What the CIA hack and leak teaches us about the bankruptcy of current “Cyber” doctrines

Wikileaks just published a trove of documents resulting from a hack of the CIA Engineering Development Group, the part of the spying agency that is in charge of developing hacking tools. The documents seem genuine and catalog, among other things, a number of exploits against widely deployed commodity devices and systems, including Android, iPhone, OS X and Windows. Also smart TVs. This hack, with appropriate background, teaches us a lesson or two about the direction of public policy related to “cyber” in the US and the UK.

Routine proliferation of weaponry and tactics

The CIA hack is in many ways extraordinary, in that it allowed the attackers to gain access to the source code of the hacking tools of the agency – an extraordinary act of proliferation of attack technologies. In other ways, it is mundane in that it is neither the first, nor probably the last hack or leak of catastrophic proportions to occur to a US/UK government department in charge of offensive cyber operations.

This list of leaks of government attack technologies, illustrates that when it comes to cyber-weaponry the risk of proliferation is not merely theoretical, but very real. In fact it seems to be happening all the time.

I find it particularly amusing – and those in charge of those agencies should probably find it embarrassing – that NSA and GCHQ go around presenting themselves as national technical authorities in assurance; they provide advice to others on how to not get hacked; they keep asserting that they can be trusted to operate extremely dangerous spying infrastructures; and handle in secret extremely dangerous zero-day exploits. Yet, they seem to be routinely hacked and have their secret documents leaked. Instead of chasing whistleblowers and journalists, policy makers should probably take note that there is not a high-enough level of assurance to secure cyber-weaponry, and for sure it is not to be found within those agencies.

In fact the risk of proliferation is at the very heart of cyber attack, and integral to it, even without hacking or leaking from inside government. Many of us quietly laughed at the bureaucratic nightmare discussed in the recent CIA leak, describing the difficulty of classifying the cyber attack techniques while at the same time deploying them on target system. As the press release summarizes:

To attack its targets, the CIA usually requires that its implants communicate with their control programs over the internet. If CIA implants, Command & Control and Listening Post software were classified, then CIA officers could be prosecuted or dismissed for violating rules that prohibit placing classified information onto the Internet. Consequently the CIA has secretly made most of its cyber spying/war code unclassified.

This illustrates very clearly a key dynamic in hacking: once a hacker uses an exploit against an adversary system, there is a very real risk the exploit is captured by monitoring and intrusion detection systems of the target, and then weponized to hack other computers, at a low cost. This is very well established and researched, and such “honey pot” infrastructures have been used in the academic and commercial community for some time to detect and study potentially new attacks. This is not the premise of sophisticated defenders, the explanation of how honeypots work is on Wikipedia! The Flame malware, and Stuxnet before, were in fact found in the wild.

In that respect cyber-war is not like war at all. The weapons you use will be turned against you immediately, and your effective use of weapons relies on your very own infrastructures being utterly vulnerable to them.

What “Cyber” doctrine?

The constant leaks and hacks, leading to proliferation of exploits and hacking tools from the heart of government, as well through operations, should deeply inform policy makers when making choices about “cyber” doctrines. First, it is probably time to ditch the awkward term “Cyber”.

Continue reading What the CIA hack and leak teaches us about the bankruptcy of current “Cyber” doctrines

Security intrusions as mechanisms

The practice of security often revolves around figuring out what (malicious act) happened to a system. This historical inquiry is the focus of forensics, specifically when the inquiry regards a policy violation (such as a law). The results of forensic investigation might be used to fix the impacted system, attribute the attack to adversaries, or build more resilient systems going forwards. However, to execute any of these purposes, the investigator first must discover the mechanism of the intrusion.

As discussed at an ACE seminar last October, one common framework for this discovery task is the intrusion kill chain. Mechanisms, mechanistic explanation, and mechanism discovery have highly-developed meanings in the biological and social sciences, but the word is not often used in information security. In a recent paper, we argue that incident response and forensics investigators would be well-served to make use of the existing literature on mechanisms, as thinking about intrusion kill chains as mechanisms is a productive and useful way to frame the work.

