuclear power operations, and chemical testing laboratories.

How did these GRU attacks work? The threat actor used 802.11 radios to broadcast the same SSIDs as offices and hotels in order to trick victims’ devices into associating, thereby establishing their MitM position and supplying Internet service through 4G LTE connections to evade network security. Let’s take a closer look at evil twin attacks to better understand defense best practices and techniques.

Analyzing Evil Twin AP Attacks
In a normal Wi-Fi connection, a person’s client device (image below) associates with a legitimate AP. 

Source: Ryan Orsi, WatchGuard

When an evil twin AP is present, a threat actor broadcasts the same SSID as the legitimate AP (and often the same BSSID or MAC address of the SSID) to fool the device into connecting (image below).

Source: Ryan Orsi, WatchGuard

In the case of the GRU evil twin attacks, hackers reportedly used a popular pen-testing tool — the Wi-Fi Pineapple from Hak5 — connected to high-gain antennas, battery packs, and a mobile 4G LTE WAN backhaul connection located in the trunks of their cars or carried within backpacks into buildings. The Wi-Fi Pineapple automates much of the labor required to set up an evil twin attack.

While within range of the target SSID, attackers begin by broadcasting the same SSID. This is straightforward and can even be done on smartphones with data plans that allow mobile Wi-Fi hotspot tethering. Attackers looking to avoid drawing suspicion toward antennas and battery packs typically opt for a popular tool called bettercap, which can run natively on Linux, Mac, Windows, and Android systems.

The bettercap command used to configure a fake SSID to be broadcasted natively from a laptop or other client is “wifi.ap.ssid.”

Source: Ryan Orsi, WatchGuard

 

Additionally, it’s important to note that evil twin attackers need to use clients with a radio capable of “monitoring mode.”

If the target SSID is a busy open hotspot, victim clients will connect to the evil twin AP within seconds. If the target is a private, PSK-encrypted SSID, then the attacker would need knowledge of the PSK (a service offered online that requires packet capture files of the WPA/WPA2 handshake sequence).

Most Wi-Fi clients and their human operators choose to “auto join” previously saved Wi-Fi networks. If the attacker can’t successfully trick the victim into connecting to the evil twin, he can simply break the connection between the victim and any legitimate AP he or she is using by flooding a client and/or associated AP with spoofed de-authentication frames in what’s called a de-authentication attack. This means that the target device and AP are informed that their connection has been dropped.

Once a client is connected to the evil twin AP, the attack is over. This entire process is used to allow attackers to establish MitM positions from which they can siphon packets and inject malware or backdoors onto victim devices for remote access. Once in a MitM position, the attacker has complete control over the Wi-Fi session. These cybercriminals can leverage well-known tools to duplicate popular login forms for social sites or email hosting platforms, intercept the credentials in plain text, forward them to the real websites, and log in the user. As the target, you might believe you’ve simply logged in to your email account as always — but in reality, you have handed your credentials over to an attacker.

Preventing Evil Twin AP Attacks
Businesses offering Wi-Fi to their employees and customers can use wireless intrusion prevention systems (WIPS) to detect the presence of an evil twin AP and prevent any managed corporate clients from connecting to them. (Full disclosure: WatchGuard is one of a number of companies that provide such services.) 

For Wi-Fi users, an evil twin AP is nearly impossible to detect because the SSID appears legitimate and the attackers typically provide Internet service. In most cases, the best way to stay safe on unfamiliar Wi-Fi networks is to always use a VPN to encapsulate the Wi-Fi session in another layer of security.

Unfortunately, much of the innovation in the Wi-Fi space has been limited to elements like radio range, throughput, and connectivity rather than security. Without a greater industrywide emphasis on Wi-Fi security, or set criteria for evaluating Wi-Fi security in general, many networking and security professionals lack the clarity they need to successfully prevent Wi-Fi threats. Education is key, as is a broader conversation about the level of security and protection we expect and demand from Wi-Fi solutions today.

