Google Search

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Apple finally adopts HTTPS for the App Store - here's why it matters

Over 170,000 people are part of the Sophos community on Facebook. Why not join us on Facebook to find out about the latest security threats.

Hi fellow Twitter user! Follow our team of security experts on Twitter for the latest news about internet security threats.

Already using Google+? Find us on Google+ for the latest security news.

Last year, a Googler named Dr. Elie Bursztein noticed that Apple's App Store protocols weren't very secure.

Much of the interaction your iDevice had with the App Store was conducted via plain old HTTP.

Apple should really have been using HTTPS, or secure HTTP.

HTTPS, as you probably know, is HTTP traffic carried inside a Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) or Transaction Layer Security (TLS) wrapper.

? SSL/TLS uses public-key cryptography to create a secure data channel, even between users or websites that have never corresponded before. Conventional encryption, like a doorlock, relies on a single key that can lock or unlock. How to share that one-size-fits-all key before you start using it is a security problem all of its own. Public key cryptography relies on an algorithm that uses two keys. One is kept private, and the other made public. What the public key locks, only the private key can unlock.

The problem with HTTP is that if you're on someone else's network, whether it's wired or wireless, they can probably listen into all your web traffic.

Likewise, if someone else is on your network, they can do the same thing, eavesdropping undetectably.

Worse still, it's very likely that they'll be able not only to watch what you're doing, but also to modify the traffic you send and receive.

So, in an ideal world, there would be HTTPS only, since the encryption layer inhibits both eavesdropping and unauthorised modification. Nobody would use HTTP for anything.

And why not? SSL/TLS encryption can be made largely transparent both to the programmer and the user, so the difference in online experience between encrypted and unencrypted web sessions is pretty modest.

In practice, however, HTTPS isn't quite as convenient for your IT department as HTTP.

You need to get certificates signed, your private keys stored securely, and more.

That means an operational change, which means paperwork, implementation time and (you can guess what comes next) money.

Also, because every HTTPS download is encrypted uniquely for each user each time they fetch it, it's much harder to cache HTTPS traffic.

If 2000 users from the USA pull down the same image file from your database in New Zealand, you can't rely on a web cache on the USA side to serve up an identical copy of the file to 1999 of them, because each download is individually negotiated and encrypted.

That means an operational change, which means paperwork, implementation time and (you can guess what comes next) money.

As a result, a sort-of HTTP/HTTPS hybrid evolved.

You use HTTPS for the parts of the transaction that really have to be secret, such as sending passwords, credit card numbers and other Personally Identifiable Information (PII).

For everything else, you use HTTP.

That was the model used by many online services, including webmail providers and social networks, until fairly recently.

Things started to change after the release of Firesheep, security researcher Eric Butler's mildly controversial effort to push the envelope of web encryption.

Implemented as a Firefox plugin, Firesheep listened on the network until the HTTPS-protected part of your social networking session was complete.

Then it sniffed out your session cookie, the magic token embedded in your post-authentication HTTP requests that tells Facebook, Twitter and others that you're an authorised user.

Firesheep could then pretend to be you, posting status updates, links, tweets and more from your accounts as if you had done it yourself.

Of course, even without actively hijacking your social networking accounts, an eavesdropper can learn an awful lot about you from your HTTP traffic.

After all, not everything you upload to Facebook or Twitter is inevitably intended for public consumption, so it oughtn't really to be uploaded without being wrapped in an SSL/TLS session.

Facebook, Twitter and others, bless them all, eventually bit the bullet and simply switched to HTTPS for everything. (At least, they did for web-based clients. Special-purpose mobile apps were, and some still are, a different story, but we shall ignore that issue here.)

But Apple, it seems, didn't bother with HTTPS everywhere, even for its own App Store, until 2013.

Since there's no other place to shop when you're buying or selling iDevice software, and since Apple likes it that way, you might think that Cupertino would have set the bar a bit higher.

You might also have expected Apple to react a bit more quickly after Dr. Bursztein's fairly detailed explanations of why the bar really needed to be higher.

