RE: The "unplug the cord" dilemma

From: Omar Herrera (oherreraat_private)
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 05:47:57 PST

  • Next message: Omar Herrera: "RE: The "unplug the cord" dilemma"

     
    > There may also be the possibility of power-fail subroutines executing
    as
    > the power is lost
    > performing some unknown action. I'm not sure about new systems but
    older
    > systems I
    > remember had several hundred milliseconds of DC carry over after AC
    was
    > removed and
    > I believe I recall specific bus signals used for power fail interrupt
    > routines.
    
    Also, a clean shut down might be required by a backdoor or a virus; I
    remember an old virus (boot-437 I think) that would encode the file
    system's table on disk so that restoring the boot sector/mbr with fdisk
    would wipe the virus along with the decoding routine, rendering the hard
    disk useless. 
    
    A backdoor using a similar approach could cipher this tables but would
    only write down the correct decipher/key information to disk when a
    shutdown were to be initiated (it would, again, remove this information
    from disk after a clean boot). Unplugging the power cord might still
    preserve best the information on hard disk but you might loose important
    information that was only available on memory and that would be only
    updated with a clean shut-down.
    
    > 
    > >Approach a) is sometimes
    > >necessary , for example, if there is an incident with a mission
    critical
    > >system that cannot be unplugged from the network or shut down (even
    if
    > >backups are available, sometimes bringing up a replacement system
    might
    > >take just too long or be extremely difficult because of specialized
    > >hardware availability).
    > >
    > 
    > On the other hand, if the mission critical system holds sensitive data
    > or controls sensitive processes,
    > leaving it online implies allowing continued exposure of those
    sensitive
    > items.
    > 
    > Probably obvious is the fact that leaving such a system online that is
    > subsequently used to
    > compromise or otherwise adversely affect other systems may expose one
    to
    > a liability suit.
    > 
    
    Excellent observation, maybe the timeline should go like this:
    
    1) Once there are indications of abnormal activity or behavior on a
    system, an online investigation should be initiated; at this point there
    would be still no indication of an intrusion (this is what happens
    anyway with system administrators or even users in the case of
    workstations, someone becomes suspicious and only after seeing some
    indications that the system might be compromised the alarm is sounded).
    Proceed to step 2.
    
    1b) If security controls (IDS, firewalls) provides evidence that an
    intrusion is in progress, consider the system as potentially compromised
    and proceed to step 3.
    
    2)  If there is evidence or clear indications that the system might be
    compromised, recommend that the system be isolated immediately and
    formal forensic procedures initiated. Proceed
    
    3) After receiving notification of a possible intrusion on the system,
    the company (owner of the system) should decide what action to take
    while taking into account the following order of importance:
    	a) If possible and if prosecution and investigation is most
    important or legally required, unplug all power and communication links
    from the device and initiate formal forensic procedures (recording the
    state of the environment, initiating chain of custody procedures,
    etcetera)
    	b) If possible and if system integrity is most important but
    prosecution and investigation is also required, initiate forma forensic
    procedures but using a clean shutdown.
    	c) If system operation is most important above all and Company
    is assuming the risk, continue with online investigation and execute
    incident isolation procedures while a replacement system is put in place
    (isolation might include logical isolation trough vlan from the rest of
    systems in the same network segment, hardening firewalls, setting up
    sniffer and permanent monitoring from personnel).
      
    Some issues:
     Point 3 should be decided as fast as possible no matter the decision
    taken (forensic policies and procedures should be in place already). 
    
     If taking decision C, could the company argue that by isolating the
    system it is not failing to perform with due diligence?
     Two cases for analysis: 
    	* A critical system in an airport that controls air traffic 
    	* The mail server of an ISP where no backup or replacement is
    available at the time
    
    Regards,
    
    Omar Herrera
    
     
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    This list is provided by the SecurityFocus ARIS analyzer service.
    For more information on this free incident handling, management 
    and tracking system please see: http://aris.securityfocus.com
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 07:30:21 PST