Voice of the DBA

Tag: security

  • Secret Software Security

    This might not be the best title, but I like the alliteration for a the problems we have when governments seek to prevent security researchers from releasing information about software vulnerabilities. This is nothing new, as vendors have tried to prevent this for years, arguing that criminals will exploit the information and target users before a patch can be built. The other side of the argument is that many software companies don’t bother building patches if the issues are kept secret.

    What might be different in this case is that we aren’t talking about database software, devices, or banking websites. Certainly those systems may need secure software, but here we have the US Department of Transportation arguing that security details about automobile software shouldn’t be released. There is some leeway in that potentially limiting details might satisfy the government, but apart from that, how do you feel?

    Many of us use vehicles every day. We might use private cars, but we might use public buses, trains, and airplanes, all of which are making more and more use of software over time. I don’t know, but I suspect, that much of this software is being developed with an eye towards ensuring it works as intended much more than with a view towards how malicious users might take advantage of vulnerabilities. Far too often it seems that we have new systems where control data is allowed to transit the same networks and computing structures as less secure data, with minimal security across the entire system.

    I certainly think that some researchers might not appreciate the dangers of random people experimenting with the issues they disclose, but I also truly believe that the pressures of getting software released overwhelm the concerns and dangers that exist overall. There are no shortage of people with time to spare, abundant computing resources, and substantial intelligence devoted to finding flaws in software. They work at “hacking” the system to change behaviors. While it’s a game to many, there are very real consequences to the world if strong security isn’t built into vehicle software.

    I don’t know that I expect much to change, but I suspect that we will see more and more issues over time, more lawsuits and more highly technical and forensic analysis performed when we a system is attacked. I can only hope that we actually disclose poor security practices so that vendors do learn that their embedded systems need better, and more secure, software engineering practices implemented.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 3.1MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and LibSyn.

  • Masking Data

    This editorial was originally published on Mar 7, 2008. It is being re-run as Steve is out of town.

    I saw an interesting thread awhile back where one of our very talented community members was asking about how to go about altering data in an application for a demo. It’s a valid scenario and one that I’m sure many people have run into at some point in their career. You want to show data that’s somewhat real so that it showcases the application and what it can do, but you don’t want to show real names, amounts, or any identifying information.

    A bit of a quandary and it seems that many people solve it in one of three ways. They just use test data, which is a very small set of data and doesn’t show as well. Or they may alter everyone’s name to something like “Steve Jones”, all phone numbers to 555-555-5555, etc., which looks funny.

    Or you just show the production data and wink and say “I don’t usually do this, but since you’re such a valued client…”

    So for the Friday poll: Do You Alter Production Data When It’s Copied?

    Meaning when the data gets moved to a non-production system (demo, test, development, etc.), do you alter the data and obfuscate it to remove any identifying information. Make it “safe” data that can’t be used to somehow compromise your production system.

    It’s a good practice, and one that I used to follow at a couple companies. I didn’t have any tools, but I did write scripts, load a few base tables of names, and then run those scripts as part of the restore job. They would randomly reassign new names to people, companies, addresses, etc. We would also redo phone numbers in sequential orders (555-555-0001, 555-555-0002, etc), and even randomly add products to sales or amounts to financial figures. It wasn’t perfect, and if you worked on the production system a lot you could guess which people were which, but it worked well for testing and client demos.

    I actually ran into a product recently (Camouflage) that does this and it’s a great idea. It’s something that quite a few companies should be implementing to ensure that their non-production systems are that much more secure.

    Steve Jones

  • The Dangers of Travel

    I cross a lot of borders, and I have been worried at times about losing my electronic devices. There hasn’t even been an issue, but then again, I don’t really have anything of value other than the hardware. The bits themselves are fairly replaceable for me as I ensure I keep things backed up in multiple ways.

    However, I wonder if this will start to become a new type of data breach. Will officials of governments be required to relinquish their devices when proceeding through customs? Will this happen to corporate employees? Something like this happened and it was unclear if this was an action on the part of the Department of Homeland Security in relation to an investigation. However, could this start to become a standard practice as a way for governments to spy on other governments or even corporations?

    This definitely sounds like a movie plot more than something that occurs in real life I would guess this is what we’ll find to be true here. It’s also not likely to be that effective if it does become a standard practice. If devices were being confiscated and checked at any scale, I’m sure we’d all be looking to travel with blank laptops that only had a VPN connection. Once we crossed a border, we could easily access information and download it as needed, deleting it before we recross the border.

    However carrying information on a mobile device is always a bit risky. You could lose a device by accident or theft, and anything you had on the hardware could be exposed to others. For most of us, it’s not a problem, but since some of us carry around database backups or developemnt data, we should be sure that we aren’t carrying sensitive information. There’s really no excuse to do so, no matter what your deadline. Use masked sets of test data that you don’t mind losing, and you won’t have an issue.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 2.1MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and LibSyn.

  • Serious Hacking

    There’s a piece that calls the US Office of Personal Management (OPM) data breach the biggest government hack ever. It might be, but give us a few months and I’m sure something will be bigger. After all, we constantly acquire more data, so the next breech is likely to contain more information. I’m also not sure most of us are actually getting much better at security.

    There were a few notes about this that would apply to every company I’ve worked in. Such as the OPM not having a comprehensive list of devices and databases. I’m not sure any company does, and having worked with people that run SCOM-type systems, it’s a hard problem to solve. This doesn’t even cover the problems of Excel. Access, and soon, PowerBI data being scattered across systems.

    However there was one problem I think we could fundamentally improve in most companies. The article noted that OPM didn’t have control over how it’s systems were configured, meaning an attacker could reconfigure things. Far, far too many companies allow a (too) large group of people to deploy changes to servers. Even when larger companies limit rights for developers, I’ve too often seen operations staff log in and allow developers to change systems to get them working.

    As an industry, we really need to solidify and build better systems for ensuring the security of our hardware and software and preventing, or detecting, unauthorized changes. Certainly there will always be social engineering and other techniques that bypass security, but we should be able to prevent malicious changes to systems with solid architectures from our vendors/FOSS developers. We should also decide upon, and be sure, that our staff learn, understand, and follow, best practices.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 2.4MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and LibSyn.