Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




ming-the-mazdaless posted:

loving AV poo poo merchants must die in a toxic chemical fire.
In this particular case, webroot.

See also: McAfee

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




Suggestions for a CISSP study guide? The official one good?

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




I've always been wary of LastPass and recommended against it, and I feel vindicated right now.

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




flosofl posted:

I think the current recommendation is to stay away from KeePass 2 and use version 1.

Really? How come?

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




taqueso posted:

The previous generations also knew nothing about security.

Companies like Oracle still know nothing about security (gently caress every product they make).

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




Mr Chips posted:

For Windows 8.1 users, having a start menu that doesn't take up the entire screen has a certain appeal

This is about Windows 10 though, why would you still be on 8.1

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




Interesting new password rules from NIST: https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/

Summary: https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/08/18/nists-new-password-rules-what-you-need-to-know/

quote:

Size matters. At least it does when it comes to passwords. NIST’s new guidelines say you need a minimum of 8 characters

NIST says you should allow a maximum length of at least 64, so no more “Sorry, your password can’t be longer than 16 characters.”

Applications must allow all printable ASCII characters, including spaces, and should accept all UNICODE characters, too, including emoji!

No composition rules. What this means is, no more rules that force you to use particular characters or combinations

Let people choose freely, and encourage longer phrases instead of hard-to-remember passwords or illusory complexity such as pA55w+rd.

No password hints.

No more expiration without reason.

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




dpbjinc posted:

Unicode in passwords has kind of the opposite problem. Say you wanted to use the character 'ñ' in your password. The problem is, there are two different 'ñ's: U+00F1 by itself (ñ), and a U+006E followed by a U+0303 (ñ). They're semantically identical, but they will produce totally different hash values. While that's an easy problem to solve, there are a ton of edge cases in Unicode that can make passwords fail to match up. For instance, there's a modifier character for certain emoji that lets you change the skin color. Some systems could strip out that character, resulting in an entirely different password. For the Web in particular, you have to rely on browsers and servers using consistent and correct implementations of Unicode, or your users could get locked out when their browser updates.

Interesting. I use characters like é in my passwords because of Quebec and speaking a minimally acceptable level of French, and I haven't run into this!

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




Regular expiration is still good because of PtH attacks imo

Even better if you use something like TPAM or CyberArk

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




Whatsapp was bought by facebook 2? years ago now, you can't be surprised.

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




ItBurns posted:

Don't be obtuse. It's a relevant development and a significant reversal of their position (and a few poster's own positions) with regard to sharing identifying info with FB and by proxy advertisers and law enforcement where the (now) encrypted messages can be stored until/if an attack on the encryption is found.

I'm not being obtuse, you simpleton. I'm saying I'm not surprised, and you shouldn't be either.

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




FlyingCowOfDoom posted:

Anyone have any experience with GIAC certs? I'm looking around and IBM has some postings with GIAC and GCIH preferred but I've never heard of them. Anyone have a rough idea on what kind of difficulty level (S+, CEH, OSCP, etc) they are comparable to?

I do. They're difficult, a lot of work, and very expensive. They're also a pretty awesome gold standard in terms of infosec certs. GIAC is the certification program, GCIH is a specific cert from the Incident Handling course. I would highly recommend the certs, but your company will definitely be the one paying for it. I have my GSEC, and am taking GCWN in the next month or two.

PM me if you wanna chat about them, there's some pretty extensive NDAs around the GIAC exams and stuff so I may not be able to answer some things.

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




OSI bean dip posted:

FeloniousDrunk, you should come out to one of the local security meetups here in Vancouver--your profile says you live in the same city. It might help to learn from people who break this stuff as their job. :)

I should go to one of those one day

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




OSI bean dip posted:

There is one this Thursday at Central City on Beatie--at 6 PM.

poo poo, I definitely can't make anything this week, then I'm at SANS the following. How often do these happen?

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




OSI bean dip posted:

Please come out to this sometime:
http://vansec.org

I'll definitely be at the next one, mainly because discussion of CSOX is discouraged.

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




FeloniousDrunk posted:

Kind of afraid I'm being set up for a huge embarrassment. But hey, I just did this, so how much worse could it be. I shall attempt to be there. I will be likely trying to lurk, unnoticed.

You got rightfully poo poo all over in this thread, but if you have a desire to learn more about crypto, don't stop experimenting (just don't pretend you'll publicly release anything) and definitely meet and talk to others in the same industry! Just don't use any open wifi networks in the same meetup spot though.

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




That's a pretty nice DDoS.

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




THIS is how I find out about Brangelina?!?!?

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




flosofl posted:

They also lead to hilarious accusations that Pamela Anderson poisoned him

:laffo: for real?

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007





Ahahaha what the gently caress is this world we live in

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




gently caress the internet of things

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/10/hacked-cameras-dvrs-powered-todays-massive-internet-outage/

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




Reminder that security online is a dumpster fire

https://henryhoggard.co.uk/blog/Paypal-2FA-Bypass

quote:

Recently I was in a hotel needing to make a payment, there was no phone signal so I could not receive my Two Factor Auth token. Luckily for me Paypal’s 2FA took less than five minutes to bypass.

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




Droo posted:

No, it's separate and outside the firewall, and not connected to the internal network (even physically).

Do you patch it regularly?

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




Droo posted:

I would answer that, but I don't want to inadvertently end up with a $2500 bill for a completed security analysis.

:D

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




BangersInMyKnickers posted:

There's character limits for the schannel GPO.

I honestly don't think I knew this. What the poo poo, MS

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




Cup Runneth Over posted:

Hello goons, something just occurred to me today. If "correct horse battery staple" is a good format for a password, couldn't you easily use quotes as something just as individual, secure, and even more memorable? It seems like subbing it with, say, one of my favorite sayings from Voltaire, gives me 150 bits of entropy to the horse's 107.

Yes?

e: using quotes is fine, but change the words around or the order of them, use complex characters, keep it long

CLAM DOWN fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Nov 14, 2016

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




apropos man posted:

How dangerous would something like PoisonTap be, if inserted into an office computer in a corporate building?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aatp5gCskvk

If you have some form of USB port protection in place, it's not dangerous at all. If you don't, well....

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




cheese-cube posted:

jamming two-part in all visible holes

:wink:

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




Methylethylaldehyde posted:

Does the windows built in USB protection prevent DMA type exploits?

Good question, I've never used it. I've used Bit9 and Check Point mainly.

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




Kassad posted:

This is probably a stupid question but... How do you plug in a keyboard and mouse if you epoxy all the USB ports?

It's better to use a software solution than glue the ports shut imo.

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




OSI bean dip posted:

The problem with a software solution is that they don't stop devices from interacting with the controller. That and software solutions are temporary in a sense whereas glue or likewise is generally not.

Physically restricting USB ports is of course an extreme solution where I would only advocate it in situations where it is warranted.

Fair, but a software solution is far more flexible and powerful, because you can customize what you allow and what you don't on which system. However you're absolutely right, and only a physical block like glue would stop that.

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:

a software solution is another point of failure in your security model, do it properly or not at all

ratbert90 posted:

Software can be hacked, a cut trace or cement is a lot harder hack.

If you glue USB ports shut, how will you use a mouse/keyboard? PS/2 isn't the answer anymore, it's 2016. If you leave 2 ports for those, what's to stop an attacker from unplugging them and using the ports? A proper approach is multifaceted.

e: not to mention there are a range of USB devices that are useful in a work environment, and maybe your company even designs and builds hardware that uses USB. Simply gluing the ports shut is a limited, narrow, and destructive solution, like I said you need to take a multifaceted approach.

CLAM DOWN fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Nov 22, 2016

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:

well no poo poo you tailor the solution based on the business needs, but don't say a software solution is more flexible and powerful when it's lax and vulnerable

Ok fine, the term "powerful" needs more meaning than that, but 100% it's more flexible, gluing a port shut is about as inflexible as you can get...


e: actually gently caress that, a software solution absolutely can be "powerful", you're being wrong by immediately dismissing any software option as "lax and vulnerable", I'm curious what products you've actually tried and used in production

CLAM DOWN fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Nov 22, 2016

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:

endpoint protection software

Yup, I'm fully aware of all that. Have you used either Check Point port protection, or Bit9 Parity/CarbonBlack USB device features?

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




ratbert90 posted:

Are you serious? You glue them in? Or even better, use wireless and glue the wireless dongle in.

I can't tell if you're trolling me or not.

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:

i'm dismissing them categorically unless evidence is presented that they aren't opening more holes than they are closing.

nope

I highly recommend not dismissing things that you have never used or tried and don't know anything about. Keeping an open mind is very beneficial.

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:

okay the rest is fine about that software being deployed in an enterprise environment but this is just adorable. what did you not like about my security analysis on software endpoint protection suites that made you just shutdown?

Is there a reason you're being so hostile? I'm not interesting in engaging with someone who is acting like an angry child.

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:

i'm just amused that you're against not trusting security software, and will only listen to people who've deployed specific variants of the same snakeoil

I never said either of those things. I simply asked a question. You're putting words in my mouth and making assumptions, and doing so in an unnecessarily hostile and unproductive way. You haven't been open to any kind of real discussion since the start, so have a good one.

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




OSI bean dip posted:

I think what he's trying to get at is that you cannot rely on a software solution to protect USB as USB in itself is flawed. I am not really joking when I say that the best method is to remove the ability for those ports to function as it is in itself the only solution that is surefire short of shredding the computer all together.

Trying to block physical access to a machine is really the only option is preventing harmful USB devices from being used, preventing cold boot-style attacks, or preventing DMA access. Applying a software solution, regardless of how open-minded you are about it, is only a bandaid at best and if you're whitelisting specific devices, it doesn't do much to help you.

How do you stop this device if it emulates a keyboard?

Yeah for sure, but like you said before physically blocking ports is an extreme solution that also eliminates the legitimate use of USB peripherals. That's probably a very small minority of environments that would go that route, so a software solution (NB: I am not advocating or even giving a poo poo about using specific products over any other), while far from perfect and deeply flawed, is an acceptable middle ground for most enterprises. This goes beyond just attacks via USB, and gets into DLP as well, preventing external storage like unauthorized flash drives is an important part of this.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

CLAM DOWN
Feb 13, 2007




lol just lol if you don't browse the internet only from a segregated VM with no access in/out

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply