Everyone is talking security these days. Does this include Facebook?
I ask because a group called "Kill Obama" was on the social-networking site for more than a month before Facebook's attention was drawn to it by CNET late Monday evening.
The group, which appears to have been created in Alberta, Canada, had 122 members and five administrators. Its existence originally caught the eye of Brian Cuban, brother of tech entrepreneur Mark Cuban.
Brian Cuban, who has long criticized Facebook for its attitude toward Holocaust denial groups, used his blog, the Cuban Revolution, to point out the apparent criminality of the "Kill Obama" group: those found guilty of a threat to kill the president could face up to five years in jail.
The "Kill Obama" group, which was active since November, was entirely open and set out its goals like this: "We are going to kill Obama. Ten of us will surround the capital, armed with sniper rifles. Mr. Hope And Change just made his last speech."
(Credit:
CC Jay Cameron/Flickr)
Facebook's response might strike some as peculiarly confident. Andrew Noyes of Facebook's public-policy group in Washington, D.C., told me via e-mail:
The group in question, which was created by an individual user, was brought to our attention on Monday and was removed promptly. As for the broader issue of controversial content that may appear on Facebook, I wonder how a phone company would answer a question about preventing threatening phone calls or how the postal service would respond about preventing threatening letters? And Web mail providers about threatening e-mails?
Some might feel that the difference is that Facebook can better see and hear what is on its site than phone providers or the U.S. Postal Service. This communication was entirely public and had been on the site for a while. The impression Facebook gives, however, is that it is doing more than most communication platforms to fight misuse.
Noyes continued:
Just as none of those communications platforms can guarantee their tools won't be misused, neither can we. However, different from those platforms, Facebook is committed to enhancing our already-robust reporting and review infrastructure, and reducing our response times in removing content that violates our policies. When we find egregious violations, we'll kick people off for good and prevent them from committing further offenses. Again, this is something that the other communication platforms can't do nearly as effectively as we can or at all.
The robust reporting and review infrastructure seems to have not been terribly robust in this instance. Facebook can give the impression that it is more attuned to removing images of breastfeeding than policing hate and threat.
Given that the company is so able and keen to collate information in order to help advertisers, some might wonder whether one member of its "porn police" might be reassigned so that Facebook might exercise a little more vigilance in the area of threatening and possibly criminal activity.
Indeed, one might have thought that Facebook would have security in place that would immediately monitor groups using such obvious keywords in their names as "Kill" and "Obama." However, Facebook's view is, according to Noyes, that there could be "millions" of possible permutations of these two words.
I know that there are many mathematically skilled readers here, so perhaps they might offer a view on these millions of permutations. My nonmathematical methods just revealed to me that by searching "Kill Obama," there were only 571 results. These results didn't appear to offer anything as overtly threatening as "Kill Obama." Indeed, the top group, with 143 members, was "Don't Kill Barack Obama."
In September, Facebook removed a "Should Obama be Killed?" poll, again after it had been noticed by the media. Indeed, Facebook's view seems to be that the policing of the site is largely down to, well, you.
Noyes told me:
No system is perfect, but we believe this is the best system, and we're always working to improve it. With extremely few exceptions, our user base has proved to be vigilant in flagging content that should be taken offline.
Perhaps there are more users concerned with naughty pictures than threats to kill the president. However, when asked if Facebook had given the personal details of the "Kill Obama" group to the authorities, Noyes said, "We don't comment on investigations, but we're in regular contact with the Secret Service."
All's well that ends well is one philosophy of life, of course. But not the only one.
This week brought some bad news for mobile phone users. German security expert Karsten Nohl showed how easy it is to eavesdrop on GSM-based (Global System for Mobile Communications) cell phones, including those used by AT&T and T-Mobile customers in the U.S.
Nohl, who has a doctorate in computer engineering from the University of Virginia, made headlines last year publicizing weaknesses in wireless smart card chips used in transit systems around the globe.
Karsten Nohl
(Credit: Kingsley Liu)CNET interviewed Nohl via e-mail on Thursday about his latest work and what the implications are for the more than 3 billion GSM mobile phones worldwide, representing about 80 percent of the market, according to the GSM Alliance.
Q: You made quite a splash at the Chaos Communication Congress hacker conference in Berlin this week. What happened?
Nohl: We showed that GSM, the widely used cell phone standard, is insecure, and explained how your neighbor might already be listening in on your calls. After GSM's security was declared outdated several times before, we were the first to make tools available for people to verify its insecurities.
Q: In August you launched an open-source, distributed computing project designed to crack GSM encryption and compile it into a code book that can be used to eavesdrop on calls. Is this week's announcement related to that?
Nohl: Yes, at the conference a code book was released--a data set previously only available to well-funded organizations. This code book has been computed in just a few months thanks to many volunteers on the Internet.
Q: And this is to determine the key used to encrypt GSM communications, right?
