The Risks Digest

The RISKS Digest

Forum on Risks to the Public in Computers and Related Systems

ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator

Volume 22 Issue 23

Friday 6 September 2002

Contents

Appeals court overturns own Web site ruling
Monty Solomon
Citibank e-mailing raises privacy concern
Monty Solomon
Greek government bans electronic games
Phil Pareas via Max
Background checks are more important than education
Adam Shostack
EDIS bulletin on power outages
Dave Stringer-Calvert
Infrastructure risks and Cyberterrorism
Fred Cohen
Re: Homeland Insecurity
Stephen Fairfax
Excellent quote about wireless security
Al Rizutto
Re: Warchalking the Networks
Michael Cook
MS02-050: Certificate validation flaw could enable identity spoofing
Monty Solomon
Info on RISKS (comp.risks)

Appeals court overturns own Web site ruling

<Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>>
Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:24:49 -0400

A lawyer for online privacy-rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation
said a certain amount of inconvenience for police is often the price of
protecting privacy.  Heeding prosecutors' pleas, the federal appeals court
in San Francisco has overturned its own ruling that would have made it much
harder to peek at private Web sites.

The unusual reversal by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came after
federal and state prosecutors warned that the ruling would hamper
investigations of child molesters who recruit victims online.  In its
earlier ruling, the court said an airline's furtive entry into a pilot's
personal Web site, where criticism of the company was collected, was a
possible violation of the federal wiretap law. The 1986 version of that law
prohibits any unauthorized interception of an electronic communication.

[Bob Egelko, 28 Aug 2002, http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/19210.html]


Citibank e-mailing raises privacy concern

<Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>>
Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:43:58 -0400

In a move that has raised privacy concerns, Citibank used an outside company
to gather e-mail addresses of its credit-card customers and then sent
e-mails offering recipients access to sensitive financial data without
verifying each address actually belonged to the customer.  Citibank is
reviewing the program and said there is a roadblock in place to prevent
sensitive information from reaching the wrong people. Still, the matter,
which grew out of a pilot Citibank initiative seeking more effective
electronic communications with its customers, may raise questions about
whether federal regulation is needed to ensure consumers' online privacy is
protected.  ...  [Source: Messages sent to customers without address
verification, Yochi J. Dreazen, The Wall Street Journal, 3 Sep 2002]
  http://www.msnbc.com/news/802701.asp


Greek government bans electronic games

<Max <max7531@earthlink.net>>
Wed, 04 Sep 2002 17:28:39 -0700

Damn. I didn't believe this message from Phil Pareas at first. Should be an
interesting test of taking DMCA to the extreme. I just don't think that
making everyone a criminal is a good way to reduce crime. :) Max

> In Greece, use a Game Boy, go to jail
> By  Matt Loney and Rupert Goodwins
> Staff Writers, CNET News.com
> September 3, 2002, 11:18 AM PT

> In Greece, playing a shoot-'em-up video game could land you in jail.  The
> Greek government has banned all electronic games across the country,
> including those that run on home computers, on Game Boy-style portable
> consoles, and on mobile phones. Thousands of tourists in Greece are
> unknowingly facing heavy fines or long terms in prison for owning mobile
> phones or portable video games.  Greek Law Number 3037, enacted at the end
> of July, explicitly forbids electronic games with "electronic mechanisms
> and software" from public and private places, and people have already been
> fined tens of thousands of dollars for playing or owning games.  The law
> applies equally to visitors from abroad: "If you know these things are
> banned, you should not bring them in," said a commercial attaché at the
> Greek Embassy in London, who declined to give her name.  Internet cafes
> will be allowed to continue to operate, providing no games-playing takes
> place. If a customer is found to be running any sort of game, including
> online chess, the cafe owner will be fined and the place closed.  The
> Greek government introduced the law in an attempt to prevent illegal
> gambling. According to a report in the Greek newspaper Kathimerini, Greek
> police will be responsible for catching offenders, who will face fines of
> 5,000 to 75,000 euros (about $4,980 to $74,650) and imprisonment of one to
> 12 months. "The blanket ban was decided in February after the government
> admitted it was incapable of distinguishing innocuous video games from
> illegal gambling machines."  ...
>   http://news.com.com/2100-1040-956357.html?tag=dd.ne.dht.nl-hed.0


Background checks are more important than education

<Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>>
Sun, 1 Sep 2002 18:25:47 -0400

> Thousands of teachers will not be able to take classes at the start of the
> new term because character checks on them will not have been completed,
> the government has admitted.  [...]  Leicestershire was one of the first
> areas of the country to be affected by the vetting backlog as pupils
> returned to school last Thursday, with schools being told to turn away
> teachers who had not yet been checked.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/2229196.stm

The mind boggles.  Perhaps there's some reason to believe that Britain's
teachers have suddenly become a particularly questionable lot.  That it is
both worth spending money on checking into their backgrounds and keeping
them out of classrooms until that's done.  That keeping what I'd guess is
around 140,000 students away from class for a few days is a good trade off.
Can someone enlighten me as to the particular threat?  (Also, I'm curious
how much the government is spending to keep teachers out of classrooms?)

(And there are proposals to do this for all 'critical infrastructure
workers' in the US: "I'm sorry, Mike can't remove the squirrel from the
transformer until his background check finishes.")


EDIS bulletin on power outages

<Dave Stringer-Calvert <dave_sc@csl.sri.com>>
Tue, 03 Sep 2002 16:26:21 -0700

It doesn't take a hacker to shut down the power grid, mother nature is
quite capable.  D_SC

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 16:18:46 -0700
>From: EDIS E-mail Service <edismail@incident.com>
Subject: [EDIS]  Law Enforcement Bulletin [Urgent: Statewide]

Emergency services personnel (law enforcement, fire, EMS and local OES)
throughout Southern California should be advised that the California
Independent System Operator, the entity that coordinates statewide flow of
electrical supply, has notified state OES there will be rotating blackouts
in Southern California with in the next hour due to damage to major power
lines from fires.  [...]

OES Sacramento/Director Dallas Jones/SM

[EDIS is operated by the Governor's Office of Emergency Services, State of
California. This e-mail relay service is offered by incident.com on a
non-commercial, subscription-only basis.  Because of the complexity of this
system and its dependence on other systems, we cannot be responsible for
delays or failures in forwarding or transmission.]

  [Upper-case only message lowered to avoid antispam tools.  PGN]


Infrastructure risks and Cyberterrorism (Re: Norloff, RISKS-22.22)

<Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>>
Sun, 1 Sep 2002 21:22:55 -0700 (PDT)

This is a rather complex issue, but one that can be understood in reasonably
straight forward terms.  At the risk of excessive length, I will proceed as
simply as I can...

1) My background: I did some of the initial risk assessments that led to the
PCCIP work, some studies as part of the PCCIP study, and some of the
subsequent studies - as well as doing work for many of the critical
infrastructure providers - some Y2K-related roll-up work on reporting out on
these issues, and on and on.

2) A reasonable view: My most reasoned view of the true situation is
primarily based on the work related to Y2K in which we considered the
potential for all IT failing in the worst possible ways.  The goal of much
of my effort was to assure that if IT went really bad, national and
large-volume human survival would not be impaired.  In essence, this has
more to do with what happens when it fails than whether it will fail.

  The disaster planning associated with critical infrastructures
  is, by all that I have seen, ADEQUATE TO PREVENT severe loss of
  life, serious national security losses, loss of overall military
  and governmental capability, and unrecoverable economic collapse.

This is not to say that large-scale events cannot happen and that they
cannot have large effect.  They can.  But the severity is not as horrific as
many would have others believe.  There are some pretty scary scenarios that
can be cooked up, and some of them can probably even be made to happen IF WE
POSTULATE a large enough and sophisticated enough attacker.  But from all I
can tell, there is no such attacker, and certainly there are none in the
ranks of terrorists I know about or in the ranks of nation states I am aware
of - the one exception being the US government itself.

3) SCADA systems in particular: Most SCADA systems are not directly
connected to the Internet, and many are not even indirectly connected to it,
but this does not mean that there is no risk associated with information
attack against these systems.  The real questions to ask, however, are not
whether some SCADA systems can be defeated and induced to cause serious
consequences - they can.  The more important question is how complex it
would be to coordinate these events across enough of these systems to induce
dire consequences that could not be mitigated without severe consequences.
This is a much harder thing to accomplish, it takes far more effort, better
intelligence, better coordination, and greater and more focussed resources
than typical terrorist groups have - even those with a few hundred million
dollars to focus on the effort.

Fred Cohen 1-925-454-0171 http://all.net/ Sandia Natl Labs 1-925-294-2087
The University of New Haven http://www.unhca.com/  fc@all.net
  [RISKS's default disclaimer specifically invoked here.]


Homeland Insecurity (RISKS-22.20 to 22)

<Stephen Fairfax <fairfax@mtechnology.net>>
Sat, 31 Aug 2002 13:18:55 -0400

Peter Ladkin charges that I made "bogus" claims (Homeland Insecurity, Risks
22.20, 22.21, 22.22) in a classic example of rejecting formal, quantitative
analysis because the sparse data make such work messy and inconvenient.  I
have encountered objections of this nature throughout my career and feel
compelled to respond.

The thrust of my comments is that formal thinking and quantitative
evaluations appear to be very rare in the introduction of new air transport
security measures.   Ladkin makes no mention of this point, but seizes on
my statement that

"Guns in the cockpit represent an independent layer that does not
  automatically fail when screens fail. While there is heated debate about
  the possibilities of negative consequences, a dispassionate analysis of
  the probabilities of both success and failure offers rather overwhelming
  evidence that on balance, armed pilots will reduce both the likelihood and
  consequences of hijacking attempts."

Without acknowledging the basic logic that adding an additional layer of
defense holds at least the possibility of improving the odds of success,
Ladkin characterizes this statement as "bogus" and "sound-bite
rhetoric."  (Aside: I used guns in the cockpit because of the current
debate on the issue, but the principle holds true for any defensive
measure.  The tone and ad hominem nature of Ladkin's arguments suggest that
I may have offended some deep-rooted beliefs about firearms in general. I
apologize for any inadvertent offense but stand by my argument.)

After a brief explanation of PRA and fault trees, Ladkin goes on to report
that the techniques get much more difficult when applied to software or
human negotiations.  I most heartily agree.  As one progresses from
hardware to software to "wetware," the complexity of the analysis
increases, data grows sparser and more difficult to collect, and the
sensitivity of the results to changes in input data increases.

Ladkin then makes the classic mistake of assuming that a large number of
events without failures constitutes "no data."  He writes "On hijackings in
the US, there is no data, none, for the last, oh, thirty years until
September 11 last year."  First, even if the implied statement that there
have been no US hijackings in 30 years is true, that does not constitute
"no data."  For example, one can ask "Is this record  more likely to be
attributable to the effectiveness of the present security measures, or does
it indicate that the rate of attempted hijacking is very low?"  If there
had been many attempted hijackings, but they had all been prevented, there
would still be no hijackings, but that hardly constitutes a lack of
data.  Careful study of the records would most likely reveal  that there
were very few attempts, and one would therefore conclude that it was
difficult to assess the efficacy of the current security measures based
solely on historic records.  (I am generally familiar with aviation safety
statistics, but I do not claim to have performed a full study of this
issue.) That does not prevent one from doing the assessment in other ways.

Ladkin does not justify excluding data from the rest of the planet.  This
week's Aviation Week and Space Technology includes a graph from a Boeing
Airplane Upset Recovery Training aid that shows 8 fatal accidents, with
several hundred fatalities, attributed to hijacking, in the period 1987-96.
This hardly constitutes "no data!" Furthermore, as Ladkin surely knows,
when data regarding failures is sparse, one searches for "close calls" and
other instances where failure was imminent but averted by corrective action
or even sheer luck. Indeed, as systems become more and more reliable,
failure data gets more and more sparse and therefore more valuable.

Lastly, as Ladkin should know, PRA techniques include methods to derive
estimates of failure and success probabilities from expert
opinion.  Experts often have relevant experience with the precursors to
failure even if they have not personally experienced the consequences of a
failure.  Experts also can assist in applying lessons from other fields to
the problem at hand.  For example, law enforcement and military personnel
should be able to produce credible, defensible estimates of the ability of
pilots, with some defined level of training, to defend the cockpit, with or
without a firearm, from hijackers for a given period of time.  The experts
need not be commercial airline pilots in order to apply the lessons of one
or two defenders against attackers approaching via a narrow
corridor.  What's more, the estimates derived from expert opinion can be
formally compared to historical data, however sparse, to determine the most
likely distribution of outcomes.  (One point I have ignored for the sake of
brevity is that PRA generally deals with  probability distributions rather
than simple failure rates.  Understanding what shapes the distribution is
just as important as estimating the magnitude.)

One of the tragedies of September 11 is that there was ample, publicly
available data to predict not only the method of attack, but the likely
targets.  Algerian terrorists hijacked Air France Flight 8969 during the
Christmas holidays in 1994. (see http://www.msnbc.com/news/635213.asp for a
recent summary of those events.)  Their plan was to crash a fully fueled
airliner into the Eiffel Tower.  The plan failed, in large part due to the
courage and resourcefulness of the crew, but also because the terrorists
were not trained to fly the aircraft.  The terrorists (who may have been
associated with Osama Bin Laden) learned from their mistakes; in the US the
FAA did not.

There were other warning signs, but I already RISK being PGN'ed.  The point
is that there was a well documented but unsuccessful attempt by Islamic
terrorists to attack a symbolic structure using commercial aircraft as a
flying bomb, nearly 7 years before September 11, 2001.  Years of inaction
by the FAA in the face of a new, very serious threat enabled the success of
the later attacks.

Ladkin goes on to demonstrate another pitfall of this admittedly difficult
type of analysis.  The unchallenged assumption is one of the most dangerous
mistakes in any field, as RISKS readers will surely appreciate.  Ladkin
asserts that "Dealing with hijacking is an almost pure negotiation
situation." It was precisely this incorrect assumption that resulted in the
FAA mandating that flight crews be trained to cooperate with the
terrorists.  In an era where well-publicized accounts of suicide bombers
successfully attacking civilians appeared on a weekly, sometimes daily
basis, the idea that one can negotiate with all hijackers is
ludicrous.  The unchallenged assumption prevented the people in charge of
security from asking obvious "what if" questions that should be an integral
part of any high-stakes policy decision.

Ladkin concludes with an assertion that my actions bring the entire field
of PRA into disrepute, citing scientific societies that no longer endorse
the exclusive use of these techniques in certain areas.  A careful reading
of my original comments will show no instance where I suggest that PRA
techniques are the ONLY ones that should be used.  On the contrary, I
lament the utter disregard for formal thinking, quantitative analysis, and
public review and discussion of the incredibly expensive measures being
forced on the American public in the name of security.  PRA is one of many
tools that could be used to improve this situation, but I would never
suggest that it is the only one, and I reject the charge that I have
somehow sullied the field with my observations.

Issues of security and safety in complex man/machine systems are certainly
difficult to analyze.  Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) continues to
be the number one cause of commercial airline fatalities despite decades of
effort.  This problem, like security, involves hardware, software, human
actions and errors, all in a complex, dynamic environment.  The fact that
it is difficult to analyze the problem does not obviate the need to do so,
nor does it relieve those who make policies from the responsibility to use
all available tools and techniques in arriving at decisions that literally
mean life and death for thousands.  PRA is one such technique, and I stand
by my recommendation that it be used in the analysis of airline security
systems design and operations.

Stephen Fairfax, President, MTechnology, Inc., 2 Central Street
Saxonville, MA 01701 1-508.788.6260 fairfax@mtechnology.net www.mtechnology.net

  [Mispelingz of Ladkin corrected in archive copy.  PGN]


Excellent quote about wireless security

<AlRizutto@cs.com>
Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:38:36 -0400

I found the following line about a wireless security book to be quite
interesting:

  Writing a book on wireless security is like writing a book on safe
  skydiving -- if you want the safety and security, just don't do it.

See http://www.unixreview.com/documents/s=7459/uni1030461766479/


Re: Warchalking the Networks (Leeson, RISKS-22.18)

<Michael Cook <MLCook@aJile.com>>
Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:20:02 -0500

Here's more than you probably want to know about "warchalking" wireless
networks.  Links to articles are included.  Plus, a variety of symbols and
their meanings.
  http://www.warchalking.org/

Michael L. Cook, Technical Staff, aJile Systems, Inc.  http://www.aJile.com/
MLCook@aJile.com   319-378-3946


MS02-050: Certificate validation flaw could enable identity spoofing

<Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>>
Thu, 5 Sep 2002 02:15:29 -0400

Title:     Certificate Validation Flaw Could Enable Identity Spoofing (Q328145)
Date:      September 04, 2002
Software:  Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office for Mac, Microsoft
           Internet Explorer for Mac, or Microsoft Outlook Express for Mac
Impact:    Identity spoofing.
Max Risk:  Critical
Bulletin:  MS02-050

Microsoft encourages customers to review the Security Bulletin at:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-050.asp .

Issue:

The IETF Profile of the X.509 certificate standard defines several optional
fields that can be included in a digital certificate. One of these is the
Basic Constraints field, which indicates the maximum allowable length of the
certificate's chain and whether the certificate is a Certificate Authority
or an end-entity certificate.  However, the APIs within CryptoAPI that
construct and validate certificate chains (CertGetCertificateChain(),
CertVerifyCertificateChainPolicy(), and WinVerifyTrust()) do not Check the
Basic Constraints field. The same flaw, unrelated to CryptoAPI, is also
present in several Microsoft products for Macintosh.

The vulnerability could enable an attacker who had a valid end-entity
certificate to issue a subordinate certificate that, although bogus, would
nevertheless pass validation. Because CryptoAPI is used by a wide range of
applications, this could enable a variety of identity spoofing
attacks. These are discussed in detail in the bulletin FAQ, but could
include:

 - Setting up a web site that poses as a different web site, and
   "proving" its identity by establishing an SSL session as the
   legitimate web site.

 - Sending e-mails signed using a digital certificate that
   purportedly belongs to a different user.

 - Spoofing certificate-based authentication systems to gain
   entry as a highly privileged user.

 - Digitally signing malware using an Authenticode certificate
   that claims to have been issued to a company users might trust.

Mitigating Factors:

Overall:

 - The user could always manually check a certificate chain, and
   might notice in the case of a spoofed chain that there was an
   unfamiliar intermediate CA.

 - Unless the attacker's digital certificate were issued by a CA
   in the user's trust list, the certificate would generate a
   warning when validated.

 - The attacker could only spoof certificates of the same type as
   the one he or she possessed. In the case where the attacker
   attempted an attack using a high-value certificate such as
   Authenticode certificates, this would necessitate obtaining
   a legitimate certificate of the same type - which could
   require the attacker to prove his or her identity or
   entitlement to the issuing CA.

Web Site Spoofing:

 - The vulnerability provides no way for the attacker to cause the
   user to visit the attacker's web site. The attacker would need
   to redirect the user to a site under the attacker's control
   using a method such as DNS poisoning. As discussed in the
   bulletin FAQ, this is extremely difficult to carry out in
   practice.

 - The vulnerability could not be used to extract information from
   the user's computer. The vulnerability could only be used by an
   attacker as a means of convincing a user that he or she has
   reached a trusted site, in the hope of persuading the user to
   voluntarily provide sensitive data.

E-mail Signing:

 - The "from" address on the spoofed mail would need to match the
   one specified in the certificate, giving rise to either of two
   scenarios if a recipient replied to the mail. In the case where
   the "from" and "reply-to" fields matched, replies would be sent
   to victim of the attack rather than the attacker. In the case
   where the fields didn't match, replies would obviously be
   addressed to someone other than ostensible sender. Either case
   could be a tip-off that an attack was underway.

Certificate-based Authentication:

 - In most cases where certificates are used for user
   authentication, additional information contained within the
   certificate is necessary to complete the authentication. The
   type and format of such data typically varies with every
   installation, and as a result significant insider information
   would likely be required for a successful attack.

Authenticode Spoofing:

 - To the best of Microsoft's knowledge, such an attack could not
   be carried out using any commercial CA's Authenticode
   certificates. These certificates contain policy information
   that causes the Basic Constraints field to be correctly
   evaluated, and none allow end-entity certificates to act as CAs.

 - Even if an attack were successfully carried out using an
   Authenticode certificate that had been issued by a corporate
   PKI, it wouldn't be possible to avoid warning messages, as trust
   in Authenticode is brokered on a per-certificate, not per-name,
   basis.

Risk Rating:

Microsoft Windows platforms:
 - Internet systems: Critical
 - Intranet systems: Critical
 - Client systems: Critical

Microsoft programs for Mac:
 - Internet systems: None
 - Intranet systems: None
 - Client systems: Moderate

Patch Availability:

 - A patch is available to fix this vulnerability for Windows NT
   4.0, Windows NT 4.0, Terminal Server Edition, Windows XP, and
   Windows XP 64 bit Edition.
   Please read the Security Bulletin at
   http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms02-050.asp
   for information on obtaining this patch.

[The information provided in the Microsoft knowledge base is provided "as
is" without warranty of any kind. Microsoft disclaims all warranties, either
express or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness
for a particular purpose.  In no event shall Microsoft Corporation or its
suppliers be liable for any damages whatsoever including direct, indirect,
incidental, consequential, loss of business profits or special damages, even
if Microsoft Corporation or its suppliers have been advised of the
possibility of such damages. Some states do not allow the exclusion or
limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages so the
foregoing limitation may not apply.]  [ALL-CAPS in this paragraph knocked
down to avoid antispam tools and annoyed readers.  PGN]

Please report problems with the web pages to the maintainer

Top