Date post: | 21-Dec-2014 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | dinis-cruz |
View: | 329 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Inconvenient Truth(s)
Dinis Cruz, SANS “What Works in Application Security”
2
Who am I?
Director of Advanced Technologies, Ounce Labs
Chief OWASP Evangelist
Independent Consultant, various
Skills:– Researcher on .NET Security
– Reverse Engineering
– Source Code Security Reviews
– Development of Secure Architectures
– Developer (from ASM to C#, from Amiga to x86)
– Irreverent
3
Inconvenient Truth
Software security is a mess!!!!!
Not because the software industry creates exploitable vulnerabilities, but because it doesn’t understand what those vulnerabilities look like and doesn’t learn from past mistakes!
The buyers/users have no visibility on the ‘real’ security status of our software world
Software is everywhere (from cars, to websites, to medical appliances, to banking systems, to toys, to elevators, to weapons, to communication devices, to energy transportation systems, etc…)
– Our society is currently very dependent on software and will become even more in the future
And nobody has a complete picture of how big this mess is, since its complexity has outgrown the human capacity to analyze it!
4
Inconvenient #1
There are no metrics!
5
There are no metrics!
How can customers purchase secure solutions if they can’t measure security?
I know more about an Orange Juice I buy from the local store than I know about the software I buy (winzip for example)
My only decision is to accept (or not) the EULA
Image from OWASP’s metrics project & Jeff Williams’ Presentation(http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Types_of_application_security_metrics)
6
Inconvenient #2
Global Warming ~ Software InSecurity
7
Global Warming ~ Software InSecurity
Al Gore’s Global Warming– Should in fact be called
The impact of Mankind on Earth’s Ecosystem
Both are man made
Both are the results of Complex Systems and feedback loops whose consequences are not fully understood
Both are actually an Accountancy and Economics problem
Both ‘could’ have disastrous consequences
8
Inconvenient #3
Secure software doesn’t make business
sense
9
Secure software doesn’t make business sense
‘Information security is not a technological problem. It is an economics problem. And the way to improve information security is to fix the economics problem. If this is done, companies will come up with the right technological solutions that vendors will happily implement. Fail to solve the economics problem, and vendors will not bother implementing or researching any security technologies, regardless of how effective they are.’ Bruce Schneier
See John Viega’s (Vice President and Chief Security Architect of McAfee) BlackHat 2007 presentation: Building an Effective Application Security Practice on a Shoestring Budget
This presentation makes the business case for not investing on Security!
“If I know that doing a security audit on product XYZ I will find (per Mloc) 90 serious vulnerabilities (30 Critical, 60 High), but in the past year only 1 of those vulnerabilities have been publicly disclosed, then it is cheaper to have a small and agile CERT, than it is to find and patch those issues before shipping”. John Viega
10
Inconvenient #4
Secure software doesn’t make business sense
11
Secure software doesn’t make business sense
Clients are not able to measure the ‘security’ of the products and services they are purchasing (or developing)
The attackers are not exploiting the vulnerabilities created by insecure applications / solutions
Governments don’t know what is going on (or what to do) Software companies (both traditional and Open Source) are
rewarded (with sales or eyeballs) for delivering:– Features that either (from the users point of view):
• a) improve business operations• b) increase profitability• c) create new sources of revenue
– Performance, Scalability, Reporting– Time to market– GUIs (ease of use)
In 2007 Software Security is still a ‘damage control’ exercise and only short-term actions are implemented
– Important note: This would not be a problem if the attacker’s business model wasn’t evolving
12
Inconvenient #5
Our systems are safe today!
13
Our systems are safe today!
How many people in this room have suffered ‘severe’ losses (either economical or personal) due to a criminal exploitation of vulnerabilities in Software?
How many companies bankrupt? How many wars started? Or won? How many lives lost? How many dollars lost?
(as a percentage of profits/losses)
Interesting statistic: In the UK, in the assessment of road building schemes, lives saved due to road safety improvements are valued at around £1 million per person.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6597743.stm
14
Inconvenient #6
Our systems are safe today!
15
Our systems are safe today!
Apart from:– Kids
– Criminals with simple malicious business models:• spamming, phishing, credit card fraud, software piracy• sell compromised accounts (& bot nets)• blackmail• obvious (& easily detectable) stock market manipulation
– Small number of elite criminals who know what they are doing and never will be caught
We are pretty safe!– Which is good because our defenses (AV, IDS, IPS,
Operating Systems, Applications) are not able to contain targeted attacks by skillful and knowledgeable attackers
16
What is RISK?
RISK = Vulnerability * Impact * Frequency
Number of Attacks Frequency = --------------------------
Time Period
Number of Attacks RISK = Vulnerability * Impact * --------------------------
Time Period
At the moment (Aug 2007), we are in a LOW RISK DefCon mode:
– the Vulnerabilities and Impact are very HIGH, but
– the number of attacks (over the last years) is very LOW
17
Inconvenient #7
We will be doomed!
18
We will be doomed!
If the business model of our attackers evolve! If these attackers are able to make money by
exploiting our insecure software / web applications If the number of ‘profitable’ attackers reaches critical
mass If we don’t change our current software development
business model If we don’t change our understanding and visibility of
the security implications of our interconnected systems
If we are attacked directly!
