Archive for December, 2015

The 5 Most Common Mistakes HTML5 Developers Make: A Beginner’s Guide

The following article is a guest post by Demir Selmanovic, the Lead Technical Editor at Toptal. Toptal is an elite network of freelancers that enables businesses to connect with the top 3% of software engineers and designers in the world.

It’s been over 20 years since Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau specified HTML, which became the standard markup language used to build the Internet. Ever since then, the HTML development community has begged for improvements to this language, but this cry was mostly heard by web browser developers who tried to ease the HTML issues of their colleagues. Unfortunately, this led to even more problems causing many cross-browser compatibility issues and duplication of development work. Over these 20 years, HTML was upgraded 4 times, while most of the browsers got double-digit numbers of major updates plus numerous small patches.

HTML5 was supposed to finally solve our problems and become one standard to rule them all (browsers). This was probably one of the most anticipated technologies since creation of the World Wide Web. Has it happened? Did we finally get one markup language that will be fully cross-browser compatible and will work on all desktop and mobile platforms giving us all of those features we were asking for? I dont know! Just few days ago (Sept. 16th 2014) we received one more call for review by W3C so the HTML5 specification is still incomplete.

Despite HTML5 issues and mistakes, is it the one language ring to rule them all?

Hopefully, when the specification is one day finalized, browsers will not already have significant obsolete code, and they will easily and properly implement great features like Web WorkersMultiple synchronized audio and video elements, and other HTML5 components that we’ve needed for a long time.

Give hasty developers an incomplete spec, and you’ll have a recipe for disaster.

We do however have thousands of companies that have based their businesses on HTML5 and are doing great. There are also many great HTML5-based applications and games used by millions of people, so success is obviously possible and HTML5 is, and will continue to be, used regardless on the status of its specification.

However, the recipe I mentioned can easily blow up in our faces, and thus I’ve emphasized some of the most basic HTML5 mistakes that can be avoided. Most of the mistakes listed below are consequence of incomplete or missing implementation of certain HTML5 elements in different browsers, and we should hope that in the near future they will become obsolete. Until this happens, I suggest reading the list and having it in mind when building your next HTML5 application whether you’re an HTML5 beginner or an experienced vet.

Common mistake #1: Trusting local storage

Let them eat cake! This approach has been a burden on developers for ages. Due to reasonably sensible fear of security breaches and protection of computers, in the “dark ages” when the Internet was feared by many, web applications were allowed to leave unreasonably small amounts of data on computers. True, there were things like user data that “great browser masters from Microsoft(r)” gave us, or things like Local Shared Objects in Flash, but this was far from perfect.

It is therefore reasonable that one of the first basic HTML5 features adopted by developers was Web Storage. However, be alert that Web Storage is not secure. It is better than using cookies because it will not be transmitted over the wire, but it is not encrypted. You should definitely never store security tokens there. Your security policy should never rely on data stored in Web Storage as a malicious user can easily modify her localStorage and sessionStorage values at any time.

To get more insight on Web Storage and how to use it, I suggest reading this post.

Common mistake #2: Expecting compatibility among browsers

HTML5 is much more than a simple markup language. It has matured enough to combine behavior together with layout, and you should consider HTML5 as extended HTML with advanced JavaScript on top. If you look at all the trouble we had before just to make a static combination of HTML+CSS look identical on all browsers, it is fair to assume that more complexity will just mean more effort assuring cross-browser compatibility.

HTML5 interpretation on different browsers is far from identical, just like the case was with JavaScript. All major players in the browser wars lended a hand in the HTML5 spec, so it’s fair to assume that deviations between browsers should reduce over time. But even now some browsers decided to fully ignore certain HTML5 elements making it very difficult to follow a baseline and common set of features. If we add more internet connected devices and platforms to the equation, the situation gets even more complicated, causing problems with HTML5.

For example Web Animations are great feature that is supported only by Chrome and Opera, while Web Notification feature that allows alerting the user outside the context of a web page of an occurrence, such as the delivery of email, is fully ignored by Internet Explorer.

To learn more about HTML5 features and support by different browsers check out the HTML5 guide at www.caniuse.com.

So the fact remains that even though HTML5 is new and well specified, we should expect a great deal of cross-browser compatibility issues and plan for them in advance. There are just too many gaps that browsers need to fill in, and it is fair to expect that they cannot overcome all of the differences between platforms well.

Common mistake #3: Assuming high performance

Regardless of the fact that HTML5 is still evolving, it is a very powerful technology that has many advantages over alternate platforms used before its existence. But, with great power comes great responsibility, especially for HTML5 beginners. HTML5 has been adopted by all major browsers on desktop and mobile platforms. Having this in mind, many development teams pick HTML5 as their preferred platform, hoping that their applications will run equally on all browsers. However, assuming sensible performance on both desktop and mobile platforms just because HTML5 specification says so, is not sensible. Lots of companies (khm! Facebook khm!) placed their bets on HTML5 for their mobile platform and suffered from HTML5 not working out as they planned.

Again, however, there are some great companies that rely heavily on HTML5. Just look at the numerous online game development studios that are doing amazing stuff while pushing HTML5 and browsers to their limits. Obviously, as long as you are aware of the performance issues and are working around these, you can be in a great place making amazing applications.

