Category: Security

Brian Kelley found a great Wifi spot:

I’m at a conference, specifically a security conference. So I looked at the available WiFi connections. Among the conference and hotel specific connections and the MiFi and cellphone uplinks I spotted this one

My little Wifi hotspot has an SSID of Flowers By Irene.

Michael Schiebel has an introduction to the thought process behind security analytics:

Now, we’re getting somewhere.  Looking at this graph we see we have four high-level problems we are trying to solve.

1. (Unknown/Unknown) The first step in realizing that we have a problem is accepting that we may not have the answer.  We may not have the right mental or computational models; or even the right data to find bad things.

2. (Known/Unknown) We’ve invested time and energy brainstorming what could happen, sought out and collected the data we believe will help, and created mental and conceptual models that SHOULD detect/visualize these bad things.  Now, we need to hunt and seek to see if we’re right.

3. (Unknown/Known) We’ve been hunting and seeking for some time tuning and training our analytical models until they can automatically detect this new bad thing. Now we need to spend some time formalizing our response process to this new use case.

4. (Known/Known) Great, we’ve matured this use case to a point that we can trust our ability to detect; maybe even to the point of efficient rules/signatures.  We have mature response playbooks written for our SOC analysts to follow.  Now we can feel comfortable enough to design and implement an automated response for this use case.

I think his breakdown is correct, and also would reiterate that within any organization, all four zones come into play, meaning you have different teams of people working concurrently; you’ll never automate away all the problems.

Ben Davis has some advice on handling data breaches:

1. Work backwards
Jot down when you were first notified of the breach and start to retrace the events that led to you being notified. This may mean investigating logs on databases, firewalls, routers and everything else in between. It’s a massive job to sift through all of the log data trying to find that one event that led you to receive that dreaded call. Fortunately, the data analytics field has been used in recent years to speed up the investigative work by pulling together multiple log files and analyzing it for anomalies.

As a technical guy, the “hire a PR firm” part did not come to mind.

Erland Sommarskog has a fantastic article on the right (and wrong!) ways of doing stored procedure security:

Before I go on to the main body of this text, I would like to make a short digression about security in general.

Security is often in conflict with other interests in the programming trade. You have users screaming for a solution, and they want it now. At this point, they don’t really care about security, they just want to get their business done. But if you give them a solution that has a hole, and that hole is later exploited, you are the one that will be hung. So as a programmer you always need to have security in mind, and make sure that you play your part right

One common mistake in security is to think “we have this firewall/encryption/whatever, so we are safe”. I like to think of security of something that consists of a number of defence lines. Anyone who has worked with computer systems knows that there are a lot of changes in them, both in their configuration and in the program code. Your initial design may be sound and safe, but as the system evolves, there might suddenly be a security hole and a serious vulnerability in your system.

By having multiple lines of defence you can reduce the risk for this to happen. If a hole is opened, you can reduce the impact of what is possible to do through that hole. An integral part of this strategy is to never grant more permissions than is absolutely necessary. Exactly what this means in this context is something I shall return to.

This is a must-read for anyone interested in rights management in SQL Server.

Paul White digs into the WITH ENCRYPTION clause:

The core RC4 algorithm is well-known, and relatively simple. It would be better implemented in a .Net language for efficiency and performance reasons, but there is a T-SQL implementation below.

These two T-SQL functions implement the RC4 key-scheduling algorithm and pseudorandom number generator, and were originally written by SQL Server MVP Peter Larsson. I have a made some minor modifications to improve performance a little, and allow LOB-length binaries to be encoded and decoded. This part of the process could be replaced by any standard RC4 implementation.

Using WITH ENCRYPTION is a gentleman’s agreement that you won’t look at the underlying code.  In practice, it’s trivial to get around, and Paul shows exactly why.

Warner Chaves has a video on Azure SQL Database Threat Detection:

As I mentioned, right now the tool is more of a reactive tool as it only lets you know after it has detected the anomaly. In the future, I would love to see a preventive configuration where one can specify a policy to completely prevent suspicious SQL from running. Sure, there can always be false alarms, however, if all the application query patterns are known, this number should be very low. If the database is open to ad-hoc querying then a policy could allow to only prevent the queries or even shut down the database after several different alerts have been generated. The more flexible the configuration, the better, but in the end what I want to see is a move from alerting me to preventing the injection to begin with.

In the demo, I’m going to go through enabling Azure SQL threat detection, some basic injection patterns and what the alerts look like. Let’s check it out!

This looks interesting.  I’ll have to give it a try on a test database.

K Brian Kelley notes that SQL injection is still a viable security risk:

Keep in mind that from an architecture perspective, the primary place to stop SQL injection attacks is by validating the input when it comes in. If the input doesn’t match appropriate patterns, especially in the case of a banking application where the likely patterns for each input should be easily defined, you reject it at that level. It then doesn’t get appended or inserted into a text string which becomes the SQL statement to be executed against a database server.

If you don’t get it at this level, the ability to prevent the SQL injection attack gets much harder. Perhaps IDS/IPS can detect based on some text matches. We might be able to do the same thing within the database, say by using DML triggers. However, if the appended text generates queries that are basically what normally gets sent back, none of the back-end solutions are going to be very effective.

Pick your language and parameterize your queries.