#SID2018 Is the Internet Safer? Today is the annual Safer Internet Day, an effort to promote safer and responsible use of the internet and mobile phones that is celebrated by over 120 countries. Several cyber experts and companies weigh in on the dangers that younger internet browsers face, and how government, industry, parents, and others in the community can help reduce usage risks.

th
#SID2018: Is the Internet Safer?

Infosecurity Magazine | By Dan Raywood | February 6, 2018

Today is the annual Safer #InternetDay, where the reality of online threats are detailed in the effort to encourage users to take better safety steps online.

According to research released by the UK Safer Internet Centre, a study of 2000 eight- to 17-year-olds, found that 11% had “felt worried or anxious on the internet,” while respondents had felt inspired (74%), excited (82%) or happy (89%) as a result of their internet use in the previous week.

This year’s event is using the slogan “Create, Connect and Share Respect: A better internet starts with you” with a strong emphasis on using the internet and what makes users feel good or bad. In a time where more is being done to deliver a safe experience online – including free SSL certificates, the launch of a new version of the TLS protocol and the ability to filter out certain words on Twitter – it does seem that more is being done to provide a safer and better experience for all online.

Margot James, Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries, said that the internet does have a positive effect on young people’s lives, but we must all recognize the dangers that can be found online. “Only by working together can government, industry, parents, schools and communities harness the power of the internet for good and reduce its risks.”

At the recent White Hat Ball, it was revealed that in 2017, there were over 12,000 counselling sessions in which children spoke to Childline about experiences of online sexual abuse, bullying and safety.

Will Gardner, a director of the UK Safer Internet Centre and CEO of Childnet, said: “Safer Internet Day gives us the unique opportunity to collectively promote respect and empathy online, inspire young people to harness their enthusiasm and creativity, and support them to build positive online experiences for everyone. It is #inspirational to see so many different organizations and individuals come together today to build a better internet.”

After all, a #safer #internet means more young people are encouraged to learn more about the internet and its workings, and therefore see the benefits of a career in cybersecurity.

Raj Samani, chief scientist and fellow at McAfee, said the reality is that we need to continue raising awareness for codes of best practice online. “Cyber-criminals are constantly on the lookout for slip ups and mistakes which allow them to access lucrative private data – from bank account details to medical history: consumers must be aware of the threats online – not least because the blurring of work life boundaries today means bad habits online can quickly slip into the office.”

As a result, Samani recommended that businesses should offer staff training to build up a strong security culture across their entire organization.

He added: “Implementing the right technology is vital but, at the end of the day, it’s about looking for a blended approach which suits your specific organization. This means finding the right combination of people, process and technology to effectively protect the organization’s data, detect any threats and, when targeted, rapidly correct systems.

“Safer Internet Day acts as a timely reminder for organizations to ensure the correct training is in place so staff can remain cyber-savvy online.”

To tie-in with the day, ENISA published the Cybersecurity Culture in Organizations report, in order to promote both the understanding and uptake of cybersecurity culture programs within organizations. ENISA said that a decent culture is achieved by:

• Setting #cybersecurity as a standing agenda item at board meetings to underline the importance of a robust cybersecurity culture

• Ensure that employees are consulted and their concerns regarding cybersecurity practices are being considered by the cybersecurity culture working group

• Ensure that business processes/strategies and cybersecurity processes/strategies are fully aligned

“While many organizations and employees are familiar with related concepts such as cybersecurity awareness and information security frameworks, cybersecurity culture covers a broader scope. The idea behind this concept is to make information security considerations an integral part of an employee’s daily life,” ENISA’s announcement said.

Part of this was to appreciate that “cyber threat awareness campaigns alone do not provide sufficient #protection against ever evolving cyber-attacks,” and that technical cybersecurity measures need to be in accordance with other business processes, and it is important that employees need to act as a strong human firewall against cyber-attacks.

A safer internet is better for all, although a cynic of such awareness days would suggest that there should be year-round awareness of the issues and part of developing a culture is the constant awareness. Regardless, some action is better than none and it is reassuring to see such positivity about internet usage in 2018.

Army to Modernize Tracking System for Cyber Attacks

US Army Cyber CommandThe U.S. Army is preparing to modernize Blue Force Tracking, its friendly forces tracking system, to ensure continued operability in the event of cyber and electronic warfare attacks.

The Army Wants to be Able to Track Friendly Forces During a Cyber Attack
C4ISRNET | By Daniel Cebul

Washington — The U.S. Army is preparing to modernize its friendly forces tracking system so that it will continue to operate through cyber and electronic warfare attacks.

The service’s situational awareness network, known as Blue Force Tracking, already receives periodic updates, but a more significant upgrade is needed if troops are to be adequately equipped for future warfare. “This capability improvement is necessary as the United States faces increased cyber and electronic warfare threats from near-peer adversaries,” Lt. Col. Shane Sims said in an Army press release.

