Security Ranch Security Ranch

February 12, 2026

My failed attempts at leaving YouTube

Filed under: Uncategorized — Ken @ 10:43 pm

Lately, I’ve wanted to reduce the time that I spend on a computer and staring at screens all day. Usually one of the first things that someone will try to quit is social media.

I am no different. I had all the social media accounts going all the way back to MySpace when it first came out. In fact that was all I had around the 2008/09 time frame. I remember actually signing up for Facebook when I was in Iraq since that is where everyone told me people were moving to. Next came Twitter and eventually the avalanche of all the other social media that came and went.

Today, I’ve deleted and restarted accounts multiple times. Sometimes I lost the credentials. Sometimes I lost access to email. But as it stands now. I really only have Facebook, which I hardly ever log on to, Twitter/X, and the dumpster fire that is LinkedIn. When I retire fully in a few more years I will shut the rest of the accounts down. And maybe even sooner.

When that time comes and I do retire I will create a new email and start migrating the accounts I want to keep to that new email. This is probably a good thing to do in general ever so often anyways to get rid of all the junk and spam that your email has been sold to. Kind of like scraping mud off your boot before you go into your house. But when I retire and post of couple of times on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn that I am retiring from work and the internet. If they want to stay in contact they can let me know and send me an email or I can send them one. Whoever wants to stay in contact I’ll keep in contact with.

So back to my failed attempts at leaving YouTube. First I installed the extension called ‘Unhook’. It actually works really well. Almost too well. But there are a ton of different settings you can toggle and adjust to where at it’s most restricted you can only see videos of the channels you are subscribed to. No video descriptions, no comments, etc.

That all works really well and has worked. My problem is that I haven’t installed it on all of the browsers that I use. I use three browsers. Brave, Chrome, and Edge. I dropped Firefox about a year ago after they started getting too woke and started shoving AI down everyone’s throats like Microsoft likes to do. Because I only installed that extension on my main browser I now often watch videos on the other browses because I can see them.

I’ll start off by just wanting to watch one video and before you know it an hour to two has gone by that I could have use to do a lot more of the things I want to do. Like catching up on the books I am trying to read. Learning to play an instrument. Whatever. Just not spend more time than I already do on the computer. So I’ll be installing that extension on the other browsers as well. The one problem that may pop up is that I also have a YouTube channel where I post videos weekly. So I may just have to use more than one profile on the Chrome browser where I usually do this work. One profile for my channel and one for regular use. I’ll let you know how things go.

Dumped Discord

Filed under: Uncategorized — Ken @ 10:14 pm

I just dumped the Discord app. If you haven’t heard Discord will start requiring users to scan their faces and provide ID just to use the site. Whether that is the stand alone app or the website. Here is the link to one of the articles.

Never mind that I have had an account for years. Maybe going back a decade. I was probably following about 15 to 20 channels. So I left all of the servers and deleted my discord account. It’s probably a good thing anyways. I spend too much time in front of a computer and screens in general anyways. I know you probably think you spend too much time on a computer but I also work as a information security analyst. So it’s probably double for me. If fact when I work from home I’m on the computer in the mornings with in about five minutes or so from waking up. When I go to the office maybe within an hour or so.

I’m not sure what the right solution is though. Its fair that they want to stop younger people from getting on sites or servers that have adult content. And its the law. But lets be honest. Besides maybe having your account banned no one really gets in trouble. We don’t enforce laws in this country equally anymore. If you don’t believe me let me know when someone in the US gets convicted for anything in the Epstein file dump.

So, to wrap this up. Discord…gone. I’ve also deleted my O365 or M365 account or whatever Microsoft calls it today. Same for OpenAI (aka chatgpt). I deleted it. I’ll write about that and the use of AI soon so stand by for that. Amazon Prime and Disney+ also gone. So for the Real Life Fake Wizard on YouTube there you go.

January 31, 2026

Changes coming for this blog

Filed under: Uncategorized — Ken @ 1:20 am

Just to let everyone know I do plan on making some changes soon on this blog. You don’t have to tell me. This blog is fuggly. Like really bad. But don’t worry. I agree and I take full responsibility. I do want to at least make it look better. Maybe add a wicket or two or whatever people call them these days. But changes are coming.

As far as monetizing goes. I would like this blog to at least break even with the hosting fees and everything. So I think I’ll add some donation links or something if anyone feels they have received any value from the blog.

I also want to have or create a policy page. Here is where I would put my policy down on where I stand on the whole AI thing. At least when it comes to my thoughts and opinions I won’t use AI. I don’t plan on using AI for any thumbnails or pictures either. I think the most AI I would use would be a spell checker. But that is about it. Back when I was in college writing all the time I did use Grammerly and I thought it did help me with writing with more of an active voice. And of course spelling. But, I’ve never had an AI tool completely write my papers. I’ve tried it. It was horrible. I spent more time rewriting my paper from what the AI tool tried to give me then when I just scraped the whole thing and started over.

I have considered maybe moving to something like Medium or Substack but honestly I’m getting tired of the subscriptions. I think I might be following or subscribed to around 50 channels or people on Substack. Medium I’m not sure. I haven’t even logged on in a long time.

But this whole subscription thing, especially for news articles that people link is even worse. On my Google News page I will see quite a few links to some of the news topics that I am interested in but as soon as I click on a link it just comes up to a sign up or subscription page. Just to let the world know. When I run into that I instantly block that page from my news feed. I don’t even care. If anything it saves me time.

Four or five years ago everyone was on Medium and it was basically the same. Then they started enshittificating the site. Today I don’t think nearly as many people use it as they did back then. Today its all about Substack. But don’t worry. Have not fear. Substack will get the enshittification treatment.

Another year down

Filed under: Uncategorized — Ken @ 12:21 am

So its been a year or so since my last post. I’m pretty bad at keeping this blog up to date with things going on. I’m a lot more active on the YouTube channel that I started last year. I’ve learned a lot about making videos. Mostly though I learned I am pretty bad at making the videos. Yeah some did well but over all not too good.

I grant that I am pretty bad. But I also can’t help but to feel jaded though when I see a channel that has several thousand subscribers and only a few short videos. Usually the person in the videos is a female. And yes, usually good to decent looking. But man it’d be nice to have the subscribers.

Either way I don’t think I am long for the YouTube world. Somehow I’ve had about four family members follow my channel. Not sure how they even found me. But I was surprised how much that has made me consider or at least reconsider what I post. Not that I was ever going to say anything bad or malicious about them. I don’t think I would have talked about them at all. That isn’t really the purpose of my channel. But still. It automatically makes me self sensor a bit.

I don’t really have too much of a problem figuring out what to make videos on. But now that I am making videos I am a lot more critical I guess you could say about everything I see in YouTube. I’ve started noticing the same patterns over and over again. The same video topics. Same styles. I can spot AI thumbnails from a mile away (I hate ai for content creation by the way). After a while I just start to think why bother at all.

I guess this would be similar to the phenomena of when you but a car you start to see that car everywhere even though you didn’t notice it before and the cars were always there. Kind of like that.

At least for now. I’ll keep chugging along and making the videos I do make. The goal is to make at least one video per week and to try new editing techniques every once in a while. Who knows. Maybe I’ll eventually get monetized.

On the career front I still work in cyber security. And I’ve decided that I am basically done with certifications. No, I don’t mind picking up a certification book and going thru it every once in a while. But I have decided to not participate in the certification industrial complex. I’m tired of dealing with CE credits. I’m tired of paying for a membership fee just to stay in an organization. If I was in my 20s I might still play the game. However, I am almost 50. I plan on retiring by the time I hit 55. Or at least that is the goal.

