Saturday, October 19, 2013
There are many tools, and no shortage of Firefox extensions, that relate to SSL security and detecting MitM attacks. CipherFox and similar extensions are very useful, but didn’t fit my specific need because they aren’t quite noisy enough--I wanted more active and intrusive notification when CA’s of interest were used. Certificate Patrol and similar systems are useful for detecting the introduction of SSL inspection, but these systems don’t fit the scenario of overt, consensual, and long term SSL inspection. BlueLight is based heavily on Cert Alert. In fact, if the alerting criteria in Cert Alert wasn’t hardcoded, I’d probably be using it for this purpose.
BlueLight is useful when SSL Inspection is occurring, usually through a MitM scenario on web proxies using organizational PKI. Obviously, being notified of this on a per site basis is only useful when the organization is selective about what traffic is inspected—if everything is MitM’d then this notification provides no value.
Some claim that users are more secure when their traffic is subject to the organizations protections and monitoring. In this case, BlueLight provides re-assuring feedback to the user, letting them know that they are covered. Others may want to use BlueLight to know when they are under the purview of surveillance. It may deter them from taking some action while being subject to monitoring. In the case that monitoring should not occur on specific traffic, it provides useful notification to the user, so that the erroneous inspection can be rectified. In this vein, I’ve seen BlueLight be particularly useful as it alerts for all SSL elements of the page, not just the main URL (it alerts on the first occurrence, and only the first occurrence).
BlueLight isn’t designed to be useful for other scenarios such as detecting unauthorized SSL MitM attacks or any other covert SSL malfeasance. However, since BlueLight can be configured to alert on basically any certificate issuer, it may well be useful for other similar uses.
BlueLight has to be configured by the user to be useful. As it is, it’s probably only useful to reasonably technically savvy folk. In sharing BlueLight with the larger community, I hope it might be useful to others. BlueLight can be downloaded from addons.mozzilla.org or from csmutz.com/bluelight.
Monday, August 5, 2013
As someone who seeks to apply technology to incident response, I see great promise in standards, technology, and investments to accelerate the distribution and application of threat intelligence. I’ve spent years developing capabilities to perform security intelligence and have seen first-hand the benefits of information sharing. The amount of security data exchanged will likely continue to grow. However, I have concerns about the shift from security intelligence to intelligence compliance and about the fundamental benefit of comprehensive distribution of threat intelligence.
Compliance Supplanting AnalysisInformation sharing has been critical to the success of intelligence based network defense. Direct competitors from various industries have come together to battle the common problem of espionage threats. Threat intelligence sharing has been wildly successful as sharing has included relevant context, has been timely, and as the attackers have been common to those sharing. Years ago, much of this sharing was informal, based primarily in direct analyst to analyst collaboration. Over time, formal intel sharing arrangements have evolved and are proliferating today, increasing in count of sharing venues, the number of participants, and the volume of intel.
The primary concern I have with this increase in intel sharing is that it is often accompanied by a compliance mindset. If there’s anything we should have learned from targeted attacks, it is that compliance based approaches will not stop highly motivated attacks. It’s inevitable that conformance will fail, given enough attacker effort. For example, targeted attackers frequently have access to zero-day exploits that aren’t even on the red/yellow/green vulnerability metric charts, let alone affected by our progress in speeding patching from months to days. The reactive approach to incident response is focused primarily on preventing known attacks. As a community, we have developed intelligence driven network defense to remedy this situation. It allows us to get ahead of individual attacks by keeping tabs on persistent attackers, styled campaigns in the vernacular, in addition to a proper vulnerability focused approaches. The beauty of intelligence driven incident response is that it gives some degree of assurance that if you have good intelligence on an attack group, you will detect/mitigate subsequent attacks if they maintain some of the patterns they have exhibited in the past. This may seem like a limited guarantee, and indeed it is narrow, but it’s the most effective way to defeat APT. Intelligence compliance, on the other hand, promises completeness in dispatching with all documented and shared attacks, but it makes no promise for previously unknown attacks.
To explain in detail, the point of kill chain and associated analysis isn’t merely to extract a proscribed set of data to be used as mitigation fodder, but to identify multiple durable indicators to form a campaign. This has been succinctly explained by my colleague, Mike Cloppert, in his blog post on defining campaigns. The persistence of these indicators serves not only as the method of aggregating individual attacks into campaigns, but the presence of these consistencies is the substance of the assurance that you can reliably defeat a given campaign. By definition, individual attacks from the same campaign have persistent attributes. If you have a few of these, 3 seems to be the magic number, across multiple phases of the kill chain, you have good assurance that you will mitigate subsequent attacks, even if one of these previously static attributes change. If you can’t identify or your IDS can’t detect enough of these attributes, security intelligence dictates that you either dig deeper to identify these and/or upgrade your detection mechanisms to support these durable indicators. Ergo, defense driven by intelligence dictates you do analysis to identify persistent attack attributes and build your counter-measures around these.
Intelligence compliance, on the other hand, provides no similar rational basis for preparation against previously unseen attacks. Surely, a compliance focused approach has some appeal. It is often viewed as seeking to ensure consistency in an activity that is highly valuable for security intelligence. In other cases, less critical drivers overshadow primary mission success. Intel compliance provides a highly structured process that can be easily metered—very important in bureaucratic environments. The one guarantee that intelligence compliance does give is that you have the same defenses, at least those based on common intelligence, as everyone else in your sharing venue. This is important in when covering your bases is the primary driver. This provides no guarantee about new attacks or the actual security of your data, but does allow you to ensure that known attacks are mitigated, which is arguably most important for many forms of liability. Lastly, giving, taking, or middle manning intel can all be used as chips in political games ranging from true synergies to contrived intrigues. Intelligence compliance provides a repeatable and measurable process which caters to managerial ease and is also able to be aligned with legal and political initiatives.
