<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title><![CDATA[[SecurityRatty] tag: wep]]></title>
    <link>http://www.securityratty.com/tag/wep</link>
    <description></description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2007 03:08:58 +0000</pubDate>
    <generator>iRatty Engine</generator>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[WPA encryption cracked..]]></title>
      <link>http://www.securityratty.com/article/9e224d968a1e2e6e9dc272abb6cf17c3</link>
      <guid>http://www.securityratty.com/article/9e224d968a1e2e6e9dc272abb6cf17c3</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Just read this about the &quot;more secure&quot; WPA encryption for Wi-Fi networks is now cracked. Read all about it here - apparently by the same guys who broke WEP (this is what hurt TJX). I guess the bar has...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[Just read this about the "more secure" WPA encryption for Wi-Fi networks is now cracked. Read all about it <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-10789_3-10083861-57.html">here </a>- apparently by the same guys who broke WEP (this is what hurt TJX). I guess the bar has been raised...<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/BitArmor1?a=vMOBN"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/BitArmor1?i=vMOBN" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/BitArmor1?a=m3NSn"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/BitArmor1?i=m3NSn" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/BitArmor1?a=SEXWN"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/BitArmor1?i=SEXWN" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BitArmor1/~4/444763409" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/wpa encryption">wpa encryption</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/wi-fi networks">wi-fi networks</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/apparently">apparently</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/bar">bar</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/tjx">tjx</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/wep">wep</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/secure">secure</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/guys">guys</category>
      <source url="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BitArmor1/~3/444763409/wpa-encryption-cracked.html">WPA encryption cracked..</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[15 Minutes To Crack Your WPA+TKIP]]></title>
      <link>http://www.securityratty.com/article/9cf9087dadb06dbed2c7eaaf52bce796</link>
      <guid>http://www.securityratty.com/article/9cf9087dadb06dbed2c7eaaf52bce796</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Gone in 900 Seconds, Some Crypto Issues with WPA is the tile of the presentation by Erik Tews scheduled for the sixth annual PacSec conference , November 12 and 13, 2008 at Aoyama Diamond Hall in...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<B>Gone in 900 Seconds, Some Crypto Issues with WPA</B> is the tile of the presentation by Erik Tews scheduled for <a href="https://pacsec.jp/">the sixth annual PacSec conference</a>, November 12 and 13, 2008 at Aoyama Diamond Hall in Tokyo, Japan.

I'm told that Tews is doing work on WPA+TKIP, a very common and trusted wireless security configuration. Sounds like he's found a way to crack it. This is, it seems, the same Erik Tews described in <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/15/wep_crack_interview/">this Register article from May, 2007</a>, about his new and speedier WEP crack, entitled "Gone in 120 seconds: cracking Wi-Fi security"... Hmmm. sounds familiar...
<p><a href="http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~a/yW6FNggbv27ZUlPOjIIbnUF30NA/a"><img src="http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~a/yW6FNggbv27ZUlPOjIIbnUF30NA/i" border="0" ismap="true"></img></a></p><img src="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/RSS/cheap_hack/~4/IG6Loj8hZjc" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 07:56:53 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/crack">crack</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/erik tews">erik tews</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/tews">tews</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/speedier wep crack">speedier wep crack</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/wireless security configuration">wireless security configuration</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/sounds familiar">sounds familiar</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/sounds">sounds</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/aoyama diamond hall">aoyama diamond hall</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/crypto issues">crypto issues</category>
      <source url="http://feeds.ziffdavisenterprise.com/~r/RSS/cheap_hack/~3/IG6Loj8hZjc/15_minutes_to_crack_your_wpatkip.html">15 Minutes To Crack Your WPA+TKIP</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Speaking of Security Podcast #126]]></title>
      <link>http://www.securityratty.com/article/c8facd4cb501769126c5a011ee14e2ff</link>
      <guid>http://www.securityratty.com/article/c8facd4cb501769126c5a011ee14e2ff</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Click to Download/Listen (07:52

At this week's RSA Conferece Europe we released a new survey to track wireless network security in London, Paris and New York. The survey shows strong growth in...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.rsa.com/blog/blog_entry.aspx?id=1375">Click to Download/Listen</a> (07:52)<br><br />At this week's RSA Conferece Europe we released a new survey to track wireless network security in London, Paris and New York. The survey shows strong growth in wireless access points, both corporate and personal, but reveals that many are protected by the now discredited WEP encryption. RSA VP, <a href="http://www.rsa.com/blog/blog.aspx?author=curry">Sam Curry</a> goes over the numbers in our latest podcast.<br />]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/rsa conferece europe">rsa conferece europe</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/rsa">rsa</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/wireless access">wireless access</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/sam curry">sam curry</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/wep encryption">wep encryption</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/strong growth">strong growth</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/survey">survey</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/podcast">podcast</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/week">week</category>
      <source url="http://www.rsa.com/blog/blog_entry.aspx?id=1375">Speaking of Security Podcast #126</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[PCI Bans WEP SecurityStarting 2010]]></title>
      <link>http://www.securityratty.com/article/5f38b99c3f2e614c14cdba03311ea183</link>
      <guid>http://www.securityratty.com/article/5f38b99c3f2e614c14cdba03311ea183</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Version 1.2 for the PCI Data Security Standard was released last week
One interesting outcome is that the insecure wireless WEP protocol will be banned but not until June 2010. Says Ars Technica...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Version 1.2 for the PCI Data Security Standard was released last week.</p>
<p>One interesting outcome is that the insecure wireless <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081003-credit-card-processors-finally-get-clue-will-ban-wep.html">WEP</a> protocol will be <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://wifinetnews.com/archives/008474.html">banned</a>&#8230;but not until June 2010. Says <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081003-credit-card-processors-finally-get-clue-will-ban-wep.html">Ars Technica</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Although TJX has become the poster-child for consumer data theft over WiFi, it is (by far) not the only company to use insecure wireless technologies. Wireless security manufacturer AirDefense released a report in late 2007 saying that a quarter of the 4,748 retail access points it surveyed across the US had no security whatsoever, while another quarter only used WEP, &#8220;one of the weakest protocols for wireless data encryption.&#8221; Just under half (49 percent) of the surveyed hotspots used WiFi Protected Access (WPA) or WPA 2—much stronger encryption protocols than WEP.</p></blockquote>
<p>If you&#8217;re wondering about what other impacts will have, you might want to read through the <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/security_standards/supporting_documents.shtml">PCI site</a> or sign up for the<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.secureworks.com/research/webcasts/20081014-gen-www"> SecureWorks webcast </a>on October 14th to learn more.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 05:38:19 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/wep">wep</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/insecure wireless technologies">insecure wireless technologies</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/wireless data encryption">wireless data encryption</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/access">access</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/retail access">retail access</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/consumer data theft">consumer data theft</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/secureworks webcast">secureworks webcast</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/quarter">quarter</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/security whatsoever">security whatsoever</category>
      <source url="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/itsecurity/~3/412950080/">PCI Bans WEP SecurityStarting 2010</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Run Through PCI DSS 1.2 Changes]]></title>
      <link>http://www.securityratty.com/article/ce0e02f57e234e1b64d186272da31186</link>
      <guid>http://www.securityratty.com/article/ce0e02f57e234e1b64d186272da31186</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Finally, I found time to read PCI DSS 1.2. change doc. So
Good news: router is now officially a firewall (it has been for a while, but many people are still stuck in &quot;security device&quot; vs &quot;network...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Finally, I found time to read PCI DSS 1.2. change doc. So:</p>  <ul>   <li>Good news: router is now officially a firewall (it has been for a while, but many people are still stuck in &quot;security device&quot; vs &quot;network device&quot; cloud) - see Req 1 </li>    <li>From the &quot;WTH dept&quot;: anti-virus is a MUST on <strong>ALL</strong> platforms - Req 5. Please ship me some of the stuff they are smoking; I want it! BTW, I am <a href="http://www.govcert.nl/symposium/index.html">going to Amsterdam soon</a> :-) </li>    <li>WAF or code review for web application security is still a stupid &quot;OR&quot; - Req 6.6. OMG, please, <a href="http://www.tssci-security.com/archives/2008/06/27/week-of-war-on-wafs-day-5-final-thoughts/">software security folks</a>, teach them the truth.</li>    <li>Can we kill &quot;plain text passwords&quot; once and for all? Req 8 tries to achieve that noble goal (good thing!) </li>    <li>Visit your offsite data storage - good (if costly) idea - added to Req 9. Requirements to secure electronic AND&#160; paper media&#160; are solid too.</li>    <li>Love it, love it! Req 10 explains that logs needs to be actually available: 'three months of audit trail history must be &#8220;<strong>immediately available for analysis</strong>&#8221; or <strong>quickly accessible'</strong> (bye-bye, silly log dumps...)</li>    <li>Some vulnerability stuff clarified in Req 11, mostly about ASVs and pentesting.</li>    <li>Scope of security policy is expanded to &quot;employee-facing technologies&quot; (what a term!) - Req 12</li>    <li>All over: more references to wireless&#160; (WEP, access points, hidden SSIDs, etc) - indeed, recent data losses are often due to insecure wireless.</li> </ul>  <p>Overall, a minor change that, sadly, doesn't touch a few KEY areas, such as virtualization, for one.</p>  <div class="blogger-post-footer">About me: http://www.chuvakin.org</div><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/AntonChuvakinPersonalBlog?a=oED2TK"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/AntonChuvakinPersonalBlog?i=oED2TK" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/AntonChuvakinPersonalBlog?a=pUb9XK"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/AntonChuvakinPersonalBlog?i=pUb9XK" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/AntonChuvakinPersonalBlog?a=bX5cGK"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/AntonChuvakinPersonalBlog?i=bX5cGK" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntonChuvakinPersonalBlog/~4/375460383" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 07:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/req">req</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/pci dss">pci dss</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/offsite data storage">offsite data storage</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/insecure wireless">insecure wireless</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/audit trail history">audit trail history</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/silly log dumps">silly log dumps</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/wireless">wireless</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/plain text passwords">plain text passwords</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/vulnerability stuff">vulnerability stuff</category>
      <source url="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntonChuvakinPersonalBlog/~3/375460383/run-through-pci-dss-12-changes.html">Run Through PCI DSS 1.2 Changes</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[iPhone 2.0 Software Adds 802.1X for Enterprises]]></title>
      <link>http://www.securityratty.com/article/3f84bfe0c234391eca261e2bbfb26e83</link>
      <guid>http://www.securityratty.com/article/3f84bfe0c234391eca261e2bbfb26e83</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Apple adds secure enterprise logins for iPhone: The iPhone 2.0 software, available through a download link for existing 2G iPhones today, adds promised support for the 802.1X port-based authentication...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Apple adds secure enterprise logins for iPhone:</strong> The iPhone 2.0 software, available through a download link for existing 2G iPhones today, adds promised support for the 802.1X port-based authentication required in any company that's even remotely serious about its network security. 802.1X isolates connecting to an access point from gaining access to the network to which the access point is connected. A special client, known as a supplicant, must provide the right credentials for a device to be approved for access. Cryptography binds the process. (Instructions for manually installing the software <a href="http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/07/how-to-get-the.html"><strong>are over at Wired</strong></a>. The update will likely be pushed out via iTunes to current owners tomorrow, and is included on the iPhone 3G, which goes on sale starting today over the international dateline and tomorrow in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere.)</p>

<p><img src="http://wifinetnews.com//images/2008/wpa_enterprise_iphone.jpg" alt="wpa_enterprise_iphone.jpg" border="0" width="160" height="240" align="right" /> Apple splits its 802.1X support into two pieces. There's basic support built into the iPhone 2.0 software, found in the Settings application's Wi-Fi section. Click Other. Click the None label next to Security, and the WPA Enterprise and WPA2Enterprise options appear. Select either, and the main login screen lets you enter the network's name (SSID), a user name, and a password. This basic method is limited to WPA Enterprise and WPA2 Enterprise, the two most common (and most secure) forms of 802.1X.</p>

<p>Most enterprises will want much more control over this process, and Apple provides the <a href="http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/"><strong>iPhone Configuration Utility</strong></a>, currently available in its most complete form only as a Mac OS X application, and in more limited forms as Web 2.0 applications for Windows and Mac OS X.</p>

<p>The utility serves two purposes: creating configuration profiles, including for multiple Wi-Fi networks and VPN connections; and allowing iPhones in an enterprise to run internally developed iPhone software. The Wi-Fi profiles allow you to create WEP or WPA/WPA2 802.1X configurations, and include support for choosing allowed EAP messaging types, configuring authentication elements associated with a given EAP type, and adding server certificates and names for better authentication control. </p>

<p><img src="http://wifinetnews.com//images/2008/iphone_wifi_prov_proto.jpg" alt="iphone_wifi_prov_proto.jpg" border="0" width="406" height="437" style="border: 1px solid #030000;" /></p>

<p>Once created, these profiles can be distributed throughout a company via email or as a direct download to the iPhone via an intranet Web server. Apple chose not to encrypt them, which means that certain information that's not secured--such as the shared secret for certain VPN connections--could be disclosed to someone who had access to the profile or could download it off the local network. </p>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:51:30 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/software">software</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/iphone">iphone</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/iphone software">iphone software</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/enterprise">enterprise</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/wpa2 enterprise">wpa2 enterprise</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/wpa enterprise">wpa enterprise</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/iphone configuration utility">iphone configuration utility</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/network security">network security</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/network">network</category>
      <source url="http://wifinetnews.com/archives/008391.html">iPhone 2.0 Software Adds 802.1X for Enterprises</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[More on Application Security Metrics]]></title>
      <link>http://www.securityratty.com/article/3e4b88291d588b070f231c595572d743</link>
      <guid>http://www.securityratty.com/article/3e4b88291d588b070f231c595572d743</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Eric Bidstrup of Microsoft has a blog entry up titled &quot; How Secure is Secure ?&quot; In it he makes a number of points related, essentially, to measuring the security of software and what the appropriate...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[Eric Bidstrup of Microsoft has a blog entry up titled "<a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/sdl/archive/2008/05/08/how-secure-is-secure.aspx">How Secure is Secure</a>?"  In it he makes a number of points related, essentially, to measuring the security of software and what the appropriate metrics might be.<br /><br />I'd been asking the Microsoft guys for a while whether they had any decent metrics to break down the difference between:<br /><ul><li>Architectural/Design Defects</li><li>Implementation Defects</li></ul>I hadn't gotten good answers up to this point because measuring those internally during the development process is a constantly moving target.  If your testing methodology is always changing, then its hard to say whether you're seeing more or fewer defects of a given type than before, especially as a percentage.  That is, if you weren't catching a certain class of issue with the previous version of a static analysis tool but now you are, its hard to correlate the results to previous versions of the software.<br /><br />Eric says:<br /><blockquote>Microsoft has been releasing security bulletins since 1999. Based on some informal analysis that members of our organization have done, we believe well over 50% of *all* security bulletins have resulted from implementation vulnerabilities and by some estimates as high as 70-80%. (Some cases are questionable and we debate if they are truly “implementation issues” vs. “design issues” – hence this metric isn’t precise, but still useful). I have also heard similar ratios described in casual discussions with other software developers.</blockquote>In general I think you're likely to find this trend across the board.  Part of the reason though is that in general implementation defects are easier to find and exploit.  Exploiting input validation failures that result in buffer overflows is a lot easier than complicated business logic attacks, multi-step attacks against distributed systems, etc.<br /><br />We haven't answered whether there are more Architectural/Design defects or Implementation defects, but from an exploitability standpoint, its fairly clear that implementation defects are probably the first issues we want to fix.<br /><br />At the same time, we do need to balance that against the damage that can be done by an architectural flaw, and just how difficult they can be to fix, especially in deployed software.  Take as an example Lanman authentication.  Even if implemented without defects, the security design isn't nearly good enough to resist exploit.  Completely removing Lanman authentication from Windows and getting everyone switched over to it has taken an extremely long time in most businesses because of legacy deployment, etc.  So, as much as implementation defects are the ones generally exploited and that need patching, architectural defects can in some cases cause a lot more damage and be harder to address/remediate once discovered/exploited.<br /><br />Another defect to throw into this category would be something like WEP.  Standard WEP implementations aren't defect ridden.  They don't suffer from buffer overflows, race conditions, etc.  They suffer from fundamental design defects that can't be corrected without a fundamental rewrite.  The number of attacks resulting from WEP probably isn't known.  Even throwing out high profile cases such as TJ Maxx and Home Depot, I'm guessing the damage done is substantial.<br /><br />So far then things aren't looking good for using implementation defects as a measuring stick of how secure a piece of software is. Especially for widely deployed products that have a long lifetime and complicated architecture.<br /><br />Though I suppose I can come up counter-examples as well.  SQL-Slammer after all was a worm that exploited a buffer overflow in MS-SQL Server via a function that was open by default to the world.  It was one of the biggest worms ever (if not the biggest, I stopped paying attention years ago) and  it exploited an implementation defect, though one that was exploitable because it was part of the unauthenticated attack surface of the application - a design defect.<br /><br />All this really proves is that determining which of these types of defects to measure, prioritize, and fix is a tricky business and as always, you mileage may vary.<br /><br />As Eric clearly points out the threat landscape isn't static either.  So, what you think is a priority today might change tomorrow.  And, its different for different types of software.  The appropriate methodology for assessing and prioritizing defects for a desktop application is substantially different than that for a centrally hosted web application.  Differences related to exploitability, time-to-fix, etc.<br /><br />More on that in a post to follow.<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/SecurityRetentive/~4/286583249" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 16:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/defects">defects</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/fundamental design defects">fundamental design defects</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/fewer defects">fewer defects</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/architectural defects">architectural defects</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/implementation defects">implementation defects</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/security">security</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/application">application</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/security design">security design</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/software developers">software developers</category>
      <source url="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/SecurityRetentive/~3/286583249/more-on-application-security-metrics.html">More on Application Security Metrics</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[RSA Day 2: Wednesday with JJ & the Engima]]></title>
      <link>http://www.securityratty.com/article/3b6a2b76bdadf65037a7c7a51ded2473</link>
      <guid>http://www.securityratty.com/article/3b6a2b76bdadf65037a7c7a51ded2473</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[RSA Conference, San Francisco
Day 2: Wednesday, April 9th
I know, I know- its late- but better late than never, right
I really tried my best to take photos as much as possible. A quick note on the...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>RSA Conference, San Francisco<br />Day 2: Wednesday, April 9th</strong></p><p>I know, I know- it&#8217;s late- but better late than never, right?</p><p>I really tried my best to take photos as much as possible.&nbsp;A quick note on the photography- because of the size of the rooms, it didn&#8217;t make sense to have the flash on, unfortunately it slowed the shutter speed, making some images blurry (sorry). </p><p>So Day 2 already felt like day 5 somehow. I had flown in early to be a tourist for a day or so but caught up with partners and other event-goers early, making it an especially long week. Wednesday was an eventful day. I have a great&nbsp; <strong>Sins of Our Fathers</strong> session to share with you, a day with the <strong>Enigmas</strong>, and the <strong>Security Bloggers Party</strong>. </p><p><strong>The highlight of the day&#8217;s sessions had to be the</strong> <strong>&#8216;Sins of Our Fathers&#8217;</strong> breakout with an amazingly hilarious geek-filled panel including <a class="offsite-link-inline" href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/danhouser" target="_blank">Daniel Houser</a>, <a class="offsite-link-inline" href="http://www.cryptography.com/company/Benjamin-Jun.html" target="_blank">Ben Jun </a>and <a class="offsite-link-inline" href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/2/1bb/3b5" target="_blank">Hugh Thompson</a>. (Hugh unquestionably won the <em>Most Entertaining Geek Award</em> for the day). I was <a class="offsite-link-inline" href="http://tweetscan.com/index.php?s=SoOF&u=jjx&p=0" target="_blank">tweeting live</a> from the session and took some photos of the interactive polls they intertwined in the discussion. They drew some interesting correlations between current security issues, such as SQL injections an &#8216;previous sins&#8217;, likening it to&nbsp;phone whistling. There were random notes about the&nbsp;inherent security risk of&nbsp;mixing data and coding together. <a class="offsite-link-inline" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/42618430@N00/tags/soof/" target="_blank">View photos from session.</a></p><p><span class="full-image-float-right"><img style="width: 256px; height: 192px" alt="DSC01791.JPG" src="http://www.securityuncorked.com/storage/DSC01791.JPG?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1208144360449" /></span>Then they talked about using good technology in a way that made it vulnerable. Examples, the Enigma code machines from WWII. (It was&nbsp;actually broken by the known plain-text gathered from repetition in contact initiation, and the mis-use of one-time-pads). They drew the line from Enigma to WEP and other algorithms that were okay, but mis-implemented. </p><p>There were a variety of other anecdotes, accompanied by audience-wide snickers, snorts and laughter. One story of tape backups, encrypted, with the key dutifully stick-noted to the case. Another of the secretary who type-writered all the 5.25&#8221; floppies. The story of the unmanned Predator aircraft flying unattended for about 5 minutes during a PC reboot. They were all tied into the topic nicely, and the guys did an outstanding job interacting and playing off one another. </p><p>One a more serious note- well, sorta- Hugh showed a clip from his participation in the documentary &#8220;<a class="offsite-link-inline" href="http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/hackingdemocracy/" target="_blank">Hacking Democracy&#8221;</a> about the lack of security of electronic voting. </p><blockquote><p>Here was&nbsp;something amusing&#8230; Their crypto&nbsp;list of <br /><strong>If you hear&nbsp;any of these, RUN!</strong></p><ol><li><div>Cryptography is expensive. </div></li><li><div>We have this guy that&#8217;s reallllly smart&#8230;</div></li><li><div>Wired EQUIVALENT encryption&#8230; .&nbsp;</div></li><li><div>It&#8217;s &#8220;proprietary&#8221; security</div></li><li><div>It&#8217;s revolutionary NEW cryptography technology!</div></li><li><div>It uses DES- so its FIPS 140 compliant&nbsp;</div></li></ol></blockquote><blockquote><p><strong>Some of the sins from the session&#8230;</strong></p><ul><li><div>Engineering, Development &amp; Management sins </div></li><li><div>Using a good technology in a bad implementation</div></li><li><div>Lack of metrics to indicate misuse</div></li><li><div>Feature/mission creep - using item A for solution B</div></li><li><div>Not teaching people how to use security</div></li><li><div>Teaching them, but teaching bad habits </div></li><li><div>Normalization of deviancy </div></li></ul></blockquote><p>I&#8217;ve spent long enough on that, there&#8217;s plenty more to share, but that session was so good, I thought it deserved some special attention. I did stay for the <strong>Cyber Storm II</strong> Panel, but that left more than <em>&#8216;a little&#8217;</em> to be desired. I would have liked more anecdotal stories and a little more personality. The panel participants were knowledgeable, and I&#8217;m sure they were doing what they had been told, but it made for a very dry session, little content of interest, and much repetition. There&#8217;s a little <a class="offsite-link-inline" href="http://tweetscan.com/index.php?s=CSII&u=jjx" target="_blank">live Tweeting </a>from that session too. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Playing with the Enigma<span class="full-image-float-right"><img style="width: 256px; height: 192px" alt="DSC01797.JPG" src="http://www.securityuncorked.com/storage/DSC01797.JPG?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1208144122189" /></span></strong><br />At the Sins of Our Fathers sessions, I believe it was Ben that mentioned we had at our disposal not one- but TWO Enigma machines on the expo floor here are RSA. And BOTH were for our playing! They had it set so we could set the key and encode a message at the NSA booth, then take the encrypted message to the Cryptographic Research booth and use that Enigma to decypher the message. <em>HOLY COW!!!!!!</em> If their session hadn&#8217;t been so great I would have left right then. The only time I&#8217;ve seen these beautiful little pieces of crypto history, they&#8217;ve been fully encased in glass, and not for the touching. They actually let you set the rotors and punch the code in yourself so my buddy Eric and I ran right over to take full geek advantage of the situation.&nbsp;</p><p>YES, that&#8217;s me with an Enigma, and I have <a class="offsite-link-inline" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/42618430@N00/tags/enigma/" target="_blank">more photos </a>of the two Engimas.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>The big highlight of the evening? The Security Bloggers Party</strong> of course! You get a whole post just for this topic, so stay tuned for that. I didn&#8217;t take photos here, because I felt pretty sure someone would be walking around with a camera. I need to find @ajolly (Apneet Jolly) and see if he has any- he&#8217;s usually fully equipped with a very nice camera&#8230; </p><p># # #</p>
]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:35:30 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/security">security</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/inherent security risk">inherent security risk</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/day">day</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/security bloggers party">security bloggers party</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/dry session">dry session</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/session">session</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/enigma">enigma</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/enigma machines">enigma machines</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/fathers session">fathers session</category>
      <source url="http://www.securityuncorked.com/security-uncorked/2008/4/14/rsa-day-2-wednesday-with-jj-the-engima.html">RSA Day 2: Wednesday with JJ &amp; the Engima</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Wireless holes - protecting retailers from themselves]]></title>
      <link>http://www.securityratty.com/article/b7e524f98ab4413ca59cb746884d7fc7</link>
      <guid>http://www.securityratty.com/article/b7e524f98ab4413ca59cb746884d7fc7</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Interesting article in Network World on some of the holes many retailers have in their wireless infrastructure. Apparently, wireless security company AirDefense walked around New York City and ran...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/011508-retailer-wlan-security.html">Interesting article in Network World</a> on some of the holes many retailers have in their wireless infrastructure. Apparently, wireless security company <a href="http://www.airdefense.net/">AirDefense </a>walked around New York City and ran their analyzer against many small retailers.  They found that over a third did not have even basic and easily hacked WEP protection!<br /><br />According to the article:<br /><br /><em>"..access to the unprotected access points and unencrypted traffic -- spilled well beyond the walls of the store. Attackers could set up shop outside, snoop on the WLAN traffic, and collect MAC addresses and other data that could be used to hack deeper into the store’s net, servers and data. "</em><br /><br />Apparently the TJX scenario has not yet put feet to the fire for smaller retailers! Now, I agree that some technology solutions can be expensive - but surely, using inbuilt protection all wireless products come with can't be that hard?<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/BitArmor1?a=NY4jCoD"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/BitArmor1?i=NY4jCoD" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/BitArmor1?a=M8RSwld"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/BitArmor1?i=M8RSwld" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/BitArmor1?a=3QijbmD"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/BitArmor1?i=3QijbmD" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BitArmor1/~4/217731499" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/retailers">retailers</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/wlan traffic">wlan traffic</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/collect mac addresses">collect mac addresses</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/traffic">traffic</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/inbuilt protection">inbuilt protection</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/tjx scenario">tjx scenario</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/apparently">apparently</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/data">data</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/wireless infrastructure">wireless infrastructure</category>
      <source url="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BitArmor1/~3/217731499/wireless-holes-protecting-retailers.html">Wireless holes - protecting retailers from themselves</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Myth vs. reality: Wireless SSIDs]]></title>
      <link>http://www.securityratty.com/article/4a91fb214b08b79f9031eb1b8995f6ef</link>
      <guid>http://www.securityratty.com/article/4a91fb214b08b79f9031eb1b8995f6ef</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Do you ever wonder sometimes how it is that some ideas just won't die? Like the thought that not broadcasting your wireless network's SSID will somehow make you more secure? This is a myth that needs...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do you ever wonder sometimes how it is that some ideas just won't die? Like the thought that not broadcasting your wireless network's SSID will somehow make you more secure? This is a <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2005/11/SecurityWatch/" target="_blank">myth</a> that needs to be forcibly dragged out behind the woodshed, strangled until it wheezes its last labored breath, then shot several times for good measure.</p> <p>Folks, there are fundamental differences between names, which are public claims of identities, and authenticators, which are secrets used to prove identities, and I've <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/secmgmt/sm0206.mspx" target="_blank">written extensively about this before</a>. <strong>An SSID is a network name</strong>, <em>not</em> -- I repeat, <em>not</em> -- a password. A wireless network has an SSID to distinguish it from other wireless networks in the vicinity. <strong>The SSID was never designed to be hidden</strong>, and therefore won't provide your network with any kind of protection if you try to hide it. It's a violation of the <a href="http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/802.11.html" target="_blank">802.11 specification</a> to keep your SSID hidden; the 802.11i specification amendment (which defines WPA2, discussed later) even states that a computer can refuse to communicate with an access point that doesn't broadcast its SSID. And, even if you think your SSID is hidden, it really isn't. Let me explain.</p> <p>All 802.11 wireless networks, regardless of the kind of operating system or encryption you might use, also emit unencrypted frames at times. One kind of unencrypted frame is an <em>association frame.</em> This is what a client computer, or "supplicant" in the 802.11 protocol vernacular, emits when it wants to join a wireless network. Contained within the frame, in clear text of course (since the frame is unencrypted), is the SSID of the network the supplicant wants to join.</p> <p>Both Windows XP and Vista work best when your access points broadcast their SSIDs. XP really <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/811427" target="_blank">doesn't behave well at all</a> with nonbroadcasting SSIDs. Vista has some <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929661" target="_blank">added smarts to improve this</a> a bit. Normally, Vista continually sends probe requests for nonbroadcasting networks. These probes are similar to unencrypted 802.11 association frames, and will generate clear-text responses from the access points if a nonbroadcasting network is present. You can reduce, but not entirely eliminate, these probes by configuring the wireless client to probe only for automatically-connected nonbroadcasting networks.</p> <p>Both these behaviors make it very easy for an attacker to discover your SSID. The bad guy, perhaps a contractor or a guest in your facility, could run one of many wireless sniffer programs and simply capture the hundreds of association frames or probes that litter your air. No amount of "hiding" configured in your access points can prevent this kind of traffic interception.</p> <p>So there you have it, simple SSID discovery. The old axiom remains true: security by obscurity is no security at all. Hiding an SSID will not hide a wireless network, so ignore any such advice -- and it's amazing how often I continue to see this. By the way, <strong>also ignore any advice that says to use MAC address filtering</strong>. It's amazingly trivial to spoof the MAC address of an allowed supplicant -- simply sniff the traffic, look at the MAC addresses, and use the neat little <a href="http://www.klcconsulting.net/smac" target="_blank">SMAC utility</a> to change your MAC to one that's permitted.</p> <p><a href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb726942.aspx" target="_blank">Nonbroadcasting networks are not secure networks</a>. The right way to secure a wireless network is to use protocols that are designed specifically to address wireless network threats. If you're still using WEP, either static or dynamic, I encourage you to move to WPA2 as soon as possible. For those of you at home running XP and have kept it updated, or if you're running Vista, then, you simply need to <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/cableguy/cg0505.mspx" target="_blank">enable WPA2</a>. We've got some additional guidance for <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=269902e8-fc41-4eb1-9374-44612e64f0fb&amp;displaylang=en" target="_blank">home/small offices</a> and for enterprise networks <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=cdb639b3-010b-47e7-b234-a27cda291dad&amp;displaylang=en" target="_blank">with certificate services</a> or <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=60c5d0a1-9820-480e-aa38-63485eca8b9b&amp;displaylang=en" target="_blank">without</a>. If you have hardware that's more than two years old and you can't upgrade it, check to see whether it supports WPA (an interim specification released before WPA2 was ratified). Both WPA and WPA2 are built on sound cryptographic principles, they're proven in the field, and they'll keep the bad guys out -- even when you're broadcasting your SSID to the world.</p><img src="http://blogs.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=2181282" width="1" height="1">]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2007 03:08:58 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/simple ssid discovery">simple ssid discovery</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/network">network</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/ssid">ssid</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/wireless network">wireless network</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/networks">networks</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/enterprise networks">enterprise networks</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/wireless networks">wireless networks</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/mac">mac</category>
      <category domain="http://www.securityratty.com/tag/secure networks">secure networks</category>
      <source url="http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/2007/10/16/myth-vs-reality-wireless-ssids.aspx">Myth vs. reality: Wireless SSIDs</source>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
