Compromised Connections
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Managing App Sideloading Threats on Ios Whitepaper
Whitepaper Enterprise Mobile Security Managing App Sideloading Threats on iOS Whitepaper I. Introduction II. The Path to App Sideloading Through rigorous app review Apple has lowered the risk Signing Certificates of downloading malware from its App Stores to near Apple offers two types of signing certificates for app zero. Companies, however, increasingly rely on an app- distribution outside of their App Stores and both types distribution mechanism called enterprise provisioning allow users to install and execute signed apps on that allows them to distribute apps to employees without non-jailbroken devices: Apple’s review as long as the apps are signed with an Apple-issued enterprise signing certificate. 1) A developer certificate, intended to sign and deploy test apps to a limited number of devices. Unfortunately, attackers have managed to hijack this app-distribution mechanism to sideload apps on 2) An enterprise certificate, intended to sign non-jailbroken devices, as demonstrated in the recent and widely deploy apps to devices within an Wirelurker attack. Organizations today face a real organization. security threat that attackers will continue to abuse To obtain these certificates you must enroll in one of enterprise provisioning and use it to sideload malware, Apple’s two iOS developer programs. Table 1 on the especially since: following page summarizes the enrollment requirements 1) The widespread prevalence of legitimate, for each program and their app provisioning restrictictions. enterprise-provisioned iOS apps in the workplace Both types of signing certificates expire after a year, has conditioned employees to seeing (and ignoring) whereupon developers can apply for new ones. Apple can the security warnings triggered on devices also revoke certificates if it learns of abuse and an app when installing these apps. -
Identifying Threats Associated with Man-In-The-Middle Attacks During Communication Between a Mobile Device and the Back End Server in Mobile Banking Applications
IOSR Journal of Computer Engineering (IOSR-JCE) e-ISSN: 2278-0661, p- ISSN: 2278-8727Volume 16, Issue 2, Ver. IX (Mar-Apr. 2014), PP 35-42 www.iosrjournals.org Identifying Threats Associated With Man-In-The-Middle Attacks during Communication between a Mobile Device and the Back End Server in Mobile Banking Applications Anthony Luvanda1,*Dr Stephen Kimani1 Dr Micheal Kimwele1 1. School of Computing and Information Technology, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, PO Box 62000-00200 Nairobi Kenya Abstract: Mobile banking, sometimes referred to as M-Banking, Mbanking or SMS Banking, is a term used for performing balance checks, account transactions, payments, credit applications and other banking transactions through a mobile device such as a mobile phone or Personal Digital Assistant (PDA). Mobile banking has until recently most often been performed via SMS or the Mobile Web. Apple's initial success with iPhone and the rapid growth of phones based on Google's Android (operating system) have led to increasing use of special client programs, called apps, downloaded to the mobile device hence increasing the number of banking applications that can be made available on mobile phones . This in turn has increased the popularity of mobile device use in regards to personal banking activities. Due to the characteristics of wireless medium, limited protection of the nodes, nature of connectivity and lack of centralized managing point, wireless networks tend to be highly vulnerable and more often than not they become subjects of attack. This paper proposes to identify potential threats associated with communication between a mobile device and the back end server in mobile banking applications. -
Virtual Currencies and Terrorist Financing : Assessing the Risks And
DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT FOR CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS COUNTER-TERRORISM Virtual currencies and terrorist financing: assessing the risks and evaluating responses STUDY Abstract This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the TERR Committee, explores the terrorist financing (TF) risks of virtual currencies (VCs), including cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. It describes the features of VCs that present TF risks, and reviews the open source literature on terrorist use of virtual currencies to understand the current state and likely future manifestation of the risk. It then reviews the regulatory and law enforcement response in the EU and beyond, assessing the effectiveness of measures taken to date. Finally, it provides recommendations for EU policymakers and other relevant stakeholders for ensuring the TF risks of VCs are adequately mitigated. PE 604.970 EN ABOUT THE PUBLICATION This research paper was requested by the European Parliament's Special Committee on Terrorism and was commissioned, overseen and published by the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Policy Departments provide independent expertise, both in-house and externally, to support European Parliament committees and other parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation and exercising democratic scrutiny over EU external and internal policies. To contact the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs or to subscribe to its newsletter please write to: [email protected] RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH ADMINISTRATOR Kristiina MILT Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] AUTHORS Tom KEATINGE, Director of the Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies, Royal United Services Institute (coordinator) David CARLISLE, Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies, Royal United Services Institute, etc. -