To some extent, thinking mechanistically is a description of what (certain) scientists do. But the mechanisms literature within philosophy of science is not merely descriptive. The normative benefits extolled include that thinking mechanistically is an effective heuristic for searching out useful explanations; mechanisms provide the most coherent unity to complex fields of study; and that mechanistic explanation is necessary to guide selection among potential studies given limited experimental resources, experiment design decisions, and interpretation of statistical results. I previously argued that capricious use of biological metaphors is bad for information security. We are keenly aware that these benefits of mechanistic explanation need to apply to security as and for security, not merely because they work in other sciences.

Our paper demonstrates how we can cast the intrusion kill chain, the diamond model, and other models of security intrusions as mechanistic models. This casting begins to demonstrate the mosaic unity of information security. Campaigns are made up of attacks. Attacks, as modeled by the kill chain, have multiple steps. In a specific attack, the delivery step might be accomplished by a drive-by-download. So we demonstrate how drive-by-downloads are a mechanism, one among many possible delivery mechanisms. This description is a schema to be filled in during a particular drive-by download incident with a specific URL and specific javascript, etc. The mechanistic schema of the delivery mechanism informs the investigator because it indicates what types of network addresses to look for, and how to fit them into the explanation quickly. This process is what Lindley Darden calls schema instantiation in the mechanism discovery literature.

Our argument is not that good forensics investigators do not do such mechanism discovery strategies. Rather, it is precisely that good investigators do do them. But we need to describe what it is good investigators in fact do. We do not currently, and that lack makes teaching new investigators particularly difficult. Thinking about intrusions as mechanisms unlocks an expansive literature on good ways to do mechanism discovery. This literature will make it easier to codify what good investigators do, which among other benefits allows us to better teach sound methodological practices to incoming investigators.

Our paper on this topic was published in the open-access Journal of Cybersecurity, as Thinking about intrusion kill chains as mechanisms, by Jonathan M. Spring and Eric Hatleback.

Understanding the Use of Leaked Webmail Credentials in the Wild

Online accounts enable us to store and access documents, make purchases, and connect to new friends, among many other capabilities. Even though online accounts are convenient to use, they also expose users to risks such as inadvertent disclosure of private information and fraud. In recent times, data breaches and subsequent exposure of users to attacks have become commonplace. For instance, over the last four years, account credentials of millions of users from Dropbox, Yahoo, and LinkedIn have been stolen in massive attacks conducted by cybercriminals.

After online accounts are compromised by cybercriminals, what happens to the accounts? In our paper, presented today at the 2016 ACM Internet Measurement Conference, we answer this question. To do so, we needed to monitor the compromised accounts. This is hard to do, since only large online service providers have access to data from such compromised accounts, for instance Google or Yahoo. As a result, there is sparse research literature on the use of compromised online accounts. To address this problem, we developed an infrastructure to monitor the activity of attackers on Gmail accounts. We did this to enable researchers to understand what happens to compromised webmail accounts in the wild, despite the lack of access to proprietary data on compromised accounts.

Cybercriminals usually sell the stolen credentials on the underground black market or use them privately, depending on the value of the compromised accounts. Such accounts can be used to send spam messages to other online online accounts, or to retrieve sensitive personal or corporate information from the accounts, among a myriad of malicious uses. In the case of compromised webmail accounts, it is not uncommon to find password reset links, financial information, and authentication credentials of other online accounts inside such webmail accounts. This makes webmail accounts particularly attractive to cybercriminals, since they often contain a lot of sensitive information that could potentially be used to compromise other accounts. For this reason, we focus on webmail accounts.

Our infrastructure works as follows. We embed scripts based on Google Apps Script in Gmail accounts, so that the accounts send notifications of activity to us. Such activity includes the opening of email messages, creation of email drafts, sending of email messages, and “starring” of email messages. We also record details of accesses including IP addresses, browser information, and access times of visitors to the accounts. Since we designed the Gmail accounts to lure cybercriminals to interact with them (in the sense of a honeypot system), we refer to the accounts as honey accounts.

To study webmail accounts stolen via malware, we also developed a malware sandbox infrastructure that executes information-stealing malware samples inside virtual machines (VMs). We supply honey credentials to the VMs, which drive web browsers and login to the honey accounts automatically. The login action triggers the malware in the VMs to steal and exfiltrate the honey credentials to Command-and-Control servers under the control of botmasters.

