Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Perimeter

Guest Blog // Selected Security Content Provided By Sophos
What's This?
2/17/2012
09:09 AM
Dark Reading
Dark Reading
Security Insights
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.- We must continue new crucial conversations in our organizations; especially around "internal investigation into the security breaches"- Organizations must add security breach analysis and audits to the weekly staff meeting agenda.- When we learn about these events, we must overcome our fears by being transparent; by reporting breaches.- This may lead to greater regulatory body compliance reporting but will lead to new learnings by our stakeholders and customers we serve and the-average investor will start-"to understand the link between network security and future revenue".-

One area of concern or worry.- How do we assure safety exists within the chicken coop before we assign the guard dog?- It's time for us to add incident management and data protection to our working weekly agendas.
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/25/2020
Hacking Yourself: Marie Moe and Pacemaker Security
Gary McGraw Ph.D., Co-founder Berryville Institute of Machine Learning,  9/21/2020
Startup Aims to Map and Track All the IT and Security Things
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15208
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, when determining the common dimension size of two tensors, TFLite uses a `DCHECK` which is no-op outside of debug compilation modes. Since the function always returns the dimension of the first tensor, malicious attackers can ...
CVE-2020-15209
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, a crafted TFLite model can force a node to have as input a tensor backed by a `nullptr` buffer. This can be achieved by changing a buffer index in the flatbuffer serialization to convert a read-only tensor to a read-write one....
CVE-2020-15210
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, if a TFLite saved model uses the same tensor as both input and output of an operator, then, depending on the operator, we can observe a segmentation fault or just memory corruption. We have patched the issue in d58c96946b and ...
CVE-2020-15211
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, saved models in the flatbuffer format use a double indexing scheme: a model has a set of subgraphs, each subgraph has a set of operators and each operator has a set of input/output tensors. The flatbuffer format uses indices f...
CVE-2020-15212
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, models using segment sum can trigger writes outside of bounds of heap allocated buffers by inserting negative elements in the segment ids tensor. Users having access to `segment_ids_data` can alter `output_index` and then write to outside of `outpu...