Related Content:

 

Black Hat Europe returns to London Dec. 3-6, 2018, with hands-on technical Trainings, cutting-edge Briefings, Arsenal open-source tool demonstrations, top-tier security solutions, and service providers in the Business Hall. Click for information on the conference and to register.

Ryan Orsi is Director of Product Management at WatchGuard Technologies, a global leader in network security providing products and services to more than 80,000 customers worldwide. Ryan leads the Secure Wi-Fi solutions for WatchGuard. He has experience bringing disruptive … View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/understanding-evil-twin-ap-attacks-and-how-to-prevent-them-/a/d-id/1333240?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Airlines Have a Big Problem with Bad Bots

Bad bots account for 43.9% of all traffic on their websites, APIs, and mobile apps, according to a new analysis of 100 airlines.

(Image: profit_image, via stock.adobe.com)

As airlines are ramping up in preparation of the holiday travel season, bad bots are ramping up their activity on airlines’ websites, mobile apps, and APIs. Analysts in the research arm of Distil Networks today published a study called “How Bots Affect Airlines,” in which they analyzed 7.4 billion requests from 180 domains on 100 international airlines. They found malicious bots make up 43.9% of all airline web traffic — about double the 21.8% average for all industries. The highest bad bot percentage for one airline? About 94.6%.

In almost 30% of the domains that analysts studied, bad bots made up more than half of all traffic. Most bots (84.3%) on airline domains are moderate or advanced, and harder to detect. The highest proportion of bad bot traffic stems from the US (25.6%), followed by Singapore (15%).

At the core of the problem are airline websites and mobile apps, which serve as the home for flight data presented to customers: seat availability, pricing, booking processes, discounts. Some airlines use their own booking engines; others use third-party services for booking.

Online travel agencies (OTAs) like Expedia and Booking.com are channels designed to sell flights and process payment on behalf of airlines. Under commercial agreements, OTAs can scrape flight data in exchange for fees. Travel aggregators like Kayak and Skyscanner also display flight information but redirect shoppers to airlines’ websites to finalize their booking.

Four attack groups deploy bots against airlines: unauthorized OTAs and travel aggregators avoid fees and scrape flight information and fares, then hold seats to resell them later (a process known as “seat spinning”). Competitor airlines also scrape flight data and fares to gain market intelligence and hold seats to block legitimate purchases. Criminals target loyalty programs with account takeover to steal points, and conduct credit card and loyalty program fraud.

Keeping Up with Competition
Airlines are hot targets because the value of the goods they sell has a finite timeline, says Edward Roberts, director of product marketing at Distil Networks. There’s only a certain period of time a flight ticket will be valid, and price changes frequently based on destination and departure. Further, an ecosystem of OTAs and aggregators is constantly collecting data.

“The more competitive the market, the more competitive routes you fly, the more bots are competitive,” he explains. Every airline has some combination of authorized and unauthorized data scraping on their sites. Bad bots can result in higher fees for third-party booking engines because they make it appear as though far more people are viewing than booking flights.

It’s called a “look-to-book” ratio. Every time someone looks at a flight listing and asks “how much,” that’s considered a look, Roberts says. There should be one flight booked for every 100 looks, a number all airlines measure their progress against. “If that ratio suddenly spikes, you know that’s bot behavior,” he continues. “That’s not human behavior.”

The business implications of bad bots are significant, says Roberts. “Information from airlines states the financial cost and burden of this is getting to that point where they’re saying ‘we actively need to solve this problem because the cost to business is getting too large,'” he adds.

Loyalty rewards programs are hard hit by cybercriminals looking to monetize account access. If they can brute-force credentials and break in, they can steal and monetize points and miles.

“Anecdotally, airlines have a lot of seven-digit fraud coming through loyalty programs that they’re concerned about,” Roberts points out. Larger airlines typically have more value in their online loyalty program accounts, so those typically see larger amounts of account takeover attacks.

