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.

Vulnerabilities / Threats

6/10/2016
11:00 AM
Adam Shostack
Adam Shostack
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

Revealing Lessons About Vulnerability Research

It's not clear why a dozen FBI agents showed up at a security researcher's door last month but as cyber becomes more a factor in product safety, our judicial system needs to get a better grasp on who the real criminals are.

I want to juxtapose several articles I read last Friday morning. The first is “Bug Poaching: A New Extortion Tactic Targeting Enterprises;” the second is “FBI raids dental software researcher who discovered private patient data on public server;” and the third is “Smart Meter Companies Sue Local Activist and City to Block Disclosure of Security Audits.”  (I should mention that I sit on the board of the Seattle Privacy Coalition with that local activist, Phil Mocek.)

Frankly, the “extortion” article, published on IBM’s Security Intelligence website,  presents a lot of opinion as if it were fact, and I'll both add emphasis and comments as I quote:

This is all being done under the disguise of pretending to be a good guy when, in reality, it is pure extortion on the black hat scale [AS: what do those last three words even mean?]. The attack is carried out by criminals [AS: what court has convicted them?] pretending to want to do something good for the organization but demanding payment for doing so...

Now, I don't think asking for money without a contract is reasonable; it strikes me as an electronic equivalent of “squeegee men” who run up to cars, spray the windshield, and then get threatening if they don’t get paid. But it could also be a failure of communication. The IBM blog post doesn't include entire messages, but it's reasonable to think some of them come from people whose first language is not English.  It might also be that the researchers think, however reasonably, that they did some work and they deserve some payment, and that their thinking is informed by analogies to a bug bounty.

Let me be clear. Extracting data from a live system crosses an ethical line, and I think that Alex Stamos did a great job of laying out those lines in his post about “Bug Bounty Ethics.” (Sometimes extracting data about yourself or a friend who has consented in advance is key to seeing if an issue is real.)

But I don’t want to focus on the writing, however tempting it is.

More important is that this sort of bombastic writing, carried out under IBM's logo, carries weight, and relates to situations like security researcher Justin Shafer being raided by the FBI while trying to do the right thing (apparently). It also seems to relate to the Seattle City Light case. In the case of meters that will be connected to hundreds of thousands of houses, if there's a security problem that can be found by reading design documents, then that's a serious violation of Kerkhoffs’ Principle.

Reverse-engineer the meters

Whatever exact problems are known to the vendors will likely come to light when people start reverse-engineering the meters. Some commercial organizations might not want to see their products scrutinized, but this is an unrealistic goal. The commercial reality is, and has been, that your product will be scrutinized by security reviewers. Those reviewers will look at a variety of characteristics. If you can’t stand to see your product reviewed, then for what purpose do you believe it is fit?

It is tempting to assign equivalence, and assert that researchers and companies need to behave more responsibly. This is a trap that we should avoid. We should expect organizations, talking to their lawyers and deciding on a corporate course of action to behave in a more thoughtful fashion than we should expect of an individual. They’re not equivalent. A company will almost certainly spend a smaller proportion of its resources than an individual will spend.  (That is, a small $10m/year company spending 1% of its turnover on lawyers spends 100K, a security pro making 200K spends half their annual income to match that.) They’re not equivalent.

Now, there's another view, which is that many researchers will find more issues in their careers than companies will have reported to them. As such, we should expect better behavior from the average researcher than we see from the average company.

And, in fact, we do.  In the tens thousand or so vulnerability reports filed last year, I believe that most were coordinated in some way. Relatively few were dropped as 0day.  Even fewer were intended or confused for ransom attempts.

It’s not yet clear why a dozen agents showed up at Shafer’s door, but what is obvious is that there was a discussion which proceeded that raid. We should expect better of the FBI. Much like researchers will handle many issues, we are approaching the point where we can expect every FBI office to have dealt with cyber issues.  We should expect that the case selection process includes questions like “is there objective evidence of criminal intent here?” (For example, did Shafer demand money of HenryShein Dental?)

We should expect better of our courts, our laws, and those that enforce them.

Related Content:

 

Adam is a consultant, entrepreneur, technologist, author and game designer. He's a member of the BlackHat Review Board and helped create the CVE and many other things. He currently helps organizations improve their security via Shostack & Associates, and advises startups ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/3/2020
Pen Testers Who Got Arrested Doing Their Jobs Tell All
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  8/5/2020
New 'Nanodegree' Program Provides Hands-On Cybersecurity Training
Nicole Ferraro, Contributing Writer,  8/3/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
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
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15058
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-07
Lindy 42633 4-Port USB 2.0 Gigabit Network Server 2.078.000 devices allow an attacker on the same network to elevate privileges because the administrative password can be discovered by sniffing unencrypted UDP traffic.
CVE-2020-15059
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-07
Lindy 42633 4-Port USB 2.0 Gigabit Network Server 2.078.000 devices allow an attacker on the same network to bypass authentication via a web-administration request that lacks a password parameter.
CVE-2020-15060
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-07
Lindy 42633 4-Port USB 2.0 Gigabit Network Server 2.078.000 devices allow an attacker on the same network to conduct persistent XSS attacks by leveraging administrative privileges to set a crafted server name.
CVE-2020-15061
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-07
Lindy 42633 4-Port USB 2.0 Gigabit Network Server 2.078.000 devices allow an attacker on the same network to denial-of-service the device via long input values.
CVE-2020-15062
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-07
DIGITUS DA-70254 4-Port Gigabit Network Hub 2.073.000.E0008 devices allow an attacker on the same network to elevate privileges because the administrative password can be discovered by sniffing unencrypted UDP traffic.