What colour is your hat? OR What is "ethical hacking?"

Morning sports fans! No, I don't care if it's not morning here nor where ever you are, but it's morning somewhere. Also it will eventually be morning, so I'm counting it. Well, my recent increased blogging is due to me being constantly mentioned on the HappyFace podcast, which is done by my friends. They have challenged me to post at least once a week so that they can talk about me more, so let's see how long I can keep it up. Now first (and only) order of business today is ethical hacking.

So, recently this happened (All the articles I have found say pretty much the same thing, so I won't link to anymore). Glenn Mangham has been sentenced to 8 months in prison for computer misuse, more specifically hacking Facebook. "But, wait! He's an ethical hacker. He's one of the good guys!" You say excitedly. No, dear reader, not quite. Yes, yes, there is the whole £7,000/$7,000 from Yahoo! and whatnot, but there is a slight twist to this little tale. So, lets start by clearing up exactly what we are talking about.

An ethical hacker, or white hat, is a hacker who spends their time finding vulnerabilities in systems, applications, websites and pretty much anything that's connected to anything. Once they find such a vulnerability, they record the details of what they did and send it to the creators and/or maintainers of this product. Companies respond in many ways to this, ranging from a thank you e-mail to cash rewards to a job offer.

A malicious hacker, or black hat, is not so nice. Upon finding a vulnerability, they will try and exploit it for personal gain, normally for money. Of course they can record the details and share it with others, but now with the makers of the product. Once they are found out, the companies tend to come down on them pretty hard and fines and jail time normally ensues.

So, that's all nice and clear cut and very much black and white, if you will pardon the pun. Sadly, the real world is not so clear cut, as evidenced by this case. There are times when a person will at times be a black hat and at times be a white hat, somewhat of a grey hat if you will. A white hat may use their skills for some personal gain, in a very black hat kind of way and on the flip side, a black hat may actually do some white hat work.

To illustrate this further, let's look a bit more at Glenn Mangham. He did some white hat work for Yahoo!, which is all well and good. But then he hacked into Facebook in a very devious manner. Now from what I gather, he uploaded some malicious code to the puzzles server which Facebook uses to test potential employees and gained access to the internal system. Now, here's where it gets really devious.

From what I have read it seem he managed to impersonate a Facebook employee, get his password reset and thus gain access to all of Facebook's servers. He then proceeded to download important data to an external drive and delete all evidence of his little visit, or so he thought. Turns out that Facebook actually found out about this and it cost them something to the tune of $200,000. Now that's a pretty penny and a chunk of change.

Two very important things come to my mind here and those are:
1) To the best of knowledge, Glenn Mangham didn't inform Facebook, thus disqualifying him as an ethical hacker
2) He entered a guilty plea
Having considered that, he is definitely guilty of hacking, or computer misuse in legalese, and should be punished for his crime. The whole argument that he is an "ethical hacker" hold no water whatsoever. There's not much more to say, so I;m going to leave it at that. Good night sports fans! (Again same argument as above :P)

Activism vs. Vadalism, Digitally speaking

Howdy sports fans (this is here to stay), I know I've been away but I'll try and be better. Having said that I realise how often I say that and don't fully go through. Please don't hate me *cute face*. Moving on, let's talk about the difference between digital activism and digital vandalism. Let's start off by talking about a term I hate, which you will know is a long list, if you have been reading my blog. More to the point todays hated word is "hacktivism."

Hacktavism is a portmanteau of "hacking" and "activism" and is basically "activism by means of hacking." Which basically a roundabout way of saying "the (perceived good) ends justify the (blatantly wrong) means." The basic idea is that you, as a hacktavist, hack somebody/something to make a point or a statement, but really you are pretty much doing this. Yes, that sketch does exaggerate for comic effect, but you get the point.

Of course, the very first thing that comes to most people's minds when they hear the word hacktivist is Anonymous. I have written about some of their activities before and as you may or may not know, I'm not really a fan. They started of playing pranks on people and general trolling, which was OK by me. They said we are doing just for lulz (yea LulSec also has the same kind of problem). Then they got a bit more political and most recently, but I still think that they are being a tad juvenile about it.

"But, then what is the grown up thing to do?" you may be asking, oh intrepid reader. Well, let me tell you. There was, and is still some, raging going on about SOPA/PIPA (yes, yes, I'm going to write more about this, after I've done more reading) and quite rightly so. People sent letters to their senators, congressmen/congresswomen and representatives and registered protests in the conventional way. And, then something magical happened - a proper online protest: the SOPA blackout.

Basically a large number of websites, big and small, replaced all their content with a black page explaining what they are protesting and why. Some people didn't get the memo, so this happened, but overall I think it was a success. Almost instantly a SOPA/PIPA lost a lot of support and were then shelved. Normal service resumed the next day and everybody was happy. In all of this, nothing illegal was done and nobody was harmed, inconvenienced maybe, but no real harm was done.


Compare that to the very next day when Kim Dotcom (Who goes and changes their surname to Dotcom? I mean really? Does he want to be mocked?) et al. were arrested and what Anonymous did. They took down the websites for , which is whole other kettle of fish. This is basically vandalism, even though it is not the standard defacement type of vandalism you may be thinking of, but the point still stands. Not to mention the fact that it is illegal, but well. 

Unfortunately, law enforcement really has no idea to deal with these kinds of digital vandals, due to several reasons. I'm not sure there is an easy solution to this, but who knows? So, in short, you can protest via digital means, but there is a right way and a wrong way to do it and sadly the wrong way is more prevalent.

BBM and Siri outages, a failure in more ways that you think.

Morning sports fans! Yes, I've missed you too, but I'm having a super perfectionist phase and none of my posts seem good enough to publish. This should all blow over and there will quite a few post some time in the future. So, let's wind the clock back a smidge and remember one of the biggest fails of the year: The Great BlackBerry Outage of 2011! (Yeah, I'm expecting more to come.)

So, cast your mind back to October 10th-ish when the first reports of a RIM server crash came in. Millions of people were left without access to BBM and some Internet services, such as Facebook. Ah, the many jokes we made that they didn't see. Well it quickly spread to North America and then other planets! (BONUS QUESTION: How many of these planets do you know?) It was somewhat fitting that BlackBerry users who were fairly vain about BBM had it ripped from them for a couple of days. It was a good thing.

Eventually, RIM apologised, service and the status quo were restored. There was still the great debate of BlackBerry vs. iPhone, (as explained here by Jimmy Carr and Sean Locke on 8 out of 10 Cats) but the iPhone users had a little chip on their shoulder that said "We never have service outages." This was compounded by the fact the release of the iPhone 4S, and with it Siri, was imminent. Just to catch you up, Siri is the voice activated personal assistant that comes with the iPhone 4S. (For further details see this)

Anywho, Siri is now here and people are enjoying asking it silly questions, demonstrating which accents it can't understand and showing that it's only fully functional in USA. What I was, until recently, unaware of is that Siri runs in the cloud. I have no love for cloud computing, but will ignore that at this juncture. A couple of days a ago a failure caused Siri to be unable to connect to the Apple servers and thus not work. Wait, you mean Apple has service outages as well? *le gasp*! Well of course they do! The reason is simple,they seem to have overlooked a very basic principle of computer security: critical infrastructure.

What is critical infrastructure you ask? Good question! Critical infrastructure is an old-ish field which studies an setup and sees what it would take for that to stop working. The classical example is a very nice graph theoretic problem, which is quite nicely demonstrated by the London Underground map. Assume this your only means of transport. Pick any station and/or section of the map. The problem is can you make a single cut and isolate that station/section from the rest of the map? There are variants, such as the minimum number of cuts needed to isolate a station/section and also on other things such as electricity, water and gas supply. You get the gist of it all, right?

The same can be done for communication and telecommunication networks. This is normally done, but it can be a bit tricky. With wired communications, it's easy to draw up a graph-style map, with each wire as an edge and each node as a vertex. However the same is not really true of wireless communications. To stop wired communications between point A and B, you need to sever the wire joining them. It's not as clear what the equivalent for wireless communication is. There is also the issue that unlike wired devices, which are immobile, wireless devices by definition are mobile.

So, now do we consider simply the connection between the devices or do we also have to consider the location? Can we only consider one or do we have to consider both? If I go into a lift and lose wireless connectivity is that a failure of the network or the device or both or neither? If you are thinking such distinctions are a moot point, then you are pretty much correct. Yes, it's not a major issue, but it should not be completely overlooked. There are a lot more examples of this, but that would mean delving into technicalities, which I would rather not do.

And there is the issue of time. These things take time, quite often a lot of it. There are so many contingencies to consider, such as the classic CTO chokes on sushi, rest of the department is killed in a meteor strike and the only other guy who knows the password gets retrograde amnesia. Yes, that is a tad far-fetched and one should probably stop when retrograde amnesia is the most likely event in your scenario. The digital market thrives on speed. You need to get the next product out there 2 weeks before the previous one is launched.

So, as you can see, owing to several issues, the critical infrastructure analysis is possibly not done as well as it should be, which can cause these kinds of issues. On the other hand, you can do the most thorough analysis and the worst case scenario may still occur, thus causing an outage. So basically it's all a roll of the dice and remember "God doesn't play dice!"

Hackers = Mobsters? Redux

So, I earlier wrote a post about how they want to try hackers under organised crime laws. Well, I must admit, must to my chagrin, that I may have overlooked some details. Well, not so much details as scenarios and/or types of attackers. My previous post focused primarily on the "breaking and entering" breed of hacker, specifically the kind without any financial motivations. There in, lies my folly.

The attacker I described was the kind that will break a system, to quote the famed LulzSec group, "just for lulz," or with some form of activist agenda, a la Operation Payback. Here the attacker(s) main objective was to point out a weakness in a system, cripple a system as a form of protest, or simply to entertain themselves. Well, in any case, here the idea of organised crime does fall a tad flat, as explained previously.

Now, we move to something a colleague pointed out to me today. If we consider fiscally motivated crimes, then we begin to see the motivation for this kind of approach. Consider the case of identity theft via phishing, for argument's sake. Although this kind of attack can be done alone, there is essentially a mafia that controls large parts of this trade. It is very reminiscent of the classical mobsters, to the extent that there is large speculation of them being linked. Of course I know no knowledge beyond the rumblings of their existance, but I am convinced.

Although there are other, and arguably more sophisticated, ways of committing digital identity fraud, they all do have the same mafia-esque touch to them. Here, the idea of treating these in the same manner as organised crime is not a far fetched idea at all. In fact, I believe it is the right idea.

So, in summary, this idea is not all bad and in fact is very good for certain classes of digital criminals, but not so much for others. Hopefully, the law all over will catch up to all the crazy types of security threats in our crazy world.

Hackers = Mobsters?

Ok, so as promised: post number 2 of today (just to be pedantic, my today). So, I recently read this in which President Obama said that he wants hackers will be treated, for the purposes of the law, in a manner similar to that of organised crime. Yes, people, that means mobsters, as in Tony Montana or Al Capone. That does make hackers sound so much cooler now that we are imagining them in pinstripe suits and not nerdy T-Shirts, but we must question the validity of this.

My main objection to this is the term "organized", not only due to the fact that I prefer British spelling, but mainly because, it's not always true. Yes, one could say that LulzSec is/was somewhat akin to the famed "Cosa Nostra," but they do indeed prove to be the exception to the rule. The next closest thing is Anonymous, but they are at best a loose collection of similar-ish minded individuals, who got together for one job and then disbanded. Of course some members will carry out attacks in unison after that, but it would almost certainly not be the whole group again.

Further more, there is a somewhat implicit assumption of some form of heirarchy amongst hackers. There may well be "senior" and "junior" member of the group and there may well be some people with more influence or more authority, but no really chain of command, so to speak. To the best of my knowledge there is no Godfather in hacker communities. So, here again the organised argument breaks down.

Of course, the previous is in the case where there is actually more than one person involved. It is neither  impossible nor uncommon, for a single hacker to mounts attacks on a fairly large scale. Yes, I know that the article states that "complex and sophisticated electronic crimes are rarely perpetrated by a lone individual," but there have been reports of single attackers mounted somewhat complex attacks. Granted, they may have obtained resources from other individuals/groups, but they did mainly act alone.  In the case of this single perpetrator, the term organised seems to be a dash irrelevant. I can imagine that the lawmen would be well pressed to somehow fits such a scenario into these laws.

Furthermore one would assume that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act would be the basis for this new version of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). I am not a legal expert, but I can imagine that this would be quite challenging. You see, these two classes of criminals live and operate in very different environments, thus making any sort of an analogy difficult. However, this idea is not without merit.

Recently, this story emerged. An Australian blogger wrote about domain-name fraud and found himself in a spot of bother. He was, and still is from what I gather, being DDoSed. The thing is that the log files show the traffic coming from non-existent websites, which are actually death threats to him. One example is “http://lastwarning-shutdown-yourblog-or-die-withyourparklogic.com”. This does seem to be very much like old school mafia behaviour, which lends great credence to this new idea.

So, although it may not be IMHO the best way to go about, it is not without its merits. As this develops further, it may even become an excellent law. Until, all we can do is wait and see.

(Distributed) Denial of Service attacks, intentional or otherwise.

So, I have been away for a bit and thus the lack of posting. So to make that up, there will be two posts today and at least one more this week. Right, lets get into its shall we? Today's topic is (Distributed) Denial of Service attacks and how they can be inadvertently caused. So, first off, what exactly is is a Denial of Service (DoS) and indeed a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack.

A Denial of Service (DoS) attack involves sending an excessive amounts of data/requests/pings to a server with the aim of overloading the server so that legitimate users can not access the server. Imagine the following scenario: there is an office with an information counter. Normally, people would walk up tot he counter, get the information they need and then leave. After this the next person does the same and so on and so forth. A DoS would essentially be one person standing at the counter and asking so many questions that nobody else can get up to the counter.

A Distributed DoS (DDoS) is the same thing, except with one minor difference. In a standard DoS, there is only one attacker and one attacking system. In a DDoS, there may still be one attacker, but there are several systems that involved in the attack. For all intents and purposes, DoS attacks really only exist in textbooks, so we will only consider DDoS attacks.

So, now that we know what DDoS attacks are, let's look at how they happen. The normal scenario is that our attacker(s) pick a target and then bombard them with request. At a technical level, there are several ways to this in an intelligent ways, but the simplest is just overwhelming the server with requests. I would rather not get into the details, because to be quite honest, I find them inane and boring. SO, let's just say there are many ways of doing it.

Now, if you recall I did say we were going to discuss how one may inadvertently perform a DDoS. First off, we need to realise that different websites require different levels of hardware. Right at the top you have the likes of Google, who require server farms of sizes that are difficult to fathom. Then you go down to the bottom, where you have tiny websites that get a couple of hits a week, which probably run on a single machine. Obviously, the smaller the server, the easier it is to DDoS.Now, the unintentional DDoS attacks happen to theses smaller sites. How you ask? Well simple, they get very popular, very fast.

There a few ways you can achieve this. Firstly, start off a small website and then becomes popular. Then when you post new content, number of people accessing your site goes through the roof and your site becomes temporarily unavailable. Don't think this is possible? I refer you to a delightful webcomic (in a manner of speaking) The Oatmeal, run by Matthew Inman. He even says something about it on his Facebook page. He does somewhat DDoS himself, by being awesome!

Another way is best explained by using Stephen Fry as an example. Stephen had built up quite a fan base as an entertainer and television personality over the years, so when he ended up in Twitter, well naturally he had a smattering of followers (myself included). He is quite an avid user and apart from the usual tweets of his current activities (and of course his tweets for charity), he does tweet links to amusing content from time to time. The moment that tweet hits the net, there are thousands of people clicking that link and well it has caused more that one site to go down.

As we can see in both cases, neither party had any malicious intent towards the sites that they inadvertently DDoS'ed, but it did happen. The unfortunate part of this is that there is no way to defend against it. Well, there is the no practical way to defend against it. Of course, everybody could use industrial size server farms, but that is not really practical. There may be some sort of gains made if everything was hosted in the cloud, but I'm not sure how feasible that is.

rankmyhack.com - WHY?

So, recently it has come to my attention that there is a website called rankmyhack.com [twitter account] (at last attempt the site was unreachable and isup.me said it looks down) which basically encourages the general populous to hack stuff, post details of it and get points based on how good it was. So, something simple like logging into a system where they left the guest account open would score minimal points, but a more complex exploit, such as say a SQL injection, would score more. Sounds fun right?

WRONG! I for one will tell how important it is to secure your web-facing interfaces, devices and any combination thereof till the cows come home, but there is a proper way to do that. There are some standard known practices and counter-measures against exploits that you can put in place. Of course this process is fairly mechanical and does not account for human ingenuity.

Tiger Teams (that term always makes me think of this), enter stage left. Now a Tiger Team or Red Team is a bunch of inhouse or outsourced hackers whose sole job is to attack the system. They do this in a contained environment and report all the exploits the the developers who then correct any flaws. Ideally, they will find everything, but there is no guarantee of that. If they are good, they will find most of them.

That's the normal way of doing it. This site however basically sets the dogs loose on every single person on the Internet. You, my dear beloved reader are at risk. If you are reading this, it is a safe assumption that you have access to the Internet. A further safe assumption is that you have at least one e-mail account. BOOM! Target numero uno. But it gets better. Do you have: Facebook? Twitter? Social media sites? Other sites? Your own website? Smartphone? All targets. There are a plethora more and I will not list them all but you get the idea.

The very idea that a website would be dedicated to this kind of malicious and illegal behaviour is utterly beyond me. Why don't we have a website dedicated to videos of us crashing our cars into walls and rate those? ratemycrash.com! Brilliant idea! And as I typed that, I realised that it probably exists, which it does. When I saw that page, my soul died a little bit. But I digress.

This website is the digital equivalent of a bunch of mobsters gathered around a dinner table bragging about all the crimes they have committed. Yes, I know I have shown a little bit of annoyance at the Black Hat conferences and the like, but in the end it is serious security research. I know they sexy it up and throw in a bit of FUD but at the end of the day it is valid research with some useful insights and is helpful in the design of future systems.

This site, not so much. It also helps further perpetuate the whole image of hackers portrayed in the media. You may remember my previous comment about the green on black terminals. Yeah, that's all there. There are times when people do things which we don't agree on and we move on. Then there are times when people do things and it just about turns you into a misanthrope. This isn't one of the latter, but it sure as hell ain't helping!

Black Hat and the constant accompyning headlines!

So, recently there was the Black Hat conference in Vegas. For those of you who are less informed, this is basically a large gathering of security researchers presenting their latest findings. And by findings I mean what they have recently broken. Most people dub this a "hacker" conference which is not to unreasonable, but I have one issue with it. The media coverage of it.

The only reason the term "hacker" is used is to sound sexy to the media. They hear that word and they are doing backflips through rings of fire to get the story. And as we are aware the media doesn't always get it right when reporting computer security related issues. Black hat presentations are geared to getting the media attention and causing a bit of a frenzy.

A prime example of that is Don Bailey's presentation which was entitled "War Texting: Identifying and Interacting with Devices on the Telephone Network" which does raise some valid points about connectivity of critical devices (details in another post) but it was also well marketed. He showed that he could unlock cars just by sending a few text messages. When normal people hear something like "vulnerability in FPGA-based control systems" or something similar they do not really know what it means.


Say "I can unlock your car with my phone" and they are scared. Don did say (quote in this article) "I could care less if I could unlock a car door. It's cool. It's sexy. But the same system is used to control phone, power, traffic systems. I think that's the real threat." Which is basically my grievance. As security researchers, we have to sexy up our ideas and then present them to the general populous. Which in turn leads to what I would deem to be an inconvenience.

If you want media attention, then you research on topics that you can sell with a little bit of FUD. Which does restrict your scope quite a lot. This then has a further effect that people view security researchers as only doing this kind of research. This leaves the more theoretical people, like myself, out in the cold, so to speak. Which may or may not be a bad thing, I am not really sure, but I am very sure that it does grind my gears a smidge.

Security the MS way: Protecting you from yourself!

I have always maintained that Microsoft's security policy is essentially to stop you from doing anything stupid. The concept in itself is fairly sound, but the implementation is not. In the classic Operating System debate of Windows versus Linux, the biggest point Linux users make is that they can modify any part of the operating system to suit their needs and desires. When I used Windows XP, I had found all the little secrets to get my machine to do what I wanted it to do. But, I digress.

Microsoft basically adopted the "protect the users from themselves" approach in earnest in Windows Vista. There are several reason why I (and others) am not too fond of Vista, but that aside. The idea is sound in theory, but the implemenatation of it left so much to be desired. In hiding all the knifes from the kids, they also hid all the forks and spoons. Yes, I agree that some of the functionalities should not be available to normal users, but it should be available to admin users.

A whole plethora of useful features were hidden, but we shan't go into that now. The main thing is this article. Now I know I'm a bit late to jump onto this, but I have been a tad lazy. Moving on. So it seems that Hotmail will ban common and quite frankly shit passwords. This is a good and a bad thing.

As I have pointed out before, passwords can be tricky things. For something iek your e-mail account, you need a decent password. So now if Hotmail will reject your password because it's shit, that good right? Well, yes and no. It does stop dictionary attacks, however it drastically changes the search space.

Previously, an attacker would run dictionary attacks in the hope that somebody was a fool. Now that cannot happen then the system is foolproof right? Yes, but to quote Douglas Adams "A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." It may sound a touch misanthropic, but people are stupid. 


Eventually what is going to happen is that people will find that people will find the least complex passwords that pass through the Hotmail filter and then use those passwords repeatedly. Now dictionary based attacks kick in again, just with a new dictionary. The dictionaries may be larger than previously, but it may not be a significant amount.


So, it is a good idea and I am very much in favour of this, but it could also backfire. Only time will tell, we shall wait and see.

Something that has been bugging me for a while

Do you have a facebook account? Rhetorical question, of course you do. If you don't well then you can leave now because this post is all about *drumroll* FACEBOOK! Seeing as how it is on my blog, one can safely assume that it is about facebook security. So, what have facebook done now? They are protecting your from them.

Confused? So was I. Basically they have started up this new scheme to prevent Cross-Site Scripting(XSS) and Clickjacking and other scripting based vulnerabilities. Some of you may be unfamiliar with scripting and the vulnerabilities therein. Most modern webpages serve up dynamic content, making the experience different for each user. A good example of this is your facebook newsfeed, which is different from your friend's feed.

This is all achieved using scripting. A script is essentially some sort of program code that runs within your web-browser. The catch is, you never explicitly execute the scripts like you do programs. They are embedded in the webpage and are executed when you open the webpage, or at some other suitable trigger. The problem then is that people could embed malicious scripts into pages and you will not realise they have run, until it's too late.

I'm sure you've all had that one friend who has posted the same spam link to everybody and 10mins later warned you not to click it. That is basically what these malicious scripts do. So, facebook decided that they need to address the issue, which they did pathetically.


What they have done is now they "read" your URLs and check it for any script. Again, ANY script. That means that if any script is detected, you will be logged out of facebook instantly as a security precaution. You may wonder why this is a problem. Well, as eluded to earlier, almost all actions on facebook are scripts. See more items in your news feed, liking a post, commenting on a post, writing on somebody's wall, the chat feature. Everything is a script. So now, facebook sees you trying to do something legitimate and decides to kick you out. It doesn't always happen, but it's often enough to be mildly aggravating.

It's bad enough that you have to re-login, but what's even worse is that you go through the following twp screens: (full size images here and here)
and then a 3rd asking if you would like to share a link explaining how great facebook security is. Honestly, I would rather have a red-hot iron bar slapped onto my arm. This is because if you read the messages carefully, you will notice a couple of "< br >" tags popping up.

This is not a security issue, but it does mean that whom so ever wrote those pages is probably a moron! "< br >" was/is the tag used in HTML to induce a line break. However, newer standards such as XHTML and HTML5 insist on using "< br />" for technical reasons. Believe me, it's a good idea. So, this lead me to the conclusion that most facebook web developers have written sloppy HTML/PHP/JScript/Whatever else they use and that is causing the "safety filter" to go off at least twice a week on my account. Also, I'm not sure how good the code for the "filter" is. I have very low expectations.

The first time I was logged out by this "filter", I was impressed that facebook had implemented such a feature. I guess that they had some bugs in it, which was understandable. With each subsequent occurrence of me being "filtered out", I grew more sceptical. Then when I saw the horrendous HTML code in the warnings, I gave up hope and waited for it to happen again to make screen shots.

I didn't have to wait too long. Most people would say "Well at least they tried!" To which I reply, "Welcome to cyber-security, where a half-assed attempt doesn't count!" Really, facebook, get your act together and actually make an attempt and then maybe I'll be impressed and stop writing evil comments on the your security fan pages.

Quick post on how I may be kind of wrong.

If you know me at all, you will know that I have strong opinions on some things. If you don't know me, you now know that I have strong opinions on certain things. Now that everybody is caught up, let's all sit back and enjoy me being wrong-ish. I had a post earlier, which really is based on the fact that access to the Internet is a privilege, that some people abuse. Well now the United Nations has declared it a human right. My argument falls flat on it's face. I'm a big boy and I am willing to admit that in light of this, those arguments no longer hold water. Things change, people's ideas are made to be wrong, that's life.

Also, just a minor side-note: read this article!

Cyberwarfare Part 2 (No more lazy me, for now)

Alrighty then, we had a basic intro to cyberwar in my previous post. In between then and now, the clever chaps at the SIS, commonly incorrectly referred to as MI6, told us about this little gem. This has to be one of the funniest things in existence... EVER!!! But minor state-sponsered hacktivism aside, back to the crux of the matter: the issues arising from cyberwar.

One of the main problems is that you may not even know that you were attacked. If somebody blows up a building the sound, and the lack of building, would alert you pretty quickly to the fact that there was an attack. The attacker may have installed some malicious software on your system or copied some data and you would be none the wiser. Yes, there are ways to detect this, but it is very possible that you wouldn't even notice.

Not only is it the lack of physical evidence, but also the time scale. Normal wars tend to take a long time. If you don't notice you are at war, well then you have bigger problems than the army barrelling down you front driveway. A cyberwar or cyber attack can be executed and completed within a matter of hours, if not minutes. It is really that fast. Yes there is a lot of prep time required but this is analogous to training your army, building your tanks etc.

Then there is the last (I promise, well for now) issue arising in cyberwar: non-interactivity. To take a touch of a cryptographic twist onto the whole matter war is an interactive protocol. Sure if you surprise the enemy they won't know they are at war right away, but they will pick up pretty quickly and then return in kind. The thing with cyberwar is that not only is the decision to go to war unilateral, but in some sense so is the war. One party decides to attack another party and does so. The other may or may not discover this and may or may not respond in kind. But again the whole thing is done very non-interactively (despite what pop culture (couldn't find anything for that, sorry) and video games may tell you).

So, to sum up: cyberwar is confusing, unclear, hard to track, pinpoint and blame the perpetrators and is inherently non-interactive. And if that wasn't bad enough, the actual definition of cycberwar is pretty fuzzy and very much up in the air right now. Most likely I may revert back to lazy me. Unless something cool happens.

Cyberwarfare Part 1 (A post I have been procrastinating on)

Well this post has been in the works for a couple of week now. I have been procrastinating on a epic level about finishing this off. However the universe decide to give me a kick in the backside in the form of these related recent articles (all links to separate slashdot stories)

So, in recent times, there has been a lot of talk of digital warfare, internet wars, cyberwar and so forth. The most recent being the aforementioned. The general idea behind them is all the same, we have a strategy/army/assets/whatever for cyberwarfare. What happens when warfare goes from being about things in the real world to things in the digital world?

So let's start from the start shall we? What is modern warfare? (apart from a terrible pun on a pretty good video game) War as a concept is fairly simple. Two nation states (in general) disagree on something and wish to resolve the issue. So basically they start blowing each other up until they get bored or one party is very very dead. Yes, that is a gross oversimplification, but the concept holds. Now, onto the crux of the matter: What is Cyberwafare?

Cyberwar (which is the term I shall be using from now on, because I think it's the coolest) is essentially a war fought in the digital realm. This is generally in tandem with conventional warfare with the aim of disabling digital assets. There could also be political goals, achieved by defacing websites and so on, but IMHO the main goal is the destruction of digital assets.

Well, this is all pretty fine and dandy when the war is being carried out by nation states, because there is some inherent chain of command and somebody who would be responsible for ordering these attacks. However, this is not always the case with cyberwar. Now you may ask "why this is possible?"

Good question. The thing with conventional war (ignoring any peace negotiations) is that the winner is the side with the most and/or better equipment and/or training. There is the main point where cyberwar becomes so much easier. To build a real army you need to train people to drive tanks and fly planes and shoot guns and blah blah blah. To build a cyber army, you need to teach people how download a program and run it.

Here the "army" is recruited by word of mouth and because there is no physical danger caused by participating in this attack the number of people who join in are much more numerous. However, we do fall into an interesting problem: who is responsible for this attack, which is essentially tantamount to an act of war?

The answer to the question is ill-defined at best. An prime example would be the recent attack on the Playstation Network (another blog post I will finish soon). First Sony said it was Anonymous, who then claimed it wasn't them, but then it later turned out the be a "faction" (for lack of a better word) of anonymous. So here we see no chain of command and the leaders of the group had no idea what the other members were upto.

And there in lie the first complications of cyberwar. First off, we have the ability to engage in cyberwar. ConvenConventional warfare requires a substantial amount of resources, which are pretty much never available to the average individual. In the cyber realm, all you need is an Internet connection and possibly some more people to help out, or just their computers (whole other problem there, which I will cover later). And then there is the problem of accountability. At best you get an IP address(es) for the attacking platform(s) which may just be under the control of the attacker (again, to be covered in more detail in another post) and thus may not yield anything useful.

Now, this post is getting pretty long and falling into TL;DR territory. That and I really don't want to write anything more at this point in time. So, I will end here and will pick this up later (note the "Part 1" in the title of the post).

Password Lockers Part 2

So, this is becoming a trend, well two trends: follow-up posts and data breaches. As you may or may not know, there was a MASSIVE breach involving Sony Entertainment, specifically the Playstation, but more on that later. More the the point you may recall my previous post on password lockers etc. Well, this post is about what can go wrong with a password locker.

LastPass is a company that provides a password locker service. What you do is register and download their software. Your master password, which unlocks the locker is then stored there. Now it recently came to light that some of these passwords were compromised (or not). Well, LastPast, if you are reading this, have a gander over here for a sec, k? We assume, hypothetically, that the master passwords were compromised (mainly because I have already written out most of this post and I'm kinda lazy). LastPass issues a warning to all its users to change their master passwords and they all do. Their servers could not handle the load and so they had to restrict the number of users allowed to change their passwords. This actually happened before they announced they were not hacked.

Well, I would like to say that I am somewhat impressed by the expediency with which the users tried to change their passwords. I am also impressed by LastPass's inability to deal with the situation. Agreed, that they had issues dealing with the load but according to their blog they have put affected accounts in "lock-down" mode. Kudos to you.

After all of this, LastPass then claimed they were not hacked. It seems that they just broken their system. After users changed the master passwords, they were met with garbage characters, random images and occasionally the deep dark void of nothing. Somewhere somebody thought that implied a hack. And that brings us to today's lesson.

When you think you have been breached, DO NOT PANIC! Check, re-check, double-check and confirm that there has been a breach. Immediately put in place counter-measures and check for other possible backdoors opened by this breach. Take a deep breath. Notify the affected users as required by law and/or company policy. If you follow these steps properly, then there should be no need to ever retract a security warning. Issuing a security warning scares people, retracting it causes doubt. We are trying to bring digital security out of the realm of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt)!

Why the movies are wrong (Surprise, Surprise)

On the lighter side of life, my friend @zarino tweeted this link, which got me thinking about hackers in popular culture. Think about your favorite movie and/or TV hacker. My vote goes to Alec Hardison, but that's irrelevant. In any "hacking sequence" you see the hacker typing away furiously on a keyboard and all sorts of random green text on a black background. The green on black dates way back to the old days and I have no clue as to why they used those colours, but everybody loves it.

Anyway, you see them typing away furiously at a console screen and all sorts of text just popping up.

IT'S ALL WRONG!

Sadly, hacking is really not that glamorous. It's mainly typing one or two commands or even just a button click. That is preceded by actually coding the tool you are using but nobody types that fast, especially not when programming. Just by the by, the text that appears in the link is a program of some sort. Haven't read all the code, so not sure what it does. All I can say is that it looks something from the C-family.
*****EDIT******
Turns out they last change the site a touch since I visited it. It appears the code is part of the Linux kernel.

More irony

So, after this post went up this story surfaced pretty soon. I never got round to writing about it, because I have just moved from my old flat to a new one. So, I've kinda preoccupied. There really isn't more to say about this than how ironic it is. I may be tempted to do a post on Cross-Site Scripting soon, but we'll see how that goes

Irony thou name is SQL injection

As I clicked on my slashdot bookmark, I for some reason said to my browser "Please give me something juicy" and it did not disappoint. It gave me this article. The sheer irony alone made me chuckle for 2-3 minutes. So, meine Damen und Herren, (I just had to throw a little German in there) let's talk about SQL injections. I promise this won't hurt (much)!


