Threat report conclusion: Patch now!

h2_2012_infographic#1544C6EOur Threat report for H2 2012 is now available. Read it if you want to know what’s going on and what the threat landscape is looking like. It is interesting reading, highly recommended! If you are in a hurry and want to save the reading for later, there’s still one point that affects most users and deserves immediate attention. Vulnerabilities and patching.

One of the major trends is no doubt the increasing importance of exploits and vulnerabilities. And you have probably already heard the nagging about how important it is to patch your system. That IS good advice and our threat report shows how it is getting even more important. But I don’t want to just repeat the nagging. I want to take the opportunity to dig a bit deeper into this issue and explain what it is all about.

There are basically two ways to get malware into your computer; to trick you to install it and to utilize a vulnerability. All software in your computer is written by humans, and as we know, “mistake” is our human race’s middle name. Mistakes in computer programs are called bugs and a vulnerability is a special type of bug. Many bugs just affect the functionality of the program. Something may not work or work in an unexpected way. Applications are supposed to handle errors in a graceful way. But they may encounter erroneous data that the programmer didn’t anticipate. The application wreaks havoc and starts behaving in an unplanned way, and this may breach security. If this can happen, then there’s a vulnerability in the system.

An exploit is data that is carefully crafted by a hacker. Its purpose is to create an error that is no accident . What happens after the error is not chaotic after all; it is orchestrated by the hacker. He has at this point gained unauthorized control and the next task is to make sure that some malware is installed permanently on the system. The attacker has successfully exploited a vulnerability.

This may happen by just visiting a web page. The web page is a document that is rendered by your browser. If your browser has a vulnerability and you visit the wrong page you may be victim of a so called drive-by download. You surf the page comfortably unaware of the fact that a program silently is installed on your computer. And that’s not a friendly program!

But I have bought an antivirus program for good money. Doesn’t that protect me? Yes, that’s good. But we still recommend that you pay attention to patches as well. Your security product will detect and block malware that is about to execute. It will monitor your file transfers over the net and block harmful content. It will even check what sites you surf and warn when entering hostile territory. And if all that fails, executing programs are watched for suspicious behavior. But all this is a cat and mouse game. The bad guys come up with new clever tricks to circumvent all these layers and the security researchers upgrade the product to cope with them. If you are unlucky you can hit malware that your product can’t cope with yet. Remember that no product will ever give you 100% protection no matter what the sleek marketoids are claiming! But you are still fine if you have patched the vulnerability that the bad guys try to exploit. The malware has to go through that bottleneck so why not plug the hole? It can’t be done by your security vendor; it must be done by the vendor of the affected software. Your security suite can just build layers of security around the hole, but not correct errors in other products.

OK, I’m convinced. I want to start patching my system now. But how? One problem is that you probably have software from several vendors on your system. They all have to produce patches for their own product and there is no single outlet that would provide patches for all vendors. That’s one of the reasons why we have made F-Secure Safe Check . This free tool checks the security of your system from several different angles; your patching status is one of them. And you will get instructions about how to patch if that is needed. Why not run it right away!

Micke

PS. Some definitions: (Source: Wikipedia)

Vulnerability
“In computer security, a vulnerability is a weakness which allows an attacker to reduce a system’s information assurance.”

Exploit
“An exploit (from the verb to exploit, in the meaning of using something to one’s own advantage) is a piece of software, a chunk of data, or sequence of commands that takes advantage of a bug, glitch or vulnerability in order to cause unintended or unanticipated behaviour to occur on computer software, hardware, or something electronic (usually computerised).”

Patch
A patch is a piece of software designed to fix problems with, or update a computer program or its supporting data. This includes fixing security vulnerabilities and other bugs, and improving the usability or performance.”

More posts from this topic

sign license

POLL – How should we deal with harmful license terms?

We blogged last week, once again, about the fact that people fail to read the license terms they approve when installing software. That post was inspired by a Chrome extension that monetized by collecting and selling data about users’ surfing behavior. People found out about this, got mad and called it spyware. Even if the data collection was documented in the privacy policy, and they technically had approved it. But this case is not really the point, it’s just an example of a very common business model on the Internet. The real point is what we should think about this business model. We have been used to free software and services on the net, and there are two major reasons for that. Initially the net was a playground for nerds and almost all services and programs were developed on a hobby or academic basis. The nerds were happy to give them away and all others were happy to get them for free. But businesses run into a problem when they tried to enter the net. There was no reliable payment method. This created the need for compensation models without money. The net of today is to a significant part powered by these moneyless business models. Products using them are often called free, which is incorrect as there usually is some kind of compensation involved. Nowadays we have money-based payment models too, but both our desire to get stuff for free and the moneyless models are still going strong. So what do these moneyless models really mean? Exposing the user to advertising is the best known example. This is a pretty open and honest model. Advertising can’t be hidden as the whole point is to make you see it. But it gets complicated when we start talking targeted advertising. Then someone need to know who you are and what you like, to be able to show you relevant ads. This is where it becomes a privacy issue. Ordinary users have no way to verify what data is collected about them and how it is used. Heck, often they don’t even know under what legislation it is stored and if the vendor respects privacy laws at all. Is this legal? Basically yes. Anyone is free to make agreements that involve submitting private data. But these scenarios can still be problematic in several ways. They may be in conflict with national consumer protection and privacy laws, but the most common complaint is that they aren’t fair. It’s practically impossible for ordinary users to read and understand many pages of legalese for every installed app. And some vendors utilize this by hiding the shady parts of the agreement deep into the mumbo jumbo. This creates a situation where the agreement may give significant rights to the vendor, which the users is totally unaware of. App permissions is nice development that attempts to tackle this problem. Modern operating systems for mobile devices require that apps are granted access to the resources they need. This enables the system to know more about what the app is up to and inform the user. But these rights are just becoming a slightly more advanced version of the license terms. People accept them without thinking about what they mean. This may be legal, but is it right? Personally I think the situation isn’t sustainable and something need to be done. But what? There are several ways to see this problem. What do you think is the best option?   [polldaddy poll=8801974]   The good news is however that you can avoid this problem. You can select to steer clear of “free” offerings and prefer software and services you pay money for. Their business model is simple and transparent, you get stuff and the vendor get money. These vendors do not need to hide scary clauses deep in the agreement document and can instead publish privacy principles like this.   Safe surfing, Micke     Photo by Orin Zebest at Flickr

April 15, 2015
BY 
webpage screenshot TOS

Sad figures about how many read the license terms

Do you remember our stunt in London where we offered free WiFi against getting your firstborn child? No, we have not collected any kids yet. But it sure was a nice demonstration of how careless we have become with user terms of software and service. It has been said that “Yes, I have read then license agreement” is the world’s biggest lie. Spot on! This was proven once again by a recent case where a Chrome extension was dragged into the spotlight accused of spying on users. Let’s first check the background. The “Webpage Screenshot” extension, which has been pulled from the Chrome Web Store, enabled users to conveniently take screenshots of web page content. It was a very popular extension with over 1,2 million users and tons of good reviews. But the problem is that the vendor seemed to get revenues by uploading user behavior, mainly visited web links, and monetizing on that data. The data upload was not very visible in the description, but the extension’s privacy policy did mention it. So the extension seemed to be acting according to what had been documented in the policy. Some people were upset and felt that they had been spied on. They installed the extension and had no clue that a screenshot utility would upload behavior data. And I can certainly understand why. But on the other hand, they did approve the user terms and conditions when installing. So they have technically given their approval to the data collection. Did the Webpage Screenshot users know what they signed up for? Let’s find out. It had 1 224 811 users when I collected this data. The question is how many of them had read the terms. You can pause here and think about it if you want to guess. The right answer follows below.   [caption id="attachment_8032" align="aligncenter" width="681"] Trying to access Webpage Screenshot gave an error in Chrome Web Store on April 7th 2015.[/caption]   The privacy policy was provided as a shortened URL which makes it possible to check its statistics. The link had been opened 146 times during the whole lifetime of the extension, slightly less than a year. Yes, only 146 times for over 1,2 million users! This means that only 0,012 % clicked the link! And the number of users who read all the way down to the data collection paragraph is even smaller. At least 99,988 % installed without reading the terms. So these figures support the claim that “I have read the terms” is the biggest lie. But they also show that “nobody reads the terms” is slightly incorrect.   Safe surfing, Micke   PS. Does F-Secure block this kind of programs? Typically no. They are usually not technically harmful, the user has installed them deliberately and we can’t really know what the user expects them to do. Or not to do. So this is not really a malware problem, it’s a fundamental problem in the business models of Internet.   Images: Screenshots from the Webpage Screenshot homepage and Chrome Web Store    

April 8, 2015
BY