STE WILLIAMS

Sacramento Bee Databases Hit with Ransomware Attack

The Bee did not pay ransom and deleted its databases to prevent future attacks, according to its publisher.

The Sacramento Bee reported that two of its databases, both on a third-party server, were hit with a ransomware attack in January 2017. A Bee employee discovered the attack last week following a tip from a reporter with a different organization, the publication reports.

One affected database contained California voter registration data from the California Secretary of State and was obtained for reporting purposes. Another, a subscriber database, contained contact data for 53,000 current and former Bee subscribers who activated digital accounts before 2017. The Bee is informing those whose names, addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers were compromised.

Publisher Gary Wortel reports neither database contained credit card numbers, bank account data, or Social Security numbers. The voter registration data had been previously exposed online, and the same database had been shared with organizations that had been subject to attack.

An anonymous attacker demanded a Bitcoin ransom in exchange for the data. The Bee chose not to pay and has deleted both databases to prevent further attacks.

Read more details here.

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/attacks-breaches/sacramento-bee-databases-hit-with-ransomware-attack/d/d-id/1331023?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

8 Nation-State Hacking Groups to Watch in 2018

The aliases, geographies, famous attacks, and behaviors of some of the most prolific threat groups.PreviousNext

(Image: NicoElNino via Shutterstock)

(Image: NicoElNino via Shutterstock)

The nation-state threat landscape is constantly shifting. Threat actors alter strategies, switch targets, change tools – and for organizations who need to defend against these groups, keeping track of the players can seem impossible.

Some hotbed regions are getting hotter, and some big-name actors are getting bigger. A perfect example is Fancy Bear (also known as APT28 and Sofacy), one of many groups believed to act out of Russia and Eastern Europe. The group is thought to be an arm of the Russian military intelligence agency GRU.

“[Fancy Bear] is probably the most famous group right now,” says John Hultquist, FireEye director of intel analysis, who expects Fancy Bear will become even more brazen over the course of this year. Security experts point to Fancy Bear as the predominant threat group to watch in 2018 as it widens its bullseye to include more corporate targets.  

North Korea is another hotbed for cyberattacks. The North Korean regime has invested significant resources in its cyber capabilities and groups from the area have been linked to a variety of activity, from the infamous Sony breach, to WannaCry and cryptocurrency mining.

Here are the nation-state threat groups security researchers are watching most closely – and the aliases, geographies, behaviors, past attacks, and changing strategies related to each one.  

 

Kelly Sheridan is Associate Editor at Dark Reading. She started her career in business tech journalism at Insurance Technology and most recently reported for InformationWeek, where she covered Microsoft and business IT. Sheridan earned her BA at Villanova University. View Full BioPreviousNext

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/8-nation-state-hacking-groups-to-watch-in-2018/d/d-id/1331009?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Cyber Warranties: What to Know, What to Ask

The drivers and details behind the growth of cyber warranties, which more businesses are using to guarantee their products.

Solutions providers have started to adopt cyber warranties to stand by the effectiveness of their products and services. As more providers enter the market, warranties could give adopters an edge when selling to a growing pool of security-savvy customers.

“One of the things I came to realize when I was running WhiteHat [Security] is, information security is full of snake oil and lies and deceptions and things like that,” says Jeremiah Grossman, founder of WhiteHat Security and current chief of security strategy at SentinelOne.

At the time, customers had to navigate marketing and buzzwords from different vendors, most of which weren’t willing to stand by their claims to, for example, block APTs and SQL injections. As Grossman puts it, there was nothing he could say, do, or build that competitors couldn’t say they did too — even if they were lying about it.

The challenge drove him to pioneer the concept of cyber warranties, which make solution providers liable for their products and force them to put substance behind their claims.

It started out as a “very novel, very controversial concept,” Grossman says of the early stages. “Nobody wants to make themselves liable or accountable in infosec.” A couple of years ago, nobody was offering warranties. Now, he notes, the trend is moving in the right direction. SentinelOne’s Ransomware Cyber Warranty offers up to $1M in ransomware protection.