19
Inconvenient #8
The attacker's business model is still immature
20
The attacker's business model is still immature
Mainly still:– spamming, phishing, credit card fraud, software piracy
– selling compromised accounts or botnets,
– blackmail
– obvious (& easily detectable) stock market manipulation
We will have a serious problem when the attackers are able to monetize digital accesses to company’s:– Content Management Systems
– Backend Transactions Systems
– Digital assets (Emails, Documents, VPNs)
– Payment Systems
– Business related assets: • Capability to do business • Availability of Services• Confidentially of information stored / processed• Data Integrity
21
‘Software enabled’ malicious business models
Sell Business Intelligence (& victim’s assets)– From corporate espionage to selling airline tickets via compromised ‘Air Miles’
system Stock Market Manipulation
– What if 10% of all stock market transactions were not real? Accounting Scams
– Enron via database manipulation, money ‘creation’, money laundering Control media agenda
– Mind control, political agenda control, elections manipulation Serious blackmail / credit card fraud
– James Bond style Destruction of financial organization to hide bad investments
– Think ‘Hedge fund gone bust’ with interest in wiping Bank’s XYZ debt management system (which is only a database after all)
Artificial ‘lack of energy resources’ – or other consumer goods
Digital Wars Etc… (ask DHS or Bruce Schneier for more movie plots stories)
22
Inconvenient #9
Physical Extremism doesn't scale (but Digital Extremism does)
23
Physical Extremism doesn't scale (but Digital Extremism does)
Extremism is part of our world Physical Extremism (from Islamic Terrorism, to Animal Right’s
campaigners, to Environmental activists) doesn't scale:– Good at delivering one-off hits– Hard at creating large numbers of attacks
• High exposure when delivering attack usually compromises cell (and its connections)
• Hard to do without strong grass roots support (which protects the attackers)
– Successful attacks can’t be easily replicated and executed on other locations
Digital Extremism will scale since they could bring our economy down (think: Stock market collapse, debt vanishing, etc…)
The good news is that there is limited money generated by Extremist actions (and lets stay away from ‘conspiracy theories’ :)).
– This is actually the most important point, because at the end of the day what matters is MONEY (which is why the business model of the attackers matter so much)
24
Inconvenient #10
We need better engineering
25
We need better engineering
Software engineering today is (in most cases) still a very immature process
Just compare it with how Microchips are designed, tested and deployed
Software ‘soft’ capabilities are its downfall– Hey, if there is a problem, we just issue a patch later ! (the
customer will never notice!)
Even companies who were ‘forced’ to take security seriously (Microsoft) are still on a reactive mode (and are not learning from past mistakes)
26
Inconvenient #11
We need containment
27
We need containment
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Where we are going on the right direction:
28
Sandbox anybody? (or ‘Can I 0wn you please?’)
And where we are NOT going on the right direction:
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
29
Going mobile
Who owns an iPhone? (can I 0wn you too?)
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
30
Inconvenient #12
Open Source security is a myth
31
Open Source security is a myth
‘Many eyeballs’ is true, but the number of eyeballs with security knowledge looking at Open Source projects is very limited
The fact that the code is available doesn’t mean that somebody will actually review it
Non existent Open Source culture and processes to perform regular manual and tool-based source code reviews
There is no certification of ‘secure’ Open Source applications Open Source community think they are secure Very few seem to understand the problems with user-land security
(mainly due to the lack of attacks) Open Source community doesn’t want Full Disclosure of Zero-days
(their ‘responsible disclose policy’ is very similar to Microsoft’s one) Bottom Line: The fact that an application is Open Source doesn’t make
it secure And since its users can’t measure the security of the Open Source
tools they are using, several Open Source projects shown the same disregard for end-user’s security as its ‘proprietary’ counterparts
32
Inconvenient #13
Most Source Code must be disclosed
33
All Source Code must be disclosed
That said, we (the clients buying and using software) need access to the code in order to review and analyze its security
For the ones that don’t have those reviewing capabilities in-house they should be able to pay independent companies to do it– Even governments should be involved in these evaluations
The days of selling ‘black boxes’ that nobody knows what is inside are numbered
Note that this doesn't mean that all software will be Open Source (just that its code will be available for review)
34
Inconvenient #14
Most IT Security products have negative ROI
35
Most IT Security products have negative ROI
Anybody want to challenge this item?
Note that most ‘security products’ are developed with the same mind-set and priorities of normal software which means that making it ‘secure’ is usually not on the ‘real’ agenda
– Unfortunately, today, it doesn’t make business sense to create ‘secure’ Security Software
– Note how many vulnerabilities exist in ‘Security Software’ (and appliances)
36
Inconvenient #15
The long tail of attackers is saving us
37
The Long Tail of Attackers is saving us
Will this shape continue?
Most capable to exploit seem to be employed by you with nomotive to go to the ‘dark side’
Is our current ‘mess’ creating a new generation of attackers?– Currently making money by
exploiting (for example): • online gambling• community websites• vulnerable eCommerce websites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tail
38
Inconvenient #15
The 'digital Armageddon' will never happen
39
The 'digital Armageddon' will never happen
We are very close and it can be done (for 10 years at least) Super-Elite skills are not required (large number of BlackHat / DefCon
participants could do it) But it hasn’t happened so far! So, what should it?
The important question : Can somebody make money with it?
– What is the Business model of a 'digital Armageddon'
Awareness of this global weakness and existence of large numbers of ‘single points of failure’ is (I think) very limited at C-Level and Government executives
Maybe the good guys should show that it can be done
40
Solution?
Visibility– Understand the security implications– Understand the Risk– Understand the interconnections and interdependencies– Disclosure of Known vulnerabilities (metrics)
Reward and Accountability– Business models that reward this visibility and the development of
‘secure’ applications– Procurement pressure will work (but needs to be backup by law)
Containment– Execute code in Sandboxed run-time-environments where
exploitation of vulnerabilities (or of malicious code) are • a) not possible or
• b) successfully contained
Government, Laws, Privacy and Anonymity
41
Security Public Relations Excuse Bingo
Would be funny if wasn’t true
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
From www.crypto.com/bingo/pr