There are limitless ways in which intelligence compliance can go wrong. Most failings can be categorized as either supplanting more effective activities or as a shortcoming in the mode of intelligence sharing which reduces its value. It is also fair to question if perfect and universal intelligence compliance would even be effective. Remember, intelligence compliance usually isn’t adopted on technical merits. The best, if not naïve, argument for adoption of this compliance mindset is that intel sharing has been useful for security intelligence, hence, by extrapolation, increasing threat data sharing must be better. Sadly, the rationale for a compliance approach to intel sharing frequently digresses to placing short-sighted blame avoidance in front of long term results.
The primary way in which intel compliance goes awry is when it displaces the capacity for security intelligence. If analysts spend more time on superfluous processing of external information than doing actual intelligence analysis, you’ve got serious means/ends inversion problems. Unfortunately, it’s often easier to process another batch of external intel verses digging deeper on a campaign to discover resilient indicators. This can be compared to egregious failings in software vulnerability remediation where more resources are spent on digital paper pushing, such as layers of statistics on compliance rates or elaborate exception justification and approval documentation, than is expended actually patching systems. An important observation is that the most easily shared and mitigated indicators, say IP addresses (firewalls) or email addresses (email filters), are also easily modified by attackers. For that reason, some of the most commonly exchanged indicators are also the most ephemeral, although this does depend on the specific attack group. If an indicator isn’t reused by an attacker, then sharing is useful for detecting previous attacks (hopefully before severe impact) but doesn’t prevent new attacks. A focus on short-lived intel can result in a whack-a-mole cycle that saps resources cleaning up compromises. This vicious cycle is taken to a meta level when human intensive processes are used despite increased intel sharing volume, putting organizations too far behind to make technological and process improvements that would facilitate higher intel processing efficiency. This plays into the attacker’s hand. This is exactly the scenario that security intelligence, including kill chain analysis, disrupts--allowing defenders to turn an attacker’s persistence into a defensive advantage.
Another intel sharing tragedy occurs when attack data is exchanged as though it is actionable intelligence and yet it’s no more than raw attack data. There are many who would advocate extracting a consistent set of metadata from attacks and regurgitating that as intelligence for sharing to their peers. I’m all for sharing raw attack data, but it must be analyzed to produce useful intelligence. If the original source doesn’t do any vetting of the attack data and shares a condensed subset, then the receiver will be forced to vet the data to see if it’s useful for countermeasures, but often with less context. The canonical example which illustrates the difference between raw attack data and intelligence is the IP address of an email server that sent a targeted malicious email, where that server is part of a common webmail service. Clearly this is valid attack data, but it’s about as specific to the targeted attacker as the license plate number of a vehicle the terrorist once rode in is to that terrorist, given that vehicle was a public bus. Some part of this vetting can and should be automated, but effective human adjudication is usually still necessary. Furthermore, many of the centralized clearinghouses don’t have the requisite data to adequately vet these indicators, so they are happily brokered to all consumers. To make matters more difficult, different organizations are willing to accept different types of collateral mitigation, the easiest solution being to devolve into the common denominator for the community which is a subset of the actionable intelligence for each organization. For example, given an otherwise legitimate website that is temporarily compromised to host malicious content, some members of a community may be able to block the whole website while others may not be able to accept the business impact. The easiest solution is for the community is to reject the overly broad mitigation causing collateral impact, while the optimal use of the intelligence requires risk assessment by each organization.
While ambiguity between raw attack data and vetted intelligence is the most obscene operationally, because it can result blocking benign user activity, there are other issues related to incomplete context on so called intelligence. An important aspect of security intelligence is proper prioritization. For example, many defenders invest significantly more analyst time in espionage threats while rapidly dispatching with commodity crimeware. If this context is not provided, improper triage might results in wasted resources. Ideally, this would include not only a categorization of the class of threat, but the actual threat identity, i.e. campaign name. Similarly, often intelligence is devoid of useful context such as whether the IP address reported is used as the source of attacks against vulnerable web servers, for email delivery, or for command and control. This can lead to imprecise or inappropriate countermeasures. Poorly vetted or ambiguous intel is analogous to (and sometimes turns into) the noisy signatures in your IDS—they waste time and desensitize.
With all that being said, I’m an advocate of intel sharing. I’m an advocate of sharing raw attack data, which is useful for those with the capacity to extract the useful intelligence. Realizing that this isn’t scalable, I’m also an advocate of sharing well vetted intelligence, with the requisite context to be actionable. However, even if your shop doesn’t have the ability to process raw attack data at a high volume, sharing that data with those who can ostensibly results in sharing of intel back to you that you couldn’t synthesize yourself. My main concern with intelligence compliance is that it robs time and resources from security intelligence while providing no guarantee of efficacy.
Intelligence Race to ZeroBeyond supplanting security intelligence, my other concern with the increase in information sharing is that as we become more proficient at ubiquitous sharing, the value of the intelligence will be diminished. This will occur whether the intelligence is revealed directly to the attackers or if lack of success causes them to evolve. Either way, I question if intelligence applied universally for counter-measures can ever be truly effective. Almost all current intelligence sharing venues at least give lip service to confidentiality of the shared intelligence and I believe many communities do a pretty good job. However, as intel is shared more widely, it is increasingly likely that the intel will be directly leaked to attackers. This principle drives the strict limitations on distribution normally associated with high value intelligence. It is also generally accepted that it’s impractical to keep data that is widely distributed for enforcement secure from attackers. The vast majority of widely deployed mitigations, such as AV signatures and spam RBLs are accepted to be available to attackers. In this scenario, you engage in an intelligence race, trying to speed the use of commodity intel. This is the antithesis of security intelligence which seeks to mitigate whole campaigns with advanced persistent intelligence.
Note that even if your raw intel isn’t exposed to attackers, the effects are known to the attacker—their attacks are no longer successful. Professional spooks have always faced the dilemma of leveraging intelligence versus protecting sources and methods. If some intelligence is used, especially intelligence from exclusive sources, then the source is compromised. As an example, the capability to decrypt axis messages during WWII was jealously protected. The tale that Churchill sacrificed a whole city to German bombers is hyperbole, but it certainly is representative of the type of trade-offs that must be made when protecting sources and methods. Note that this necessity to protect intel affects it’s use through the whole process, not just merely the decision for use at the end. For example, if two pieces of information are collected that when combined would solidify actionable intelligence, but these are compartmentalized, then the dots will never be connected and the actionable intelligence will never be produced. We see this play out in so called failures of the counter-terrorism intelligence community, where conspiracy theorists ascribe the failings to malice but the real cause is, more often than not, hindrances to analysis.
It’s worth considering how sources and methods apply specifically to network defense. Generally, I believe there is a small subset of intelligence that can be obtained solely through highly sensitive sources that is also useful for network defense. In most cases, if you can use an indicator for counter-measures, you can also derive it yourself, because it must be visible to the end defender. Also, while some sources may be highly sensitive, the same or similar information about attack activity (not attribution), is often available through open sources or through attack activity itself. Obviously, this notion isn’t absolutely true, but I believe it to be the norm. As a counter-example, imagine that a super sensitive source reveals that an attacker has added a drive by exploit to an otherwise legitimate website frequented by the intended victim audience. In this example the intel is still hard to leverage and relatively ephemeral: one still has to operationalize this knowledge in a very short time frame and this knowledge is by definition related specifically to this single attack.
Resting on the qualitative argument of indicator existentialism, the vast majority of counter-measures can be derived from attacker activity visible to the end network defender. This is necessarily true of the most durable indicators. Therefore, I don’t consider protecting sources (for network defense) the biggest consideration and advocate wide sharing of raw attack data. However, that certainly doesn’t mean that the analysis techniques and countermeasure capabilities are not sensitive. Indeed, most of my work in incident response has been about facilitating deeper analysis of network data, allowing durable and actionable intelligence to be created and leveraged. Competitive advantage in this realm has typically been found by either looking deeper or being more clever. In a spear phishing attack, for example, this may be in analysis of obscure email header data or malicious document metadata or weaponization techniques. Often the actionable intelligence is an atomic indicator, say a document author value, which could presumably be changed by the attacker if known. Some may require more sophistication on the part of the defender: requiring novel detection algorithms, correlations, or computational techniques such as that which my pdfrate performs. Either way, the doctrine of security intelligence is based in the premise that persistent indicators can be found for persistent attackers, even if it requires significant analysis to elucidate them. This analysis to identify reliable counter-measures is what security intelligence dictates and is often the opportunity cost of intelligence compliance. I’ve seen some strong indicators continue to be static for years, allowing new attacks to be mitigated despite other major changes in the attacks.
It is my belief, backed by personal experience and anecdotal evidence, that if what would otherwise be a strong mitigation, if kept secret, is used widely, then the lifespan of that indicator will be decreased. In the end I’m not sure it matters too much if the intelligence is directly revealed or if the attackers are forced to evolve due to lack of success, but that probably affects how quickly attackers change. In my experience, it is true that the greater the sophistication on the part of the defender and the greater the technical requirements for security systems, then the less likely useful indicators are to be subverted. However, it’s possible that continued efficacy has more to do with narrow application due to the small number of organizations able to implement the mitigation rather than difficulty of attackers changing their tactics. Often I wonder if, like outrunning the proverbial bear, today’s success in beating persistent adversaries may be more about being better than other potential victims than actually directly beating the adversary. While intelligence driven security, and by extension information sharing, is much more effective than classic incident response, I think it is yet to be proven if ubiquitous intel sharing can actually get ahead of targeted attacks or if attackers will win the ensuing intelligence/evolution race.
One benefit of the still far from fully standardized information sharing and defense systems of today is diversity. Each organization has their own special techniques for incident prevention--their own secret sauce for persistent threats. It’s inevitable that intelligence gaps will occur and some attacks, at least new ones, will not be stopped as early as desired. The diversity of exquisite detections among organizations combined with attack information sharing, even that of one-off indicators, allows for a better chance of response to novel attacks, even if this response is sub-optimal. A trend to greater standardization of intelligence sharing, driven by compliance, will tend to remove this diversity over time, as analysts, systems, and processes will be geared to greater intel volume and lower latency at the expense of intelligence resiliency.
Long Road AheadWhile I’m primarily concerned about being let down when we get there, it’s also important to note that as a community, we have a long pilgrimage before we make it to the ubiquitous intelligence sharing promised land. Mitre’s STIX et al are widely being accepted across the community as the path forward, which is great progress. Now that the high level information exchange format and transport is agreed upon, we still have a lot of minutia to work out. For example, much of that actual schema for sharing is still wide open. For example, many indicator types still have to be defined; standards for normalization and presentation still need to be agreed upon, and the fundamental meaning of the indicators still need to be agreed upon across the community.
I think it’s instructive to compare the STIX suite to the CVE/CVSS/CWE/CWSS/OVAL suite, even though the comparison is not perfect. These initiatives were designed to drive standardization, automation, and improve latency of closing vulnerabilities. There is plethora of information tracked through these initiatives: from (machine readable) lists of vulnerable products, to the taxonomy of the vulnerability type, to relatively complicated ratings of the vulnerability. Despite this wealth of information, I don’t think we’ve achieved the vulnerability assessment, reporting, and remediation nirvana these mechanisms were built to support. Of all the information exchanged through these initiatives, probably the most important, and admittedly the most mundane, is the standardized CVE identifier, which the community uses to reference a given vulnerability. This is one area where current sharing communities can improve—standardized identifiers for malware families, attack groups, and attacker techniques. While many groups have these defined informally, more structured and consistent definitions would be helpful to the community, especially as indicators are tied to these names to provide useful context to the indicators (and provide objective definitions of the named associations). Community agreement on these identifiers is more difficult than the same for vulnerabilities, and building the lexicon for translations between sharing communities is also necessary, as defining these labels is less straightforward and occurs on a per community basis. As we better define these intelligence groupings and use them more consistently in intel sharing, we’ll have more context for proper prioritization, help ensure both better vetted intel and more clear campaign definitions, and have better assurances that our intelligence is providing the value we aim to achieve out of sharing.
In helping assess the effectiveness of information sharing, I think the following questions are useful:
- How relevant to your organization is the shared intelligence?
- Is the intelligence shared with enough context for appropriate prioritization and use?
- How well is actionable intelligence vetted? Is raw attack data shared (for those who want it)?
- How durable is the shared intelligence? How long does it remain useful?
- How timely is the shared intel? Is it only useful for detecting historical activity or does it also allow you to mitigate future activity?
- Do you invest in defensive capabilities based on shared intelligence and intelligence gaps?
- Do you have metrics which indicate your most effective intelligence sources, including internal analysis?
- Do you have technology that speeds the mundane portion of intelligence processing, reserving human resources for analysis?
Closing ArgumentI’m sure that there are some who will argue that it’s possible to have both security intelligence and intelligence compliance. I must concede that it is possible in theory. However, as there is plenty of room for progress in both arenas, and resources are scarce, I don’t believe there is an incident response shop that claims to do either to the fullest degree possible, let alone both. Also, the two mindsets, analysis and compliance, are very much different and come with a vastly different culture. Most organizations are left with a choice—to focus on analysis and security intelligence or to choose box checking and information sharing compliance.
Similarly, I question the seemingly self-evident supposition that sharing security data ubiquitously and instantaneously will defeat targeted attacks. While there will almost certainly be some raising of the bar, causing some less sophisticated threats to be ineffective, we’ll also likely see an escalation among effective groups. This will force a relatively expensive increase in speed and volume of intel sharing among defenders while attackers modify their tactics to make sharing less effective.
As we move forward with increased computer security intelligence sharing, we can’t let the compliance mindset and information sharing processes become ends unto themselves. Up until the time when our adversaries cease to be highly motivated and focused on long term, real world success, let’s not abandon the analyst mindset and security intelligence which have been the hallmark of the best incident responders.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
I am very pleased with the activity on pdfrate.com in the last few weeks. There have been a good number of visitors and some really good submissions. I’m really impressed at the number of targeted PDFs that were submitted and I’m happy with the pdfrate’s ability to classify these. I really appreciate those who have taken the time to label their submissions (assuming they know if they are malicious or not) so that the service can be improved through better training data.
This API may be unconventional, but I do like how easy it is to get scan results. You submit a file and get the JSON object back synchronously. I’ve split the metadata out from the scan results for a couple reasons. First, the metadata can be very large. Second, the metadata is currently presented as text blob, and I wasn’t sure how people would want it stuffed into JSON. If you want both, you have to make two requests. You can also view the metadata blob for the Yara 1.6 manual.
I’m happy that there have already been enough submissions, including ones that weren’t classified well by the existing data sets, that I’ve generated a community classifier based on PDFrate.com user submissions and voting. I’m thrilled that there were submissions matching categories of malicious PDFs that I know are floating around but simply aren’t in the existing data sets. I expect that if the current submission rate stays the same or goes up, the community classifier will become the most accurate classifier, because it will contain fresher and more relevant training data. Again, as an example, you can check out the report for the Yara 1.6 manual which now includes a score from the community classifier.
If a submission had votes before Oct 25th, it was included in the community classifier. Some users will note that even though they themselves did not vote on their submissions, they have votes. I reviewed many interesting submissions and placed votes on them so that they could be included in the community classifier. I decided to not do a bulk rescan of all documents already submitted. It wasn't for technical reasons. Note that the ratings occur solely based on the previously extracted metadata and as such are very fast. I did so because I didn’t want to provide potentially deceptive results to users. If a document is in the training set, it is generally considered an unfair test to use the resulting classifier on it, as the classifier will almost always provide good results. Regardless, if you want to have a submission re-scanned, just submit the file over again.
Again, I’m pleased with the PDFrate so far. I hope this service continues to improve and that it provides value to the community.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
I’ve been working on this research since 2009, which was a year where the stream of PDF 0-days being leveraged by targeted attackers was nearly unbroken. I’ve refined the underlying techniques to a place where they are very effective in real operations and are addressed rigorously enough for academic acceptance. Note that I originally designed this for the purpose of detecting APT malicious documents but have found it to be largely effective on broad based crimeware PDFs also. Furthermore, it is pretty effective at distinguishing between the two. I can speak from personal experience that mechanisms underlying PDFrate provide a strong compliment to signature and dynamic analysis detection mechanisms.
Those that are interested should head over to the pdfrate site and check out the “about” page in particular which explains the mechanisms and points to some good examples.
PDFrate demonstrates a well refined mechanism for detecting malicious documents. This currently operates on PDF documents. I am close to extending this to office documents. But I see this paradigm extending much farther than just malicious documents. I see wise (and deep) selection of features and machine learning being effective for many things other things such as emails, network transactions such as HTTP, web pages, and other file formats such as SWF and JAR.
I’m happy to provide the PDFrate service to the community so that others can leverage (and critique) this mechanism. Providing this as a service is a really good way for others to be able to use it because it removes a lot of the difficulty of implementation and configuration, the hardest part of which is collecting and labeling a training set. High quality training data is critical for high quality classification and this data is often hard for a single organization/individual to compile. While the current data sets/classifiers provided on the site are fine for detecting similar attacks, there is room for improvement and generalization which I hope will come from community submissions and ratings. So please vote on submissions, malicious or not, as this will speed the development and evolution of a community driven classifier. This service could benefit from some additional recent targeted PDFs.
In addition to the classification that PDFrate provides, it also provides one of the best document metadata extraction capabilities that I’ve seen. While there are many tools for PDF analysis, the metadata and structure extraction capabilities used by PDFrate provide a great mix of speed, simplicity, robustness, saliency, and transparency. Even if you aren’t sold on using PDFrate for classification, you might see if you like the metadata it provides. Again, the about provides illustrative examples.
I hope this service is useful to the community. I look forward to describing in depth in December at ACSAC!
Saturday, July 28, 2012
The responses from the organizations interested in other operating systems and consumer interests have been mixed. Some, like Fedora and Ubuntu, have drafted courses that seem surprisingly compliant, while others, like FSF, don’t seem to be so keen on the idea. Linus provided a fairly apathetic response noting that the proposed method for secure boot doesn’t help security much but probably doesn’t hurt usability that much either. Most of these responses make sense considering the interests they represent.
It may be fine for non-security folk to trust the advice of security professionals when we say that something is necessary for “security”. However, we do ourselves and society a great disservice when we allow security to be used as a cover for actions based in ulterior motives or when we support ineffective controls. Whether you are on the conspiracy theory or the incompetence more likely than malice side of the house, allowing the cause of security to be used recklessly hurts. It hurts our reputation and ability to enact sensible security measures in the future. It hurts the very cause we are professing to support, which for me is securing liberty. For example, I believe it will take years for our society to recognize how harmful the security theater of airport screening is. On the flip side, there has been no coherent demonstration of any significant effect in preventing terrorism, but our efforts have been fabulously effective at magnifying terror.
We have to call out security vanity when we see it. The use of public key crypto (without much of the complementary infrastructure) in secure boot needs to be questioned. Code signing, and digital signatures in general, can add a high degree of trust to computing. However, experience has shown that PKI, and crypto in general, gets busted over time, especially through key disclosure. It only takes one disclosure to cause a serious issue, especially if robust key management regimes are not in place. By design, there will be no practical way keep this PKI up to date without significant effort on the part of the user. No removal of broken root keys, no certificate revocations, etc. So the type of mechanisms that are used for keeping current code signing, SSL, etc up to date can’t apply here. Note that all of these mechanisms for key management are used by necessity—examples of individual keys/certificates being revoked occurs in the wild, even if you exclude really spooky attacks like Stuxnet or the RSA breach. The whole class of things designed to restrict how users use their devices, things like DVD’s CSS and HDCP, illustrate an important principle. It’s not a question of whether these mechanisms can be defeated; it’s a question of whether anyone cares to do it and how long it will take. It doesn’t matter how good the crypto algorithms are in a PKI based secure boot system, if proper key management can’t occur, the system is critically flawed.
If someone is pushing a defective by design security mechanism, are people justified questioning in their motives? I believe so. The purpose of this post isn’t to rant about anti-competitive practices, anti-consumer restrictions on hardware devices, use of “digital locks” laws to inhibit otherwise legal activity, etc. It is to point out that the use of PKI based secure boot is either based in motives other than security or it is based in bad engineering.
Let’s give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say that boot loader viruses are an issue that need to be addressed. At least we believe it is something that could become an issue during the life of the systems that will be shipping in the near future. The question at this point is, why use PKI? Are there alternatives? Granted there aren’t too many options for trust at this level, but I believe there are options. For example, I’ve long thought it would be useful for both desktop and mobile systems to have a small portion of storage which is writable only with a physical switch which would typically be in the read only position. This sort of thing could be really useful for things like bootloaders, which are updated relatively infrequently. You can criticize this approach, and debate whether it’s more likely for a lay person to be able to make the correct decision about when to press the button to make their secure storage area readable or for them to do manual key management, but the point is that there are alternatives. Note that I’ve intentionally ignored the stiffer requirements for ARM devices.
Using public key crypto for secure boot where proper key management cannot occur is a horrible idea. It will not provide security against determined threats over time. It is incumbent on the security community to clarify this, so that an effective solution can be implemented or the true motives can be discussed. The security community cannot tacitly be party to security vanity.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
WhySecurity practitioners have benefited from project/vendor agnostic interfaces such as Milter, ICAP, etc in their respective realms. These interfaces provide the operator with compatibility, and therefore, flexibility. In this paradigm, the operator can choose, for example, a single mail server and then independently choose one or more mail filters. Decoupling the two allows the operator to focus selection of each product on the how well they do their primary jobs, mail transfer and mail filtering in our example. This is a classic example of the Unix philosophy of doing one thing well.
The NIDS world needs the same thing. We need a standardized interface that allows NIDS to focus on analyzing network traffic and allows a quasi-independent client object analysis system to focus on analyzing objects transferred through the network.
In the past it has been hard for me to understand why NIDS haven’t followed the huge shift up the stack from exploits that occur at the network layer (ex. Sasser worm or WuFTD exploits) to exploits that occur in client objects ( ex. PDF exploits or Mac Flashback Trojan). I’ve heard many people say NIDS are for detecting network exploits and if you want to detect client exploits, use something on the client. I would note that this mentality has been an excuse for some NIDS to not do full protocol decoding (ex. base64 decoding of MIME, gzip decoding of HTTP, etc). This has left network defenders with the motive (detect badness as soon as possible, preferably before it gets to end hosts), the opportunity (NIDS see the packets bearing badness into network), but without the means (NIDS blind to many forms of client attacks).
To be fair to the various NIDS projects, every relevant NIDS is taking steps to support some amount of client payload analysis. Actually, it seems like it is a relatively high priority for many of them. I know the Bro guys are diligently working on a file analysis framework for Bro 2.1. Furthermore, there are some very valid reasons why it’s in the security community’s best interest to abstract NIDS from detecting client object malfeasance, directly that is. First, back to the Unix philosophy mentioned above, we want our NIDS to be good at network protocol analysis. I can think of plenty of room for improvement in NIDS while remaining focused on network protocol analysis. Second, and central to the argument made here, we don’t want to fragment our client payload analysis just because of differences in where files are found (ex. network vs. host). To illustrate this last point, think about AV. Imagine if you had to have a separate AV engine, signature language, etc just because of where the object came from even though you are looking at the exact same objects. This is again, is one of the main reasons Milter, ICAP, etc exist. I cite VRT’s Razorback as a great example of this. From the beginning it supported inputs from various sources so the analysis performed could be uniform, regardless of original location of the objects. Lastly, one could argue that network protocol analysis and client object analysis are different enough that they require frameworks that look different because they tackle different problems. I’ve built both NIDS and file analysis systems. While they do similar things, their goals, and therefore engineering priorities are largely different. Anecdotally, I see NIDS focusing on reassembly and object analyzers focusing on decoding, NIDS caring about timing of events while file analyzers largely consider an object the same independent of time, etc.
What I’m arguing is that NIDS should be separated or abstracted from client file analysis frameworks. This certainly doesn’t mean a NIDS vendor/project can’t also have a complementary file analysis framework. Again, note Razorback and association with Snort. What I would like to see, however, is some sort of standard interface used between the NIDS and the file analysis framework. Why can’t I use Razorback with Bro or Suricata? Sure, I could with a fair amount of coding, but it could and should be easier than that. Instead of hacking the NIDS itself, I should be able to write some glue code that would be roughly equivalent to the glue required to create a milter or ICAP for the file analysis service. Furthermore, this interface needs to move beyond the status quo (ex. dump all files in directory) to enable key features such as scan results/object metadata being provided back to the NIDS engine.
Lastly, the existence of a standard interface would make it easier for users to demand client object analysis functionality for things flowing through the network while making it easier for NIDS developers to deliver this capability.
The security community needs a cross-NIDS standard for providing client objects to an external analysis framework.
WhatThe following are my ideas on what this interface between a NIDS and a file analysis framework should look like.
Division of LaborIt is probably best to start by defining more clearly what should go through this interface for embedded object analysis. When I say client objects I mean basically anything transferred through the network that makes sense as a file when divorced from the network. My opinion is that all things that are predominately transferred through the network are candidates for analysis external to the NIDS. Canonical examples of what I mean include PDF documents, HTML files, Zip files, etc. Anything that is predominately considered overhead used to transfer data through the network should be analyzed by the NIDS. Canonical examples include packet headers, HTTP protocol data, etc.
Unfortunately, the line gets a little blurry when you consider things like emails, certificates, and long text blobs like directory listings. I don’t see this ambiguity as a major issue. In an ideal world, the NIDS framework would support external analysis of objects, even it can do some analysis internally also.
I will discuss in greater detail later, but the NIDS also has the responsibility for any network layer defragmentation, decoding, etc.
