Penetration Testing and Best Practices - September 16, 2008
Orlando Florida -- Penetration testing is an important means of assessing the strength of an organization’s information security program. A security system may look good from the inside, but a test is an excellent way to determine if it will hold up under pressure. These tests can range from simple port scans to all-out hacking attacks. However, since security depends on people, not just on technology, social engineering is one possible tool for use in penetration tests. Deception is a common means of breaching a security system, and a social engineering test can ascertain the strength of policies and how well employees follow those policies.
"However, the use of social engineering in penetration tests raises ethical issues because humans are being used for research purposes," says Brian McCarthy CEO and well known Security Professional for Sencilo Solutions in Lake Mary Florida. Abuses such as Nazi experiments on prisoners and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study have led to a body of widely accepted guidelines for the ethical use of human subjects in research. I will draw upon human research principles and a few sample cases to identify ethical guidelines for the use of social engineering in penetration testing.
Cases
Piggybacking: A security consultant wearing a suit and tie, and carrying a briefcase, stands at the front entrance to a corporation. He waits for an employee to unlock the door with her ID scan and follows her in.
Shoulder Surfing: A security consultant notices employees standing outside a door smoking on their break. He walks over and mills about looking over his shoulder as employees enter the keypad code to reenter the building. With that information he lets himself in.
Computer Technician: Two security consultants walk into an office wearing “Computer Doctors” jumpsuits. They tell the administrative assistant that they have an order to fix the system. The assistant says, “Mr. Smith did not tell me about this, and he’s on vacation today and can’t be reached.” They reply, “We’re booked for the next two weeks. The system is overheating and could melt down at any moment. If it burns up because we were not allowed to work on it, somebody’s going to get fired. Are you sure you didn’t forget the order?” The assistant nervously lets them in.
Bribery: A security consultant posing as a representative of another company approaches an employee outside of work and offers him $50,000 to get some memos concerning the company’s plans for a new product.
The cases described in the previous column have been deliberately ordered from least to most ethically troubling. I would argue that there are morally relevant differences between the shoulder-surfing and piggybacking cases on one hand, and the computer technicians and bribery cases on the other. For one, the latter two penetration-testing cases expose the employee being tested to significant psychological stress. The employee in the computer technician example is worried about losing his job, while the one is the bribery example is faced with an offer to do something illegal.
Moreover, the deception in the latter two cases is established by verbal manipulation. Why is this relevant? After all, all cases involve some level of misrepresentation, and we can just as easily misrepresent ourselves with our appearance and actions as we can with our words.
The difference is that when the deception is established verbally, the deceiver is plugging into deep-seated psychological triggers humans use to establish trust with others. Con men are good at playing on these triggers, and while people can be expected to follow procedures, they cannot be expected to resist the kind of psychological manipulation employed by skilled manipulator. We would say the same thing of an attractive consultant soliciting an executive to see if he would exchange sex for secrets. The enticement is unfair. Moreover, the episode will undermine the employee’s trust in the company.
There is also the question of the professionalism on the part of the consultant when he moves from providing security advice to acting. Once the deceiver starts the charade, he will not know how much acting will be needed to get the employee’s cooperation. At some point the question becomes whether the consultant is measuring the strength of the company’s security policies, or his own acting skills. The consultant has put himself or herself into a compromising situation that could undermine faith in the profession as a whole.
Finally, what is the employer going to do with the employee in the bribery case if he agrees? The employer cannot trust the employee anymore, yet if he fires the employee, he can be accused of entrapment.
The first and most obvious warning is that bad penetration testing in general is pointless unless the organization has implemented the best available security measures it can manage. Why bother testing security if even a simple vulnerability analysis or common sense assessment shows gaping holes? A penetration test of obviously flawed security is a waste of time and money.
In a Network World column published in 2000, I pointed out that deception techniques should be used only with a great deal of preparation of the staff. When preparing for a penetration test that involves social engineering, everyone in the organization should be thoroughly trained to understand the techniques of social engineering before beginning the tests.
The key points were as follows (from my article):
* The entire organization can prepare for social engineering simulations as a team; no one is subjected to attempted deception without knowing that the experience was part of a training and awareness exercise.
* Even if someone falls for a trick, the emotional effect is far less than if the same error occurred without preparation.
I think that preparing staff for the onslaught of skilled social engineers has many benefits. We can frame the exercises as a form of game or contest: who will be the best at spotting the confidence tricksters? Who will be quickest to foil their nefarious plans?
Role-playing games are an excellent way of changing beliefs, attitudes and behavior: having staff members take up the roles of social engineer and defender - and then reversing roles - is not only amusing, but it also has a long-term effect on people’s perceptions. It’s much easier to remember a social interaction we’ve experienced personally than to pay attention to abstract words. We can even turn the event into an opportunity for a good deal of fun and laughter, making security and secure behavior a positive experience instead of the usual drudgery.
Moreover, in addition to risk avoidance (reducing the likelihood of hurt feelings, frustration and anger), solid preparation can result in increased vigilance at all times. Once staff members are sensitized to the social engineering tricks they’ve experienced in role-playing games, they are more likely to recognize them in strangers. Having practiced alerting the security team to apprehended breaches, they will find it easier to take the initiative later when they spot real breaches.
For more information please call (407) 265-6293 or visit us at: http://www.sencilo.com/services-penetration.php
About Us
Sencilo Solutions is a Florida-based integrator specializing in network storage and information security solutions. Sencilo delivers a comprehensive portfolio of products from best-of-breed hardware and software from multiple manufacturers including VMware, EMC, NetApp, Juniper Networks, Hitachi, Symantec, Barracuda Networks, and HP. Its technical expertise is known throughout the storage and security industry. Clients include leading corporations, major financial institutions, top universities, government facilities, as well as small to medium size businesses. Sencilo's professional services include consulting, integration, project management, installation, maintenance and knowledge transfer.
Sencilo has offices throughout Florida including: Jacksonville, Daytona Beach, St. Petersburg, Orlando, Hialeah, St. Augustine, Gainesville, Ocala, Palm Coast, Kissimmee, Lakeland, Maitland, Cape Canaveral, Lake Mary
Other products include Barracuda Networks Security RSA Encryption Cisco Decru Neoscale Compliance vs. Gartner Magic Quadrant SSL VPN SonicWall Secure Computing Firewall VPN Endpoint DLP Tumbleweed Ironmail Ironport Secure Computing compare data leakage enVision Data Loss Prevention Encryption and Key Management CA Symantec Juniper Penetration testing Digital data forensics cyber forensics data recovery services Best Practices
