Friday Squid Blogging: Squid New Year
Happy squid new year.
As usual, you can also use this squid post to talk about the security stories in the news that I haven’t covered.
Page 438
Happy squid new year.
As usual, you can also use this squid post to talk about the security stories in the news that I haven’t covered.
Interesting story:
…burglars took a lock pick and a crowbar and broke into a Federal Bureau of Investigation office in a suburb of Philadelphia, making off with nearly every document inside.
They were never caught, and the stolen documents that they mailed anonymously to newspaper reporters were the first trickle of what would become a flood of revelations about extensive spying and dirty-tricks operations by the F.B.I. against dissident groups.
Interesting precursor to Edward Snowden.
Today’s implant from the NSA’s Tailored Access Operations (TAO) group implant catalog:
JETPLOW
(TS//SI//REL) JETPLOW is a firmware persistence implant for Cisco PIX Series and ASA (Adaptive Security Appliance) firewalls. It persists DNT’s BANANAGLEE software implant. JETPLOW also has a persistent back-door capability.
(TS//SI//REL) JETPLOW is a firmware persistence implant for Cisco PIX Series and ASA (Adaptive Security Appliance) firewalls. It persists DNT’s BANANAGLEE software implant and modifies the Cisco firewall’s operating system (OS) at boot time. If BANANAGLEE support is not available for the booting operating system, it can install a Persistent Backdoor (PDB) designed to work with BANANAGLEE’S communications structure, so that full access can be reacquired at a later time. JETPLOW works on Cisco’s 500-series PIX firewalls, as well as most ASA firewalls (5505, 5510, 5520, 5540, 5550).
(TS//SI//REL) A typical JETPLOW deployment on a target firewall with an exfiltration path to the Remote Operations Center (ROC) is shown above. JETPLOW is remotely upgradable and is also remotely installable provided BANANAGLEE is already on the firewall of interest.
Status: (C//REL) Released. Has been widely deployed. Current availability restricted based on OS version (inquire for details).
Unit Cost: $0
Page, with graphics, is here. General information about TAO and the catalog is here.
In the comments, feel free to discuss how the exploit works, how we might detect it, how it has probably been improved since the catalog entry in 2008, and so on.
We’re at a crisis point now with regard to the security of embedded systems, where computing is embedded into the hardware itself—as with the Internet of Things. These embedded computers are riddled with vulnerabilities, and there’s no good way to patch them.
It’s not unlike what happened in the mid-1990s, when the insecurity of personal computers was reaching crisis levels. Software and operating systems were riddled with security vulnerabilities, and there was no good way to patch them. Companies were trying to keep vulnerabilities secret, and not releasing security updates quickly. And when updates were released, it was hard—if not impossible—to get users to install them. This has changed over the past twenty years, due to a combination of full disclosure—publishing vulnerabilities to force companies to issue patches quicker—and automatic updates: automating the process of installing updates on users’ computers. The results aren’t perfect, but they’re much better than ever before.
But this time the problem is much worse, because the world is different: All of these devices are connected to the Internet. The computers in our routers and modems are much more powerful than the PCs of the mid-1990s, and the Internet of Things will put computers into all sorts of consumer devices. The industries producing these devices are even less capable of fixing the problem than the PC and software industries were.
If we don’t solve this soon, we’re in for a security disaster as hackers figure out that it’s easier to hack routers than computers. At a recent Def Con, a researcher looked at thirty home routers and broke into half of them—including some of the most popular and common brands.
To understand the problem, you need to understand the embedded systems market.
Typically, these systems are powered by specialized computer chips made by companies such as Broadcom, Qualcomm, and Marvell. These chips are cheap, and the profit margins slim. Aside from price, the way the manufacturers differentiate themselves from each other is by features and bandwidth. They typically put a version of the Linux operating system onto the chips, as well as a bunch of other open-source and proprietary components and drivers. They do as little engineering as possible before shipping, and there’s little incentive to update their “board support package” until absolutely necessary.
The system manufacturers—usually original device manufacturers (ODMs) who often don’t get their brand name on the finished product—choose a chip based on price and features, and then build a router, server, or whatever. They don’t do a lot of engineering, either. The brand-name company on the box may add a user interface and maybe some new features, make sure everything works, and they’re done, too.
The problem with this process is that no one entity has any incentive, expertise, or even ability to patch the software once it’s shipped. The chip manufacturer is busy shipping the next version of the chip, and the ODM is busy upgrading its product to work with this next chip. Maintaining the older chips and products just isn’t a priority.
And the software is old, even when the device is new. For example, one survey of common home routers found that the software components were four to five years older than the device. The minimum age of the Linux operating system was four years. The minimum age of the Samba file system software: six years. They may have had all the security patches applied, but most likely not. No one has that job. Some of the components are so old that they’re no longer being patched. This patching is especially important because security vulnerabilities are found “more easily” as systems age.