Continue reading Understanding the Use of Leaked Webmail Credentials in the Wild

First UCL team competes in the International Capture The Flag competition

Team THOR, UCL’s Capture the Flag (CTF) team, took part in its first CTF competition – the UCSB iCTF, on the 4th December 2015. The team comprised of students from the computer science department – Tom Sigler, Chris Park, Jason Papapanagiotakis, Azeem Ilyas, Salman Khalifa, Luke Roberts, Haran Anand, Alexis Enston, Austin Chamberlain, Jaromir Latal, Enrico Mariconti, and Razvan Ragazan. Through Gianluca Stringhini’s hacking seminars and our own experience, we were eager to test our ability to identify, exploit and patch application vulnerabilities.

The THOR team in action

The CTF competition style was “attack and defence” with a slight twist – each participating team had to write a vulnerable application. We were provided with a Linux virtual machine containing all of the applications which we hosted on a locally running server. This server connected to the organiser’s network over a virtual private network (VPN). During the competition, the organiser regularly polled our server to make sure each of the applications were running and whether or not they still had a security vulnerability. We were scored on 3 criteria: how many applications were up and running (and whether or not the vulnerabilities had been patched), how many flags we had managed to obtain through exploiting vulnerabilities and how close our submitted application was to the median in terms of being vulnerable, but not too vulnerable.

The application had to be “balanced” in terms of security i.e. if it was too easy or too difficult to exploit then points would be deducted. Fortunately, the organisers provided sample applications which gave us an excellent starting point. One of the sample applications was a “notes” service written in PHP – it enabled a note (which represented the flag) to be saved against a flag ID with a password. The note could be retrieved by supplying the flag ID and password, but a vulnerable CGI script enabled the note to be retrieved without a password! We customised this application by removing the CGI script (this vulnerability was very easy to identify and exploit) and changing the note insertion code so that a specially crafted token (a hex-encoded Epoch timestamp) was added next to each flag ID, password and note entry. A vulnerability was then introduced whereby note retrieval would be a two-step process – first the flag ID and password would be specified, then if the password was valid, the token would be retrieved and used in combination with the flag ID to retrieve the note. The first step of the process could be bypassed by brute-forcing the token and avoiding the password verification phase. We kept our fingers crossed that this would be exploitable by the other teams, but not too easily!

Attacking involved analysing the various applications written by the other teams for vulnerabilities. As soon as a vulnerability had been identified, we had to write some code to perform the exploit and retrieve the flag for that application. The flag served as evidence that we had successfully exploited an application. To maximise attack points, we had to run the exploit against each team’s server and submit the flags to the organiser every few minutes. Defence involved ensuring that the applications were up and running, keeping the server online and ideally patching any vulnerabilities identified in our copies of the applications.

The competition started at 5pm – we were online with our server and applications shortly afterwards. Fueled by adrenaline, caffeine, and immense enthusiasm, we chose several applications to focus our initial efforts on and got cracking!

A good portion of the applications were web applications written in PHP. This was great news as we had focused on web application vulnerabilities during the hacking seminars. We also identified applications written in Python, Java, C and Bash. Some of them were imaginative and amusing – a dating service for monkeys written in PHP, a pizza order and delivery service written in PHP and a command-line dungeon game written in C.

We managed to exploit and patch an ATM machine application through a SQL injection vulnerability (the same security vulnerability involved in the recent TalkTalk and vTech data breaches). One of the Python applications used a “pickle” function which was exploited to enable arbitrary code execution. A second Python application was vulnerable to a path-traversal bug which enabled flags to be retrieved from other user’s directories. We also were on the cusp of exploiting a buffer-overflow vulnerability in a C application, but ran out of time.

The competition ran for 8 hours and at the end, THOR ranked 14th out of 35. Given that it was THOR’s first time participating in a CTF, being the only team to represent the UK and being up against experienced teams, we felt that it was a great result! We had a huge amount of fun taking part and working as a team, so much so, that we are planning to take part in more CTF competitions in the future! Many thanks again to Gianluca, the organisers and all who participated. Go THOR!

ACE-CSR opening event 2015/16: talks on malware, location privacy and wiretap law

The opening event for the UCL Academic Centre of Excellence for Cyber Security Research in the 2015–2016 academic term featured three speakers: Earl Barr, whose work on approximating program equivalence has won several ACM distinguished paper awards; Mirco Musolesi from the Department of Geography, whose background includes a degree in computer science and an interest in analysing myriad types of data while protecting privacy; and Susan Landau, a professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute and a visiting professor at UCL and an expert on cyber security policy whose books include Privacy On the Line: the Politics of Wiretapping and Encryption (with Whitfield Diffie) and Surveillance or Security? The Risks Posed by New Wiretapping Technologies.

