Slashdot Log In
Mitnick: Security Not about Technology
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:58 PM
from the locking-the-doors dept.
from the locking-the-doors dept.
renai42 writes "Companies eager to tighten up their information security perimeters should focus not on technology but on teaching their employees how to say 'no', ex-hacker done good Kevin Mitnick told a full house at Toshiba's MobileXchange conference in Melbourne yesterday. 'We can't expect our employees to be human lie detectors,' Mitnick said. 'One of the most difficult challenges in corporate cultures is getting people to modify their politeness norms.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
As Nancy Reagan would put it... (Score:5, Funny)
Definition of geek (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
FREE KEVIN! (Score:5, Funny)
FREE MARTHA! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
FREE TIBET! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
** _ (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
How is this news? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How is this news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How is this news? (Score:5, Interesting)
People are dumb until it's too late, not all, but enough to make the stereotype hold true anyway.
Parent
Re:How is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest problem is that people's views are flawed, they need to be told WHY they shouldn't give their passwords out. Rather than saying, "I won't ever ask for your password, don't give it out," say something like, "there are these people who use social engineering..." etc...
Will this prevent social engineering attacks? No, but it WILL help to prevent them. People won't do what they are told if they don't know why they shouldn't do it, regardless of the profession (is that enough double negatives?)
But what do I know, I'm just Anonymous Coward.
Parent
Re:How is this news? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:How is this news? (Score:4, Insightful)
As old hackers while away the years (in jail) the industry moves on, which means their skills become dated and they lose all their technical expertise that got them in so much trouble in the first place. So they move on to pretending that all you need to do is act nice and con the receptionist or some fool on the other end of a phone. That route of attack is not as affected by one's weathering technical skills.
Ring ring
Hello, this is Bill.
Bill, hi, this is "Steve". I'm stuck outside the building- this stupid thing won't let me in. Could you read me our private key real quick?
OK, it's A244C7735ABBFC01... hey, how do I know you're really Steve!
Parent
Re:How is this news? (Score:5, Interesting)
Invariably, front desk security was adequate, but it was easy to get into many Call Centres and Help Desks without a key card, fob or access code simply by waiting for an employee to walk towards the main door and then approaching the same door carrying an abviously heavy, large box full of training manuals - most people in service delivery roles want to be helpful so they often hold the door open for you! In 6 years of consulting I was only ever challenged once.
In reverse, I would occasionally be coming out of a building and someone would ask me to hold the door because they had forgotten their pass - it would really piss them off when refused to let them in and said if they waited outside I would fetch a team leader or manager for them!
Parent
Sure we can... (Score:5, Interesting)
'We can't expect our employees to be human lie detectors,' Mitnick said.
Sure we can: http://content.monster.com/martynemko/articles/arRe:Sure we can... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
pots and kettles (Score:5, Funny)
Computer Security, The Ultimate Oxymoron (Score:3, Interesting)
The ultimate security leak, people. >_
Please... (Score:4, Insightful)
What employees need to do is follow the very simple instructions they're given. Change your password regularly. Don't make it obvious. Log out of the system when you're done. Don't use the same password at every site you visit. Etc...
It's simple, Private Pile...if you lock up that jelly doughnut in your footlocker, it's going to make it very hard for people to steal it.
Re:Please... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's fine for making general users more secure..
What he's talking about is more to do with making admin types more skeptical / less polite. The common 'exploits' that Mitnick, and many others, have done is to learn enough about a target company's practices, and talk your way into getting privileges that employees get.
e.g. call the phone company's internal support line, talk the talk of the phone technician, and get them to change your account, give you information, etc.
Or, call a corporate support line complaining of problems with your dialup access to the corporate network. Get them to reset "your" password for you, and you're in the network. 99% of the calls they get are legitimate employees, probably with the same old problems. If you sound like one of those normal employees, the support people will work hard to get you access to the network.
Parent
Re:Please... (Score:5, Informative)
Two immediate issues - sure, the employees computer comes up every 'X' number of days and forces a password change. Most employees alternate between "password A" and "password B" with the only difference being one different letter or number.
Second issue, the password is forced to be some 8 character password that conforms to a complexity rule that requires letters and numbers, a mix of upper and lower case, and sometimes some non-letter/number characters. These conforming passwords are ones that very few, if any employees can remember so they do what? Write it on a post-it note and stick it on the monitor, under the keyboard, in a drawer, between the pages of the intercompany printed phone book or employee manual or some other 'safe' place that could be determined by an unauthorized person. How do these contribute to increased security??
Better to break those "politeness norms". You see someone you don't recognize involve them in a conversation. Introduce yourself, ask them about themselves, what they do, who their supervisor is. It's not confrontational, it's non-threatening, and if the person does not seem genuine the questioning employee can make a report to building security with a description. Stop tail-gating at controlled entrances, keep an eye out for co-workers who may forget or seem to be having problems. Respond to unusal requests from outside people by telling the caller you don't have the information handy but can call them back with it within a short time. It also gives time to check with others if the sharing of information is unclear. ALWAYS call back however even if it is to tell the caller that the information cannot be relased. These subtle changes as well as others should foster a culture of security that becomes so second nature to every legitimate employee that the "simple rules" and the threats that accompany non-compliance are no longer the focus.
I've been promoting and exposing these concepts as an admin and IT Manager since at least the mid 90's.
Parent
Re:Please... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, forget 1), and make sure that the first pw someone picks is almost impossible to guess, and let them keep it.
Parent
Re:Please... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, most security experts will tell you this is a very stupid thing to require people to do. Your password system should enforce strong passwords anyway. Enforcing strong passwords which have to change every month just encourages people to write them on a post-it and stick it to their monitor because no one can remember passwords that change that regularly unless they're really simple.
What's more, it doesn't actually do much for the security anyway: if someone hands random people their password then you're pretty much screwed anyway - people aren't going to wait until after the password change to try and use that password. If someone is brute-forcing passwords then they stand the same mathematical chance of hitting the new password as they did with the old password so no more security there. Infact, the only security it gives you is if someone steals your encrypted password file and it's going to take them a few months to crack. But if random people can get the password database then you've got bigger security concerns than weak passwords.
Parent
Re:Please... (Score:4, Insightful)
Change your password regularly.
...
What's more, it doesn't actually do much for the security anyway: if someone hands random people their password then you're pretty much screwed anyway - people aren't going to wait until after the password change to try and use that password.
Periodic password changes help limit the window of exploitation.
That's not to say that you aren't royally screwed in some situations (ie., root password/privelige escalation), but in other situations it can really help limit the damage. You don't ever really know if someone else has your password.
Password changes exploit the fact that it often takes time to leverage a compromised password into useful exploitation.
Yes, the users are the primary problem (the point of TFA!).
It's all about using layered defense to incrementally raise the bar of entry.
Parent
Con-man gains fame at others expense... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Con-man gains fame at others expense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Con-man gains fame at others expense... (Score:5, Informative)
You should do a little research grashopper. E.g. Mitnick demonstrated that sequence number attacks were possible with TCP/IP. NOT a small thing.
Parent
Re:Con-man gains fame at others expense... (Score:5, Interesting)
The other thing is his *years* of jail time were spent before he was ever convicted, i.e. pleaded guilty to some of the charges to cut short his lack-of-a-speedy trial. He's done his time. He can talk as long as people will pay him.
Besides, ignorance is not unexpected. Many novices probably couldn't tell you who Philo Farnsworth was, even though they've been looking at his invention all their lives.
Parent
Re:Con-man gains fame at others expense... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think you give social engineers enough credit - because they have to have the ability to pass off as someone who knows more than you do about your own systems and from what I've read he suceeded rather well at this - not only did he convince people to do what he wanted, but he had enough knowhow to do something with that info. And it does take some knowhow - after all once you gain access to a server, telephone switch, network etc - you have to know enough to change its configuration or access it to get what you want. (actually this sounds like my job - technical support)
Long before he was ever caught I had read about his exploits in computer magazines and the paper. His capture, and the scadal about his stay in federal prision I think made him famous. He's the only one - aside from those stuck in Guantanomo Bay who have been held without trial.
Parent
Re:Con-man gains fame at others expense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Likewise, the U.S. was able to get intelligence on the Soviets by sending a sub to tap an underwater cable in the Sea of Okhotsk. This cost tens of millions of dollars. For a couple million, the USSR bought off Aldrich Ames and got whatever intel they wanted. All in all, being able to manipulate people is probably a lot more useful and dangerous skill than being able to manipulate technology.
Parent
C&C (Score:5, Insightful)
"The systems are impenetrable. There are no weak points. The technology is without flaw. The Human element, as always, is riddled with imperfection."