Common mistake #4: Limited accessibility

Web has become a very important part of our lives. Making applications accessible to people who rely upon assistive technology is important topic that is often put aside in software development. HTML5 tries to overcome this by implementing some of the advanced accessibility features. More than a few developers accepted this to be sufficient and haven’t really spent any time implementing additional accessibility options in their applications. Unfortunately, at this stage HTML5 has issues that prevent it from making your applications available to everyone and you should expect to invest additional time if you want to include a broader range of users.

You can check this place for more information about accessibility in HTML5 and the current state of the most common accessibility features.

Common mistake #5: Not using HTML5 enhancements

HTML5 has extended the standard HTML/XHTML set of tags significantly. In addition to new tags, we got quite a few new rules and behaviors. Too many developers picked up just a few enhancements and have skipped some of the very cool new features of HTML5.

One of the coolest things in HTML5 is client-side validation. This feature was probably one of the earliest elements of HTML5 that web browsers picked up. But, unfortunately, you can find more than a few developers who add novalidate attribute to their forms by default. The reasons for doing this arereasonable, and I’m quite sure we will have a debate about this one. Due to backward compatibility, many applications implemented custom JavaScript validators and having out-of-the-box validation done by browsers on top of that is inconvenient. However, it is not too difficult to assure that two validation methods will not collide, and standardizing user validation will ensure common experience while helping to resolve accessibility issues that I mentioned earlier.

Another great feature is related to the way user input is handled in HTML5. Before HTML5 came, we had to keep all of our form fields contained inside the <form></form> tag. New form attributes make it perfectly valid to do something like this:

<form action="demo_form.asp" id="form1">
  First name: <input type="text" name="fname"><br>
  <input type="submit" value="Submit">
</form>

Last name: <input type="text" name="lname" form="form1">

Even if lname is not inside the form, it will be posted together with fname.

For more information about new form attributes and enhancements, you can check the Mozilla Developer Network.

Wrap up

I understand that web developers are collateral damage in the browser wars as many of the above mistakes are a direct consequence of problematic HTML5 implementation in different browsers. However, it is still crucial that we avoid common HTML5 issues and spend some time understanding the new features of HTML5. Once we have it all under control, our applications will utilize great new enhancements and take the web to the next level.

Web developers are collateral damage in the browser wars.

With a Filter Bypass and Some Hexadecimal, Hacked Credit Card Numbers Are Still, Still Google-able

Preface

If you know me, or have read my previous post, you know that I worked for a very interesting company before joining Toptal. At this company, our payment provider processed transactions in the neighborhood of $500k per day. Part of my job was to make our provider PCI-DSS compliant—that is, compliant with the Payment Card Industry – Data Security Standard.

It’s safe to say that this wasn’t a job for the faint of heart. At this point, I’m pretty intimate with Credit Cards (CCs), Credit Card fraud and web security in general. After all, our job was to protect our users’ data, to prevent it from being hacked, stolen or misused.

You could imagine my surprise when I saw Bennett Haselton’s 2007 article on Slashdot: Why Are CC Numbers Still So Easy to Find?. In short, Haselton was able to find Credit Card numbers through Google, firstly by searching for a card’s first eight digits in “nnnn nnnn” format, and later using some advanced queries built on number ranges. For example, he could use “4060000000000000..4060999999999999” to find all the 16 digit Primary Account Numbers (PANs) from CHASE (whose cards all begin with 4060). By the way: here’s a full list of Issuer ID numbers.

At the time, I didn’t think much of it, as Google immediately began to filter the types of queries that Bennett was using. When you tried to Google a range like that, Google would serve up a page that said something along the lines of “You’re a bad person”.

This is Google’s response to those trying to figure out how to find credit card numbers online.

About six months ago, while reminiscing with an old friend, this credit card number hack came to mind again. Soon-after, I discovered something alarming. Not terribly alarming, but certainly alarming—so I notified Google, and waited. After a month without a response, I notified them again to no avail.

With a minor tweak on Haselton’s old trick, I was able to Google Credit Card numbers, Social Security numbers, and any other sensitive information of interest.

So I notified Google, and waited. After a month without a response, I notified them again to no avail. With a minor tweak on Haselton’s old trick, I was able to Google Credit Card numbers, Social Security numbers, and any other sensitive information.

Bennett

Yesterday, some friends of mine (buhera.blog.hu and _2501) brought a more recent Slashdot post to my attention: Credit Card Numbers Still Google-able.

The article’s author, again Bennett Haselton, who wrote the original article back in 2007, claims that credit card numbers can still be Googled. You can’t use the number range query hack, but it still can be done. Instead of using simple ranges, you need to apply specific formatting to your query. Something like: “1234 5678” (notice the space in the middle). A lot of hits come up for this query, but very few are of actual interest. Among the contestants are phone numbers, zip-codes, and such. Not extremely alarming. But here comes the credit card hack twist.

The “Methodology”

I was curious if it was still possible to get credit card numbers online the way we could in 2007. As any good Engineer, I usually approach things using a properly construed and intelligent plan that needs to be perfectly executed with the utmost precision. If you have tried that method, you might know that it can fail really hard—in which case your careful planning and effort goes to waste.

In IT we have a tendency to over-intellectualize, even when it isn’t exactly warranted. I have seen my friends and colleagues completely break applications using seemingly random inputs. Their success rate was stunning and the effort they put into it was close to zero. That’s when I learned that to open a door, sometimes you just have to knock.

The Credit Card “Hack”

The previous paragraph was a cleverly disguised attempt to make me look like less of an idiot when I show off my “elite hacking skills”. Oops.