Attackers targeting the airline industry are becoming more advanced over time. Researchers note only 19.7% of airline bots were sophisticated in 2017; this year, the percentage jumped to 31.4%. At the same time, the percentage of simple bots decreased from 27.4% to 15.7%.

“Airlines are trying to deal with the problem, and they’re trying to put mitigation in place so they can prevent the volume of bots from attacking them,” says Roberts. “The bot operators are reacting.” Some are trying to appear more human by moving their mouse, delaying between clicks, making themselves evasive to try and avoid detection.

Overall, he says, researchers didn’t notice trends specific to airline size or location. “It’s really unique to that airline — whether it’s a flight route they have or the nature of how they created their websites,” he explains.

The past few months have been rough on airline cybersecurity. Last month, Hong Kong-based Cathay Airlines suffered the largest breach of any carrier to date when attackers compromised information belonging to 9.4 million passengers. A cyberattack on British Airways exposed the data of 380,000 customers; shortly after, the airline found 185,000 additional victims were hit.

Related Content:

 

Black Hat Europe returns to London Dec. 3-6, 2018, with hands-on technical Trainings, cutting-edge Briefings, Arsenal open-source tool demonstrations, top-tier security solutions, and service providers in the Business Hall. Click for information on the conference and to register.

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/risk/airlines-have-a-big-problem-with-bad-bots/d/d-id/1333266?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Black Hat: European Security Pros Wrestling With Potential Breaches, Privacy Issues

Black Hat Europe attendee survey shows European cybersecurity leaders are uncertain of their ability to protect end user data – and are fearful of a near-term breach of critical infrastructure.

While 50 nations and 150 global companies gathered in Paris last week to boost the call for better cybersecurity, European IT security professionals this week are registering their concerns that the region isn’t ready for an anticipated attack on critical infrastructure.

The 2018 Black Hat Europe Attendee Survey, published Wednesday, offers a sobering look at the state of cybersecurity defenses in Europe, bolstering the Paris meeting’s conclusion that greater efforts are needed to protect data and infrastructure across national boundaries. 

Nearly two-thirds (65%) of security pros in Europe believe a successful cyberattack affecting the critical infrastructure of multiple EU nations will occur in the next two years, according to the Black Hat report. The survey of 132 high-level information security leaders was released in advance of the Black Hat Europe conference, which will take place in London Dec. 3 to 6. 

“Vital infrastructure is way behind on the cyberthreats,” said one Black Hat survey respondent. “[Attackers] are often still hiding behind obfuscation techniques instead of [infrastructure] actually being secure.” 

Another respondent agreed. “We have reached the point where it is possible to cause mass destruction by cyberattack,” the respondent wrote. “This is a very worrying thing, as certain individual actors may cause large amounts of damage.” 

This level of concern, which has changed very little since the 2017 Black Hat Europe Attendee Survey, mirrors similar concerns voiced by North American security pros in the Black Hat USA 2018 survey, in which 69% of respondents said they believe US critical infrastructure will suffer a breach in the next two years. And in each case, security pros are doubtful that their regional governments are prepared to respond to such a breach. Only 15% of US respondents believe the US government and private-sector entities are ready for imminent critical infrastructure attacks; 18% of EU respondents believe their regional governments are sufficiently prepared. 

Interestingly, two of the largest countries that declined to sign the Paris accord – Russia and China – are among the countries that European security pros fear most. According to a plurality of those surveyed (30%), the top threat to critical infrastructure is posed by large nation-states like Russia and China. Their concern also extends to their own environments; more than half of survey participants said they believe recent activity from Russia, China, and North Korea has made European enterprise data less secure. 

And concerns are not limited to critical infrastructure. Some three-quarters of European security pros said a major data breach will occur in their own organizations in the coming year. Only about a quarter of respondents said such a breach is unlikely to occur. 

In the area of privacy, European security leaders have a similar lack of confidence that current regulations – including GDPR, which went into effect in May – will prevent the loss and misuse of personal information, such as what Facebook experienced earlier this year. 

