Perimeter
Guest Blog // Selected Security Content Provided By Sophos
What's This?
2/17/2012
09:09 AM
Dark Reading
Dark Reading
Security Insights
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Nortel Networks: Wolf In The Henhouse, Guard Dog Fast Asleep

Keeping stock and patent price at premium trumps disclosure at Nortel Networks

If you’re a wolf that wants to go undetected in hunting for hens or their eggs on a midnight raid of Farmer Brown’s nearby chicken coop, you generally have only two choices. Try slipping by the sleeping guard dog and hope you don’t get caught, or walk right up to and past his vigilant counterpart, all the while knowing full well he’s not going to wake the sleeping farmer. Not with a bark, a howl, or even a growl. If you’re lucky, your first choice may work. Or you can attempt the second approach and be guaranteed the opportunity to wipe the coop clean of both hens and their eggs.

That’s the analogy I summoned in reading about the recent Wall Street Journal report that hackers, reportedly from an IP address located in China, breached bankrupt Nortel Networks security as far back as 2000 and stole seven passwords from the company's top executives -- including the CEO -- which granted them widespread access to the entire Nortel network.

Citing Brian Shields, a former Nortel employee who led an internal investigation into the security breaches, the Journal reported the security breaches dated as far as back as at least 2000, and malware planted by the hackers made it possible to steal intellectual property, including technical papers, R&D reports, business plans, employee emails, and other documents.

Shields, who worked for Nortel for 19 years, claims that the company discovered the hack in 2004 when it was determined that some PCs were regularly sending sensitive data to an IP address based in Shanghai.

Nortel responded by changing affected passwords, but wound down an internal investigation into the breach after six months due to a lack of progress. Shields claims that he made recommendations to management about how to better protect the company's networks, but he was ignored.

The timing of this disclosure -- Nortel recently receiving clearance by the Department of Justice to sell $4.5 billion worth of patents to Apple, Microsoft and RIM -- is not only revealing but also problematic. Would any of these companies have paid so much for the patents if they’d known the data was likely compromised? And even more troubling, if the patents were known to have been potentially stolen or compromised, wouldn’t they (e.g., Nortel) have to have reported that? I’ll grant you any bills, much less legislative enforcement around data breach disclosures laws, at least in 2000, were still years away, still, why was Nortel’s accountability and due diligence to shareholders and employees alike MIA, even DOA?

One possible source of subterfuge may well have been stock price itself.

As reported by Brian Prince in Dark Reading, who interviewed Jacob Olcott, a principal in cybersecurity practice at security analysis firm Good Harbor Consulting, “the average investor is starting to understand the link between network security and future revenue. The more a company can keep attackers out of its networks, the better chance it can deliver business. Nortel investors may be asking themselves whether the decade of intellectual property and trade secret theft helped drive the company out of business.”

In other words, keep the breach out of the headline and glare (e.g. “the CNN moment”) and the stock price remains stable, business goes on as usual and no one is the wiser.

As a veteran security professional who’s seen my share of companies play (or try to play) their get-out-of-jail card when their hands have been caught in the proverbial cookie jar I think Nortel’s response to its known breach is shameful. It doesn’t even look like they really cared. Not about their reputation or the integrity of their intellectual property and not even to their suitors who probably went into the patent acquisition process with their respective eyes and balance sheets wide open, unknowingly dealing with a player who kept all the cards close to the vest and a deck that was always stacked in its favor.

Look, I’ve never been much for more government intervention in our lives and by no means am I letting Nortel off the hook here, (and with former Nortel CEO Frank Dunn currently being tired for fraud, that’s never going to be an option, anyway). However, it’s my sincere hope that the data breach disclosure laws already codified on a state by state basis (46 at last count) and the federal data protection laws making their way through Congress will force companies both privately-held and publicly-traded to step up to the plate, be accountable and take responsibility when breaches happen.

Much like a dependable guard dog that always sleeps with one eye open, ready to lock up with and turn aside a stealth wolf in order to protect his valued charges.

Chester Wisniewski is a senior security adviser at Sophos Canada.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
rsodhi945
50%
50%
rsodhi945,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/20/2012 | 4:52:26 AM
re: Nortel Networks: Wolf In The Henhouse, Guard Dog Fast Asleep
Enjoyed your guard dog analogy and the importance of holding ourselves individually and professionally to a higher level of ethics and practice.-á We must continue new crucial conversations in our organizations; especially around "internal investigation into the security breaches"-á Organizations must add security breach analysis and audits to the weekly staff meeting agenda.-á When we learn about these events, we must overcome our fears by being transparent; by reporting breaches.-á This may lead to greater regulatory body compliance reporting but will lead to new learnings by our stakeholders and customers we serve and the-áaverage investor will start-á"to understand the link between network security and future revenue".-á

One area of concern or worry.-á How do we assure safety exists within the chicken coop before we assign the guard dog?-á It's time for us to add incident management and data protection to our working weekly agendas.
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
Partner Perspectives
What's This?
In a digital world inundated with advanced security threats, Intel Security seeks to transform how we live and work to keep our information secure. Through hardware and software development, Intel Security delivers robust solutions that integrate security into every layer of every digital device. In combining the security expertise of McAfee with the innovation, performance, and trust of Intel, this vision becomes a reality.

As we rely on technology to enhance our everyday and business life, we must too consider the security of the intellectual property and confidential data that is housed on these devices. As we increase the number of devices we use, we increase the number of gateways and opportunity for security threats. Intel Security takes the “security connected” approach to ensure that every device is secure, and that all security solutions are seamlessly integrated.
Featured Writers
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading's October Tech Digest
Fast data analysis can stymie attacks and strengthen enterprise security. Does your team have the data smarts?
Flash Poll
Title Partner’s Role in Perimeter Security
Title Partner’s Role in Perimeter Security
Considering how prevalent third-party attacks are, we need to ask hard questions about how partners and suppliers are safeguarding systems and data.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-4594
Published: 2014-10-25
The Payment for Webform module 7.x-1.x before 7.x-1.5 for Drupal does not restrict access by anonymous users, which allows remote anonymous users to use the payment of other anonymous users when submitting a form that requires payment.

CVE-2014-0476
Published: 2014-10-25
The slapper function in chkrootkit before 0.50 does not properly quote file paths, which allows local users to execute arbitrary code via a Trojan horse executable. NOTE: this is only a vulnerability when /tmp is not mounted with the noexec option.

CVE-2014-1927
Published: 2014-10-25
The shell_quote function in python-gnupg 0.3.5 does not properly quote strings, which allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via shell metacharacters in unspecified vectors, as demonstrated using "$(" command-substitution sequences, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-1928....

CVE-2014-1928
Published: 2014-10-25
The shell_quote function in python-gnupg 0.3.5 does not properly escape characters, which allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via shell metacharacters in unspecified vectors, as demonstrated using "\" (backslash) characters to form multi-command sequences, a different vulner...

CVE-2014-1929
Published: 2014-10-25
python-gnupg 0.3.5 and 0.3.6 allows context-dependent attackers to have an unspecified impact via vectors related to "option injection through positional arguments." NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2013-7323.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Follow Dark Reading editors into the field as they talk with noted experts from the security world.