First, I tried several range-query-based approaches. Then, I looked at advanced queries and pretty much anything you might come up with in an hour or so. None of them yielded significant results.

And then I had a crazy idea.

What if there was a mismatch between the filtering engine and the actual back-end? What if the message I got from Google (“You are a bad person”) wasn’t from the back-end itself, but instead from a designated filtering engine Google had implemented to censor queries like mine?

It would make a lot of sense from an architectural perspective. And bugs like that are pretty common—we see them in ITSEC all the time, particularly in IDS/IPS solutions, but also in common software. There’s a filtering procedure that processes data and only gives it to the back-end if it thinks the data is acceptable/non-malicious. However, the back-end and the filtering server almost never parse the input in exactly the same way. Thus, a seemingly valid input can go through the filter and wreak havoc on the back-end, effectively bypassing the filter.

You can usually trigger this type of behavior by providing your input in various encodings. For example: instead of using decimal numbers (0-9), how about converting them to hexadecimal or octal or binary? Well, guess what…

Search for this and Google will tell you that you’re a bad person: “4060000000000000..4060999999999999”

Search for this and Google will be happy to oblige: “0xe6c8c69c9c000..0xe6d753e6ecfff”.

The only thing you need to do is to convert credit card numbers from decimal to hexadecimal. That’s it.

The results include…

  • Humongous CSV files filled with potentially sensitive information.

With this simple credit card hack, a major privacy invasion is waiting to happen.

  • Faulty e-commerce log files.

These faulty e-commerce log files make credit card lookup easy.

  • Sensitive information shared on hacker sites (and even Facebook).

How to hack credit cards is as simple as using hexadecimal.

It’s truly scary stuff.

I know this bug won’t inspire any security research, but there you have it. Google made this boo-boo and neglected to even write me back. Well, it happens. I don’t envy the security folks at the big G, though. They must have a lot of stuff to look out for. I’m posting about this credit card number hack here because:

  1. It’s relatively low impact.
  2. Anyone who’s interested and motivated will have figured this out by now.
  3. To quote Haselton, if the big players aren’t taking responsibility and acting on these exploits, then “the right thing to do is to shine a light on the problem and insist that they fix it as soon as possible”.

This trick can be used to look up phone numbers, SSNs, TFNs, and more. And, as Bennett wrote, these numbers are much much harder to change than your Credit Card, for which you can simply call your bank and cancel the card.

Sample Queries

WARNING: Do NOT Google your own credit card number in full!

Look for any CC PAN starting with 4060: 4060000000000000..4060999999999999 ? 0xe6c8c69c9c000..0xe6d753e6ecfff

Some Hungarian phone numbers from the provider ‘Telenor’? No problem: 36200000000..36209999999 ? 0x86db02a00..0x86e48c07f

Look for SSNs. Thankfully, these don’t return many meaningful results: 100000000..999999999 ? 0x5f5e100..0x3b9ac9ff

There are many, many more.

If you find anything very alarming, or if you’re curious about credit card hacking, please leave it in the comments or contact me by email at [email protected] or on Twitter at @synsecblog. Calling the police is usually futile in these cases, but it might be worth a try. The given merchant or the card provider is usually more keen to address the issue.

Where to Go From Here

Well, Google obviously has to fix this, possibly with the help of the big players like Visa and Mastercard. In fact, Haselton provides a number of interesting suggestions in the two articles linked above.

What you need to do, however (and why I’ve written this post), is spread the word. Credit Card fraud is a big industry, and simple awareness can save you from becoming a victim. Further, if you have an e-commerce site or handle any credit card processing, please make sure that you’re secure. PCI-DSS is a good guideline, but it is far from perfect. Plus, it is always a good idea to Google your site with the “site:mysite.com” advanced query, looking for sensitive numbers. There’s a very, very slim chance that you’ll find anything—but if you do, you must act on it immediately.

Also, a bit of friendly advice: You should never give out your credit card information to anyone. My advice would be to use PayPal or a similar service whenever possible. You can check out these links for further information:

And a few general tips: don’t download things you didn’t ask for, don’t open spam emails, and remember that your bank will never ask for your password.

By the way: If you think there’s no one stupid enough to fall for these credit card hacking techniques or give away their credit card information on the internet, have a look at @NeedADebitCard.

Stay safe people!

This post originally posted on The Toptal Engineering Blog

Are We Creating An Insecure Internet of Things (IoT)? Security Challenges and Concerns

The Internet of Things (IoT) has been an industry buzzword for years, but sluggish development and limited commercialization have led some industry watchers to start calling it the “Internet of NoThings”.

Double puns aside, IoT development is in trouble. Aside from spawning geeky jokes unfit for most social occasions, the hype did not help; and, in fact, I believe it actually caused a lot more harm than good. There are a few problems with IoT, but all the positive coverage and baseless hype are one we could do without. The upside of generating more attention is clear: more investment, more VC funding, more consumer interest.

However, these come with an added level of scrutiny, which has made a number of shortcomings painfully obvious. After a couple of years of bullish forecasts and big promises, IoT security seems to be the biggest concern. The first few weeks of 2015 were not kind to this emerging industry, and most of the negative press revolved around security.

Was it justified? Was it just “fear, uncertainty and doubt” (FUD), brought about by years of hype? It was a bit of both; although some issues may have been overblown, the problems are very real, indeed.

From “Year Of IoT” To Annus Horribilis For IoT

Many commentators described 2015 as “the year of IoT,” but so far, it has been a year of bad press. Granted, there are still ten months to go, but negative reports keep piling on. Security firm Kaspersky recently ran a damning critique of IoT security challenges, with an unflattering headline, “Internet of Crappy Things”.

