Perimeter

8/14/2009
03:51 PM
John H. Sawyer
John H. Sawyer
Commentary
50%
50%

Physical Penetration Testing Tells All

Rob Enderle had a great post here on Dark Reading on the discrepancies between physical and system security and what happens when they don't match up. The problem is most companies just don't understand physical security and how it can fail. They often think they do, but then they end up putting in flawed physical security controls that can't keep out even the mo

Rob Enderle had a great post here on Dark Reading on the discrepancies between physical and system security and what happens when they don't match up. The problem is most companies just don't understand physical security and how it can fail. They often think they do, but then they end up putting in flawed physical security controls that can't keep out even the most unintelligent criminal -- let alone experienced penetration testers like Johnny Long and Chris Nickerson.The motives behind most of the physical security installs I've seen were either the threat of vandalism, or there was an item on a checklist that had to be checked off to meet some sort of compliance requirement. Very few of them were concerned with the sensitivity of data on the systems, and were instead more worried about downtime caused by theft of equipment.

A recent physical security audit I performed involved two server rooms that both had keypads on the door. After talking with the head sysadmin, I learned that the keypads weren't even being used--which was obvious after a bit of recon where I could see that every one who entered had used a key. The keypads were there because of a checklist that was being followed when the server rooms were installed. The funny thing is that I don't think they've ever been programmed, but I've not confirmed that--yet.

A similar audit was being conducted by a team who invited me to tag along to see a few of their tricks and techniques. After bypassing a motion sensor activated door using a coat hangar and sheet of paper, we were in the "clinic" area that had a poorly locked door (unlocked with a Leatherman) leading straight into the server room. Quick inspection revealed that even if the door had been secured with biometrics, RFID, and a keypad, the drop ceiling was a shared space that would have allowed us to climb right over the wall and bypass any security on the door.

But hey -- at least they could get a check mark saying they had an auditable security mechanism in place. The first group had auditable keypads, while the other required ID cards with a magnetic strip to be swiped before entering the area where the "locked" door to the server room was located.

For a fun crash course in physical penetration testing, watch the first episode of Tiger Team available at the TruTV website featuring Chris Nickerson (one of the hosts from the Exotic Liability Podcast), Luke McOmie, and Ryan Jones. And for interesting ways to bypass security systems using low-tech or no-tech methods, watch Johnny Long's "No-Tech Hacking" presentation at DefCon 15 and pick up his book of the same name. Now how safe is your company really?

John H. Sawyer is a senior security engineer on the IT Security Team at the University of Florida. The views and opinions expressed in this blog are his own and do not represent the views and opinions of the UF IT Security Team or the University of Florida. When John's not fighting flaming, malware-infested machines or performing autopsies on blitzed boxes, he can usually be found hanging with his family, bouncing a baby on one knee and balancing a laptop on the other. Special to Dark Reading.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
High Stress Levels Impacting CISOs Physically, Mentally
Jai Vijayan, Freelance writer,  2/14/2019
Valentine's Emails Laced with Gandcrab Ransomware
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  2/14/2019
Making the Case for a Cybersecurity Moon Shot
Adam Shostack, Consultant, Entrepreneur, Technologist, Game Designer,  2/19/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
5 Emerging Cyber Threats to Watch for in 2019
Online attackers are constantly developing new, innovative ways to break into the enterprise. This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at five emerging attack trends and exploits your security team should look out for, along with helpful recommendations on how you can prevent your organization from falling victim.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises Are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Data breach fears and the need to comply with regulations such as GDPR are two major drivers increased spending on security products and technologies. But other factors are contributing to the trend as well. Find out more about how enterprises are attacking the cybersecurity problem by reading our report today.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-8980
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-21
A memory leak in the kernel_read_file function in fs/exec.c in the Linux kernel through 4.20.11 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) by triggering vfs_read failures.
CVE-2019-8979
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-21
Koseven through 3.3.9, and Kohana through 3.3.6, has SQL Injection when the order_by() parameter can be controlled.
CVE-2013-7469
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-21
Seafile through 6.2.11 always uses the same Initialization Vector (IV) with Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) Mode to encrypt private data, making it easier to conduct chosen-plaintext attacks or dictionary attacks.
CVE-2018-20146
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-21
An issue was discovered in Liquidware ProfileUnity before 6.8.0 with Liquidware FlexApp before 6.8.0. A local user could obtain administrator rights, as demonstrated by use of PowerShell.
CVE-2019-5727
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-21
Splunk Web in Splunk Enterprise 6.5.x before 6.5.5, 6.4.x before 6.4.9, 6.3.x before 6.3.12, 6.2.x before 6.2.14, 6.1.x before 6.1.14, and 6.0.x before 6.0.15 and Splunk Light before 6.6.0 has Persistent XSS, aka SPL-138827.