Having travelled to Dublin the day before the training courses begin at OWASP AppSec Europe 2011, I have had time to catch up on some reading in my accommodation at Trinity College.

Alexander Neumann, Johannes Barnickel, Ulrike Meyer of the IT Security Group at RWTH Aachen University have published Security and Privacy Implications of URL Shortening Services. The paper includes a thorough review of related work and their own research into the security and privacy risks of URL shortening services (USS).

The risks discussed include:

• redirecting people to malicious web sites
• exposure of "secret URLs" (by search engine or enumeration)
• tracking by the USS provider
• information leakage (via HTTP referer header)
• use to attack web sites
• loss of shortened URL
• SSL-only circumvention

The paper is a useful reference for undertaking privacy impact assessments (PIAs) relating to the use of USS, or for designing similar systems.

On a related topic, Elke Roth-Mandutz from Georg Simon Ohm University, is discussing "A Critical Look at the Classification Schemes for Privacy Risks" at AppSec EU this Friday morning.

I will keep you updated with the talks I attend on Thursday and Friday.

On Sunday morning, I was intrigued to read on Web Application Security - From the Start about a security vulnerability supposedly found on the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) web site.

But it is apparently true, the short story on the BBC web site seemed to be confirmed in their interview with CEOP which was mentioned by @StewartRoom, @xklamation, @siliconglen, and received further coverage yesterday in IT Pro and IT Week. I wondered where this report came from and how the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) became involved so quickly. IT Week suggests a member of the public tested the CEOP site and then told them of the problem; presumably CEOP then reported it to the ICO.

Don't get me wrong, I think the ICO should investigate whether there has been a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, but some of the information released so far doesn't seem correct. The BBC story includes several statements supposedly attributed to CEOP's Chief Executive Peter Davies. But I cannot quite believe CEOP would say some of these things about a web form to report alleged offenders, so perhaps sadly there is some over-zealous PR going on, or misinterpretation by the BBC's journalist.

A later item on The Register Child protection Website Insecurity Fixed paints a slightly different picture, suggesting the form is, and always has been, using SSL only, but that there was a link to a non-SSL address which then redirected. I must say, I'm inclined to believe The Register's version more than the BBC. I think we have to leave it up to whoever is investigating to get to the true facts, but it does seem to be creating a link between personal data protection and the use of SSL.

It is perhaps not always clear to government agencies what administrative, physical and technical security practices should be implemented to protect a web site, and who makes the decisions. The government's Central Office of Information (COI) have never published any web standards and guidlines on security or privacy protection, perhaps feeling it is some other agency's responsibility (maybe CESG, CPNI or even the ICO?).

The security measures implemented for a web form like this ought to be similar to those defined in open standards, and common sense alone would tell you this is an obvious place for using appropriately designed HTTPS. Anyone auditing or verifying the security aspects would have made this clear in large red letters, but waiting until after being made live is incomprehensible too. Security and privacy need to be considered from early stages in every project, and built in to the final system. There are existing standards for that too.

But I am concerned about some statements which have been reported. If they are true, I am worried.

"All secure website carried the prefix https, compare[d] to http for insecure ones"

False. Using HTTP over SSL does contribute to the protection of a user's, or organisation's, data in transit and also gives some degree of identity assurance. There is even a campaign to increase adoption. But SSL is not the same thing as a web site being secure. A web site using SSL can still be vulnerable to attacks (e.g. SQL injection, cross-site scripting, cross site request forgery) leading to contamination with malware or data damage, loss and destruction.

SSL does not stop breaches of the Data Protection Act.

"It's been fixed now"

Really, that quickly? There's more to implementing SSL than just turning it on. Last year I mentioned some other concerns about CEOP and trust, but you cannot check or test a web site without authorisation. On Sunday, @siliconglen also asked why they CEOP were not using an extended verification (EV) SSL certificate. For many purposes I'm on record as saying EV certificates are not needed, but here I agree, I think an EV certificate should be used. And really, why not have the whole site SSL.

Of course, all organisations would do well to ensure that their SSL certificates are valid, applied appropriately to the applications and that SSL is configured securely, such as ensuring weak protocols and ciphers are not available. They should also think about whether any data can be cached locally on the web browser, whether other domains have access to the web page contents, and what exactly is done with the sensitive data once it is saved on the web site. How secure are the information systems and subsequent processes?

Fix and verify.

Conclusion

Other public and private sector organisations take note. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the ICO investigation and whether this incident leads to a change in attitude, or even sets a precedent for online data protection requirements.

SSL has its problems, see here, here and here, but it would be wrong not to implement it. After all we've been using it for over ten years to help protect credit card data in online shopping; information from children about possible offenders is an order of magnitude more important than payment card data.

I just hope some of the statements that appeared in the BBC article about SSL were misinterpreted, and don't become the accepted understanding. CEOP please set the record straight.

After arriving in Dublin last night, I walked to Trinity College this morning and had a little time for a coffee and to greet people I knew before we moved into the lecture theatre.

Following the welcome to OWASP Ireland 2010 by Eoin Keary, Fabio Cerullo & Rahim Jina of the OWASP Ireland Board, John Viega delivered a thought-provoking keynote speech on "Application Security in the Real World". John described real-world problems and approaches to application security need to prove their value. He described seven practices: awareness & training, assessments & audits, development & Q&A, vulnerability response, operational security, compliance and security metrics which, when applied appropriately can demonstrate a return on investment.

OWASP Board members Eoin Keary & Dinis Cruz provided an overview of OWASP's current status, its activities including many of its projects and of the global committees. They described how OWASP's mission "is to make application security VISIBLE for buyers and INVISIBLE for developers". Samy Kamkar was given a brief slot to describe how cross site scripting (XSS) can be used against user's routers to eventually gain the MAC address and ultimately a user's geolocation using Google data.

After a short break and opportunity to look at the sponsor booths, the conference split into two streams for the rest of the morning. Fred Donovan spoke on the topic of "Counter Intelligence as a Defense", describing how gathering information and taking approved action can help identify, assess and potentially neutralise threats to an organisation's ability to conduct business, and to enhance the protection of corporate assets and customer data. He also described sources of information including web application firewalls (WAFs), server logs, application logs, the media, list servers, MITRE, honeypots and from the source of the threat itself. some of the impediments and do's and dont's in this pro-active approach.

Ryan Berg gave a lively and fast-paced description on the "Path to a Secure Application". He described what isn't working, and the need to mitigate the damage that attackers can do, rather than assuming you can keep them outside your network, He provided numerous examples of how security can be built into to all stages of the software development process, but made the point that organisations should make efforts to improve their existing application development processes, rather than creating new ones.

Dan Cornell described how Android and iPhone smartphone applications are coded, deployed and, how and when the source code can be reverse engineered. He presented an example Android application and some tools to demonstrate how embedded URLs, file paths and host names can be extracted to help determine its workings. He recommended that, like other applications, smartphone applications should undergo threat modelling, care should be taken on what information is stored and where, and to be careful when consuming any third-party services, and ensure that enterprise web services are approved and deployed securely.

After lunch which was held in the beautiful Dining Hall of Trinity College Dublin, Professor Fred Piper (Royal Holloway College) presented the second keynote on "The changing face of cryptography". Prof Piper described that people do not need to attack algorithms when they can attack the implementation or cryptographic system instead. He provided an engaging and personable talk about algorithms, implementation weaknesses, real-life cryptography and the related political and social issues, clearly demonstrating his wide and deep knowledge.

Tyler Shields' presentation "Application Security Scoreboard in the Sky" described the results from Veracode's State of Software Security, which I have discussed before but is worth remembering as a good source of information when building business cases for secure development processes. The first volume had examined the differences between open source, commercial and out-sourced software. The second volume is due to be released in the next fortnight.

Rory Alsop & Rory McCune (co-chairs of OWASP Scotland) "The 'Real' Application Security Pentest." described why penetration test companies and purchasers of their services need to understand the requirements clearly and to make best use of the budget. They described that penetration testing is increasingly being used but there are inconsistencies in how it is undertaken and customers don't always receive what they want. The speakers described common myths and what buyers should do.

Vinay Bansal and Martin Nystrom jointly presented Cisco's experiences of "How to Defend Fragile Web Applications". Cisco know they are constant attack on their perimeter, but they have to concentrate their resources on defending DMZ & internal systems and minimising the damage from compromises. Cisco use architectural assessments, developer training, secure coding techniques, verification practices and more recently using web application firewalls (WAFs) in a reverse proxy mode using Apache httpd, ModSecurity and ModProxy. They described the problems and benefits of using WAFs in front of Cisco's tens of thousands of applications, and how they are trialling using the WAFs for virtual patching, where the applications cannot be modified.

The final keynote "Hackers and Hollywood: The Implications of the Popular Media Representation of Computer Hacking" was presented by Damian Gordon (School of Computing, Dublin Institute of Technology). Damian gave a light-hearted look at "Hackers and Hollywood: The Implications of the Popular Media Representation of Computer Hacking". He has researched whether or not movies accurately portray hackers and the implications of that portrayal, based on filtering 200 potential movies down to 50 clearly relating to computer hackers and not just cyberpunk, sci-fi or where hacking is only a peripheral activity. The conclusion? Movies are doing quite well but are missing out on some hacking features such as denial of service, phishing, organisation identuty theft and e-harassment of employees. Maybe next year?

Congratulations for a very successful and informative day to all the organisers, helpers and speakers. A little late, but off to the social event...

A few weeks ago I mentioned two new research papers about the use of passwords on website. Another new paper from Microsoft Research and Harvard University discusses how to avoid, and protect web sites from, users selecting popular passwords.

The paper Popularity is Everything: A New Approach to Protecting Passwords from Statistical-Guessing Attacks describes online and offline threats and defences against the sue of common popular passwords.

Password implementation policies can be guided by legacy approaches and various standards, but as mentioned previously, economics plays a large part too. Following a much publicised successful brute force against Twitter accounts, the company increased its password requirements. But rather than forcing passwords to be more complex, they instead took the decision to prevent the use of 370 common passwords. Whilst the list is culturally-biased, due to other breaches, there is similar data from other sites (e.g. here and here). But how does banning popular passwords help, and if the lists of common passwords are known, does this matter?

Firstly I'll mention here a couple of typical online tools for determining password complexity:

• Password meter providing an indication of complexity
• Hammer of God providing an estimate of how long it would take to obtain the password using a brute force attack

Don't put your real passwords into these sites or any other checkers! But these types of tools do not take into account popularity (e.g. '123456') or common manipulations (e.g. is 'P@ssword' really that much more secure than 'password'?). If attackers try popular passwords first (i.e. a dictionary attack), the time to break into a user's account may be much shorter.

The research paper, which does include some mathematics, suggests that simple passwords should be allowed providing they are not subject to statistical guessing attacks and proposes attack detection methods.

Good reading and inspiration for password-based authentication systems. I'm off to the station now, to get a train to Newcastle which was cancelled last night.

Two great papers on web site password security were published this month. We are swamped with passwords and every daily activity is increasingly linked with an online version, which requires users to register to obtain some additional benefits. Every organisation, resource, activity and event encourages us to visit their own website and sign-up.

Firstly, in Where Do [Password] Security Policies Come From?, Dinei Florêncio and Cormac Herley of Microsoft Research discuss the password policies of 75 different web sites, in an effort to determine password strength requirements with other aspects such as size of site, assets protected, number of users and frequency of attacks.

The authors' findings suggest that none of these are the key factors, and in fact some of the largest sites, most attacked and with higher-value assets have the weakest password policies. The authors suggest stronger policies exist where organisations are more insulated from the consequences of poor usability, whereas online retailers and sites that rely on advertising revenues have to compete rigorously for users and traffic. The paper also discusses how strong passwords need to be, and how this is affected also by what attack methods you are considering (e.g. online vs. offline brute-force), and whether other security controls are implemented (e.g. account lock-out).

This idea of considering the whole password environment is taken further in The Password Thicket: Technical and Market Failures in Human Authentication on the Web by Joseph Bonneau and Sören Preibusch at the Cambridge University Computing Laboratory, and presented at this year's Economics of Information Security (WEIS 2010). Their study included 150 web sites looking at password implementations. the study looked more broadly at the protective measures used— not just complexity requirements—but whether these were applied consistently across the site's functionality (e.g. registration/enrolment, log-in/authentication, password change, password reset/recovery, log-out), encryption during transmission, storage of passwords in clear text, inclusion of passwords in emails, as well as protection from brute-force attacks.

The authors found that stricter security in one area was often undermined by weaknesses in another, suggesting that a lack of standards is harming security. The paper also discusses economic interpretations, such as how deploying passwords might be being used to justify collection of marketing data, and how password insecurity can be a negative externality.

Sometimes when I'm out socially and people ask what I do, the conversation progresses to concerns about their own web site. They may have a hobby site, run a micro-business or be a manager or director of a small and medium-sized enterprise (SME)—there's all sorts of great entrepreneurial activity going on.

It is very common for SMEs not to have much time or budget for information security, and the available information can be poor or inappropriate (ISSA-UK, under the guidance of their Director of Research David Lacey, is trying to improve this). But what can SMEs do about their web presence—and it is very unusual not to have a web site, whatever the size of business.

Last week I was asked "Is using <company> okay for taking online payments?" and then "what else should I be doing?". Remember we are discussing protection of the SME's own web site, not protecting its employees from using other sites. If I had no information about the business or any existing web security issues, this is what I recommend checking and doing before anything else:

• Obtain regular backup copies of all data that changes (e.g. databases, logs, uploaded files) and store these securely somewhere other than the host servers. This may typically be daily, but the frequency should be selected based on how often data changes and how much data the SME might be prepared to lose in the event of total server failure.
  • check backup data can read and restored periodically
  • don't forget to securely delete data from old backups when they are no longer required
• Use a network firewall in front of the web site to limit public (unauthenticated user) access to those ports necessary to access the web site. If other services are required remotely, use the firewall to limit from where (e.g. IP addresses) these can be used.
  • keep a record of the firewall configuration up-to-date
  • limit who can make changes to the firewall
• Ensure the host servers are fully patched (e.g. operating system, services, applications and supporting code), check all providers for software updates regularly and allow time for installing these.
  • remove or disable all unnecessary services and other software
  • delete old, unused and backup files from the host servers
• Identify all accounts (log in credentials) that provide server access (not just normal web page access), such as used for transferring files, accessing administrative interfaces (e.g. CMS admin, database and server management/configuration control panels) and using remote desktop. Change the passwords. Keep a record of who has access and remove accounts that are no longer required and enable logging for all access using these accounts.
  • restrict what each account can do as much as possible
  • add restrictions to the use of these accounts (e.g. limit access by IP address, require written approval for use, keep account disabled by default)
• Check that every agreement with third parties that are required to operate the web site are in the organisation's own name. These may include the registration of domain names, SSL certificates, hosting contracts, monitoring services, data feeds, affiliate marketing agreements and service providers such as for address look-up, credit checks and making online payments.
  • ensure the third parties have the organisation's official contact details, and not those of an employee or of the site's developers
  • make note of any renewal dates
• Obtain a copy of everything required for the web site including scripts, static files, configuration settings, source code, account details and encryption keys. Keep this updated with changes as they are made.
  • verify who legally owns the source code, designs, database, photographs, etc.
  • check what other licences affect the web site (e.g. use of open source and proprietary software libraries, database use limitations).

Do what you can, when you can. Once those are done, then:

• Verify the web site and all its components (e.g. web widgets and other third party code/content) does not include common web application vulnerabilities that can be exploited by attackers (e.g. SQL injection, cross-site scripting).
  • use resources such as the OWASP Top Ten and WASC Threat Classification
  • build security requirements into future developments
• Check what obligations the organisation is under to protect business and other people's data such as the Data Protection Act, guidance from regulators, trade organisation rules, agreements with customers and other contracts (e.g. PCI DSS via the acquiring bank).
  • impose security standards and obligations on suppliers and partner organisations
  • keep an eye open for changes to business processes that affect data
• Document (even just some short notes) the steps to rebuild the web site somewhere else, and to transfer all the data and business processes to the new site.
  • include configuration details and information about third-party services required
  • think about what else will need to be done if the web site is unavailable (does it matter, if so what exactly is important?)
• Provide information to the web site's users how to help protect themselves and their data.
  • point them to relevant help such as from GetSafeOnline, CardWatch and Think U Know
  • provide easy methods for them to contact the organisation if they think there is a security or privacy problem
• Monitor web site usage behaviour (e.g. click-through rate, session duration, shopping cart abandonment rate, conversion rate), performance (e.g. uptime, response times) and reputation (e.g. malware, phishing, suspicious applications, malicious links) to gather trend data and identify unusual activity.
  • web server logs are a start, but customised logging is better
  • use reputable online tools (some of which are free) to help.

That's just the basics. So, what would be next for an SME? If the web site is a significant sales/engagement channel, the organisation has multiple web sites, is in a more regulated sector or one that is targetted particularly by criminals (e.g. gaming, betting and financial), takes payments or does other electronic commerce, allows users to add their own content or processes data for someone else, the above is just the start. Those SMEs probably need to be more proactive.

This helps to protect the SME's business information, but also helps to protect the web site users and their information. After all, the users are existing and potential customers, clients and citizens.

Oh, the best response I had to someone when I was explaining my work: "You're an anti-hacker than?". Well, I suppose so, but it's not quite how I'd describe it.

Any comments or suggestions?

A report on fraud in the UK has been published by the UK's collaborative fraud prevention service CIFAS.

The report highlights a shift to using the internet to assist fraud in the areas of identity fraud and bank account fraud.

A reduction is plastic card frauds is attributed to increased scrutiny of applications, lenders being more cautious and thus fewer cards being issued, increased checks around change of address and increased internet security measures such as 3D Secure.

Fraud can be an issue for all types of organisation, and should be taken into consideration when designing all web-enabled systems—not just those related to payments.

Figures for internet crime in the US were also released last week in the US Internet Crime Complaint Center's 2009 IC3 Annual Report.

Following on from Tuesday's topic of terms and conditions for interactive advertising, the US Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) has just released their 2009 compliance report.

The NAI is an association of 35 US advertising networks, data exchanges, and marketing analytics services providers including Advertising.com, Google and Yahoo.

The NAI Compliance Report 2009 discusses compliance by its members with its self-regulatory code of conduct governing the collection, use, and disclosure of data for online advertising services by its member companies (the NAI Code). The NAI Code has its own definition of personally identifiable information (PII) and sensitive information and its own protection principles. The NAI found its members to be broadly in compliance with the code, apart from ten members that did not disclose specific retention periods for data collected.

Whatever your views of behavioural advertising, industry initiatives like this to improve, and report on, standards are a welcome contribution. No doubt the code will evolve over time, but it is a good starting point. The code perhaps lacks requirements for measuring the accuracy of data or requiring ways for consumers to correct information about themselves, and it would be useful to know what checks are being undertaken as part of the audit. For example "Reasonable security is determined in light of several factors including, but not limited to, the sensitivity of the data, the nature of a company's business operations, the types of risks a company faces, and the reasonable protections available to a company" could be interpreted in a number of ways and some guidance on what is "reasonable" both from the organisation and individual's points of view would be welcome.

P.S. Happy new year.

It's common for access to some web sites to be restricted to users from particular Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. This is usually in addition to some other identification and authentication method. But other IP addresses are often added to this "allow list" and these should not necessarily be trusted in the same way.

In a typical scenario, a web site hosted on the internet that is used to administer another web application might be restricted to the company's own IP addresses. Then the developers say they need to check something on the live site, or another server needs to index the content, or someone wants to work from home for a while, or the site needs to be demonstrated at a client's location. All these additional IP addresses are added to the "allow list". These restrictions may be being applied at a network firewall, traffic management system, at the web server, in the application itself, in intrusion detection systems or in log analytical software, or in many of these. These are difficult to manage and in time there will be many IP addresses that no-one knows why they are allowed unless they are carefully documented, and subject to a fixed time limit when they are confirmed again by an appropriate person or removed. These extra addresses are quite often hard for someone else to guess.

However, there is another area where IP addresses are added to "allow lists", and this is for remote monitoring and testing services. These might be checking uptime, response times, content changes, HTML validation or security testing. The service providers publish the IP addresses of the source systems so that companies can specifically allow access to their web sites. Since the number of these services is relatively small, it's not too difficult to find which one might give access to areas of a web site or web application that the public (and malicious people) should not be able to get to. The particular danger here is that the IP addresses might be excluded from monitoring and logging, and therefore even a diligent web site manager might not realise for example the uptime monitoring service is making unusual, or excessive, requests.

Although it is not likely a malicious person is using this "trusted" address unless routing has been compromised as well, problems can go undetected, from what might seem to be a legitimate source. The IP address may have been typed incorrectly, or worse, the restrictions/exceptions may not have been implemented correctly allowing more addresses to have the privileged access than intended. Not logging a user's session is privileged access.

Allow traffic through, but be very specific what is allowed and monitor what's going on. Review all the exceptions periodically. Be especially careful about anything that bypasses authentication (such as allowing a search engine to crawl restricted-access content) on an otherwise public site.

A friend forwarded me a wine offer from his bank. But the email from his bank included additional information meant to verify the authenticity of the sender.

The bank included the last part of his postcode in the body of the message as well as his title and family name. If those were meant to be for verification purposes, why did it suggest he forward the email to someone else?

Yes, the forwarded email has all the verification details embedded in it. No, it's not the username and password, but it's everything someone would need to construct a phishing email that would be very hard to distinguish from a real one.

This has the feel of using a security measure as a marketing gimmick. Mixing marketing emails and those necessary for servicing a bank account is a difficult balance, but this is way off the mark.