To make matters worse, it’s often impossible to patch the software or upgrade the components to the latest version. Often, the complete source code isn’t available. Yes, they’ll have the source code to Linux and any other open-source components. But many of the device drivers and other components are just “binary blobs”—no source code at all. That’s the most pernicious part of the problem: No one can possibly patch code that’s just binary.
Even when a patch is possible, it’s rarely applied. Users usually have to manually download and install relevant patches. But since users never get alerted about security updates, and don’t have the expertise to manually administer these devices, it doesn’t happen. Sometimes the ISPs have the ability to remotely patch routers and modems, but this is also rare.
The result is hundreds of millions of devices that have been sitting on the Internet, unpatched and insecure, for the last five to ten years.
Hackers are starting to notice. Malware DNS Changer attacks home routers as well as computers. In Brazil, 4.5 million DSL routers were compromised for purposes of financial fraud. Last month, Symantec reported on a Linux worm that targets routers, cameras, and other embedded devices.
This is only the beginning. All it will take is some easy-to-use hacker tools for the script kiddies to get into the game.
And the Internet of Things will only make this problem worse, as the Internet—as well as our homes and bodies—becomes flooded with new embedded devices that will be equally poorly maintained and unpatchable. But routers and modems pose a particular problem, because they’re: (1) between users and the Internet, so turning them off is increasingly not an option; (2) more powerful and more general in function than other embedded devices; (3) the one 24/7 computing device in the house, and are a natural place for lots of new features.
We were here before with personal computers, and we fixed the problem. But disclosing vulnerabilities in an effort to force vendors to fix the problem won’t work the same way as with embedded systems. The last time, the problem was computers, ones mostly not connected to the Internet, and slow-spreading viruses. The scale is different today: more devices, more vulnerability, viruses spreading faster on the Internet, and less technical expertise on both the vendor and the user sides. Plus vulnerabilities that are impossible to patch.
Combine full function with lack of updates, add in a pernicious market dynamic that has inhibited updates and prevented anyone else from updating, and we have an incipient disaster in front of us. It’s just a matter of when.
We simply have to fix this. We have to put pressure on embedded system vendors to design their systems better. We need open-source driver software—no more binary blobs!—so third-party vendors and ISPs can provide security tools and software updates for as long as the device is in use. We need automatic update mechanisms to ensure they get installed.
The economic incentives point to large ISPs as the driver for change. Whether they’re to blame or not, the ISPs are the ones who get the service calls for crashes. They often have to send users new hardware because it’s the only way to update a router or modem, and that can easily cost a year’s worth of profit from that customer. This problem is only going to get worse, and more expensive. Paying the cost up front for better embedded systems is much cheaper than paying the costs of the resultant security disasters.
This essay originally appeared on Wired.com.
Today’s implant from the NSA’s Tailored Access Operations (TAO) group implant catalog:
HALLUXWATER
(TS//SI//REL) The HALLUXWATER Persistence Back Door implant is installed on a target Huawei Eudemon firewall as a boot ROM upgrade. When the target reboots, the PBD installer software will find the needed patch points and install the back door in the inbound packet processing routine.
Once installed, HALLUXWATER communicates with an NSA operator via the TURBOPANDA Insertion Tool (PIT), giving the operator covert access to read and write memory, execute an address, or execute a packet.
HALLUXWATER provides a persistence capability on the Eudemon 200, 500, and 1000 series firewalls. The HALLUXWATER back door survives OS upgrades and automatic bootROM upgrades.
Status: (U//FOUO) On the shelf, and has been deployed.
Page, with graphics, is here. General information about TAO and the catalog is here.
In the comments, feel free to discuss how the exploit works, how we might detect it, how it has probably been improved since the catalog entry in 2008, and so on.
This one is a big deal politically. For years we have been telling the Chinese not to install hardware back doors into Hauwei switches. Meanwhile, we have been doing exactly that. I wouldn’t want to have been the State Department employee to receive that phone call.
Paper from First Monday: “Transaction costs, privacy, and trust: The laudable goals and ultimate failure of notice and choice to respect privacy.”
Abstract: The goal of this paper is to outline the laudable goals and ultimate failure of notice and choice to respect privacy online and suggest an alternative framework to manage and research privacy. This paper suggests that the online environment is not conducive to rely on explicit agreements to respect privacy. Current privacy concerns online are framed as a temporary market failure resolvable through two options: (a) ameliorating frictions within the current notice and choice governance structure or (b) focusing on brand name and reputation outside the current notice and choice mechanism. The shift from focusing on notice and choice governing simple market exchanges to credible contracting where identity, repeated transactions, and trust govern the information exchange rewards firms who build a reputation around respecting privacy expectations. Importantly for firms, the arguments herein shift the firm’s responsibility from adequate notice to identifying and managing the privacy norms and expectations within a specific context.
I have an official Twitter feed of my blog; it’s @schneierblog. There’s also an unofficial feed at @Bruce_Schneier. I have nothing to do with that one.
I wouldn’t mind the unofficial feed—if people are reading my blog, who cares—except that it isn’t working right, and hasn’t been for some time. It publishes some posts weeks late and skips others entirely. I’m only hoping that this one will show up there.