So, to understand a SQL injection, we need to understand SQL. To understand SQL, we need to know what a database is. And that's where we will start. This may be a bit round about, because to frank I find databases to be a dull and boring topic. We start at the bottom, with data elements. Now a data element is a single piece of data about an entity e.g. Name, Gender, Age, Favourite Star Wars Character and so on. A record is all the specific data elements about a specific entity e.g. {Saqib A Kakvi, Male, 23, Yoda} would be a record about me. If we have several such records stored as rows, we get a table. If we have more tables (generally related) we now have a database. In summary: A database is a collection of tables, which in turn is a collection of records, which in turn are a set of data elements.

Agreed, it's all fine and dandy having all this data nicely stored, but how do we access specific parts of it? The answer is Structured Query Language or SQL (sometimes pronounced 'sequel') for short. SQL is basically a language that allows us to get a section of a database based on some criteria e.g. all the records of people who are over the age of 30. Although SQL gives you quite a lot of lean room, it is strongly typed, which means that all SQL statements must have a very specific form, syntax and all the right symbols in all the right places.


And this brings us to SQL injection. A SQL injection exploits the srong-typing of SQL and issues malformed statements which cause the SQL interpreter to go a little bit bonkers and produce some crazy result. By taking very, for lack of a better phrase, well-formed malformed queries, an attacker can recover parts of (and even all of) the database. When implementing a database, one must ensure that any and all malformed queries are rejected, thus making SQL injections irrelevant. 


MySQL is a software that helps you implement, run and maintain a database (known as a Relation DataBase Management System {RDBMS}). The MySQL company seems to have forgotten about this vulnerability in a primary part of their system. As we have seen, MySQL (and apparently sun.com) have been so ironically compromised due to a SQL vulnerability. Well who would have thought it?


ME! ME! ME! Well, actually the thought had crossed my mind a few times and I thought it was funny, but sincerely hoped that it would never happen. Well done world, you continue to surprise me.

Location, Location, Location! What you don't know that they know!

Alrighty then folks, I have been away for about a month. Between my holiday, work and trying to write another post which I hope to publish some time soon, you have seen zero in terms of output from me. This is me correcting that. So, as I was browsing through the magical interwebz, I happened upon this article. This set of all kinds of crazy alarm bells in my mind. So, let's look at this issue in a bit more detail.

Historically, your mobile provided has always known where you are to some extent. With GSM (I believe there is a difference with CDMA, but I am not to familiar with it, so I will skip it) the service would know what the nearest base station to you was. With this information, they would that you were in a certain area. The reason they need to know this is so that when you make a phone call, they know which base station to forward the authentication information to.

One little point to make here is that one  can tell approximately how far you are from a base station based on signal strength. If you can find out the distance from several base stations, you can use a method called multilateration to calculate an more accurate location. The more distances you know, the more accurate the location is. This is how location-based services, such as Google Maps, work on a handset with no GPS.

Now, it would be very very very easy for an service provider to obtain the location of any customer and store it, but it may be ILLEGAL!!! Under the European Data Protection Directive (and analogous legislation in other countries) no company may collect any personal data about you without your explicit consent. Now we need to clear up two points (in the simplest case):
1) Is your location personal data
2) Did the company have your consent

So, let's start with point 1. The defintion of personal data is as follows in Article 1 Clause 2 Sub-Clause a:

'personal data' shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;

I think we can safely say that a person's location and their movements would definitely qualify. So that's one point out of the way.

Next, we need to know if this information was collected legally. I'm going to go out on a limb and say probably. Most companies have you agree to a Terms of Service, which nobody ever reads. This is because it tends to be dozens of pages written in legal parlance. It's enough to make any sane non-lawyer cry tears of sheer anguish. We all sign our consent to it having read the summary and hope we haven't signed away one of our kidneys.

In this case, it's not really the end of the world if our cellphone provider knows where we are. The problem arises when they decide to share that data. In the Terms of Service it may say that  they can share this information with certain 3rd parties for any reason. This means that marketing companies could potentially track your every move and learn a lot about your preferences. This could be a problem. 

This is an example of why privacy experts complain bitterly about the loss of privacy in the digital age. And they have every right to, with things like this, less and less information is becoming private. However, their constant and sometimes annoyingly repetitive rants tend to fall on deaf ears. Unfortunately, some people release this information themselves using applications such as Foursquare. It's a classic case of taking a horse to the river and the horse drowning itself scenario.

Although despite this, people such as Malte Spitz (link is in German) still have concerns about the privacy of their data. I would not recommend that anybody try and get their hands on what locational data they have, as it would probably not go down well. According to the article it took 6 months of legal wrangling for Herr Spitz to get this data. It would be at least as for you.

Now to sum up I would say "Big Brother is watching you!" but that is trite and cliché. And frankly a tad more alarmist than I would like to be at dark-and-scary-o'clock in the morning. So, I will go with the slightly milder "Be careful what you share on the Internet!"

A note on passphrase guessing time calculations

Alrighty then, I had few thoughts about these figures that I mentioned here and decided to some math. It all falls apart very quickly. If we actually crunch the numbers, the titular hacker's computing power changes for every equation and produces some interesting values. I will assume there is some rounding off that is done and thus we lose accuracy in the answer explaining the fluctuations.

Now, don't just take my word for it, you can join in at home. Grab a pen, paper and a calculator because we are dealing with HUGE numbers. Before we can begin, we need to do some housekeeping and define some variables. If you recall from my last post, I stated the 3 characteristics a good password should have, but we only consider the two under attack here that is length and complexity.

We define the complexity by the size of the alphabet, a, that is possible characters the password contains. For lower case a = 26, lower and upper case a = 52. With symbols it depends on how many symbols are considered valid, but in general, we have a = 52 + number of valid symbols. The length is fairly straightforward and self-explanatory. We define the total complexity of our password as
c = a^l (where ^ denotes exponentiation.)

Now, to calculate the time it would take for a hacker to guess your password, we need to know how many guesses they can make per second (or other appropriate time unit), which we denote by g. We can see that the time required is
t = c/g (in the worst case)
You may want to consider the average case, which is obtained by dividing by 2g instead of g.