What cyber warranties do

Here, it’s important to note the difference between cyber warranties and cyber insurance.

Cyber insurance covers defense costs, settlements, and first-party breach response expenses. It covers customers’ data breach actions or outcomes, such as compromised paper files or lost devices. Coverage kicks in if a covered incident occurs and is reported during a policy period.

A cyber warranty is for all services provided by a solutions provider to their customer base. It covers the cost to re-perform services associated with the system update following an external data breach caused by a vendor’s product, explains Matt Kletzli, management liability leader at Schinnerer, which recently launched a warranty for tech solutions providers.

Schinnerer, an underwriting manager, teamed up with Guidewire, which builds software for the property and casualty (PC) insurance industry. Its Cyber Warranty uses Cyance, a risk analytics tool from Guidewire, to gauge the risk of vendors’ customers so they can customize strategies. The warranty is for small and mid-size solutions providers making $40M maximum each year.

“What we’re doing is providing the solutions providers with a tangible contractual agreement with every one of their clients where they have a service agreement in place,” says Kletzli. In the remediation of a breach that requires reporting to regulators, the warranty will let solutions providers re-perform services that gave rise to the breach, he continues.

What vendors and customers need to know

“All vendors need to know is how well their product works under a given set of circumstances,” Grossman explains. While nobody can guarantee 100% effective security, they can conduct internal testing to learn the effectiveness of their products and likelihood of claims.

He points to the example of SentinelOne, which tested the likelihood of devices being infected with ransomware over the course of a year when protected with its ransomware product. The infection rate turned out to be 1%, which the company could use to stand by its effectiveness.

Grossman is also an advocate for warranty providers to re-insure their warranties so customers can be confident their vendors will be able to make good on their promises, he adds.

Cyber warranties help set vendors apart at a time when it’s getting harder to stand out in the market. “When you’re a solutions provider, it gets very difficult to differentiate by saying ‘I’m a high-level product with X product manufacturer,'” says Ryan McKinney, business development leader for Guidewire’s Cyence Risk Analytics.

When buying a product or service, businesses should ask if the vendor will consider offering a warranty. “Ask for the fine print,” Grossman says. “Some warranties out there are really good; some are really not.”

“The repercussions of a cyber breach are widespread and in my opinion, are also at this point unbound,” says Setu Kulknarni, VP of product and corporate strategy at WhiteHat. Buying a product with a warranty is one way to mitigate the risk, he explains.

Every application is unique, he continues, and there is no common baseline to dictate which types of apps should be protected in different ways. “How you use the software should also dictate what kind of cyber warranties you get,” he notes. If you’re not using software with the right configuration, for example, the warranty claims might be different.

Related Content:

 

Black Hat Asia returns to Singapore with hands-on technical Trainings, cutting-edge Briefings, Arsenal open-source tool demonstrations, top-tier solutions and service providers in the Business Hall. Click for information on the conference and to register.

Kelly Sheridan is Associate Editor at Dark Reading. She started her career in business tech journalism at Insurance Technology and most recently reported for InformationWeek, where she covered Microsoft and business IT. Sheridan earned her BA at Villanova University. View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/risk/cyber-warranties-what-to-know-what-to-ask/d/d-id/1331021?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Google Paid $2.9M for Vulnerabilities in 2017

The Google Vulnerability Reward Program issued a total of 1,230 rewards in 2017. The single largest payout was $112,500.

Google issued a total of $2.9 million in 2017 as part of its Google Vulnerability Reward Program, which has so far paid out $12 million since it was first created in November 2010.

More than $1 million was given for vulnerabilities discovered and reported in Google products, and $1.1 million was given for Android bugs. Google reports it gave out 1,230 individual rewards and 274 paid researchers were involved in the program last year.

The Vulnerability Research Grants program awarded $125,000 to more than 50 security researchers around the world. This initiative, a complement to the Vulnerability Reward Program, pays researchers and invited experts to investigate the security of Google products and services, even in situations where no vulnerabilities are discovered.

Its Patch Rewards Program, an experimental program founded in 2013 which rewards proactive security improvements to open-source projects, paid $50,000 to participants in 2017.

The largest individual reward from last year amounted to $112,500, which was also the highest-ever bug bounty paid for an Android flaw. It went to researcher Guang Gong, from the Alpha Team at Qihoo 360 Technology, who submitted the first working remote exploit chain since the Android Security Rewards (ASR) program expanded in June 2017.

Gong’s exploit chain contained two bugs. CVE-2017-5116 is a V8 engine bug used to get remote code execution in the sandboxed Chrome render process. CVE-2017-14904 is a flaw in Android libgralloc module used to escape Chrome’s sandbox. Combined, the chain can be leveraged to inject arbitrary code into system_server by accessing a malicious URL in Chrome.

Also worth noting is researcher “gzobqq,” who earned the $100,000 pwnium award for a chain of bugs across five components, which achieved remote code execution in guest mode on the Chrome OS. Researcher Alex Birsan was paid $15,600 in bounties for discovering anyone could have gained access to internal Google Issue Tracker data.

Google is bumping up the highest reward for a remote exploit chain, or exploit leading to TrustZone or Verified Boot compromise, from $50,000 to $200,000. It has also increased the top reward for a remote kernel exploit from $30,000 to $150,000. The range of rewards for remote code executions runs from $1,000 to $5,000 per bug.

Related Content:

 

Black Hat Asia returns to Singapore with hands-on technical Trainings, cutting-edge Briefings, Arsenal open-source tool demonstrations, top-tier solutions and service providers in the Business Hall. Click for information on the conference and to register.

Kelly Sheridan is Associate Editor at Dark Reading. She started her career in business tech journalism at Insurance Technology and most recently reported for InformationWeek, where she covered Microsoft and business IT. Sheridan earned her BA at Villanova University. View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/vulnerabilities---threats/google-paid-$29m-for-vulnerabilities-in-2017/d/d-id/1331027?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Robot’s revenge – the CAPTCHA that stops humans

What do bots talk about on their bots-only internet?

Do they debate whether Mark Zuckerberg is in fact a robot or A CARBON-BASED LIFEFORM INGESTING CORROSIVE ISOPODS OF TRILOBITE NOURISHMENT and apologize for PROMINENT FULL-CAPITAL YELLING CAUSING DISCOMFORT TO YOUR AUDITORY RECEIVERS EARS, PROVIDING amusement.value=256 in a MOST AMUSING SUBROUTINE JOKE?

(If you like robot humor like that, please do visit r/totallynotrobots and observe a fellow human having a human experience.)

Anyway, beats me, what robots talk about on robot internet. I’m a human. And I have verified my humanness thanks to an “online performance” called Humans Not Invited, brought to us courtesy of online programmer artist Damjanski. His real name, according to Motherboard, is Danjan Pita.

The online performance is in fact a Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart (CAPTCHA). They look similar to Google’s reCAPTCHAs, in that you’re presented with a vision test that asks you to select a collection of images based on question: select all squares with spinners, say, or select all squares with traffic lights.

But the images in the Humans Not Invited test aren’t made for human eyes. Rather, they’re full of images that are blurred beyond recognition. At least, they’re blurred beyond most human recognition: some Reddit users said they guessed correctly, though nobody at Motherboard did. Nor could I, and I tried several times.

Damjanski told Motherboard in an email that bots (software robots) can pick out the right images, which are real images that have been blurred with an algorithm:

So for example when the captcha asks you to select each square with an Ewok – there are some blurred Ewoks in that captcha. We also have a program changing always the image titles so people can’t trick it by checking the names of the image files.

Damjanski posted the site on Hacker News last week.

The point of CAPTCHA challenges is to act as a gate that lets humans through but stops or slows down bots. Unfortunately the bots keep finding the key to the lock. There are three kinds of CAPTCHA, and they’ve all been automatically kicked over by researchers: image challenges, audio challenges and text challenges.

CAPTCHA challenges aren’t the be-all and end-all: rather, they act as a stumbling block, to slow down bots as much as possible.

But not this one! Damjanski’s goal is to stop humans, and this is the message you’ll get unless you’re lucky or you have algorithms in your eyeballs:

Damjanski told Motherboard that since posting the test last week, people have created bots to beat it. He said that he and two friends have been re-evaluating and toughening the challenge:

We constantly update the algorithm on different variables like for example how many pictures it serves or in another case how it blurs the images.

Once your bot is in, it’s honored by having its IP address added to a published list. Damjanski says more than 30 bots had made it into the “locked robot room” as of Wednesday, where they were greeted with the words, “Welcome! You are not a human.”

Damjanski says there’s no end date: he’s just going to keep updating the algorithm as people find ever more creative ways to beat it.

I kinda enjoy seeing what people’s reactions are going to be.


Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nakedsecurity/~3/ti7v7KUFT6U/

Chinese police get facial recognition glasses

In time for the massive upcoming human migration that is China’s annual Lunar New Year, Chinese police have added a new surveillance tool to their already considerable arsenal: glasses outfitted with fast facial recognition technology that’s connected to a database of 10,000 suspects wanted in connection with major crimes.

During the celebration, which begins next week, hundreds of millions of people will flood train stations and airports.

China’s official state media outlet, the People’s Daily, on Monday touted the surveillance specs as a way to help out authorities during massive events such as the annual Lunar New Year. Chinese news outlets featured a policewoman wearing a sunglasses version while patrolling a train station in Zhengzhou, the capital of central China’s Henan province.

The People’s Daily reported that the eyeglass-mounted camera is equipped with facial-recognition technology capable of “highly effective screening” of crowds for fugitives traveling under false pretenses.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the devices are skirting the slow mess that is blurry CCTV cameras and hooking directly into a database of known suspects. LLVision, the company behind the devices, says that they’ve been able to identify individuals by zipping through a database of 10,000 suspects in as little as 100 milliseconds: faster than some fixed-camera systems.

As of Wednesday, the glasses had already helped railway police at Zhengzhou’s East Railway Station nab seven suspects and 26 people who were allegedly traveling using other people’s identities.

Borrowing others’ identities is a way for people to evade China’s monitoring of air and train travel, to get around travel restrictions, and to slip past whatever punishment authorities think should be meted out for their “infractions,” the WSJ reports.

William Nee, China researcher at Amnesty International, told the newspaper that the new surveillance tool could also give Chinese authorities the ability to track political dissidents and to profile ethnic minorities. The WSJ quotes Nee:

The potential to give individual police officers facial-recognition technology in sunglasses could eventually make China’s surveillance state all the more ubiquitous.

Beijing-based LLVision Technology Co.’s CEO, Wu Fei, said that the company worked with police departments in Henan, the eastern province of Shandong and the northwestern region of Xinjiang for a year to develop the devices.

The glasses are based on wearable video cameras and actually don’t have facial recognition capability themselves. That non-facial recognition model, which sells for 3,999 yuan ($636), is sold to businesses and consumers. Then there’s the surveillance model, or, as the company says, the model that can be used for “identification purposes”. LLVision can’t provide a price for that model, Wu said, given that they’re part of larger, custom-designed systems that vary in cost.

The company told the WSJ that it’s already shipped basic, non-surveillance-equipped glasses to Africa, the US, Europe and Japan. It would also like to “expand overseas sales,” Wu said.

Of course, with surveillance-hungry police and regimes around the world, it’s not hard to see that LLVision could undoubtedly expand its shipments by selling more surveillance models. It’s four years ago now that Dubai, for one, added facial recognition to Google Glass. That same year, the New York Police Department began testing Glass for use in investigations.

LLVision told the WSJ that it’s vetting clients before they can purchase the surveillance devices and avoiding selling to consumers entirely until it figures out how people are going to be affected by the technology.

If they really want to know how people are affected they might take a look at Google’s ill-fated Google Glass project. I seem to remember at least one alleged barroom brawl over people assuming they were being recorded by the device.

At any rate, police getting their hands on surveillance spectacles is all in keeping with the trend for US cities to increasingly gobble up data on residents using surveillance technology such as gunshot-detection sensors, license plate readers, data-mining of social media posts for criminal activity, tracking of toll payments when drivers use electronic passes, and even at least one police purchase of a drone in Texas.

Given that they’re getting their face images from a preloaded database, LLVisions’s facial recognition glasses don’t seem all that threatening. It’s a closed data set, after all, right?

But what’s to stop them from being hooked into ever-burgeoning face databases, like the ones maintained by the FBI?

I think it’s time to drag out that George Orwell definition of a Facecrime from 1984:

It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself – anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called.


Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nakedsecurity/~3/fQ62SSkpvNw/

VMware sticks finger in Meltdown/Spectre dike for virtual appliances

VMware’s advised on how to mitigate the Meltdown and Spectre chip design flaws in several of its products.

The workarounds cover vCloud Usage Meter, Identity Manager (vIDM), vCenter Server, vSphere Data Protection, vSphere Integrated Containers and vRealize Automation (vRA).

The knowledge base articles for all the products state that Meltdown and Spectre can create problems for virtual appliances, explain that the mitigation tactics will stop attacks but must be considered “a temporary solution only and permanent fixes will be released as soon as they are available.”

Several of the workarounds, listed here, require logging on as a privileged user and then type a couple of commands. Others require more effort.

The workarounds are important because VMware ships some of its products as appliances. vCenter, for example, now ships as an appliance because VMware would rather you did not install it as a guest.

So crack open your command lines, vAdmins: there’s work to do.

And in case you are super-keen on VMware and or wonder about what Dell plans to do with it , consider its SEC filings and those of the Dell Technologies tracking stock that’s tied to Virtzilla. Both record that colossal investment management outfit Blackrcock Inc has recently increased its holdings in both stocks above the five per cent level that makes public disclosure compulsory. That kind of buy is sometimes a signal that an investor wants its opinions to be given greater weight.

So once you finish your workarounds, grab some popcorn. ®

Sponsored:
Minds Mastering Machines – Call for papers now open

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/09/vmware_temp_fixes_for_meltdown_spectre_for_virtual_appliances/

iOS ‘iBoot’ source code posted online, Apple issues DMCA takedown notice

The source code for Apple’s iOS ‘iBoot’ secure bootloader has been leaked to GitHub.

As its name suggests, iBoot is a piece of read-only code that sits inside a boot ROM chip, activating every time an iOS device is turned on before the operating system kernel is loaded.

Its purpose is to ensure that whatever loads before iOS is what is says it is and hasn’t been tampered with or compromised.

As Apple describes the importance of this integrity checking:

This is the first step in the chain of trust where each step ensures that the next is signed by Apple.

Reportedly, the leaked code relates to iOS 9, so it’s unclear how much of the code will still be present in the latest image for iOS 11.

The assumption seems to be that low-level code will by its nature not change very often, so the fact that the files date to 2015 (with a few from 2016) shouldn’t be reassuring.

Apple’s lawyers quickly intervened to have the code taken down under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The following notice now lies in place of the source code:

Repository unavailable due to DMCA takedown.

This repository is currently disabled due to a DMCA takedown notice. We have disabled public access to the repository. The notice has been publicly posted.

The notice states the following “reason” for the takedown:

Reproduction of Apple’s “iBoot” source code, which is responsible for ensuring trusted boot operation of Apple’s iOS software. The “iBoot” source code is proprietary and it includes Apple’s copyright notice. It is not open-source.

What is the significance of the leak?

There are really two concerns.

Firstly, anyone who gets hold of the code can sift it for vulnerabilities, either to jailbreak Apple devices or, in the worst-case scenario, to undermine the security it is meant to guarantee.

They can’t modify the code itself to execute a compromise because anything that deviates from Apple’s boot image will simply stop iOS from booting. But by understanding its inner workings, someone might be able to find a way around some of the protections Apple deliberately doesn’t go into a lot of detail about.

That’s still an if because Apple’s trust design intentionally minimises the harm that can be caused by a compromise of one element.

More likely, in the short term, it will give researchers an incentive to find and report weaknesses they turn up to Apple in the hope of landing a bug bounty that ranges up to $200,000 for firmware flaws. If that happens (and assuming Apple tells us about it), the first sign will be a rise in payouts.

Perhaps the concern should be how this code leaked into the public domain in the first place. Even if it turns out to be of more minor significance than some have claimed, that’s still another symbolic blow for a company that has dealt with quite a few security issues lately.


Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nakedsecurity/~3/YgRDOcnXEM0/

WordPress denial-of-service attacks – how real is the problem? [VIDEO]

We wrote yesterday about a WordPress bug where an automatic update broke automatic updating, but that’s not the only security drama in the WordPress ecosystem at the moment.

There are claims that a bug known as CVE-2018-6389 “could put 29% of the world’s websites at risk of a denial-of-service attack”, and other similarly heady claims.

Is that true? If so, what can you do about it?

We found out from Naked Security’s Mark Stockley, who’s a WordPress expert himself:

(Can’t see the video directly above this line, or getting an error such as “no longer available”? Watch on Facebook instead.)

Note. With most browsers, you don’t need a Facebook account to watch the video, and if you do have an account you don’t need to be logged in. If you can’t hear the sound, try clicking on the speaker icon in the bottom right corner of the video player to unmute.


Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nakedsecurity/~3/c8jD4fIdVZ0/

Wish you could log into someone’s Netgear box without a password? Summon a &genie=1

If you’re using a Netgear router at home, it’s time to get patching. The networking hardware maker has just released a tsunami of patches for a couple of dozen models of its kit.

The flaws were found by Martin Rakhmanov at infosec shop Trustwave, which has spent over a year hunting down programming gremlins in Netgear’s firmware.

Software updates to address these uncovered vulnerabilities have now been released – you should ensure they are installed as soon as you can before scumbags and botnets start exploiting them to hijack broadband gateways and wireless points. Instructions on how to apply the fixes are included in the linked-to advisories.

Some 17 Netgear routers have a remote authentication bypass, meaning malware or miscreants on your network, or able to reach the device’s web-based configuration interface from the internet, can gain control without having to provide a password. Just stick genie=1 in the URL, and bingo.

That’s pretty bad news for any vulnerable gateways with remote configuration access enabled, as anyone on the internet can exploit the cockup to take over the router, change its DNS settings, redirect browsers to malicious sites, and so on.

Another 17 Netgear routers – with some crossover with the above issue – have a similar bug, in that the genie_restoring.cgi script, provided by the box’s built-in web server, can be abused to extract files and passwords from its filesystem in flash storage – it can even be used to pull files from USB sticks plugged into the router.

Other models have less severe problems that still need patching just in case. For example, after pressing the Wi-Fi Protected Setup button, six of Netgear’s routers open up a two-minute window during which an attacker can potentially execute arbitrary code on the router as root over the air.

“Trustwave SpiderLabs has worked with Netgear through our responsible disclosure process to make sure that these vulnerabilities are addressed,” Trustwave’s Rakhmanov said.

“We’d also like to thank Netgear for their responsive and communicative product security incident response team team. It’s obvious that their participation in bug bounties has helped them improve their internal process for addressing issues like these.” ®

Sponsored:
Minds Mastering Machines – Call for papers now open

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/09/netgear_security_patches/