Showing posts with label Protection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Protection. Show all posts

Monday, 20 May 2013

Attribution is Easy

Imagine two neighbours - let's call them Alice and Chuck - who aren't friends, but who regularly do business with each other.  Alice is an architect who designs wonderful houses, and Chuck is a carpenter who builds them.

One day Chuck tells Alice that he can't pay as much for her designs as he used to, as he's found another architect who can do them cheaper.  She's a bit dubious as it is a small town, but she lowers her rates a bit, and they keep working together.

Over the next few weeks, Alice is sure that there is someone looking over her back fence during the evenings, but she can't tell exactly who it is.  She doesn't do anything about it or tell anyone.

A few months go by, and Chuck says that he's been studying at night to become an architect, and that he doesn't need Alice any more.  She's shocked, it took her years to get her degree, and she knows that Chuck spends his nights at the pub.  Is it even possible?  How could this be?  Perhaps it's just his way of driving an even lower price.

Her worst fears are realised.  Not only is he building wonderful houses, they look exactly like her designs.

She confronts Chuck and tells her that she knows that he is stealing her designs, and that he's been looking over her back fence to copy them using a camera with a telephoto lens.  Of course he denies it!  But if she lowers her rates just a little more, then they can start doing business again.

This is an economic market working perfectly - if it is cheaper to steal the design than license it, economic theory drives theft, until the cost of theft is greater than the cost of licensing.

Alice can get all upset at Chuck, but she needs to realise that she has the control.  If she increases the protection of her designs by installing night vision cameras, building a higher fence, and situating her office somewhere with no windows, then she will be able to increase her prices again to cover the investment, and the relationship will continue as before.

Attribution is easy.  Doing something to protect your business is hard.

Phil Kernick Chief Technology Officer
@philkernick www.cqr.com
 

Monday, 22 April 2013

Why no-one gets SCADA security right

SCADA is an acronym for Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition.  That's a bit of a mouthful and unless you've studied Engineering it's not clear what it means, so here's a simple definition: SCADA is computer controlled physical processes.  The common examples given are power stations and water treatment plants, but it's much more than that.  Building management systems that control the temperature, lights and door locks: that's SCADA.  The production line at a large bakery that makes your bread: that's SCADA.  The baggage system at the airport that loses your bags: that's SCADA.  The traffic lights that annoy you on your drive to work: that's SCADA.

It's everywhere.  It's all around us.  And it's all implemented badly.  Maybe that's too strong - it's all implemented inappropriately for the threat model we have in 2013.

We have to set the way back machine to the 1980s to understand why we are in the mess we are today.

Traditionally SCADA systems were designed around reliability and safety.  Security was not a consideration.  This means that the way the engineers think of security is different.  In IT security we consider Confidentiality first, then Integrity and finally Availability.  This matches with our real world experience of security.  But in SCADA systems it's the other way around - Availability first, then Integrity, and finally Confidentiality a very distant third.

There are two very good reasons for this approach.

Firstly: Keeping SCADA systems running is like balancing a broom stick on your finger - you can do it, but it takes a lot of control, and if you stop thinking about it, the broom stick falls.  This is the fundamental reason that the dramatic scenes where the bad guy blows up a power station as shown in movies just can't happen.  If you mess up the control the power stations stops generating power, it doesn't explode.

Secondly: Every business that controls real world processes has a culture of safety: they have sign boards telling how many days since the last lost time injury, and are proud that the number keeps going up.  Anything that gets in the way of human safety is removed.  That's why control workstations don't have logins or passwords.  If something needs to be done for a safety reason, it can't be delayed by a forgotten password.

All of this made perfect sense in the 1980s when SCADA systems were hard wired analog computers, connected to nothing, staffed by a large number of well-trained engineers, and located in secure facilities at the plant.

That isn't true now.  Today SCADA systems are off-the-shelf IT equipment, connected to corporate networks over third party WAN solutions and sometimes the Internet, staffed by very few over-stressed Engineers, sometimes not located even in the same country.

So what happened in between?  Nothing.  Really.  SCADA systems have an expected life of about 30 years.  The analog computers were replaced by the first general purpose computers in the late 1980s, and they are only now being replaced again with today's technology.  They will be expected to run as deployed all the way to 2040.

I hope you've stocked up on candles.

Phil Kernick Chief Technology Officer
@philkernick www.cqr.com
 

Monday, 8 April 2013

Running with Scissors

There are things that we just shouldn't do - like running with scissors.  We can be told not to do them.  We can know intellectually not to do them.  But until we've stabbed ourselves or someone else it just doesn't sink in.

I've been seeing a lot of discussion recently on attack as pro-active defence - especially related to botnets.  The proponents make a good case that they are making everyone safer.  The opponents say that any unauthorised access - even to disable malware - is wrong and must not happen.  In both cases they have the implicit assumption that the people who own the computers that have been turned into bots are also victims.  I think it's time we addressed the elephant in the room.  We should adjust our thinking and stop thinking of them as victims and start thinking of them as part of the problem.

The only reason they have been turned into bots in the first place is that they haven't enabled even the most basic protections on their computer.  They are running with scissors.  They are stabbing people with the scissors.

We can no longer accept this.  Basic protections won't stop a determined attacker, but turning on automatic patching and running a free antivirus solution will stop most of them being owned most of the time.

It's time the software and operating system vendors made it impossible to turn off these sort of basic protections.  And it's time for society as the real victim of cybercrime demanded it.

Phil Kernick Chief Technology Officer
@philkernick www.cqr.com