Googling for Protectively Marked PDF's

The number of protectively marked PDF's on the web is staggering, try these:

• Confidential: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=filetype%3Apdf+file+confidential+%28htm+OR+html+OR+mhtml%29&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
• Restricted: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=filetype%3Apdf+file+restricted+%28htm+OR+html+OR+mhtml%29&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
• NATO restricted: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=filetype%3Apdf+file+%22nato+restricted%22+%28htm+OR+html+OR+mhtml%29&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
• NATO Confidential: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=filetype%3Apdf+file+%22nato+confidential%22+%28htm+OR+html+OR+mhtml%29&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Try other protective markings from other countries to see more. Clearly searching for "Top Secret" will incur a lot of separating chaff from wheat. The biggest surprise is the number of government protectively marked papers that are searchable - these are typically papers that are being passed between departments and the paper is being mis handled down the line of recipients.

I've seen a lot of misuse of confidentially marked papers in commercial organisations - I see them regularly sitting on a printer in open plan offices. Largely because staff working for big financial companies do not have information security drilled into them. They have to sit computer based training tests regularly - but there is little comeback for employees who regularly flout the rules.

Independent Financial Advisers oblivious to data protection

Who has the most information about you, as an individual?

• your doctor?
• your lawyer?
  
• your bank manager?
• the HMRC?
• your local council?

No - it is likely to be an Independent Financial Adviser. If you consider what is "personal data" (see the ICO Web pages) then the IFA pretty much ticks off more data categories than any other professional relationship in your life except for UK Gov vetting. Classification of personal data is not listed, but is classified by asking 8 questions:

1. Can a living individual be identified from the data? Yes, all forms carry name, address, date of birth and often National insurance Number. IFA's will also ask for proof of identity such as bank cards, passport, drivers licence. For regulatory reasons, all of this information is stored by the IFA.
2. Does the data 'relate to' the identifiable living individual, whether in personal or family life, business or profession? Again, yes it does. Joint Life cover and family health schemes will typically hold data about family members and the business that the policyholder works in.
3. Is the data 'obviously about' a particular individual? Yes, it has to be!
4. Is the data 'linked to' an individual so that it provides particular information about that individual? Yes, quotes, policy numbers, national insurance numbers, passports, bank account details all help link and identity an individual. These are all needed for commencing many policys. Often bank details are used for some types of investments.
   
5. Is the data used, or is it to be used, to inform or influence actions or decisions affecting an identifiable individual? Yes, policies with Life Cover options will have varying costs depending on the health, location of their home address. Income will play a part in pensions and other investments such as bond products.
6. Does the data have any biographical significance in relation to the individual? yes, in particular medical history reports for health cover will cover the individual in detail. Income history, previous addresses and knowledge of past and current financial products build a picture of the individual. Even, for some individuals, country of residence (for tax purposes) adds more colour to the picture.
   
7. Does the data focus or concentrate on the individual as its central theme? Yes, pretty much all products concentrate on the individual - particularly once anti-money laundering legislation came in.
8. Does the data impact or have the potential to impact on an individual, whether in a personal, family, business or professional capacity? Yes, for example a rejection for life cover on medical grounds could have an impact. As would knowledge of an individuals financial situation. Especially for targeted identity theft etc.
   

So given that IFA's have ticked all the boxes for data categories deemed 'personal' by the ICO, then surely the must have stringent measures in place for data security?

Well no, actually they don't.

Larger firms and the product providers (Aviva, L&G, Prudential, Standard Life etc etc) will have strict enforcement of data security - but the majority of IFA's are independent and will operate as a small business with no formal IT strategy and no formal training on data security. Many IFA's will buy laptops from retail stores like PC World and Dell retail online and configure them themselves. They are also using Blackberry's and Apple iPhones with no knowledge of how data is secured or not. Potentially - all of your data is being stored on unencrypted, unsecured devices.

The FSA regulates IFA's but it is my view that many IFA's play lip service to the "regulated by" statement on their business cards. It is only a matter if time before the FSA gets some teeth and in combination with the ICO (which will soon be allowed to prosecute) will close down IFAs that have non-existent security.

A Moment of Realisation during Registration

I was registering the birth of our new baby boy last week and, as you do, noticed a huge problem with the way registration of births are carried out in Scotland. The Scottish system for registration of births, deaths and marriages is different from England and Wales, with registrations being made at the General Register of Scotland and not Somerset House.

Whilst registering my wee boy; I was left alone in an interview room with an unlocked PC. I didn't have my phone on my but I would have taken some photos. The PC was linked and logged into the GROSfer application which, in Scotland, is on the GSX Government Secure Extranet system. The UK Government uses various classifications of network for various types of traffic according to its own data classification. I presume birth data must be protectively marked as restricted and so GROSfer is on the GSX.

I had approximately 3 to 4 minutes of "own time" in the office with the unlocked PC, plenty of time to attack a keylogger to the USB keyboard, whilst the registrar took the payment for the birth certificate. I also had access to GSX which could pose threats. All pretty disturbing - a simple flick of Cntrl-Alt-Del and a little bit of desk & cable management would reduce the threat.

Mysterious 07755 International Calling

Today I received an interesting postal spam - it's not one I've seen before and am still a little puzzled to figure out what the angle is with this one - if indeed there is one, here are the case notes:

• A postal letter is sent to me recorded delivery - I have to sign for it.
• The cost of the letter is £1.14
• The postage label has been printed out by the online royal mail service.
• My address, is curiously an address I use for a single paypal account.
• Inside the envelope is a flyer for cheap international calls using the 07755 service - you see these all over the place - there are all sorts of similar websites such as cherry call, planet numbers and this one: 999calls.com
  

So where is the scam?

I have just chuckled into a whisky because I love this one. I have not totally confirmed it, but I am postulating that it is an old fashioned postage scam. I took the royal mail signed for receipt code and typed it into the track and trace facility and basically, this has come up with a duplicate signee (i.e. not me) Interestingly, the signature is for someone in Enfield, next to a local post office and the 999calls.com whois address is in E1 London (so, much closer than Scotland.) The interesting part for me is the value that UK citizens place on a postal letter that has been hand delivered and has to be signed for. We automatically filter messages sent to us using cheap mechanisms - we don't believe emails in our email inboxes anymore - we are beginning to see spam texts. The general priciple has always been that a cheap delivery mechanism usually incites fraud and spam. This one is different - it tries to look expensive.

• I am still working on it, but I think the royal mail postage online service has also been hacked to produce forged address labels!
• The peel off "recorded" Signed For labels have been reproduced - but not with unique numbers.
• Also, one of my paypal addresses has been used for this so no doubt that has been stolen from somewhere.
  

I had to actually sign for this bit of spam from a smiling postman - imagine a phishing scam using this trusted delivery methodology?

Royal Bank of Scotland inviting consumers to buying protection insurance

When customers confirm the receipt of a credit card at RBS; they are being invited to buy protection insurance under slightly dubious pretences. I listened into a call where a call centre operator called Daniel said:

"We notice that you do not have protection cover on your credit card. Did you know that anyone who has your name and date of birth can apply for loans and credit in your name and you will be liable for the full amount?"

Daniel at no point mentioned that he was selling a type of insurance policy until being prompted to by the caller. After some discussion the policy is subject to all sorts of small print that most consumers would not understand. He also did some rather silly scaremongering by suggesting that fraudsters could get passports etc in the name of the caller at the click of a button on a website and generally inferring that the responsibility for poor lending practices is the fault of the consumer rather than the lender. At that point I stopped him.

In the UK, the financial services distance selling rules specifically state that a name and address is required for consumer credit and the act has controls in place so that there is time to reverse a credit agreement. The Consumer Credit Act also has controls in place to ensure that the onus is on the lender to establish the identity of the creditor - crucially, it is not the consumer. The 3 large credit reference agencies in the UK are in business to help their clients do this.

This sales call was bordering on mis-selling of an insurance policy. If you are going to take out such a plan, read the small print carefully and understand your rights.

If you are the victim of identity theft then, get in touch with the credit reference agencies; here is a snippet from the house of commons written evidence:

If Experian has established that an individual is a true victim of fraud and their identity has been fully authenticated, they are provided with the following:

— A dedicated case worker (with a freephone number), who will give general and ongoing advice on identity fraud as well as dealing with the specific problems being experienced by that individual and helping to liaise with lenders on their behalf.

— A free copy of their credit report along with copies of Experian's consumer advice leaflets—Your Credit Report Explained and Identity Fraud Explained.

— A discrete password which is added to their credit report which ensures lenders are alerted to the fact that an individual has been an ID fraud victim and should therefore request the password prior to proceeding with an application for credit.

— Information about and referral to CIFAS (the UK's fraud prevention service) for Protective Registration.

— Free 12 month membership Experian's credit report monitoring service, CreditExpert.

Developing Security Requirements

I've just managed to get a set of "security requirements" agreed by my large financial client.

So why write requirements at all?

In a complex organisation where there are many system delivery departments with complex commercial arrangements including outsourcers and contracting organisations - writing a definitive set of standards for designing & developing applications can be

• too prescriptive,
  
• expensive - because telling 3rd party delivery organisations to "do it my way" is always expensive
• inflexible for the business.