Kaspersky is no stranger to IoT criticism and controversy; the firm has been sounding alarm bells for a while, backing them up with examples of hacked smart homes, carwashes and even police surveillance systems. Whether a hacker wants to wash their ride free of charge, or stalk someone using their fitness tracker – IoT security flaws could make it possible.

Wind River published a white paper on IoT security in January 2015, and the report starts off with a sobering introduction. Titled Searching For The Silver Bullet, it summarizes the problem in just three paragraphs, which I will condense into a few points:

  • Security must be the foundational enabler for IoT.
  • There is currently no consensus on how to implement security in IoT on the device.
  • A prevalent, and unrealistic, expectation is that it is somehow possible to compress 25 years of security evolution into novel IoT devices.
  • There is no silver bullet that can effectively mitigate the threats.

However, there is some good news; the knowledge and experience are already here, but they have to be adapted to fit the unique constraints of IoT devices.

Unfortunately, this is where we as system security developers stumble upon another problem, a hardware problem.

U.S. Federal Trade Commission chairwoman, Edith Ramirez, addressed the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas earlier this year, warning that embedding sensors into everyday devices, and letting them record what we do, could pose a massive security risk.

Ramirez outlined three key challenges for the future of IoT:

  • Ubiquitous data collection.
  • Potential for unexpected uses of consumer data.
  • Heightened security risks.

She urged companies to enhance privacy and built secure IoT devices by adopting a security-focused approach, reducing the amount of data collected by IoT devices, and increasing transparency and providing consumers with a choice to opt-out of data collection.

Ramirez went on to say that developers of IoT devices have not spent time thinking about how to secure their devices and services from cyberattacks.

“The small size and limited processing power of many connected devices could inhibit encryption and other robust security measures,” said Ramirez. “Moreover, some connected devices are low-cost and essentially disposable. If a vulnerability is discovered on that type of device, it may be difficult to update the software or apply a patch – or even to get news of a fix to consumers.”

While Ramirez is spot on in most respects, I should note that the Internet went through a similar phase two decades ago. There were a lot of security concerns, and the nineties saw the emergence of the internet-borne malware, DDoS attacks, sophisticated phishing and more. Even though Hollywood depicted a dystopian future in some films, we have ended up with kittens on social networks and a high-profile security breach here and there.

The Internet is still not secure, so we can’t expect IoT to be secure, either. However, security is constantly evolving to meet new challenges, we’ve seen it before, and we’ll see it again, with IoT and subsequent connected technologies.

IoT Hardware Is And Will Remain A Problem

Some of you will be thinking that the hardware issues mentioned by the FTC boss will be addressed; yes, some of them probably will.

As the IoT market grows, we will see more investment, and as hardware matures, we will get improved security. Chipmakers like Intel and ARM will be keen to offer better security with each new generation, since security could be a market differentiator, allowing them to grab more design wins and gain a bigger share.

Technology always advances, so why not? New manufacturing processes generally result in faster and more efficient processors, and sooner or later, the gap will close, thus providing developers with enough processing power to implement better security features. However, I am not so sure this is a realistic scenario.

insecure iot

First of all IoT chips won’t be big money-makers since they are tiny and usually based on outdated architectures. For example, the first-generation Intel Edison platform is based on Quark processors, which essentially use the same CPU instruction set and much of the design of the ancient Pentium P54C. However, the next-generation Edison microcomputer is based on a much faster processor, based on Atom Silvermont cores, which is in many Windows and Android tablets, today. (Intel shipped ~46m Bay Trail SoCs in 2014.)

On the face of it, we could end up with relatively modern 64-bit x86 CPU cores in IoT devices, but they won’t come cheap, they will still be substantially more complex than the smallest ARM cores, and therefore will need more battery power.

Cheap and disposable wearables, which appear to be the FTC’s biggest concern, won’t be powered by such chips, at least, not anytime soon. Consumers may end up with more powerful processors, such as Intel Atoms or ARMv8 chips, in some smart products, like smart refrigerators or washing machines with touchscreens, but they are impractical for disposable devices with no displays and with limited battery capacity.

Selling complete platforms, or reference designs for various IoT devices, could help chipmakers generate more revenue, while at the same time introduce more standardisation and security. The last thing the industry needs is more unstandardized devices and more fragmentation. This may sound like a logical and sound approach, since developers would end up with fewer platforms and more resources would be allocated for security, however, security breaches would also affect a bigger number of devices.

Money Is Pouring In, Analysts Remain Bullish, What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

One of the most common ways of tackling any problem in the tech industry is to simply throw money at it. So, let’s see where we stand right now in terms of funding rather than technology.

According to research firms IDC and Gartner, IoT will grow to such an extent that it will transform the data centre industry by the end of the decade. Gartner expects the IoT market will have 26 billion installed units by 2020, creating huge opportunities for all parties, from data centres and hardware makers, to developers and designers. IDC also expects the IoT industry to end up with “billions of devices and trillions of dollars” by the end of the decade.

Gartner’s latest comprehensive IoT forecast was published in May 2014 and it also includes a list of potential challenges, some of which I’ve already covered:

  • Security: Increased automation and digitization creates new security concerns.
  • Enterprise: Security issues could pose safety risks.
  • Consumer Privacy: Potential of privacy breaches.
  • Data: Lots of data will be generated, both for big data and personal data.
  • Storage Management: Industry needs to figure out what to do with the data in a cost-effective manner.
  • Server Technologies: More investment in servers will be necessary.
  • Data Centre Network: WAN links are optimised for human interface applications, IoT is expected to dramatically change patterns by transmitting data automatically.

