DHS Offering Free Vulnerability Scans, Penetration Tests (krebsonsecurity.com) 79
tsu doh nimh writes: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been quietly launching stealthy cyber attacks against a range of private U.S. companies -- mostly banks and energy firms. These digital intrusion attempts, commissioned in advance by the private sector targets themselves, are part of a little-known program at DHS designed to help 'critical infrastructure' companies shore up their computer and network defenses against real-world adversaries. And it's all free of charge (well, on the U.S. taxpayer's dime). Brian Krebs examines some of the pros and cons, and the story has some interesting feedback from some banks and others who have apparently taken DHS up on its offer.
The TSA does this every day (Score:4, Funny)
Most people don't enjoy the TSA scans and penetration tests, but I guess different strokes for different folks.
OPM only had to do it once... (Score:3)
Re:OPM only had to do it once... (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to work there, in fact (at least until I found something in the private sector that was better for my sanity/soul/salary*). While I'm not familiar with anything to do with OPM in specific, that sort of scenario popped up all the time. It works much the same in the private sector, in that you can be the best pentester in the world, but if the customer you ran it for doesn't intend to spend the money fixing the holes you pointed out, or drags their feet in doing so, they're still going to get owned despite your best efforts.
As to whether DHS is competent - I knew a lot of really good people (and some less so) when I was there. I know many that went on to work at better jobs doing more interesting things in the private sector, for better pay, so the best of the best aren't going to stick around, but that doesn't mean there aren't competent people there. ICS-CERT (the group focused on critical infrastructure/control systems/etc) in particular always seemed pretty competent to me, and are probably about as different from the usual impression of DHS as you'd expect. To give an example, they showed up at Defcon this past year with an awesome hands-on setup, including an entire mock plant setup with all the controllers that people were free to plug in to and go nuts. (Granted, they never mentioned the fact that they were DHS, but then, would you?)
So certainly I wouldn't expect DHS to be outdoing the best of the best when it comes to penetration testing, but for that municipal water plant in West Nowhere, Texas, that doesn't have the money to hire the best, it's a much better solution than just not doing anything.
Re: (Score:2)
As this is done with our tax dollars, do we get the results? How about via the FOIA?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'd also think it would have research value like, "most common issues found in x scenario." It'd give the private sector something to look for as well as provide just general research data that might be of value to someone. Definitely redacted. I mean, yeah - I paid for it, can't I see the results and use those results? Well, not me personally but me the citizen. I'm retired and happy for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they could/should munge the data so it's not identifiable or release it to a university research facility with strict release criteria? Even the aggregate results might be of value to some. Presumably, these companies have hardened their systems due to the results and would no longer be subject to the exploits found but you're probably right about both the critical infrastructure and their unwillingness to undergo the tests without such protections.
I see this as a potentially beneficial service though
Re: (Score:1)
Bankers are big on BSDMbsdm
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing funny, legally it is a very bad idea as under law the DHS is allowed to lie to you, so the penetration tests have, under law, zero value. They are far more likely to not declare any holes they have found in case they can use them for investigatory purposes or put holes in place they can use for investigatory purposes. Basically under law you can not trust US investigatory agencies unless any those claims and declarations are made in a court of law, the only place they are legally required to tell t
Re: (Score:2)
penetration tests
I'm still waiting for the "National Sheep Association" jokes...
Heh... (Score:1)
Like penetrating pretty much anything these days would be a challenge after the NSA rooted everything.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
But that's only for national security and stopping terrorism! And in no way whatsoever in any universe could the NSA be lying, right?
Right?
Which is actually about NSA and revolving political 'theater' following orders of banksters, preservation of a fiat currency propped up on the petro dollar since '71 because the banksters swindled their own bank, department of energy prospects, corporate espionage and enslaving and sticking us with the check. If the place is going to continue to be run by foreign thieving superstitious closet case Nazi pedophiles, perhaps they should just push the button by picking a fight directly with Putin instead of th
It's a trap! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's a trap! (Score:5, Funny)
Glad you remembered closing tag. Otherwise rest of comments would also have Russian accent.
Re: (Score:3)
Now you closed it a second time ! Let's match opening and closing tags !
(cue heavy Russian accent)
Voilà ! Much better now.
A physicist, a biologist and a mathematician are sitting in a street café watching people entering and leaving the house on the other side of the street. First they see two people entering the house. Time passes. After a while they notice three people leaving the house. The physicist says, "The measurement wasn't accurate." The biologist says, "They must have reproduced." The mathematician says, "If on
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm the text doesn't read like a very convincing russian accent, as it has a somewhat distinct grammar that goes with it. Particularly, skipping use of the definite article, and less superfluous preposition usage:
I would expect it to be more like "Hello, my name is Steven. I am calling from Homeland Security Department and definitely not former KGB agent." That seems more like the flow I have come to expect from a person with a heavy russian accent.
I know there are likely a lot of russians who have learned
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm the text doesn't read like a very convincing russian accent, as it has a somewhat distinct grammar that goes with it. Particularly, skipping use of the definite article, and less superfluous preposition usage:
Which is exactlywhy a "smart" scammer would make sure to use definite articles and prepositions, probably to the point of overcompensating and using them too much.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but even that is more work and more expensive. Pretty sure its cheaper to just hire the people with the bad accents to get on the phone for you.
My assumption is they are so bad because there is no value in being better, not because there is so much value in being bad that they go out of their way.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds easy enough. (Score:2)
Must have extend to all levels of DHS (Score:2)
Get out of jail free. (Score:4, Insightful)
>> The problem is that it measures only a very limited subset of of the vulnerability space but comes with a gold plated get out of jail free card: ‘The US government came and checked us.’
This.
>> They say they are doing it only for organizations that cannot afford commercial assessments, but they often go to organizations that have deep enough pockets.
Simple solution: put in a regulation that says if you get breached, you agree to take down your online services for two weeks to get your house in order. Something like that would free up money for preventative solutions in a hurry. Furthermore, we KNOW the inspected organizations have some security personnel (which aren't cheap) because the permission form asks for specific contacts who might be smart enough to interpret any results.
Re: (Score:3)
In Soviet America (Score:1)
Security Penetrates YOU!
Seriously though, who would want their systems compromised by a group of motivated liars who have a demonstrated track record of covering up their own wrongdoing and misusing any access they do get?
Anyone who wants that deserves every inch of penetration they are going to get.
Re: (Score:2)
"Job Creation" covers the entire spectrum. Pretty sure they know EXACTLY what their "mission" is.....expand their employment opportunities.
Whaddya know (Score:1)
...the fox will test your hen-house for free.
Why is this free of charge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Another example of corporate welfare... pen-testing costs time and money, why should I as a taxpayer be out this money?
Re: (Score:1)
Because every vuln left open means your odds of financial fuckage skyrocket.
The Government is better because why? (Score:2)
Yeah, vulnerabilities cost money. If you get hacked you could be put out of business. That means that if you care about your customers and want to stay in business you pay for the right tools and people to ensure you are secure.
How does a Government who can't handle basic things like medical care for Veterans have a better chance of protecting you than a private company who will be out of a job if they are not effective? What is your repercussion against the DHS when they fail and you go under? What pen
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You think corporate welfare is the angle the DHS is using? I guess you think we need to give up more rights to be safe also?
No I want valuable services rendered to be paid for. I also don't want to have to pay for banks (who are insanely profitable) should be paying for themselves. Government should mandate compliance for online security, and let the private sector handle the audits. The DHS testers can be the "meta-mod". I'd be wiling to part with taxes for that.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations pay taxes too. In theory.
Mandatory Security Compliance (Score:2)
I think you missed the part where this is for critical infrastructure. Banks, power plants, water companies. I'll agree that banks can sure as hell afford pay for this type of testing but they have no monetary incentive to get ahead of identity theft or the myriad of other problems their policies cause.
Make these industrial giants get audited. Make sure their software, hardware, and processes are certified. The compliance framework and confirmation of mandates (i.e., the meta-mod function) is what government does best. The actual pen-testing should be left to industry, and hell, make them craft and adhere to a certification as well.
Weird use of Government resources (Score:5, Insightful)
How about publishing a set of standards and tests that critical infrastructure companies must utilize?
Re: (Score:1)
it's really just a way for them to legitimize their own hacking and data collection habits.
Re: (Score:3)
it's really just a way for them to legitimize their own hacking and data collection habits.
It's like the local fire department asking if there are any fields farmers would like to burn or houses they can burn for practice stopping fires.
Re: (Score:2)
The "free" testing has a few different ideas behind it:
An offer to upper level private sector stakeholders to talk about security threat assessments and protective measures. Basically upper management get a fancy digital version of see something, say something and an offer of a special card just for them.
Long term a free offer to host a new server might be made to split and compare all real time data flows to shared police
Hopefully more thorough (Score:2)
than the stupid port scan tests that some credit card companies require you to do before they let you have a credit card processing machine.
Place your bets (Score:2)
What are the odds DHS didn't even bother to make sure the rest of FedGovs house is in order before moving onto the private sector? Though it does nicely prove DHS, et al are all lapdogs to almighty corporate profits.
Your tax dollars at work...for a change (Score:2)
Well good; I'm guessing that a lot of organisations (outside of Federal) that use this "free" service are ones too cheap to go private.
Just as long as they don't think that they'll get the same breadth and depth of experience as you would with some other options - you don't attack a bank the way you attack a power station so better to go to the specialists for your situation.
Still, if it leads to the DHS overall getting more of a clue then I'm all for it.
But somehow I doubt it...
Now, getting a "tested clear
Free vulnerability scans and penetration tests (Score:2)
Even if you didn't ask for them!
'DHS' and 'penetrate' . . . (Score:3)
Mr. Fox guarding the henhouse? (Score:2)
And if they discover vulnerabilities, those will be passed on to NSA first?
Oh, the hypocracy (Score:2)
OPM ?!? Anyone?!? OPM?!?
DHS Might want to PERFERT their methods on GOVT agencies first...
Leading Problem is Unsupported Unix (Score:1)
According to the report that reads more like a summary with hardly a data point, the most common vulnerability was an "Unsupported Unix Operating System."
DHS Offering Free Vulnerability Scans, Penetration (Score:1)
so this is how elites bugger J&J Sixpack! :(
they ask for volunteers, and then just sit back and wait for free prostitution
(of ALL kinds; no homo sapiens phobia of any kind whatsoever with these folks)