Category Archives: Encryption
The Week in Ransomware – May 15th 2020 – REvil targets Trump – BleepingComputer
This week, we saw some interesting news about ransomware features being added and continued attackers against high profile victims.
The biggest news is REvil's continued threats againstGrubman Shire Meiselas & Sacks (GSMLaw) after demanding a $21 million ransom. They have now increased the ransom to $42 million and have begun releasing emails that they state are damaging to President Trump.
From what was shared with BleepingComputer, it appears that theransomware operators are bluffing.
On the feature side, Netwalker created a auto-publishing data leak blog to be used by affiliates. REvil also added new code that will automatically terminates processes keeping a file open that they are trying to encrypt.
Contributors and those who provided new ransomware information and stories this week include: @BleepinComputer, @PolarToffee, @VK_Intel, @fwosar, @FourOctets, @demonslay335, @malwareforme, @Ionut_Ilascu, @DanielGallagher, @jorntvdw, @struppigel, @Seifreed, @malwrhunterteam, @LawrenceAbrams, @serghei, @GroupIB_GIB, @y_advintel, @IntelAdvanced, @Intel471Inc, @thyrex2002, @benkow_, @fbgwls245, @siri_urz, @PageSixEmily, and @Amigo_A_.
Alex Svirid released a decryptor for the CryLock (ex-Cryakl) 1.9.0.0 ransomware.
Benkw discovered that the GuLoader Trojan is distributing the HakBit ransomware.
MalwareHunterTeam found a new ransomware called Kupidon that appends the .kupidon extension to encrypted files and drops a ransom note named !KUPIDON_DECRYPT.txt.
The Sodinokibi (REvil) ransomware has added a new feature that allows it to encrypt more of a victim's files, even those that are opened and locked by another process.
Global business services company Pitney Bowes recently stopped an attack from Maze ransomware operators before the encryption routine could be deployed but the actor still managed to steal some data.
The Texas court system was hit by ransomware on Friday night, May 8th, which led to the branch network including websites and servers being disabled to block the malware from spreading to other systems.
Fortune 500 company Magellan Health Inc announced today that it was the victim of a ransomware attack on April 11, 2020, which led to the theft of personal information from one of its corporate servers.
MalwareHunterTeam found a new ransomware that is being spread with a COVID-19 lure. When encrypting files it appends the .dodged extension.
dnwls0719 found a new STOP Ransomware variant that appends the .mzlq extension to encrypted files.
A ransomware family has begun a new tactic of not only demanding a ransom for a decryptor but also demanding a second ransom not to publish files stolen in an attack.
S!Ri found a new ransomware called Blackmoon that appends the .cxk extension to encrypted files.
ProLock is a relatively new malware on the ransomware scene but has quickly attracted attention by targeting businesses and local governments and demanding huge ransoms for file decryption.
dnwls0719 found a new ransomware targets people in Turkey that appends the .zeronine extension.
The ransom demand for the secret files of a cyber-attacked lawyer to A-list stars has doubled to $42million as the hackers now threaten to reveal dirty laundry on President Donald Trump in just a week if they are not paid in full.
The Netwalker ransomware operation is recruiting potential affiliates with the possibility of million-dollar payouts and an auto-publishing data leak blog to help drive successful ransom payments.
Originally posted here:
The Week in Ransomware - May 15th 2020 - REvil targets Trump - BleepingComputer
WhatsApp Video Calls Will Soon Support 50: This Is Why 8s The Limit For Your Security – Forbes
WhatsApp users can now make end-to-end encrypted video calls for groups of up to eight. But once you ... [+] add more people to your video chat, youll be redirected to the much less secure and private Facebook Messenger Rooms.
WhatsApp users were just given an awesome new featurethe ability to make end-to-end encrypted video calls for groups of up to eight. But it seems that eight is the limit if you want to stay secure, because once you add more people to your video chat, youll be redirected to themuch less secure and private Facebook Messenger Rooms.
Thats according toWABetaInfo, which discovered that WhatsApp is working to add Messenger Rooms shortcuts that will redirect you to Messenger if you want to use a Room. The feature isnt available yet and the release date is unknown.
Facebook bought WhatsApp back in 2014, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg last year outlined howFacebook Messenger, WhatsApp and Instagram would be integrated at the back end. But those plans have run into problems of late, due to thedifficulty of implementing end-to-end encryption across platforms.
End-to-end encryptionwhich means no one can access your encrypted data, including WhatsApp owner Facebookis actually pretty rare in video chat apps.Zoom has just bought a security company so it can add end-to-end encryption, while up and coming video chat platformJitsiis working onadding the feature soon.
Signalis end-to-end encrypted but does not support group chats, so the best options for now are WhatsApp and Apples FaceTime. But if your group is more than eight, I wouldnt recommend you use Facebook Messenger Roomsat least if you value security and privacy.
As well as the fact Messenger Rooms is not end-to-end encrypted, its not a very private service. Its privacy policy is the same as Facebooks so theres a lot of data youd need to give up.
However, its not all bad with Messenger Roomsat least if youre a participantbecause you dont have to have a Facebook account to use it.
Lack of end-to-end encryption means Messenger Room chats are not as private as WhatsApp calls, but this might may not be an issue to those choosing not to sign up to a Facebook account to remain more anonymous, says Jake Moore, cybersecurity specialist at ESET.
However he adds: Personally, I would still recommend only using fully end-to-end encrypted communication services for my own privacy and even as a silent protest to the tech giants to show that we care about it.
I agree. WhatsApp is a great service, but the fact its owned by Facebook is always going to be a red flag for me, especially if I then have to use Messenger Rooms for large group chats. Signal would be my first choice if its a one-to-one video call, and FaceTime otherwise if you have an Apple device.
If not,Zoom has suffered a lot of security and privacy issues, but its trying to be better. So its even an option for large video calls to socialise with your friends, if youd rather avoid Facebook Messenger Rooms.
View original post here:
WhatsApp Video Calls Will Soon Support 50: This Is Why 8s The Limit For Your Security - Forbes
How to Use Encryption for Defense in Depth in Native and Browser Apps – InfoQ.com
Key Takeaways
Anyone handling sensitive user data lives in fear of a data breach. We know that encryption can reduce the negative consequences, but most encryption is relegated to infrastructure-level elements like TLS and VPNs rather than at the application layer. Application-layer and end-to-end encryption can be a powerful tool in our toolkit, but as developers, how can we safely add encryption to our applications without introducing bugs or reducing the utility of the data?
In this article, we discuss the pros and cons of application-layer encryption. We will cover the attack surface of application-layer encryption in the browser, how it is very different from native clients, and how WebCrypto helps.
The reputation, financial, and human impact of breaches can be extremely high. New laws that help protect end-user privacy are an important step forward, but they come with potentially ruinous fines.
Studies showthat encryption is one of the most effective technical security measures to reduce the impact and cost of a data breach. When attackers get encrypted datasets, they either have to attack a different system to get the key or have to settle with metadata and side-channel information instead of the good stuff.
Encryption is typically focused on infrastructure-layer elements, like TLS, VPNs, database encryption flags, and full-disk encryption. These are important tools in our toolbox, but they rely on assumptions about the infrastructure instead of the application code itself.