Nohl: That's correct. The code book reveals the encryption key of a call.
Q: What is the problem with the GSM encryption technology exactly?
Nohl: GSM's A5/1 encryption function uses a 64-bit key that is too short to withstand the computing power available today. When the algorithm was designed 20 years ago when CPU [central processing unit] cycles and storage were much more expensive, it must have seemed a lot more secure. However, the A5/1 function should have been replaced years ago when researchers first discussed practical attacks.
Q: What does this mean for users of GSM phones? What is the real-world threat?
Nohl: Cell phone calls can be intercepted--not just since this week, but more cheaply every month. Sensitive information, say, from politicians, can be overheard from, say, foreign embassies. Others willing to cross the line into illegality and listen in on a call could be industry spies or even private snoops.
Q: Exactly how would someone use this technology to spy on mobile phone conversations?
Nohl: You record a call and then decrypt it. Recording requires some advanced radio equipment, which can be as cheap as the $1,500 suggested retail price [Universal Software Radio Peripheral] device. One direction of a call can potentially be intercepted from a kilometer away while catching both directions requires the eavesdropper to be in the vicinity of the victim. Decryption is then done using the code book the community produced.
Q: What should people do to protect themselves against this?
Nohl: In the short-term, there is not much users can do to protect themselves other than being aware of the threat and keeping their most confidential calls and text messages off the GSM network. To improve GSM security in the long run, customers should go to their operators and create demand for improvements.
Q: What are the practical implications of your work? In other words, does your research make it cheaper and easier to eavesdrop and if so, how much cheaper and how much faster to crack the encryption? (One expert had estimated that the code book would let someone crack the code in hours now instead of taking weeks.)
Nohl: Our results don't necessarily make decryption faster; current commercial interceptors decrypt within seconds, often faster than the time a user takes to answer the call. Our project makes the technical background of these systems more accessible and aims to inform about the fact that GSM intercept is widespread. As a side effect, interception might become cheaper, too.
Q: What exactly does someone need to eavesdrop? (In other words, the code book/tables, antennas, special software, and $30,000 worth of hardware?)
Nohl: The more you spend on hardware, the faster you can decrypt calls. Two USRP radios, a beefy gaming computer, and a handful of USB sticks can already decrypt many calls. For $30,000 you can build a sub-minute decryptor.
Q: I understand it is illegal to intercept mobile phone calls in the U.S. and many other countries. Is what you did legal?
Nohl: Intercepting the phone calls of others should be illegal everywhere, and we do not plan to do that. Our research instead exposes that nothing in GSM is keeping criminals away from doing illegal intercepts. Fortunately, such security research is still legal.
Q: What did you do to make sure you have good legal standing? Did you consult with the Electronic Frontier Foundation?
Nohl: The EFF indeed helped us understand the legal implications of researching GSM technology.
Q: Have you been in touch with the GSM Alliance or any other pertinent entities?
Nohl: We have not yet been able to start a discourse with the GSMA. Through the press, though, we hear that a GSMA meeting in February might decide to ramp up upgrade efforts toward A5/3, the better encryption function. That would be great!
Q: Why did you do this research and public disclosure?
Nohl: We aim to make users of GSM aware that the GSM cannot be fully trusted. After other researchers have called a hack [questioned the security] of GSM for many years, we thought it was time to go one step further and provide tools for customers to "try at home" how insecure GSM's current encryption function is.
Q: Can the tables be used against the A5/3, the successor to A5/1? What is the difference between the two crypto standards?
Nohl: Fortunately, we cannot crack A5/3. This newer encryption is used in 3G networks and is currently considered a security patch for GSM networks. So there is [hope].
Q: What should mobile phone operators or carriers do about this?
Nohl: Carriers should now do the security patch that is overdue 15 years by upgrading to a new encryption function. I suspect they will only do so if customer demand is significant. Hopefully the customers will make it clear to their provider that they want 21st century security for their phone calls.
(Credit:
RockYou)
An Indiana man filed a lawsuit against RockYou this week alleging that the provider of social-networking apps failed to secure its network and protect customer data, enabling a hacker to grab passwords of 32 million users earlier this month.
The suit seeking class action status was filed Monday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco by lawyers for Alan Claridge, of Evansville, Ind., who registered with RockYou in August 2008 to use a photo-sharing application. RockYou is a publisher and developer of online apps and services like "SuperWall" on Facebook and "Slideshow" on MySpace.
Claridge said he received an e-mail from RockYou on December 16 informing him that his sensitive, personally identifiable information, including e-mail address and password, may have been compromised in a security breach, according to the suit.
Security firm Imperva notified RockYou on December 4 that it had learned of a breach of RockYou's network from underground hacker forums. RockYou had been hit with a common type of exploit known as a SQL injection flaw that targets information stored in databases and hackers were regularly discussing the fact that the hole at RockYou was being exploited, the lawsuit said.
