Threat Intelligence |
Sponsored by |
Denial of service attacks have been around since the Internet was commercialized and some of the largest attacks ever launched relied on DNS, making headlines. But every day a barrage of smaller DNS-based attacks take down targets and severely stress the DNS ecosystem. Although DNS servers are not usually the target of attacks they are often disrupted so attention from operation teams is required. There is no indication the problem is going away and attackers continue to innovate.
In August of last year I wrote in a blog about the importance of cryptech to wide-scale trust in the Internet. For those who don't know about it, http://cryptech.is is a project aiming to design and deploy an openly developed, trustable Hardware Security Module (HSM) which can act both as a keystore (holding your secrets and keeping them private) and as a signing engine.
In Asia -- a region that at various points in its recent history has been a hotbed for civil unrest, secessionist movements and political instability -- the line between national security and public interest can be difficult to draw. A session organised by the Internet Society at the recently held RightsCon Southeast Asia in Manila shed some light on the perceived trade-offs between national security objectives and digital rights, in particular freedom of expression and privacy.
After a quick break to catch our breath (and read all those IPv6 Security Resources), it's now time to look at our tenth and final IPv6 Security Myth. In many ways this myth is the most important myth to bust. Let's take a look at why... Myth: Deploying IPv6 Makes My Network Less Secure... I can hear you asking "But what about all those security challenges we identified in the other myths?"
Everyone has heard of the cyber security attacks on Target (2013), Home Depot (2014), Neiman Marcus (2014), Sony Pictures (2014), and the United States' second-largest health insurer, Anthem (reported February 2015), but have you heard of the security breaches for Aaron Brothers, Evernote (denial of service attack), P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Community Health Services, Goodwill Industries, SuperValu, Bartell Hotels, Dairy Queen, U.S. Transportation Command contractors, and more.
We are approaching the end of this 10 part series on the most common IPv6 security myths. Now it's time to turn our eyes away from security risks to focus a bit more on security resources. Today's myth is actually one of the most harmful to those who hold it. If you believe that there is no good information out there, it's nearly impossible to find that information. So let's get down to it and dispel our 9th myth.
How do we help coordinate responses to attacks against Internet infrastructure and users? Internet technology has to scale or it won't survive for long as the network of networks grows ever larger. But it's not just the technology, it's also the people, processes and organisations involved in developing, operating and evolving the Internet that need ways to scale up to the challenges that a growing global network can create.
Most of our IPv6 Security Myths are general notions, often passed on unwittingly between colleagues, friends, conference attendees, and others. Today's myth is one that most often comes specifically from your vendors or suppliers. Whether it's a hardware manufacturer, software developer, or Internet Service Provider (ISP), this myth is all about trust, but verify.
Two principles in computer security that help bound the impact of a security compromise are the principle of least privilege and the principle of minimum disclosure or need-to-know. As described by Jerome Saltzer in a July 1974 Communications of the ACM article, Protection and the Control of Information Sharing in Multics, the principle of least privilege states, "Every program and every privileged user should operate using the least amount of privilege necessary to complete the job."
This week's myth is interesting because if we weren't talking security it wouldn't be a myth. Say what? The phrase "96 more bits, no magic" is basically a way of saying that IPv6 is just like IPv4, with longer addresses. From a pure routing and switching perspective, this is quite accurate. OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP all work pretty much the same, regardless of address family. Nothing about finding best paths and forwarding packets changes all that much from IPv4 to IPv6.