In fact, if you consider most recent data breaches, at least among established companies, they were certainly using TLS and at-rest database encryption, and yet the leaks happened anyway. For instance,Capital One was recently hackedand sensitive financial information stolen. Google Photosaccidentally gave the wrong users accessto photos and videos from other users. These mistakes could have been prevented, or at least mitigated, by application-layer or end-to-end encryption.
As developers, infrastructure isnt our strength, and sometimes its not our job, so encryption takes a back seat to features. But for those of us who do care about defense in-depth, it makes good sense to add encryption to the application itself. Application-layer encryption can insulate our systems from infrastructure-level failures, known weaknesses of TLS, and some server-side vulnerabilities.
The practice of moving more security, operations, and testing into the development process (known asshift-left) is improving software agility, reliability, and efficiency. It also means that security best practices need to be implemented as part of application developmentnot as an afterthought when things go wrong. However, the vast majority of developers are not security or cryptography experts, and at the same time, the security team has less control over the security posture of IT and development than ever before.
Application-layer encryption, or shift-left cryptography, is part of this trend. It means giving developers more control over what gets encrypted and who gets the keys for decryption. In some cases, the users themselves may be the only parties with the keys. In other cases, application-layer encryption can be an added access control layer on data management, providing defense-in-depth.
As implied by the name, application-layer encryption gets added directly to the codebase of your application, and access to key material is controlled by your application logic. As a result, you can think of the data itself as being encrypted throughout its lifecycle, rather than relying on it being on an encrypted network or disk.
The most widely-understood application-layer encryption is end-to-end encrypted chat like Signal and WhatsApp provide, so lets think through how those applications work. Its a bit over-simplified, but it basically works like this:
End-user action
Access Control Logic (Server)
App-layer Cryptographic Operation (Client)
Add a friend
Create an access control rule where users are allowed to send each-other messages
Trust the friends cryptographic key
Write the friend a message
Create an access control rule where the friend can read the message
Encrypt the message with the friends key (and sign it)
Read a message from a friend
Check for permission to download the message
Decrypt a message with end users key (and check the signature)
In this simple example, we can already see some of the power of application-layer encryption:
Note that this is an example of end-to-end encryption, but not all application-layer encryption is end-to-end. Also, applications like this still need TLS and other infrastructure-layer encryption to enforce things like authentication, prevent replay attacks, and address a host of other issues.
When we think about TLS, we picture data getting encrypted at its source and decrypted on the server. But this over-simplification hides the practical limits of TLS.
The reality of encryption in transit leaves out encryption of data at rest, which impacts the security of both ends of the transmission. It also completely ignores what happens to the data after HTTPS termination which may be further out on the edge of your network than you know; at your load balancer for instance.
So what about encryption at other points in the application? If youre doing an above-average job of crypto, youve written robust, well-tested code in your app to encrypt data at rest, youve used HTTPS and IPSec on your network, and youve enabled transparent database crypto.
Were pretty much encrypting everywhere with this approach, but as the data moves through the system, it gets decrypted and re-encrypted at each step. Each point that touches plain text data is a potential vulnerability, resulting in a large attack surface, and you have to ask yourself, why the heck do these intermediate services need the data in plain text anyway? They probably dont.
Infrastructure-layer encryption also lends itself to gaps in security because unanticipated parts of the infrastructure might get the data. For instance, your database and disk backups might not get encrypted, even if your database is. Or your health monitoring system might be logging sensitive data in plain text, and (horror of horrors) maybe even sending it to a third party. These security gaps happen because different individuals or departments are accountable for security at these various points:
Each one of these solutions uses different ciphers, libraries, and key sizes. Youre counting on a lot of people to get a lot of things right. Thats a problem.
Encryption is about communication; data is written and encrypted by one party, then received and decrypted by another party. The sender and receiver both have to have an application that knows how to do the encryption and decryption, and can be trusted to do it correctly. But that is easier said than done.
What if the encryption code is malicious? What could an attacker do? The simplest attack would be for the application to work exactly as expected, butalsosend the unencrypted messages to the bad guys. More subtle attacks are possible of course; adding hidden vulnerabilities to weaken the encryption, messing with the public keys, etc. But they all amount to the same thing: A bit of code that helps the bad guy get the secret message.
So lets talk about code delivery. For two people communicating using apps on their mobile phones, the trust chain goes something like this: A good programmer writes good encryption code, compiles it into an app, signs the app with a digital signature, and uploads it to an app store via TLS. The user downloads an app over TLS, the operating system checks whether the digital signature is trusted, and the user runs the app to have their encrypted communication. Note that this protocol is itself an application-layer cryptographic data exchange. Systems like Debian Linux have similar protocols for installing and upgrading the server and desktop applications.
There are a number of things that can go wrong with the trusted app download: The user could download a malicious version of the app. The OS vendor could undermine the check of the digital signature on the app. An attacker could trick the user into installing an old and vulnerable version of the app (or not upgrading it). Any of these types of attacks would make the end-to-end encrypted communication suspect. But for the most part, this works well.
Application-level cryptography is typically implemented in native code running on mobile, laptops, or servers, and can use a protocol like this to deliver trustworthy code. But modern applications very often have a major browser-based component, even for critically sensitive information.
The code delivery model on the web looks quite different from an app. When users decide that they want to have a secure conversation, they visit a web page. The browser downloads some JavaScript over TLS on-demand. Beyond warning the user about bad TLS connections, thats the end of the standard protocol for code delivery. It relies completely on TLS. The JavaScript that gets delivered needs to perform the application-layer encryption and tonothave any malicious code that just sends the unencrypted text to the bad guys.
Why is this a problem? Lets say for instance that our security claim is that the data gets encrypted in one browser, decrypted in another browser, and the webserver in between cannot see the data without warning flags and fireworks going off. To undermine this claim, the server simply needs to deliver malicious JavaScript at the application start time. So an attacker that can control the server that delivers code or various aspects of DNS and TLS could pull off this attack without breaking any crypto. The bad code can be sent only to a specific target, making it hard to detect for security researchers.
In fact, with the speed of application updates and continuous integration, similar attacks are possible against mobile apps and desktops. Many modern apps use dynamic code techniques to deliver at least some code to an app in real-time; many desktop apps update their own code at will. This gives attackers the ability to hijack code updates at various points but also gives security teams the ability to patch quickly. That said, the browser-based attacks are a lot better understood.
Some people in the security and cryptography community point to this issue to say that you shouldnt do browser-based encryption, or if you do, you cant claim that its end-to-end secure. Or at the very least, that it creates a false sense of security. We disagree. There are indeed weaknesses, but as developers, we should be doing it anyway, because simply put, people use the web for security-critical purposes.
Despite the code delivery problem, doing application-layer encryption in the browser significantly improves the overall security of any system. The reason for this is that security isnt all-or-nothing. Very rarely in modern server infrastructure is a single browser talking only to a single web server that performs every task; modern systems are just more complex than that.
For instance, lets say your web application uses HTTPS and does browser-based end-to-end encryption, but that it has an SQL injection vulnerability. The nature of this vulnerability is that the attacker tricks the application into tricking the database into dumping out sensitive data (over HTTPS, ironically). But in our example, the data is end-to-end encrypted, so the database only contains encrypted messages. Without application-layer encryption, the bad guy would get something much more sensitive: the plain text messages. Note that with this vulnerability alone, the attacker cannot change the code to inject malicious JavaScript; the browser-based encryption code is still sound.
On the other hand, if the attacker has a remote code execution exploit on the API server, and can modify the JavaScript or inject malicious code into it on the fly, theycanundermine the end-to-end encryption, again by simply adding code that sends the plain text data to themselves.
These are only two examples, one where application-layer encryption can be undermined and one where it cannot, but there are innumerable other attacks that can be prevented with end-to-end encryption: Perhaps you have a too-nosey employee who is looking for the private information on celebrities, but who doesnt have access to the code. Perhaps you backed up your Postgres database to an S3 bucket and accidentally left it open on the web. Perhaps an attacker can undermine TLS, but they only act passively; they can eavesdrop but they cannot do code injection.
As we can see, application-layer encryption in the browser provides defense-in-depth, even though there are challenges to code delivery. In the next section, we will talk about approaches that mitigate those challenges.
There are a number of ways to improve the security of application-layer encryption in the browser. The first line of defense is to use good, trusted code. Modern application development is much faster because we reuse a lot of code we find on the web, but if any of the code that runs in the users browser is malicious or vulnerable, it undermines the encryption significantly.
Protecting the server that delivers the code is also vital. Use the principle of least privilege when assigning access control rights on that server. Use multi-party control for administration and code deployment. This will significantly reduce the risk of insider attacks.
There are also under-used code-delivery settings that instruct the browser to take extra precautions. These arent the default because they somewhat reduce the flexibility of the development and integration process, but the security they provide is worth the work, whether your application does encryption or not:
In addition, there is a relatively new browser API that helps with efficient and secure delivery of cryptographic primitives. The WebCrypto API provides low-level ciphers, hashes, and other encryption components. This helps because you dont have to include those ciphers in your JavaScript. The browser implements them directly and can take advantage of local native execution and even hardware acceleration. It doesnt prevent certain attacks, like just sending an unencrypted copy of the data to the bad guys, but WebCrypto does make browser-based encryption more standard and accessible.
Secure code delivery isnt the only challenge for implementing application-layer encryption. The biggest problem is that most encryption libraries are relatively hard to use securely and difficult to implement consistently in different programming languages and platforms. When you encrypt something in a browser and decrypt it on an app, you probably need three different implementations in different languages (Android, iOS, and JavaScript) that all use the exact same ciphers and modes.
The secure operation of these modes is not very easy to understand. For instance, the well-beloved cipher AES is secure, but pairing it with an insecure mode like ECB (the default mode in Java) is insecure. Pairing AES with GCM is considered a best practice, but even GCM has its flaws; if you encrypt too much data with the same key, or make a mistake with the initialization vector/nonce, you could actually leak key material, which is a flaw that some other modes do not have.
One mistake can make your encrypted data unrecoverable, or even worse, recoverable by a bad guy.
Another challenge is that if you put encrypted data in your database, its no longer as searchable. You have to plan ahead for what kinds of queries and downselects you want the database to do or that you want your application to do. If you encrypt a users home address, for instance, you cant simply SELECT * for all the rows with the string Oregon. If downselecting by state is part of your application workflow, you can instead encrypt the users entire address, but add an unencrypted metadata field with their state so that you can still perform this query. From there, you can potentially use application-layer logic to decrypt the record and perform the rest of the search, but the database wont be of much help.
People I talk to are often concerned about performance for application-layer encryption, but this isnt a significant concern. Encryption is fast, and often hardware accelerated these days. After all, we use HTTPS for streaming entire social networks with photos and videos and dont really notice much of a performance hit. Its similar at the application layer, and you are simply unlikely to find encryption to be a bottleneck.
To be sure, there are still attacks against application-layer encryption. Various governments have made it illegal or legally impractical to operate an encryption service or install an encrypted app. Users selecting weak or reused passwords can completely undermine encryption. Users forgetting passwords is a challenge to address as well; what should happen in that case? Should the user be able to recover their data via a password reset email? That itself weakens the end-to-end encryption argument.
And of course, once the data is decrypted, attackers can attack the end device itself. This happened to WhatsApp in 2019, causing some to wonder if end-to-end encryption is worthwhile or important. But the fact that attackers had to target specific individuals with zero-day attacks against WhatsApp is proof enough to me that end-to-end encryption helps.
When implementing encryption in your application, you will need to consider your specific security goals, any compliance rules you might have to follow, and who you need to have the key material. Cryptography is very specific to your application. A trained cryptographer can help you understand the strengths and weaknesses of your approach, and no magazine article can tell you whats right or wrong. There are, however, a few choices you can make that will get you closer to good cryptography, and you can often safely use them.
First a bit of brief background on the three major cryptographic systemssymmetric, asymmetric, and hashing. Symmetric (shared key) is fast and efficient, these algorithms are usually your baseline for encrypting data. AES is usually what you want. Symmetric encryption suffers from challenges with key management. You need a way to get the shared key to both parties, which is why you need asymmetric encryption. Symmetric multi-block modes vary in their confidentiality and integrity properties, and some work better with different types of data or different system constraints (such as a lack of a random number generator): ECB, GCM, CBC, SIV, etc.
Asymmetric (public/private key) cryptography is slower and more complex than symmetric encryption, these algorithms are typically used for exchanging symmetric keys. RSA is the classic choice here; ECC is more modern and efficient, and almost as widely supported. Roughly speaking, public keys are used for encrypting data and verifying signatures. Private keys are used for decrypting data and generating signatures.
Hashing, cryptographic signatures, and message authentication codes (MACs) provide integrity. Hashing generates a short string that proves the data was either unchanged or in the case of message authentication codes, proves that the person holding a secret key signed the data. Many people think that encryption implies integrity, but it does not. For instance, AES doesnt provide integrity by default. Algorithms like SHA2, Poly1305, and GCM help.
Managing keys is a very big topic in itself, but a few important things to consider:
Beyond key material, there are other elements of randomness or uniqueness that are associated with encrypted messages. Initialization Vector, salt, and nonces fall in this category. These need to be communicated to the decrypting party as well, so they need to be stored or transmitted. Typically, its safe to transmit these unencrypted along with the ciphertext, but you should be careful not to let the attacker modify them.
You also need to pad, encode, serialize, and sign your messages. Believe it or not, even bad padding can undermine the confidentiality of the encrypted message. For signing of structured data like a JSON object or HTTP headers, you need an identical way for both sides to serialize and deserialize the data, or the signatures wont match.
If youve done all of this right, you now have an encrypted and signed message. Its likely at this point that youll want to send this message to another party, who will check the signature and decrypt the message. That means you need to communicate all of your choices: key id, size, cipher, mode, IV, hashing algorithm, etc. This communication itself is a fraught weakness in many cryptography systems. For instance, attackers have been able to trick some symmetric systems into behaving like asymmetric systems and sending their shared key directly to the attacker. Oops.