A solid 70% of European security pros said their organizations have dedicated resources to GDPR initiatives. Yet only slightly more than a third are confident in their organizations’ state of GDPR compliance. Interestingly, while 85% of those surveyed think that GDPR will help at least a little in protecting individuals’ privacy, fewer than one in four think that impact will be substantial. 

Like the participants at the Paris accord, many of the survey respondents called for a shift in security culture, both in organizations and among end users. 

“There’s too much focus on technological solutions and experts, not enough focus on getting organizations and individuals to adopt secure processes and behaviors,” commented one respondent. “Prevention is better than detection and cure.” 

Another concurred: “Business is segmented, [which] leads to a mindset that security is the responsibility of someone else – and the security controls put in place to provide security are obstacles to be avoided, rather than embraced.” 

Many of the European security pros continued to register concern about the shortage of trained cyberstaff in their organizations. Fewer than half of European security leaders said their organizations have enough staff to respond to the threats they expect to encounter in the next 12 months. 

“No company is staffed appropriately for security,” one respondent said. “In my group, we have one security practitioner for each 107 software developers. That’s an impossible ratio. Imagine 107 people creating dirty rooms, and one person responsible for cleaning each room – mission impossible. We need education, tooling, [and] technology to begin influencing software engineers to write more secure code.” 

Related Content:

 

Black Hat Europe returns to London Dec 3-6 2018  with hands-on technical Trainings, cutting-edge Briefings, Arsenal open-source tool demonstrations, top-tier security solutions and service providers in the Business Hall. Click for information on the conference and to register.

Tim Wilson is Editor in Chief and co-founder of Dark Reading.com, UBM Tech’s online community for information security professionals. He is responsible for managing the site, assigning and editing content, and writing breaking news stories. Wilson has been recognized as one … View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/threat-intelligence/black-hat-european-security-pros-wrestling-with-potential-breaches-privacy-issues/d/d-id/1333267?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Cryptojacking, Mobile Malware Growing Threats to the Enterprise

At the same time, criminal organizations continue to look for new ways to attack their victims.

If exploits and malware were stocks and bonds, the third quarter of 2018 would have been a bull market.

That’s the broad takeaway from Fortinet’s Q3 2018 “Global Threat Landscape Report,” which found malware, exploits, and threats all on the increase. From July through September, unique malware variants grew 43%, while the number of malware families grew by nearly 32%.

Despite those numbers, Anthony Giandomenico, senior security strategist/researcher at FortiGuard Labs, says cryptojacking is one of the more serious threats he’s seeing. Giandomenico realizes that many researchers view crypto-jacking as more of an annoyance, but he sees two problems with that view. 

“First, it got into your network. Next, a lot of crypto-jacking malware is bringing down your antimalware software, breaking holes in your firewall, communicating with CC, and doing other malicious things,” he explains.

In addition, “malware stuffing” will be a bigger problem as time goes on, he says. “You see crypto-jacking bundled with ransomware and other malware,” Giandomenico says. “I think we’ll see this loaded with other malware in the future.” The reason for his view is simple: Crypto-jacking may not raise much in the way of revenue, but it’s free money, adding a little bit to the criminal’s coffers every day until it’s discovered.

Another threat with rising impact is mobile malware. “A lot of the bad guys realize that the mobile device in users’ hands is a computer just like the one at home or at work. Users let their guard down, and the bad guys are capitalizing on that,” he says. The increase in mobile malware can be seen in obvious ways — for example, of the threats organizations faced from all attack vectors, 14% of total malware alerts were Android-related — and in ways that are more subtle.

“Some of the targeted spear-phishing attacks will wait until lunchtime, when the victim will be at lunch, on their mobile phone. Then they’ll get the message that looks like it’s from a trusted source,” Giandomenico says, explaining that it can be much more difficult to fully vet an email message on a small mobile screen than on the screen attached to a desktop computer.

