Just a friendly reminder to make sure you’re only allowing port 80, 443, and maybe 8080 outbound from your network. According to this recent US CERT alert advanced attackers are using email attachments to leverage legitimate Microsoft Office functions to retrieve a document from a remote server using the Server Message Block (SMB) protocol. This sends the user’s credential hash to the remote server prior to retrieving the requested file. (Note: It is not necessary for the file to be retrieved for the transfer of credentials to occur.) The threat actors then likely used password-cracking techniques to obtain the plaintext password.
TCP ports 445 or 139 and UDP ports 137 or 138 (SMB) should only be allowed internally !!!
If you don’t use SpamGourmet or a similar service I highly recommend them. They allow you to create unlimited e-mail forwarding addresses that can be created on-the-fly — allowing you to easily detect which websites are giving out your information. Definitely get an account if you don’t have such a tactic already!
Fiddler, a great Windows (web) proxy gave out e-mail address. I’m sure it was in their terms of service that I didn’t bother reading. Still disappointing.
There’s a great summary of the government’s case against Microsoft concerning the subpoenaing ability of data (email) residing in an overseas data center controlled by a US company. The crux of the dispute is the territorial reach (and territorial applicability) of the Stored Communications Act (SCA), a subset of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) that governs law enforcement access to communications data.
The dispute arose when the Justice Department brought a warrant to Microsoft – issued based upon probable cause under the SCA (18 U.S.C. § 2703) – asking for the details and contents of an email account believed to be associated with a suspected drug trafficker.
Microsoft produced the transactional records it held on its data centers in the United States, but declined to produce the customer’s emails that it said were stored on a data center in Ireland.
Interesting article in CFR about a DDOS attack that President Trump authorized United States Cyber Command to conduct against North Korea’s Reconnaissance General Bureau (RGB). In all likelihood, the DDOS attack against North Korea’s intelligence agency, coupled with a leak of its occurrence and a post-hoc claim of responsibility by the U.S. government, represented an attempt by the Trump administration to send a costly signal of resolve to Pyongyang……This may account for why a member of the Trump administration chose to leak information about a DDOS attack, rather than a more costly attack that would require the United States to maintain persistent access North Korean networks……..If a state is seeking to send a signal via cyber means, how can it ensure the signal is received by the adversary and properly attributed? It could couple a cyber signal with other instruments of power, especially private diplomatic channels or public statements. This may account for the Trump administration’s “leak”—it is possible that it was intentional to ensure that North Korea was able to attribute the DDOS attack, after the fact, to the United States.
….given the covert nature of state cyber operations, there are almost certainly things the public doesn’t know, necessitating reasoned hypothesizing about this case. That said, the available evidence suggests that this was a poor attempt at cyber signaling. Even beyond the inherent difficulties associated with signaling in cyberspace, the difference between the President’s tweets and DDOS could only muddy the waters. This example only confirms that cyber is not an ideal signaling tool, and this particular signal may have done more harm than good.
HT: Lost in Cyber Translation? U.S. Cyber Signaling to North Korea
There was a great article from the Council on Foreign Relations regarding the hypocrisy surrounding Kaspersky since the U.S. government earlier this month banned federal agencies from using Kaspersky Lab software. Best Buy is getting in on the action and will stop selling Kaspersky products because of possible(?) ties to the Russian government. Why doesn’t Best Buy get rid of some of the other shit-for-security products on its shelves as well if it’s so concerned about security?
The U.S. House Science Committee received a classified briefing Tuesday related to Kaspersky. I’d really wish some more details over the alleged collusion between Kaspersky and the Russian government would see the light of day.
And what would a Kaspersky post be without an RT link!? ‘It’s crazy’: Kaspersky Lab attacked in US only for being Russian, says founder
I went into my password vault the other day to retrieve a password. For the application in question I had noted in the comments “old password may be ________”. I’m not sure why I felt the need at some point to record a previous password. This is terrible opsec practice to leave old passwords lying around. Ask yourself, how many folks do you think use old passwords as seeds for new passwords?
monkey12 -> monkey123
password! -> password!!
mommieOct06 -> MommieDec08