If you compute g for lower case passwords with length 6 and 7, you see that there is a discrepancy in the g value. However, if you take the g from length 6 and plug it into the equation, you get a t of 4.333.... hours, which is close enough to the 4 hours they have stated. This lends credence to my rounding theory, but does not prove it.

The rest is left as an exercise for the reader. So, go on and give it a whirl. Try this with different combinations and see how long it would take somebody to crack your password.

Passwords/phrases and client side storage

So, after we discussed this, we now move onto the promised post on where and how you should be storing your passwords. But before we get into that, we need to define the importance of passwords and password strength. But, we first need to discuss the term password, mainly the word part. People think, quite intuitively, that a password should be a single word, which is not the best idea. I prefer the term passphrase, implying multiple words and/or numbers and/or symbols. I will use the term passphrase from now on. With that out of the way, I think the next logical step is to discuss password strength.

Password strength is defined by 3 characteristics. The simplest is length, which is fairly obvious. The longer the password the harder it is to guess. I recently stumbled onto these figures, but take them with a grain of salt. They do not specify what kind of hardware was used to make these figures, so its all a bit iffy. Next is complexity, which is illustrated in the afore mentioned figures. (but just the general trend, the actually figures are still questionable). Simply put, if you have more complex passwords, with a combination of lower case, upper case, numbers and symbols, you increase the search space hugely. The third is memorability. There is no point of having "ASddeu43548&^&^ßß" as your password, because you will never remember it. A good password should be easily recalled.  The higher each of these characteristics are, the stringer the password.

Now we move on to the classification of passwords. People have varying opinions on what the exact classifications are, but I use a 4-tier system, detailed below. For each tier we define the suggested password strength wrt the 3 characteristics using the terms High(H), Medium(M), Low(L). We express these as a 3-tuple of the form {Length, Complexity, Memorability} e.g. High length, medium to high complexity and low memorability is written as{H,M-H,L}

TIER I: The big guns; these are passwords for your financial accounts. Online banking, online shopping, or any account which has you financial details, PIN numbers for your ATM/debit/credit cards. These must be very memorable, hard to guess and very strong. You lose one of these, you will lose all your money.
Strength: {H,H,H}

TIER II: These are next in line in terms of importance: Login credentials. This is your school/university/office login name and password. This is how you login to systems at work (wlog) either when you are on the premises or remotely. If you lose these, then you can kiss your professional life goodbye.
Strength: {H,M-H,H}

TIER III: The mid-level identity theft type passwords: email and asocial networking. So your Facebook, HI5, LinkedIn, MySpace, GMail, Y!Mail, Hotmail, thismail, thatmail, and so on and so forth. Depending on how many e-mail addresses you have and what kind of emails you receive on them, the effects of the loss vary. If you lose your primary account's password, then the likelihood of identity theft is significant.
Strength: {M-H,M-H,M}

TIER IV: The throwaways. This is all the stuff you couldn't care less about. Logins for sites that you created just so that you could read certain articles for example. These do carry some risk, but there is a very small risk involved. This depends on several factors, which we will get into in a moment.
Strength: {M,M,L-M}

Now, we need to lay down some ground rules. No passwords should be shared across tiers. This is based on the principle of least privilege. Secondly, passwords from one tier are never stored with passwords from a lower tier. Thirdly, realisability limits; Tier 1 passwords should be unique, tier 2 & 3 should be reused sparsely, Tier 4 can be reused infinitely. Finally, each tier's passwords should be of similar strengths, as explained above. These rules and system in general are a guideline, which I try to follow, but there are grey areas. When in doubt, go for the safest option.

Now that we know how to classify our passwords, we now move onto storage of said passphrases. For tier 1 passwords, we need a highly secure storage, i.e. a password locker. These are programs that will store all your passwords for you in an encrypted form. To decrypt these, you need a master passphrase, which you define when you setup the locker. This passphrase can be thought of as as a tier 0 passphrase, which a mild abuse of notation. This master passphrase has to live in your head and must be of high length, complexity and memorability.

Next we go onto tier 2. These can be stored in programs, but need to be encrypted or locked with another master pass phrase. These should not as a rule be stored with the tier 1 passwords, but that rule tends to be broken for practicality's sake. It is quite annoying having multiple password lockers and it wouldn't be the worst thing if your most important passwords were kept together. If we do have a second password locker, we should treat the master passphrase as tier 1 password.

Now for tier 3, it you can save them in your browser, BUT, they must be encrypted with a master passphrase under all circumstances. Also you should avoid the use of cookies storing the session, caused by checking the "Remember me" check box. This is a big no-no. It's convenient, but it's not really secure. Alternately you could have a third password locker and store them there, encrypted with a tier 2 passphrase (I'm sure you can see the general trend here). If you have your tier 1 and 2 passphrases in a single locker, then this would be a second locker.

And now, tier 4. We all have a billion passwords for a billion sites that we that we use once a month or even less frequently. Theoretically, you could create a new password for each, but you will never be able to remember them all. These you can have your browser remember for you. This way you can have a unique arbitrary password for every single account. There is no real need for a master passphrase encryption, but it is recommended. As you may have guessed, this master passphrase would be a tier 3 passphrase.

These rules are quite rigid, but they are designed from a security point of view rather than a usability point of view. What is an acceptable loss of usability is very much a personal preference and that is up to you. You are welcome to bend and even break some of the rules, to make life easier for yourself. But, remember, you sacrifice security for usability and only you can strike the right balance for yourself. (I avoided saying "you have the power" because it sounds really cheesy) And so, there you have my guidelines for password storage. If in any way this makes the web just that much more secure, then I will have done my job.