So there are my thoughts for now. Next time I might start blogging about my post military retirement and my for real for real retirement. Until then I’ll write to you later.

March 12, 2025

How to not mess up your life

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — Ken @ 10:53 pm

I’m not sure if I mentioned this in the last post but I created a YouTube channel that at first was going to be focused on early retirement. However, most of my post seem to revolve around the subject of risk management and resilience and since I am not actually retired, it is hard to produce ‘retired’ content.

You can find the channel here -> https://www.youtube.com/@kensearlyretirement

So I am likely to change the name of the channel to something along the lines of risk management or resilience.

One of the first posts I made was focused on younger people (teens- 20s) on what, in my opinion, they should do to get ahead in today’s job market. These are the three things

  1. Get a job or career with the earning potential that can provide the lifestyle expectations you want.
  2. Adopt minimalism or essentialism.
  3. Keep your freedom and independence.

Lets go thru these one at a time.

I admittedly spend a fair number of hours digging into YouTube and listening to peoples stories about being fired, laid off, and general miserable in a job that is sucking the life out of them. There are several common trends I see with a lot of these people. First, a lot of these people are working retail or food service jobs. Unless you are the manager or maybe assistant manager you are not going to be able to make enough money or have the benefits like healthcare or vacation days unless you are basically running these businesses. Nor are you going to get a full time job. Full time jobs like these were killed when the Affordable Care Act was passed requiring businesses to provide full time workers healthcare insurance. So now you have a large number of people that are having to get two or three jobs just to make ends meet.

Another common job type are the HR, payroll, or other administrative jobs. These are typically the first types of jobs to go when a company is facing financial difficulties. Or if the CEO has to shuffle things around to get their annual multi-million dollar bonuses.

I know that there have been layoffs for people like first responders, teachers, doctors, nurses, and tech workers but generally these are some of the last people to go because this starts cutting into the meat and bone of a company and cutting these people out will affect the bottom line.

But my advice is this. If you are young. Meaning in high school. Do your best to realistically figure out the lifestyle you want to live and reverse engineer your career from there. If you really do want to live the celebrity lifestyle you need to figure out what those people did to get there. You will, of course, need talent and passion. You will also need a lot of luck. But if the risk of not getting that lifestyle is greater then you risking other opportunities you need to thing about more realistic options.

The same goes for professional athletes and social media influencers.

Using the Hollywood example. Maybe there is a different type of job in that industry that can still pay the bills and have benefits but were you would also have a greater chance of getting that type of job.

So do something like that.

Another option is to be an entrepreneur and create your own company. There are a million ways to do this so I won’t get into the details there but working for yourself or creating your own company you will work the hardest. But the reward is greater. You won’t lay yourself off (hopefully). And you will be able to keep your independence. Which will bring us to the next thing you want to do to get ahead. I’ll talk about this one in the next post.

March 8, 2025

Wow, where has the time gone.

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — Ken @ 11:11 pm

It looks like it has been four years since my last post. And even then most of the posts were from the papers that I wrote when I was in college for information systems security.

So what has been going on since then?

  • Well the covid lockdowns stopped a few years ago. I still can’t believe everything that has happened since the lockdowns.
  • I’m still working at the same company I started at in April of 2020. I really like the company. I started off as an IT Analyst. Moved to DevOps. Then finally to the security department where I have been since I think around May of 2022. As far as security is concerned I do some interesting work. I lot of vulnerability management. Getting into network security. Some BEC and IR investigations. And I have gotten interested in malware analyst. So far no plans to move to a different company and from the looks of the economy and what is going on in the tech world that is probably a good thing for the next several years.
  • Mentally, I have set a retirement date no later than 10 years from now. So by 2035 I’ll be retired. If not sooner. There are several things that I need to get done before I retire such as paying of the mortgage, probably getting at least one new/newer car by then, continuing paying into the various retirement and brokerage accounts, and finally staying debt free. I sold the rental house from Jacksonville, NC. And with the money we made from that we pretty much paid off most of our debt. Except for the house.
  • My wife and I are a couple of steps closer to being empty nesters. If you didn’t know I have 4 adult children and at one point they all moved back in. The oldest (34) came to visit for a while. She had a remote job but got laid off while she was here. So she has been here ever since. Next child (29) quit her job because of a toxically bad boss. She moved in while she looked for a job and has since found one in a marketing agency that works with the government. Hopefully she will be able to keep her job with the new administration. One child (23) moved in with her fiancée while he is finishing his college degree in Forestry science. Again, hopefully he’ll be able to get a job with all of the reduction in force layoffs. Last child (20) will finish her nursing school before she is 21 and should be doing well once she gets a job. Currently, I have two dogs and a cat. The oldest child owns one dog and the cat. I had to put down our oldest dog last year and that was pretty rough. So now we only have one dog left. I think I am ready to be an empty nester but I am pretty sure my wife is going to have a harder time. But when the inevitable does happen we will have a pretty large house that is pretty empty. Not sure what we will do. We might sell it and either move out of the country or move somewhere that is going to be our forever home.
  • In the tech space I was studying for the CISSP exam but have pretty much gotten burnt out. I’m getting to the point where I don’t really want to play the credential games getting more certifications and degrees and having to maintain all of that. I already let the Sec+ expire. I have the CCNA cert and have already extended it once. I kind of want to keep that one and maybe eventually get the CISSP. But with me setting that 10 years clock on my retirement it kind of puts some things in perspective. As time goes on and I get closer to retirement the less I will end up caring about the credentials.
  • I’ve started a YouTube channel. The niche is based on early retirement but I probably need to change that because I am not retired. Most of the videos I have made I think are sort of related but most they are related to risk management but from a personal point of view. I’d like to help people become more resilient and less reliant on the government and your typical jobs. I think at lot of things are messed up and broken in the economy and people are going to have to start thinking outside of the box for income and expectations. The standard advice you get from a school counselor just isn’t going to cut it today. Advanced education is too expensive these days and unless you are going to be a doctor or maybe a lawyer it almost isn’t worth going to a major university these days. A good example is my youngest daughter going to school for her LVN license. She graduated from high school two years early. Took the GED and passed. Took college courses for the prerequisites for the LVN program and will be graduating while she is still 20. I think the average salary for a LVN where we live is about $50k per year depending on what you do and where you go. Not many 20 year old’s are making that much that I know of. And with no school debt I might add. I made too much money and I had to bank roll her education. If she went to a major university I wouldn’t have been able to do that and she would have student loans just like everyone else. Anyways, I got off track. I may end up changing the niche of my YouTube channel to something closer to this topic in the near future. I’m not getting a lot of views and basically no comments. I don’t think my videos are very good but you would think they would at least get some views if they were bad and no one wanted to watch them. So I am doing something wrong. Or at least not the best. Either video titles or thumbnails I think. I’m working on this and hopefully will be making progress in the near future.

Ok, I think that is enough of an update for now. This is getting to be a longer post than I wanted. My goal for this blog is to post at least weekly so I can justify spending the money keeping the blog open. Not sure how or if I can monetize this blog in any way but I would at least like to break even. I think I will also be redesigning the blog somehow. I might stay with the WordPress blog or might move to some static blog generator thing. We’ll see. But for now take care. I don’t know when the last time someone visited this blog but if you have any questions or comments leave ’em and I will answer back. Take care.