Re:C&C (Score:3, Funny)
"Crap, it's dark!"
Social Evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
Policy, Process, Training. And still, holes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Have we had information stolen? Yes. We've had unscrupulous employees go to work for competitors and give them proprietary data, we've had subsidiaries sell controlled technology to foreign powers (and got bitchslapped for it too!).
Point is, machines are easy to secure. More often than not, theyll protect what you tell them to, especially if you have competent engineers. But the weak link is ALWAYS the human one. The most careful companies can apply careful policy, process, and training, like my employer does, and they can also hire tons of babysitters, big brothers, and such. And the information still flies out the door.
trade off (Score:5, Interesting)
Mitnick (Score:4, Interesting)
Dumpster Diving For Info (Score:5, Insightful)
Relevant quote (Schneier): (Score:5, Insightful)
- Bruce Schneier
Only useful for a small subset of threats (Score:5, Insightful)
These social engineering attacks that Mitnick has built a career warning people about seem more relevant to situations were the cracker has some very specific goal in mind regarding a specific organization - dedicated industrial spies who want specific information from a particular company, etc. While I'm sure that sort of threat is a concern for many companies, I don't think it's typical of how and why computers usually get hacked into.
Mitnick is an idiot... (Score:3, Insightful)
The smart people didn't get busted, and have to work their tails off doing regular sysadmin duties these days.
Re:Mitnick is an idiot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. Smart. Working long hours for low pay, instead of fame, fortune, and easy work. Hm.
Sounds like Mitnick's still the best at making people do his bidding.
Parent
Mitnick's never been "inside the fence" (Score:5, Insightful)
Mmm...no.
This is the problem with Mitnick- he's never been inside of the fence. Ever. He's always been peering in from the outside, either as an attacker or a consultant. Unless you work in IT as regular staff, you don't realize the root causes.
The problem isn't with training people to say no, or to stick to policies. Especially in a medium to large organization, there's little problem getting people to stick to policies if they make sense or aren't an unreasonable impediment to workflow. The word is "bureaucracy", and so often, it's used by lazy people to avoid work.
Security problems come from three areas:
Notice a pattern? Security policies written by the incompetent.
A company I worked at had to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley regulations. This was interpreted to mean that every 90 days, all the employee domain passwords would expire. Because a large portion of the company used Macs (to make a long story short, you can't easily set up a Mac to let users change Active Directory passwords, much less notify the user their PW has expired and "please change it:"), email and file server access would just stop with no warning, and they'd flood help-desk with calls.
Typical conversation went something like:
"...and what would you us to change your new password to?"
"Harry123"
"Is that family member's name?"
"Yes, my husband's."
"Please pick something else."
This would go on and on. Some of the passwords people wanted consisted of their username plus "123", their first name plus two numbers, etc. Even worse, their initial password was based off their hire date, and most people never bothered to change theirs- so access to any other employee's email for at least the first 90 days was Dumb Shit Easy.
It's so incredibly stupid- force password changes every 90 days, but no standards for setting passwords...predictable passwords for new employees...no password auditing(ie runs with John the Ripper or similar)...nothing. Just "make all the passwords expire every 90 days." Brilliant. Why couldn't stricter password rules be enforced? Top management decided it would "aggrivate" employees too much, and I was actually told not to stop employees from picking bad passwords.
Re:Mitnick's never been "inside the fence" (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Mitnick's never been "inside the fence" (Score:4, Insightful)
On systems where this is not done, I use random strings as passwords. I know it's for long term use so I commit it to memory. On systems where this is done, I use simple patterns because I don't want to forget it while I'm on vacation. It's a dramatic reduction in security in my case and incredibly annoying. I note that many people even write them down to help their memory.
The only time I can imagine it helping is if someone breaks into your system. It means their time to do damage is limited. But not by much. On a system that requires new passwords every 90 days, I've got an average of 45 days of access before I lose it. 45 days!! Yipee!! Not much I can't do in that amount of time.
Devon
Parent
It's at least as much a software problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Kevin Mitnick is looking at it from companies' points of view right now, but I think the whole problem is really created by some fundamental flaws in software architecture patterns and how most software these days interacts with the users. (Arguably it's as much a fault with the operating systems as everything else.)
I don't think that there should be that much of a burden put on the user to be responsible for saying yes or no all the time. So much software that's out there today directly bombards the user with so many questions about things that they don't understand, care about, or have time to deal with, that it's not practical for most people to spend so much time caring about what they're being asked.