In July 2012, he explained several problems, which he's now made public, including active attacks (that's where you change HTTP content en route between server and client) by which a malcontent could steal your password, trick you into buying the wrong App, deliver you a bogus update, or quietly prevent you from applying a needed update.

Burzstein also showed that the App Store routinely uploaded an unencrypted list of already-installed Apps from your device.

That doesn't sound like much, but it is.

Firstly, some of those Apps will identify aspects of your life that would be handy for a social engineer to know: the bank you use, the newspapers you like, the games you play, the share-trading services you invest with, and more.

Secondly, the complete selection of Apps on your device may very well be unique to you, thus making it a handy form of digital fingerprint for an attacker.

Earlier this year, Apple finally made a start towards the change that many of its web traffic competitors like Google, Facebook and Twitter made some time ago, and bumped all the App Store's active content to HTTPS:

Good. (Better yet would have been to serve everything using HTTPS, but let's be thankful for what we've got.)

If you're a web developer and your web services rely on users sending you traffic that contains anything at all that oughtn't to be public, you should be doing the same.

Even data that isn't legally considered PII can be pure gold to cybercrooks, and so leaking it could be putting your customers at risk.

And you wouldn't want that, would you?

Would you like to know more about SSL/TLS?

Here's a quarter-hour Sophos Techknow podcast, featuring Paul Ducklin and Chester Wisniewski as they explain the S in HTTPS:

Listen now:

(03 August 2012, duration 16'10", size 11MBytes)

Listen later:

Download Techknow podcast

Follow @duckblog


View the original article here

Monday, May 13, 2013

PWN2OWN results Day One - Java, Chrome, IE 10 and Firefox owned

Over 170,000 people are part of the Sophos community on Facebook. Why not join us on Facebook to find out about the latest security threats.

Hi fellow Twitter user! Follow our team of security experts on Twitter for the latest news about internet security threats.

Already using Google+? Find us on Google+ for the latest security news.

Filed Under: Adobe, Adobe Flash, Apple, Apple Safari, Featured, Firefox, Google, Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, Java, Microsoft, Oracle, Vulnerability

pwned-icons-176Of the Big Four browsers, only Apple's Safari has so far survived the onslaught of the browser-breakers at PWN2OWN 2013

Chrome, Internet Explorer 10 and Firefox, all running on Windows, have already fallen by the wayside.

To remind you: in the world of PWN2OWN, "successful attack" means that merely by browsing to untrusted web content, you're able to inject and run arbitrary executable code outside the browser.

In the real world, that means you could pull off a drive-by install, where you bypass all intended protections, preventions and pop-up warnings from the browser.

In other words, you could put malware on remote users' computers without them being involved, or even aware.

As the competition rules explain:

A successful attack ... must require little or no user interaction and must demonstrate code execution... If a sandbox is present, a full sandbox escape is required to win.

However, if you're a Safari fan, don't get too excited about your browser's resilience just yet.

None of the PWN2OWN entrants are actually scheduled to take on Safari (the only non-Windows-hosted software in the competition), and we are unlikely ever to be sure why.

Was the combination of Safari and OS X too tough? Was the prize money too low? Do the browser-breakers consider OS X malware a secondary revenue stream not glamorous enough for the limelight of competitive hacking? Are the browser-breakers simply not up to speed on Safari and OS X hacking yet?

(Let's hope that Safari's victory over the attackers was true resilience, or even simply a lack of interest from the competitors, rather than that someone came up with an exploit but chose instead to sell it to the internet underworld.)

Java, plugged into Internet Explorer on Windows, also fell today - not once, but three times.

Here's HP's summary of the results so far:

The competition continues at midday on Thursday 07 March 2013, with VUPEN Security taking a crack at Adobe Flash and George Hotz trying out his skills on the Adobe Reader plugin.

When they're done, Pham Toan will have a crack at Internet Explorer 10.

If he succeeds, he'll only win a consolation prize because, as shown above, VUPEN already took down Microsoft's latest browser.

? PWN2OWN contestants step up to the plate/crease in a randomly-chosen order. And since you only enter in the first place if you're pretty certain that you have an exploit that will work on the competition system, that usually means that it's first in, best dressed. Second and third place winners get kudos, but no cash.

With prize money at 70% of that for Chrome and IE, you'd assume that Flash and Reader are supposed to be easier to break. On the other hand, Safari was valued at just 65%, and no-one broke that.

So stay tuned. We'll let you know tomorrow how Flash and Reader stood up.

Follow @duckblog


View the original article here

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Has Justin Bieber died in a car crash? No. But that doesn't stop Facebook users spreading the "news"

Over 170,000 people are part of the Sophos community on Facebook. Why not join us on Facebook to find out about the latest security threats.

Hi fellow Twitter user! Follow our team of security experts on Twitter for the latest news about internet security threats.

Already using Google+? Find us on Google+ for the latest security news.

Justin BieberBefore you start sobbing, let me tell you the good news.

Justin Bieber hasn't died in a car crash.

Phew! I'm sure we're all relieved about that. Not least Mister Bieber himself.

But what if you had heard on the grapevine that the pint-sized heart-throb had come to a grisly end? How would you have confirmed the news?

Chances are, these days, that you might have Googled for an appropriate phrase like "bieber dies in car crash". And look what the very first search result is:

Google search result

If you were to click on that link you would be taken to what appears, at first glance, to be a legitimate news website:

Fake news story

However, if you are a long term reader of Naked Security there should be enough here to ring some alarm bells. Doesn't it remind you of the Global Associated "news" story from earlier this year about the death in a car crash of Pet Shop Boys star Neil Tennant?

Funnily enough that appears to have happened on entirely the same stretch of road - "Route 80 between Morristown and Roswell".

Past bogus death reports have involved the likes of deaths of Adam Ant, Jim Carrey, Christian Slater, Vanilla Ice, Tom Cruise amongst many others...

The truth is that somewhat tasteless websites exist which allow anyone to automagically generate a fake news story about a death in a car crash. Simply changing the link changes the name of the victim.

Before you know it, internet users are unwittingly forwarding the message without checking their facts, and the tasteless website is earning itself some cash from all of the new traffic seeing its adverts.

Sadly, careless Facebook users are re-sharing this bogus story of Justin Bieber's death to all and sundry, keeping the hoax alive and helping drive traffic to a website that thinks it is clever to play such sick pranks.

Fake news spread on Facebook

Get your real news from real news websites. Don't trust Google or your Facebook friends, as they may be sharing links and stories that simply aren't true.

Follow @gcluley

View the original article here

Friday, May 10, 2013

Jailed cybercriminal hacked into his own prison's computer system after being put in IT class

Over 170,000 people are part of the Sophos community on Facebook. Why not join us on Facebook to find out about the latest security threats.

Hi fellow Twitter user! Follow our team of security experts on Twitter for the latest news about internet security threats.

Already using Google+? Find us on Google+ for the latest security news.

Here's a piece of advice for those running classes training prisoners about information technology.

It's probably not a good idea to let notorious hackers join the course - or, if you do, to keep a very close eye on what they're up to.

Teenager Nicholas Webber ran the infamous GhostMarket.Net cybercrime website, which sold stolen credit card details and offered tutorials to budding criminals about how to commit identity theft and online scams.

Nicholas Webber

With 8,500 members, GhostMarket was the biggest criminal website ever uncovered by the British authorities.

It's said that GhostMarket's activities can be linked to frauds around the world which saw £8 million stolen from 65,000 bank accounts.

Media reports have detailed the playboy lifestyle enjoyed by Nicholas Webber, GhostMarket's founder, who had only just turned 18 at the time of his arrest in October 2009.

Webber was sentenced to five years imprisonment in May 2011, and found himself at HM Prison Isis, a Category C male Young Offenders Institution, in South East London.

Cells at HM Prison Isis

Normally you would expect (and hope) a hacker's criminal career to end there, but sadly that wasn't to be.

As the Daily Mail reports, Webber somehow managed to sign-up for the prison's IT class, and from there managed to hack into the prison's mainframe computer.

According to the report, a spokesman for the prison service has confirmed that Webber was involved in the hack, but has downplayed the significance of the hack:

"At the time of this incident in 2011 the educational computer system at HMP Isis was a closed network. No access to personal information or wider access to the internet or other prison systems would have been possible."

The story of the 2011 prison hack has only come to light now because Michael Fox, the IT class's teacher, is claiming unfair dismissal. Fox says that it was not his decision to admit Webber to the class, and that he was not aware of Webber's history of cybercrime.

Earlier this year, an official report claimed that HM Prison Isis was "bedevilled" by technological problems, including a breakdown in its biometric thumbprint security system.

Let's hope that they didn't ask Webber to help them fix that...

Follow @gcluley

View the original article here

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Anatomy of a "feature" - what happens if a website grabs all your disk space?

Over 170,000 people are part of the Sophos community on Facebook. Why not join us on Facebook to find out about the latest security threats.

Hi fellow Twitter user! Follow our team of security experts on Twitter for the latest news about internet security threats.

Already using Google+? Find us on Google+ for the latest security news.

HTML5 allows websites to save data on your hard disk for the next time you visit.

Much like cookies, only different.

The cookie system in HTTP has two big disadvantages compared to what's generally referred to in HTML5 as Web Storage.

Firstly, cookies are wastefully sent in the HTTP headers of every request made back to the server that set the cookie in the first place.

Secondly, cookies are limited in size, mainly because of the first reason, to about 4KBytes.

In the modern, data-rich web, that doesn't leave much room to manoeuvre.

The Web Storage system, however, is driven by JavaScript, not by HTTP headers, and is actually surprisingly simple to use.

You just add attributes to the localStorage JavaScript variable inside the browser, and read them back later.

The official W3C standards document offers an example like this:

You have viewed this page an untold number of time(s).

The value localStorage.pageCount is used to keep track of how many times you have visited the page, even from one browser session to another, and setting the document.getElementById().textContent attribute makes the counter appear in the page itself.

For security reasons, each domain gets its own localStorage object, so that data can't leak from one site to another, and for safety reasons, the size of each object is limited.

? Web Storage also comes in the form of sessionStorage. Each browser window gets its own sessionStorage variable, and, as the name implies, all the values in it are lost when the session ends.

Each domain gets somewhere between 2.5MBytes (Chrome) and 10MBytes (IE) of localStorage to use.

However, as blogger Todd Anglin noted back in 2011:

Some browsers have exposed a workaround that grants "a1.website.com" and "a2.website.com" their own 5MB LocalStorage quotas.

Anglin saw this as a viable way around the quota limit, but also pointed out that:

[this] is specifically frowned upon in the HTML5 Web Storage spec. Browser authors are asked to prevent multiple sub-domains of a single site from being given a bigger localStorage pool.

Anglin therefore advised against this bodge to boost your storage size because it was "likely to break in future."

But Stanford student Feross Aboukhadijeh recently found that for most mainstream browsers, Anglin's future still lies ahead of us.

You can still bag extra localStorage using the multiple sub-domain trick.

Indeed, Aboukhadijeh created a web page by means of which you can inflict this trick on yourself, and the results are dramatic.

He can quickly grab gigabytes of your disk space by getting you to visit his one-off domain.

That might not sound like much of a Denial of Service (DoS) attack, but it's not supposed to happen, for obvious reasons.

And that's what really matters: that browsers (and network programmers in general) don't always take specifications seriously.

By the way, Firefox users can relax: your browser already applies a 5MByte limit at the domain level.

Aboukhadijeh says he's reported this bug, together with his practical demonstration of how easy it is to abuse, to the other browser vendors.

Let's see how long they take to respond, if indeed they consider it a problem worth fixing.

Follow @duckblog


View the original article here

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Kim Dotcom's Megaupload saga takes another turn - FBI wins appeal in extradition case

Over 170,000 people are part of the Sophos community on Facebook. Why not join us on Facebook to find out about the latest security threats.

Hi fellow Twitter user! Follow our team of security experts on Twitter for the latest news about internet security threats.

Already using Google+? Find us on Google+ for the latest security news.

The Kim Dotcom saga took yet another turn today.

The New Zealand Court of Appeal knocked back one of the big fella's earlier minivictories again US law enforcers.

You probably don't need reminding, but the sequence goes something like this:

Kim Dotcom is arrested in a large-style raid by NZ Police over his Megaupload file sharing service. Dotcom is remanded in custody, pending extradition to the USA on charges including racketeering (organised criminality) and money laundering. Dotcom, to the surprise of many, gets bail. (He's ordered to keep within 80km of his house, and to stay away from helicopters.) Dotcom wins a court action forcing the FBI to expose much more detail about its proposed case than it had so far given out in the extradition procedings.

Now add to that:

US authorities appeal the earlier judgment and succeed, with the court taking the FBI's side and agreeing that the extradition hearing needs only to establish that there is a case to answer, not to examine the same details that a full trial would.

This appeal now looks set to lead to an appeal against the appeal, with the next step to be along these lines:

Dotcom goes to the Supreme Court to try to win back the right to see all the evidence against him before, rather than after, his extradition.

Who knows where all this will lead?

Dotcom's Megaupload service was killed off, seemingly for ever, by the original arrests.

There doesn't seem to be any doubt that Megaupload was a hotbed of piracy, just doubt over the criminal liability of Dotcom and his fellow corporate officers for the content they enabled their users to share by means of the service.

On the anniversary of his arrest, the media-savvy Dotcom launched a son-of-Megaupload service known as Mega.

Mega uses public key cryptography in your browser so that Dotcom and his colleagues don't, and in theory can't, know what you're uploading.

The cryptographic system in the new Mega service also means that, since only the original uploader knows what's what, any sharing must be the fault (or the intent) of that user, who would need to pass on the decryption key of his own accord.

Indeed, Mega now brands itself as "the privacy company."

Will the effort put into making Mega lawsuit-safe against the owners make them look better in the Megaupload court action? ("See, we really do care about intellectual property after all.")

Or will they look worse? ("See, we clearly didn't care before or we'd have done this earlier.")

What do you think?

Follow @duckblog

Tags: appeal, arrest, Cryptography, dotcom, extradiition, FBI, Kim Dotcom, mega, megaupload, new zealand, piracy


View the original article here

Facebook fixes bug that leaked users' phone numbers

Over 170,000 people are part of the Sophos community on Facebook. Why not join us on Facebook to find out about the latest security threats.

Hi fellow Twitter user! Follow our team of security experts on Twitter for the latest news about internet security threats.

Already using Google+? Find us on Google+ for the latest security news.

Like image courtesy of ShutterstockFacebook has fixed a bug that was leaking users' phone numbers to application developers.

Reported in June 2012, the API (application programming interface) bug was affecting the email field in some mobile apps that accessed Facebook's API.

The original report about the glitch was reproduced in a Facebook notice in which Facebook's Alvin Sng said it should now be resolved.

Facebook said that when retrieving a user's email address via graph API, app developers were receiving a 10-digit number once for every 1,000 users, more or less, instead of the properly formatted email address the documentation states that the field should return.

But as pointed out by IDG's Zach Miners, some app developers reported significantly higher incidences.

One such developer - Nathan Cobb, research investigator with the American Legacy Foundation, an antismoking nonprofit - said the group's smoking cessation app, Ubiquitous, was returning phone numbers for about one in every 200 users, Miners reports.

Facebook hasn't reported whether or not it knows of developers who've used the numbers to call users to promote their services.

Facebook graph searchAs it is, those concerned about privacy are already disturbed by the possibility of Facebook's new Graph Search being able to squeeze out data that users might have posted and then forgotten about, or how it could be used to cross-relate disparate pieces of data about people, with less than desirable results.

Or, as Sophos's Graham Cluley put it in this headline: How to find single women who like men *and* like getting drunk, with Facebook Graph Search.

Graph Search doesn't reveal anything Facebook users haven't already shared, but it does make it a heck of a lot easier to piece together.

Facebook took nine months to fix the API glitch so that it's no longer handing over users' phone numbers on a silver platter.

Stories like this make it easier to understand why some assume the company's priorities lie in digging personal data out, rather than ensuring it doesn't get handed over inadvertently.

Follow @LisaVaas
Follow @NakedSecurity

Like image courtesy of Shutterstock


View the original article here