Comments
Hacking Back & the Digital Wild West
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
este1976
50%
50%
este1976,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/10/2018 | 10:45:21 PM
Re: prevention better than prosecution
Good analysis and wonderful say sir. Your in-depth post has cleared my many doubts. Of course, prevention is better than prosecution.
macker490
50%
50%
macker490,
User Rank: Ninja
3/10/2018 | 8:48:51 AM
prevention better than prosecution
Prevention is better than Prosecution

The Internet has been described as a "Fool's Paradise" from time to time.   I always liked that characterization.

The troubles on the net today largely originate in a general failure to authenticate.

Consider for example the troubles with fraudulent 1040 tax forms.    Or the new mortgage loan scams.  or the grand-daddy of them all: e/mail "phishing" (BEC).

For prevention we need to turn to the work of Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman.    These gentlemen understood this issue and knew what they needed to do.   What we need to do is to understand our part in their work: authentication.

When my daughter sat down in the office at the Credit Union to open a new account: that is when the Credit Union -- and my daughter -- should have authenticated the keys needed -- for her online interface(s).

This will need to be incorporated into systems as packaged technology.

We are talking about Public Key Cryptology: PGP, PKI, SSL, TLS, X.509 GnuPG ... it's "out there" -- but to make it work it is necessary to authenticate the keys.

I could give you the "fingerprint" for my key: 4DEA0DAD.  and you could download it from the servers.   But you still wouldn't know who I am.  Once you find a way to identify me and verify the fingerprint on my key THEN you can SIGN my key.   This will make my key VALID in your system meaning you are satisfied that you know who I am.    This doesn't happen with X.509: it's too easy for anybody to acquire an x.509 certificate -- and -- generally -- users have no idea what the certificates are supposed to look like or what data they should contain.

That doesn't matter: HERE -- but -- at the Credit Union or with my tax software and such : yes, it does matter.

Note: the most important aspect of PKI/PGP/GnuPG --- is AUTHENTICATION.

what was the cost of hacking last year:   I'm remembering $600B - .8% of GDP
dave.dittrich
50%
50%
dave.dittrich,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/6/2018 | 1:08:14 AM
"Active Response Continuum" is a better phrase, better model, than "active defense"
I fully agree with Levi, that current proposals to modify existing computer crime statutes are insufficiently nuanced, insufficiently framed, and not ready to move forward. He is right that the consequences of allowing the private sector to become too agressive, too casually, will likely make the situation for law enforcement more difficult rather than easier. I published my own analysis of the ACDC Act 2.0 (and proposals to improve it) along the lines of Levi's suggestions. You can find that analysis on Medium (search for "Medium Dittrich Active Defense Certainty Act", since URLs are not allowed in comments) and read about the Active Response Continuum (search "Dittrich Active Response Continuum").

I believe the end goal here should be to facilitate victims' reporting of meaningful evidence of computer crimes in a timely manner to law enforcement, to better enable the U.S. government to use its sovereign levers of power (diplomacy, intelligence, military, economic sanctions and law enforcement, DIME-LE for short) to pursue criminal actions and violations of international norms and laws against foreign and domestic actors. The private sector does not have the authorities, nor the "whole of government" options, necessary to reduce international incidents like those Levi listed.

There are many examples of corporations using civil legal process (e.g., botnet "takedowns" using temporary restraining orders) within the U.S. justice system. When and if a victim determines that the situation is sufficiently grave to justify violating domestic laws and taking aggressive uncooperative actions on systems not under their authority, outside of civil or criminal legal process, they already have the option under U.S. law to make an affirmative defense for their actions. The idea in the ACDC Act of forcing a harmed intermediary to bring suit in civil court for damages resulting from an entity taking ill considered "active defense measures" seems to me to be unfair and unecessary.


Why CISOs Need a Security Reality Check
Joel Fulton, Chief Information Security Officer for Splunk,  6/13/2018
Cisco Talos Summit: Network Defenders Not Serious Enough About Attacks
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  6/13/2018
Meet 'Bro': The Best-Kept Secret of Network Security
Greg Bell, CEO, Corelight,  6/14/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-12294
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-19
WebCore/platform/graphics/texmap/TextureMapperLayer.cpp in WebKit, as used in WebKitGTK+ prior to version 2.20.2, is vulnerable to a use after free for a WebCore::TextureMapperLayer object.
CVE-2018-12519
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-19
An issue was discovered in ShopNx through 2017-11-17. The vulnerability allows a remote attacker to upload any malicious file to a Node.js application. An attacker can upload a malicious HTML file that contains a JavaScript payload to steal a user's credentials.
CVE-2018-12588
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-19
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in templates/frontend/pages/searchResults.tpl in Public Knowledge Project (PKP) Open Monograph Press (OMP) v1.2.0 through 3.1.1-1 before 3.1.1-2 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the catalog.noTitlesSearch parameter (aka the S...
CVE-2018-10811
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-19
strongSwan 5.6.0 and older allows Remote Denial of Service because of Missing Initialization of a Variable.
CVE-2018-10945
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-19
The mg_handle_cgi function in mongoose.c in Mongoose 6.11 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (heap-based buffer over-read and application crash, or NULL pointer dereference) via an HTTP request, related to the mbuf_insert function.