Defense News reported in November 2017 that Russia’s Zapad exercise took place in a largely EW-hostile environment. Because Russia proved it can jam its own forces relatively easily, military officials are concerned about how well NATO forces are prepared to operate in GPS- and communication-denied environments.

To address these issues, the program office partnered with the Army’s Communications Electronic-Research, Development and Engineering Center, or CERDEC, and ran concurrent studies that examined the capabilities and limitations of current blue force tracking technology.

The work included:

A traffic study that explored how the current blue force tracking system generates and receives data, as well as the requirements of moving data digitally to identify any network vulnerabilities.

A cyber and electronic warfare study that aimed to identify what emerging technologies need to be developed to stay ahead of adversaries. The Army announcement notes, “assured positioning, navigation and timing, known as PNT, for soldiers in GPS-denied environments was the primary goal in this study.”

A network study that examined how to communicate future data more efficiently within the network.

A transport study that identified the physical infrastructure — radios, satellites and antennas — needed to move larger quantities of information. Part of the solution is to build in redundancies into the network to use different radios and different frequency bands.

This might entail deploying satellites of higher technological quality in larger quantities. A new satellite infrastructure that could handle more data and transmit information faster was credited with the improvements soldiers observed the last time the BFT system was upgraded in 2011.

“The goal of the next-generation BFTs is to reduce the cognitive burden on soldiers by creating a simply and intuitive network,” Sims said.

The Army issued a request for information on the system this month, and CERDEC is set to meet with Army leaders to discuss an acquisition strategy in February.

The Army hopes to issue a request for proposals from industry in early 2020, and could begin fielding the new BFT by 2025, the release said.

Symantec, McAfee Let Russia Search Through Their Software

A Reuters investigation found that global technology providers Symantec and McAfee allowed Russian authorities to search for vulnerabilities in the source code of some of their products that are also used by the U.S. government. U.S. lawmakers and security experts believe the practice could potentially jeopardize the security of networks in at least a dozen federal agencies.

Tech Firms Let Russia Probe Software Widely Used by U.S. Government
Reuters | By Dustin Volz, Joel Schectman, Jack Stubbs

WASHINGTON/MOSCOW (Reuters) – Major global technology providers SAP (SAPG.DE), Symantec (SYMC.O) and McAfee have allowed Russian authorities to hunt for vulnerabilities in software deeply embedded across the U.S. government, a Reuters investigation has found.

The practice potentially jeopardizes the security of computer networks in at least a dozen federal agencies, U.S. lawmakers and security experts said. It involves more companies and a broader swath of the government than previously reported.

In order to sell in the Russian market, the tech companies let a Russian defense agency scour the inner workings, or source code, of some of their products. Russian authorities say the reviews are necessary to detect flaws that could be exploited by hackers.

But those same products protect some of the most sensitive areas of the U.S government, including the Pentagon, NASA, the State Department, the FBI and the intelligence community, against hacking by sophisticated cyber adversaries like Russia.

Reuters revealed in October that Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE.N) software known as ArcSight, used to help secure the Pentagon’s computers, had been reviewed by a Russian military contractor with close ties to Russia’s security services.

Now, a Reuters review of hundreds of U.S. federal procurement documents and Russian regulatory records shows that the potential risks to the U.S. government from Russian source code reviews are more widespread.

Beyond the Pentagon, ArcSight is used in at least seven other agencies, including the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the State Department’s intelligence unit, the review showed. Additionally, products made by SAP, Symantec and McAfee and reviewed by Russian authorities are used in at least eight agencies. Some agencies use more than one of the four products.

McAfee, SAP, Symantec and Micro Focus (MCRO.L), the British firm that now owns ArcSight, all said that any source code reviews were conducted under the software maker’s supervision in secure facilities where the code could not be removed or altered. The process does not compromise product security, they said. Amid growing concerns over the process, Symantec and McAfee no longer allow such reviews and Micro Focus moved to sharply restrict them late last year.

The Pentagon said in a previously unreported letter to Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen that source code reviews by Russia and China “may aid such countries in discovering vulnerabilities in those products.”

Reuters has not found any instances where a source code review played a role in a cyber attack, and some security experts say hackers are more likely to find other ways to infiltrate network systems.

But the Pentagon is not alone in expressing concern. Private sector cyber experts, former U.S. security officials and some U.S. tech companies told Reuters that allowing Russia to review the source code may expose unknown vulnerabilities that could be used to undermine U.S. network defenses.

“Even letting people look at source code for a minute is incredibly dangerous,” said Steve Quane, executive vice president for network defense at Trend Micro, which sells TippingPoint security software to the U.S. military.

