Yesterday, the mailing list SCADASEC saw
the start of a very scary discussion thread with a report
from Jake Brodsky, a well-known and respected researcher and commentor on
industrial control system security issues. It related to a discovery reported
to him by another researcher made while using an unnamed internet search engine
(possibly SHODAN, but it could have even been Google). That researcher found an
unsecured FTP site that looked like “it was the home office to a small controls
firm that does ICS application software programming”.
According to Jake’s report:
“It contained fully licensed copies
of various vendor software packages. It had correspondence regarding various
ongoing projects with utility plant upgrades. It had application programs. It
had drawings. It had spreadsheets of I/O maps and descriptions.”
Now Jake has taken appropriate actions and that FTP site is
now ‘secured’ (password protected), but there is no telling who else had seen
the information available on the site and now had the keys to be able to
execute an effective attack on the utilities that were blueprinted on the site.
To understand why this is such a big and scary issue, you
have to understand why this is such a potential escalation of the threat of a
successful catastrophic attack on an industrial control system.
Why No Attacks to
Date
Readers of this blog have seen me talk about the increasing
number of control system vulnerabilities over the last couple of years. With
hundreds of thousands of internet facing control systems and hundreds of
available control system application vulnerabilities the number of control
systems in critical infrastructure that are wide-open for cyber attack is
astounding. The only amazing thing is that we haven’t heard about successful
attacks on these systems.
There may be a number of reasons for that including the fact
that there is no requirement for anyone to report such an attack to the
government or the media. In fact there is every incentive for system owners to not
publicly report successful attacks or for the government to share information
about any attacks reported to them.
Even so, it would be damn near impossible to keep out of the
news the fact that a successful attack resulted in a catastrophic incident at a
major petrochemical facility, major water treatment plant, gas/fuel pipeline or
electrical power generation facility; all of these are high-value targets about
which the world quickly hear if successfully and catastrophically attack.
Security through
Complexity
One of the reasons that we have not heard about a successful,
catastrophic attack on control systems is that, even with unauthorized and
undetected access to such systems, it is incredibly difficult for an attacker to
figure out how to get a control system to do something catastrophically wrong.
First off, most owners of these systems are not criminally negligent
or critically stupid. The systems are designed with safety and some minimal
level of security in mind. They don’t want their equipment exploding or their
expensive chemicals being released into the environment; it is bad for
business. So there are at least some rudimentary controls and process systems
designed to prevent catastrophic incidents.
But beyond even that there is a much more basic reason why
these systems are hard to attack with a catastrophic result. There are no
self-destruct switches; there are no buttons marked “Start Plant Conflagration”;
there are no controls marked “Blow up Chlorine Tank”. To make a control system
do something like this would take the operation of a number of controls (in the
proper sequence) while masking the outputs of dozens of sensors over a lengthy
period of time so that the system operators don’t notice that something unusual
is happening.
Oh, and one other minor thing, each of those controls and
sensors have cryptic labels in the control system like MotorS001, or RTDP25, or
Valve26K2. Now these labels are not coded as part of the security system for
the facility; they are engineering shorthand. They are designed to be small
enough that they can be placed on process and engineering drawings and be
easily typed into control system programming.
A control system engineer or other process professional can
probably only specifically identify a handful of the actual components in their
system by just looking at the control label. To identify what specific
component is based upon the control system label the engineer relies on a
spread sheet that lists all of the inputs and outputs (I/O). That spread sheet
would also typically describe what commands are available for that control and
what each command would accomplish. Opening Valve26K2 might open an airline
that would close a valve on a chlorine transfer line for instance; or it might
close an airline that would allow a valve on a chlorine transfer line to close.
Control System
Security
Now there are some basics about control system security.
First you don’t want the bad guys to get access to your control system.
Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly obvious that in the modern control
system world it is unlikely that anyone can promise with any degree of
certainty that there are no holes in the security perimeter through which an
attacker could gain access to a control system. In fact, I will be so bold as
to proclaim that there is no system that cannot be accessed by a determined,
educated and well-funded attacker. The higher the profile of your system, I
will again be so bold as to proclaim, the higher the likelihood that your
system perimeter has already been successfully penetrated.
If someone is already within your ICS perimeter, the one
thing that you certainly don’t want them to have access to is your system
diagrams and your I/O lists. With those three things anyone with a modicum of
control system expertise and process knowledge has the capability to do pretty
much what they want with your system. Anyone with just those three things
(access, diagrams and I/O lists) has the capability to play with your system
and acquire the necessary system expertise and process knowledge to
significantly disrupt your operations; they may not be able to easily blow up
your plant, but they can stop you from delivering goods/services to your
customer.
Oh yes. By the way; if I have your process control diagrams
and your I/O lists I know what kinds of devices you have in your system. I now
have a better chance of finding a way into your system. With just a little bit
of controls system vulnerability knowledge I can find out just which part of
your system is most vulnerable to attack and just how to attack it. Even a
script kiddy will now be able to find their way into your system with this
information.
What Needs to be Done
It is becoming increasingly obvious that critical
infrastructure security is more than just perimeter fences and security guards.
In the modern world a major component is also control system security.
Similarly, control system security is more than system
passwords and patching software. A facility can take every reasonable effort to
secure their control system and find that a contractor or vendor has provided
the keys to their system to a cruel world.
In his post on SCADASEC Jake asked the important question:
What needs to be done? Here is my short answer.
Control system security personnel (and it is becoming
increasingly obvious that we need these specialists at every level of our
organizations) need to look beyond just system vulnerabilities and look at the
operational security of their engineering department and the engineering
departments of the vendors and contractors.
Organizations need to identify what information that they
have in house would make it easier for an adversary to successfully attack
their control systems. That information needs to be protected to protect the
control system. I/O lists and system diagrams should be considered to be
classified information and such document need to be kept under lock and key (or
their computer equivalents; password protected files).
Agreement with vendors and contractors need to specify what
information about the system is critical to the security of the system. Those
agreements need to delineate what minimum security measures need to be in place
to protect that information.
And all of this needs to be inspected and audited. The few regulatory
agencies that look at cybersecurity need to expand their programs to include
the security of system information. They need to require the identification of
security critical information and establish minimum standards for the
protection of that information.
Just as important though, everyone in the security chain
needs to identify when that information has been or may have been compromised.
When such breaches are identified, compensating controls need to be placed into
operation to protect the system.
Control system security is not now, nor has it ever been, a
game to be played by amateurs. In critical infrastructure this is deadly
serious business. In other organizations it will only affect the life and death
of the organization. In critical infrastructure it could affect the health and
welfare of millions of people.
1 comment:
The search engine wasn't SHODAN, it was Google. How the FTP site was found, I cannot go into any details, but did confirm what Jake had discovered.
The FTP site contained multiple clients' information. This raises some serious legal issues on the contractor's responsibilities to its clients. We suspect that this was a self-contained web drive (like Netgear or Iomega) that was "lightly configured".
Post a Comment