Category Archives: Security

Sony versus F-Secure

Yet another development in the Sony DRM saga. Looks like Sony might have moved rather slowly after they were first alerted to a serious risk to consumer safety. BusinessWeek has a fascinating update called “Sony BMG’s Costly Silence”:

Sony BMG is in a catfight with a well-known computer-security outfit that became aware of the software problem on Sept. 30 and notified the music company on Oct. 4 — nearly a month before the issue blew up. F-Secure, a Finland-based antivirus company that prides itself on being the first to spot new malware outbreaks, says Sony BMG didn’t understand the software it was introducing to people’s computers and was slow to react.

“If [Sony] had woken up and smelled the coffee when we told them there was a problem, they could have avoided this trouble,” says Mikko H. Hypponen, F-Secure’s director of antivirus research.

Sony BMG officials insist that they acted as quickly as they could, and that they expected to be able to go public and offer a software patch at the same time. However, Russinovich posted his blog item first, forcing Sony BMG to scramble to contain the crisis.

Indeed, I think it fair to say Sony BMG’s response was scrambled. To make matters even worse, the Attorney General in New York very recently found the rootkit still being sold on music shelves in his state. More from BusinessWeek:

Spitzer’s office dispatched investigators who, disguised as customers, were able to purchase affected CDs in New York music retail outlets — and to do so more than a week after Sony BMG recalled the disks. The investigators bought CDs at stores including Wal-Mart (WMT), BestBuy (BBY), Sam Goody, Circuit City (CC), FYE, and Virgin Megastore, according to a Nov. 23 statement from Spitzer’s office.

This is not only a “cautionary tale for other entertainment companies hoping to make use of copyright-protection software” but a horrifying lesson in how NOT to handle incident response.

My question is why Wal-Mart, BestBuy, SamGoody, Circuit City, FYE and Virgin Megastore are not taking action. Are they liable for selling known malware from their shelves? I mean if you are a retailer and you get a notice (or read the news, for pete’s sake) that something is harmful to consumers, are you at fault if you keep selling it?

“It is unacceptable that more than three weeks after this serious vulnerability was revealed, these same CDs are still on shelves, during the busiest shopping days of the year,” Spitzer said in a written statement. “I strongly urge all retailers to heed the warnings issued about these products, pull them from distribution immediately, and ship them back to Sony.”

Actiontec UDP ports 517 and 518

Responded to an odd incident tonight.

An admin noticed UDP ports 517 and 518 were reported as open on a linux system, but they knew of no services that were supposed to be attached to them:

    # nmap xx.xx.xx.xx -sU -p 500-520
    Starting nmap 3.81 ( ) at 2005-11-28 23:20 PST
    Interesting ports on xx.xx.xx.xx:
    (The 19 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
    517/udp open|filtered talk
    518/udp open|filtered ntalk

No services seemed willing to confess that they were using the ports flagged by the network scan:

    # netstat -tunap
    Active Internet connections (servers and established)
    Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State PID/Program name
    tcp 0 0* LISTEN 5387/mysqld
    tcp 0 0 :::80 :::* LISTEN 5633/httpd2-prefork
    tcp 0 0 :::22 :::* LISTEN 5356/sshd
    tcp 0 0 :::443 :::* LISTEN 5633/httpd2-prefork

Monitored all traffic to the port via tcpdump, and saw no unusual UDP packets. Tried to establish communication with the listener, but it instantly closed the connections. Did a quick rootkit check and looked for signs of hidden processes, trojaned binaries, etc. on the system but it came back clean. Considered doing a signature match on the binaries themselves, but then had a hunch that a network device might be at fault.

Swapped out an Actiontec GT701-WG with a Cisco 678 and sure enough, the ports closed:

    # nmap xx.xx.xx.xx -sU -p 500-520
    Starting nmap 3.81 ( ) at 2005-11-28 23:36 PST
    All 21 scanned ports on xx.xx.xx.xx are: closed

Might be enough to finger-print the Actiontec’s of the world (scan Quest blocks for UDP 517/518). Also might be worth isolating the device to get a better idea of how broken/exposed it is, if it turns out enough people are still using these things.

Real Cheese

It was only a matter of time before I created a food category. A small block of Taleggio Cheese finally pushed me to document a few fun food facts:

First of all, who knew that a cheese might have a union? After tasting a fine slice of Taleggio this evening I found a site called the Consorzio per la Tutela del Taleggio, which provides English information under the title “The Union of Teleggio Cheese”. According to the Union:

“The Taleggio cheese is, therefore, one of the Italian cheeses whose peculiar characteristics are protected by the European Union, and it is for that reason that milk supplying, its production and its seasoning must be effectuated in the area indicated by the Italian and community legislation.”

Second, the Taleggio moniker apparently requires a certain degree of enforcement. Perhaps if you eat enough of the stuff you might develop a taste for it like bourbon versus rye whiskey, or merlot versus pinot, etc. It thus stands to reason that if a Taleggio doesn’t achieve compliance with Union cheese laws it will not get the required stamp of approval:

“The Union was, since 1981, charged to the vigilance on production and on commerce of the Taleggio cheese, the Union marks each cheese conforming to the requisite specified in the disciplinary of production.”

Sadly, I must confess that I was uninformed as a consumer about how to validate the authenticity of my cheese until after I had eaten it. Next time I will definitely check to see whether I am about to purchase contraband Taleggio, or at least cheese with a forged seal of authenticity.

Real Taleggio

Warning: This entry was written while under the influence of Taleggio

US Senate to consider Data-Breach Bill

Just before the 2005 Thanksgiving holiday the Senate Judiciary Panel approved a Personal Data Privacy and Security Act, authored by Specter and Leahy. The soon-to-be-called “Specter-Leahy Act”, also known as the SLA, has some exceptionally vague language even compared to laws (already in effect) at the state level:

  • Giving individuals access to, and the opportunity to correct, any personal information held by data brokers;
  • Requiring entities that maintain personal data to establish internal policies that protect such data and vet third-parties they hire to process that data;
  • Requiring entities that maintain personal data to give notice to individuals and law enforcement when they experience a breach involving sensitive personal data;
  • In my experience the use of the word “reasonable” in California’s AB1950 law has been remarkably useful in discussions about how to comply. Unfortunately, I do not see anything comparable here that would help clarify when law enforcement should be contacted or how to measure the internal policies for effectiveness (it is easier to draw a line for “reasonable encryption”, for example, than “protective policies”). Enforcement, on the other hand, seems to be very precise:

  • Section 103 makes it a crime for a person who knows of a security breach requiring notice to individuals under Title IV of this Act to intentionally and willfully conceal the fact of, or information related to, that security breach. Punishment is either a fine under Title 18, or imprisonment of up to 5 years, or both.
  • Any person who, during and in relation to a felony violation of the computer fraud law, knowingly obtains, accesses or transmits a means of identification of another person without lawful authority, may be imprisoned for up to 2 years in addition to the punishment provided for such felony.
  • Rumor had it that a Representative from Oklahoma was lobbying to delay consideration of the bill by talking turkey, which caused some to suggest that Cole might stop the SLA from being passed. Ha, just kidding.