An API, not a ProtocolFundamentally, I see this as an API backed by a library, not a network protocol (like ICAP, Milter, etc). In the vast majority of cases, I see this library providing communication between a NIDS and a client analysis on a single system with mechanisms that support low latency and high performance. In many cases, I expect the file analysis may well go and do other things with the object, such as transfer it over the network or write it do disk. The type of object analysis frameworks I’m envisioning would likely have a small stub that would talk to the NIDS interface API and take to the object analysis framework submission system. Using Razorback’s parlance, a relatively small “Collector” would use this API to get objects from the NIDS and send them into the framework for analysis.
I see the various components looking roughly as follows:
+------+ objects and metadata +------+ /------> | | ---> +-----------+ ---> | File | / Object | NIDS | | Interface | | Anal\| --------> | | <--- +-----------+ <--- | ysis | \ Routing +------+ response (optional) +------+ \------>
From the NIDS to the Object FrameworkThe primary thing the NIDS has to do is give an object to the external framework. This is fundamentally going to be a stream of bytes. It is most easily thought of as a file. The biggest question to me is who owns the memory and is there is a buffer copy involved? My opinion is that to make performance reasonable you have to be able to do some sort of analysis in the framework without a buffer copy. You need to be able to run the interface, and at some simple object analyzers, on a buffer owned by the NIDS, probably running in the NIDS’ process spaces. Obviously, if you need to do extensive analysis, you’ll probably want it to be truly external. That’s fine, the framework can let you have the buffer and you can make a copy of it, etc
The other thing that the NIDS needs to provide to an external analyzer is the metadata associated with the object. At a minimum this needs to include enough to trace this back to the network transaction—ex. IPs, ports, timestamp. Ideally this would include much more--things that are important for understanding context of the object. For example, I can imagine uses for many of the HTTP headers, both request and response, being useful or even necessary for analysis. For example, the following are metadata items I’d like to see from HTTP for external analysis: Method, Resource, Response Code, Referer, Content-Type, Last-Modified, User-Agent, and Server.
Delving into details, I would think it prudent for the interface between the NIDS and the external framework to define the format for data to be transferred without specifying exactly what that data is. The interface should say something like use HTTP/SMTP style headers, YAML, or XML of this general format, and define some general standards without trying to define this exhaustively or make this too complicated. In most cases, it seems that identifiers can be a direct reflection of the underlying protocol.
From the Object Framework back to the NIDSOne important capability that this interface should enable is feedback from the external analysis framework back into the NIDS. I’d really like to see, and think it’s crucial for NIDS if they want to avoid marginalization, to not only pass objects out for analysis but also to accept data back. I see two important things coming back: a scan result and object metadata. In its most simple form the scan result is something like “bad” or “good” and could probably be represented with 1 bit. In reality, I can see a little more expressiveness being desired, like why the object is considered bad (signature name, etc). In addition to descriptions of badness or goodness, I see great value in the external framework being able to respond back with metadata from the object (not necessarily an indication of good or bad). This could be all sorts of relevant data including the document author, PE compile time, video resolution, etc. This data can be audited immediately through policies in your NIDS (or SIMS) and can be saved for network forensics.
Of course, this feedback from the external object analysis system needs to be optional. I can think of perfectly good reasons to pass objects out of the NIDS without expecting any feedback. Basically all NIDS to external analysis connections are a one way street today. However, as this paradigm advances, it will be important to have this bi-directional capability. I can also think of plenty of things that a NIDS could do if it received feedback from the external analyzer. Having this capability, even if it is optional, is critical to developing this paradigm.
Timing and SynchronizationAn important consideration is the level of synchronization between the NIDS and the external object analyzer. I believe it would be possible for an interface to support a wide range from basically no synchronization to low latency synchronization suitable for IPS. Obviously, the fire and forget paradigm is easy and to support this paradigm nicely you could make feedback from the analyzer optional and make whatever scanning occurs asynchronous. However, an external analysis interface that expects immediate feedback can be easily be made asynchronous by simply copying the inputs, returning a generic response, and then proceeding to do analysis. On the other hand, morphing an asynchronous interface into a synchronous one can be difficult. For that reason, it would be good for this to be built in from the beginning, even if it is optional, to begin with.
Can this sort of interface be practical for IPS/inline or it destined to be a technology used only passively? My answer is an emphatic yes. I challenge NIDS to find a way to allow external analysis whose latency is adequately low enough to be reasonable for use inline. I’ll share my thoughts on payload fragmentation below, but even if objects can’t be analyzed until the NIDS has seen the whole object, the NIDS still has recourses if it gets an answer back from the external analyzer quick enough. It would also be nice if NIDS started to support actions based on relatively high latency responses from an external analysis framework even if the payload in question has already been transferred though the network. Options for actions include things like passive alerting, adding items to black lists (IP, URL, etc) that can be applied in real time, and addition of signatures for specific payloads or hashes of specific payloads. It seems inevitable that the interface between the NIDS and the external analyzer will include some sort of configurable timeout capability to protect the NIDS from blocking too long.
De-fragmentation and Decoding:I envision a situation where the NIDS is responsible for network layer normalization and the file analysis framework does anything necessary for specific file formats. The NIDS is responsible for all network protocol decoding such as gzip and chunked encoding of HTTP. However, things like MIME decoding can be done internally to the NIDS or externally depending whether it is desired to pass out complete emails or individual attachments.
The NIDS should be responsible for any network layer reassembly/de-fragmentation required. Ex. IPfrag, TCP, etc. I think some exceptions to this are reasonable. First of all, it makes a lot of sense for the interface to allow payloads to be passed externally in sequential pieces, with the responsibility of the NIDS to do all the re-ordering, segment overlap deconfliction, etc. necessary. This would support important optimizations on both sides of the interface. It should also be considered acceptable for the NIDS to punt in situations where the application, not the network stack, fragments the payload but that fragmentation is visible in the network application layer protocol. For example, it would be desirable for the NIDS to reassemble HTTP 206 fragments, if possible, but I can see the argument that this reassembly can be pushed on the external analyzer, especially considering that there are situations where completely reassembling the payload object simply isn’t possible.
FilteringTo be effective, any system of this sort should support filtering of objects before passing them out for external analysis. While there is always room for improvement, I think most NIDS are already addressing this in some manner. The external file analysis framework probably needs to support some filtering internally, in order to route files to the appropriate scanning modules. Razorback is a good example here.
It would be possible for the interface between the two to support some sort of sampling of payloads whereby the external analyzer is given the first segment of a payload object and given the option to analyze or ignore the rest of it. I consider this unnecessary complication. I think some would desire and it could be natural for the interface to support feedback every time the NIDS provides payload segments (assuming payloads are provided in fragments) to the external analyzer. I personally don’t see this as a top priority because unless you are doing the most superficial analysis or are operating on extremely simple objects, the external analysis framework will not be able to provide reliable feedback until the full object has been seen. While both the NIDS and the external analysis framework will likely want to implement object filtering, there is no strong driver for this filtering to be built directly into the interface and this is probably just extra baggage.
Use CasesTo make sure what I’m describing is clear, I offer up 3 use cases that cover most of the critical requirements. These use cases should be easy to implement in practice and would likely be useful to the community.
Use Case 1: External Signature MatchingUse something like yara to do external signature matching. Yara provides greater expressiveness in signatures than most NIDS natively support and many organizations have a large corpus of signatures for client objects like PDF documents, PE executables, etc. If not yara, then another signature matching solution, like one of the many AV libraries (say clam) would be an acceptable test. The flags/signature names should be returned to the NIDS. This should be fast enough that this can be done synchronously.
Use Case 2: External Object Analysis FrameworkUse something like Razorback to do flexible and iterative file decoding and analysis. Since Razorback is purely passive and intentionally is not bound by tight real time constraints, no feedback is sent back into the NIDS and the scanning is done asynchronously. All alerting is done by Razorback, independent of the NIDS. For extra credit, splice in your interface between Snort as a Collector (used to collect objects to send into Razorback) and Razorback.
Use Case 3: External File Metadata ExtractionUse something to do client file metadata extraction. Feed this metadata back into the NIDS to be incorporated back into the signature/alerting/auditing/logging framework. Unfortunately, I don’t have any really good recommendations of specific metadata extractors to use. One could use libmagic or something similar, but some NIDS already incorporate this or something like it to do filtering of objects, etc. Magic number inspection doesn’t quite get to the level of file metadata I’m looking for anyway. There are a few file metadata extraction libraries out there, but I can’t personally I recommend any of them for this application. As such, I’ve written a simple C function/program, docauth.c, that does simple document author extraction from a few of the most commonly used (and pwnd) document formats. This should be easy enough to integrate with the type of interface I envision. In thiscase, you would be able to provide file metadata back into the NIDS. This NIDS could incorporate this metadata into its detection engine. This should be fast enough to be able to be done synchronously.
Use Case 4: File DumperThis is a lame use case, but I include it to show that the most common way to support external file analysis in NIDS, dumping files to a directory, can be achieved easily using the proposed interface. This relieves the NIDS of dealing with the files. The NIDS provides the file to be scanned and metadata about the file to the interface. The external analyzer simply writes this to disk. There is no feedback.
Requirements:I’ll also provide what I think are reasonable requirements (intentionally lacking formality) for a standard interface used between a NIDS and an external client object analysis system.
The interface will provide the NIDS the capability to:
- Pass files to an external system
- Files may be passed in ordered fragments
- Pass metadata associated with the files to the external system
- The metadata is provided in a standardized format, but the actual meaning of the data passed is not defined by the interface, rather it must be agreed upon by the NIDS and the external analyzer.
- Optionally receive feedback from the external analyzer asynchronously
- Optionally timeout external analysis if it exceed configured threshold
- Normalization (decoding, decompression, reassembly, etc) of all network protocols to extract files as would be seen by clients
- Provide relevant metadata in conjunction extracted files for external analysis
- Optionally, provide mechanisms to filter objects being passed to external analyzer
- Optionally, incorporate feedback from external analysis into the NIDS detection engine
- Receive objects and metadata from the NIDS
- Perform analysis, which may include object decoding
- Optionally, provided feedback to the NIDS
ConclusionI’ve provided my opinion that it is in the best interest of the security community to have a standardized interface between NIDS and client object analysis. This would provide flexibility for users. It would help NIDS remain relevant while allowing them to stay focused. I envision interface as a library that supports providing objects and metadata out to an object analyzer and receive feedback in return.
I’m confident I’m not the only one that sees the need for abstraction between NIDS and object scanning, but I hope this article helps advance this cause. NIDS developers are already moving towards greater support for object analysis. I’d be gratified if the ideas presented here help shape, or at least help confirm demand, for this functionality. It’s important that users request more mature support of object analysis in NIDS and push for standardization across the various projects/vendors.