Since mandating the implementation would be a risky endeavour - I've created requirements at a higher level that each of the organisational departments can take and use it to derive their own:

• training and awareness processes
• coding standards and quality gateways
• testing approaches and automatic review
  

Clearly, some of the departments will be more efficient by co-operating but some of the 3rd party suppliers will simply wind these requirements into their own delivery mechanisms. My clients audit staff then have a clear set of requirements to measure delivery projects and also measure the 3rd party suppliers themselves.

Rating and Prioritisation
My plan involved taking the OWASP Top Ten list, the PCI DSS standards and the FSA Treating Customer Fairly legislature and turning them into requirements; with each sub requirement rated with a MoSCoW rating. The MoSCoW rating system is standard for requirements in that it not only prioritises requirements but also allows the author to set custom measurement:

• Must Have: means that it the system does not meet this security requirement then the project has to stop as soon as it is known - the project cannot move forward.
• Should Have: means that the system has to design in to meet this requirement. If it cannot meet the requirement then the project can only go ahead if there is business, tech & risk agreement that the project can carry on.
• Could Have: means that the project have got to consider the requirement in the plans, but may drop it if it is too expensive. They have to give a reason and any risk exposure explained - but this is not scruitinised in the same way as a should have.
• Want, or Would Have: Aspirational security requirements that the business recognise as important but understand they will cost more, or might not be possible with todays technology etc.

I find it surprising that many security professionals that I deal with do not recognise RISK. They automatically will say YES, WE MUST HAVE all the security features without realising that the selection of the security features is a risk balance.

e.g. one organisation I worked for mandated fibre to every desktop because the risk or ethernet radiation leakage would be too damaging for their business. Clearly desktops in a financial insurance company do not require this - although, if the price was right then the business would have this extra security. So for one organisation it was a MUST, the other a WOULD HAVE.

What about the requirements that have been missed?
Sure, there will be some that have been missed. However, in my experience, the online applictaions that will generate huge breaches tend to show signs very early on that anti-patterns existed. Over-worked teams, poorly educated, poor communication etc etc,

By focussing the requirements on the OWASP etc, it gives auditors concrete foundations to measure the security quality of projects in a commercial context.

Example Requirement
ID: Z1.1 (in the AntiXSS chapter)
Name: Strong output encoding
Description: Ensure that all user-supplied data is appropriately entity encoded before rendering, taking the approach to encode all characters other than a very limited subset. This is the approach of the various Anti-XSS libraries. Also, set the character encodings for each page output, which will reduce exposure to some attack vectors.
Type: Security requirement
Source: OWASP Top 10, 2007
MoSCoW: MUST
Measure of Success: All input and output data must be encoded appropriately with the output encoding specified, e.g. UTF-1, ISO 8859-1

In The Field: Keylogging

I've never actually had to use keyloggers out in the field on assignment - I don't normally take on the all-out 'break in' jobs because they are fraught with mishap and, if I'm going to be a bit snooty, they are usually more 'private investigator' than proper security researcher. I do however give presentations to organisations about the dangers of these wee devices and how easily they can be smuggled in and out of data centres and the workplace.



Keyloggers are a real threat because they have come of age:

• They're cheap, a pair can be had for less than GBP40.
• They are small and inconspicuous.
• They are easy to use and easy to get data from.
• Standard anti-virus software will not pick them up.
• They typically have 2Mb to 4Mb of text memory (which could be several years worth)
  

The standard MO is to plug the relevant keylogger into the PS/2 or USB port and then the keyboard into the keylogger. it acts as a man in the middle and records the input from the leyboard and also looks out for a keyword entered from the keyboard that will activate the text based user interface. They typically come with a predetermined work such as 'keylog'. When the keylogger sees that word being typed in, it sends characters to the PC and that is how the inetrface works. So long as you are in a text editor then the text will roll onto the screen. No software is required.

In fact, here is a sample from kate, the KDE text editor. This output is from a 2Mb PS/2 type keylogger used in Fedora Linux. Typing keylog into kate has automatically typed in the interface menu. The attacker can change the keyword and some of the behaviour of the data recovery. In this sample you can see a URL that has been typed into a browser. Obviously as part of the job recon, the duration of time the logger has to be carefully assessed so that drops can be organised with minimum disruption (people crawling under desks create suspicion), but also, most users will log on once a day to systems and so day start is a critical time.

For corporates protecting against this - I have only ever used one solution. Glue. One client I advised filled the USB slots with araldite and glued the PS/2 connectors in place. This may sound insane, but software based solutions won't work when the PC is switched off and also USB drop detections and so on will create huge amounts of noise.

Laptops are less risky - however, ZIF solutions that sit between the keyboard ZIF scket and the keyboard connector are not impossible and will one day be mainstream.