After being informed of the breach, RockYou admitted that customer data had been stored in an unencrypted database.
The suit claims RockYou failed to protect sensitive user data including e-mail addresses, passwords, and login credentials for social-networking sites like Facebook and MySpace and was negligent in storing data in plaintext.
"RockYou recklessly and knowingly failed to take even the most basic steps to protect its users' PII (personally identifiable information) by leaving the data entirely unencrypted and available for any person with a basic set of hacking skills to take the PII of at least 32 million customers," the lawsuit alleges.
"Because a majority of Internet users utilize identical passwords across a wide range of Web sites, gaining access to a user's e-mail account name and password has a high likelihood of providing access to a user's personal and/or work e-mail account," the suit said.
RockYou also took at least one day to take action to fix the problem, and failed to notify customers of the breach in a reasonable time frame, not posting notice on its Web site or warning customers for 10 to 12 days after it was notified, the lawsuit alleges.
Wendy Zaas, a spokeswoman for Redwood City, Calif.-based RockYou, provided this statement when asked for comment on the lawsuit: "RockYou is aware of the class action suit brought by Alan Claridge and plans to defend itself vigorously. The company takes its users' privacy seriously."
The lawsuit includes nine counts including negligence, breach of contract, violation of California's Computer Crime Law, and California's Security Breach Information Act, among other allegations. It asks the court to order RockYou to protect customer data and seeks unspecified damages.
The suit was first reported by Wired. Com.
John Hering, co-founder and chief executive of Lookout
(Credit: James Martin/CNET )SAN FRANCISCO--In July, John Hering and Kevin Mahaffey demonstrated an SMS attack targeting a variety of smartphones at a security show. This week they are launching a company, with backing from some heavyweight investors, that will offer a fix for that problem, as well as protect smartphones from many other security issues.
Lookout has received $5.5 million in Series A funding from Khosla Ventures, Trilogy Partnership, and angel investors including Phil Paul, founder of Paul Capital Partners; Chris Sacca, former head of special initiatives at Google; and Joseph Ansanelli, former chief executive of Vontu.
Lookout is a cross-platform, Internet-connected application that offers advanced security and backup services, as well as the ability to locate devices that go missing or get stolen, and over-the-air management capabilities. The service is currently in private beta in more than 170 countries across 400 mobile networks, Hering, Lookout's chief executive, said in an interview.
It will be offered publicly on a subscription basis in early 2010 and an enterprise version will come later in 2010 or early 2011, he said. Pricing will be announced later.
Hering, Mahaffey, and the third co-founder, James Burgess, all met while attending the University of Southern California, and have honed their skills in the mobile space over the past five years, initially calling the company Flexilis.
They conducted research, helped handset makers with diagnostic tools, and discovered vulnerabilities in mobile devices and software--including uncovering a serious hole in the iPhone's implementation of Bluetooth in 2007 and hitting a world record by hacking a mobile phone from more than a mile away via Bluetooth in 2004.
With the funding and name change comes a move to San Francisco from Orange County in Southern California. The twentysomething executives were busy interviewing prospective employees in their sparse, new offices in the South of Market area in San Francisco. They have taken over part of the offices formerly occupied by Twitter.
"Hopefully, the Twitter luck will rub off on us," Hering said, as he gave a tour of the digs.
Lookout works on all the major smartphone platforms.
(Credit: James Martin/CNET )The Lookout software is downloaded to the device and gets updates and backs up data in real-time via Lookout servers in the cloud. Antivirus and firewall software protects against electronic threats such as hackers, malware, and spyware. A dashboard allows for easy management of multiple devices.
Security veterans like Symantec and McAfee, as well as a host of smaller companies, are quickly moving into the mobile security space. But Hering isn't worried.
"Other companies offer a more PC-based approach," he said. "We're protecting the device and data, and we're multi-platform."
Lookout silently blocks malware in the background, but particularly serious threats prompt a notification to the user. The software also will protect against bad or unauthorized apps that might be downloaded, and attacks attempted via Wi-Fi or Bluetooth.
The missing device locator function will most definitely attract attention. If the device is lost, the owner can use the Web app to make it "scream," and a truly obnoxiously loud siren will sound that will annoy everyone within earshot. If the device is set to silent or mute mode, the scream feature overrides that.
For people who think their device may have been stolen and want to track it down, there is a nifty way to trace it via an online map. Device owners can pull up the Find My Device Web app to see the approximate location of the device on a map, and either lock the device so no one can use it or access the data, or wipe the data entirely. If the device is recovered, the data is easily restored. A combination of Global Positioning System, cell tower, and Wi-Fi technology is used to track the devices.
For backup and recovery purposes, the data and settings on the device can be set to what they were at any point of time in the past, and data can be transferred to other devices.
As phones become increasingly powerful computers and storage devices that accompany users everywhere, they become even more attractive targets for attackers and thieves.
"Smartphones are the next computing platform," Hering said. "Ultimately, I think this will be the primary platform. It's in my pocket, and goes everywhere with me. There are not many computing devices that have that power and personal connection."
Chief Technology Officer Kevin Mahaffey and Chief Executive John Hering, co-founders of mobile security firm Lookout, which now occupies the former offices of Twitter in San Francisco.
(Credit: James Martin/CNET )You and just about everyone else, it seems, are spending more and more time on Facebook and Twitter, updating statuses and checking friends' tweets. That's all well and good, of course, but the amount of personal information that all of you share in real time, and the level of trust implicit with the social networking sites, do pose particular security and privacy problems.
A recent study from Sophos found that Facebook users reveal a lot of personal information to new friends, including ones they really don't even know or have never met. Using fake profiles, Sophos sent out friend requests to 100 random Facebook users, and more than 40 percent blindly accepted, giving the company access to birth dates, e-mail addresses, phone number and addresses--private information strangers shouldn't have.
The openness of Twitter--anyone can follow anyone else, and posts are indexed in search engines--makes it a nirvana for spammers. Kaspersky says there are nearly 500,000 new unique URLs that appear in Twitter posts daily, and of those, anywhere between 100 and 1,000 are malware attacks.
Here's a look at some of the specific threats users of the sites face and what they can do about it.
A rogue app that appeared early in the year sent notifications to Facebook users reporting they were violating terms of service and offering a link that lead to an application called "facebook -- closing down!" which then spammed all the friends of affected users.
(Credit: Trend Micro)Problems: Malware, account hijacking, phishing, and social engineering
The biggest malware risk is Koobface, (an anagram of Facebook), which is a worm that targets social networking sites and affects Windows-based computers. Once a computer is infected, it hijacks the Facebook account and sends messages to other friends of the victim, enticing them to click on a link. The link redirects to a Web site where they are prompted to download software ostensibly to watch a video. However, there is no video; only malware that infects the system, blocks access to security sites, and can be used to steal sensitive information from the computer, such as credit card numbers. Infected machines can then be used to spread the worm to others on Facebook, send spam and distribute fake antivirus alerts, said Rik Ferguson, a security researcher at Trend Micro. Koobface now can automatically create new profiles using infected machines, he said.
Facebook accounts can be hijacked in several ways. A brute-force attack can be used to guess passwords. Users can fall for phishing attacks by clicking on links in messages or e-mails purportedly coming from friends that redirect to a fake Facebook log-in page. Or malware such as Koobface can steal passwords.
Social engineering is a huge problem for social networks because the trust that users have for messages and posts from friends can be easily exploited by scammers. Hijacked accounts are used to send everything from spam touting weight loss plans to links that install malware and steal passwords to fake emergency messages saying a friend is stranded in another country and needs someone to send money. Scammers are also sending e-mails that look like they come from Facebook and include an attachment that contains a Trojan.
Solutions: Use antivirus and anti-malware software and keep it up-to-date. Install security updates for operating system and other software. Use software like AVG Linkscanner or McAfee Site Adviser to protect against phishing and malware attacks. Become a fan of the Facebook Security page, which has posts related to all sorts of security issues, tips, resources and other information. If you think you've been infected with Koobface or other malware you should reset your password and notify friends who may have been affected.
Use an up-to-date browser that features an antiphishing black list, such as Firefox 3.0.10 or Internet Explorer 8. Be aware of where you enter your password. Check to see that you are logging in from a legitimate Facebook page with the Facebook.com domain. Be wary of unusual stories or offers that are too good to be true. Verify information with sources directly. Be cautious of any message, post or link that looks suspicious, requires an additional log-in or asks you to download or upgrade software. If a link seems odd or lacks context, don't click on it. Don't click on links or open attachments in suspicious e-mails. You can add a security question from the "Account Settings" page if you would like an additional layer of protection.
Problem: Rogue applications
Facebook doesn't vet every app that appears on the site, which means there is a risk that some apps will have bugs in them or will violate Facebook's privacy policies. Facebook has proven diligent in removing rogue and problem apps quickly when it is notified, but unlike iPhone apps, pretty much anyone can write a Facebook app. "Because the code is not always of professional standard or hosted or audited by Facebook, we've seen innocent apps compromised externally and used to deliver malware, such as fake antivirus," Ferguson said. One rogue app that appeared early in the year sent notifications to Facebook users reporting them in violation of terms of service and offering a link that lead to an application called "facebook -- closing down!" which then spammed all the friends of affected users, according to Trend Micro.
Solution: See solutions above, and be cautious about adding applications. Research the developers and perform Web searches to see if anyone has complained about the app. And ask yourself, what value does the app provide? Do I really need to play zombie?
