Perimeter
6/11/2012
03:57 PM
Amy DeCarlo
Amy DeCarlo
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%
Repost This

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
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2012-3946
Published: 2014-04-24
Cisco IOS before 15.3(2)S allows remote attackers to bypass interface ACL restrictions in opportunistic circumstances by sending IPv6 packets in an unspecified scenario in which expected packet drops do not occur for "a small percentage" of the packets, aka Bug ID CSCty73682.

CVE-2012-5723
Published: 2014-04-24
Cisco ASR 1000 devices with software before 3.8S, when BDI routing is enabled, allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reload) via crafted (1) broadcast or (2) multicast ICMP packets with fragmentation, aka Bug ID CSCub55948.

CVE-2013-6738
Published: 2014-04-24
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in IBM SmartCloud Analytics Log Analysis 1.1 and 1.2 before 1.2.0.0-CSI-SCALA-IF0003 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via an invalid query parameter in a response from an OAuth authorization endpoint.

CVE-2014-0188
Published: 2014-04-24
The openshift-origin-broker in Red Hat OpenShift Enterprise 2.0.5, 1.2.7, and earlier does not properly handle authentication requests from the remote-user auth plugin, which allows remote attackers to bypass authentication and impersonate arbitrary users via the X-Remote-User header in a request to...

CVE-2014-2391
Published: 2014-04-24
The password recovery service in Open-Xchange AppSuite before 7.2.2-rev20, 7.4.1 before 7.4.1-rev11, and 7.4.2 before 7.4.2-rev13 makes an improper decision about the sensitivity of a string representing a previously used but currently invalid password, which allows remote attackers to obtain potent...

Best of the Web