As a pretty avid Apple user (2 iPhones, 1 iPad2, iMac, iPod Touch, MacBook Pro, etc.), and the fact that I work in the business of software quality and security, I must admit that this article caught my attention. The article outlines how a well-known security researcher, who focuses on Apple, has found a software flaw in the iPhone and iPad, which could allow hackers to build malicious apps.What makes this even more scary is that the Apple Store may not catch these malicious apps.

To add another twist to this story, the researcher in question has been ejected from participating in Apple’s developer programs. Read about that here.

Are we now getting to the point where hackers are going to start trying more aggressively to exploit Apple products? In a survey done in 2010, over 50% of respondents thought Windows was either “very” or “extremely” vulnerable compared to only 20% for Apple. I wonder if that has changed? More importantly, do I need to start worrying about my daughter downloading the Archie comic app from the App Store?

One of the common challenges we hear from customers regarding their software security assurance programs is developer education. Sure, there are many great tools out there that can help with security, but when it comes down to it, if you’re going to truly build a culture of secure software (and not just audit your system now and then), your development team needs to be well versed on key security concepts, defensive coding principles, common attack vectors, not to mention the ins and outs of specific coding vulnerabilities like buffer overflows.

Well, we agree. That’s why we’ve partnered with our friends at Security Innovation to make some of their developer eLearning courses available for free on the new, revamped Klocwork University. I encourage you to check out the Secure Coding for C/C++ course – it’s approx 60 minutes in length, features interactive material, and is a great introductory course into many of the key concepts required to build secure software. We also have a course on Microsoft’s Secure SDL and the OWASP Top 10. Check it out!

I read an interesting post on electronic imports that could contain security threats.  I can only speak from the software perspective, but I can say that most customers I’ve dealt with usually integrate some sort of software security audit process with any 3^rd-party integrator and from my experience that means adopting static analysis.  How many organizations are there that haven’t jumped on board with static analysis?  Probably more than I can count.

It would be very interesting to hear of some of the Armed Services and Intelligence cyber threats that the government has not publically disclosed.  That might be an eye opener.

After being a PC user for most of my life, I just can’t help but feel a little bit exposed without any kind of antivirus on my shiny new Mac. I mean, I’ve heard it ad nauseum that the Mac just isn’t as prone to attacks as PCs are, but I for one just find that hard to believe.

It is a computer that connects to the Internet after all; there has to be some level of risk there. According to this site, there are regular updates to address new Trojan horses, and other security violations and threats, so obviously Apple is taking this seriously.

Many industry ‘experts’ are starting to think that maybe antivirus on a Mac is (and will continue to be) more important moving forward. Some believe that a Mac is just inherently less susceptible to viruses, while others speculate that there may be other reasons behind it. Either way, the PC side of my brain has convinced me to at least investigate this a little more.

So, do you have an antivirus protection on your Mac?

Part of my life has been spent in the manufacturing sector working with industrial automation devices, but the discovery of the Stuxnet virus is the first time I’ve ever heard of specifically virus targeting and even rootkitting a PLC (programmable logic controller) or  SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) network.

When working in industrial plants, we took the standard precautions with regard to Windows viruses and even started to add virus protection for Linux, but never did it occur to any of us that the industrial automation equipment might be at risk. Whenever the subject was even brought up, which was rare in itself, there were the standard arguments:

• Oh, it’s on a physically separate network (or VLAN configuration), only USB (thumb/flash) drives are allowed and they’re virus checked before use.
• Oh, it’s running a completely different processor/operating system/architecture – there’s no way it can be infected.

The consequences of infection are severe.   These devices run everything from our nuclear power plants to complex manufacturing assembly lines, aircraft controls (FADECs) and chemical refineries, just to name a few.  In its most basic of functions, industrial automation is used for two purposes: to keep humans safe and to produce products for less cost.  Interrupting either of these is going to kill someone or cost a company a large chunk of change.

So, what does this all mean?  It means that industrial automation and PLC vendors had better start hardening their solutions for security vulnerabilities and elevate the quality of their firmware and software components using security vulnerability tools such as Klocwork’s static analysis just as the general computing industry has done for the past 30 years.

For an in-depth analysis and timeline, refer to either Symantec’s whitepaper on their Stuxnet analysis or the work done by ESET on their version of Stuxnet.

With the recent story that the iPad has inherent security vulnerabilities, I thought it might be an appropriate time to delve into the world of software security guidelines…but I must warn you, this blog will contain an abnormal amount of acronyms, and may not be suitable for all audiences.

When talking about software security guidelines, there are really 5 or 6 organizations that are leading the charge, and they include:

-          OWASP

-          SANS Institute

-          MITRE

-          PCI Security Standards Council

-          SEI

Let’s first look at OWASP. OWASP stands for Open Web Application Security Project, which is a not-for-profit charitable organization that is focused on improving the security of application software. They are probably best known for their Top 10 lists from 2004, 2007, and most recently 2010.

Next is the SANS Institute. SANS of course is a FLA that stands for SysAdmin, Audit, Networking, Security. The SANS Institute claims to be the most trusted source for computer security training, certification and research, and have been developing and releasing their Top 20 annually for the past 7 years or so.

The MITRE Corporation is a not-for-profit organization that was founded in the late 50’s, and has over 7,000 very smart dudes (65% have Masters or PhDs). MITRE has come up with their own security guideline as well, that is the CWE (Common Weakness Enumeration) and it provides a common language of discourse for discussing, finding and dealing with the causes of software security vulnerabilities as they are found in code, design, or system architecture. The CWE lists over 800 programming errors, design errors, and architectural errors that can lead to exploitable vulnerabilities. Interestingly, MITRE and SANS decided to collaborate to come up with the CWE Top 25, yet another “Top” list they have been putting together for the last couple of years.

The PCI Security Standards Council was founded by American Express, Discover Financial Services, JCB International, MasterCard Worldwide, and Visa, Inc. and is an open global forum for the ongoing development, enhancement, storage, dissemination and implementation of security standards for account data protection. The PCI SSC has come up with the PCI DSS, “a multifaceted security standard that includes requirements for security management, policies, procedures, network architecture, software design and other critical protective measures. This comprehensive standard is intended to help organizations proactively protect customer account data”.

Finally, there is the SEI (the Software Engineering Institute, which is a federally funded R&D center at CMU, aka Carnegie Mellon University). The SEI is home to CERT which was established in 1988 to address internet security problems and to find ways to reduce the number and impact of security breaches. CERT focuses on protection, detection, and response to attacks on networked computer systems. Surprisingly enough, CERT is not actually an acronym.

Neither PCI nor CERT has received the memo yet that in order to be cool, you have to have a “Top X” list…perhaps next year?

Now, not to be left out of the fun, the NCSD (National Cyber Security Division) of the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) has their own strategic initiative called BSI (Build Security In). The NCSD obviously wants to cover pretty much all the bases since, in addition to their own BSI, they also sponsor pretty much all of the other guidelines.

I would be remiss if I didn’t at least acknowledge a few other notables with respect to software security guidelines, and to make it more interesting, I will only provide the acronym. I challenge you to come up with the full name. So, a few others involved in security guidelines are NIST (who run a project called SAMATE, and also run an event called SATE, which BTW is also sponsored by DHS NCSD), WASC, and finally STIG. For fun, I’ll throw in CVE, even though it is not a guideline, but more of a dictionary or list that was put together by MITRE, and shockingly is sponsored by DHS NCSD. I’m starting to think that DHS wants to be everyone’s BFF.

Hopefully you’ve learned a little more about the alphabet soup of security guidelines out there. If you’re scratching your head thinking WTF, you’re probably not alone…

As Google Chrome climbs out of obscurity in the browser market and expands into a light-weight but fully functional OS, security seems to have become a top of mind issue over at chromium headquarters.

In the Chromium Blog, Chris Evans of Chrome Security announced a cash for bugs initiative, paying between 500 and 1337 USD depending on the severity for any previously undiscovered flaw.  I am glad to see Google encouraging the community at large to participate in hardening my current browser of choice.  As Chris points out, Mozilla was one of the first to embark on this type of program, but I am happy to see Chrome following suit.  Me and my online transactions appreciate it.

Hmm.  Maybe I should roll-up the sleeves and  invoke the  ”I’m gonna write me a minivan” approach and get the driveway cleared for the armored cash trucks.

But seriously, if you’re interested in helping out and getting a small reward for your efforts, visit the Chromium Security project.

I have always been fascinated by the whole area of code vulnerabilities and security exploits and how hackers turn those issues into real-world problems for the rest of us.

Jeremy Brown posted an interesting article on Jeremy’s Computer Security blog where he uses his security know-how to draw a straight line between a software vulnerability found with static analysis and a real 0day exploit on an open source project called gAlan.

Jeremy takes us on a short journey where he finds an unprotected buffer with static analysis, creates an exploit payload to cause a buffer overrun, rewrites the instruction pointer and executes a telnet session, demonstrating how easy it is to turn a run of the mill application into a tunnel into the OS.

One of my colleagues did a similar presentation like this a few years back with a Firefox vulnerability but this is a much better example! Very cool work Jeremy.

Enjoy…

My first day at the SWA forum was actually the 3^rd day at the conference, and from all accounts it has been a very productive and relevant first 2 days. Today was no different as it was kicked off with a panel discussion on the Evolution of Software Assurance Processes, and included speakers from Lockheed Martin, Waters Edge LLC, SEI/CERT, and SafeCode. I thought it was an entertaining discussion from a group definitely passionate about the topic. Something seemed missing though as I came out of it hoping for something more…Some good questions rounded out the first session.

Next was my turn to be on stage. I was speaking as part of the “Understanding Technology Stakeholders: Their Progress and Challenges” panel which was made up of John Giligan (The Giligan Group), Djenana Campara (KDM), Bruce Weimer (US Army), and Sean Barnum (Cigital)…and myself. It was an interesting mix of speakers representing various sectors of the software assurance community including assurance ‘consulting’ stakeholders, assurance ‘standards’ stakeholders, assurance ‘consumer’ stakeholders, and assurance ‘tool’ vendor stakeholders. My basic message was that the DHS Forum had done a great job of communicating their message to the assurance community (including a large number of our customers), but fundamentally flawed in a number of other ways.  Unfortunately, the panel part went long, so the Q&A with the Plenary was shortened. The feedback I received was all positive, and that it was refreshing that we didn’t sugar-coat our thoughts.

As I mentioned earlier, there just seems to be something missing from the sessions I’m attending. Perhaps it is too much talk, and not enough action…not sure yet. Hopefully the next two days will leave me with a more positive feeling on this.

I speak again on Friday when I share my experiences and observations on the Static Analysis Tool Exposition 2009. I guess it will be another ‘refreshing’ session…

Next week I’m heading out to the Software Assurance Forum (use SOF96945 for the conference code) in Washington D.C. (well, actually Arlington, Virginia, but D.C. sounds more glamorous). If you’re not familiar with what the SWA is, in a nutshell, its key objective is to encourage software developers to raise overall software quality and security from the start, rather than relying on applying patches to systems after vulnerabilities are discovered.

Anyways, while I’m there, I’ll be taking part in 2 speaking opportunities. The first will be as part of a 6 person panel discussion entitled “Understanding Technology Stakeholders: Their Progress and Challenges” (10:30 – 12:00 on Wednesday). The panel is made up of stakeholders from varying disciplines such as industry, academia, standards, and government. A good well rounded panel should provide for an interesting and entertaining hour and a half.

My second session (Friday at 2:20) will see me fly solo as I discuss our (Klocwork’s) experiences and observations as they relate to SATE. I’m not given much time, so I’ll be revving up the motor mouth to make sure I get our points across. I have a sneaking suspicion I just *may* go a little OT.

So, is anyone out there also going to this event? If so, drop me a line either by email (todd.landry@klocwork.com), or Twitter (@todd_landry) and perhaps we can get together to chat. Look for my next blog next Thursday, as I will recap the panel discussion and the other sessions I attend at this event.