Problem: Privacy leaks due to user error
Because people control who they are friends with on Facebook it is easy for users to have a false sense of security about the privacy of their data and activities on the site. Social engineering attacks, lax security practices by users like using weak passwords and design or implementation problems with the site itself can undermine the privacy protections users rely on. Users who fall for phishing scams and get their accounts hijacked have everything in their account exposed to strangers who can then use the different types of data for identity fraud or to target the victim's friends with social engineering attacks.
Solution: See solutions above. Also, use unique logins and passwords for each Web site you access. Use strong passwords, change them often and don't share them with anyone.
These instructions explain how to keep most people from viewing your friends list on Facebook.
(Credit: CNET)Problem: Privacy leaks due to design or implementation issues
Privacy advocates contend that Facebook's lenient apps approval process, privacy policies and confusing privacy settings put users at risk. Two weeks ago, Facebook asked users to configure their privacy settings. The options were confusing and many people were inclined to just keep the default settings, which are set to make the data visible to the Web rather than opting to use the old settings established by the user. Screenshots and descriptions are detailed on this photo gallery.
Many people have complained that it is difficult to figure out how to change the privacy settings, that they are not intuitive and that there doesn't seem to be one central place for that. And using Facebook Connect with outside apps, like the iPhone app Foursquare, can expose more information than a user expects to share. The new privacy changes at Facebook have prompted the Electronic Privacy Information Center to ask the Federal Trade Commission to investigate.
Facebook encourages people to share their full names, date of birth, home town and other information, all pieces of information that are commonly used in identity fraud. Scammers on underground sites even refer to Facebook as a "free date-of-birth look up service," according to Ferguson. People don't realize that their profile information can be accessed by total strangers who happen to be in the same groups or networks unless they specifically change the settings. People who don't trust random apps--which in general have access to profile information even if it isn't necessary to the function of the app--don't realize that the apps their friends are using also have access to their data. "Friends apps can access most of your profile, interests and groups. There is no way to prevent them from accessing your name, profile, photo, town and gender," said Joseph Bonneau, a PhD candidate in security at the University of Cambridge. In response to user feedback, Facebook made a change that allows users to hide their friend lists from everyone but their friends, a Facebook spokesman said.
Solution: CNET has a tutorial on how to hide your Facebook friends list by clicking on the pencil in the friends box on your profile. Detailed instructions and tips on dealing with Facebook privacy settings are available on the DotRights.org site and on the All Facebook blog. Facebook also has a blog post about the privacy changes.
Problem: Privacy leaks related to marketing
The relationship between the apps and advertisers can also cause problems. Adding an app allows the app to show ads inside the Facebook domain, and that can leak a user's profile information to the advertiser, said Peter Eckersley, a staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Meanwhile, cookies and other browsing tracking technology combined with data from social networks can be used by marketers to identify users for targeted advertising and other purposes, Eckersley said, providing details in a blog post on different ways data can be leaked from social networks to third-party tracking firms. Once marketers know a specific person's user name, they can use that identifier in the URL to get to a user's public profile page, according to Eckersley. "They can create a social graph of your date of birth, city, employment, relationship status, all uniquely codified in a way that can be automatically sucked into a database," he said.
Solution: Pick a good cookie policy for the browser, such as manually approving all cookies or only keeping cookies until the browser is closed. Disable Flash cookies. Use Firefox extensions such as RequestPolicy and NoScript to control when third-party sites can include content or run code in the browser page. Use the Targeted Advertising Cookie Opt-Out plugin or AdBlock Plus to block ads. To hide your IP address and other browser characteristics, use Tor via Torbutton.
Problem: Information used to suppress dissent and target political activists
As with e-mail, blog postings and other public expressions of dissent, Facebook and Twitter have been used by governments to target protesters. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month that family members of Iranian Americans had been arrested or questioned because of anti-Iranian government posts on Facebook by members outside the country. In other instances, Iranians living abroad were forced to log into their Facebook accounts or reveal passwords to government officials as they arrived at the Tehran airport and some even had their passports confiscated because of their political posts. In the U.S., the EFF says, officials have taken actions against U.S. citizens based on information discovered on their social networks; the group has sued the CIA and other agencies for allegedly refusing to release information about how they are using such sites in surveillance and investigations.
"Basically, every time you post something to Facebook you should assume that the whole world will know what you've posted, your family, employer, the government, people you don't trust," Eckersley said.
Solution: Think carefully about what information you want to share about yourself and consider only posting information you would want to let the general public see.
Twitter has many of the same malware, phishing, hijacking and social engineering issues that Facebook has, and the solutions for those problems would be the same. Because users don't provide much personal information to Twitter, and can even create accounts using all fake information, and because anyone can follow anyone else, there aren't the same issues with privacy, either. But that makes life easy for spammers.