Systematization of Vulnerability Discovery Knowledge: Review
Systematization of Vulnerability Discovery Knowledge Review Protocol Nuthan Munaiah and Andrew Meneely Department of Software Engineering Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester, NY 14623 {nm6061,axmvse}@rit.edu February 12, 2019 1 Introduction As more aspects of our daily lives depend on technology, the software that supports this technology must be secure. We, as users, almost subconsciously assume the software we use to always be available to serve our requests while preserving the confidentiality and integrity of our information. Unfortunately, incidents involving catastrophic software vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed (in OpenSSL), Stagefright (in Android), and EternalBlue (in Windows) have made abundantly clear that software, like other engineered creations, is prone to mistakes. Over the years, Software Engineering, as a discipline, has recognized the potential for engineers to make mistakes and has incorporated processes to prevent such mistakes from becoming exploitable vulnerabilities. Developers leverage a plethora of processes, techniques, and tools such as threat modeling, static and dynamic analyses, unit/integration/fuzz/penetration testing, and code reviews to engineer secure software. These practices, while effective at identifying vulnerabilities in software, are limited in their ability to describe the engineering failures that may have led to the introduction of vulnerabilities. Fortunately, as researchers propose empirically-validated metrics to characterize historical vulnerabilities, the factors that may have led to the introduction of vulnerabilities emerge. Developers must be made aware of these factors to help them proactively consider security implications of the code that they contribute. In other words, we want developers to think like an attacker (i.e. inculcate an attacker mindset) to proactively discover vulnerabilities. -
Internet Security Threat Report VOLUME 21, APRIL 2016 TABLE of CONTENTS 2016 Internet Security Threat Report 2
Internet Security Threat Report VOLUME 21, APRIL 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2016 Internet Security Threat Report 2 CONTENTS 4 Introduction 21 Tech Support Scams Go Nuclear, 39 Infographic: A New Zero-Day Vulnerability Spreading Ransomware Discovered Every Week in 2015 5 Executive Summary 22 Malvertising 39 Infographic: A New Zero-Day Vulnerability Discovered Every Week in 2015 8 BIG NUMBERS 23 Cybersecurity Challenges For Website Owners 40 Spear Phishing 10 MOBILE DEVICES & THE 23 Put Your Money Where Your Mouse Is 43 Active Attack Groups in 2015 INTERNET OF THINGS 23 Websites Are Still Vulnerable to Attacks 44 Infographic: Attackers Target Both Large and Small Businesses 10 Smartphones Leading to Malware and Data Breaches and Mobile Devices 23 Moving to Stronger Authentication 45 Profiting from High-Level Corporate Attacks and the Butterfly Effect 10 One Phone Per Person 24 Accelerating to Always-On Encryption 45 Cybersecurity, Cybersabotage, and Coping 11 Cross-Over Threats 24 Reinforced Reassurance with Black Swan Events 11 Android Attacks Become More Stealthy 25 Websites Need to Become Harder to 46 Cybersabotage and 12 How Malicious Video Messages Could Attack the Threat of “Hybrid Warfare” Lead to Stagefright and Stagefright 2.0 25 SSL/TLS and The 46 Small Business and the Dirty Linen Attack Industry’s Response 13 Android Users under Fire with Phishing 47 Industrial Control Systems and Ransomware 25 The Evolution of Encryption Vulnerable to Attacks 13 Apple iOS Users Now More at Risk than 25 Strength in Numbers 47 Obscurity is No Defense -
Mobile Financial Fraud April 2013
White Paper: Mobile Financial Fraud April 2013 Mobile Threats and the Underground Marketplace Principal Investigator and Corresponding Author Jart Armin Contributing Researchers Andrey Komarov, Mila Parkour, Raoul Chiesa, Bryn Thompson, Will Rogofsky Panel & Review Dr. Ray Genoe (UCD), Robert McArdle (Trend Micro), Dave Piscitello (ICANN), Foy Shiver (APWG), Edgardo Montes de Oca (Montimage), Peter Cassidy (APWG) APWG Mobile Fraud web site http://ecrimeresearch.org/wirelessdevice/Fraud/ Table of Contents Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction and Starting Position ........................................................................................ 2 A Global Overview .................................................................................................................. 3 Vulnerabilities Overview ....................................................................................................... 3 The Underground Mobile Market ....................................................................................... 13 Mobile DNS & Traffic ........................................................................................................... 15 iBots & the Pocket Botnet ..................................................................................................... 18 Mobile Intrusion ................................................................................................................... -
Developer Bootstrap: Good Control Essentials
Developer Bootstrap: Good Control Essentials Last updated: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 ©2016 BlackBerry Limited. Trademarks, including but not limited to BLACKBERRY, BBM, BES, EMBLEM Design, ATHOC, MOVIRTU and SECUSMART are the trademarks or registered trademarks of BlackBerry Limited, its subsidiaries and/or affiliates, used under license, and the exclusive rights to such trademarks are expressly reserved. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. This documentation is provided "as is" and without condition, endorsement, guarantee, representation or warranty, or liability of any kind by BlackBerry Limited and its affiliated companies, all of which are expressly disclaimed to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law in your jurisdiction. 2 Developer Bootsrap: Good Control Contents Revision history 5 Introduction 6 Background and assumptions 6 Activating Your First GD Application 6 To set up your first GD application and prepare for activation 6 To set up the user's device 7 Add Users 7 Adding A Single User Account via Active Directory 7 Import Users by AD Group 8 Adding Multiple User Accounts via Active Directory 8 Adding User Accounts 9 Importing Multiple User Accounts from CSV File 10 CSV Record Layout and Limits 10 Import Process 11 Possible Error Messages 11 Adding applications 13 Adding a custom application 13 Adding BlackBerry Dynamics app IDand version only 13 Specifying app servers 14 Adding new BlackBerry Dynamics entitlement versions (BlackBerry Dynamics app versions) 14 Entitling end-users to applications or denying them 15 Sequence of app version entitling and denying: entitle, then deny 15 Activating an Application for a User 15 Action by the User 16 3 BlackBerry Dynamics documentation 17 4 Revision history Revision history Date Description 2016-12-19 Version numbers updated for latest release; no content changes. -
APT and Cybercriminal Targeting of HCS June 9, 2020 Agenda
APT and Cybercriminal Targeting of HCS June 9, 2020 Agenda • Executive Summary Slides Key: • APT Group Objectives Non-Technical: managerial, strategic • APT Groups Targeting Health Sector and high-level (general audience) • Activity Timeline Technical: Tactical / IOCs; requiring • TTPs in-depth knowledge (sysadmins, IRT) • Malware • Vulnerabilities • Recommendations and Mitigations TLP: WHITE, ID#202006091030 2 Executive Summary • APT groups steal data, disrupt operations, and destroy infrastructure. Unlike most cybercriminals, APT attackers pursue their objectives over longer periods of time. They adapt to cyber defenses and frequently retarget the same victim. • Common HPH targets include: • Healthcare Biotechnology Medical devices • Pharmaceuticals Healthcare information technology • Scientific research • HPH organizations who have been victim of APT attacks have suffered: • Reputational harm Disruption to operations • Financial losses PII/PHI and proprietary data theft • HC3 recommends several mitigations and controls to counter APT threats. TLP: WHITE, ID#202006091030 3 APT Group Objectives • Motivations of APT Groups which target the health sector include: • Competitive advantage • Theft of proprietary data/intellectual capital such as technology, manufacturing processes, partnership agreements, business plans, pricing documents, test results, scientific research, communications, and contact lists to unfairly advance economically. • Intelligence gathering • Groups target individuals and connected associates to further social engineering -
Defendant Apple Inc.'S Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions Of
Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 410 Filed 04/08/21 Page 1 of 325 1 THEODORE J. BOUTROUS JR., SBN 132099 MARK A. PERRY, SBN 212532 [email protected] [email protected] 2 RICHARD J. DOREN, SBN 124666 CYNTHIA E. RICHMAN (D.C. Bar No. [email protected] 492089; pro hac vice) 3 DANIEL G. SWANSON, SBN 116556 [email protected] [email protected] GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 4 JAY P. SRINIVASAN, SBN 181471 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. [email protected] Washington, DC 20036 5 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Telephone: 202.955.8500 333 South Grand Avenue Facsimile: 202.467.0539 6 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213.229.7000 ETHAN DETTMER, SBN 196046 7 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 [email protected] ELI M. LAZARUS, SBN 284082 8 VERONICA S. MOYÉ (Texas Bar No. [email protected] 24000092; pro hac vice) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 9 [email protected] 555 Mission Street GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP San Francisco, CA 94105 10 2100 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1100 Telephone: 415.393.8200 Dallas, TX 75201 Facsimile: 415.393.8306 11 Telephone: 214.698.3100 Facsimile: 214.571.2900 Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC. 12 13 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 OAKLAND DIVISION 18 19 EPIC GAMES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR 20 Plaintiff, Counter- DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S PROPOSED defendant FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 21 OF LAW v. 22 APPLE INC., The Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers 23 Defendant, 24 Counterclaimant. Trial: May 3, 2021 25 26 27 28 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, 4:20-cv-05640- YGR Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 410 Filed 04/08/21 Page 2 of 325 1 Apple Inc. -
Executive Summary
1 Executive summary Welcome to the third edition of the Mobile Security and Risk Review. This bi-annual review provides IT security leaders with timely information about the mobile threat landscape and the emerging risks facing their organizations. This edition includes: Regional data Industry-specific Statistics from Australia, Belgium, France, data for financial services, on the adoption of Apple’s Device Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, government, and healthcare Enrollment Program (DEP) and Spain, the United Kingdom, and the Volume Purchase Program (VPP) United States The most popular The top blacklisted enterprise apps mobile apps Several areas saw little change or improvement over the last six months: only Less than 29% 55% 5% of companies had outdated consistently enforced deployed mobile anti-malware policies security policies To help IT organizations make risk mitigation part of their mobile security routine, we developed the Security Hygiene Priority Checklist. 2 The mobile threat landscape New Threats and Trends Almost immediately after we published the second edition of this report, high profile vulnerabilities and new malware families began appearing. The Godless malware, identified in late June 2016, managed to infect an estimated 850,000 devices.1 Initially discovered in February 2016, Hummingbad was more widely analyzed in July, and it appears it was created by Yingmob, the group behind the YiSpectre iOS malware that made headlines last year. Hummingbad succeeded in infecting nearly 85,000,000 devices.2 The apparent goal of both malware families was to drive fraudulent ad revenue. However, what is more more notable — and sinister — is that they contained exploits that attempt to “root” devices over the air without the user’s knowledge, thus giving attackers full control of an infected device. -
Mind the Gap: Dissecting the Android Patch Gap | Ben Schlabs
Mind the Gap – Dissecting the Android patch gap Ben Schlabs <[email protected]> SRLabs Template v12 Corporate Design 2016 Allow us to take you on two intertwined journeys This talk in a nutshell § Wanted to understand how fully-maintained Android phones can be exploited Research § Found surprisingly large patch gaps for many Android vendors journey – some of these are already being closed § Also found Android exploitation to be unexpectedly difficult § Wanted to check thousands of firmwares for the presence of Das Logo Horizontal hundreds of patches — Pos / Neg Engineering § Developed and scaled a rather unique analysis method journey § Created an app for your own analysis 2 3 Android patching is a known-hard problem Patching challenges Patch ecosystems § Computer OS vendors regularly issue patches OS vendor § Users “only” have to confirm the installation of § Microsoft OS patches Patching is hard these patches § Apple Endpoints & severs to start with § Still, enterprises consider regular patching § Linux distro among the most effortful security tasks § “The moBile ecosystem’s diversity […] OS Chipset Phone Android contriButes to security update complexity and vendor vendor vendor phones inconsistency.” – FTC report, March 2018 [1] The nature of Telco § Das Logo HorizontalAndroid makes Patches are handed down a long chain of — Pos / Negpatching so typically four parties Before reaching the user much more § Only some devices get patched (2016: 17% [2]). difficult We focus our research on these “fully patched” phones Our research question – -
Strategic Perspectives on Cybersecurity Management and Public Policies Volume 3 (2017)
VOLUME 3 (2017) ▪ ISSUE 2 STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES ON CYBERSECURITY MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC POLICIES VOLUME 3 (2017) VOLUME ▪ ISSUE ISSUE 2 ANALYSES ▪ POLICY REVIEWS ▪ OPINIONS The European Cybersecurity Journal is a new specialized quarterly publication devoted to cybersecurity. It will be a platform of regular dialogue on the most strategic aspects of cybersecurity. The main goal of the Journal is to provide concrete policy recommendations for European decision-makers and raise awareness on both issues and problem-solving instruments. EDITORIAL BOARD Chief Editor: Dr Joanna Świątkowska The ECJ is a quarterly journal, published in January, CYBERSEC Programme Director and Senior Research Fellow of the April, July and October. Kosciuszko Institute, Poland Honorary Member of the Board: Dr James Lewis Director and Senior Fellow of the Strategic Technologies Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), USA Citations:This journal should be cited as follows: “European Cybersecurity Journal”, Member of the Board: Alexander Klimburg Volume 3 (2017), Issue 2, page reference Nonresident Senior Fellow, Cyber Statecraft Initiative, Atlantic Council ; Affiliate, Belfer Center of Harvard Kennedy School, USA Published by: The Kosciuszko Institute Member of the Board: Helena Raud ul. Feldmana 4/9-10 Member of the Board of the European Cybersecurity Initiative, Estonia 31-130 Kraków, Poland Member of the Board: Keir Giles Phone: 00 48 12 632 97 24 Director of the Conflict Studies Research Centre (CSRC), UK E-mail: [email protected] Editor Associate: Izabela Albrycht www.ik.org.pl Chairperson of the Kosciuszko Institute, Poland www.cybersecforum.eu Executive Editor: Karine Szotowski Printed in Poland by Drukarnia Diament | diamentdruk.pl Designer: Paweł Walkowiak | perceptika.pl DTP: Marcin Oroń Proofreading: Justyna Kruk and Agata Ostrowska ISSN: 2450-21113 Disclaimer: The views expressed in articles are the authors’ and not necessarily those of the Kosciuszko Institute.