Perimeter
6/11/2012
03:57 PM
Amy DeCarlo
Amy DeCarlo
Commentary
50%
50%

LinkedIn: Making Insecure Connections

The recent breach of millions of LinkedIn passwords highlights an all-too-common issue

We spend a considerable amount of time in the security industry talking about sophisticated security protections and innovative practices that can be applied to protect critical information. Biometrics, cryptography, secure tokens, and a variety of other technologies can go a long way toward assuring organizations their data is safe. Yet for all the emphasis on innovations in security and safeguarding the highest value data, too often the basics are left uncovered.

The breach of a reported 6.5 million LinkedIn passwords last week is a prime example of what at least initially appears to be a failure at three levels: in policy, in practice, and in communication.

LinkedIn, which doesn’t have a chief information officer, much less a chief information security officer, clearly applied what appears to be a substandard policy to securing passwords of users, many of which may be high-value targets in and of themselves given the power and influence of many of the professionals associated with those access codes. The breach, which was discovered when the passwords showed up on a Russian hacking forum last week, exposed whatever cryptographic controls the social business network used to secure the passwords was far too simplistic.

Communications from LinkedIn about the breach were also unclear. In a blog post written by Vicente Silveira, a director at the company, LinkedIn admitted that “a small subset of the hashed passwords was decoded and published.” It wasn’t able to quantify how many. While the company is investigating the incident, the company’s ambiguity about the breach -- or apparent security expertise or leadership -- is hardly a confidence-inducing move. In the meantime, LinkedIn cancelled the passwords it believed were “at the greatest risk.” Also in a somewhat confusing move, the company says it “is disabling the passwords of any other members that we believe could potentially be affected.”

LinkedIn dug a deeper hole for itself by admitting that it isn’t sure whether any other data was compromised. Nor apparently does the company seem to understand that just because the hackers haven’t apparently been able to crack the cryptographic code for all the passwords that they won’t be able to do so eventually. After all, they have the most important element in their possession already: the passwords themselves.

Most data breaches like the one that befell LinkedIn are too commonplace to make headlines. What distinguished this from the run-of-the-mill password hack attack was the target. Essentially, the breach revealed surprisingly poorly executed security controls by a company that until now has been trusted by millions of professionals to keep them connected.

If anything positive comes of the incident, it is that it serves a reminder to everyone about the importance of being vigilant about managing their own passwords well. Simple tips like resetting passwords frequently and not reusing passwords can go a long way toward protecting their data, and with it, their identities.

Amy DeCarlo is principal analyst for security and data center services at Current Analysis

Amy brings 17 years of IT industry experience to her position as Principal Analyst, Security and Data Center Services. Amy assesses the managed IT services sector, with an emphasis on security and data center solutions delivered through the cloud including on demand ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading December Tech Digest
Experts weigh in on the pros and cons of end-user security training.
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-2014-1421
Published: 2014-11-25
mountall 1.54, as used in Ubuntu 14.10, does not properly handle the umask when using the mount utility, which allows local users to bypass intended access restrictions via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2014-3605
Published: 2014-11-25
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2014-6407. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2014-6407. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2014-6407 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to pre...

CVE-2014-6093
Published: 2014-11-25
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in IBM WebSphere Portal 7.0.x before 7.0.0.2 CF29, 8.0.x through 8.0.0.1 CF14, and 8.5.x before 8.5.0 CF02 allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted URL.

CVE-2014-6196
Published: 2014-11-25
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in IBM Web Experience Factory (WEF) 6.1.5 through 8.5.0.1, as used in WebSphere Dashboard Framework (WDF) and Lotus Widget Factory (LWF), allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML by leveraging a Dojo builder error in an unspecified WebSp...

CVE-2014-7247
Published: 2014-11-25
Unspecified vulnerability in JustSystems Ichitaro 2008 through 2011; Ichitaro Government 6, 7, 2008, 2009, and 2010; Ichitaro Pro; Ichitaro Pro 2; Ichitaro 2011 Sou; Ichitaro 2012 Shou; Ichitaro 2013 Gen; and Ichitaro 2014 Tetsu allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted file.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Now that the holiday season is about to begin both online and in stores, will this be yet another season of nonstop gifting to cybercriminals?