Detecting malware and IP theft through program similarity

Earl Barr is a member of the software systems engineering group and the Centre for Research on Evolution, Search, and Testing. His talk outlined his work using program similarity to determine whether two arbitrary programs have the same behaviour in two areas relevant to cyber security: malware and intellectual property theft in binaries (that is, code reused in violation of its licence).

Barr began by outlining his work on detecting malware, comparing the problem to that facing airport security personnel trying to find a terrorist among millions of passengers. The work begins with profiling: collect two zoos, and then ask if the program under consideration is more likely to belong to the benign zoo or the malware zoo.

Rather than study the structure of the binary, Barr works by viewing the program as strings of 0s and 1s, which may not coincide with the program’s instructions, and using information theory to create a measure of dissimilarity, the normalised compression distance (NCD). The NCD serves as an approximation of the Kolmogorov Complexity, a mathematical measure of the complexity of the shortest description of an object, which is then normalised using a compression algorithm that ignores the details of the instruction set architecture for which the binary is written.

Using these techniques to analyse a malware zoo collected from sources such as Virus Watch, Barr was able to achieve a 95.7% accuracy rate. He believes that although this technique isn’t suitable for contemporary desktop anti-virus software, it opens a new front in the malware detection arms race. Still, Barr is aware that malware writers will rapidly develop countermeasures and his group is already investigating counter-countermeasures.

Malware writers have three avenues for blocking detection: injecting new content that looks benign; encryption; and obfuscation. Adding new content threatens the malware’s viability: raising the NCD by 50% requires doubling the size of the malware. Encryption can be used against the malware writer: applying a language model across the program reveals a distinctive saw-toothed pattern of regions with low surprise and low entropy alternating with regions of high surprise and high entropy (that is, regions with ciphertext). Obfuscation is still under study: the group is using three obfuscation engines available for Java and applying them repeatedly to Java malware. Measuring the NCD after each application shows that after 100 iterations the NCD approaches 1 (that is, the two items being compared are dissimilar), but that two of the three engines make errors after 200 applications. Unfortunately for malware writers, this technique also causes the program to grow in size. The cost of obfuscation to malware writers may therefore be greater than that imposed upon white hats.

Continue reading ACE-CSR opening event 2015/16: talks on malware, location privacy and wiretap law

Gianluca Stringhini – Cyber criminal operations and developing systems to defend against them

Gianluca Stringhini’s research focuses on studying cyber criminal operations and developing systems to defend against them.

Such operations tend to follow a common pattern. First the criminal operator lures a user into going to a Web site and tries to infect them with malware. Once infected, the user is joined to a botnet. From there, the user’s computer is instructed to perform malicious activities on the criminal’s behalf. Stringhini, whose UCL appointment is shared between the Department of Computer Science and the Department of Security and Crime Science, has studied all three of these stages.

Stringhini, who is from Genoa, developed his interest in computer security at college: “I was doing the things that all college students are doing, hacking, and breaking into systems. I was always interested in understanding how computers work and how one could break them. I started playing in hacking competitions.”

At the beginning, these competitions were just for fun, but those efforts became more serious when he arrived in 2008 at UC Santa Barbara, which featured one of the world’s best hacking teams, a perennial top finisher in Defcon’s Capture the Flag competition. It was at Santa Barbara that his interest in cyber crime developed, particularly in botnets and the complexity and skill of the operations that created them. He picked the US after Christopher Kruegel, whom he knew by email, invited him to Santa Barbara for an internship. He liked it, so he stayed and did a PhD studying the way criminals use online services such as social networks

“Basically, the idea is that if you have an account that’s used by a cyber criminal it will be used differently than one used by a real person because they will have a different goal,” he says. “And so you can develop systems that learn about these differences and detect accounts that are misused.” Even if the attacker tries to make their behaviour closely resemble the user’s own, ultimately spreading malicious content isn’t something normal users intend to do, and the difference is detectable.

This idea and Stringhini’s resulting PhD research led to his most significant papers to date.

Continue reading Gianluca Stringhini – Cyber criminal operations and developing systems to defend against them