News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:US travel firm $4.5M ransom negotiation open chat by koonsolo on Monday August 03, 2020 @04:54AM (#24035455)
> It’s sad that it’s come to this point but the end result may be better for everyone.

Meanwhile in the real world, a company I develop for implemented the most draconian security measures to "prevent ransomware".

Development environment is a virtual machine at the other end of the world, with disabled copy-pasting from and to the local system. A complete separation between safe internal network and unsafe development environment. No copy pasting from and to email, etc. Horrible environment to work in.

Re:US travel firm $4.5M ransom negotiation open chat by tiew9Vii on Monday August 03, 2020 @06:28AM (#24036058)
Had one of these. All development through Citrix.

The security policy was draconian to the extent I’m sure it was well intentioned but led you to do things in the least secure way possible as it was the only way to complete a contract.

I.e the servers on the other end running Windows 7 (in late 2019) where so old they didn’t have the required cpu instruction set to run some required software. Likewise input lag was extremely noticeable to the point you hit a key, wait one second then press again thinking something went wrong only to have to press delete some seconds later.

How did I deliver that project? Developed on my own local machine, emailed the artifact to the cooperate email address obfuscated, log in to the corporate laptop, then Citrix, ssh the artifact up to the cloud ec2 servers.

That’s another one. The cloud ec2 servers. No public outbound internet, no internal trusted repositories. What was the accepted way of setting up the servers? Going to random internet sites, downloading random binaries to your Citrix account, scp’ing then to the servers. Trying to explain how stupid this is gets no where in organisations with thousands of people. When you mention trusted artifact repositories, immutable / reproducible builds, deployment pipelines the answer was we don’t have this as they didn’t meet security guidelines.

This was a tier 1 bank. Experience is the bigger the company the worse things are due to the size and different teams/departments being so disconnected.

Re:US travel firm $4.5M ransom negotiation open chat by awakeasleep on Monday August 03, 2020 @10:13AM (#24037996)
The organization has externalized all the responsibility for the next breach to you, the individual contributor who is breaking security protocol to get work done.

When we little employees roll our eyes and say "this doesn't make sense," we're telling ourselves a comforting lie because the situation you describe DOES make sense- from the organizational perspective.

Management did everything their rules allow to make the computing environment safe, but you, the individual, hacked an unsafe circumvention into the workflow by finagling some personal website and using SCP. I bet none of that process is documented- and if it is, whoever made that documentation is now the responsible party and fall guy.

Re:US travel firm $4.5M ransom negotiation open chat by mint2 on Monday August 03, 2020 @02:43PM (#24041658)
Get email approval, aka written documentation, of all process steps from people one step up on the food chain. Explain why it’s needed so they are squarely the section maker.
Re:US travel firm $4.5M ransom negotiation open chat by buran77 on Monday August 03, 2020 @10:17AM (#24038034)
> The security policy was draconian

The setup you describe sounds less like draconian security and more like a half baked solution that confused usability hurdles for security. Just because security usually brings lower usability, it was probably (wrongly!) assumed that lowering usability will bring security.

Re:US travel firm $4.5M ransom negotiation open chat by user5994461 on Tuesday August 04, 2020 @09:54AM (#24049951)
Counterpoint at another Tier 1 bank.

The bank was using remote desktops over Citrix from HP workstations (thin clients). It worked really really well, including copy/paste.

If not for the initial login and citrix log, I don't think it would be possible for a developer to figure out he is working on a remote desktop.

Re:US travel firm $4.5M ransom negotiation open chat by wffurr on Monday August 03, 2020 @08:19AM (#24036759)
How do top tier tech companies, who are very likely continuous targets for this kind of thing, avoid ransomware attacks? I know there's nothing like that at my employer.
Re:US travel firm $4.5M ransom negotiation open chat by staticassertion on Monday August 03, 2020 @08:44AM (#24036994)
There are two big things you want to do:

1) App whitelisting. This is not the strongest mitigation (attackers with exploits can move in memory), but it stops drive-bys and 99% of malware, plus it massively reduces noise on the network.

2) Reduce lateral movement. If the attacker accesses an employee laptop, encrypts it, but can't move to other devices, that's not a very compelling ransom.

Re:US travel firm $4.5M ransom negotiation open chat by mox1 on Monday August 03, 2020 @09:26AM (#24037456)
As someone who runs a Banks internal Red Team group, the App Whitelisting is the biggest roadblock for us. Carbon Black (if properly setup and tuned) is a large leap to overcome. Drive-by attacks just stop, you need a dedicated method to bypass Carbon Black. That is usually very org dependent.

You don't known Carbon Black is there until something doesn't work. That "not working" propagates an alert up to the security team.

Re:US travel firm $4.5M ransom negotiation open chat by staticassertion on Monday August 03, 2020 @09:31AM (#24037522)
App whitelisting is rarely rolled out, but it's just such a definitive win these days.

a) You just kill ~85% of malware (rough estimate, probably technically higher, but I'm basing that on stats around interpreter-based/LOLBAS malware). Anything that isn't targeted is probably dead in the water.

b) You know exactly what's running on everyone's computers, more or less, so you have a way easier time baselining and building monitoring.

It's honestly easy-mode for security. But it's hard to roll out to a company a decade after it's been running, so you really need to do it early on. And most orgs don't care about security until after a breach, at which point they're too large and slow to get something like that done.

Re:US travel firm $4.5M ransom negotiation open chat by jjoonathan on Monday August 03, 2020 @10:17AM (#24038028)
It's easy-mode for security because it offloads the cost of security to employees. Done right, many hands make light work. Done wrong, it's the very picture of "if nobody can use it, hackers can't either."

I'm interested in learning how to do this right, because I've only ever seen it done wrong. How do you streamline the process for getting programs approved? How do you accommodate developers who need to generate and run code?

Re:US travel firm $4.5M ransom negotiation open chat by staticassertion on Monday August 03, 2020 @10:35AM (#24038229)
> It's easy-mode for security because it offloads the cost of security to employees.

Yeah, absolutely. But I consider this to be, when done right, a good thing. A single security team is going to drown trying to scale your company's security asymmetrically with your company's growth. For every 1000 developers you might have 5-50 security engineers depending on how serious the company is about it. Spreading out security work across the company scales extremely well.

Of course, you want to minimize burden too.

There are a number of ways you can go. Personally, at my company, we're so small that it's trivial. We rarely onboard new employees and pretty much all approvals are handled within a few minutes of the employee getting their laptop.

As you scale it may make more sense to crowdsource this. 'Upvote' is one such tool. https://github.com/google/upvote

Upvote-like systems basically give you reputation based approvals. If you can convince a number of your coworkers that the app is worth installing, you can install it. I've seen a number of systems built this way that combine crowdsourced approvals with other forms of reputation.

At my company we use Chromebooks. Apps/Extensions are only allowed once approved. The Linux environment is where development happens.

This is nice because there's a strong separation between environments. That said, we don't do any sort of application whitelisting in the Linux environment today, due to a lack of tooling support.

If we did, what I'd like to do is just have simple rules like "If the binary was created by gcc etc allow it to execute". Santa allows for process-tree based rules like this.

Another option is developer VMs like in EC2. These can be nice for devs because they're often much more powerful than a laptop anyways. It requires a bit of tooling to work smoothly though with local IDEs and whatnot.

Re:US travel firm $4.5M ransom negotiation open chat by CWuestefeld on Monday August 03, 2020 @10:49AM (#24038398)
We're trying to do much of what you mention here. It ain't easy. Here's some of my thoughts, as one of the people in Development trying to achieve it.

The app whitelist impairs my efficiency, and honestly takes a fair amount of fun out of work. I can no longer use many of the tools that help me, and instead am confined into the corporate-approved structure. This is both a productivity issue and a job satisfaction issue.

Trying to separate our development workstations, and dev environment overall, from the rest of the sordid mess, is extraordinarily difficult. We're trying to do similar what you recommend, with developer VMs running in our internal ESX cluster. However, that technology conflicts with Microsoft's Hyper-V (we're a MS shop). We're trying to get to Docker/k8s, but we can't run Docker inside a VM that runs in ESX. So we're trying to offload the actual execution of the system, even for local testing, into DevSpaces. But there's a lot to figure out, and DevSpaces is a young product. Further, private AKS environments are a new thing in Azure, and we've a couple of times now run into roadblocks with MS's own growing pains.

Your "upvote" system seems to have merit, but with, I dunno, 50 or 60 devs, spread across several teams focused on different tech, it doesn't seem like it would scale well. Coming up with the right mix of apps, and convincing our Risk team, is very difficult. Especially when so much of their pushback seems confusing (like, DBeaver was denied as a FOSS product, but approved when we paid for the Enterprise version).

Re:US travel firm $4.5M ransom negotiation open chat by staticassertion on Monday August 03, 2020 @11:11AM (#24038679)
> I can no longer use many of the tools that help me, and instead am confined into the corporate-approved structure. This is both a productivity issue and a job satisfaction issue.

Out of curiosity, like what?

> Trying to separate

Yeah, like I said, starting early is going to make things much easier. If you're trying to get to this place later on, it's just wayyyyyy harder and most orgs can't get there. This is often the case with security - if you build your code, infra, policy, etc, with security in mind from day 1 it's 1000s of times simpler than doing it even just a few years later.

> Coming up with the right mix of apps, and convincing our Risk team, is very difficult.

Oh yeah, a risk team can be the real killer. That's why upvote is nice - security only gets involved if something is flagged. But if your risk team isn't willing to work with you that's a problem, and it sounds like yours isn't doing the work consistently.

To me, approval should be easy. Even if a malicious app is approved that's often still a huge win - the attacker can't use many of the tools and techniques they're used to. Obviously you want to avoid that compromise too, but it isn't the whole entire goal.

We whitelist some vendors entirely. Our app whitelist request form is:

* What risks are there with this extension/ app?

* Is there another approved app that can do this, and if so, why do we need this one?

* How will this app help you? What is it for?

That first question is really important because people usually have a decent understanding of what the app should/ shouldn't be doing, or if the risk should be trivial. It's all about spreading the assessment out.

Re:US travel firm $4.5M ransom negotiation open chat by AnIdiotOnTheNet on Monday August 03, 2020 @10:05AM (#24037902)
Active defense is another option. It is possible to set up a trap such that when certain canary resources are modified they trigger an action to disconnect and lock out the offending user account as well as alert admins to the issue.

98% of the time this will be triggered by an admin performing a task that just happens to touch that resource, but it is incredibly helpful the other 2% of the time.

Re:US travel firm $4.5M ransom negotiation open chat by formercoder on Monday August 03, 2020 @08:44AM (#24036992)
The basics go a long way: two factor auth and privilege minimization.
Re:US travel firm $4.5M ransom negotiation open chat by Cantbekhan on Monday August 03, 2020 @01:45PM (#24040914)
Can't you just still do a screenshot/screen recording and use OTR on it? Or just use a keylogger for logging what you typed (and just use keylogger to retype it)?