Tag Archives | Security

New TSA Rules

Gizmodo has what’s supposedly Homeland Security’s revisions to TSA security rules in the wake of the failed terrorist attack on Christmas. They apply to international flights destined for the U.S., and I bring them up here mostly because they’re going to make it harder for international travelers to use tech: Access to carry-on luggage is banned for the last hour of flights, as are “personal belongings on the lap.” (It’s not clear to me what “on the lap” means–am I allowed to listen to music on my iPhone if I hold it a few inches above my lap, but not if it rests on it?)

The rules also seem to say that inflight entertainment and information services are now verboten, with the exception of canned movies and TV shows:

Disable aircraft-integrated passenger communications systems and services (phone, internet access services, live television programming, global positioning systems) prior to boarding and during all phases of flight.

Can someone explain to me (A) what we learned from the Christmas attack that we didn’t know beforehand that makes it appropriate to change the rules; and (B) why would-be terrorists won’t simply attempt their evil before the final hour of a flight?

11 comments

Facebook Trojan Brazen but Benign

This past weekend, a trojan mimicked Facebook’s native functionality and sent notifications on the user’s behalf. While Facebook says that the application was harmless, its ability to break through a boundary of trust on the platform alarmed me.

Continue Reading →

2 comments

Twitter Hacked

Twitter’s home page was replaced this evening by a message claiming to be the work of “the Iranian Cyber Army.” Then most of the site went down. At the moment, it seems to back up, but only sort of–I still can’t get into the status page and blog.  You gotta wonder whether Twitter’s doing everything it can to keep the site safe, and whether it’ll give us all the gory details on how this happened…

No comments

Cybercrooks use Amazon to Run Botnet

Robert McMillan of the IDG News Service is reporting that cyber criminals gained access to an Amazon Web Services (AWS) account, and used Amazon’s cloud infrastructure to manage and run its botnet. Expect more cloud-based attacks such as this one in the future.

The botnet was a Zeus bot (Zbot) variant. The Zeus trojan is a  program that criminals use to gather personal and financial data from its victims.

Hackers that create trojans such as Zeus are becoming increasingly organized and function like corporations, according to a security recent report published by Microsoft. That structure enables regular malware release schedules, and gives criminals the ability to exploit complex vulnerabilities in software–even as operating systems become more secure.

Law enforcement has made some progress toward shutting down the data centers that criminals use to host their infrastructure, but the crooks are seemingly one step ahead, and have now migrated to Web-based services. IDG reports that unnamed law enforcement officials have begun to worry that stolen credit cards could be used to purchase cloud computing services such as AWS.

That’s a given. I hope that cloud providers take action to discover malware on their server, and have the capacity to shut it down before serious damage can be done. They have a responsibility to do so.

No comments

Hey, Apple: Why Not Trust Your Most Trustworthy iPhone Developers?

Apple has the opportunity to fast track submissions from its iPhone App store development partners. Partners that follow best practices should be given the benefit of the doubt to accelerate the screening process.

Earlier today, my colleague Harry McCracken wrote about a BusinessWeek interview with Phil Schiller, Apple’s senior vice-president for worldwide product marketing concerning its App Store vetting process.

The gist of it is that Apple views itself as a retailer stocking its shelves with quality goods. It still needs to work on its vendor relations.

Schiller said that there are now over 100,000 applications in the App Store, and Apple is receiving over 10,000 submissions a week. Roughly 90% of the submissions that it rejects are simply buggy; the remaining 10% are “inappropriate” — containing malware, objectionable content, or are intended to help users break the law.

Apple believes that developers are happy about its “safety net,” and that may be true, but there have been very vocal exceptions. Facebook developer Joe Hewitt famously protested against the control Apple is exerting over its hardware, and argued that Apple is setting a “horrible precedent.”

However, the end result is that people trust the applications that they purchase in the App Store. That is an important part of the iPhone user experience. But Apple should give trusted developers more leeway — they make the App Store what it is. Apple needs their products.

I am reminded of the old Saturday Night Live sketch with Dan Aykroyd touting dangerous children’s toys such as “Johnny Switchblade,” “Bag O’ Glass,” and the “Chainsaw Bear.” It was hyperbole to the max. By Apple’s own omission, the vast majority (>90%) of developers are good partners that wouldn’t make disreputable apps, and they shouldn’t be treated as such.

My family owns a manufacturing business, and sells products that have International Organization for Standardization (ISO) approvals. ISO sets manufacturing standards, and audits the plants to guarantee that those standards are being met. Apple could do the same by outlining the best practices and tests that its developers should follow when they make software.

More transparency and partnership would go a long way. It is a huge disincentive to invest in the development of an app only to see it be rejected. Apple can be a better partner, and still protect the sanctity of its “shelves.”

9 comments

Art, Game or Trojan? Don’t Be the Judge!

loseloseThe folks at Symantec have looked right past the artistic intent behind Lose/Lose, a computer game that deletes your files every time you shoot an alien, because they’ve just classified the game as a Mac Trojan.

Lose/Lose is described by its creator as “a game with real life consequences.” It’s a standard space shooter in the spirit of Galaga, except that each alien is assigned to a file on your hard drive. Blast the alien, and the file is gone forever, for real. Getting hit by an alien crashes the game, never to be played again. Here’s what creator Zach Gage says about the project:

By way of exploring what it means to kill in a video-game, Lose/Lose broaches bigger questions. As technology grows, our understanding of it diminishes, yet, at the same time, it becomes increasingly important in our lives. At what point does our virtual data become as important to us as physical possessions?

When I read about the game on Make a couple months ago, I chuckled at the concept, watched the video and wisely skipped trying the game for myself.

Symantec, on the other hand, dubbed the game a Trojan, gave it a name (“OSX.Loosemaque”) and created a threat assessment. Most amusing is how Symantec employee and blogger Ben Nahorney acknowledges Gage’s intent: “What’s interesting is that the author of this ‘game’ flat-out says what it does on his Web site,” Nahorney writes. “Reading through the author’s description, it seems that he has created this game/threat as some sort of artistic project.”

Still, Nahorney follows with a valid point, that someone with truly bad intentions could modify Lose/Lose’s code and distribute a game that doesn’t pronounce its file-deleting capabilities outright. So next time you download some obscure, simplistic alien-shooting game from the Internet, consider yourself warned.

3 comments

5Words: Bring Back Windows Vista UAC!

5words

Windows 7 UAC: insufficiently annoying?

Verizon hikes early termination fees.

Gizmodo gets more Courier details.

iPhone apps hit 100K mark.

Can’t sell Beatles without permission.

More antitrust trouble for Intel.

More on Droid pinching, zooming.

Tethering coming for Verizon Droid.

Second Life launches business version.

More Nvidia x86 CPU rumors.

What’s up with the CrunchPad?

________________________

Like 5Words? Subscribe via RSS.

No comments

Malware Inc.: The Criminals Behind the Attacks

Malware makers–the criminals responsible for viruses and worms –have become increasingly organized and sophisticated, according to a Microsoft security report that was released today. Gamers, the gullible, USB drive users, and people who don’t patch their PCs are their biggest targets.

Cybercriminals are organized like corporations, and follow regular software release cycles, said Jeff Williams, principal group program manager for the Microsoft Malware Protection Center: “They are working for monetary gain.”

The report, entitled, Microsoft Security Intelligence Report Volume 7, is based upon data collected worldwide from January through June 2009. The data was obtained through Microsoft’s security products, Hotmail, and Windows Update, Williams said. “It shows differences from region to region, and provides a comprehensive view of the threat landscape.”

Globally, Microsoft found that the number of trojan downloaders has fallen markedly over the past year; although, they did remain the most common threat. That gain was offset by a rise in instances of worms, password stealers and monitoring tools, according to the report.

Malware has been increasingly targeting online gamers, and there has been a major uptake in fraudulent security software, Williams said. Criminals create trojan software that purports to protect users from malware, but does nothing more than steal personal information and obtain credit card information through false premise.

Criminals have also begun the practice of bundling malware, and making “pay for play” arrangements with one another, Williams said. Another trend Williams noted is the misuse of autoplay in Windows, and using removable media like USB jump drives as an attack vector to get inside of protected enterprise environments.

Microsoft recommends that customers should use trusted anti virus software, a Web browser with anti-phishing technology, and keep their operating systems up-to-date. Security software, combined with increased industry and government cooperation, has helped Microsoft better protect customers over the past year, Williams said.

However, Microsoft is playing a game of multidimensional chess against an opponent that is profit-driven. Improvements in security have induced cyber criminals to exploit more complex software vulnerabilities, and those vulnerabilities have become the new chosen mechanisms for propagating worms of worms, Williams acknowledged.

“They left a note in a worm telling us that they would take more direct action in the future. Criminals are becoming more aggressive,” Williams said. Simply put, when one door closes, they find another.

With Windows becoming more secure, third party applications are being targeted with rising frequency, Williams noted. To combat that threat, Microsoft has delivered free security tools to developers, along with documentation on the steps that it takes internally to create secure software.

Thankfully, other major software companies including HP and IBM have bought security firms, and are making efforts to secure their software. A lot of the industry still lags, but steady progress is being made.

A security expert once told me that hackers were the highwaymen of our century. Highwaymen were thieves that preyed upon travelers during the Elizabethan era. They became obsolete when society created toll roads–closing off their route of escape–and increased police patrols. The crime was not worth the time.

Software is exceedingly more complex than road building, and modern operating systems are some of the most advanced things man has ever created. It’s not really possible to make software that is entirely secure. Even still, I have confidence that enough progress will be made to raise the risks and reduce the gains of cybercrime.

5 comments

New Norton 360 Arrives as a Beta (and How’s Norton Treating You Lately?)

Norton 360

Last month, Symantec released Norton Internet Security 2010 and Norton Antivirus 2010, updated versions of its venerable Windows security packages. They incorporated a new approach to threat detection–Symantec calls it Quorum–which attempts to increase accuracy and reduce resource-hogging tendencies by gauging the reputation of files based on data collected from the millions of folks who run the company’s software. (The reputation of a core Windows file that didn’t do anything suspicious would be high; the reputation of a file which Quorum hadn’t seen before which appeared to be behaving in a dangerous manner would be low.)

Today, Symantec is releasing a free beta version of Norton 360 4.0, the next release of its suite which includes both security and management tools such as backup and PC tuneup tools. It’s the first version of Norton 360 with Quorum, and in conjunction with today’s releasing, Symantec is touting recent test results for Norton Internet Security 2010 from third-party labs. The UK-based Dennis Technology Lab tested ten security products and gave Norton alone a perfect score; it also did well in recent testing by AV-Comparatives.org and AV-Test.org. (I’m not an expert on the relative strengths of independent security labs’ testing techniques, but I know that AV-Test knows their stuff and tells it like it is–they’re the lab we worked with back when I was at PC World.)

Whenever I mention Norton security products, I’m used to PC users reflexively accusing them of being in-your-face annoying and sapping precious system resources to an absurd level. Symantec clearly heard the gripes, too–the changes in both last year’s Norton 2009 products and this year’s Norton 2010 ones emphasis a general reduction in intrusiveness, and much of the advertising is devoted to conveying that it’s changed its ways. But computer users have memories like elephants, and I suspect that some will continue to look askance at Norton for years to come even if Symantec’s cleaned up its act.

So here’s a question for folks who are running any 2009 or 2010 version of any version of Norton security: How’s it treating you?

8 comments