Apple Updates iOS To Close Three Separate 0days That Were Being Exploited

To The NSA, The Word 'Security' Is Synonymous With 'Gaping, Unpatched Holes In US Developers' Software'

from the Vulnerability-EXPLOITATION-Process dept

Thu, Aug 25th 2016 10:51am — Tim Cushing

A former Defense Intelligence Agency officer has taken to LinkedIn to point out to all of us griping about the broken Vulnerability Equities Process -- exposed by hackers holding NSA zero-days -- have it all wrong. Michael Tanji says the NSA isn't here to protect developers from malicious attacks. It never was and it's never going to be.

Intelligence agencies exist to gather information, analyze it, and deliver their findings to policymakers so that they can make decisions about how to deal with threats to the nation. Period. You can, and agencies often do, dress this up and expand on it in order to motivate the workforce, or more likely grab more money and authority, but when it comes down to it, stealing and making sense of other people’s information is the job. Doing code reviews and QA for Cisco is not the mission.

Suck it up, Cisco. That gaping hole uncovered by the Shadow Brokers was discovered at least three years ago by the NSA and if it chose not to tell you about it, it had its reasons. Namely: national security.

The Obama administration made sympathetic noises in the wake of the Snowden leaks, suggesting the NSA err on the side of disclosure. It simultaneously gave the agency no reason to ever do that by appending "unless national security, etc." to the statement.

But part of the phrase "national security" is the word "security." (And the other part -- "national" -- suggests this directive also covers protecting US companies from attacks, not just the more amorphous "American public.") Allowing tech companies who provide network security software and hardware to other prime hacking targets to remain unaware of security holes doesn't exactly serve the nation or its security. So, while Tanji may claim the NSA isn't in the QA business, it sort of is. The thing is the NSA prefers to exploit QA issues, rather than give affected developers a chance to patch them.

And if an NSA operative left behind a bag of tech tools in a compromised server, it really doesn't do much for the argument that the government can be trusted with encryption backdoors -- the sort of thing FBI Director James Comey is still hoping will materialize as a result of his never ending "going dark" sales pitch. Julian Sanchez, writing for Cato, points out the NSA's mistake should lead to some pretty severe trust issues.

This hack also ought to give pause to anyone swayed by the government’s assurances that we can mandate government backdoors in encryption software and services, allowing the “good guys” (law enforcement and intelligence agencies) to access the communications of criminals and terrorists without compromising the security of millions of innocent users. If even the NSA’s most closely guarded hacking tools cannot be secured, why would any reasonable person believe that keys to cryptographic backdoors could be adequately protected by far less sophisticated law enforcement agencies? The Equation Group hack is a disturbingly concrete demonstration of what network security experts have been saying all along: Once you create a backdoor, there is no realistic way to guarantee that only the good guys will be able to walk through it.

So, that's one huge problem with both the hoarding of exploits and the NSA's refusal to actually participate in the Vulnerability Equities Process. The definition the NSA has chosen for "national security" doesn't mesh with statements made by its cybersecurity overseers.

Back in 2014, federal cybersecurity coordinator Michael Daniel insisted in a post on the White House blog that the process is strongly weighted in favor of disclosure. The government, he assured the public, understands that “[b]uilding up a huge stockpile of undisclosed vulnerabilities while leaving the Internet vulnerable and the American people unprotected would not be in our national security interest.”

Maybe things have changed in the past couple of years, but they haven't changed as much as Michael Tanji claims. He states that the NSA is no longer charged with playing cyber-defense.

The one element in the intelligence community that was charged with supporting defense is no more. I didn’t like it then, and it seems pretty damn foolish now, but there you are, all in the name of “agility.” NSA’s IAD had the potential to do the things that all the security and privacy pundits imagine should be done for the private sector, but their job was still keeping Uncle Sam secure, not Wal-Mart.

That's simply not true. The NSA may secretly wish it had been completely rerouted to "attack" mode. That would more easily justify the hoarding of vulnerabilities and its ongoing refusal to hand over info to affected developers. But it's still supposed to be playing defense -- which means it has an obligation to both the American public who use software/hardware the NSA would rather see left unpatched, as well as the developers it's purposefully leaving open to malicious attacks.

The NSA has decided the best way to handle these competing directives is to muddy the waters by making them inseparable.

Because computers are now the easiest way to spy on people, and because everyone — even U.S. adversaries — uses the same Internet, there has long been what officials like to call a "healthy" or "creative" tension between the foreign espionage mission and the information assurance mission of the NSA.

Crudely put, the IA's cyber mission is to find security holes in Internet infrastructure and common software and patch them; the signals intelligence mission is to find the same holes and keep them open as long as possible so they can be used to spy on foreigners.

When the two directorates merge, some fear that the much larger and better funded signals intelligence mission will simply absorb the IA mission.

As it stands now, the offensive side of the NSA's cybersquad is roughly twice the size of its defensive team -- which clearly indicates which end of the equation the NSA believes is more important to its national security mission.

The NSA's actions in regards to the Vulnerability Equities Process shows it believes some forms of national security are more equal than others. It's far more interested in ensuring its collections continue to be fed than it is with patching security holes -- holes it has often created -- that affect millions of US citizens and dozens of hacker-tempting firms.

It also shows the government is not to be trusted when it demands "good guy only" access. It can't protect the backdoors it's already created and it has only the slightest interest in protecting the nation from the bad guys that will inevitably find its secret entrances.

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: defense, hacking, nsa, offense, protection, vep, vulnerabilities

21 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2016 @ 11:10am

Again, I refer to that clip from the Simpsons where Mr. Burns and Smithers go through layer after layer of intense and elaborate security and obfuscation, only to shoo away a dog out of a rickety screen door to the parking lot once they arrive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Padpaw (profile), 25 Aug 2016 @ 11:12am

I would bet my life fortune that the current group of "russian" hackers are actually using exploits they bought from corrupt members of the NSA. Though saying corrupt is a bit of a wrong foot, since they are all corrupt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I.T. Guy, 25 Aug 2016 @ 11:18am

https://www.nsa.gov/about/mission-strategy/
They may want to revisit their Mission Statement again.

Core Values
Honesty - We recognize that national leaders and the American people at large have placed great trust in us, and we strive at all times to be deserving of that trust. We will be truthful with each other, and honor the public's need for openness, balanced against national security interests.
Respect for the Law - Everything that we undertake in our missions is grounded in our adherence to the U.S. Constitution and compliance with U.S. laws and regulations that govern our activities.
Integrity - We recognize that national leaders and the American people at large have placed great trust in us, and we strive at all times to be deserving of that trust. We will behave honorably and apply good judgment as we would if our activities were under intense public scrutiny.
Transparency - We embrace transparency to the fullest extent possible. We never forget that we, too, are Americans and that every activity we engage in is aimed at ensuring the safety, security, and liberty of our fellow citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 25 Aug 2016 @ 11:51am
  
  Re:
  Now see, that's just not fair trying to use the NSA's 'mission statement' to score funniest comment of the week. How are the rest of us suppose to compete with that?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - I.T. Guy, 25 Aug 2016 @ 11:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    I had to double check it wasn't a spoof page after reading it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord_Unseen (profile), 25 Aug 2016 @ 11:19am

Wrongheaded
It's wrongheaded for the NSA not to disclose vulnerabilities it finds. Even if their only job was "keeping Uncle Sam secure, not Wal-Mart," which would be a really stupid objective, keeping vulnerabilities secret in security products would mean the government itself is more vulnerable. Kind of stupid all around, if you ask me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2016 @ 11:53am
  
  Re: Wrongheaded
  of course, The Big Lie is that the boys in black are serving unka sammie, when EVERYTHING points to them serving the needs of Empire, which most definitely includes walmart as a large player in Empire...
  you and me ? we are mere fodder for Empire, NOT masters...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
hij (profile), 25 Aug 2016 @ 11:30am

Maybe they are out to get everybody
On the plus side the Chinese cannot tell customers that the US Government is adding back doors to US equipment. They are just out to screw over everybody so everybody wins! Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2016 @ 11:45am

Arrogance at the NSA, who would have thought
Citizens exist to create their own information, analyze it, and deliver their findings to themselves so that they can make decisions about how to deal with purchases. Period. You can, and citizens often do, dress this up and expand on it in order to motivate their own purchases, or more likely grab more money and authority about their purchases from their spouse, but when it comes down to it, retaining and making sense of their own information and network communications is their own business, not the governments. Providing the NSA access to all of a citizens personal information is not the mission of that citizen. Citizens owe the NSA nothing and that is what the NSA should get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2016 @ 11:48am

Wait - so you're telling me that CISA, the "cybersecurity" law, was just a facade for more surveillance and it had nothing at all with "protecting us against cyberattacks" ?!

SAY IT AIN'T SO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mcinsand, 25 Aug 2016 @ 11:52am

'Threats to the nation'
>>Intelligence agencies exist to gather information, >>analyze it, and deliver their findings to policymakers so
>>that they can make decisions about how to deal with
>>threats to the nation. Period.

Security holes in software, especially software commonly used by US citizens, are threats to the nation. PERIOD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mcinsand, 25 Aug 2016 @ 11:52am

'Threats to the nation'
>>Intelligence agencies exist to gather information, >>analyze it, and deliver their findings to policymakers so
>>that they can make decisions about how to deal with
>>threats to the nation. Period.

Security holes in software, especially software commonly used by US citizens, are threats to the nation. PERIOD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 25 Aug 2016 @ 11:55am

Can anyone say 'Conflict of interest'?
The idea that the same agency should handle both offense and defense is beyond absurd, and a recipe for disaster from the get-go. Each vulnerability found and patched by the defense team is a vulnerability that the offensive team can't use, so it's a given that whichever gets higher priority(offense in this case) is going to be calling the shots.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the 'defensive' half had basically just been re-purposed into finding and then reporting vulnerabilities to the offensive side, rather than fixing those vulnerabilities, given it's pretty obvious at this point that the only security the NSA cares about is their own, meaning the more vulnerabilities in other systems the better from their point of view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2016 @ 1:24pm
  
  Re: Can anyone say 'Conflict of interest'?
  That and the fact that since Sept 2001, they have been grabbing everything possible on everyone possible. The current president was not protected in any way at the time and any blackmail gathered prior to him becoming a senator, is still useful to ensuring the intelligence community gets exactly what they want. The way that the government has turned everything on its head to allow them to do whatever they want, makes it at least plausible that they are now the ones running the show.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Wanderer (profile), 28 Aug 2016 @ 10:37am
  
  Re: Can anyone say 'Conflict of interest'?
  On the other hand, if you split attack and defense into two agencies, there becomes room for the funding levels of the two to diverge; you could easily wind up with the "attack" agency getting far more funding than the "defense" one, to the point where the latter can't effectively do its job.
  
  Combine that with the fact that you'd end up with two separate organizations spending money to do duplicate research into the same thing - security vulnerabilities - and it's easy to see why someone might decide that having a single agency with both mandates is the better alternative.
  
  If the oversight weren't so biased in favor of the attack side, it might even have worked out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew A. Sawtell, 25 Aug 2016 @ 1:44pm

If 'protecting Uncle Sam' is the objective...
... then it appears that mission has been a failure if the NSA failed to inform its sister security agencies (FBI, DEA, ICE, etc.) that the equipment they were using was faulty and exploitable, let alone the branches of the Military. Heck, Point 8 in the report that was released in the wake last year's breach at the OPM (https://www.opm.gov/cybersecurity/cybersecurity-incidents/opm-cybersecurity-action-report.pdf) gives the air to that idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2016 @ 2:12pm

If they're going to harp on about protecting the "intellectual property" of America's businesses, then it stands to reason that improving their security (as opposed to depriving their employees of their dignity by surveilling them) is a vital step in that process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whoever, 25 Aug 2016 @ 3:12pm

Military thinking
One of the problems is that the NSA's top management is high-level military people, who learned that "the best defence is a good offence."

Unfortunately, this simply doesn't apply in cyberspace and it provides a bad model for running an organization such as the NSA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2016 @ 5:12pm

Explain this to me like I'm a two year old
1. Government uses software and hardware from various companies
2. Government identifies security flaws in the software and hardware they use
3. Government decides its best to keep these flaws secret instead of getting them fixed

This helps national security how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Padpaw (profile), 25 Aug 2016 @ 6:59pm
  
  Re: Explain this to me like I'm a two year old
  Because they think people are stupid enough to believe them.
  
  More like personal financial gain than national security
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lesath, 25 Aug 2016 @ 6:27pm

National Security is not the same as Government Security
The problem is that people in government have come to believe that, instead of the government serving the national interest, it *is* the national interest. Thus, "national security" becomes "government security" where the highest priority is protecting the government itself, not the nation.

Power corrupts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]