More Results from Realeyes

For the past few weeks, I have been learning a lot about the site where the Realeyes pilot project is being run. After seeing several reports of incidents from Europe and Asia, it occurred to me that I could create a rule to monitor non-US IP addresses.

To do this, I got the IANA IPv4 Address Assignments, and created a list of the high order octet assigned to each of Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The rule was simply a SYN packet and any match on the first octet of the source address with a value in the list.

At first, I simply turned it loose, which generated over 20,000 reports. I was able to reduce that quickly by filtering on the "Referer:" field. First were the requests being referred by one of the site's own web servers. Then I found other sites, such as Google, that were referring browsers to the monitored network. These were all defined in a single Action , which was then defined in the Event with the 'NOT' flag set. This resulted in about 5,000 reports which have been further reduced by adding some of the site's commonly requested web pages to the filter.

The rule is now: Any connection requested by an IP address in Europe, Asia, Africa, or Latin America that is not referred by a site server or one in a list of other servers, and is not requesting one of a list of web pages. If a match is found, the first 64k of both halves of the session are reported. I was thinking of adding a filter where the web server responds with a 200 message, but that could miss a successful exploit.

Of the reported sessions, many are web crawlers for various international search engines. A large number are being referred by other servers. And a fair number appear to be overseas students. Many of the web crawler and overseas student connections consisted of over 100 sessions. Using the 'Ignore Source Address' option, I could close the incidents for a single source IP address without creating a report in a single click. This allowed me to reduce the reports by 2,000 - 3,000 fairly quickly.

And that left me with about 1,000 connections of 1 - 5 sessions each. It was easy to display the playback window and see the client request and the server response and make a decision on whether it was valid or not. Usually, the server responded with a 200 code and sent the requested page. I was able to check about 10 of these per minute, so it only took a couple of hours to run through the entire list.

As far as invalid activity, there have been several targetted scans. By this I mean that the requests are only sent to web servers, and they actually make HTTP requests. These were easy to see by sorting the reports on the source IP address and looking for connections to multiple servers.

The most interesting one was 'GET /manager/html'. This appears to be a Tomcat exploit which tries to gain access to the administrator account. Of the dozen web servers that received this request, all but one replied with 404 "Not Found". The other one replied with 401 "Unauthorized" and the source host then sent over 150 variations of the authorization code field. The codes were mixtures of numbers and mixed case letters that looked like they were taken from a table. Some were as long as 25 characters, while others were only 5 or 6 characters. Fortunately, none were successful.

Another interesting discovery was that one of the monitored site's web servers was being used to store data. An application to allow students to participate in workgroup activities had been broken into and data was stored for some of those sites that are links in spam. It was the response from the server that alerted me to this. I saw a list of keywords meant to generate a lot of hits in search engines. I was then able to report the full path of the request to the web administrator and the server was cleaned of this and a few other pages.

The lesson I take from this is that Realeyes is capable of collecting a broad range of data, filtering it effectively, and providing enough information to analysts to very quickly determine the severity level of incidents. The rules for monitoring can be customized and tuned for the site's requirements, giving analysts and administrators a deep view of their environment. And since that is what I set out to do with this project, I am quite pleased.

Later . . . Jim

It's a Big Cloud

I have recently read several articles that comment on the issues surrounding 'cloud computing'. However, they all seem to be the proverbial blind men describing an elephant. Doc Searls covers more ground than most and promises a follow up discussion, but all of them tend to limit the issues to their own perspective.

I don't have a problem with their facts, just the level of incompleteness. First, I'd like a really good definition of 'cloud computing'. Since I have not seen one, I will take a shot at it. As a network guy, I have seen clouds in network diagrams for a long time, so I tend to build on that understanding to relate to the current state of the technology.

The essence of 'cloud computing' is that it extends the personal computer to utilize Internet resources. These days, a personal computer may be a desktop, a kiosk station, a laptop, a mini-laptop, a smart phone, or an applicance. The resources that can be used include services, such as weather or stock information, interactive applications, such as Email or social network sites, storage sites, such as Flickr, or computer-to-computer applications, such as tracking packages or vehicles.

Using this definition, it is obvious that 'cloud computing' is simply a buzzword. Anyone who makes online purchases, has an online Email account, or has joined a social networking site is participating in 'cloud computing'. Even if the requirement that data that would otherwise be stored on a local disk be involved, all three of these examples meet the definition.