All these points (and more) must be addressed sooner or later, often at a substantial cost. We are no longer talking about tiny IoT chips and cheap toys based on such chips, this is infrastructure. This is a lot of silicon in server CPUs, expensive DDR4 ECC RAM and even bigger SSDs, all housed in expensive servers, in even bigger data centres.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg; industry must tackle bandwidth concerns, data management and privacy policies, and security. So how much money does that leave for security, which is on top of Gartner’s list of IoT challenges?

A lot of money is already pouring into the industry, VCs are getting on board and the pace of investment appears to be picking up. There were also a number of acquisitions, often involving big players like Google, Qualcomm, Samsung, Gemalto, Intel and others. There is a list of IoT-related investments on Postscapes. The trouble with many of these investments, especially those coming from VCs, is that they tend to focus on “shiny” things, devices that can be marketed soon, with a potentially spectacular ROI. These investments don’t do much for security or infrastructure, which would basically have to trail IoT demand.

Big players will have to do the heavy lifting, not VC-backed startups and toymakers. Agile and innovative startups will certainly play a big role by boosting adoption and creating demand, but they can’t do everything.

So let’s think of it this way, even a small company can build a car, or tens of thousands of cars, but it can’t build highways, roads, petrol stations and refineries. That same small company can build a safe vehicle using off-the-shelf technology to meet basic road safety standards, but it couldn’t build a Segway-like vehicle that would meet the same safety standards, nor could anyone else. Automotive safety standards could never apply to such vechicles, we don’t see people commuting to work on Segways, so we cannot expect the traditional tech security standard to apply to underpowered IoT devices, either.

Having commuters checking their email or playing Candy Crush while riding their Segways through rush hour traffic does not sound very safe, does it? So why should we expect IoT devices to be as safe as other connected devices, with vastly more powerful hardware and mature operating systems? It may be a strange analogy, but the bottom line is that IoT devices cannot be expected to conform to the same security standards as fully fledged computers.

But Wait, There Weren’t That Many IoT Security Debacles…

True, we don’t see a lot of headlines about spectacular IoT security breaches, but let me put it this way: how many security related headlines did you see about Android Wear? One? Two? None? It is estimated there are fewer than a million Android Wear devices in the wild, so they’re simply not a prime target for hackers, or a subject for security researchers.

How many IoT devices do you own and use right now? How many does your business use? That’s where the “Internet of NoThings” joke comes from, most people don’t have any. The numbers keep going up, but the average consumer is not buying many, so where is that growth coming from? IoT devices are out there and the numbers are booming, driven by enterprise rather than the consumer market.

Verizon and ABI Research estimate that there were 1.2 billion different devices connected to the internet last year, but by 2020, they expect as many as 5.4 billion B2B IoT connections.

Smart wristbands, toasters and dog collars aren’t a huge concern from a security perspective, but Verizon’s latest IoT report focuses on something a bit more interesting: enterprise.

The number of Verizon’s machine-to-machine (M2M) connections in the manufacturing sector increased by 204 percent from 2013 to 2014, followed by finance and insurance, media and entertainment, healthcare, retail and transportation. The Verizon report includes a breakdown of IoT trends in various industries, so it offers insight into the business side of things.

The overall tone of the report is upbeat, but it also lists a number of security concerns. Verizon describes security breaches in the energy industry as “unthinkable,” describes IoT security as “paramount” in manufacturing, and let’s not even bring up potential risks in healthcare and transportation.

How And When Will We Get A Secure Internet of Things?

I will not try to offer a definitive answer on how IoT security challenges can be resolved, or when. The industry is still searching for answers and there is a long way to go. Recent studies indicate that the majority of currently available IoT devices have security vulnerabilities. HP found that as many 70 percent of IoT devices are vulnerable to attack.

While growth offers a lot of opportunities, IoT is still not mature, or secure. Adding millions of new devices, hardware endpoints, billions of lines of code, along with more infrastructure to cope with the load, creates a vast set of challenges, unmatched by anything we have experienced over the past two decades.

That is why I am not an optimist.

I don’t believe the industry can apply a lot of security lessons to IoT, at least not quickly enough, not over the next couple of years. In my mind, the Internet analogy is a fallacy, simply because the internet of the nineties did not have to deal with such vastly different types of hardware. Using encryption and wasting clock cycles on security is not a problem on big x86 CPUs or ARM SoCs, but it won’t work the same way with tiny IoT devices with a fraction of the processing power and a much different power consumption envelope.

More elaborate processors, with a biger die, need bigger packaging and have to dissipate more heat. They also need more power, which means bigger, heavier, more expensive batteries. To shave off weight and reduce bulk, manufacturers would have to resort to using exotic materials and production techniques. All of the above would entail more R&D spending, longer time-to-market and a bigger bill of materials. With substantially higher prices and a premium build, such devices could hardly be considered disposable.

the internet of things - iot

So what has to be done to make IoT secure? A lot. And everyone has a role to play, from tech giants to individual developers.

Let’s take a look at a few basic points, such as what can be done, and what is being done, to improve IoT security now:

  • Emphasise security from day one
  • Lifecycle, future-proofing, updates
  • Access control and device authentication
  • Know your enemy
  • Prepare for security breaches

A clear emphasis on security from day one is always a good thing, especially when dealing with immature technologies and underdeveloped markets. If you are planning to develop your own IoT infrastructure, or deploy an existing solution, do your research and stay as informed as possible. This may involve trade-offs, as you could be presented with a choice of boosting security at the cost of compromising the user experience, but it’s worth it as long as you strike the right balance. This cannot be done on the fly, you have to plan ahead, and plan well.

In the rush to bring new products and services to market, many companies are likely to overlook long-term support. It happens all the time, even in the big leagues, so we always end up with millions of unpatched and insecure computers and mobile devices. They are simply too old for most companies to bother with, and it is bound to be even worse with disposable IoT devices. Major phone vendors don’t update their software on 2-3 year old phones, so imagine what will happen with $20 IoT devices that might be on your network for years. Planned obsolescence may be a part of it, but the truth is that updating old devices does not make much financial sense for the manufacturer since they have better things to do with their resources. Secure IoT devices would either have to be secure by design and impervious from the start, or receive vital updates throughout their lifecycle, and I’m sure you will agree neither option sounds realistic, at least, not yet.

Implementing secure access control and device authentication sounds like an obvious thing to bring up, but we are not dealing with your average connected device here. Creating access controls, and authentication methods, that can be implemented on cheap and compact IoT devices without compromising the user experience, or adding unnecessary hardware, is harder than it seems. As I mentioned earlier, lack of processing power is another problem, as most advanced encryption techniques simply wouldn’t work very well, if at all. In a previous post, I looked at one alternative, outsourcing encryption via the blockchain technology; I am not referring to the Bitcoin blockchain, but similar crypto technologies that are already being studied by several industry leaders.

Si vis pacem, para bellum – if you want peace, prepare for war. It is vital to study threats and potential attackers before tackling IoT security. The threat level is not the same for all devices and there are countless considerations to take into account; would someone rather hack your daughter’s teddy bear, or something a bit more serious? It’s necessary to reduce data risk, keep as much personal data as possible from IoT devices, properly secure necessary data transfers, and so on. However, to do all this, you first need to study the threat.

If all else fails, at least be prepared for potential security breaches. Sooner or later they will happen, to you or someone else (well, preferably a competitor). Always have an exit strategy, a way of securing as much data as possible and rendering compromised data useless without wrecking your IoT infrastructure. It is also necessary to educate customers, employees and everyone else involved in the process about the risks of such breaches. Instruct them in what to do in case of a breach, and what to do to avoid one.

Of course, a good disclaimer and TOS will also help if you end up dealing with the worst-case scenario.

The post originaly appeared on the: Toptal Engineering Blog

 

10 Most Common Web Security Vulnerabilities

For all too many companies, it’s not until after a breach has occurred that web security becomes a priority. During my years working as an IT Security professional, I have seen time and time again how obscure the world of IT Security is to so many of my fellow programmers.

An effective approach to IT security must, by definition, be proactive and defensive. Toward that end, this post is aimed at sparking a security mindset, hopefully injecting the reader with a healthy dose of paranoia.

In particular, this guide focuses on 10 common and significant web security pitfalls to be aware of, including recommendations on how they can be avoided. The focus is on the Top 10 Web Vulnerabilities identified by the Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP), an international, non-profit organization whose goal is to improve software security across the globe.

A little web security primer before we start – authentication and authorization

When speaking with other programmers and IT professionals, I often encounter confusion regarding the distinction between authorization and authentication. And of course, the fact the abbreviation auth is often used for both helps aggravate this common confusion. This confusion is so common that maybe this issue should be included in this post as “Common Web Vulnerability Zero”.

So before we proceed, let’s clearly the distinction between these two terms:

  • Authentication: Verifying that a person is (or at least appears to be) a specific user, since he/she has correctly provided their security credentials (password, answers to security questions, fingerprint scan, etc.).
  • Authorization: Confirming that a particular user has access to a specific resource or is granted permission to perform a particular action.

Stated another way, authentication is knowing who an entity is, while authorization is knowing what a given entity can do.

Common Mistake #1: Injection flaws

Injection flaws result from a classic failure to filter untrusted input. It can happen when you pass unfiltered data to the SQL server (SQL injection), to the browser (XSS – we’ll talk about this later), to the LDAP server (LDAP injection), or anywhere else. The problem here is that the attacker can inject commands to these entities, resulting in loss of data and hijacking clients’ browsers.

Anything that your application receives from untrusted sources must be filtered, preferably according to a whitelist. You should almost never use a blacklist, as getting that right is very hard and usually easy to bypass. Antivirus software products typically provide stellar examples of failing blacklists. Pattern matching does not work.

Prevention: The good news is that protecting against injection is “simply” a matter of filtering your input properly and thinking about whether an input can be trusted. But the bad news is that all input needs to be properly filtered, unless it can unquestionably be trusted (but the saying “never say never” does come to mind here).

In a system with 1,000 inputs, for example, successfully filtering 999 of them is not sufficient, as this still leaves one field that can serve as the Achilles heal to bring down your system. And you might think that putting an SQL query result into another query is a good idea, as the database is trusted, but if the perimeter is not, the input comes indirectly from guys with malintent. This is called Second Order SQL Injection in case you’re interested.

Since filtering is pretty hard to do right (like crypto), what I usually advise is to rely on your framework’s filtering functions: they are proven to work and are thoroughly scrutinized. If you do not use frameworks, you really need to think hard about whether not using them really makes sense in your environment. 99% of the time it does not.

