Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Perimeter

6/24/2012
03:08 PM
Mike Rothman
Mike Rothman
Commentary
50%
50%

Patching Goes Up In Flames

The Flame malware throws the integrity of patching into question, which creates quite a quandary for those trained to patch early and often. This represents a significant inflection point for security -- or does it?

Everyone is talking about how Flame changed the game. The alleged precursor to Stuxnet broke Windows Update by undermining its cryptography in a truly novel way to pretend its installation was a legitimate update from Microsoft. You can check out the specifics of the attack in this great presentation by Alex Sotirov of Trail of Bits.

This is the kind of stuff that happens when guys who build atomic bombs are set loose on computer software.

But how the attackers actually broke Windows Update is beside the point. This not-so-simple attack now puts a critical anchor of your security operations into question. We've all been taught one of the key fundamentals of security is to patch early and often. You probably constantly remind the ops guys that the day after Patch Tuesday is Exploit Wednesday. You read the anecdotes from breach reports showing many successful breaches resulting from attacks on software where patches were already available (sometimes for months). When updates ship from key vendors, you trust them and you apply them. Right?

Even better, Flame was an ingenious attack vector because most of your traditional controls give a pass to patches/updates. Your HIPS and/or endpoint protection sees registry updates, system files, and configuration changes from patching processes, and allows them. That's what patching does, right? Yeah, that's also what malware does. The only difference is you trust updates you get from the trusted software vendor.

What happens when you can't trust the update? The patching emperor no longer has clothes. They were incinerated by the determined attackers with unparalleled resources. Now you start questioning your patching/updating process. And you should be questioning. As if your job wasn't hard enough, now you need to do malware analysis on signed updates from "trusted" vendors? Awesome.

Now to be clear, analyzing patches isn't a radical departure from the patching process Securosis defined a few years back. In that research, Rich Mogull laid out a 10-step process, and one of the steps was to test and approve the patch. Before Flame, that meant making sure it didn't break anything. Now it means you have to also check for malware-like characteristics in updates.

Or not. Let's be realistic that most organizations don't have the resources to keep up with all the patches in the first place. They are underfunded, under-resourced, and don't have the expertise to deal with simple malware available in the hundreds of kits out there (if you know where to look). They spend most of their time cleaning up the mess of frequent malware infections, so even if they were concerned about the undermined trust of a patching process, they don't have the resources to change anything.

On the flip side, organizations that have a detailed and careful updating process likely already do some level of analysis on the updates. These folks are probably the organizations targeted by sophisticated attackers using advanced attacks. They have in-house malware analysis capabilities, and it's just a matter of having those folks analyze the patches (like they do hundreds of other files a week). Sure, this adds another step in the patching process and maybe extends the patching window a few extra days, just to make sure the updates are legit. These organizations also implement workarounds (like IPS rules) to block new patch-oriented attacks until devices can be updated, anyway.

So does Flame really change the game? Not really. Organizations that have the resources now can add another step to their patching processes to protect against an attack vector unlikely to be used by the attackers you need to worry about anyway. In that way, security is like flying in the U.S. The TSA adds a bunch of ineffective controls to stop an attack vector that the bad guys won't use again. Rock on, security theater.

My bottom line is a bit more pragmatic. It's just a reminder that determined attackers will break your stuff. Like with the RSA attack targeting the tokens used by the real targets, nothing is out of bounds. Any controls you use can and will be gamed. And once again, it highlights the need to balance your defenses with extensive monitoring to shorten the window between when the breach happens and when you know it happened.

Mike Rothman is President of Securosis and author of The Pragmatic CSO Mike's bold perspectives and irreverent style are invaluable as companies determine effective strategies to grapple with the dynamic security threatscape. Mike specializes in the sexy aspects of security, like protecting networks and endpoints, security management, and ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Why Cyber-Risk Is a C-Suite Issue
Marc Wilczek, Digital Strategist & CIO Advisor,  11/12/2019
Unreasonable Security Best Practices vs. Good Risk Management
Jack Freund, Director, Risk Science at RiskLens,  11/13/2019
Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos
Ariel Zeitlin, Chief Technology Officer & Co-Founder, Guardicore,  11/13/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2011-2916
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-15
qtnx 0.9 stores non-custom SSH keys in a world-readable configuration file. If a user has a world-readable or world-executable home directory, another local system user could obtain the private key used to connect to remote NX sessions.
CVE-2019-12757
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-15
Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP), prior to 14.2 RU2 & 12.1 RU6 MP10 and Symantec Endpoint Protection Small Business Edition (SEP SBE) prior to 12.1 RU6 MP10d (12.1.7510.7002), may be susceptible to a privilege escalation vulnerability, which is a type of issue whereby an attacker may attempt t...
CVE-2019-12758
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-15
Symantec Endpoint Protection, prior to 14.2 RU2, may be susceptible to an unsigned code execution vulnerability, which may allow an individual to execute code without a resident proper digital signature.
CVE-2019-12759
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-15
Symantec Endpoint Protection Manager (SEPM) and Symantec Mail Security for MS Exchange (SMSMSE), prior to versions 14.2 RU2 and 7.5.x respectively, may be susceptible to a privilege escalation vulnerability, which is a type of issue whereby an attacker may attempt to compromise the software applicat...
CVE-2019-18372
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-15
Symantec Endpoint Protection, prior to 14.2 RU2, may be susceptible to a privilege escalation vulnerability, which is a type of issue whereby an attacker may attempt to compromise the software application to gain elevated access to resources that are normally protected from an application or user.