Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: SMS Banking


From: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <Thor () hammerofgod com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:39:39 +0000

I'm looping in the FD list because often my replies don't make it to Pen-Test, and this has hit a nerve with me.

I've looked over your post at:

http://gse-compliance.blogspot.com/2010/02/modelling-risk.html .

Once I was able to get past the overwhelming egoism and self-substantiating claims of your contributions to the 
industry, I arrived at the conclusion that the only portion of the aforementioned page that is not complete drivel and 
even laughable to anyone who has actually worked towards ascertaining actual risk in production environments, is where 
you describe your own words as "ravings."  Ravings, of course, means "delirious, irrational speech."  

I'm fine with you sitting back and gloating about the Security Hero award you got from Northcutt, but when I see that 
you are actually contributing to ANY level of Critical Infrastructure Protection, it makes me fear for anyone who might 
be counting on your presumed skillset to actually make intelligent decisions about risk where human safety is at stake. 
 Your "risk formula" is ridiculous.  What number would your formula have yielded 2 weeks before SQL Slammer was 
released?  Where is the variable for unpatched systems?  What number do we plug in for malicious employee 
factorization?   More importantly, where is the calculation for self absorbed snake-oil selling academics with no real 
experience using their calculator to come up with magic numbers that represent the risk of a nuclear power plant being 
hacked?

Since you are (self-described) as "currently the only GIAC GSE (Compliance) holder globally and the most highly 
accredited Global Information Security Professional" and thus (presumably, if only in your mind) the greatest security 
mind in the world, how about accepting a challenge to an open debate on the subject at Defcon?  People like you are 
dangerous and need to be exposed before someone in a position of power actually believes that you know what you are 
talking about.  Bring your abacus.  

t




-----Original Message-----
From: Craig S. Wright [mailto:craig.wright () Information-Defense com]
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 3:40 PM
To: Thor (Hammer of God); pen-test () securityfocus com; security-
basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: SMS Banking

" And just how do you come up with the probability of compromising the
SMS
function and the user authentication method?"

Actually, fairly simply using Bayes' formula.

I have posted on this at:
http://gse-compliance.blogspot.com/2010/02/modelling-risk.html

The comment was that GSM itself can be made more secure if it is
coupled
with another means of securing the transmission.

"if one can position one's self anywhere in the transmission chain."
This is a select number of locations. It is not everywhere. Though the
number of locations may be large - it is not infinite. It is also not
all
points on the globe.

As can be seen in the post, what the effect of an SMS only based
solution is
a time degrading function. This is, the longer that the SMS application
runs
(alone), the greater the risk until eventually, the risk is maximised
at
certain failure.

Adding a second function, such as a non-SMS based sub-function can help
to
mitigate this, but a well chosen sub-function is more effective alone
without the addition of the SMS measure and hence a better option.

The SMS function alone can befit from a second function, but this is
only
warranted if the SMS function is an essential process for some reason.

Regards,
...
Dr. Craig S Wright GSE-Malware, GSE-Compliance, LLM, & ...
Information Defense Pty Ltd


-----Original Message-----
From: listbounce () securityfocus com
[mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com] On
Behalf Of Thor (Hammer of God)
Sent: Tuesday, 9 February 2010 3:15 AM
To: pen-test () securityfocus com; security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: SMS Banking

And just how do you come up with the probability of compromising the
SMS
function and the user authentication method?

While little formulas may go well in meetings, this hardly helps the OP
with
his question.  You also failed to note that the overall risk figure you
calculate has to be compared to something - what are you comparing it
to?
If P(Compromise) turns out to be 42, what does he do with that
information?

Regarding GSM, what "far more" information are you talking about?  The
account number and PIN is all that is needed in the example given by
the OP,
and that is exactly what one would get from a GSM attack.

You should also note that "compromising GSM" is completely unnecessary
if
one does in fact have a select number of locations where the actual GSM
signal is redirected.  Cracking GSM itself does NOT require being at a
"select number of locations" if one can position one's self anywhere in
the
transmission chain.

t

-----Original Message-----
From: listbounce () securityfocus com
[mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com] On Behalf Of Craig S. Wright
Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 8:06 PM
To: 'Markus Matiaschek'; 'M.D.Mufambisi'
Cc: pen-test () securityfocus com; security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: SMS Banking

The solution needs to be based on risk.

Where a system uses an SMS response with a separate system (such as a
web
page), the probability that the banking user is compromised and a
fraud
is
committed, P(Compromise), can be calculated as:
    P(Compromise) =  P(C.SMS) x P(C.PIN)


Where:      P(C.SMS) is the probability of compromising the SMS
function and
            P(C.PIN) is the compromise of the user authentication
method


The user can be compromised by Trojan apps, poor pins that are pasted
to a
monitor etc.

P(C.SMS) and P(C.PIN) are statistically independent and hence we can
simply
multiply these two probability functions to gain P(Compromise). The
reason
for this is that (at present) the SMS and web functions are not the
same
process and compromising one does not aid in compromising another.
With
the
uptake of 4G networks this may change and the function will not
remain
as
simple.

It may be possible to compromise GSM, but the truth is that this must
be
done from a select number of locations and the attacker also requires
far
more information than the PIN and account number. This makes the
attack
far
more difficult and far costlier to the attacker.

This also means that the attack has to be targeted in place of
scripted
(as
many bots already are).

On the other hand, the probability that an SMS only system can be
cracked is
simply the P(C.SMS) function and this is far lower than a system that
deploys multiple methods.

This SMS only means would not be a good means of authentication a
user.
As a
secondary factor, SMS adds complexity. By itself, SMS is a poor means
of
controlling risk.

Regards,
...
Dr. Craig S Wright GSE-Malware, GSE-Compliance, LLM, & ...
Information Defense Pty Ltd


-----Original Message-----
From: listbounce () securityfocus com
[mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com] On
Behalf Of Markus Matiaschek
Sent: Saturday, 6 February 2010 9:08 AM
To: M.D.Mufambisi
Cc: pen-test () securityfocus com; security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: Re: SMS Banking

Hi,

I'd just like to make some comments, i didn't think about a solution
for your problem.

First of all i think that my Budi wibowo got something wrong
regarding
who is sending the PIN.

Second, GSM is cracked: http://reflextor.com/trac/a51 and can be
intercepted and decrypted. You should take this into account.

Third i think the only farely safe way to make money transfers is
with
transaction numbers, TANs. German banks send mobileTANs to
preregistered cell phone numbers to allow a transaction (through
online banking though).
A "three-way-handshake" with a mTAN should pretty much prevent
transactions through spoofed numbers.

regards,
Markus Matiaschek
Absolute IT Consulting S.A.
San José, Costa Rica

---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
-
Securing Apache Web Server with thawte Digital Certificate
In this guide we examine the importance of Apache-SSL and who needs
an
SSL
certificate.  We look at how SSL works, how it benefits your company
and how
your customers can tell if a site is secure. You will find out how to
test,
purchase, install and use a thawte Digital Certificate on your Apache
web
server. Throughout, best practices for set-up are highlighted to help
you
ensure efficient ongoing management of your encryption keys and
digital
certificates.


http://www.dinclinx.com/Redirect.aspx?36;4175;25;1371;0;5;946;e13b6be44
2f727
d1
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
-


---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
-
This list is sponsored by: Information Assurance Certification Review
Board

Prove to peers and potential employers without a doubt that you can
actually do a proper penetration test. IACRB CPT and CEPT certs
require
a full practical examination in order to become certified.

http://www.iacertification.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
-


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Securing Apache Web Server with thawte Digital Certificate
In this guide we examine the importance of Apache-SSL and who needs an
SSL
certificate.  We look at how SSL works, how it benefits your company
and how
your customers can tell if a site is secure. You will find out how to
test,
purchase, install and use a thawte Digital Certificate on your Apache
web
server. Throughout, best practices for set-up are highlighted to help
you
ensure efficient ongoing management of your encryption keys and digital
certificates.

http://www.dinclinx.com/Redirect.aspx?36;4175;25;1371;0;5;946;e13b6be44
2f727
d1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/


Current thread: