The calendar says its Summer although here in the Pacific Northwest, we’re not sure ~ its a cool Summer, which makes it fine for reading security books in the hammock or doing laptop stuff from the deck.

So what’s cooking?  I re-encountered a tool I first learned about from Russ McRee’s Toolsmith column in the September 2008 ISSA Journal ~ Practical Threat Analysis.  I’d looked at it before, but not in enough detail so have embarked on using it for a deeper understanding.

The 2010 Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report is out and its chock-full of good statistics and commentary.  I especially like the partnership with the U.S. Secret Service and the shared incident data.  Another nice tool from Verizon Business is VerIS, the Verizon Incident Sharing Framework which presents how metrics are captured and used in preparation of the DBIR.

I took the Certified Information Systems Auditor (CISA) exam on June 12, 2010 and am patiently waiting to learn my fortune or fate!  The process stimulated a new appreciation of ISACA Auditing Standards, Procedures and Guidelines  and CobiT 4.1, prompting me to send the former to FedEx for printing and to order the latter in book form from the ISACA Bookstore.  My wife picks it up and says “Can’t you find a good novel to read?  Its Summer!”

I guess you had to be there to appreciate it…

Cheers mates!

by Bill Wildprett, Suspicious Minds blog, Copyright 2010

It’s a cool, rainy Spring here in the Pacific Northwest, a fine time to stay indoors and read instead of cleaning gutters, gardening, mowing the verdant expanse out back, etc.,

Reading and study efforts have been and are focused on preparing for the June 12th CISA exam first and foremost.

Following that, here’s what’s top-of-mind for me:

OSSTMM 3 updates

Security Tools Screencast Demos from SearchSecurity.com

Never Eat Alone – Keith Ferrazzi: Building personal networks isn’t about how many connections you have in LinkedIn, it’s about maintaining and growing relationships in meaningful ways.

As the old saw goes, ‘All Work and No Play…’ so breaks in the ‘Blue Room‘ are taken with Daisy:

One Happy Golden!

As information security professionals, a common refrain we hear is how difficult, but essential it is to communicate the whys, hows, and whats of security to management, other business units, partners, vendors, customers, etc.,  Whether its meaningful security metrics or why compliance is just the beginning of the whole security process, better communication can yield better results.

Recently, I’ve had the pleasurable opportunity to learn more effective ways of communicating professionally.  I attended a series of seminars and workshops sponsored by Paul Anderson from ProLango Consulting.  Paul specializes in career development and training, with an emphasis on using LinkedIn & Twitter to find opportunities, résumé optimization and advanced interviewing techniques.

I learned about how people communicate via words (7%), tonality (38%) and physiology (55%) and the essential elements in building rapport with hiring managers, co-workers, spouses, etc.,  Generally speaking, people are primarily visual, auditory or kinesthetic when they talk – everyone is all three but we all have a dominant type.

Visual people look up when speaking, speak faster and use phrases like “I see, what you mean”.  Auditory people look from side-to-side, speak slower and say things like “That sounds good to me”.  Kinesthetic people look down and may make physical contact with you as they speak.

Paul’s experience as a hiring manger at Microsoft and Expedia and his consulting work reveal that on average, recruiters take 7 seconds to review a résumé and hiring managers take 45 seconds to decide whether or not to hire.

His teachings focus on being able to build rapport effectively by matching and mirroring body language and tone of voice, then asking key questions designed to illustrate expertise and elicit the ‘pain points’ of the other party, in an attempt to find their need(s) so you can link them to your experience/product/service.  Finally, techniques to overcome objections while closing are taught.

Résumé optimization is about identifying the corporate values and desired employee traits mentioned in a job description, then fine-tuning the top-half of the 1st page so it speaks concisely in two to three sentences of how you’ll solve their needs and problems, not an ‘elevator pitch‘ of what you’ve done before, specifically.  A bullet list of core competencies relevant to the position’s requirements follows before the experience, education, and professional associations sections.

All of this was refreshing and enlightening; much of it grounded in basic common sense and how good salespeople work.  The concept behind building rapport is to become very quickly similar to the person you’re conversing with so they think: ‘I like me, they’re like me, so I like them’.

It isn’t about simple mimicry, it’s about listening closely, asking good questions, and filling their need with your expertise and experience.

So, give this a try when you’re next trying to sell security, interview for a job, or persuade someone.  Become like them in body language and vocal tone to build rapport ~ you may be pleasantly surprised by the results.

by Bill Wildprett, Suspicious Minds blog, Copyright 2010

<!–[if !mso]> <! st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } –> Hawai’i

Dragon’s Lair, Pt 2

The denials, now from the aforementioned Chinese schools (Shanghai Jiaotong University and Lanxiang Vocational School), are expected, but without foundation given the proof uncovered by Joe Stewart, a malware specialist with SecureWorks.

Mr. Stewart reverse-engineered code from the Hydraq trojan and, according to the NY Times, ‘determined the main program used in the attack contained a module based on an unusual algorithm from a Chinese technical paper that has been published exclusively on Chinese-language Web sites.’

For a much more detailed analysis beyond the scope of the Times article, jump to the original SecureWorks blog post by Mr. Stewart where he explains the basis of his conclusions about the unusual CRC algorithm.  As he says, “This information strongly indicates the Aurora codebase originated with someone who is comfortable reading simplified Chinese…In my opinion, the use of this unique CRC implementation in Hydraq is evidence that someone from within the PRC authored the Aurora codebase…”

I had fun hypothesizing about the evil genius of backdoors inside the source code of pirated copies of Windows (take the tin hat off now!), but this argument concludes that  someone or some group (PLA?) in the PRC is behind this.  As Mr. Stewart recognizes, this could still be the work of others, intent on blaming the Chinese government, but he refers to Occam’s Razor and its classic argument that the simplest explanation is probably the best one.

On the other hand, the counter argument, and some compelling evidence, has been raised in this blog piece.

To play the Devil’s Advocate for a moment;  say the U.S. government was behind this, to throw suspicion on the PRC for political and economic reasons, and to fight-back against the “persistent campaign of “espionage-by-malware” emanating from the People’s Republic of China (PRC)”, as Mr. Stewart describes it, who would be helping the U.S.?

As I stated before, maybe we’re doing it or maybe others are doing it for us.  If we’re doing it, we’re doing it directly or using inside assets.  If someone else is doing it for us – who?  My money is on the Israelis.  Israel has plenty of sharp coders and the Mossad is quite capable, as recent news has shown.  And, they’ve done this before.  If not Israel, what other nation would be likely to help the U.S.?  England,  Canada or Australia probably.

Then there’s the voice that says, ‘everyone’s doing it, so why worry?’ Sadly, all too true…  Most likely, we’ll never really know the answer.

by Bill Wildprett, Suspicious Minds blog, Copyright 2010

The Dragon’s Lair?

An excellent article in the N.Y. Times on February 18th stated that two Chinese schools, the Shanghai Jiaotong University and the Lanxiang Vocational School were involved in the recent online attacks against Google and dozens of other U.S. corporations.  These conclusions come from research by various security researchers, the NSA, and U.S. defense contractors.

There are multiple possibilities to consider here and more detailed information is required before making any final conclusions.  One the one hand, it appears to be obvious ~ yes, it’s the Chinese government/military working with or sponsoring patriotic student hacking activities.

On the other hand, perhaps not.  An important part of the covert Intelligence function and process is the dissemination of dis-information for various reasons, be they political, economic, strategic, etc.,  As the Times article speculates, this may be a false-flag intelligence operation led by another nation-state.

To do this successfully, you need insiders who work for you who can plant the trail of ‘bread crumbs’ that lead back to the source of origin or you need outsiders who can co-opt internal resources to make it look like the attacks came from the schools.  For the latter, you’d need to control individual servers or a botnet from within China to do the attacks, with just enough hard-to-find, but incriminating and hard-to-spoof pieces of evidence to prove the assertion.

Think about who might do this, why and how?

Image courtesy of scienceblogs.com

If you put the tinfoil conspiracy theory hat on, is it possible that pirated copies of Microsoft Windows could be involved?  That’ would be almost too perfect.  A completely new twist on the meaning of Trojan Horse!  The news that there was a completely undiscovered flaw in IE6 that was used for the attacks is plausible, but is it probable?  Are we talking undiscovered, or simply unrevealed?

I’m not a forensics expert or CS grad, so am more than curious about how you’d prove, absolutely, that the attacks came from specific machines, not just IP addresses.  We can’t use the Evil bit to solve this conundrum.

It’s interesting to speculate about all this and it certainly will be interesting to follow.  Will we ever know the Truth or just read stories; it’s like an Information Security version of the Allegory of the Cave

Later friends!

by Bill Wildprett, Suspicious Minds blog, Copyright 2010

Some very interesting research came to my attention the other day, courtesy of the ISC2.org CISSPforum on Yahoo Groups, pointing to an article in Scientific American that discussed why flattery is effective.

The research, by Elaine Chan and Jaideep Sengupta at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and reported first in the Journal of Marketing Research, showed that while most people can spot obvious flattery and attempts to influence them, on an innate subconscious level it actually works!

The study showed that while participants explicit attitudes rejected marketing come-on’s, their implicit attitudes were more positive and could be used to predict future behavior.  This susceptibility to flattery may stem from the basic human need to feel good about oneself, referred to as illusory superiority or the above-average effect.

In testing whether or not the motive to self-enhance was related to insincere flattery, the researchers showed that, in the words of Scientific American, “those of us who could use a little pick-me up to begin with are particularly vulnerable to the message behind a smooth sales pitch”.

So, how does this relate to information security and why is it important?  This all goes back to social engineering and the ability to market towards or convince other people to do what you want them to.  Knowledge of these behavioral responses can be applied to social engineering as part of penetration testing and taught as part of security awareness training.  On the converse, look for this to be used in phishing attempts.

And what about security product marketing from vendors?  We all know about FUD, but should the F stand for flattery instead?  ‘Yes, this new Intrusion Detection/Prevention System does make me feel sexy!’ Probably not, but more likely about being told how much more secure you’ll be, which translates internally to how good of a security person you think you are.

The takeaway ~ keep your BS filters on high and understand that at some basic level, like Fox Mulder, you want to believe.  Doing so may open you to accepting more risk…

Food for thought.

by Bill Wildprett, Suspicious Minds blog, Copyright 2010

I’ve been following the news about the Google hacks and ‘Operation Aurora‘ as McAfee called it, for a while.  There’s a plethora of online articles about this and why China would do this, which the PRC government denies pro forma.  It’s about nationalistic young Chinese and about PRC government, economic and military strategic interests.

An excellent source of discussion has been The Dark Visitor website, focused on Chinese hackers and also the SecurityMetrics.org mailing list.

From that, I learned the term Advanced Persistent Threat (APT), used by Mandiant and their M-unition blog.  One of the best comments came from Richard Bejtlich’s TaoSecurity blog; Richard explained what APT is and why it is dangerous.

The long and the short of it is that, in this case, the PRC will use any means whatsoever to obtain information to their advantage.  The usual resource constraints of time, money and people simply don’t matter, nor do ethics as we think of them.  Some have stated that these attacks against Google, Adobe, and according to McAfee, 32 other companies in the technology, financial and defense sectors, are only about malware and the quest for money.

In a sense, this argument is correct, but the financial motivation is different.  Yes, it’s about money because money is about power and the ability, long-term, of the PRC government to retain it against the tide of capitalist democracy.  In other words, as long as the PRC leaders can keep growing their economy, their entrepreneurial class makes money,  and the middle-class gets something, they’ll continue to stay in power.  They have a very vested interest in this odd form of trickle-down economics ~ political survival long enough to ensure their continued relevance and Chinese economic dominance sooner than later this century.

So, if it means the theft of intellectual property, commercial secrets, software, whatever from wherever, that is what China will do, and as their leaders see it, must do, if they are to not just catch-up, but succeed.  As the Mandiant M-unition blog puts it:

“No target is too small, or too obscure, or too well-defended. No organization is too large, too well-known, or too vulnerable. It’s not spy-versus-spy espionage. It’s spy-versus-everyone…

…The APT’s goals are twofold:

  • to steal information to achieve economic, political and strategic advantage.
  • to establish and maintain an occupying force in their target’s environment, a force they can call on at any time…”

It used to be French and Russian intelligence organs we worried about, as far as stealing corporate secrets went.  APT is a whole ‘nother ball game, without umpires and a playbook available to one side only.  Expect other nation-state actors to play the same game; it’s similar to the whack-a-mole the West is playing with Iran over nuclear weapons development where they deny everything vehemently while building enrichment centrifuges as quickly as possible.

The 800-lb Dragon has been around for thousands of years and is feeling re-born and contentious.  Witness the lashing-out and dissing of the West at the Copenhagen Climate summit, criticism of U.S arms sales to Taiwan, the Dalai Lama’s upcoming meeting with President Obama and China’s growing assertiveness in other areas.

Some have commented that criticizing China on this is racist; that opinion is disingenuous and is meant to deflect honest inquiry.  APT isn’t about race; it’s about the means, intentions and long-term motivations of an adversary ~ even one who tries not to seem adversarial, is a key trading partner, owns your debt, etc.,

APT, from China and other actors, will not go away.  This is the new reality and we’d all better begin to pay attention and think how to combat it.  That means working to understand the psychology behind it.  APT crosses the domains of information security, economics, psychology, politics, sociology and more.  It is ultimately about the maintenance of power, its true raison d’etre.