Passwords, which Kevin Mitnick also talks about, are an equally bad design. They're there for the convenience of the machine -- not the person using it. Most people aren't mentally capable of remembering and matching lots of different passwords for different services, certainly not if they're supposed to (or forced to) change them every few months. It's no surprise that in order to get their actual work done, people are simply going to resort to predictible patterns or writing down secret information.
I can set aside the time for dealing with these sorts of things, and I'm sure that many people here can... but then I have more than a passing interest in computers and what's going on inside mine. For many more users out there, a computer is just a tool that's used towards something that's much more interesting to them, and dealing with the tool is one of the last things they want to care about.
Teaching people to "say no" is certainly part of the equation, but it won't work beyond a certain point. I don't know what the answer is, whether it's reducing the number of options over all software, trying to make more intelligent decisions without asking the user, arranging things so that people's software is generally configured entirely by an administrator who understands the issues, or something else. I think it's important to realise, though, that research about reducing social engineering in software is at least as important to security as researching technical security holes. It's as much of an HCI problem as a security problem.
Um, they have no freaking problem saying "no". (Score:4, Interesting)
Any dealing with any large, bureaucratic organization (a government bureau of any stripe, any telco, any cable company, any other sort of "utility", eBay/PayPal, Microsoft, IBM, etc.) will demonstrate quite aptly that no, they have no bloody problem saying "no". You can make a reasonable request and they'll quite cheerfully say "no" since it isn't part of their "script" to say "yes". (Then they'll tell you they're "sorry" they couldn't say yes. They aren't.) Meanwhile, the "bad guys" probably know how to work the system anyhow, and can get them to say "yes" by understanding said "script".
Simple example: I do business under my initials, and PayPal wouldn't let me change the name on my account to my initials for "security reasons". Even after I provided proof that both of my bank accounts had already been changed (to my initials). Even after I went back and forth with them at least half a dozen times. I finally had to go in the "back way" via talking to an ex-PayPal employee, who talked to a current PayPal employee, etc. etc...
They wouldn't change my name to my initials despite indisputable (and verifiable) proof from two established brick-and-mortar banks, yet they have absolutely no problems letting you set a crappy-ass password on your account... You see? Their priorities are backwards. They love saying "no", but they have no clue when to do it and when not to. The end result is that they suffer not only from security risks, but from bad PR.
Too Much Security (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, if the same security policy that tells you not to let *anyone* into the building without a key card tells you not to tell anyone your password you are likely to ignore both. In most buildings there is no good reason not to hold the door for the person behind you but a very good reason not to share your password.
People aren't computer programs they need not only to be told what policies to follow but which ones are the important ones and which ones are just meant to keep bums from sleeping in the lobby.
To the anti-Keven crowd (Score:4, Informative)
To the ones that claim that this is old news, or that Kevin isn't as "leet" as many think; I advise to take your comments with a grain of salt. Anyone who has actually read his book, The Art of Deception, will appreciate Kevin's viewpoints. The truly great hackers use a good mix of social and technical engineered tactics to comprise security. I give you the advice is outdated and isn't news, but his advice will always outlast ever-changing technology. As a bonus he gives you open-sourced
40 years from now (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether I like the messenger or not, Mtinick is right. So long as humans are part of the security equation, we will have insecure systems. The song he's singing is true. A tune few are paying attention to. Like death, social engineering has no solution today, so it's avoided with discomfort or even ignored. Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead. Social engineering is that last security hole still left unpatched.
I work in IT and I can blind dial any extension, introduce myself as employee X from Corporate IT and without any pretense, obtain a user ID and password. If I am trouble shooting a user complaint and ask their user ID, their password is often offered without me even asking for it. The vast majority of viruses rely on social engineering, as do tool bars, spyware, etc. I think Mitnick is right that the problems we have today are less technical than social. Most of the security holes in Windows could exist unexploited if it were not for social engineering.
Jack LaLane, the fitness guru, was viewed 40 years ago as a freak. It may take 40 years but once society finds a way to resolve or at least seriously takes an interest in the social engineering problems of network security, I wonder if history will label Mitnick as an early adopter or label him a "before his time" genius.
Re:more paranoia = more mental institutions (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:no shit, kev (Score:4, Funny)
Mitnick, you are a clever one.
Parent