Login
eXtended Detection & Response (XDR) has become an industry buzzword promising to take detection and response to new heights and improving security operations effectiveness. Not only are customers and vendors behind this but industry groups like Open Cybersecurity Alliance (OCA) share this same goal and there are some open projects to leverage for this effort.
Let’s start with an understanding of XDR. There is a range of XDR definitions but at the end of day there are core desired capabilities and outcomes.
Benefit: Remove the siloes and reduce complexity. Empower security operations to respond and protect more quickly.
Benefit: Deliver faster and better security outcomes.
This requires security functions to be connected to create a shared data lake of insights and to synchronize detection and response capabilities across the enterprise. The Open Cybersecurity Alliance (OCA) shares this vision to easily bring interoperability between security products and simplify integration across the threat lifecycle. OCA enables this with several open source projects available to the industry.
In order to connect security solutions a consistent and easy to use pathway is needed. Contributed by McAfee OpenDXL Ontology is a common messaging format to enable real time data exchange and allow disparate security functions to coordinate and orchestrate actions. It builds up on other common open standards for message content (OpenC2, STIX, etc.) Vendors and organizations can use the categorized set of messages to perform actions on cybersecurity products and notifications used to signal when significant security-related events occur. There are multiple communications modes, one to one or one to many. In addition, there is a centralized authentication and authorization model between security functions. Some examples include but are not limited to:
Sample code on OCA site demonstrates how to integrate the ontology into existing security products and related solutions. The whole mantra here is to integrate once and be able to share information with all the tools/products that are leveraging OpenDXL Ontology.
OpenDXL is the open initiative from which OpenDXL Ontology was initially derived. The Data Exchange Layer (DXL) technology developed by McAfee is being used by 3000 organizations today and is the transport layer used to share information in near real time. OpenDXL technology is also the foundation to McAfee’s MVISION Marketplace where organizations may easily compose their security actions and fulfill the XDR promise of working together.
One who has followed DXL may ask what makes OpenDXL onotology different from DXL. DXL is communication bus. OpenDXL ontology is the common language to enable easy and consistent sharing and collaboration between many different tools on the DXL pathway.
To optimize threat intelligence between security tools easier, one needs to homogenize the data so it may be easily read and analyzed. Contributed by IBM, STIX -Shifter is an open-source Python patterning library to normalize data across domains. Structured Threat Information Expression (STIX) is a language and serialization format used to exchange cyber threat intelligence (CTI). Many organizations have adopted STIX to make better sense of cyber threat intelligence.
STIX enables organizations to share CTI with one another in a consistent and machine-readable manner represented with objects and relationships stored in JavaScript Object Notation (JSON). STIX-Shifter uses STIX Patterning to return results as STIX Observations. This allows security communities to better understand what computer-based attacks they are most likely to see, anticipate and/or respond to those attacks faster and more effectively. What is unique is STIX-Shifter’s ability to search for all three data types—network, file, and log. This allows you to create complex queries and analytics across many domains like Security Information and Event Management (SIEM), endpoint, network and file levels.
STIX is designed to improve many different capabilities, such as collaborative threat analysis, automated threat exchange, automated detection and response, and more. Here is a great Introduction to STIX-Shifter video (just under 7 minutes) to watch.
Security Content Automation Protocol Version 2 (SCAP v2) is a data collection architecture to allow continuous real time monitoring for configuration compliance and to detect the presence of vulnerable versions of software on cyber assets. It offers transport protocols to enable secure interoperable communication of security automation information allowing more active responses to the security postures changes as they occur. SCAP v2 was derived from the National Institute of Standards Technology (NIST.)
To fully realize the benefits of an evolving XDR strategy, enterprises must ensure the platform they select is built atop an open and flexible architecture with a broad ecosystem of integrated security vendors. McAfee’s innovation and leadership in the Open Cybersecurity Alliance provides customers the confidence that as their security environment evolves, so too will their ability to effectively integrate all relevant technologies, the telemetry they generate and the security outcomes they provide.
If your organization aspires to XDR, the OCA projects bring the technologies to help unite your security functions. Many vendors are leveraging the OCA in their XDR ecosystems. Leverage the projects and join OCA if you want to influence and contribute to open security working together with ease.
The post How OCA Empowers Your XDR Journey appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
Video conferencing has really taken off this year. With more people working and learning from home than ever before, video calling has rapidly become the mainstream method for remote communication, allowing users to stay connected. But very few may realize that they might be giving away their passwords on video calls through their body language. According to Tom’s Guide, call participants can guess a user’s passwords through the arm and shoulder movements they make while they type.
Let’s unpack how this threat works so you can continue to connect via video calls worry-free.
Keyboard snooping, or a keyboard interference threat, occurs when an attacker is present on a video call and observes the target’s body and physiological features to infer what they are typing. To pull off this attack, the hacker would need to record the meeting or video stream and feed it through a computer program. This program eliminates the visual background and measures the user’s arm and shoulder movements relative to their face. From there, the program analyzes the user’s actions to guess which keys they are hitting on the keyboard – including passwords and other sensitive information.
So, how accurate is this program, anyway? While this shows that the program was only correct 20% of the time when subjects were on their own devices in an uncontrolled environment, the program’s accuracy increased to 75% if their password was one of the one million most commonly used passwords. And suppose the program already knew their email address or name. In that case, it could decipher when the target was typing this information during the video call (and when their password would immediately follow) 90% of the time. The less complex the target makes their password, the easier it is for the program to guess what they’re typing.
Keystroke inference attacks can have potentially dangerous effects, since the text typed can often contain sensitive or private information even beyond passwords, like credit card numbers, authentication codes, and physical addresses. It’s also important to note that any video conferencing tool or videos obtained from public video sharing/streaming platforms are susceptible to this attack.
Therefore, to prevent your meeting attendees from snooping on what you’re typing, follow these tips for greater peace-of-mind:
Avoid giving keyboard snoopers the upper hand by making your password or passphrase as unique as the information it’s protecting. If a hacker does manage to guess your password for one of your online accounts, they will likely check for repeat credentials across multiple sites. By using different passwords or passphrases for your online accounts, you can remain calm and collected knowing that the majority of your data is secure if one of your accounts becomes vulnerable.
Two or multi-factor authentication provides an extra layer of security, as it requires multiple forms of verification like texting or emailing a secure code to verify your identity. Most popular online sites like Gmail, Dropbox, LinkedIn, Facebook, etc. offer multi-factor authentication, and it takes just a few minutes to set it up. This reduces the risk of successful impersonation by criminals who may have uncovered your information by keyboard snooping.
Take your security to the next level with a password manager, like the one included in McAfee Total Protection. A password manager can help you create strong passwords, remove the hassle of remembering numerous passwords, and log you on to websites automatically.
To stay updated on all things McAfee and on top of the latest consumer and mobile security threats, follow @McAfee_Home on Twitter, listen to our podcast Hackable?, and ‘Like’ us on Facebook.
The post How to Prevent Keyboard Snooping Attacks on Video Calls appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
Core to any organization is managing cyber risk with a security operations function whether it be in-house or outsourced. McAfee has been and continues their commitment to protecting cyber assets. We are dedicated to empowering security operations and with this dedication comes expertise and passion. Introducing SOCwise a monthly series of blogs, podcasts and talks driven by two highly experienced and devoted security operations professionals. This is an ongoing resource of helpful advice on SOC issues, distinct SOC functional lessons, best practices learned from a range of projects and customers and perspectives on the future of security operations. In addition, we will invite guests to contribute to this series.
From the perspective of a ‘legacy SIEM’ guy I can tell you that there’s nothing more important to a security analyst than intelligence. Notice I didn’t say ‘data’ or ‘information’ – I didn’t even say ‘threat intelligence’. I’m talking about ‘Situational Awareness’. I’m specifically talking about business, user and data context that adds critical understanding and guidance in support of making more timely, accurate or informed decisions related to a given security event. A typical SOC analyst might deal with dozens of incidents each shift – some requiring no more than a few minutes and even fewer clicks to quickly and accurately determine the risk and impact of potential malicious activities. Some incidents require much more effort to triage in hopes to understand intent, impact and attribution.
More often we find the role of SOC analyst to be one of data wrangler – asking and answering key questions of the ‘data’ to determine if an attack is evident and if so, what is the scope and impact of the adversarial engagement. Today’s modern SOC is evolving from one of centralized data collection, information dissemination and coordination of intelligence – one where each stakeholder in security was a part of the pre-determined set of expectations throughout the evaluation and implementation process – to a fully distributed cast of owners/creators (application development, operations, analysts, transformation architects, management) where the lines of authority, expectation and accountability have blurred sometimes beyond recognition.
How can a modern SOC maintain the highest levels of advanced threat detection, incident response and compliance efficacy when they may no longer have all (or sometimes even some) of the necessary context with which to turn data into intelligence? Will Security Operations Centers of the future resemble anything like the ones we built in previous years. From the massive work-from-home migration brought on by an unexpected pandemic to cloud transformation initiatives that are revolutionizing our modern enterprise, the entire premise of a SOC as we know it are being slowly eroded. These are just some of the questions we will try to answer in this blog series.
I have worked for 20 years in this industry that we once used to call, information security. During this time, I have had the opportunity to be both on the offense and the defense side of the cyber security coin, as a practitioner and as a consultant, as an architect and as an engineer, as a student as well as a SANS author & instructor. I want to believe that I have learned a few things along the way. For example, as a penetration tester and a red teamer, I have learned that there is always a way in, that prevention is ideal, and that detection is a must. As a security architect I have learned that a defensible architecture is all about the right balance between prevention, monitoring, detection and response. As an incident responder I learned that containing an adversary is all about timing, planning and strategy. As a security analyst I have learned the power of automation and of human-machine teaming, to do more analysis and less data gathering. As a threat hunter I have learned to be laser focused on adversarial behaviors, and not on vulnerabilities. And as a governance, risk and compliance consultant, that security is all about tradeoffs, about cost and benefit, about being flexible, adaptable and realizing that for most of our customers, security is not their core business, but something they do to stay in business. To summarize 20 years in a few phrases is challenging, but no one has summarized it better than Bruce Schneier in my opinion, who wrote, precisely 20 years ago: “security is a process, not a product”.
And I am sure that you will agree with me that processes have changed a lot over the last 20 years. This transformation that had already started with the adoption of Cloud and DevOps technologies it is now creating an interesting and unforeseen circumstance. Just when security operations barely found its footing, and right when it was finally coming out from under the realm of IT, garnering respect and budget to achieve desired outcomes, just when we felt that we made it, we are told to pack our things, leave the physical boundaries of the SOC and have everyone work remote.
If this didn’t introduce enough uncertainty, I read that Gartner predicts that 85% of data centers will be gone by 2025. So, I can’t help but wonder: is this the end of it? Is the SOC dead as we know it? What is the future of SecOps in this new paradigm? How will roles change? Will developers own security in a ‘you code it, you own it’ fashion? Is it realistic to expect a fully automated SOC anytime soon?
Please join us in this new SOCwise series as Michael and I explore answers to these and more questions on the future and the democratization of SOC and SecOps.
The post SOCwise: A Security Operation Center (SOC) Resource to Bookmark appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
For more than 20 years, the cybersecurity industry has been focused on enterprises, not on a larger national integrated security environment – and certainly not on comprehensive home security. Smart devices that make home life more convenient have been growing in acceptance and adoption, but by and large, the industry continues to concentrate on enterprise security. Even from a standards perspective, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has focused on enterprises and the federal government, not the home.
The NIST Cybersecurity Framework, for example, a highly regarded security framework, is intended for enterprises, not homes. Yet today, the devices and connectivity in many homes outnumber those in small businesses of 20 years ago. Homes are following along the same path as small businesses, and like them, need more focused attention and protection.
COVID-19 forced organizational change in the blink of an eye, forcing an overnight transition from mostly centralized work environments to a highly distributed work-from-home infrastructure. This rapid shift to working from unsecured and unmanaged environments (IT, IoT, mobile, cloud, etc.), has greatly complicated organizational cybersecurity exposure challenges while creating a massive expansion of the digital attack surface. With many employees having to use personal devices for business purposes, enterprises now need to consider adopting policies that provide them greater management and control over these personal devices. The security challenge once focused on BYOD (bring your own device) has now morphed into BYEH — “Bring Your Enterprise Home.” We need new security standards and practices to address this shift.
While my company and others had the policies, management processes, controls, equipment and software in place to protect this new corporate ecosystem, they did so with the understanding the home is a very inhospitable security environment at present.
In my own home, for instance, there are many different systems of devices (wireless lighting, smart locks, multiple smart TVs, multiple streaming devices, smart plugs, wireless security system, digital assistants, wireless speakers, cameras, thermostats, and other home management connected devices. And this is before we add in the computers, laptops, iPads and smart phones for all its residents. An ever-growing number of IoT devices are helping people to transform their houses into smart homes, but homeowners often don’t know how to secure these devices. Additionally, many of the products don’t communicate or integrate with each other, exacerbating the discovery of security weaknesses.
Today, a bad actor can break into a home and steal things of value – bank account, credentials, sanity (by turning smart lights on and off at 3 am and blasting music from connected speakers) – without even physically walking through the door. This is a major problem for individuals, but it’s an even greater problem for enterprises and governments turning to remote work to continue operations during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Take all of the devices in each home, smart or otherwise, multiplied by all of the federal government employees alone, and you’ll have a vision for how large a threat vector we’ve just created by asking employees to work from home. Then add in government contractors, who may or may not have access to the same level of security as permanent employees. Then realize this is not just a government problem but a whole-of-nation problem, where businesses and other organizations need to assure their staffs’ remote access to their corporate properties are protected and secure.
Cybersecurity is not the only area we need to address. For example, ISPs often give priority to supporting enterprise customers when there are outages. Timelines from reporting-to-fix for enterprises is measured in hours, while timelines for correcting consumer outages is quite often measured in days. Now, however, the lines between what is a remote critical connection and what is not are highly blurred. How does an organization indicate to an ISP that a specific connection needs a critical designation and a priority response? How do we extend the concept of “home-points” being a component in an individual enterprise’s infrastructure?
Relatedly, broadband access and network connection speeds are now more important than ever. It may be time for the Federal Communications Commission to rethink its designation of broadband, as 25/3 Mbps is not really suitable for a family with multiple children engaged in remote learning while Mom and Dad work from home.
The waves of change that COVID-19 has set in motion have turned homes into workspaces, making every connected device in a home a risk to each person’s employer. Now the home isn’t just a smart home; it’s a remote office, as well as a schoolroom, a doctor’s office and the front door to malls and grocery stores.
As we work to adapt our economy and country in the wake of the pandemic, it’s critical that we also rethink the security of our homes to ensure there are standards for protection in place. Our homes are now part of an enterprise environment. It’s time that we as a nation considered the home as such and adopted policies and security practices to meet the new BYEH reality.
The post Home-Point Cybersecurity: Bring Your Enterprise Home appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
Detrimental lies are not new. Even misleading headlines and text can fool a reader. However, the ability to alter reality has taken a leap forward with “deepfake” technology which allows for the creation of images and videos of real people saying and doing things they never said or did. Deep learning techniques are escalating the technology’s finesse, producing even more realistic content that is increasingly difficult to detect.
Deepfakes began to gain attention when a fake pornography video featuring a “Wonder Woman” actress was released on Reddit in late 2017 by a user with the pseudonym “deepfakes.” Several doctored videos have since been released featuring high-profile celebrities, some of which were purely for entertainment value and others which have portrayed public figures in a demeaning light. This presents a real threat. The internet already distorts the truth as information on social media is presented and consumed through the filter of our own cognitive biases.
Deepfakes will intensify this problem significantly. Celebrities, politicians and even commercial brands can face unique forms of threat tactics, intimidation, and personal image sabotage. The risks to our democracy, justice, politics and national security are serious as well. Imagine a dark web economy where deepfakers produce misleading content that can be released to the world to influence which car we buy, which supermarket we frequent, and even which political candidate receives our vote. Deepfakes can touch all areas of our lives; hence, basic protection is essential.
Deepfakes are a cutting-edge advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) often leveraged by bad actors who use the technology to generate increasingly realistic and convincing fake images, videos, voice, and text. These videos are created by the superimposition of existing images, audio, and videos onto source media files by leveraging an advanced deep learning technique called “Generative Adversarial Networks” (GANs). GANs are relatively recent concepts in AI which aim to synthesize artificial images that are indistinguishable from authentic ones. The GAN approach brings two neural networks to work simultaneously: one network called the “generator” draws on a dataset to produce a sample that mimics it. The other network, known as the “discriminator”, assesses the degree to which the generator succeeded. Iteratively, the assessments of the discriminator inform the assessments of the generator. The increasing sophistication of GAN approaches has led to the production of ever more convincing and nearly impossible to expose deepfakes, and the result far exceeds the speed, scale, and nuance of what human reviewers could achieve.
To mitigate this threat, McAfee today announced the launch of the McAfee Deepfakes Lab to focus the company’s world-class data science expertise and tools on countering the deepfake menace to individuals, organizations, democracy and the overall integrity of information across our society. The Deepfakes Lab combines computer vision and deep learning techniques to exploit hidden patterns and detect manipulated video elements that play a key role in authenticating original media files.
To ensure the prediction results of the deep learning framework and the origin of solutions for each prediction are understandable, we spent a significant amount of time visualizing the layers and filters of our networks then added a model-agnostic explainability framework on top of the detection framework. Having explanations for each prediction helps us make an informed decision about how much we trust the image and the model as well as provide insights that can be used to improve the latter.
We also performed detailed validation and verification of the detection framework on a large dataset and tested detection capability on deepfake content found in the wild. Our detection framework was able to detect a recent deepfake video of Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg giving a brief speech about the power of big data. The tool not only provided an accurate detection score but generated heatmaps via the model-agnostic explainability module highlighting the parts of his face contributing to the decision, thereby adding trust in our predictions.
Such easily available deepfakes reiterate the challenges that social networks face when it comes to policing manipulated content. As advancements in GAN techniques produce very realistic looking fake images, advanced computer vision techniques will need to be developed to identify and detect advanced forms of deepfakes. Additionally, steps need to be taken to defend against deepfakes by making use of watermarks or authentication trails.
We realize that news media do have considerable power in shaping people’s beliefs and opinions. As a consequence, their truthfulness is often compromised to maximize impact. The dictum “a picture is worth a thousand words” accentuates the significance of the deepfake phenomenon. Credible yet fraudulent audio, video, and text will have a much larger impact that can be used to ruin celebrity and brand reputations as well as influence political opinion with terrifying implications. Computer vision and deep learning detection frameworks can authenticate and detect fake visual media and text content, but the damage to reputations and influencing opinion remains.
In launching the Deepfakes Lab, McAfee will work with traditional news and social media organizations to identify malicious deepfakes videos during this crucial 2020 national election season and help combat this new wave of disinformation associated with deepfakes.
In our next blog on deepfakes, we will demonstrate our detailed detection framework. With this framework, we will be helping to battle disinformation and minimize the growing challenge of deepfakes.
To engage the services of the McAfee Deepfakes Lab, news and social media organizations may submit suspect video for analysis by sending content links to media@mcafee.com.
The post The Deepfakes Lab: Detecting & Defending Against Deepfakes with Advanced AI appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
If you are someone who works for a cloud service provider in the business of federal contracting, you probably already have a good understanding of FedRAMP. It is also likely that our regular blog readers know the ins and outs of this program.
For those who are not involved in these areas, however, this acronym may be more unfamiliar. Perhaps you have only heard of it in passing conversation with a few of your expert cybersecurity colleagues, or you are just curious to learn what all of the hype is about. If you fall into this category – read on! This blog is for you.
At first glance, FedRAMP may seem like a type of onramp to an interstate headed for the federal government – and in a way, it is.
FedRAMP stands for the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program, which provides a standard security assessment, authorization and continuous monitoring for cloud products and services to be used by federal agencies. The program’s overall mission is to protect the data of U.S. citizens in the cloud and promote the adoption of secure cloud services across the government with a standardized approach.
Once a cloud service has successfully made it onto the interstate – or achieved FedRAMP authorization – it’s allowed to be used by an agency and listed in the FedRAMP Marketplace. The FedRAMP Marketplace is a one-stop-shop for agencies to find cloud services that have been tested and approved as safe to use, making it much easier to determine if an offering meets security requirements.
In the fourth year of the program, FedRAMP had 20 authorized cloud service offerings. Now, eight years into the program, FedRAMP has over 200 authorized offerings, reflecting its commitment to help the government shift to the cloud and leverage new technologies.
Any cloud service provider that has a contract with a federal agency or wants to work with an agency in the future must have FedRAMP authorization. Compliance with FedRAMP can also benefit providers who don’t have plans to partner with government, as it signals to the private sector they are committed to cloud security.
Using a cloud service that complies with FedRAMP standards is mandatory for federal agencies. It has also become popular with organizations in the private industry, which are more often looking to FedRAMP standards as a security benchmark for the cloud services they use.
There are two ways for a cloud service to obtain FedRAMP authorization. One is with a Joint Authorization Board (JAB) provisional authorization (P-ATO) and the other is through an individual agency Authority to Operate (ATO).
A P-ATO is an initial approval of the cloud service provider by the JAB, which is made up of the Chief Information Officers (CIOs) from the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and General Services Administration (GSA). This designation means that the JAB has provided a provisional approval for agencies to leverage when granting an ATO to a cloud system.
The head of an agency grants an ATO as part of the agency authorization process. An ATO may be granted after an agency sponsor reviews the cloud service offering and completes a security assessment.
Achieving FedRAMP authorization for a cloud service is a very long and rigorous process, but it has received high praise from security officials and industry experts alike for its standardized approach to evaluate whether a cloud service offering meets some of the strongest cybersecurity requirements.
There are several benefits for cloud providers who authorize their service with FedRAMP. The program allows an authorized cloud service to be reused continuously across the federal government – saving time, money and effort for both cloud service providers and agencies. Authorization of a cloud service also gives service providers increased visibility of their product across government with a listing in the FedRAMP Marketplace.
By electing to comply with FedRAMP, cloud providers can demonstrate dedication to the highest data security standards. Though the process for achieving FedRAMP approval is complex, it is worthwhile for providers, as it signals a commitment to security to government and non-government customers.
At McAfee, we are dedicated to ensuring our cloud services are compliant with FedRAMP standards. We are proud that McAfee’s MVISION Cloud is the first Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB) platform to be granted a FedRAMP High Impact Provisional Authority to Operate (P-ATO) from the U.S. Government’s Joint Authorization Board (JAB).
Currently, MVISION Cloud is in use by ten federal agencies, including the Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
MVISION Cloud allows federal organizations to have total visibility and control of their infrastructure to protect their data and applications in the cloud. The FedRAMP High JAB P-ATO designation is the highest compliance level available under FedRAMP, meaning that MVISION Cloud is authorized to manage highly sensitive government data.
We look forward to continuing to work closely with the FedRAMP program and other cloud providers dedicated to authorizing cloud service offerings with FedRAMP.
The post FedRAMP – What’s the Big Deal? appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
In January 2020, McAfee released the results of a survey establishing the extent of the use of .GOV validation and HTTPS encryption among county government websites in 13 states projected to be critical in the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. The research was a result of my concern that the lack of .GOV and HTTPS among county government websites and election-specific websites could allow foreign or domestic malicious actors to potentially create fake websites and use them to spread disinformation in the final weeks and days leading up to Election Day 2020.
Subsequently, reports emerged in August that the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations, between March and June, had identified dozens of suspicious websites made to look like official U.S. state and federal election domains, some of them referencing voting in states like Pennsylvania, Georgia, Tennessee, Florida and others.
Just last week, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security released another warning about fake websites taking advantage of the lack of .GOV on election websites.
These revelations compelled us to conduct a follow-up survey of county election websites in all 50 U.S. states.
Using a .GOV web domain reinforces the legitimacy of the site. Government entities that purchase .GOV web domains have submitted evidence to the U.S. government that they truly are the legitimate local, county, or state governments they claimed to be. Websites using .COM, .NET, .ORG, and .US domain names can be purchased without such validation, meaning that there is no governing authority preventing malicious parties from using these names to set up and promote any number of fraudulent web domains mimicking legitimate county government domains.
An adversary could use fake election websites for disinformation and voter suppression by targeting specific citizens in swing states with misleading information on candidates or inaccurate information on the voting process such as poll location and times. In this way, a malicious actor could impact election results without ever physically or digitally interacting with voting machines or systems.
The HTTPS encryption measure assures citizens that any voter registration information shared with the site is encrypted, providing greater confidence in the entity with which they are sharing that information. Websites lacking the combination of .GOV and HTTPS cannot provide 100% assurance that voters seeking election information are visiting legitimate county and county election websites. This leaves an opening for malicious actors to steal information or set up disinformation schemes.
I recently demonstrated how such a fake website would be created by mimicking a genuine county election website and then inserting misleading information that could influence voter behavior. This was done in an isolated lab environment that was not accessible to the internet as to not create any confusion for legitimate voters.
In many cases, election websites have been set up to provide a strong user experience versus a focus on mitigating concerns that they could be spoofed to exploit the communities they serve. Malicious actors can pass off fake election websites and mislead large numbers of voters before detection by government organizations. A campaign close to election day could confuse voters and prevent votes from being cast, resulting in missing votes or overall loss of confidence in the democratic system.
McAfee’s September survey of county election administration websites in all 50 U.S. states (3089 counties) found that 80.2% of election administration websites or webpages lack the .GOV validation that confirms they are the websites they claim to be.
Nearly 45% of election administration websites or webpages lack the necessary HTTPS encryption to prevent third-parties from re-directing voters to fake websites or stealing voter’s personal information.
Only 16.4% of U.S. county election websites implement U.S. government .GOV validation and HTTPS encryption.
| States | # Counties | # .GOV | % .GOV | # HTTPS | % HTTPS | # BOTH | %BOTH |
| Alabama | 67 | 8 | 11.9% | 26 | 38.8% | 6 | 9.0% |
| Alaska | 18 | 1 | 5.6% | 12 | 66.7% | 1 | 5.6% |
| Arizona | 15 | 11 | 73.3% | 14 | 93.3% | 11 | 73.3% |
| Arkansas | 75 | 18 | 24.0% | 30 | 40.0% | 17 | 22.7% |
| California | 58 | 8 | 13.8% | 45 | 77.6% | 6 | 10.3% |
| Colorado | 64 | 21 | 32.8% | 49 | 76.6% | 20 | 31.3% |
| Connecticut | 8 | 1 | 12.5% | 2 | 25.0% | 1 | 12.5% |
| Delaware | 3 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Florida | 67 | 4 | 6.0% | 64 | 95.5% | 4 | 6.0% |
| Georgia | 159 | 40 | 25.2% | 107 | 67.3% | 35 | 22.0% |
| Hawaii | 5 | 4 | 80.0% | 4 | 80.0% | 4 | 80.0% |
| Idaho | 44 | 6 | 13.6% | 28 | 63.6% | 5 | 11.4% |
| Illinois | 102 | 14 | 13.7% | 60 | 58.8% | 12 | 11.8% |
| Indiana | 92 | 28 | 30.4% | 41 | 44.6% | 16 | 17.4% |
| Iowa | 99 | 27 | 27.3% | 80 | 80.8% | 25 | 25.3% |
| Kansas | 105 | 8 | 7.6% | 46 | 43.8% | 2 | 1.9% |
| Kentucky | 120 | 19 | 15.8% | 28 | 23.3% | 15 | 12.5% |
| Louisiana | 64 | 5 | 7.8% | 12 | 18.8% | 2 | 3.1% |
| Maine | 16 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Maryland | 23 | 9 | 39.1% | 22 | 95.7% | 8 | 34.8% |
| Massachusetts | 14 | 3 | 21.4% | 5 | 35.7% | 2 | 14.3% |
| Michigan | 83 | 9 | 10.8% | 63 | 75.9% | 9 | 10.8% |
| Minnesota | 87 | 5 | 5.7% | 59 | 67.8% | 5 | 5.7% |
| Mississippi | 82 | 8 | 9.8% | 30 | 36.6% | 5 | 6.1% |
| Missouri | 114 | 8 | 7.0% | 49 | 43.0% | 7 | 6.1% |
| Montana | 56 | 15 | 26.8% | 21 | 37.5% | 8 | 14.3% |
| Nebraska | 93 | 35 | 37.6% | 73 | 78.5% | 32 | 34.4% |
| Nevada | 16 | 3 | 18.8% | 13 | 81.3% | 2 | 12.5% |
| New Hampshire | 10 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| New Jersey | 21 | 3 | 14.3% | 11 | 52.4% | 2 | 9.5% |
| New Mexico | 33 | 7 | 21.2% | 20 | 60.6% | 6 | 18.2% |
| New York | 62 | 15 | 24.2% | 48 | 77.4% | 14 | 22.6% |
| North Carolina | 100 | 37 | 37.0% | 69 | 69.0% | 29 | 29.0% |
| North Dakota | 53 | 3 | 5.7% | 19 | 35.8% | 2 | 3.8% |
| Ohio | 88 | 77 | 87.5% | 88 | 100.0% | 77 | 87.5% |
| Oklahoma | 77 | 1 | 1.3% | 24 | 31.2% | 1 | 1.3% |
| Oregon | 36 | 1 | 2.8% | 22 | 61.1% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Pennsylvania | 67 | 11 | 16.4% | 40 | 59.7% | 7 | 10.4% |
| Rhode Island | 5 | 2 | 40.0% | 3 | 60.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| South Carolina | 46 | 15 | 32.6% | 33 | 71.7% | 13 | 28.3% |
| South Dakota | 66 | 2 | 3.0% | 14 | 21.2% | 1 | 1.5% |
| Tennessee | 95 | 23 | 24.2% | 38 | 40.0% | 12 | 12.6% |
| Texas | 254 | 10 | 3.9% | 86 | 33.9% | 6 | 2.4% |
| Utah | 29 | 8 | 27.6% | 16 | 55.2% | 7 | 24.1% |
| Vermont | 14 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Virginia | 95 | 33 | 34.7% | 61 | 64.2% | 35 | 36.8% |
| Washington | 39 | 7 | 17.9% | 26 | 66.7% | 6 | 15.4% |
| West Virginia | 55 | 18 | 32.7% | 33 | 60.0% | 16 | 29.1% |
| Wisconsin | 72 | 16 | 22.2% | 61 | 84.7% | 11 | 15.3% |
| Wyoming | 23 | 4 | 17.4% | 15 | 65.2% | 2 | 8.7% |
| Total | 3089 | 611 | 19.8% | 1710 | 55.4% | 507 | 16.4% |
We found that the battleground states were largely in a bad position when it came to .GOV and HTTPS.
Only 29% of election websites used both .GOV and HTTPS in North Carolina, 22% in Georgia, 15.3% in Wisconsin, 10.8% in Michigan, 10.4% in Pennsylvania, and 2.4% in Texas.
While 95.5% of Florida’s county election websites and webpages use HTTPS encryption, only 6% percent validate their authenticity with .GOV.
During the January 2020 survey, only 11 Iowa counties protected their election administration pages and domains with .GOV validation and HTTPS encryption. By September 2020, that number rose to 25 as 14 counties added .GOV validation. But 72.7% of the state’s county election sites and pages still lack official U.S. government validation of their authenticity.
Alternatively, Ohio led the survey pool with 87.5% of election webpages and domains validated by .GOV and protected by HTTPS encryption. Four of Five (80%) Hawaii counties protect their main county and election webpages with both .GOV validation and encryption and 73.3% of Arizona county election websites do the same.
Separate Election Sites. As many as 166 counties set up websites that were completely separate from their main county web domain. Separate election sites may have easy-to-remember, user-friendly domain names to make them more accessible for the broadest possible audience of citizens. Examples include my own county’s www.votedenton.com as well as www.votestanlycounty.com, www.carrollcountyohioelections.gov, www.voteseminole.org, and www.worthelections.com.
The problem with these election-specific domains is that while 89.1% of these sites have HTTPS, 92.2% lack .GOV validation to guarantee that they belong to the county governments they claim. Furthermore, only 7.2% of these domains have both .GOV and HTTPS implemented. This suggests that malicious parties could easily set up numerous websites with similarly named domains to spoof these legitimate sites.
Not on OUR website. Some smaller counties with few resources often reason that they can inform and protect voters simply by linking from their county websites to their states’ official election sites. Other smaller counties have suggested that social media platforms such as Facebook are preferable to election websites to reach Internet-savvy voters.
Unfortunately, neither of these approaches prevents malicious actors from spoofing their county government web properties. Such actors could still set up fake websites regardless of whether the genuine websites link to a .GOV validated state election website or whether counties set up amazing Facebook election pages.
For that matter, Facebook is not a government entity focused on validating that organizational or group pages are owned by the entities they claim to be. The platform could just as easily be used by malicious parties to create fake pages spreading disinformation about where and how to vote during elections.
It’s not OUR job. McAfee found that some states’ voters could be susceptible to fake county election websites even though their counties have little if any role at all in administering elections. States such as Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont administer their elections through their local governments, meaning that any election information is only available at the states’ websites and those websites belonging to major cities and towns. While this arrangement makes county-level website comparisons with other states difficult for the purpose of our survey, it doesn’t make voters in these states any less susceptible to fake versions of their county website.
There should be one recipe for the security and integrity of government websites such as election websites and that recipe should be .GOV and HTTPS.
Ohio’s leadership position in our survey appears to be the result of a state-led initiative to transition county election-related content to .GOV validated web properties. Ohio’s Secretary of State used “the stick” approach by demanding by official order that counties implement .GOV and HTTPS on their election web properties. If counties couldn’t move their existing websites to .GOV, he offered “the carrot” of allowing them to leverage the state’s domain.
A majority of counties have subsequently transitioned their main county websites to .GOV domains, their election-specific websites to .GOV domains, or their election-specific webpages to Ohio’s own .GOV-validated https://ohio.gov/ domain.
Examples:
While Ohio’s main county websites still largely lack .GOV validation, Ohio does provide a mechanism for voters to quickly assess if the main election website is real or potentially fake. Other states should consider such interim strategies until all county and local websites with election functions can be fully transitioned to .GOV.
Ultimately, the end goal success should be that we are able to tell voters that if they don’t see .GOV and HTTPS, they shouldn’t believe that a website is legitimate or safe. What we tell voters must be that simple, because the general public lacks a technical background to determine real sites from fake sites.
For more information on our .GOV-HTTPS county website research, potential disinformation campaigns, other threats to our elections, and voter safety tips, please visit our Elections 2020 page: https://www.mcafee.com/enterprise/en-us/2020-elections.html
The post US County Election Websites (Still) Fail to Fulfill Basic Security Measures appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
As Congress prepares to return to Washington in the coming weeks, finalizing the FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) will be a top priority. The massive defense bill features several important cybersecurity provisions, from strengthening CISA and promoting interoperability to creating a National Cyber Director position in the White House and codifying FedRAMP.
These are vital components of the legislation that conferees should work together to include in the final version of the bill, including:
One of the main recommendations of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission’s report this spring was to further strengthen CISA, an agency that has already made great strides in protecting our country from cyberattacks. An amendment to the House version of the NDAA would do just that, by giving CISA additional authority it needs to effectively hunt for threats and vulnerabilities on the federal network.
Bad actors, criminal organizations and even nation-states are continually looking to launch opportunistic attacks. Giving CISA additional tools, resources and funding needed to secure the nation’s digital infrastructure and secure our intelligence and information is a no-brainer and Congress should ensure the agency gets the resources it needs in the final version of the NDAA.
Perhaps now more than ever before, interoperability is key to a robust security program. As telework among the federal workforce continues and expands, an increased variety of communication tools, devices and networks put federal networks at risk. Security tools that work together and are interoperable better provide a full range of protection across these environments.
The House version of the NDAA includes several provisions to promote interoperability within the National Guard, military and across the Federal government. The Senate NDAA likewise includes language that requires the DoD craft regulations to facilitate DoD’s access to and utilization of system, major subsystem, and major component software-defined interfaces to advance DoD’s efforts to generate diverse and effective kill chains. The regulations and guidance would also apply to purely software systems, including business systems and cybersecurity systems. These regulations would also require acquisition plans and solicitations to incorporate mandates for the delivery of system, major subsystem, and major component software defined interfaces.
For too long, agencies have leveraged a grab bag of tools that each served a specific purpose, but didn’t offer broad, effective coverage. Congress has a valuable opportunity to change that and encourage more interoperable solutions that provide the security needed in today’s constantly evolving threat landscape.
The House version of the NDAA would establish a Senate-confirmed National Cyber Director within the White House, in charge of overseeing digital operations across the federal government. This role, a recommendation of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission, would give the federal government a single point person for all things cyber.
As former Rep. Mike Rodgers argued in an op-ed published in The Hill last month, “the cyber challenge that we face as a country is daunting and complex.” We face new threats every day. Coordinating cyber strategy across the federal government, rather than the agency by agency approach we have today, is critical to ensuring we stay on top of threats and effectively protect the nation’s critical infrastructure, intellectual property and data from an attack.
The FedRAMP Authorization Act, included in the House version of the NDAA, would codify the FedRAMP program and give it a formal standing for Congressional review, a critical step towards making the program more efficient and useful for agencies across the government. Providing this program more oversight will further validate the FedRAMP approved products from across the industry as safe and secure for federal use. The FedRAMP authorization bill also includes language that will help focus the Administration’s attention on the need to secure the vulnerable spaces between and among cloud services and applications. Agencies need to focus on securing these vulnerabilities between and among clouds since sophisticated hackers target these seams that too often are left unprotected.
Additionally, the Pentagon has already committed to FedRAMP reciprocity. FedRAMP works – and codifying it to bring the rest of the Federal government into the program would offer an excellent opportunity for wide-scale cloud adoption, something the federal government would benefit greatly from.
We hope that NDAA conferees will consider these important cyber provisions and include them in the final version of the bill and look forward to continuing our work with government partners on important cyber issues like these.
The post NDAA Conference: Opportunity to Improve the Nation’s Cybersecurity Posture appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
Introduction: Knowing the Notions Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) incorporates technologies such as machine learning, machine-to-machine (M2M) communication, sensor data, Big Data, etc. This article will focus predominantly on the consumer Internet of Things (IoT) and how it relates to Operational Technology (OT). Operational Technology (OT) is a term that defines a specific category of […]
The post IoT Security Fundamentals: IoT vs OT (Operational Technology) appeared first on Infosec Resources.
FreshRSS 