Common Mistake #2: Broken Authentication

This is a collection of multiple problems that might occur during broken authentication, but they don’t all stem from the same root cause.

Assuming that anyone still wants to roll their own authentication code in 2014 (what are you thinking??), I advise against it. It is extremely hard to get right, and there are a myriad of possible pitfalls, just to mention a few:

  1. The URL might contain the session id and leak it in the referer header to someone else.
  2. The passwords might not be encrypted either in storage or transit.
  3. The session ids might be predictable, thus gaining access is trivial.
  4. Session fixation might be possible.
  5. Session hijacking might be possible, timeouts not implemented right or using HTTP (no SSL), etc…

Prevention: The most straightforward way to avoid this web security vulnerability is to use a framework. You might be able to implement this correctly, but the former is much easier. In case you do want to roll your own code, be extremely paranoid and educate yourself on what the pitfalls are. There are quite a few.

Common Mistake #3: Cross Site Scripting (XSS)

This is a fairly widespread input sanitization failure (essentially a special case of common mistake #1). An attacker gives your web application JavaScript tags on input. When this input is returned to the user unsanitized, the user’s browser will execute it. It can be as simple as crafting a link and persuading a user to click it, or it can be something much more sinister. On page load the script runs and, for example, can be used to post your cookies to the attacker.

Prevention: There’s a simple web security solution: don’t return HTML tags to the client. This has the added benefit of defending against HTML injection, a similar attack whereby the attacker injects plain HTML content (such as images or loud invisible flash players) – not high-impact but surely annoying (“please make it stop!”). Usually, the workaround is simply converting all HTML entities, so that <script> is returned as &lt;script&gt;. The other often employed method of sanitization is using regular expressions to strip away HTML tags using regular expressions on < and >, but this is dangerous as a lot of browsers will interpret severely broken HTML just fine. Better to convert all characters to their escaped counterparts.

Common Mistake #4: Insecure Direct Object References

This is a classic case of trusting user input and paying the price in a resulting security vulnerability. A direct object reference means that an internal object such as a file or database key is exposed to the user. The problem with this is that the attacker can provide this reference and, if authorization is either not enforced (or is broken), the attacker can access or do things that they should be precluded from.

For example, the code has a download.php module that reads and lets the user download files, using a CGI parameter to specify the file name (e.g., download.php?file=something.txt). Either by mistake or due to laziness, the developer omitted authorization from the code. The attacker can now use this to download any system files that the user running PHP has access to, like the application code itself or other data left lying around on the server, like backups. Uh-oh.

Another common vulnerability example is a password reset function that relies on user input to determine whose password we’re resetting. After clicking the valid URL, an attacker can just modify the username field in the URL to say something like “admin”.

Incidentally, both of these examples are things I myself have seen appearing often “in the wild”.

Prevention: Perform user authorization properly and consistently, and whitelist the choices. More often than not though, the whole problem can be avoided by storing data internally and not relying on it being passed from the client via CGI parameters. Session variables in most frameworks are well suited for this purpose.

Common Mistake #5: Security misconfiguration

In my experience, web servers and applications that have been misconfigured are way more common than those that have been configured properly. Perhaps this because there is no shortage of ways to screw up. Some examples:

  1. Running the application with debug enabled in production.
  2. Having directory listing enabled on the server, which leaks valuable information.
  3. Running outdated software (think WordPress plugins, old PhpMyAdmin).
  4. Having unnecessary services running on the machine.
  5. Not changing default keys and passwords. (Happens way more frequently than you’d believe!)
  6. Revealing error handling information to the attackers, such as stack traces.

Prevention: Have a good (preferably automated) “build and deploy” process, which can run tests on deploy. The poor man’s security misconfiguration solution is post-commit hooks, to prevent the code from going out with default passwords and/or development stuff built in.

Common Mistake #6: Sensitive data exposure

This web security vulnerability is about crypto and resource protection. Sensitive data should be encrypted at all times, including in transit and at rest. No exceptions. Credit card information and user passwords should never travel or be stored unencrypted, and passwords should always be hashed. Obviously the crypto/hashing algorithm must not be a weak one – when in doubt, use AES (256 bits and up) and RSA (2048 bits and up).

And while it goes without saying that session IDs and sensitive data should not be traveling in the URLs and sensitive cookies should have the secure flag on, this is very important and cannot be over-emphasized.

Prevention:

  • In transit: Use HTTPS with a proper certificate and PFS (Perfect Forward Secrecy). Do not accept anything over non-HTTPS connections. Have the secure flag on cookies.
  • In storage: This is harder. First and foremost, you need to lower your exposure. If you don’t need sensitive data, shred it. Data you don’t have can’t be stolen. Do not store credit card information ever, as you probably don’t want to have to deal with being PCI compliant. Sign up with a payment processor such as Stripe or Braintree. Second, if you have sensitive data that you actually do need, store it encrypted and make sure all passwords are hashed. For hashing, use of bcrypt is recommended. If you don’t use bcrypt, educate yourself on salting and rainbow tables.

And at the risk of stating the obvious, do not store the encryption keys next to the protected data. That’s like storing your bike with a lock that has the key in it. Protect your backups with encryption and keep your keys very private. And of course, don’t lose the keys!

Common Mistake #7: Missing function level access control

This is simply an authorization failure. It means that when a function is called on the server, proper authorization was not performed. A lot of times, developers rely on the fact that the server side generated the UI and they think that the functionality that is not supplied by the server cannot be accessed by the client. It is not as simple as that, as an attacker can always forge requests to the “hidden” functionality and will not be deterred by the fact that the UI doesn’t make this functionality easily accessible. Imagine there’s an /adminpanel, and the button is only present in the UI if the user is actually an admin. Nothing keeps an attacker from discovering this functionality and misusing it if authorization is missing.

Prevention: On the server side, authorization must always be done. Yes, always. No exceptions or vulnerabilities will result in serious problems.

Common Mistake #8: Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

This is a nice example of a confused deputy attack whereby the browser is fooled by some other party into misusing its authority. A 3rd party site, for example, can make the user’s browser misuse it’s authority to do something for the attacker.

In the case of CSRF, a 3rd party site issues requests to the target site (e.g., your bank) using your browser with your cookies / session. If you are logged in on one tab on your bank’s homepage, for example, and they are vulnerable to this attack, another tab can make your browser misuse its credentials on the attacker’s behalf, resulting in the confused deputy problem. The deputy is the browser that misuses its authority (session cookies) to do something the attacker instructs it to do.

Consider this example:

Attacker Alice wants to lighten target Todd’s wallet by transfering some of his money to her. Todd’s bank is vulnerable to CSRF. To send money, Todd has to access the following URL:

http://example.com/app/transferFunds?amount=1500&destinationAccount=4673243243

After this URL is opened, a success page is presented to Todd, and the transfer is done. Alice also knows, that Todd frequently visits a site under her control at blog.aliceisawesome.com, where she places the following snippet:

<img src="http://example.com/app/transferFunds?amount=1500&destinationAccount=4673243243" width="0" height="0" />

Upon visiting Alice’s website, Todd’s browser thinks that Alice links to an image, and automatically issues an HTTP GET request to fetch the “picture”, but this actually instructs Todd’s bank to transfer $1500 to Alice.

Incidentally, in addition to demonstrating the CSRF vulnerability, this example also demonstrates altering the server state with an idempotent HTTP GET request which is itself a serious vulnerability. HTTP GET requests must be idempotent (safe), meaning that they cannot alter the resource which is accessed. Never, ever, ever use idempotent methods to change the server state.

Fun fact: CSRF is also the method people used for cookie-stuffing in the past until affiliates got wiser.

Prevention: Store a secret token in a hidden form field which is inaccessible from the 3rd party site. You of course always have to verify this hidden field. Some sites ask for your password as well when modifying sensitive settings (like your password reminder email, for example), although I’d suspect this is there to prevent the misuse of your abandoned sessions (in an internet cafe for example).

Common Mistake #9: Using components with known vulnerabilities

The title says it all. I’d again classify this as more of a maintenance/deployment issue. Before incorporating new code, do some research, possibly some auditing. Using code that you got from a random person on GitHub or some forum might be very convenient, but is not without risk of serious web security vulnerability.

I have seen many instances, for example, where sites got owned (i.e., where an outsider gains administrative access to a system), not because the programmers were stupid, but because a 3rd party software remained unpatched for years in production. This is happening all the time with WordPress plugins for example. If you think they will not find your hidden phpmyadmin installation, let me introduce you to dirbuster.

The lesson here is that software development does not end when the application is deployed. There has to be documentation, tests, and plans on how to maintain and keep it updated, especially if it contains 3rd party or open source components.

Prevention:

  • Exercise caution. Beyond obviously using caution when using such components, do not be a copy-paste coder. Carefully inspect the piece of code you are about to put into your software, as it might be broken beyond repair (or in some cases, intentionally malicious).
  • Stay up-to-date. Make sure you are using the latest versions of everything that you trust, and have a plan to update them regularly. At least subscribe to a newsletter of new security vulnerabilities regarding the product.

Common Mistake #10: Unvalidated redirects and forwards

This is once again an input filtering issue. Suppose that the target site has a redirect.php module that takes a URL as a GET parameter. Manipulating the parameter can create a URL on targetsite.com that redirects the browser to malwareinstall.com. When the user sees the link, they will see targetsite.com/blahblahblahwhich the user thinks is trusted and is safe to click. Little do they know that this will actually transfer them onto a malware drop (or any other malicious) page. Alternatively, the attacker might redirect the browser to targetsite.com/deleteprofile?confirm=1.

It is worth mentioning, that stuffing unsanitized user-defined input into an HTTP header might lead to header injection which is pretty bad.

Prevention: Options include:

  • Don’t do redirects at all (they are seldom necessary).
  • Have a static list of valid locations to redirect to.
  • Whitelist the user-defined parameter, but this can be tricky.

Epilogue

I hope that I have managed to tickle your brain a little bit with this post and to introduce a healthy dose of paranoia and web security vulnerability awareness.

The core takeaway here is that age-old software practices exist for a reason and what applied back in the day for buffer overflows, still apply for pickled strings in Python today. Security helps you write correct(er) programs, which all programmers should aspire to.

Please use this knowledge responsibly, and don’t test pages without permission!

For more information and more specific attacks, have a look at: https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:Attack.

Feedback on this post is welcome and appreciated. Future related posts are planned, particularly on the issue of distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) and old-school (not web) IT security vulnerabilities. If you have a specific request on what to write about, please feel free to contact me directly at [email protected]

Cheers.

This post originally appeared on the Toptal Engineering Blog

Search This Blog
NetworkedBlogs