It’s also kind of annoying that @Bruce_Schneier keeps following people, who think it’s me. It’s not; I never log in to Twitter and I don’t follow anyone there.
So if you want to read my blog on Twitter, please make sure you’re following @schneierblog. And if you are the person who runs the @Bruce_Schneier account—if anyone is even running it anymore—please e-mail me at the address on my Contact page. I’d rather see it fixed than shut down, but better for it to be shut down than continue in its broken state.
Continuing our walk through the NSA’s Tailored Access Operations (TAO) group implant catalog:
GOURMETTROUGH
(TS//SI//REL) GOURMETTROUGH is a user configurable implant for certain Juniper firewalls. It persists DNT’s BANANAGLEE implant across reboots and OS upgrades. For some platforms, it supports a minimal implant with beaconing for OS’s unsupported by BANANAGLEE.
(TS//SI//REL) For supported platforms, DNT may configure without ANT involvement. Except for limited platforms, they may also configure PBD for minimal implant in the case where an OS unsupported by BANANAGLEE is booted.
Status: GOURMETTROUGH is on the shelf and has been deployed on many target platforms. It supports nsg5t, ns50, ns25, isg1000(limited). Soon- ssg140, ssg5, ssg20
Unit Cost: $0
Page, with graphics, is here. General information about TAO and the catalog is here.
In the comments, feel free to discuss how the exploit works, how we might detect it, how it has probably been improved since the catalog entry in 2008, and so on. It’s interesting how many of these implants are designed to allow other implants to survive attempts to remove them.
I think it’s important to discuss these implants individually. Because the whole catalog was released at once, it’s easy to focus on the catalog as a whole instead of the individual implants. Blogging them once per day brings back focus.
Matt Blaze makes a point that I have been saying for a while now:
Don’t get me wrong, as a security specialist, the NSA’s Tailored Access Operations (TAO) scare the daylights of me. I would never want these capabilities used against me or any other innocent person. But these tools, as frightening and abusable as they are, represent far less of a threat to our privacy and security than almost anything else we’ve learned recently about what the NSA has been doing.
TAO is retail rather than wholesale.
That is, as well as TAO works (and it appears to work quite well indeed), they can’t deploy it against all of us – or even most of us. They must be installed on each individual target’s own equipment, sometimes remotely but sometimes through “supply chain interdiction” or “black bag jobs”. By their nature, targeted exploits must be used selectively. Of course, “selectively” at the scale of NSA might still be quite large, but it is still a tiny fraction of what they collect through mass collection.
This is important. As scarily impressive as TAO’s implant catalog is, it’s targeted. We can argue about how it should be targeted—who counts as a “bad guy” and who doesn’t—but it’s much better than the NSA’s collecting cell phone location data on everyone on the planet. The more we can deny the NSA the ability to do broad wholesale surveillance on everyone, and force them to do targeted surveillance in individuals and organizations, the safer we all are.
Me speaking at the LISA conference last year:
What the NSA leaks show is that “we have made surveillance too cheap. We have to make surveillance expensive again,” Schneier said. “The goal should be to force the NSA , and all similar adversaries, to abandon wholesale collection in favor of targeted collection.”
Blaze’s essay is good throughout, and worth reading.
EDITED TO ADD (1/20): A related essay.
Today’s item from the NSA’s Tailored Access Operations (TAO) group implant catalog:
FEEDTROUGH
(TS//SI//REL) FEEDTROUGH is a persistence technique for two software implants, DNT’s BANANAGLEE and CES’s ZESTYLEAK used against Juniper Netscreen firewalls.
(TS//SI//REL) FEEDTROUGH can be used to persist two implants, ZESTYLEAK and/or BANANAGLEE across reboots and software upgrades on known and covered OS’s for the following Netscreen firewalls, ns5xt, ns25, ns50, ns200, ns500 and ISG 1000. There is no direct communication to or from FEEDTROUGH, but if present, the BANANAGLEE implant can receive and transmit covert channel comms, and for certain platforms, BANANAGLEE can also update FEEDTROUGH. FEEDTROUGH however can only persist OS’s included in its databases. Therefore this is best employed with known OS’s and if a new OS comes out, then the customer would need to add this OS to the FEEDTROUGH database for that particular firewall.
(TS//SI//REL) FEEDTROUGH operates every time the particular Juniper firewall boots. The first hook takes it to the code which checks to see if the OS is in the database, if it is, then a chain of events ensures the installation of either one or both implants. Otherwise the firewall boots normally. If the OS is one modified by DNT, it is not recognized, which gives the customer freedom to field new software.
Status: (S//SI//REL) FEEDTROUGH has on the shelf solutions for all of the listed platforms. It has been deployed on many target platforms.
Page, with graphics, is here. General information about TAO and the catalog is here.
In the comments, feel free to discuss how the exploit works, how we might detect it, how it has probably been improved since the catalog entry in 2008, and so on.
The plan is to post one of these a day for the next couple of months.
Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.