So what's the big deal? Well, as usual, social mores are behind the technology, and some of the discussion is about trying to catch up. Also, if the definition can be controlled, it can be sold as a new product, with the inescapable "caveat emptor" warnings from consumer advocates. With that in mind, I see the following issues involved in using this technology. Not surprisingly, many of them are the same as the issues of using computer technology in general, but the addition of the Internet puts a new spin on them:

• Cost: The proponents of 'cloud computing' tend to tout this as a big plus. That sounds to me like they are trying to sell a web version of out-sourcing. The easiest argument against it would be that traditional out-sourcing has not proven to be a huge cost saver across the board.
  
  But the real issue is the question of, "Who is the target market?" I cannot imagine a retail company putting it's inventory on storage managed by Google. So realistically, the target market is individual consumers. The type of data being handled is mostly Email, audio/video files, and blogs. For this, the online storage -- and backups -- are very cost effective.
  
  Will we ever see companies out-sourcing to web services/storage? I never say never, but I think it is a really hard sell. So I predict that it will eventually take hold, but in a limited way. Applications that help companies interact with their customers could be beneficial to both parties. And then there are the ones that no one has thought of yet.


• Reliability: Adding the Internet to the equation makes
  reliability a huge issue. The components that must all be working are:
  
  
  
  • The personal computer
    
  • The local ISP
    
  • The cloud
    
  • The remote ISP
    
  • The remote services
    
  
  The further out you go, the higher the possibility of failure. But so what? How many times in your life have you missed a critical phone call or Email, where minutes or even hours made a difference? In my mind, the backups at the storage site are far superior to the procedures done by the majority of consumers, myself included. And this outweighs the few times that the site is inaccessible, and is more cost effective at the same time. Even downtime for businesses would not lead to their demise.
  


• Access to data: The remaining items are where much of the current discussion is centered. There are some online Email services where it is difficult to retrieve Emails to the personal computer. But this is an issue that can be managed. It essentially boils down to read before you sign, and if you're the type who doesn't do this, well shame on you. Also, it would be pretty silly to not keep a copy of at least the most important data locally, such as photos, which adds to the cost. But the cost of losing it forever is even higher.
  


• Privacy: If there is anyone who hasn't figured it out yet, let me put it as plainly as possible. Nothing on the Internet is private. All the privacy policies and laws in the world cannot stop someone who has a real desire to take whatever data they want and do whatever they want with it. Data that is more important, such as financial information can be more carefully protected (this is where I get to plug Realeyes), but computer security is a matter of probabilities, not guarantees. As far as what the Internet companies do with your data, again, read before you sign. But if there is information that should never be exposed, it should never be accessible from the Internet.
  


• Ownership: I believe that this is the reason that Richard Stallman said using 'cloud computing' is stupid. He has long championed freedom of information, not just program source code. The ownership policies of most sites promoting 'cloud computing' goes against this in that they consider your information to be free, but not their own. Therefore, his position is consistent and reasonable. However, if you consider losing $1,000 in Las Vegas to be part of the fun, then I guess you can be forgiven for thinking he is a spoil sport.
  
  It is true that most of the sites that handle consumer data reserve the right to use that data as they please. Their literature basically says this is for promotional purposes. And Google finds keywords in Email to display ads. I have known people who take the dealer logo off their cars because they object to being a billboard. If that is you, you are probably going to be uncomfortable using these sites. But having a social networking account is not a right. You have to pay to play. Just remember the rule about Internet privacy, which is that there is none.
  


• Security: This is not a rehash of the storage site's security policies. It is a serving of food for thought. The Internet is a virtual wild west. The quality of security from one site to the next varies widely, and there are many who are happy to take advantage of that. The more you use the Internet, the higher your chances of having a vulnerability exploited. So if you use the same personal computer for social networking that you use for banking, you may become a victim of identity theft. I can think of a couple of analogies here, and I expect that you can too. I would say that the same types of rules apply. At the very least, please keep your security patches up to date.
  

To 'cloud compute' or not, that is the question. Of course, if you are reading this, you have already answered it. Now it is simply a matter of degree. Are you going to participate fully, or limit your involvement to a few interests? The most important thing is to be aware of the issues. I hope that I have contributed some useful thoughts to that end.

Later . . . Jim