One piece of potentially positive news is that the percentage of encrypted network traffic continues to rise, hitting 72% in the third quarter, up from 55% a year earlier. While encryption makes legitimate traffic harder to intercept and steal, it also makes malicious traffic more difficult to analyze and block. Giandomenico says he’s not terribly worried about the latter. “I think more organizations will leverage analytics and machine learning to detect problems in the traffic without getting inside the traffic itself,” he adds.

Related Content:

 

Black Hat Europe returns to London Dec 3-6 2018  with hands-on technical Trainings, cutting-edge Briefings, Arsenal open-source tool demonstrations, top-tier security solutions and service providers in the Business Hall. Click for information on the conference and to register.

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 Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/risk-management/cryptojacking-mobile-malware-growing-threats-to-the-enterprise/d/d-id/1333269?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Security Teams Struggle with Container Security Strategy

Fewer than 30% of firms have more than a basic container security plan in place.

A study out today shows that the security community is still coming to grips with the new realities introduced by containerization to aid DevOps and agile development teams in their mission for faster deployments in the enterprise.

Some experts say the rise of containers offers an opportunity for security teams to embed themselves more thoroughly in the continuous delivery workflow. But according to “The State of Container Security” report from StackRox, about seven in 10 organizations today either don’t have a container security strategy or are at the most rudimentary stages of establishing that strategy. Among those with an existing strategy, about 35% say it doesn’t invest enough to adequately secure containers, and 25% say it isn’t detailed enough. 

Digging into the details of where IT professionals believe the biggest risks lie in the use of containers, misconfigurations led the pack by far, above vulnerabilities and attacks. This is not surprising given high-profile breaches like the Tesla cryptomining attack that was disclosed earlier this year, which was made possible by a poorly configured Kubernetes deployment on AWS.

Interestingly, even though the survey shows that most organizations are not yet running containers in production, securing containers in runtime has IT pros more worried than in build or deployment phases.

The concern for runtime is logical given the heavy emphasis that early container strategies have put on pre-production vulnerability scanning, according to Mark Bouchard, vice president of research for analyst firm CyberEdge, who provided analysis for the report.

“That’s where their early investments have been, and now their apps are going into production and they realize, ‘Yes, I’ve got to continue to do vulnerability scanning, but the bad guys operate not just against software flaws but on any weaknesses they can find,'” he says “So they recognize they need to do some monitoring of the container environment in runtime to look for that malicious activity.”

Ultimately, Bouchard says, containers aren’t necessarily any different than any other asset enterprises must protect. 

“We’re not talking about reinventing security,” he says, explaining that all the basic principles, such as the rule of least privilege, threat monitoring, and vulnerability scanning, all still apply. However, security professionals need to adjust to a couple of new variables that container environments introduced. First and foremost is the speed at which security teams need to work to protect constantly changing container environments. 

“What we’re doing with microservices, containers, and DevOps is speeding everything up,” Bouchard says. “So we’re talking about applying the same security principles on a much faster cycle.”

Secondly, he explains that security people need to familiarize themselves better with the architecture and with how containers, nodes, registries, orchestrators, and the like really work.

“Unless you understand what it is you are trying to protect, how can you do a good job protecting it?” Bouchard says. As he explains, many security practitioners came up from the network security world, and application delivery can sometimes be a challenge to wrap their arms around, but it is crucial.

“We’re shifting the issue now onto the workload, and that’s true for application security in general and most definitely for this world of microservices and containers,” Bouchard adds.

Related Content:

 

Black Hat Europe returns to London Dec 3-6 2018  with hands-on technical Trainings, cutting-edge Briefings, Arsenal open-source tool demonstrations, top-tier security solutions and service providers in the Business Hall. Click for information on the conference and to register.

Ericka Chickowski specializes in coverage of information technology and business innovation. She has focused on information security for the better part of a decade and regularly writes about the security industry as a contributor to Dark Reading.  View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/cloud/security-teams-struggle-with-container-security-strategy/d/d-id/1333271?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple