I've just had a discussion with a fellow Head of Cybersecurity around vulnerabilities and two things struck me that people need to understand: firstly, vulnerabilities have different states and secondly, scanning tools don't have all the context so can't actually tell you what risk you are running.  Our discussion started with a statement from them that vulnerabilities are black and white - they're either there or not. It's actually a bit more nuanced than that though. Without making this more complicated than it needs to be, inherently there are two states a vulnerability can be in: exploitable or unexploitable (sometimes called active or dormant with other subtleties). This doesn't mean that they are being exploited, but that it is either possible to exploit the vulnerability in the current configuration (however hard that may be) or it isn't without some other change happening first.  In our discussion, my peer argued that if it is unexploitable then ther...

I often get asked what I look for when hiring security professionals and my answer is usually that I want the right attitude first and foremost - knowledge is easy to gain and those that just collect pieces of paper should maybe think about gaining experience rather than yet more acronyms. However, it's difficult to get someone to change their mindset, so the right attitude is very important. But what is the right attitude? Firstly, security professionals differ from developers and IT engineers in their outlook and approach, so shouldn't be lumped in with them, in my opinion. The mindset of a security professional is constantly thinking about what could go wrong (something that tends to spill over into my personal life as well, much to the annoyance of my wife). Contrast this with the mindset of a developer who is being measured on their delivery of new features. Most developers, or IT engineers, are looking at whether what they have delivered satisfies the requirements fr...

Over the last few weeks I have had many conversations and even attended presentations where people talk about 'Security Best Practices' and how we should all follow them. However, 'Best Practice' is just another way of saying 'What everyone else does!' OK, so if everyone else does it and it's the right thing to do, you should be able to prove it. The trouble is that nobody ever measures best practice - why would you? If everyone's doing it, it must be right. Well, I don't agree with this sentiment. Don't get me wrong, many of the so-called best practices are good for most organisations, but blindly following them without thought for your specific business could cause as many problems as you solve. I see best practice like buying an off-the-peg suit - it will fit most people acceptably well if they are a fairly 'normal' size and shape. However, it will never fit as well as a tailored suit and isn't an option for those of us who are o...

I was asked to sit on a panel of experts, gaze into the crystal ball and make my predictions for what 2017 holds in store for cyber security, which got me thinking. Let's start with more breaches, more ransomware, more cyber security jobs, wage increases for security professionals, more 'qualified' professionals who don't really know what they're doing but have a piece of paper and, of course, vendors making even more money out of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD). However, none of those is terribly interesting or any different from 2016, or 2015 for that matter, or indeed anything other than trends in the industry. So what does 2017 hold in store for us in the security industry and is there anything new to worry about? Well an obvious one to call out is the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). So what is GDPR? Well, GDPR replaces the previous data protection directive and aims to improve and harmonize data protections for EU citizens. This will i...

I was invited along to SC Media's roundtable on The Threat Landscape last week and they have written an article on it. I was also interviewed and appear in their video summary. The article and video can be found here:  https://www.scmagazineuk.com/roundtable-the-threat-landscape/article/635652/

Well, okay, it won't actually tell you whether they are secure or not and there are other questions you could ask, but the point is you can tell a lot about a company's security by how they answer security questions. I was recently at a security round table and the conversation turned to third parties and how you can assure yourself of their security. Some advocated scoring companies or certifications, while others advocated sending questionnaires. The argument against questionnaires is that they are a point in time view of the organisation. However, you can ask process and policy based questions and you can tell a lot from how they answer. So, what is the question that will reveal all? Well, as I said it's not one question as such, more a type of question. It should be about something basic, some security control you're sure they have because everyone does. For example: Why do you have a firewall? Probable answers: "because everyone has one"/"bec...

When is a deleted file actually removed from your device, or at least when does it become unrecoverable? It turns out that this question isn't always easy to answer, nor is a secure file deletion easy to achieve in all circumstances. To better understand this we have to start from the basic principle that when you delete a file on your computer you are only deleting the pointer to the file, not the actual data. The data on your hard disk drive (HDD) is stored magnetically in sectors on platters that spin round inside the HDD (we'll come onto SSDs in a bit). So, how does the computer know where to look for your file? It has a table of indexes such as the File Allocation Table (FAT) or Master File Table (MFT) in NTFS. When you delete a file in your OS, all you are actually doing is removing its entries from the table of indexes so your OS can't find it any more and doesn't know it's there. However, all the data is still stored on the disk and IS STILL RECOVERABLE! T...

Security professionals can't afford to work in isolated bubbles when the attackers are openly sharing information about system vulnerabilities... Watch my video interview for SCMagazine here .

I have recently been speaking to many security professionals and asking them about black box and white box testing. I have used it as an interview question on many occasions as well. People's answers are varied and interesting, but I thought I would share my views briefly here. Firstly, what are black box testing and white box testing, or grey box testing for that matter? Simply put, a black box test is one where the tester has no knowledge of the internal structure or workings of the system and will usually test with security protections in place. They may not even be given credentials to a system that requires authentication. This would be equivalent to what a hacker would have access to. The opposite extreme is a white box test, where the tester has full knowledge of the system and access to the code, system settings and credentials for every role, including the administrator. The tester will likely be testing from inside the security perimeter. Grey box testi...

I believe so, but only if security teams start to listen to what's important to the usability experts and adapt the security provision accordingly. As many have said before, there is no such thing as 100% security and we don't even necessarily want governmental levels of security for everything. Security provision should be appropriate to the systems and the information it protects. I have worked on several projects with user experience designers and it has really changed my approach to securing systems. One particular project I was brought in to work on was having problems because the UX team were refusing to put in additional security measures and the security team were refusing to let them go live. To cut a long story short, it turns out that there are known drop-out rates for registrations or user journeys based on the number of fields people have to fill in and how many clicks they have to do. So, the requirements from the security team meant that the drop-out rates wou...

The Article 29 Working Group advising the EU Commission on Data Protection has published their opinion on the security and privacy concerns of the Internet of Things. A couple of interesting quotes come from this document and it points to possible future laws and regulations. "Many questions arise around the vulnerability of these devices, often deployed outside a traditional IT structure and lacking sufficient security built into them." "...users must remain in complete control of their personal data throughout the product lifecycle, and when organisations rely on consent as a basis for processing, the consent should be fully informed, freely given and specific." One thing is for sure, privacy is likely to get eroded further with the widespread adoption of IoT devices and wearables. It is critical that these devices, and the services provided with them, have security built in from the start.

I presented on a panel today at the European Information Security Summit 2015, entitled 'Should you launch an internal cyber attack?' We only had 45 minutes and I thought I'd share some of my thoughts, and what I didn't get to say, here. Firstly, as we all know, the concept of a network perimeter is outdated and there is a real blurring of whether devices should be considered internal or external these days. It's not just about BYOD , but most organisations provide laptops for their employees. These laptops get connected at home, airports, hotels, etc. Any number of things could have happened to them during that time, so when they are reconnected to the network, they may have been compromised. For this reason, it should be every system for itself, to a certain extent, in the network, i.e. assume that the internal machines are compromised and try to provide reasonable levels of security anyway. Secondly, the user is the weakest link. It has been said many times t...

Ok, so I'm being a little facetious, but I do think that putting Security departments under IT is a bad idea, not because they don't naturally fit well there, but because usually it gives the wrong impression and not enough visibility. Security is far more wide reaching than IT alone and touches every part of the business. By considering it as part of IT, and utilising IT budgets, it can be pigeonholed and ignored by anyone who wouldn't engage IT for their project or job. Security covers all information, from digital to paper-based and is concerned with aspects such as user education as much as technology. There is a clear conflict of interest between IT and Security as well. Part of the Security team's function is to monitor, audit and assess the systems put in place and maintained by the IT department. If the Security team sits within this department then there can be a question over the segregation of duties and responsibility. In addition to this, Security depar...

Well eBay are in the news due to their breach of 145 million users' account details. There are a few worrying things about this breach, beyond the breach itself, that point to architectural issues in eBay's security. The first issue is that a spokeswoman (according to Reuters ) claimed "that it used 'sophisticated', proprietary hashing and salting technology to protect the passwords." This sounds very much like security through obscurity , which doesn't work. So, either they are using a proprietary implementation of a publicly known algorithm, or they have created their own. Both of these situations are doomed. As always, no one person can think of all the attacks on an algorithm, which is why we have public scrutiny. Even the best cryptographers in the world can't create new algorithms with acceptable levels of security every time. Do eBay have the best cryptographers in the world working for them? I don't believe so, but I could be wrong. Al...

Recently it has become clear to me that, although the terms Denial of Service (DoS), Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) and Brute-Force are used by many, people don't really understand them. This has caused confusion and problems on more than one project, so I thought I would write my thoughts on their similarities, differences and protection mechanisms. A Denial of Service is anything that happens (usually on purpose, but not necessarily) that takes a service off line or makes it unavailable to legitimate users. This could range from a hacker exploiting a vulnerability and taking the service off line, to someone digging up a cable in the road. However, a Denial of Service could also be triggered by legitimate use of a service without any 'vulnerabilities'. Consider a service that performs operations on large sets of data that take a few seconds to complete. If I put in multiple requests for this service then I could tie it up and make it unresponsive for several minute...

There is often a fundamental disconnect between security professionals and senior management. As I have stated in a previous post about slips, mistakes and violations, if senior management don't 'buy in' to security then nor will the rest of the organisation and ultimately it will fail. Middle management want to be senior management and will model themselves on them, often seeing the breaking of rules as a mark of status. So, it is vital that senior management lead by example. Unfortunately, it is often very hard to get senior management to 'buy in' to this concept and not have a 'them-and-us' attitude of there being those rules that apply to the rest of the organisation and those that apply to them. This is as much the fault of the security professionals as senior management though. Security professionals have spent so long saying "no" to everyone and stalwartly refusing to budge or see someone else's point of view that people have stopped ...

I was asked to provide details of the 'Penetration Testing Phase' for a particular project by someone who was putting together a Test Approach Document today. The categories I was asked to fill in were: Objective of the phase Responsibility & Authority Dependencies, risks & assumptions Entry & Exit criteria When discussing what they really wanted it became clear that they didn't know what a penetration test was or why we do them. The questions and document were set up expecting a deliverable from the pentest itself. The report was being treated as the deliverable without any thought of why a report was being produced or how it will be used. It was a tick in the box - "We require a pentest to be able to go live, so if we've had the report we can tick that box and move on." Pentesting is not an end in itself. Pentesting is a standard, finite snapshot of the security of a system, which, if taken in isolation as a goal, is fairly useless. Pent...

I have seen so many websites hosted and developed insecurely that I have often thought I should write a guide of sorts for those wanting to commission a new website. Now I have have actually been asked to develop a web hosting security policy and a set of guidelines to give to project managers for dissemination to developers and hosting providers. So, I thought I would share some of my advice here. Before I do, though, I have to answer why we need this policy in the first place? There are many types of attack on websites, but these can be broadly categorised as follows: Denial of Service (DoS), Defacement and Data Breaches/Information Stealing. Data breaches and defacements hurt businesses' reputations and customer confidence as well as having direct financial impacts. But surely any hosting provider or solution developer will have these standards in place, yes? Well, in my experience the answer is no. It is true that they are mostly common sense and most providers will conform...

Security teams often attract antagonism from the business that they are supposed to serve, appearing as self-appointed policemen in a police state. This is unhelpful and not what we are or should be aiming for. Security departments should be providing a secure environment in which business users are free to do what they want. Obviously this environment will have boundaries, but they must be agreed with the business and not just imposed arbitrarily. Take an example from children's play areas, children should be safe within the confines of the soft play area and not too much harm will come to them. They can run around and play whatever game they like as long as they stay within the boundaries. Children can't wear shoes in a soft play area as they may hurt another child, but this doesn't stop them from doing what they want as the play area has been engineered so that they don't need shoes to stop them from hurting their feet or getting wet and dirty. The same principle...

There is a new take on an old phone scam currently hitting people. The old scam was to pretend to be the telephone company and phone someone saying that they are about to be cut-off if they don't pay a smallish amount by card over the phone immediately. If people don't believe them they are actually encouraged to hang-up and then try to make a call. When they hang-up and then pick the phone up again it is dead. How do they do this? Well it's actually very simple - the scammer doesn't hang-up, they just put their phone on mute. The call was never torn down. So, what's the 'new take' on this scam? Well, they are now hitting bank and credit card customers. The scammers now pretend to be from the bank and start asking for card details, etc. If you get suspicious (or even sometimes prompted by the scammer themselves) you are encouraged to hang up and call them back on the telephone number shown on the back of your card. They then provide you with an extension n...