Justice Department IT Staff So Incompetent They Block All Webex Conferences

from the the-software-may-suck,-but... dept

Fri, Aug 3rd 2012 5:20am — Mike Masnick

We've heard all sorts of random stories about over-aggressive IT staffs or filters that block random websites for no good reason, but sometimes the situations are truly bizarre. For example, a friend sent over an announcement concerning a webinar from the DC District Court about the Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system. Obviously this is a useful thing for lawyers and law enforcement to understand. So it struck us as interesting to see the following tidbit in the emailed announcement:

SPECIAL NOTE TO DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ATTORNEYS/STAFF:
The WebEx web conferencing website is not accessible to DOJ attorneys/staff due to internet blocks set in place by your IT department, therefore you are unable to register for a webinar training class or participate in the WebEx training room session itself. However, the option to participate in only the teleconference portion of the training class is available and will still prove useful.

Really, now? We've already had reasons to question the technical competence of the DOJ, but to do a complete block of all Webex webinars? Overkill much?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: blocking, doj, it, justice department, webex, webinars
Companies: webex

39 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Chilly8, 3 Aug 2012 @ 5:25am

So, if you work at DOJ and need WebEX, you can just use a VPN to get around it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 5:30am

Ignorance Technology.

Or if you read to the opposit (TI) you could say Total Ignorance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Loki, 3 Aug 2012 @ 5:31am

I have a T-shirt that says "Sarcasm is the Body's Natural Defense Against Stupid."

In this case I don't think that level of sarcasm exists. It's like using a volleyball net to protect yourself from a hurricane.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fogbugzd (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 5:32am

I don't blame the DOJ. After all, there might be semenars on the Fourth Amendment, fair use, or other subversive material.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 5:44am

Re:
Need to keep everything in harmony to prevent social disturbances, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 5:48am

Re:
And then you get the sack for breach of IT usage policy :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GunSheep (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 5:59am

I doubt it's the IT staff that is incompetent. I'm more likely to believe this is a management issue where the IT staff is taking the 'blame'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John, 3 Aug 2012 @ 6:04am

Java Maybe?
I'm a network administrator and I block a lot but I allow Webex.

"WebEx is the only on-demand online collaboration service provider to have earned both WebTrust and SAS70 certification, giving you the highest levels of security possible."

If I had to guess I would say their IT doesn't like the requirements - Java, cookies enabled or ActiveX.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2012 @ 6:06am

Re:
This, ever so hard. Being in IT, I have lost count of the amount of times where IT is blamed for a shit policy we all know is completely ass-backwards, but someone so high demanded it and no one between my level and the 5 levels up where it was demanded has a backbone enough to say, "no, that's retarded," that we have to do it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2012 @ 6:07am

Hmmm...it's likely that there are a whole lot of people other than the IT staff who are incompetent..including the WebEx developer.

Blaming the IT staff for this is like blaming the average soldier for strategic decisions by their commanders, defense contractors, and enemy combatants.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Danny (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 6:13am

Re: Re:
win win situation?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MonkeyFracasJr (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 6:16am

Re: Management
Yep.
Mgmt: We have a problem with unauthorized Internet use.

IT: Well have a 'discussion' with the people who are abusing privileges, explain the rules, and lay out consequences. AND FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THEM.

Mgmt: No no no, just block the Internet for everyone.

IT: derp.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe, 3 Aug 2012 @ 6:17am

WebEx has issues
I'm an IT administrator, and I'm grumpy that joining a WebEx meeting with Internet Explorer downloads an insecure version of their recording format player, which I then have to remove after-the-fact with my administrative permissions. It would be easier to just block WebEx, of course, but I don't want to interrupt the flow of work.

More details below, from Secunia.

Description:
Multiple vulnerabilities have been reported in WebEx Recording Format Player, which can be exploited by malicious people to compromise a user's system.

1) An indexing error when storing certain data during the processing of WRF files can be exploited to corrupt memory.

2) An error when handling the length value of a Define Huffman Table (DHT) JPEG marker within a WRF file can be exploited to cause a stack-based buffer overflow.

3) An error when processing certain records within WRF files can be exploited to cause a heap-based buffer overflow.

4) A boundary error when processing WRF files can be exploited to cause a heap-based buffer overflow via a specially crafted Audio size value.

Successful exploitation of the vulnerabilities may allow execution of arbitrary code.

The vulnerabilities are reported in the following versions:
* Client builds 28.0.0 (T28 L10N).
* Client builds 27.32.1 (T27 LD SP32 CP1) and prior.
* Client builds 27.25.10 (T27 LC SP25 EP10) and prior.
* Client builds 27.21.10 (T27 LB SP21 EP10) and prior.
* Client builds 27.11.26 (T27 L SP11 EP26) and prior.

Solution:
Update to a fixed client build (please see the vendor's advisory for details).

Provided and/or discovered by:
1, 2, 4) Damian Put via iDefense.
3) An anonymous person via iDefense.

The vendor also credits Microsoft Vulnerability Research (MSVR).

Changelog:
2012-07-18: Updated vulnerabilities #1 through #4. Updated credits and added links.

Original Advisory:
Cisco:
http://tools.cisco.com/security/...dvisory/cisco-sa-20120627-webex
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2012 @ 6:41am

so there is an issue, but this non story from mike can't be passed over, he just wants to push his agenda about his hate for the govt and rules in general
[ link to this | view in thread ]
j paul armstrong, 3 Aug 2012 @ 6:41am

ECF training in 2012? DOJ 5-7 years late to the game
ECF widely implemented in Federal District Courts more than 5 in many districts over 10 years ago so pretty tragic if they are still in the training phase. Given the ham fisted firewall wardens perhaps they are just getting online? truly frightening thought.....this has to be just for recent hires to get up to speed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
quawonk, 3 Aug 2012 @ 6:48am

Definitely a government that can be trusted with something like SOPA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2012 @ 6:52am

If they really want the IT folks to understand how stupid this is, tell them that from now on all IT Training will be by telephone only and watch the IT people melt down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 6:53am

Re: WebEx has issues
That would be a reasonable motivation for the blockade. But they could warn the users about that. Somehow I think DOJ IT department has never seen this issue, it's just a blockad taken out of their collective behinds. I work at a Govt agency btw.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 6:58am

Re: Java Maybe?
I'm thinking they have a problem with the high levels of security. Someone probably told them it uses that evil thing known as encryption.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Berenerd (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 7:07am

Re: Java Maybe?
Having formery worked in IT in the government, I am willing to bet its because there are gaping holes in IE 6 and to patch them now is to upgrade to IE8/9 and well, that would mean they would need to upgrade their internal websites and thats just crazy talk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Berenerd (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 7:12am

Re:
I think the late night drinking binges have killed the last of your brain cells.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jasmine Charter, 3 Aug 2012 @ 7:13am

Buffons...
It's really simple... yes... there are some vulnerabilities... yes.. WebEx is useful...

Setup a conference room with a dedicated PC, off the main network... and allow webex's from the PC. No critical or sensitive data on the PC... no chance for hacking into their system...

So simple... a caveman could do it.

If only cavemen were running the DoJ instead of monkeys...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2012 @ 7:13am

Webex is in fact a huge security hole. I would rather have the DOJ computers blocked from this and more. The OP's knee-jerk reaction to having his freedom restricted by this indicates a lack of understanding about security, and I would not be surprised to see him turn around and ridicule some agency for having a breach.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2012 @ 7:20am

Re: Java Maybe?
I'm going to have to agree with John and the other IT staff who've responded here. When I've worked external / customer helpdesk in the past, I spoke to dozens of government workers who just couldn't install plugins, or couldn't open a port. A lot of applications (including MS terminal server / mstsc.exe) open a random port on the client, and assume that the client firewall allows the executable to do as such.

I doubt they blocked the webex site, I bet they just blocked technology that webex needs to function.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Donnicton, 3 Aug 2012 @ 7:23am

Re:
[Citation Needed]

(and if you have one, why didn't you link it to begin with?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Estes, 3 Aug 2012 @ 7:30am

US Govt Systems often blocked due to sensitive data
Several government agencies block certain kinds of Internet access, especially those that allow for desktop sharing, because of the potential of accidentally leaking privacy information. Some agencies got funding to upgrade to modern systems, set up alternate safe computers for this, but we live in an age where denying any spending on government is all the rage and we blame government when their out-dated computer systems are unable to meet today's standards. This is a more nuanced issue than the bumper-sticker sized treatment it's getting. I remember when FBI agents had to have two computers, on for the network with their information, one to see the outside world. And the ATF -- well, ask the NRA why they aren't able to upgrade systems.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Loki, 3 Aug 2012 @ 8:01am

Re:
Agreed, although experience has shown that management this breathtakingly clueless tend to have issues keeping top notch IT people because they get tired of the headaches from banging their heads against the wall and find more rewarding places to work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2012 @ 8:28am

Re: Donnicton
[Citation not needed]

Joe already cited secunia above. Even without software vulnerabilities, Webex is two-way communication, not just a webinar viewer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gregory Snipes, 3 Aug 2012 @ 8:50am

Re:
VPNs are blocked too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 9:44am

Re: Re: Management
I think that "derp" is clearly replaced with homicidal thoughts towards management done as either a Java applet or in Ruby.

Which is blocked. Cue recursive violent thoughts against management...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 9:47am

Re: Re:
Don't mind that. I was just testing the WebEx zombie script I just wrote.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 10:39am

Re: Re:
as far as an IT group goes, you would have to be a special kind of stupid to wind up blocking webex like that. i would say i agree and that it has got to be an upper management decision driving this... but sadly we are talking about the DOJ and its quite conceivable that we are talking about IT people that really *ARE* that special kinda stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ZacWolf, 3 Aug 2012 @ 2:19pm

WebEx allows desktop sharing
There are two valid reasons I can think of for this...

WebEx Conferencing is configured "per host domain", and those settings include whether or not the "owner" of the conference requires an SSL based connection (not on by default), or on the "public" servers.

Since WebEx enables full desktop sharing between participants (beyond just single file PowerPoint sharing), this could easily expose information that shouldn't be seen by others on a conference.

I can tell you from experience that the incompetence is on the users, because I've often seen some stuff that people have unintentionally shared that they should not have...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2012 @ 7:19pm

Re: Buffons...
OMG! Racist!
(j/k)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2012 @ 7:28pm

Re:
And supplying Mexican drug gangs with weaponry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2012 @ 7:59am

I wish my employer would block Webex. It truly is amazing how bad it sucks, yet continues to survive in the marketplace.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cliff Steinman, 19 Dec 2012 @ 1:26pm

Not so much
It's not such a terrible idea. WebEx Meeting Center and WebEx remote control, to my knowledge can't be diferentiated. Therefore the only way to ensure people outside can't take control of inside computers with WebEx is to block the site. I'm dealing with this now at my company. Firewalls, proxys, dedicated content filtering, AppLocker, third-party software, we've called various companies and everything. Webex though is not quite as bad as LogMeIn which can allow remote unattended access. For the DOJ I think this makes sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cliff Steinman, 19 Dec 2012 @ 1:33pm

Re: Not so much
I'm partially not surprised to see all the backlash in these comments, however I'll always be amazed at how many people disagree or argue a point they haven't looked into or know anything about besides the paragraph they read. This is a no-brainer for me. If we had another delivery method for the WebEx meetings we have with federal auditors and core software training we would have it blocked. We'd like to allow meeting sessions but not remote control sessions. They both use the same DLLs for the most part and the same IPs. Cisco would have to make a fundamental change in the software to fix this dichotomy. SO, for now we're stuck with allowing all of WebEx instead of blocking it all, that's all you can do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
none, 22 Jan 2014 @ 5:44pm

Here is why its blocked
The reason why webex is blocked is due to the fact that they fail to make a proper installer. The software installs under the user's profile EVEN WHEN INSTALLED WITH ADMIN RIGHTS. There is no option to install their software under program files or anywhere else. I know because I called them supposedly they are working on it.

So let me explain this to the non technical crowd. If setup properly you are not an administrator of your machine. This means you have no power to modify installed applications on your device. You do have the power to run them and also save documents, favorites and some other items as designed by your group policy administrator.

In response to the increased limited powers of the average end user, certain software makers have modified the installation of their software to areas that you are able to modify. This essentially allows for installation of software by non administrators, and here in lies the problem. In the case of gotomeeting/webex this is the only option to install it.

Scenario 1.

You get bored at work and like animals so you decide to surf seemingly harmless websites until you hit a browser exploit. This exploit then inserts code into your user profile in a randomly named folder next to the webex folder in your profile. Your antivirus fails to detect it. That code then systematically encrypts your files and then destroys your network shares. This has now compromised the security of your organization and cost thousands of dollars. You have just been owned by cryptolocker.
WebEx works fine though you can all have a meeting to discuss the damage.

Scenario 2.

You get bored at work and like animals so you decide to surf seemingly harmless websites until you hit a browser exploit. This exploit then inserts code into your user profile in a randomly named folder next to the webex folder in your profile. Your antivirus fails to detect it.

NOW HERE IS THE DIFFERENCE

The code attempts to run but is prohibited from execution via group policy software restriction via path rule. No code execution is allowed from your user profile. The threat that would have compromised your system has been stopped dead. A week or so later your antivirus finally catches up and it is deleted. Oh and gotomeeting/webex does not work.

If you appreciated this explanation

BTC 1N2NJyBKJEgu22htUhgtiaJcedUgLNHtQA
[ link to this | view in thread ]