Worried about those risks to the U.S. government, Trend Micro has refused to allow the Russians to conduct a source code review of TippingPoint, Quane said.

Quane said top security researchers can quickly spot exploitable vulnerabilities just by examining source code.

“We know there are people who can do that, because we have people like that who work for us,” he said.

In contrast to Russia, the U.S. government seldom requests source code reviews when buying commercially available software products, U.S. trade attorneys and security experts say.

OPENING THE DOOR

Many of the Russian reviews have occurred since 2014, when U.S.-Russia relations plunged to new lows following Moscow’s annexation of Crimea. Western nations have accused Russia of sharply escalating its use of cyber attacks during that time, an allegation Moscow denies.

Some U.S. lawmakers worry source code reviews could be yet another entry point for Moscow to wage cyberattacks.

“I fear that access to our security infrastructure – whether it be overt or covert – by adversaries may have already opened the door to harmful security vulnerabilities,” Shaheen told Reuters.

In its Dec. 7 letter to Shaheen, the Pentagon said it was “exploring the feasibility” of requiring vendors to disclose when they have allowed foreign governments to access source code. Shaheen had questioned the Pentagon about the practice following the Reuters report on ArcSight, which also prompted Micro Focus to say it would restrict government source code reviews in the future. HPE said none of its current products have undergone Russian source code review.

Lamar Smith, the Republican chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, said legislation to better secure the federal cyber security supply chain was clearly needed.

Most U.S. government agencies declined to comment when asked whether they were aware technology installed within their networks had been inspected by Russian military contractors. Others said security was of paramount concern but that they could not comment on the use of specific software.

A Pentagon spokeswoman said it continually monitors the commercial technology it uses for security weaknesses.

NO PENCILS ALLOWED

Tech companies wanting to access Russia’s large market are often required to seek certification for their products from Russian agencies, including the FSB security service and Russia’s Federal Service for Technical and Export Control (FSTEC), a defense agency tasked with countering cyber espionage.

FSTEC declined to comment and the FSB did not respond to requests for comment. The Kremlin referred all questions to the FSB and FSTEC.

FSTEC often requires companies to permit a Russian government contractor to test the software’s source code.

SAP HANA, a database system, underwent a source code review in order to obtain certification in 2016, according to Russian regulatory records. The software stores and analyzes information for the State Department, Internal Revenue Service, NASA and the Army.

An SAP spokeswoman said any source code reviews were conducted in a secure, company-supervised facility where recording devices or even pencils “are strictly forbidden.”

“All governments and governmental organizations are treated the same with no exceptions,” the spokeswoman said.

While some companies have since stopped allowing Russia to review source code in their products, the same products often remain embedded in the U.S. government, which can take decades to upgrade technology.

Security concerns caused Symantec to halt all government source code reviews in 2016, the company’s chief executive told Reuters in October. But Symantec Endpoint Protection antivirus software, which was reviewed by Russia in 2012, remains in use by the Pentagon, the FBI, and the Social Security Administration, among other agencies, according to federal contracting records reviewed by Reuters.

In a statement, a Symantec spokeswoman said the newest version of Endpoint Protection, released in late 2016, never underwent a source code review and that the earlier version has received numerous updates since being tested by Russia. The California-based company said it had no reason to believe earlier reviews had compromised product security. Symantec continued to sell the older version through 2017 and will provide updates through 2019.

McAfee also announced last year that it would no longer allow government-mandated source code reviews.

The cyber firm’s Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) software was reviewed in 2015 by a Moscow-based government contractor, Echelon, on behalf of FSTEC, according to Russian regulatory documents. McAfee confirmed this.

The Treasury Department and Defense Security Service, a Pentagon agency tasked with guarding the military’s classified information, continue to rely on the product to protect their networks, contracting records show.

McAfee declined to comment, citing customer confidentiality agreements, but it has previously said the Russian reviews are conducted at company-owned premises in the United States.

‘YOU CAN‘T TRUST ANYONE’

On its website, Echelon describes itself as an official laboratory of the FSB, FSTEC, and Russia’s defense ministry. Alexey Markov, the president of Echelon, which also inspected the source code for ArcSight, said U.S. companies often initially expressed concerns about the certification process.

“Did they have any? Absolutely!!” Markov wrote in an email.

”The less the person making the decision understands about programming, the more paranoia they have. However, in the process of clarifying the details of performing the certification procedure, the dangers and risks are smoothed out.”

Markov said his team always informs tech companies before handing over any discovered vulnerabilities to Russian authorities, allowing the firms to fix the detected flaw. The source code reviews of products “significantly improves their safety,” he said.

Chris Inglis, the former deputy director of the National Security Agency, the United States’ premier electronic spy agency, disagrees.

“When you’re sitting at the table with card sharks, you can’t trust anyone,” he said. “I wouldn’t show anybody the code.”