Security does seem to be a worrisome thing with Twitter. The site has had several serious problems from employee accounts getting compromised. In January, someone hacked into the Twitter internal network -- possibly by guessing the password -- and gained access to the Twitter accounts of President Obama, CNN anchor Rick Sanchez, and 31 other high-profile Twitterers. In May, someone broke into Twitter's network and gained access to 10 accounts, which appeared to include Britney Spears and Ashton Kutcher. In that breach, a hacker was able to gain access to a Twitter employee's Yahoo account through the password recovery system and from there get information from other sites, including access to the employee's Twitter account. And last week, the legitimate account of a Twitter employee was used to hijack the site and redirect visitors to an external page displaying a banner for the "Iranian Cyber Army."
Meanwhile, Twitter was crippled (and Facebook and other sites also affected) by a rare politically motivated denial-of-service attack targeting one user in August. However, that incident reflects more on Twitter's ability to keep the site up in the face of an attack and accessibility than it does about security risks to users.
Twitter users are susceptible to getting their accounts hijacked, and the site has been targeted by clickjacking pranks. In these social engineering attacks, users were encouraged to click on links that distributed the original tweet to all of the Twitter user's followers.
Users with large numbers of followers have an added responsibility to be careful, particularly when setting accounts to automatically post items from news feeds. A malicious post on an unmoderated news feed that venture capitalist Guy Kawasaki was re-tweeting distributed a Trojan to more than 139,000 followers in June.
Kaspersky offers a Krab Krawler tool that analyzes tweets as they get posted on Twitter and blocks any malware associated with them. Trend Micro has technology that monitors Twitter posts for malicious URLs, as well as looks for attack patterns in the posts, such as use of popular terms to indirectly lead people to malicious links. And Finjan offers a free browser plug-in dubbed SecureTweets that warns users when they encounter a malicious URL in Twitter, as well as Blogger, Gmail, Google and a host of other popular sites. To keep up with security issues on Twitter follow Twitter's Spam Watch account.
Social networks are also susceptible to other serious security problems that can hit any type of Web site. For instance, last week passwords of 32 million stored in plain text on the RockYou site were exposed by a SQL injection attack, according to security firm Imperva. Because the passwords are used on other affiliate sites to the social networking application maker, the breach jeopardized other accounts, like Gmail, Hotmail, and Yahoo.
New cybersecurity chief Howard Schmidt
(Credit: The White House)The White House's new cybersecurity chief faces a tough agenda, but will be able to draw on the lessons of a 40-year career, including stints at Microsoft and eBay.
Former security adviser Howard Schmidt is returning to the White House as President Obama's new cybersecurity coordinator, the White House announced Tuesday.
In his new role, Schmidt will report to the National Security Council. Schmidt will also "have regular access to the president," said an official who spoke to The New York Times.
Earlier this year, President Obama initiated a review of the government's cybersecurity policies in an effort to streamline operations. Turf wars among various agencies and a perceived weakness in the Department of Homeland Security had raised red flags, prompting the president to declare that the country was not adequately prepared on the cybersecurity front.
Following that review, the White House identified a need for a new cybersecurity chief, then plunged into a tricky, months-long process that now brings Schmidt back to public service.
President Barack Obama greets his new White House cybersecurity chief Howard A. Schmidt in the Cross Hall of the White House.
(Credit: Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)In a recorded speech introducing himself, Schmidt said he sees information technology as offering great opportunities but also great dangers to national security, public safety, economic competitiveness, and personal privacy. As dependence on technology increases, he said, the need to protect our security and privacy also increases.
As such, Schmidt said that the president has directed him to focus on several key areas:
developing a new and comprehensive strategy to secure U.S. networks to ensure an organized response to future cyber incidents;
beefing up both public and private partnerships in the U.S. and abroad;
promoting research and development of next-generation technologies;
and leading a national campaign to promote cybersecurity, awareness, and education.
Acknowledging that Washington can't solve cybersecurity problems on its own, Schmidt said his agenda is to bring together the government, the private sector, and other stakeholders as part of a new and comprehensive cyberstrategy to strengthen online defenses.
Following Schmidt's appointment, a variety of security analysts offered their thoughts.
In a Tuesday blog post, Randy Abrams of security vendor ESET said that Schmidt is very smart and personable, possessing a depth of knowledge and experience that makes him one of the best possible candidates for the job. But Abrams cautioned people not to expect miracles or fast changes as Schmidt will face huge obstacles trying to coordinate security across different government agencies, most of which have people who think their way is the only way to do things.
Phillip Dunkelberger, president and CEO of security vendor PGP, where Schmidt serves on the board of directors, said: "Howard's familiarity with public sector, private sector, large vendors and small innovative companies should be a great asset to this unique position; one that will just expand as our nation's dependency on cyber communications continues to grow." He also stressed that Schmidt will need to jump in quickly and form a solid working relationship with the Department of Defense and with the federal government's chief information officer, Vivek Kundra, and chief technology officer, Aneesh Chopra.