February 15, 2021

Navigating the Digital Landscape: Understanding and Defending against DDoS attacks

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — Ken @ 8:14 pm

Navigating the Digital Landscape: Understanding and Defending Against DDoS Attacks

In the ever-evolving realm of cyber threats, the past year has witnessed a surge in attacks on major U.S. corporations. From Target to Home Depot and JP Morgan, these incidents underscore the need for robust cybersecurity measures. The recent Sony cyber attack, starting as a DDoS assault and escalating into a ransomware nightmare, exemplifies the escalating threats faced by businesses.

The Surge of DDoS Attacks and Their Economic Impact

Over the past year, Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks have become a prevalent and cost-effective weapon in the digital arsenal, constituting 11.7% of reported attacks in November 2014. As online transactions proliferate, businesses face an increasing risk of disruption. Understanding the anatomy of DDoS attacks is crucial in fortifying digital defenses.

Unmasking DDoS: The Digital Assault Explained

At its core, a DDoS attack aims to deny access to networks or computers, rendering them unusable for legitimate users. Orchestrated by a botnet—a network of compromised computers—these attacks employ bots infected by malware, such as worms or viruses, acting as the foot soldiers in the digital theater.

The World of Malware: Worms, Viruses, and Trojan Horses in Focus

Worms and viruses, akin to digital parasites, infiltrate computers using various tactics. Viruses infect files and replicate, spreading through shared drives, USB devices, or email attachments. Trojan horse attacks disguise as legitimate programs, waiting to strike when executed, infecting unwitting systems.

Defending Against the Digital Onslaught: Tips for Users

For individuals, defending against becoming an unwitting bot involves using robust antivirus software regularly updated to fend off evolving threats. Vigilance in email interactions and cautiousness with attachments are crucial shields against infiltration. Recognizing the signs of a compromised computer—unexplained high CPU usage or unauthorized email activity—is paramount for personal cybersecurity.

Breaking Down DDoS: Crash and Flood Tactics Demystified

DDoS attacks fall into two main categories: Crash/Logic attacks and Flood attacks. Crash attacks exploit vulnerabilities in operating systems or configurations, attempting to bring the system down. Flood attacks inundate servers with meticulously designed requests, overwhelming their resources.

Layers of Assault: From ICMP to HTTPS in the DDoS Landscape

ICMP attacks at Layer 3 overload networks with erroneous messages, exploiting vulnerabilities to cripple systems. Smurf attacks amplify their impact by causing every device on a misconfigured network to repeat the attack. Reflective attacks, like a cyber echo, exponentially increase the number of packets sent to the target, further inundating the victim.

HTTP and HTTPS GET Flood attacks, operating at Layer 7 (Application), flood servers with file or picture requests, consuming resources. SYN Flood attacks, at Layer 5 (Session), exploit half-open connections, bogging down systems by never completing the three-way session synchronization.

Mitigating the Storm: Defense Strategies and the Economic Impacts

Mitigating DDoS attacks demands advanced strategies, often beyond the reach of the average user. For individuals, installing reputable antivirus software and keeping it updated, along with firewall activation on routers, form the first line of defense. Large corporations, however, must deploy custom-built firewalls, capable of thwarting attacks across multiple layers of the OSI and TCP/IP models.

The economic fallout from DDoS attacks is staggering, with network downtime costing an average of $22,000 per minute, soaring up to $100,000. Large e-commerce sites can face daily losses exceeding $30 million. The aftermath extends beyond financial loss to reputational damage, potential litigation, and regulatory fines.

Sony’s Catastrophe: Lessons from an Advanced Persistent Threat

The recent assault on Sony by the enigmatic Guardians of Peace exemplifies an advanced persistent threat. Hacking into Sony’s servers, stealing sensitive data, and holding it hostage for ransom showcased a level of sophistication and malicious intent that transcends typical DDoS attacks. The fallout, from leaked emails to reputational damage, underscores the severity of such orchestrated campaigns.

The Ongoing Battle: Building Resilience for the Future

As society becomes increasingly reliant on the internet, the frequency and sophistication of DDoS attacks are set to rise. Building resilience against these attacks becomes imperative, ensuring that businesses can weather the storm and continue operations even in the face of digital onslaughts.

In the evolving landscape of cyberspace, one thing is certain: the battle against DDoS attacks is not a matter of if, but when. Fortifying our defenses and implementing robust business continuity and disaster recovery plans will be essential in navigating the digital frontier, where the only constant is change.

What is Cyber Threat Intelligence

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — Ken @ 8:13 pm

What is Cyber Threat Intelligence

            When one thinks of intelligence, they usually think about the military and intelligence agencies like the CIA or the Marine Corps.  If it sounds militant, you are not too far off.  Cyber intelligence or Threat Intelligence uses some of the same methods and procedures to defend networks as the intelligence agencies use to defend our country.  The driver for the recent popularity of cyber threat intelligence is the increase in advanced persistent threats (APT).  APT can loosely be defined as a category of attacks where a group or person is specifically targeting business.  These attacks can combine different methods to gain access to a business’ networks.  “Script kiddies” or simple hacks are usually simple attacks to use a single method to do one or two things on a network.  Vandalizing a website or DoS’ing a network can fall in this category.

Today, threats from hackers on the internet are growing in complexity, scale, and number.  The defenses that we used to protect our computers and networks in the past usually started by countering an already existing threat.  The standard model for defending against cyber-attacks is the monitor and respond strategy.  This usually entails collecting as much information as possible from as many resources as possible to create best configurations as possible to beat the threat.  The problem with this strategy is that it is reactive.  By the time that the IT staff discover that their configurations were ineffective the attack has already happened.  Once the attack happens, an investigation will be conducted to come up with a new configuration or ACL that will hopefully stop that type of attack from occurring again.  That reactionary method of developing defenses is inadequate for networks today.  Developers and engineers just cannot keep up with the evolving threat coming from hackers.  Even using the standard risk analysis can fall short because it can only conduct assessments on known vulnerabilities.  How can you defend your networks against an attack that you have not seen yet?  The answer is cyber threat intelligence.

So, what is cyber threat intelligence?  To answer that we first have to define intelligence.  Intelligence can be defined as the product resulting from the collection, processing, integration, evaluation, analysis, and interpretation of available information concerning foreign nations, hostile or potentially hostile forces or elements, or areas of actual or potential operations (Joint Pub 2-0).  This definition works well, and with a little imagination, one can understand what cyber intelligence would be.  Foreign nations could be nation/state sponsors cyber-attacks.  Hostile forces or elements could be hackers.

In 2002, Donald Rumsfeld gave a Department of Defense (DoD) briefing introducing the concept of “knowns.”  There are essentially three types of “knowns” that you could have about something.  There are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.  (Rumsfeld 2002).  Known knows are things that we know that we know.  An example is what a cyber-attack is and how to defend against it.  There are known unknowns such as the assume breach concept.  We know that we are eventually going to get hacked, we just don’t know when or how.  Lastly, there are unknown unknowns.  These unknowns are where we do not know what types of attacks are out there and we do not know when or how they will happen.  A good example for this is zero day attacks.  We do not know what is an attack is or how and when it is going to happen.  Think back to most of the significant data breaches in the past.  Most of those attacks happened over the course of months, and the victims never knew that they were even hacked.  Cyber Threat Intelligence acts to move as many unknown unknowns into the known unknown’s category.  To do this, cyber threat intelligence fills the defense gap by analyzing and sharing information.

One way cyber threat intelligence attempts to solve the unknown unknowns by the exchange of information.  Thinking back to traditional intelligence agencies, the spies usually try to sneak around to find out information to give back to their country.  That country uses the information in a variety of ways, but mainly it is to clear the “fog of war” or unknown unknowns, to be able to make better decisions.  This analogy works the same way in the cyber world.  The problem to ask yourself in the realm of cyber security is who are my adversaries and what information do they likely want.  By asking this question, you can start to narrow down and focus your efforts.  Most businesses do not have an infinite amount of money and time to secure their networks.

When sharing information with other organizations, it is important to establish and maintain a consistent format.  By doing this, an organization can more easily find what they are looking for.  Different threat information types should be formatted in a way that makes it easy for a user to take action on.  There are five main data types.  These are Indicators, Tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs), Security Alerts, Threat intelligence reports, and Tool configurations (Johnson, 2016).

Two reasons why companies may choose not to share information are that they do not believe that they have any information that would be considered valuable to other businesses.  The second reason is that some firms do not want to assist or help their potential competition (Chismon, 2015).

Threat indicators or Indicators are technical data that can suggest an attack can happen or is already going on (Johnson, 2016).  These indications can be anything from known harmful or malicious IP addresses to suspicious URLs that can indicate malicious activity.  By sharing this type of information on Threat Intelligence clearing houses a company can help other business by sharing what they know.

TTPs are the actions that a hacker usually takes on a network (Johnson, 2016).  Tactics are the high-level behaviors that hackers take.  Techniques are the specific steps that hackers do on a network to gain unauthorized access.  An example of this is using Metasploit to drop malware onto a target.  Procedures are the actual steps used to conduct the attack.

Security Alerts are advisories or notifications about specific vulnerabilities, exploits, or other security concerns given by organizations to the general public (Johnson, 2016).  One of the first organizations to provide security alerts to the public is the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT).  This organization was created after the Morris Worm wreaked havoc on the internet in the US.  Other important organizations are the National Vulnerability Database (NVD), or Microsoft Security Bulletins from Technet.

Threat Intelligence reports are reports that inform about TTPs, hackers, or case studies of attacks that can help inform a company on to secure its networks (Johnson, 2016).

Lastly are tool configurations.  These are reports that contain the software or equipment setting used to defend against attacks or what the configurations were when an attack occurred (Johnson, 2016).  This report could also be used to instructing someone in how to use AV software or how to remove malware once a computer is infected.

In the United States, Marine Corps (USMC) information is shared all of the time about field exercises or project.  The lessons learned are put in reports that get published in the USMC’s Center for Lessons Learned website.  These lessons provide anyone who is interested in what went right or wrong for different events.  The same applies to information sharing for cybersecurity.  When companies exchange information with other businesses, there is a shared awareness among them.  This awareness is for events like DDoS attacks or the after effects from a Business Continuity point of view.  Situational awareness can be very valuable information for companies that have not had to deal with network outages to learn from.  Information sharing can also increase the security posture if companies pay attention.  Just like a rising tide raises all boats sharing information can improve security.

A report by the SANS Institute indicated that companies that used threat intelligence saw a 28% better context, accuracy and speed in monitoring and incident handling (Shackleford, 2015).  A 51% faster and more accurate detection and response and a 48% reduction in incidents thru early prevention due to Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) (Shackleford, 2015).  Unsurprisingly, the top user of CTI is the U.S. Government.  At the federal level, cooperation between the military and the government have cross-pollinated experience, and both groups have benefited.

One potential weakness with CTI is being overwhelmed with information and not knowing how to use and integrate it.  To help with the understanding several different formats and frameworks have been created to help in identifying the information and putting it in a readable form.  According to the SANS report, the most popular format is the Open Threat Exchange (OTX) with 51% of companies responding that they use that framework.  OTX has almost 26,000 users in 46 groups.  Each report in the OTX shows over 929,000 indicators from bad IP addresses to malicious URLs.  The OTX can be accessed by going to the Alienvault website.

Another popular framework is the Open Indicators of Compromise (OpenIOC) framework.  OpenIOC is a framework created by Mandiant that contains tools to edit and create Indicators of Compromise (IOC).  These indicators are the artifacts that are left behind by an attack.  Companies that use the framework can create an XML document that put these indicators in a logical format that can be used to adjust the configurations of firewalls, IDS/IPS, and other investigative tools.  The standard life cycle of creating IOCs begin with an initial lead or evidence.  This could come from a notification from law enforcement or from an anomaly that was detected by a network device.  After the initial discovery, IT personnel create the IOC from their existing evidence and the environment of the network.  Once the IOC is created, it is deployed to the network.  Deploying the IOC can cause changes to the networks ACLs, blacklisted URLs or IP addresses, or other signatures that can alter the IDS/IPSs.  After deploying the IOC on the network additional information and indicators can be included if anything new was discovered during the investigation.  When the new evidence is included in the IOC, the evidence can be further analyzed to refine, enhance, or create additional IOCs.

There are two ways that companies can begin to add CTI to their network security practices.  The first way is to build and grow an intelligence cell from scratch.  The benefits to companies creating their CTI cell are that they can stay at the leading edge of the security threats.  Because it takes some time to investigate and create intelligence after an attack, companies would likely alter their networks before finalizing any IOCs to publish.  One major drawback from creating a CTI cell are the cost.  Cost can be significant depending on the size and experience of the intelligence unit.  For most smaller businesses, this would be unrealistic despite the need.  An alternative to starting their CTI cell would be to subscribe to a managed security service that provides reports and intelligence.  This can be a more cost-effective way for small and medium companies to leverage the experience of a larger company.  FireEye, Dell SecureWorks, and Symantec are three companies that can provide managed CTI.  These businesses can all provide feeds of information that are constantly being updated.  The prices for this service can vary from $2000 to $3000 per month for a single feed to $100,000 for a 12-month subscription for 1 to 2500 computers (Tittel, 2015).  Companies that are thinking about either one of these options should conduct and risk assessment and analysis what the return on investment would be to make sure that the price is worth it.

In a large enterprise, cyber threat intelligence will usually fall in a Network Operations Center (NOC) or Security Operations Center (SOC).  These teams serve two different purposes, but sometimes they can be combined depending on the size and budget of the organization.  Larger organizations like government entities usually have separate teams because of the potential for a conflict of interest.  You would not want the same system administrators that are responsible for keeping the network running also responsible for auditing the logs for example.  Threat intelligence will normally fall within the SOC teams’ responsibility.  A SOC team can be responsible for tasks that include risk analysis, IDS/IPS analysis, and threat intelligence.  Because there are so many different threats in cyberspace and only so much money to go around risk analysis is the process of discovering all of the vulnerabilities that lie on a network and prioritizes them from the most severe to the least severe.  The budget should prioritize to reduce the most severe risks so that the business can get the most “bang for the buck” that they can.  If these risks are not prioritized correctly, the company could be wasting money trying to reduce a risk that would have no real impact on the security of their network.  This is where threat intelligence can help prioritize the risk.  By sharing information with others, each business can use the information about the controls that other companies took and analysis how their effects.  If the controls that were implemented were affected and there was a significant reduction in attacks, then that information could be used to help security the network.  If the controls were ineffective that company could still learn what controls were least efficient and find an alternative control.  Each time companies share information on attacks, controls, or investigations everyone can benefit from the shared knowledge.  By using threat, intelligence information sharing makes the risk analysis or effective and efficient.

As with business and the military, they both operate on three different levels.  The bottom level is the tactical level.  For IT roles, this level is responsible for monitoring the network and managing the users and upgrades and patches.  At this level, one of the problems is the number of tasks that need to be completed.  It is often difficult to test and manage patches while simultaneously scanning logs and ensuring that the normal users have access to their accounts.  CTI can help at this level by contributing to prioritize the efforts of the IT staff to make sure that their efforts will have the most benefit on the networks (Friedman, 2015).

The next level is the operational level and includes the incident response teams and the forensic teams.  A problem at this level is that it can be time-consuming and difficult to investigate and attack and to contain the damages of further breaches.  CTI can again help prioritize the efforts of the investigating staff and provide case studies and indicators that they can use to speed up their processes (Friedman, 2015).

The top level for businesses is the strategic level.  This is the level that the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) and other C-suite executives work at.  One of their problems with IT security is that they often lack a technical understanding of the issues and with that lack of understanding have a difficult time prioritizing funding for investment in new or expanded technologies and tools.  CTI can help these executives prioritized their money on the most likely threats and gave the company the most bang for their buck in stopping the most dangerous and likely attacks (Friedman, 2015).

The future is most likely pretty bright for Cyber Threat Intelligence.  It should begin to play an even larger role as Artificial Intelligence (AI), and machine learning starts to expand into more industries.  The usual methods of adding more hardware to the network are starting to have less of an impact in keeping the networks secure.  Cyber Threat Intelligence plays a role in filling the defense gap by sharing information and analyzing previous attacks to help prevent more attacks from occurring.

References

Shackleford, Dave.  (February 2015).  Who’s Using Cyberthreats Intelligence and How?  Retrieved from https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/analyst/who-039-s-cyberthreat-intelligence-how-35767

Lord, Nate.  (October 2016).  What is Threat Intelligence?  Finding the Right Threat Intelligence Sources for Your Organization.  Retrieved from https://digitalguardian.com/blog/what-threat-intelligence-finding-right-threat-intelligence-sources-your-organization

Rumsfeld, Donald.  (February 2002).  DoD News Briefing – Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers.  Retrieved from U.S. Department of Defense Web site: http://archive.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=2636

Department of Defense. (2013).  Joint Publication 2-0 Joint Intelligence.  Washington D.C. USDOD.

Johnson, Chris. Badger, Lee.  Walternire, David.  Snyder, Julie.  Skorupka, Clem.  (October 2016).  Guide to Cyber Threat Information Sharing.  Retrieved from http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-150.pdf

Shackleford, Dave.  (February 2015).  Who’s Using Cyberthreat Intelligence and How?.  Retrieved from https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/analyst/who-039-s-cyberthreat-intelligence-how-35767

Chismon, David.  Ruks, Martyn.  (2015).  Threat Intelligence:  Collecting, Analysing, Evaluating.    Retrieved from https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/content/files/protected_files/guidance_files/MWR_Threat_Intelligence_whitepaper-2015.pdf

Friedman, Jon. Bouchard, Mark.  (2015).  Definitive Guide to Cyber Threat Intelligence.  Retrieved from https://cryptome.org/2015/09/cti-guide.pdf

Tittel, Ed.  (April 2015).  Comparing the top threat intelligence services.  Retrieved from http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/feature/Comparing-the-top-threat-intelligence-services

Firewall: A small piece of the security puzzle.

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — Ken @ 8:10 pm

Firewalls: A Small Piece of the Security Puzzle

            The first firewalls were invented in the late 1980s as a reaction to the world’s first malware.  The infamous Morris Worm struck the internet on November 2, 1988, after Robert Morris release a program that tried to figure out the size of the web (Bortnik 2013).  The program contained a small error that ended up making it act like a worm and ultimately took down ten percent of the known internet at that time.  Later, two computer scientists released the first paper that would describe a packet filtering program that would later become known as a firewall.

What is known as first generation firewalls were simple programs that filtered packets by a set of rules that would either pass, drop, or reject packets based on those standards.  Passing the packets allowed the traffic to enter the network.  Dropping packets stopped packets from entering and rejected packets would send an error message back to the sender.  The rules allowed traffic based on protocols, ports, or the destination/source IP address.  These firewalls were “stateless” firewalls.  “Stateless” means that the firewalls inspected each packet individually without any regards to the stream of information coming from a connection.  So, if a connection was established between two networks and ten thousand packets were sent from one to another, ten thousand packets would be inspected.  This presented a problem that with the increasing size and complexity of the internet firewalls would have to be more powerful to inspect the increased traffic.  This lead to the creation of the “stateful” firewalls.

“Stateful” firewalls are known as second generations firewalls.  These firewalls could operate at Layer 3 and 4 of the OSI model and retain information about the state of the packets and determine if the packet is from an existing connection or if it was from a new connection.  This lead to more complex rules that allow the firewalls to be more efficient and effective.  It also allowed the firewalls to defend against several types of DoS attacks that were beginning at that time.

Third generation or Application Firewalls have been introduced since the early 1990s.  These firewalls are even smarter than their counterparts because the firewalls have knowledge of what applications use what protocols and ports.  For example, if I was using File Transport Protocol (FTP) on anything other then port 21 then the firewall could drop the connections unless I had a rule in place that said otherwise.  This is what makes the firewalls smarter and can help prevent even more attacks on the network.

Now, the Next Generation Firewall (NGFW), is the latest and greatest of firewall technology.  This is still a third-generation application level firewall, but the firewall can inspect packets at a deeper level than before.  This is where the firewalls start to become specialized to become Web Application Firewalls (WAF) or Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS).  In 2007, Palo Alto produced a white paper that stated the 80% of new attacks are attacking weaknesses in applications (Bouchard, 2007).

The strengths of a firewall lie in its ability to controls traffic coming into and out of the network.  This allows a business to allow or restrict exactly what they want going on to the next.  Users can be allowed certain permissions and privileges based on their job or locations.  This helps enforce a company’s network or security policy.  This, in turn, makes managing the network even easier and more secure.  Another strength is that the firewall has a single purpose.  This makes the program more user-friendly and efficient because it only has to do one thing and one thing well.  If a program had to be a firewall and program to create and manage user accounts, it would likely be less efficient at both.  That is why there are so many different types of programs that have a single purpose.  However, despite these tools companies are still getting hacked into.  In one FireEye study the networks that are supposed to be the most secure, government and military, were proven to have a breech score of 76% (Dunn 2015).  That is pretty bad.  This is due to many reasons, but for firewalls, they are not hack-proof.

Firewalls do have several weaknesses that have evolved over time.  With the first-generation firewalls, they were very straightforward and could only inspect packets based on the port, protocols, or the source/ destination.  This worked well but could not stop malicious network traffic that exploited the firewalls simplicity.  As an example, if someone wanted to send packets spoofing protocols or ports the packets would not be filtered and pass thru the firewall.  This is where the second-generation firewalls came in.  These firewalls filtered the packets based on the connection or session and remembered information about the connection.  This cut down on previous weaknesses, but these firewalls became targets of DoS attacked the fact that these firewalls could remember things about the state of the connections and would try to fill up the firewalls memory to overload it and make it fail.

Other weaknesses that firewalls have are things that have nothing really to do with the firewalls themselves.  One thing that firewalls cannot protect against is the insider threat. Users could give themselves greater access than what they need and be a threat to the network.  This could be a malicious user that wants to damage the network or the business or a user that is ignorant of the threats out on the internet.  Another weakness is that the firewall cannot protect against anything that has already passed thru it.  If malware gets passed thru into the network and causes damage, there is nothing that the firewall can do to fix the problem.  This mostly can take the form a malware that is sent via email.  A third weakness is the fact that firewalls cannot protect against networks that are poorly structured or configured improperly due to bad security policies (Laverty, n.d.).  Firewalls can only filter network traffic that passes thru it and only filters based on the rules that network administrators set.  Firewalls can be useless if the rules are configured to pass everything thru into the network.

To combat these weaknesses other tools and techniques must be used.  Intrusion Detection Systems are devices or software that analyses network traffic and look for known events or certain types of traffic.  Once it recognizes an event, a log message will be recorded.  Intrusion Prevention Systems work the same way but instead of only logging a message it can also react to block or take some other preprogrammed action.  Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) and Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS) are very similar in how they function.  In fact, some IDS can be changed to an IPS just by changing a drop down menu from Log to Log/Drop (Pack, 2013).  There are two broad types of IPS/IDS.  The first category is known as Network IDS or NIDS.  The second types are Host IDS or HIDS.  NIDS are devices that can be installed on the network.  They are usually positioned just behind the firewall so that any traffic that passes can get analyzed for certain signatures.  HIDS are software bases and run on individual computers or host that can monitor traffic coming and going from that computer only.

HIDS and NIDS work by detecting network traffic.  There are two main types of detection methods.  The first method is signature based.  Signature based HIDS/NIDS look for known signatures of malicious threats such as worms, virus, and Trojans.  This malware produces signatures in the way that the packets are sent across the network.  In fact, these signatures work the same way as anti-virus (AV) software.  AV software scans for known signatures of malware.

The second method of detection is anomaly-based detection.  Anomaly based detection is a little more complicated because it requires setting a baseline of network traffic that it can base its logic on.  So, for example, if there is only network traffic during the working hours from 8 am to 5 pm then any traffic occurring outside of those working hours would either get logged in in the case of IDSs or blocked in the case of IPSs.

Many businesses prefer IPSs for their networks for their ability to stop malicious traffic, but they do have some drawbacks that would be IDSs ideal.  Because IPSs can block traffic, they can sometimes block innocent traffic or traffic that has malformed packets.  This would be known as a “false positive” and can lead to frustration if the network traffic is essential.  Depending on the business and its security policies it may be preferable to have IDSs instead.  A good example of a company that might want an IDS over an IPS would be an online seller of goods.  If internet traffic cannot get to its website, because it gets blocked, the business loses money.

Another weakness the firewalls have that IDSs and IPSs also have trouble with attacks from within and social engineering attacks.  It is often said that the weakest link in the network is always the human.  Many of the largest attacks on businesses have come from the insider who wants to cause damage to the system or business or from social engineering attacks that come in the form of phishing email attempts or innocent phone calls.  In 2014, Sony was the target of a disgruntled employee that wreaked havoc on their networks and caused substantial damage both monetarily and reputation (Schneier 2014).  In the 2016 elections the Democratic National Convention (DNC) was compromised when one of their campaign leaders replied to a phishing email that asked him to reset his password   (Biddle 2016).  Extensive training must happen to train users that have computer access.  This can help prevent the easy attacks from happening, but the most advanced attacks are almost impossible to recognize due to the sophisticated nature of how the attacks are designed.  The advantage is always on the attacker’s side because the attacker has the time and the knowledge to put the attack together.  In one scenario, a penetration tester was trying to find a way to hack a high-ranking vice president of a company that did not have a large internet footprint.  What the pentester ended up doing was search the internet for any email addresses that the vice president used.  It turned out that the VP used his companies email account to register for a stamp collecting forum.  What the pentester did was create a story and a website about his grandfather passing away and wanting to sell the stamps.  He emailed the VP and told him the story and left the URL link in the email that leads to his website.  What the VP did not know was that there was hidden malware embedded in the website link that allowed him access to the VP’s account (Hadnagy 2010)

The third weakness that firewalls have are its inability to work on a poorly designed network.  The means that care and thought must be used while designing the network topology.  Often when businesses are expanding, they fail to properly scale their networks the account for the larger number or devices or host.  One way to design networks is to use the zero-trust model.  Traditionally, traffic that occurred within a network was considered trusted because it came from within.  So, if one host copied files from a server it never passed thru any firewalls or got filtered.  Now, with the increasing threat from insiders stealing a company’s Intellectual Property (IP) or a hacker that compromises a single computer, considerations must take place that can filter the traffic within the network.  This is how the zero-trust model came to be.  Forrestor Research working with NIST helped designed the concept of the zero trust model to help defend the threats that the traditional network designed prevent (Covington 2015).  This model uses network segmentation to work and assumes all traffic on the network is untrusted.  Least Privilege, and developing a strict access control list are what makes this model effective against the insider threat.  This also means that the network needs more firewall devices within the network itself.  Instead of traffic passing from one department to another without going thru a firewall, the departments should be segmented so that any network traffic that leaves that department will have to pass thru a firewall before it reaches its destination.

This paper covered the basics of firewall and explained many of the strengths and weaknesses.  It also covered the best ways to overcome those weaknesses so that the network stays more secure.  The threats to networks are always evolving and adapting and so the solutions to that threat must also evolve.  The days of just installing a simple firewall and calling it a day are long gone.  91% of companies report the firewall are still a major part of their networks (Chickowski 2016).  However, that report also acknowledges that 61% of businesses use other tools in addition to firewalls.  Now companies must consider the most sophisticated threat along with threats from the inside of their networks.  Coupled that with the increasing use of cloud computing and it becomes evident that smarter tools are needed (Cidon 2015).  The only way to mitigate those threats is to use all of the tools that are available, use smart network design, and develop a well-educated employee.

References

Laverty, Shea. (n.d.)  The Disadvantages of a Firewall.  Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-firewall-62932.html

Chickowski, Ericka.  (March 28, 2016). Like It Or Not, Firewalls Still Front And Center.  Retrieved from http://www.darkreading.com/perimeter/like-it-or-not-firewalls-still-front-and-center/d/d-id/1324866

Dunn, John E.  (January 13, 2015).  Traditional defenses not stopping breaches claims real-world FireEye study.  Retrieved from http://www.csoonline.com/article/2868054/data-protection/traditional-defences-not-stopping-breaches-claims-realworld-fireeye-study.html

Cidon, Asaf.  (June 10, 2015)  Why the Firewall is Increasingly Irrelevant.  Retrieved from http://www.darkreading.com/endpoint/why-the-firewall-is-increasingly-irrelevant/a/d-id/1320800

Bouchard, Mark.  (2007).  Next Generation Firewalls: Restoring Effectiveness Through Application Visibility and Control.  Retrieved from http://www.advantel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/next-generation-firewalls.pdf

Pack, Scott. (November 2013). Difference between IDS and IPS and Firewall.  [Msg 1].  Message posted to http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/44931/difference-between-ids-and-ips-and-firewall

Schneier, Bruce. (December 2014). Lessons from the Sony Hack.  Retrieved from https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/12/lessons_from_th_4.html

Covington, Robert.  (July 2015).  Throw out the trust, and verify everything.  Retrieved from http://www.computerworld.com/article/2944794/network-security/throw-out-the-trust-and-verify-everything.html

Biddle, Sam. (December 2016).  Here’s the Public Evidence Russia hacked the DNC – It is not enough.  Retrieved from https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/

Hadnagy, Christopher. (2010). Social Engineering: The Art of Human Hacking.  Indianapolis, Indiana. Wiley Publishing, Inc.

Bortnik, Sebastian. (November 2013).  Five interesting facts about the Morris Worm (for its 25th anniversary).  Retrieved from http://www.welivesecurity.com/2013/11/06/five-interesting-facts-about-the-morris-worm-for-its-25th-anniversary/

PCI DSS v3

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — Ken @ 8:09 pm

PCI DSS v3

            Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) is the credit card industries self regulated system of rules and regulations that provide for better information security.  The standard was created in September 2006 by the five major credit card brands; Visa, MasterCard, Discover Financial Services, JCB International, and American Express.  Prior to the creation of the first PCI DSS standard there was a need to get standard in place that all merchants could use to help them keep Personnel Identifiable Information (PII) secure.  Before it was more difficult to comply with requirements from the different credit card vendor because each vendor had their own standard and they did not match each other.  Because of this confusion the five major vendors created the Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council (PCI SSC).  The PCI SSC brought together all of the requirements from vendors and created the first standard known as PCI DSS v1 (What is PCI SSC).

A important note for the PCI DSS standard is that it was created by the credit card vendors and not necessarily an entity itself.  If you had questions or wanted to change something about the standard you could not change it from the PCI SSC.  You would have to go through one of the credit card vendors to get your questions answered because the Council is made up of the vendors and not a separate body (What is PCI SSC).

The purpose of this paper is to identify what the PCI DSS v3 standard is and if this is the right standard to have as an industry.  To begin we will discuss what is required to be compliant.

The basic frame work of the PCI DSS is six categories that are further subdivided into twelve basic requirements.  The figure below describes the basic overview of the standard.

  1. Install and maintain a firewall configuration to protect card holder data.  This is the first requirement of the PCI DSS.  The basic premise is to install a firewall onto your network that prevents any unauthorized users from gaining access to the network and also to allow all authorized users to have access to that same network.  A firewall must be installed and configured between all untrusted and trusted portions of the network.  Implicit to this is that a Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) must be established that allows the public to view a web server but be denied access to database servers that reside on the same network.  For an effective firewall an inventory of the entire network to include all nodes, protocols, and applications must be accounted for so that only the ports and protocols needed can be allowed on the network.  Care must also be taken to ensure that no PII data is stored between the DMZ on the web servers.  The overall goal is to keep unauthorized users from gaining access to the trusted networks where the PII data resides and to ensure no PII data is stored on untrusted networks (PCI DSS requirements)
  2. Do not use vendor supplied defaults for system passwords and other security parameters. This is a basic security function but unfortunately is often overlooked.  The basic sub-requirements are to change or remove all default passwords and account user names.  For example for administrative accounts the user name should not be “admin”.  Most of the default passwords and user names are all public information that is often easily discover but using the Internet.  Implicit to this requirement is to restrict servers to one role only.  If you have a web server it should only be a web server.  Not a web server and a database server.  The purpose of these steps are to reduce the attack surface of each server.  Care should also be taken to remove and features or applications that are not needed.  This also reduces the attack surface and follow the basic security principal of least privilege.  Using encrypted protocols is another requirement.  Instead of using FTP use SFTP or https for http.  This keeps the data in transit secure (PCI DSS requirements).
  3. Protect stored card holder data.  This requirement essentially protects card holder data at rest.  A robust Encryption Key Management System (EKMS) must be in place that manages encryption keys, how they are stored, how they are disposed of, enforcement of cryptoperiods.  Policies should be put in place to replace passwords for card holders and employee accounts when known data breeches occur or when encryption keys are weakened in any way.  Specific policies must be in place to decide what card holder data is stored, how long, and for what purpose.  If card holder data is not needed to verify the transaction or id then it should not be collected or stored.  The CVV code that is located on the back of most credit cards also must not be stored.  Following the principal of least privilege you should limit the number of employees that have access to card holder data or encryption keys.
  4. Encrypt transmissions of card holder data across open, public domains.  The use of encryption and secure protocols must be used with data in transit.  This is closely related to the second requirement but also includes the data that interacts with the Point of Sales (POS) terminals and the servers.   Secure protocols such as IPSec, TLS/SSL, and SSH must be used and only trusted certificates must be accepted.  This requirement includes all types of networks to include wireless.  Only WPA2 or WPA can be used.  WEP is prohibited because it is too easily broken with todays technology (PCI DSS requirements).
  5. Protect all systems against malware and regularly update anti-virus software    or programs.  Plan and policies must be put in place to regularly update and scan all servers, workstations, and POS systems for malware and viruses.  Anti-virus software must be able to identify, quarantine, and remove any malware that is identified.  IT departments must also monitor for new exploits and vulnerabilities that are discovered by security researches and anti-virus software vendors (PCI DSS requirements).  Depending on the size of your business it might be smart to run two or more different anti-virus application because each vendor uses a different virus definition database and they update the database at different times (Solomon 2011).
  6. Develop and maintain secure systems and applications.  Consistently monitoring software applications for updates and actually updating them will be known vulnerabilities to a minimum.  Also keeping your Operating System (OS) updated will reduce the number of known exploits from being used for an attack.  If custom software applications are used then they must be tested for any vulnerabilities.  Known best practices in software programming must be used to keep buffer overflow, cross-site scripting (XSS), error handling etc. at bay.  While programming and testing the testing data must be removed from the application to prevent the data from being used in an exploit.  At least annually known vulnerabilities must be patched to keep applications free from exploits n(PCI DSS requirements)
  7. Restrict access to card holder data by business need to know.  This is a basic security principal.  The principal of least privilege is the process of identifying what access employees or users need and only giving them the minimum access and permissions for them to do their job.  At the employment level all positions must have active roles, permissions, and access rights defined and documented.  Using Microsoft Windows Active Directory makes this process pretty easy.  You can also create profiles using the Group Policy Object (GPO) Management editor to create group permission and access rights depending on what the employee’s jobs are (Solomon 2011).   Periodically these rights must be audited and verified that they are correct and that excess rights were not issued.  If extra rights are given they must also be given an expirations date.  Access Control List (ACL) must be documented with the default setting on employee accounts set to deny.  This helps control the least privilege principal and makes the IT department have to grant permissions instead of having to specifically deny permissions (PCI DSS requirements).  A good practice for administrative accounts would also be to restrict privileged accounts from having access to the Internet and possibly email.  This would require all IT personnel to have two or more accounts but it would help improve the least privilege principal.  For example if an admin account is compromised by an attacker they would have all of the access rights granted to that admin employee.  If the admin account never had access to the Internet or email it would be more difficult to exploit (Solomon 2011).
  8. Identify and authenticate access to system components.  This requirement pertains mostly to employee.  For any employee accounts there needs to be an employee id issued.  This will allow for better audit tracking.  Policies must be put in place by the IT department to ensure employees use strong passwords.  In Windows this can be regulated by the GPO Management editor (Solomon 2011).  Security Policies must also be put in place to revoke any and all rights to employees that are terminated as soon as the decision is made to terminate them.  Other policies must control the number of unsuccessful attempts to access privileged area of the network or data with the account being locked out for a certain time period or by unlocking the account by IT staff.   For employees who work remotely two-factor authentication or better must be used to gain access to network resources.  For external vendors account must be set up specifically for them with the minimum number of permissions granted to allow them to do their job as vendors.  The vendor accounts should not have access rights to card holder data (PCI DSS requirements).
  9. Restrict physical access to card holder data.  This sets up requirements for the physical locations of where the servers that contain card holder data lie.  Despite all of the security policies or restrictions we put in place if an attacker gain physical access to a server they could install malware physically on the server or copy data from the server.  To prevent this servers and physical copies of card holders data must be physically secured from access by employees that are not authorized.  Servers must be secure by lock and key preferably in a server room or closet.  I remote camera or video camera must be installed at the access points with the goal of recording anyone who enters the room with the data being recorded and kept for at least three month unless restricted by local or state laws.  Network jacks in public area that connect to the network must be disconnected or turned off to restrict unused network ports from being used.  Physical access to Wireless Access Points (WAP) should be restricted from the public or located where the public can not gain physical access to them.  For vendor a easily identifiable way to recognize them must be developed to ensure employees know they have permission to be in non public areas.  When visitors check in their identities must be verified by calling the vendor and confirming who the employee is or verifying the vendors id through an id card or other credentials (PCI DSS requirements).  This is an important step to prevent attacks by social engineering (Hadnagy 2011).
  10. Track and monitor all access to network resources and card holder data.  This requirement sets up the requirements for auditing.  Minimum requirements for the data that the audits track are who accessed card holder data, who accesses audit logs, any access by employees with root or administrative access, unsuccessful login attempts, pausing stopping or changing audit logs, and who creates or deletes system logs.  Other audit logs must record  the user identification, Date and time, type of event, event origins, and success of failed attempts.  For auditing purposes all audits and events must use the same standard of time recording.  If the different audit logs all use different standards of time tracking the audit process will be more difficult if an attack occurs and you want to find out what happened.  Updating and verifying of accurate timing must use industry accepted methods.  Access to time data must be protected to prevent anyone from tampering with the time on the servers or workstations to prevent time discrepancies that would be auditing difficult.  Audit logs and trails must be prevented from being altered.  Often attacks will delete or change audit logs to hide evidence of their actions.  Audit logs must be reviewed daily to ensure they are working properly and that they are recording data correctly.  Any anomalies must be followed up to verify that there have not been any breeches or data or protocol (PCI DSS requirements).
  11. Regularly test security systems and processes.  WAP must be tested for there presents and whether or not the security protocols are working.  If guest accounts are presents the accounts must be tested to ensure that they have the proper access permissions given to them and that they are restricted from card holder data.  Network scans using Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer (MBSA) or Nessus must be used at least quarterly or as needed if the network infrastructure changes.  Procedures must be put in place for regular penetration testing using industry standards.  If during the penetration testing any exploitable vulnerabilities are found they must be fixed and verified that they are corrected with another test (PCI DSS requirements).
  12. Maintain a policy that addresses information security for all personnel.  This requirement focuses on employees and there knowledge of information security.  Regular and consistent training and education is essential for the security process to be effected.  Security policies must be established, published, maintained, and employees must be made aware of them. Employees should review and sign an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) prior to an employee account being created (Solomon 2011).  To reduce risk from an insider attack background checks should be required before employees gain account access to privilege card holder data (PCI DSS requirements).

These are the twelve requirements of PCI DSS.  They have not change since its exception but the sub requirement have change with each new version.  Individually, each requirement is a good idea and would enhance the overall security of any network.  These are  good basic security policies.  However there are some criticisms to the PCI DSS standard.   Common complaints are that it distracts from the IT departments job (Rothke 2009).  The counter to this argument is that when looked at individually and as a whole each requirement is a good idea and often considered a “best practice” for information security.  Another criticism is in the way that it is implemented.  Mathew J. Schwartz interviewed John P. Pironti the president of risk and information security for IP Architects and is quoted as saying:

“Security by compliance, doesn’t do a company any favors, especially because attackers can reverse-engineer the minimum security requirements dictated by a standard to look for holes in a company’s defense.” (A near scam)

Looking at the requirements of PCI DSS it would be easy to disagree with him.  For example the task of changing all of the default passwords.  Reverse-engineering passwords would be more difficult if left in default.  If the PCI DSS standards are only implemented in a check in the box fashion and never looked at again then it is easy to understand.  But even the PCI SSC website understands that the PCI DSS is only the basics for information security.  It was not meant to be the “be all, end all”  of data security.  These are minimum standards that will help companies from being held liable for data breeches and data loss.  Another complaint about the PCI DSS standard is that it is too costly to implement.  The counter to this argument is that there are four different levels of PCI DSS compliance.  Level 4 is 20,000 transactions or less per year.  Level 3 is for businesses that have anywhere from 20,000 to 1,000,000 transactions with any of the credit card vendors per year.  Level 2 is from 1,000,000 to 6,000,000 and Level 1 is 6,000,000 or more transactions per year.  Each level requires more actions then the previous and with that incurs more cost.  However, if a businesses has a security mindset and cares about customer data these actions wouldn’t be as expensive and would probably be implemented anyway (PCI DSS requirements)

Bruce Schneier, a popular security professional looks at regulation this way:

“Regulation–SOX, HIPAA, GLB, the credit-card industry’s PCI, the various  disclosure laws, the European Data Protection Act, whatever–has been the best stick the industry has found to beat companies over the head with. And it works. Regulation forces companies to take security more seriously, and sells more products and services.” (Schneier 2008)

Industry self-regulation works and is much more advantageous then government regulations.  The changes that can be made will be quicker to implement in order to keep up with the changing security environment.  If any changes are made that effect the credit cards bottom line they can introduce new changes or go back to older standards.  If companies choose not to comply with the PCI SSC standards they could choose not to accept credit cards and accept cash only.  However more and more companies are doing business online and with that the need for industry standards are a must to protect card holder data.

In the podcast Wh1t3Rabbit the speakers make a good point in stating that “information security is a process not a product” (Jardine 2015).  Some of the criticisms come from thinking that if they pay a Qualified Security Assessor (QSA) to assess their business and help get them into compliance that everything will be OK and nothing bad will happen.  But this thinking is counter to the basic security process.  A first principal that should be considered during the security process is continuous improvement (Smith 2013).  Once a company become PCI compliant they shouldn’t stop the process until the next time they get assessed.  They should always be checking for improvements in how they operate and how they secure there data.

In conclusion the PCI DSS is the right process to keeping card holder data secure.  Implementing the twelve security requirement to bring a company into compliance will help that company from being held liable and getting sue by card holders.  This is also a credit card industry standard created by the credit card vendors.  If data and identities are stolen and that leads to money loss for customers the credit card vendors are the ones that have to deal with returning the stolen money to the card holders.  It is only right that if the credit card vendors are liable to their customer then they can require businesses to take certain steps to protect the data and their customers.

References

PCI Security Standards Council, LLC. (Nov 2013). PCI DSS Requirements and Security Assessment Procedures Version 3.0 Retrieved from https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/documents/PCI_DSS_v3.pdf

Jardine, Rafal. Santarcangelo, Michael. Man, Jeff. (January 5, 2015).  PCI DSS and Security (Yes, really).  Retrieved from http://podcast.wh1t3rabbit.net/dtsr-episode-124-pci-dss-and-security-yes-really

Klemic, Kane.  (2012).  Payment Card Industry Standards and the Sony Data Breach.  Retrieved from http://www.armaedfoundation.org/pdfs/Klemic_Payment_Card_industry_2012.pdf

Schneier, Bruce (2008)  Bruce Schneier reflect on a decade of security trends. https://www.schneier.com/news/archives/2008/01/bruce_schneier_refle.html

Smith, Richard E.  (2013).  Elementary Information Security.  Burlington, MA:  Jones & Bartlett Learning.

PCI Security Standards Council, LLC (n.d.).  What is the PCI Security Standards Council?.  Retrieved from https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/security_standards/role_of_pci_council.php

Solomon, Michael G. (2011).  Security Strategies in Windows Platforms and Applications.  Sudbury, MA:  Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Hadnagy, Chrisopher. (2011).  Social Engineering:  The Art of Human Hacking.  Indianapolis, IN:  Wiley Publishing, Inc.

Rothke, Ben.  (2009 Apr).   PCI Shrugged: Debunking Criticisms of PCI DSS.  Retrieved from http://www.csoonline.com/article/2123972/compliance/pci-shrugged–debunking-criticisms-of-pci-dss.html

No Author.  (2013 July).  “A near scam”-  Criticisms of the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard.  Retrieved from http://wemakewebsites.com/blog/a-near-scam-criticisms-of-the-payment-card-industry-data-security-standard

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress