Voice of the DBA

Tag: security

  • SQL Injection Is Not Acceptable

    SQL Injection has been a problem for my entire career. Thirty years ago I could have easily just blamed this on ignorance, as most of our developers didn’t think about the nefarious ways that hackers enter data in our applications. These days, there isn’t a good reason for this to keep happening, and the problem is us. I think that we don’t provide good examples or training on secure coding or secure architecture as a normal part of teaching programming. In many organizations, we don’t check for issues and prevent their release. Some do, but many don’t. On top of this, the existing code is usually a poor template for writing future code. I do think Microsoft aims for secure coding in SQL Server but in Windows, there is work to be done there.

    A few months ago, I saw an article that noted the US CISA organization and the FBI issued a secure-by-design alert (PDF) that noted there is no excuse for SQL Injection vulnerabilities (SQLi) in modern software. This alert notes that SQLi has been an “unforgivable vulnerability” since at least 2007. Inside the document on vulnerabilities, it notes that a single quote can’t be used in certain fields: username, password, ID field, or numeric field. They also note that co-mingling user data and query data, like constructing queries on demand, is a poor practice.

    The alert even emphasizes that developers are engaging in poor practices when they “fail to treat user-supplied content as potentially malicious.”

    I agree, and their recommendations are worth reading and implementing. If your boss doesn’t want to spend time on these, point out the bulletin and note that since this is a published advisory, I wouldn’t be surprised to start seeing lawsuits in the US or even insurance claim denials if your software team doesn’t follow these practices. Note that the list includes leadership support of secure coding and secure design principles.

    I doubt this has changed a lot, but I think some managers likely see this as a) a good idea, and b) a way to mitigate potential issues down the road. Changing the habits of software developers, updating code snippets or patterns, and even adding linting/static-code-analysis to CI pipelines take time, as does the training for developers. However, it’s something that has to start changing over time to get better at building higher quality, more secure software.

    I’d like to see insurance companies refuse to indemnify or cover losses or problems from software that is written from this point forward and is vulnerable to SQL Injection. There are far too many tools out, and software is too critical to allow these types of simple coding errors to proliferate. I’d also be pressuring companies to ensure older code is being actively refactored to reduce the number of vulnerabilities over time for all software they still support.

    Steve Jones

    Listen to the podcast at Libsyn, Spotify, or iTunes.

    Note, podcasts are only available for a limited time online.

  • Cyber Insurance for War

    Is the United States at war in cyberspace with other countries? It’s the claim that a few insurers made when US-based Merck filed a claim after a 2017 cyberattack. The company filed a $700mm-ish claim, and the insurers rejected this saying that the attack was an act of war by Russian government operatives. If a factory were disrupted in the real world by actual government operatives (soldiers, spies, etc.), then it likely would be considered an act of war, but in cyberspace, who knows.

    Actually, in cyberspace, who really knows who is whom, and for who they work? Maybe we don’t even know who “they” are in many cases.

    Bruce Schneier wrote a piece on this, talking about a possible solution of using a government backstop that would provide some assistance or coverage that insurers might not be able to cover. While that sounds good if you have a claim, as a citizen, I think this likely encourages more attacks from others, whether they are nation-states or individuals. If someone thinks they might create a spending crisis in a country, maybe they would mount many attacks that are disguised as coming from a foreign nation and cause a government spending issues.

    The United States has a scale issue, but this could cause similar issues in many smaller countries if this were a way of doing business. Perhaps this might also cause some economic issues if companies don’t want to do business in places where they aren’t covered.

    However, this might not be a big issue as more insurers are starting to carve out exceptions in their coverage for these types of attacks, so if your organization is hacked by a supposed nation-state, you aren’t covered. I suspect this will also start to extend to other exceptions, such as having unpatched (or incompletely patched) systems, poor policies or just incompetent employees, lack of security scans, and more.

    In some sense, I would hope that some of these attacks will force, or at least pressure, many organizations to take security more seriously. At the same time, as someone dealing with these changes, it can be inconvenient and a blow to productivity as I struggle to adapt to changes in policy, protocol, and procedure. Some are easy, like locking my home machine. Some are more challenging and frustrating as I try to share more content inside the company. It’s good, but it’s frustrating.

    Cyberattacks and cybersecurity are increasingly a part of our lives as technology professionals and I urge you to spend a little time learning about the field. If you want a fun challenge, try the Advent of Cyber 2023 is still up as of this writing. I went through it and it was a fun (and scary) way to learn a few things about security, vulnerabilities, and tools out there.

    Steve Jones

  • Using AI for Security

    AI (Artificial Intelligence) systems and technology has been all over our industry for the past year or so, ever since ChatGPT released the initial public version in late 2022. It seems that there is a lot of hype around the possibilities, with plenty of excitement and skepticism, depending on who is talking about the tech. However, there do seem to be some places where the technology is working well, and security is one of them.

    There is an article about how Microsoft is using AI to help spot ransomware, which seemed to have run rampant a few years ago. It’s still around, though it seems fewer exploits are being publicized. That might be because systems are better protected, perhaps there are fewer attacks (unlikely), or maybe more organizations are getting better at covering up their issues. They might be better prepared to restore backups or quicker to pay a ransom.

    In any case, Microsoft is exploring machine learning (ML, a subset of AI) to detect patterns and behaviors that can indicate a ransomware campaign is starting on a system. Looking through logs of activity for unusual behavior is something ML might be much better at, or faster at, than humans.

    I certainly know that if I were running queries that might look at my activity on systems, taking a guess about whether or not the activity this week is “regular” and matches patterns from last week is hard. Often exact matches of activity patterns cause lots of false positives if they are too tightly written. If we loosen the parameters too much, we miss potential attacks. A fuzzy view of the pattern is needed, something ML is good at detecting. After all, we need to look at all activity from all users, and determine if Steve’s activity this week is different than last week, and at the same time, is Grant’s activity unusual and a sign that his account is compromised?

    Some humans are very good at spotting patterns in activity, but only at a limited scale. We get tired, our minds wander, and we can’t only focus on looking for patterns in log files. We’ll get bored, distracted, and start to make mistakes. AIs don’t get tired, and while they might miss some anomalous activity, and certainly will report plenty of false positives, humans can focus on this subset of reports and perhaps partner with AIs to do a better job helping secure our systems.

    I lean towards the idea that AI technology will help us better spot malicious activity in the tremendous amount of data we capture about our networked systems when humans are attempting to hack us. What I’m not sure about is how well criminal actors will use AI tech to further disguise their activity. I can certainly see a future where lots of AI bots battle each other at blinding speed while humans watch and hope the defenders manage to outwit their attacking AI opponents.

    Steve Jones

    Listen to the podcast at Libsyn, Spotify, or iTunes.

  • Ransomware vs. AI

    Ransomware has been a growing and shrinking problem in the modern world. Every time I think that some new defenses and protections are preventing ransomware from being a problem, I see another issue. Recently, I saw Subway got hit with with an attack and a few friends have recently noted their companies were restoring systems after a portion of their network was locked down.

    With the advent of Rasnsomware-as-a-service, where criminals deploy software and then sell access to others, better detection and protection become more important. As with any software, criminal human operators will use the ransomware software in different ways. That means that we don’t necessarily have a simple threat that can be easily programmed against with anti-virus technology.

    Microsoft has been using AI technology to help them track and combat ransomware campaigns. Since there are similarities between how ransomware is used by different individuals and how it appears in systems, AI technology can be helpful here. There aren’t the same simple signatures on files that we’ve seen in the past with viruses, but rather more complex patterns. Humans might discover how ransomware appears in their environment with lots of knowledge on what their network ought to look like, but this pattern matching across many different networks and organizations is something that AI/ML might do quicker and at scale. Once successful, ransomware can be hard to recover from, so early detection is important.

    In the article, it seems that Microsoft is capturing lots of traffic and analyzing it for patterns, with multiple types of anomalous activity, and then aggregating this across devices to guess whether this is an attack or not. In some of their testing, they find the ability to stop an attack with only a few percent of assets getting encrypted. That’s not perfect, but better than finding 90% of your nodes are encrypted over morning coffee.

    I suspect this is just the latest escalation in cyber attacks and defenses. I’m sure that hackers will come up with new and novel ways to cause problems, but I do think that this is a place where AI, especially ML, technology can be useful to provide better security. I also think that database technology, especially graph queries, is particularly helpful here. I hope we learn more about how they are building protections as I think this is likely a great data analysis story.

    Once again, the database is critical to making software better because all of that data has to be stored and queried somewhere.

    Steve Jones

    Listen to the podcast at Libsyn, Spotify, or iTunes.