Schmidt brings to his new post a lengthy resume of government service, with a particular niche in computer crimes and forensics. Early in his career, he worked for the FBI's National Drug Intelligence Center, where he ran the Computer Exploitation Team. He also was a special agent and program director for the Air Force, where he set up one of the government's first dedicated computer forensic labs.
His new post will be Schmidt's second stint at the White House. In December 2001, just after the 9/11 attacks, he was appointed vice chairman for President Bush's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board and deputy to former White House cybersecurity czar Richard Clarke. Schmidt left his post in February 2003 to return to the private sector. During his tenure with the Bush administration, he helped create a new cybersecurity plan, which at the time was criticized as being too watered down, a charge that Schmidt disputed.
In the private sector, Schmidt served as chief security officer for Microsoft from 1997 to 2001 before joining the White House. After leaving his government post, he joined eBay in 2003 as vice president for security.
More recently, Schmidt was the president and CEO of the Information Security Forum, an international nonprofit organization that focuses on risks and research in the cyberworld.
Updated December 23, 4:00 a.m. PST with comments from security analysts.
What Twitter's homepage looked like before it went down on Thursday night.
(Credit: CC u07ch/Flickr)Twitter stumbled again overnight on Thursday. But this time, it wasn't the work of the "fail whale," the cuddly cartoon personification of the site's excessive technical baggage. Rather, the site was replaced with a foreboding message from "Iranian Cyber Army" before crashing entirely, indicating that it had been the victim of a malicious attack that targeted its internal servers.
Co-founder Biz Stone posted a brief clarification on the issue late on Thursday night. "Twitter's DNS records were temporarily compromised tonight but have now been fixed," he explained. "As some noticed, Twitter.com was redirected for a while but API and platform applications were working. We will update with more information and details once we've investigated more fully."
At the risk of sounding like an evening-news anchor calling attention to exactly how dangerous your treadmill is or how many diseases you can get from the ball pit at Chuck E. Cheese, I think it's time to explore the question: Is it safe to use Twitter?
For one, Twitter's track record with security has been shaky at best. A security flaw this spring exposed the data of a number of employees and allowed a hacker to pilfer some internal documents. Several high-profile accounts, like those of Britney Spears, Ashton Kutcher, and CNN anchor Rick Sanchez, have been targeted individually. Twitter has been the victim of phishing attacks. Other hackers have proved that Twitter accounts can be set up specifically to corral botnets of infected PCs. And in perhaps the biggest incident of all, a politically motivated denial-of-service attack in August that targeted multiple social-media sites managed to cripple Twitter entirely.
Think of it this way: if Facebook, a far bigger and more mainstream site that's had concerns about user privacy splashed all over the news recently, saw its homepage replaced with a nefarious political message, there would probably be a fresh round of calls for CEO Mark Zuckerberg's resignation. Twitter's heavy users are, for better or for worse, accustomed to sporadic downtime and glitches. They're also less likely to ever visit the Twitter.com homepage, considering the service has so many points of entry--text message, as well as third-party apps for mobile, Web, and desktop. Users have become accustomed to logging into third-party applications with their Twitter credentials.
That, perhaps, makes the overnight hack a bigger concern. Even though it's unlikely that user accounts were compromised in this DNS redirect, it's yet another sign that Twitter's security operations have time and again proven weak enough that the service doesn't exactly seem watertight.
A political message, or just plain obnoxious?
On the other hand, we still don't know much about this attack and it may have been less sophisticated than some may fear. One, nobody's exactly sure yet who the hackers were. "Of course, just because a message saying 'This site has been hacked by Iranian Cyber Army' has been posted on a Web page does not necessarily mean that hackers from Iran are responsible for the defacement," Sophos security consultant Graham Cluley wrote on his blog Friday.
Additionally, Cluley said, the aim seems to have been to either get a political message through or to simply be obnoxious. "Fortunately there is no indication at this point that the page was carrying malicious code, and this attack appears to have had political motivations rather than being designed to steal confidential information from users," he wrote.
"It really looks like it was people were redirected to a 'hactivism' site," weighed in fellow Sophos analyst Beth Jones via e-mail. "There was no malicious code on the site claiming to be the 'Iranian Cyber Army' either. It looks like they just hacked the registrar to redirect traffic. So it's quite probable that none of Twitter's own servers were touched."
Another reassurance is the fact that Twitter simply doesn't have the kind of sensitive data that a Facebook or Google does. While it does have millions of mobile phone numbers stored to power its text-message app, not to mention archived private "direct messages" between users, Twitter does not index a whole lot more that isn't otherwise public. Facebook, for example, has many members' credit card numbers on hand (if they've ever used its "gift shop" feature), not to mention extensive personal data in profiles like addresses, birthdays, and family connections. Members who are still concerned about the security of their Twitter accounts can take the obvious step of changing their Twitter passwords to something that they don't use on their e-mail, Facebook accounts, or elsewhere--just in case.
Beth Jones says she has confidence in Twitter. "I wouldn't say their security is second-rate by any means," Jones said via e-mail. "As it stands, they weren't actually compromised, but I can see from a user point of view the questions and concerns. At Sophos we see a new site compromised every 3.6 seconds. That's easily close to 24,000 sites a day, and of those, the vast majority are legitimate sites that get hacked."
That doesn't mean that Twitter shouldn't start making it more clear that it takes security seriously. If the company, which is now beta-testing a "Contributors" feature that may pave the way to paid corporate accounts, begins storing financial information, we can only hope that their security operations are turned up a few notches. Or, ideally, an order of magnitude.
This post was expanded at 6:23 a.m. PT with comment from Sophos' Beth Jones.
Mozilla has updated its Firefox browser to patch three critical security holes.
Firefox 3.5.6 and 3.0.16 both fix earlier memory corruption issues. "We presume that with enough effort at least some of these could be exploited to run arbitrary code," the security advisory said.
In addition, the earlier version of Firefox 3.5 had two critical vulnerabilities in its technology for playing Ogg-format media, one with the liboggplay media library and one with the libtheora video library.
The patches are among 62 fixes in the new Firefox, software that's translated into dozens of languages and runs on multiple operating systems. Users of the OS/2 operating system will be delighted to know that problems with Firefox's full-screen mode and with print preview have been resolved.
"We strongly recommend that all Firefox users upgrade to this latest release," Mozilla said in a blog posting. By default, Firefox downloads updates automatically then prompts users to restart when it's ready; updates also can be retrieved through the "check for updates" menu option.
Mozilla plans to cease supporting Firefox 3.0 in January. Meanwhile, a significant update, Firefox 3.6, is due by the end of the year.
Correction 1:23 p.m. PST December 17: This story was corrected to note that it was the earlier versions of Firefox that suffered the vulnerabilities.
Cloud computing and virtualization are just two technologies that cybercriminals are anxious to exploit, forecasts a report released Wednesday by security vendor Trend Micro.
The year ahead offers new opportunities for cybercrooks as they hunt for more targets and new challenges as people try to protect themselves, says Trend Micro's 2010 Future Threat Report (PDF).
Cloud computing and virtualization can be cost effective. But since they're beyond the confines of a company's own firewall, they could be potentially open areas for cybercriminals to attack. October's Sidekick data outage highlighted the vulnerabilities of the cloud, which cybercrooks are likely to abuse, according to Trend Micro.
Social networks have proved to be an appealing area for bad guys, a shift that Trend Micro thinks will increase through the use of social engineering. Cybercrooks will try to enter people's communities and circles of friends at sites like Facebook in an attempt to steal personal information.
Malware outbreaks will shift from the global landscape to more local, targeted attacks, similar to the strategy employed by Conficker, which Trend Micro calls a "carefully orchestrated and architected attack."
Trend Micro also believes the move toward international domain names orchestrated by ICANN will open up the playing field for more phishing attacks as crooks create look-alike domains names using the Cyrillic alphabet instead of Latin characters.
A few other trends for 2010 and beyond to keep us all on the alert:
- Windows 7 will have an impact since it is less secure than Vista in the default configuration (presumably because User Access Control (UAC) in Win 7 is not set to its most restrictive level by default).
- Drive-by infections are the norm--one Web visit is enough to get infected.
- Malware is changing its shape--every few hours.
To protect yourself, Trend Micro dispenses the usual advice we've all heard before. But it bears repeating--keep your PC patched and updated, don't click on strange e-mail attachments, make sure the online stores you shop at are secure (https vs http), and don't use the same password for all Web sites.
Facebook users are too willing to give out their personal information, security firm Sophos has found.
According to Sophos' Australian team, which conducted a study to see how likely Facebook users were to offer up personal information, 41 to 46 percent of the 100 people Sophos contacted "blindly accepted" friend requests from two fake Facebook users created by the security firm.
After becoming friends with Sophos, the security firm was able to access up to 89 percent of the users' full dates of birth, all of their e-mail addresses, where they went to school, and more. Half of all the users Sophos befriended displayed the town or suburb where they live. They even offered up information on family and friends.
Younger users were "more liberal" with their workplace or school information than older users. "Both groups were very liberal with their e-mail addresses and with their birthdays," the security firm wrote in a blog post Sunday announcing the results. "This is worrying because these details make an excellent starting point for scammers and social engineers."
The security firm added that "10 years ago, getting access to this sort of detail would probably have taken a con-artist or an identify thief several weeks, and have required the on-the-spot services of a private investigator. Sadly, these days, many social networkers are handing over their life story on a plate."
Sophos' concerns over the way Facebook users are keeping information private comes on the heels of a statement released last week by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg discussing why Facebook users need to use the privacy tools his company has created. On Sunday, Facebook also announced the formation of a safety advisory board, comprised of five Internet safety groups.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.




