The network of one the world’s largest and trusted
security firms has been breached, and an unknown amount of information
about its popular multifactor authentication technology has been
stolen. Customers are worried about what form potential attacks could
take.
The SecurID information that was stolen would not
allow attackers to launch a successful direct attack on existing
SecureID customers, Art Coviello, executive chairman of RSA Security,
wrote in an open letter to customers posted on the company’s Website
March 17. However, the company acknowledged the information could be
potentially used to “reduce the effectiveness” of an existing SecurID
deployment as part of a broader attack.
With RSA keeping mum
about what exactly was stolen, when the data breach occurred, how
attackers got into the network and how long the breach lasted, security
experts can more or less give their imaginations free reign to suggest
potential attack scenarios.
Adam Vincent, CTO of the Public Sector group at
Layer 7 Technologies, wondered about the implications of a broader
attack hinted at by Coviello. “Reading between the lines,” RSA made it
sound as if the data theft made RSA SecureID ineffective without
needing to compromise any specific usernames or passwords, Vincent told
eWEEK.
The “well-organized group” of hackers behind this
targeted attack would have to complete “many steps” to successfully
attack an organization using SecurID tokens for authentication, Nick
Percoco, senior vice president of SpiderLabs, told eWEEK. While it was
“less likely” there will be a direct head-on attack, it wasn’t
impossible, he said.
There were four kinds of possible attack scenarios, according to David Schuetz,
a security consultant at Intrepidus Group, a mobile security firm. His
scenarios all assume the stolen information is either the seed library
or the algorithm used to generate seeds for future tokens, Schuetz
wrote on the Intrepidus Group blog.
In the first scenario, attackers obtained a list
that showed seed values and token serial numbers. With this
information, the attackers can create a software version of the token,
according to Schuetz. The imposter software can trick the target system
into thinking the generated numeric code is the legitimate one, he said.
Just this information is not sufficient as the
attacker will still need the user’s PIN code. Some form of social
engineering would be required to get that information, according to
Schuetz and Percoco.
Schuetz said it could be obtained by somehow
viewing the login process, such as a keylogger. Percoco said a targeted
phishing attack was also conceivable. The campaign could masquerade as
an e-mail from the targeted customer to its users in response to the
RSA data breach. The subject line could even be, “Important Action in
Response to RSA’s Data Breach,” which nervous users may be inclined to
click on. Once they obtain a PIN, the attackers gain access to the
target system, said Percoco.
In fact, regardless of what attackers do with the
SecurID data, other scammers may jump on the news to launch their own
phishing campaigns to try to steal information about other online
services, Schuetz said.
Schuetz said if the stolen list contains
information about which seeds belong to which RSA customer, then
attackers can focus their attempts to a specific sub-set of their
choice. If the list contains only the seeds that have been issued to
date and not just every conceivable seed, then the available target
becomes even smaller, he said. It also means the attackers have to move
before the companies make changes, such as re-issuing new tokens, he
said.
Replacing all the tokens would actually be the
easiest way to prevent any of these possible scenarios from being
successful, according to Schuetz.
Combined with a successful phishing attempt,
attackers can compromise systems protected with SecurID, but there is a
lot of guesswork still involved in how likely it is that the seed value
can be correlated to token serial numbers.
A more significant risk would arise if attackers
stole the source code or somehow find a weakness in the method used to
generate seeds. This may be as simple as using a weak random number
algorithm or using a “master seed” to generate additional seeds,
Schuetz said. If that’s the case, then both deployed tokens and the
existing stock of tokens used for replacement would be compromised he
said. In that scenario, RSA would need to change the seed-generation
process or the token algorithm itself and manufacture new tokens, he
said.
All this is still conjecture, Schuetz warned.
Maybe RSA didn’t store any seeds, and maybe there are no weaknesses
inside the token algorithm. “Until we know more, there’s no way to say”
what the risk is for the enterprise, Schuetz said.