A few recommendations we have, particularly if you need to or want to stick with the NIST/FIPS-140 ciphers that are sometimes required for compliance in government work or banking:
Encryption is an exceptionally effective way to protect data, but most encryption deployed today is part of the IT infrastructure, and not part of applications. As developers, we have a unique opportunity to improve privacy and security of our users by making application-layer encryption a part of our toolbox. There are challenges to be sure; encrypted data can be harder to manage, and most encryption libraries are very hard to use for untrained developers, but the benefit to our users is worth it!
The following are not the formal definition of these terms, but color commentary to help you understand how these terms and technologies fit into application-layer encryption.
Isaac Potoczny-Jones is the founder and CEO of Tozny, LLC, a privacy and security company specializing in identity management and encryption. Isaacs work in cybersecurity spans open source, the public sector, and commercial companies. His projects have included end-to-end encryption for privacy in human subject research, secure cross-domain collaboration, identity management, anonymous authorization, mobile password-free authentication, anti-forgery in hardware devices, and privacy-preserving authentication. He has worked with agencies including DARPA, the Navy, Air Force Research Laboratory, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Institute of Standards and Technologies, and other elements of the DoD and intelligence communities. Isaac is an active open source developer in the areas of cryptography and programming languages. Education: B.S. in computer science, M.S. in Cybersecurity.
Read more from the original source:
How to Use Encryption for Defense in Depth in Native and Browser Apps - InfoQ.com
Analyzing Encrypted RDP Connections – Security Boulevard
By Anthony Kasza, Corelight Security Researcher
Microsofts Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) is used to remotely administer systems within Windows environments. RDP is everywhere Windows is and is useful for conducting remote work. Just like every other remote administration tool, RDP can be used for legitimate or malicious control of a computer and is used by administrators and attackers alike for command and control of a remote system. As RDP also can be used to move laterally through a victim network its a great example of attackers living off the land. The Restricted Admin Mode (seemingly now replaced by Remote Credential Guard) introduced into Windows even enables pass-the-hash style authentication for RDP clients. Tools, such as SharpRDP and Sticky-Keys-Slayer are able to automate command execution and RDP interactivity. The latter is also a tool for gaining initial access to systems through RDP services, a strategy adopted by multiple attackers for manually spreading ransomware. To distribute Crysis, for example, attackers would brute force guess credentials, or use stolen ones, to control RDP servers exposed to the Internet and then manually implant ransomware. A similar strategy has been seen by actors distributing GoGoogle and RobbinHood ransomware.
Financially motivated attackers arent the only classes of threat making use of RDP, however. RDP services are also a vector of attack for advanced offensive groups like APT39 and APT40. Discovered in January of 2020, the Trickbot malware family added a new module, rdpScanDll, giving the malware the capability of credential bruteforcing. Wormable exploits like BlueKeep, DejaBlue, and BlueGate plague RDP servers across the Internet. Shodan recently identified an increase in publicly exposed RDP services on the Internet, a measure which Shadowserver and Kaspersky also monitor. Given RDPs complexities and extendability, I would not be surprised if more RDP remote code execution vulnerabilities exist.
Open source Zeek is capable of analyzing RDP connections and does a fantastic job handling the many options and configurations the RDP protocol supports. For performance reasons, Zeek disables the SSL analyzer after encryption begins. This blog serves as a closer examination of encrypted RDP communications, specifically those over TLS. It contains sections on RDPs background, its encryption and authentication methods, and the differences between its TCP and UDP transports. It will conclude by looking at how encrypted RDP connections can be conceptualized with sequences of lengths and inter-arrival deltas (SOLID, a retrofitted name for sequences of lengths) and how patterns within those SOLID can potentially be used to create inferences. Inferences on encrypted RDP connections could provide forensic value without TLS decryption, without endpoint monitoring, and without having to know where RDP services are located on your network.
The Remote Desktop Protocol, which is used by Windows Terminal Services, consists of many sub-protocols, extensions, redundancies, and options. This plethora of choice is best demonstrated by the Protocol Relationship Diagram (section 2.2.1) in Microsofts specification for RDP. For this blog, RDP will refer to MS-RDPBCGR and all its options and extensions while RDPEUDP will refer to both MS-RDPEUDP and MS-RDPEUDP2.
RDP is conceptually similar to SSH in that it provides a client an interactive console to a server. Both RDP and SSH services are often exposed over the Internet for administrative access. RDP and SSH are different, however, in that the RDP console will always be graphical and human driven. RDP aims to emulate an entire desktop environment, which is a large feat. SSH, on the other hand, is much simpler, only emulating a text-based terminal. SSH also supports automation. It includes file transfers and other headless modes-of-use. In fact, SSHs headless tunneling capabilities are sometimes used to transport RDP through firewalls with reverse shells, which the latest version of the SSH Inferences package is able to infer. RDP is also conceptually similar to Powershell Remoting in that both can be used to administer and control a server. Powershell Remoting is, however, similar to SSH in that it is a command-line interface. RFB (VNC) and X11 also share similarities with RDP, being protocols which facilitate virtual desktop experiences.
RDP makes use of channels which are multiplexed over the TCP connection alongside other message types. Examples of RDP static virtual channels are, rdpdr (redirection), rdpsnd (sound), cliprdr (clipboard). Others static virtual channels enable USB device access, shared drives, and more. Static virtual channels are joined during the Channel Connection stage of the Connection Sequence (see Figure 1 below). These channels are conceptually similar to SSH channels. This CTF challenge walk-through demonstrates how contents from the clipboard static virtual channel can be recovered from a trace of an RDP connection.
One static virtual channel, the dynamic virtual channel, is used to extend the number of available static virtual channels. Dynamic virtual channels provide things like USB device access, graphics output, and more (including unconventional purposes, like tunneling SOCKS). It seems as though the RDP protocol was originally designed with a limited amount of static virtual channels and dynamic virtual channels are a method of extending the protocol to support more features. A major difference in static virtual channels compared to dynamic virtual channels is that dynamic virtual channels messages may be transported over RDPEUDP. This reduced set of messages simplifies analyses of RDPBCGR SOLID.
RDPs complexity makes it complicated to comprehend. RDP was built on top of protocols whose creation preceded the more modern TCP/IP. Furthermore, it carries a bunch of backwards compatibility around which makes interoperability between different Windows operating system versions achievable. Wikipedia lists over 10 versions of the RDP protocol. The technical specification has had 52 major revisions since 2007. Features of the protocol have been developed over multiple Windows operating system versions and some features have been provided through Microsoft acquisitions. And, according to the National Software Reference Library, Microsoft has released 128 versions of mstsc.exe, the main driver program for Windows RDP clients. It has also released 107 versions of mstscax.dll, which provides functions used by mstsc.exe.
The good news is that Microsoft maintains open specifications for the RDP and dochelp@microsoft.com is both responsive and helpful! The FreeRDP projects open and auditable source code is also an invaluable resource.
RDP supports two types of encryption, enhanced and standard (sometimes called native). RDP supports two categories of authentication, Network Level Authentication (NLA) and non-NLA, the latter should not be used. These authentication and encryption schemes can be combined in the following ways:
With standard encryption, much of the RDP Connection Sequence (which is conceptually a handshake) occurs in the clear. Encryption begins with the Secure Settings Exchange stage (note that at the time of writing, Zeeks RDP analyzer currently only supports parsing of messages through the Basic Settings Exchange stage while Wireshark has very limited support for dissecting messages beyond the Connection Sequence). The rdfp Zeek package makes use of these clear-text messages to fingerprint RDP clients using standard encryption.
With enhanced encryption, TLS (TLS and SSL are used interchangeably in this blog and in the Zeek source code) is shimmed between the Connection Initiation and Basic Settings Exchange stages of the Connection Sequence. This means anything after the Connection Initiation stage is encrypted if TLS is employed. Luckily, Zeek can be used to provide inferences about connections even if their contents are encrypted.
With non-NLA authentication, client authentication takes place after the RDP Connection Sequence. An RDP connection is established and a client can interact with the servers login screen. With NLA authentication, RDP uses the Credential Security Support Provider (CredSSP) Protocol, a Security Support Provider composed of TLS and SPNEGO (an extension to RFC 4718). CredSSP can also be used by WinRM (Powershell remoting) for authentication. The CredSSP portion of an RDP connection occurs between the Connection Initiation and Basic Settings Exchange stages of the Connection Sequence. The TSRequest structure is the format CredSSP uses, while SPNEGO refers to its structures as Tokens. These tokens are present in the negoTokens field of the TSRequest.
Figure 1 (below) diagrams an example RDP Connection Sequence which used both enhanced encryption and NLA authentication with support for the Early Authentication Result PDU. This configuration would manifest as HYBRID_EX in the security_protocol field of Zeeks RDP log. If you find the RDPBCGR Connection Sequence daunting, just look at what happens when a Remote Desktop Gateway proxy is used in conjunction with RDPBCGR (Figure 8).
RDP can be transported over TCP or TCP and UDP. This is an example of Multiband Communication (MITRE ATT&CK technique T1026). RDP over UDP (RDPEUDP) has been supported and preferred since Windows Server 2012. It seems only Windows clients currently support the RDPEUDP transport mechanism. Open source Zeek supports identifying RDPEUDP connections and will set the conn logs service field appropriately.
RDPEUDP has two versions; version 1 bootstrap version 2. RDPUEDP2 can be considered an extension to RDPEUDP and only can be used after the RDPEUDP connections Connection Initialization phase. RDPEUDP supports lossless and lossy transmissions, while RDPEUDP2 only supports lossless. Lossless mode uses TLS while lossy mode utilizes DTLS. RDPEUDP begins with its own handshake, similar to the TCP 3-way handshake, over UDP. RDPEUDP can be thought of as TCP features (e.g. 3-way handshake, state, acknowledgements, retransmissions, keep-alives) implemented on top of UDP without all those pesky TCP side effects (like congestion control and backoffs) that make TCP play nicely with other network applications.
RDPBCGR, the main protocol most think of when the term RDP is used, is transported over TCP, as shown in the cyan circle of Figure 1. All the stages of RDPBCGRs Connection Sequences can be seen within the reddish circle of Figure 1. RDPEUDP is an extension to the RDP protocol which is bootstrapped through the optional stage of RDPBCGRs Connection Sequence named the Multitransport Bootstrap stage. Between the Licensing and Capabilities Exchange stages, the server will send an Initiate Multitransport Request PDU to the client. This will indicate to the client that the server is accepting UDP connections. The client will then send an RDPEUDP SYN message to the server. The server responds with an RDPEUDP SYNACK. The client then sends a final RDPEUDP ACK and the first payload, thus establishing an RDPEUDP connection. If successful, this UDP connection will be used to transport dynamic virtual channel messages instead of the TCP connection. If the RDPEUDP handshake fails, RDPBCGR will use the existing TCP connection for all messages. If the RDPEUDP handshake succeeds, the TCP connection and UDP connection will be used in tandem. Certain messages, like dynamic virtual channel messages, will only be transported over the UDP connection. This separation of message types can make analyzing the TCP connection simpler.
RDP is a very popular method for remotely controlling a system. Its used by legitimate administrators and malicious actors alike. The protocol is quite old and provides many features, attempting to emulate an entire desktop. The RDP is often treated as an opaque service which just works when the correct ports are open on a firewall. Hopefully this blog stands as a resource for learning about RDP and for understanding RDPs different mechanisms for encryption, client authentication, and transport.
If you dont know if RDP is being used on your network, you may consider evaluating open source Zeek. If you know you use RDP on your network, you should consider reading our previous blog on mitigating RDP vulnerabilities. To learn more about the solutions Corelight can provide around the RDP, contact us.
*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from Bright Ideas Blog authored by Anthony Kasza. Read the original post at: https://corelight.blog/2020/05/13/analyzing-encrypted-rdp-connections/
See original here:
Analyzing Encrypted RDP Connections - Security Boulevard
Analysis on Impact of COVID-19-Global Cloud Encryption Software Market 2020-2024| Increasing Use of In-built Cloud Encryption Solutions to Boost…
The cloud encryption software market is expected to grow by USD 2.82 billion during 2020-2024. The report also provides the market impact and new opportunities created due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact can be expected to be significant in the first quarter but gradually lessen in subsequent quarters with a limited impact on the full-year economic growth according to the latest market research report by Technavio.
This press release features multimedia. View the full release here: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200512005716/en/
Technavio has announced its latest market research report titled Global Cloud Encryption Software Market 2020-2024 (Graphic: Businesswire)
Request for Technavio's latest reports on directly and indirectly impacted markets
Market estimates include pre- and post-COVID-19 impact on the cloud encryption software market
Download free sample report
The increasing use of in-built cloud encryption solutions is expected to drive the growth of the market. Location-independent tasks and cloud hosting requires cloud encryption software for data and business security along with the adoption of the software as a service method. Cloud encryption software delivers data security by masking important data and information through encryption. Various organizations are adopting in-built cloud encryption software to mitigate the possibility of data breaches. In addition, the increasing use of mobile devices is creating a need to protect personal information, which will drive the demand for in-built cloud encryption during the forecast period.
To learn more about the global trends impacting the future of market research, download a free sample: https://www.technavio.com/talk-to-us?report=IRTNTR43409
The global outbreak of COVID-19 is expected to have a neutral impact on the growth of the global cloud encryption software market. The global market is not expected to see any major impact of COVID-19 spread. One of the key factors for the market to sustain is the increased efforts of companies to provide work from home facilities to their employees due to lockdown across various countries. This increases the chances of data breaches and cyber thefts, thereby driving the demand for cloud encryption solution.
As per Technavio, the growing adoption of biometric encryption will have a positive impact on the market and contribute to its growth significantly over the forecast period. This research report also analyzes other significant trends and market drivers that will influence market growth over 2020-2024.
Cloud Encryption Software Market: Growing Adoption of Biometric Encryption
The growing adoption of biometric encryption is one of the key emerging trends in the global cloud encryption software market. Biometric verification allows access to a system by recognizing distinctive biological traits such as fingerprint, voice, iris, or facial lineaments. A fingerprint scan to access office premises is one such example. Biometric devices also store sensitive information. Thus, players in the market are offering biometric encryption systems to end-user industries to deal with the increasing security threats. The demand for biometric encryption, is hence, expected to increase from SMEs as the solution is affordable.
Story continues
"The rising digitization will have a significant impact on the growth of the cloud encryption software market value during the forecast period," says a senior analyst at Technavio.
Register for a free trial today and gain instant access to 17,000+ market research reports
Technavio's SUBSCRIPTION platform
Cloud Encryption Software Market: Segmentation Analysis
This market research report segments the cloud encryption software market by end-user (BFSI, manufacturing, professional services, healthcare, and others) and geography (North America, Europe, APAC, South America, and MEA).
The North American region led the cloud encryption software market share in 2019, followed by Europe, APAC, South America, and MEA respectively. During the forecast period, the North American region is expected to register the highest incremental growth due to factors such as the rising demand for security solutions from a majority of data centers, and growing adoption of biometric encryption.
Technavios sample reports are free of charge and contain multiple sections of the report, such as the market size and forecast, drivers, challenges, trends, and more. Request a free sample report
Some of the key topics covered in the report include:
Market Drivers
Market Challenges
Market Trends
Vendor Landscape
About Technavio
Technavio is a leading global technology research and advisory company. Their research and analysis focus on emerging market trends and provides actionable insights to help businesses identify market opportunities and develop effective strategies to optimize their market positions.
With over 500 specialized analysts, Technavios report library consists of more than 17,000 reports and counting, covering 800 technologies, spanning across 50 countries. Their client base consists of enterprises of all sizes, including more than 100 Fortune 500 companies. This growing client base relies on Technavios comprehensive coverage, extensive research, and actionable market insights to identify opportunities in existing and potential markets and assess their competitive positions within changing market scenarios.
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200512005716/en/
Contacts
Technavio ResearchJesse MaidaMedia & Marketing ExecutiveUS: +1 844 364 1100UK: +44 203 893 3200Email:media@technavio.com Website:www.technavio.com/
Read the rest here:
Analysis on Impact of COVID-19-Global Cloud Encryption Software Market 2020-2024| Increasing Use of In-built Cloud Encryption Solutions to Boost...
Vcrypt ransomware brings along a buddy to do the encryption – Naked Security
Heres a ransomware story with a difference.
The sample we studied in this article is detected by Sophos products as Troj/Ransom-FXO, but youll also hear it called Vcrypt after the filename extension used by the malware.
Neither of those monikers is how it describes itself, of course it installs itself with the harmless-looking name video_driver.exe and claims to be just that, a video driver:
The bad news is that whoever wrote this malware decided to be doubly destructive: it scrambles the files on your C: drive using a secret decryption key, but it wipes out the files on all your other drives, looping through all the letters A: to Z: except C:, issuing commands to delete all the files and directories it can find.
The good news is that the programmer of Ransom-FXO didnt take much care over the encryption part, and used a hardcoded cryptographic key that can fairly easily be extracted from the malware file.
Actually, that bit of good news is just as well, because theres no way to buy back the unscrambling key.
Unusually, the criminal behind this attack didnt use Tor or the dark web to host the buy page where you find out how much its going to cost and where to send the bitcoins
they used a regular web page on a free hosting service that has now removed the offending content, so you couldnt negotiate for the password even if you wanted to.
Ransom-FXO is unusual because although the ransomware itself is written in C, it doesnt use its own C code to do the encryption.
If youre a Naked Security podcast listener (if you arent yet, please give it a try!), youll probably remember that a few episodes back we discussed a concept we wryly referred to as malwareless ransomware.
LISTEN NOW
Click-and-drag on the soundwaves below to skip to any point in the podcast.
In the case we discussed in the podcast (jump to 1343 for the section on ransomware) the encryption was carried out by hand by crooks who were already able to logon to the victims network and run commands as if they were genuine sysadmins.
That attack saw the crooks using a free and open source full-disk encryption program called DiskCryptor, leaving you stuck at a password prompt you werent expecting and for which you didnt know the access code when you next rebooted your computer.
In the Ransom-FXO sample, the author used the free file archiving tool 7-Zip for the encryption, so that all the video_drive.exe ransomware program has to do is call the Windows system() function to run the 7-Zip program as a operating system command, just as if youd typed it in yourself at a Windows command prompt.
This makes the main part of the ransomware very simple, as you can see from this directory listing taken after the ransomware had installed itself in order to launch its attack:
The malware copies itself to your %TEMP% folder (which is where temporary files typically go), as you see above, and is 794KB in size.
However, 733KB of the video_driver.exe consists of a copy of the mod_01.exe file that the malware extracts into a program of its own at the start, so that it can call on it later.
The mod_01.exe file is simply a pirated copy of the 7-Zip archiving and compression program, which lets you package entire directory structures into individual archive files, optionally encrypting them using the AES algorithm.
Stripped of the copy of 7-Zip bundled into it, the video_driver.exe is incredibly simple.
Almost all it does is to start two threads of execution that run side-by-side, each running a sequence of system() commands over and over again via the built-in Windows cmd.exe program:
The first thread repeatedly does the following:
The author left out the C: drive from the list of drives to wipe because thats where the other thread looks for files to scramble.
You can see what seem to be two fortuitous mistakes above.
The B: drive (if there is one, which is admittedly unlikely these days) doesnt get wiped because the programmer checks for the existence of B: but then wipes the A: drive again in the second part of the line.
And the F: drive was omitted altogether were assuming that was a copy-and-paste blunder rather than that the criminal had in mind to spare that particular content.
The second thread repeatedly runs a sequence of commands that are stored inside the malware like this:
As weird as that text looks, its actually obfuscated using a good old Caesar cipher, where all the characters are shifted back three places just before the system() command gets called.
Using the ASCII character set as the decryption table for the text above, li moved back three letters gives if, the hash sign (#) turns into a space, and XVHU comes out as USER, and so on.
So, what actually executes is:
As mentioned above, the file %TEMP%mod_01.exe program name seen here refers to the pirated copy of the 7-Zip command brought along by the malware.
You can see the password in the command line above its the text immediately following the command option -p, namely:
There are actually twelve variations of the above command in the malware, each having a go at scrambling one of the folders in this list:
If any of these folders exist and have files in them, their contents end up in encrypted 7-Zip archives with the extension .vcrypt, like this:
In the listing above, you can also see two other files created by the malware: help.html (shown below), which gives you the bad news that your files have been scrambled, and new_background.bmp, which is an all-black rectangle that gloomily replaces your desktop wallpaper for dramatic effect.
The twelve file encrypting commands actually run over and over until you shut down or log out, so that any files you save into one of the above folders after the malware has started running will soon get noticed, added into to the relevant .vcrypt archive, and then deleted.
The malware adds itself to the Windows registry entry as follows:
This means that every time you logon to Windows, the file-deleting-and-encrypting threads start up again in the background.
Thanks to the wallpaper change and the help.html file, youre confronted with a dispriting, all-black Windows desktop with no file icons or shortcuts on it, like this:
Oooopppssss
Q: Quai til arriv mes fichiers ?A: Tous vos fichiers ont ts chiffrs et placs dans une zone de scurit.Q: Comment rcuprez mes documents !! ?A: Suivez les instructions disponibles via cette page web. Si la page ne souvre pas, veuillez vrifier votre connexion internet.
Oooopppssss
Q: What happened to my files?A: All your files were encrypted and stored in a secure area.Q: How do I get my documents back !! ?A: Follow the instructions [here]. If you cant open the page, check your internet connection.
As we mentioned above, the web page that is supposed to tell you what to do has been taken down, so checking your internet connection wont help you access it:
Erreur 404 Document non trouv
Error 404 Document not found
You can use an anti-virus program to remove the malware, or stop it running yourself as follows:
You can recover your files by hand by installing the 7-Zip utility and then opening up the .vcrypt files in your home folder one by one.
For example, heres what our deleted Desktop folder looked like, packaged up inside the archive created by the malware, showing the filenames, sizes, and a + sign to denote that the files themselves are encrypted:
(You can view the names of the files in this archive without putting in the password the malware didnt turn on the encrypt filenames option in 7-Zip, so only the file contents are encrypted.)
When you ask 7-Zip to extract the files, a password prompt will pop up.
For the malware sample described here, the password was:
Unfortunately, theres no quick way to get back files deleted from other drive letters than C:
but if youre in the habit of making regular and frequent backups, and of keeping at least one copy offline where it cant be deleted during an attack, you should be able to recover anyway.
Dont delay, do a backup today!
Visit link:
Vcrypt ransomware brings along a buddy to do the encryption - Naked Security
Move over Zoom, this encryption company just released the first fully end to end encrypted conferencing solution – Yahoo Finance
Tauria is the only solution that offers full end-to-end, no knowledge encryption to protect businesses communication and work
WATERLOO, ON , May 12, 2020 /CNW/ -Tauria, a Waterloo -based software encryption company, is excited to announce that today it is launching its secure video conferencing and business suite. This will protect businesses confidential information by providing end-to-end encryption, at a time where other video conferencing solutions have had massive security breaches and have sold sensitive user information with third parties. Tauria has the capability to support up to 50 people on video conference calls, while also allowing users to send messages, organize schedules, share files and much more, all fully encrypted. This makes Tauria the only end-to-end encrypted video conferencing solution for groups.
Tauria, a Waterloo-based software encryption company, is excited to announce the launch of its secure video conferencing and business suite. (CNW Group/Tauria)
The timely launch of Tauria coincides with a dramatic increase in the number of companies resorting to online webinar formats, video conferencing tools and digital communication platforms to manage business operations in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak. As use of these tools and platforms has skyrocketed, so too have the number of incidents regarding their lack of privacy and numerous security vulnerabilities.
"It is incredibly important for us to create a product that is fully end-to-end, no knowledge encrypted to protect businesses. Encryption is the foundation of everything we do," said Tauria CEO Jesse Th.
No-knowledge encryption ensures that not even Tauria staff have access to the information that is shared on the platform or through the video conferencing feature. This is a fundamental distinction between Tauria and companies like Zoom, Microsoft, Google and Slack, all of whom can access users' private information and whose substandard security features have been publicly exposed. Tauria's safe guarding against even its own employees guarantees the highest level of privacy and security in the market.
As public institutions and companies with proprietary or personal client information migrate to cloud-based solutions to facilitate communication during this pandemic, safeguarding private information has become increasingly challenging. Hospitals, law offices, municipalities, school boards and accounting firms require the level of protection offered with end-to-end, no knowledge user encryption as per corporate governance policies, but have struggled with finding a platform that offers this level of protection.
"We are setting a new standard for both the private and public sector to secure private information while facilitating digital connectivity," said Th. "This communication tool has the power to transform service delivery for a multitude of industries."
During COVID-19 Tauria has discounted its services to ensure that secure and encrypted communications for businesses is more accessible.
With companies relying on business collaboration tools to facilitate remote work during the coronavirus outbreak, Tauria is offering its platform free for one month. By enhancing digital communication through Tauria's secure platform, companies will be able to execute day-to-day business operations while protecting sensitive information.
For more information on Tauria, please visitwww.tauria.com.
Story continues
GovCon Expert Chuck Brooks: Three Steps for Protecting Data in the Public and Private Sectors – GovConWire
Chuck Brooks
The information technology landscape has greatly evolved in recent years. The new reality is that almost all of our critical infrastructures operate in a digital environment, including the health care, transportation, communications, financial, and energy industries. The digital transformation has brought both challenges and new solutions to protecting data wherever it may reside. Three steps needed to protect data are 1) the use of comprehensive risk management frameworks, 2) employing full pervasive everywhere encryption, and 3) and operating in secure, transparent, and optimized cloud hybrid cloud environments.
The Data Protection Challenges:
In the transforming digital landscape protecting data needs to be a top priority because of growing risks. Greater internet interface and emerging automation technologies like machine learning and artificial intelligence have provided new tools and access for hackers. An expanding internet attack surface, which many analysts suggest may include around 50 billion connected Internet of Things of devices by this year, has led to many data exfiltration vulnerabilities. The growing availability of ready-made attack kits, a commercialized black market for stolen data, and intensifying activity of organized crime and state actors targeting industries has heighted the challenge of protecting data.
Businesses are facing growing risks in data loss both in cost and numbers. According to Statista, in 2019, the number of data breaches in the United States amounted to 1,473 with over 164.68 million sensitive records exposed. Statista found that the number ofdata breaches in the U.S.increased from 157 million in 2005 to 1.47 billion in 2019, while the number of exposed records jumped from around 67 million to 164.7 million during the same time frame. To put the data loss threat in perspective, A Clark School study at the University of Maryland estimates the rate of hacker attacks of computers connected to the internet to every 39 seconds.
Three Pillars of Protecting Data:
Despite the major threats and significant challenges associated with the transforming information security landscape and growing hacker threats, many government agencies, businesses and individuals do employ effective options for protecting their Crown Jewels of data and for operating at speed and scale. But there are steps that can be followed to help protect data during digital transformation.
A Risk Management Framework:
A first step is to develop and implement a risk management framework. Because of digital transformation, securing data necessitates a hyper-security focus. At its core, the practice of vigilant and encompasses, identifying gaps, assessing vulnerabilities, mitigating threats. Data security and cyber risk management are an integral part of the overall enterprise risk management (ERM) framework to stay ahead of the threats.
A comprehensive risk management approach should be to protect core applications and ensure the privacy of the data. This requires transparency; knowing exactly where the data is, who is trying to access it, and what they are doing. An agile, flexible, multi-layered, data centric security solution should be easy for the user, if not unnoticeable. Optimal solutions should be able to fit any data center in any location.
A risk management framework is especially important as technology continues to evolve. New automation and analytic tools supported by machine learning and artificial intelligence can help identify gaps and provide for better mitigation and resiliency. A risk management framework can continually evaluate technology tools, processes, and people interacting with any data.
Data Encryption:
A second step for protecting data is to encrypt. Encryption is a key algorithmic component of security risk management and privacy. A general definition of encryption is the process of applying a mathematical function to a file that renders its contents unreadable and inaccessibleunless you have the decryption key. Encrypting data protects the users from compromised file records, and it gives additional protection to the point of data in use.
There are a variety of encryption algorithms and standards available depending on the needs and requirements of the user. Customized Hardware Security Modules (HSMs) generate and store the keys used for encrypted communication. A newer capability is the ability to encrypt each data file through full pervasive encryption. Full pervasive encryption enables you to 100% encrypt the data at the database, data set and disk level, with no changes to applications. That includes a zero trust model of comprehensive multiple layers of encryption from disk and tape up through applications.
Encryption protects against most cybercriminals and hacktivists because it creates a formidable time/effort barrier for them to breach. There is a growing imperative for protecting data in all forms, no matter where it resides, whether it is located on premises, off premises, or whether it is at rest or in transit. Offering encryption everywhere can securely integrate important workloads and offer resiliency in recovery wherever the data is stored.
Operating in the Cloud:
A step is to optimize security in the cloud. The movement of government agencies and business data to the cloud and hybrid clouds is trending. Forecasters are estimating that 92% of data processing workloads will be located in cloud data. How and where data is secured, has become a key concern among security administrators and that is why operating in clouds and hybrid clouds has become increasingly attractive.
Government and industry are building larger data repositories and sharing data centers to keep up with storage and analytic needs. Consider that there are 2.5 quintillion bytes of data created each day and that the world's production of data doubles every two years. The ability to securely store, prioritize, analyze and share (and scale) that data is fundamentalto operations and commerce. Because of those functional requirements, storing data in the cloud or hybrid clouds is more than prudent.
The use of the cloud and hybrid clouds enables implementation of dynamic policies, faster encryption, drives down costs, and provides more transparency for access control (reducing insider threats). When viewed from a security administrator perspective, optimized security in the cloud mitigates the risk of hackers getting key access to data.
Conclusion:
In the digital transformation, protecting user data in any security approach needs to be dynamic and not static. As the sophistication of hackers and the attack surface grows, the cyber-threats will continue to evolve. Thankfully, we can help address and help mitigate those emerging threats via three steps; strong risk management strategies, utilizing everywhere encryption, and by operating in secured cloud and hybrid cloud environments. These steps should be a focus to CISOs, CIOs and anyone protecting vital data.
See original here:
GovCon Expert Chuck Brooks: Three Steps for Protecting Data in the Public and Private Sectors - GovConWire
What is the difference between Symmetric and Asymmetric Encryption? – TWCN Tech News
Data integrity holds the most delicate aspect of any organization. It provides the reliability and security of data details over its lifecycle. However, day after day the number of data violations and data-tampering incidents is increasing rapidly. Such an issue commonly takes place as cybercriminals always keep trying in finding new sensitive strategies to victimize internet users. To counter such a problem, there is an encryption technique that protects digital data secretly by converting plaintext to ciphertext. In such a way, only authorized individuals could get access to your message or data and those people who are not authorized, cannot.
For example, you want to send a letter to your buddy stating you miss him but you dont want anybody else to open and read the message. In this guide, Im going to explain two different types of encryption in an easy way i.e. Symmetric and Asymmetric encryption.
As it is cleared out that the Symmetric encryption and Asymmetric encryption both are forms of the encryption process. But, the basic difference between these two techniques is that the symmetric encryption uses a single secret key while asymmetric encryption makes use of two different separate keys.
Another point is that asymmetric encryption is relatively slower in the execution process. Since the symmetric encryption is less complicated and executes faster, it infers a better way to transfer data having in large quantities.
As said earlier, symmetric encryption is a form of encryption that uses only one private key to cipher and decipher the data. Such a way of encrypting messages had been widely used in earlier times to have a secret conversation between administrations and armies. It mainly uses a private key that can either be a number, a letter, a symbol, or a sequence of arbitrary characters such as BK5, RU-8. These words are combined with the plain text of a message so that it could change the content in a particular way. Due to having a less complex algorithm, it executes the process faster.
Although it is well said that everything has both aspects, right and wrong. In the same way, symmetric encryption has also a disadvantage of using. And that is, the encrypted data can only be deciphered using the same secret key which the sender has been used to encrypt. In simple language, the sender uses a secret key to encode data before sending the information, right? Now, the receiver should also have the same secret key to decode the enciphered message. Because of having such a simplistic nature, both the operations can be carried out quite fastly.
Let us look at the example I used above. If you have used the symmetric encryption to secure the message you are sending to your buddy, then obviously the same key will be used to encrypt and decrypt the data. But your friend doesnt have the private key to decrypt the message or data. In this case, you must have to transfer the key through a secure channel.
Asymmetric encryption is an encryption model that requires a pair of two different key i.e. public key and private key. Since it uses two separate keys, it is also known as the public key cryptography and thats why it is considered to be more secure as compared to the symmetric encryption.
But here you may think Why does it need two keys? Well, the asymmetric encryption uses one key to encode the data and that is called the public key. And this public key is available to everyone. Whereas the asymmetric encryption uses the private key to decode the encoded data and that must be kept secret.
For example, you send greetings to your beloved one and encrypt the message using a public key then your friend could only decrypt it using the private key which has to you. However, if you encode the message using a private key, your friend will need to have your public key to decode it.
This cryptographic technique is comparatively a new method and it provides higher security. It is because the asymmetric encryption uses two separate keys for the encoding and decoding process. However, one major shortcoming of the asymmetric encryption is that it takes more time than the process associated with the symmetric encryption.
The private key is although used with an algorithm to encode and decode data. But the primary need of this key is to decipher any information that is ciphered using the public key.
In data encryption, this private key is also known as a secret key and it must need to be kept confidential. It means, this secret key never needs to be transferred and thus there is no reason that it can be required by the third party.
As the name infers, this key is available publically. It doesnt require any security and is mainly used to encode information not to decode.
In this tutorial, I have explained the symmetric encryption and asymmetric encryption along with the examples in a very simple and transparent way.
Thats it.
See the original post here:
What is the difference between Symmetric and Asymmetric Encryption? - TWCN Tech News
Encryption Key Management Software Market Growth by Top Companies, Trends by Types and Application, Forecast to 2026 – Cole of Duty
HyTrust
Moreover, the Encryption Key Management Software report offers a detailed analysis of the competitive landscape in terms of regions and the major service providers are also highlighted along with attributes of the market overview, business strategies, financials, developments pertaining as well as the product portfolio of the Encryption Key Management Software market. Likewise, this report comprises significant data about market segmentation on the basis of type, application, and regional landscape. The Encryption Key Management Software market report also provides a brief analysis of the market opportunities and challenges faced by the leading service provides. This report is specially designed to know accurate market insights and market status.
By Regions:
* North America (The US, Canada, and Mexico)
* Europe (Germany, France, the UK, and Rest of the World)
* Asia Pacific (China, Japan, India, and Rest of Asia Pacific)
* Latin America (Brazil and Rest of Latin America.)
* Middle East & Africa (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, , South Africa, and Rest of Middle East & Africa)
To get Incredible Discounts on this Premium Report, Click Here @ https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/ask-for-discount/?rid=182608&utm_source=NYH&utm_medium=888
Table of Content
1 Introduction of Encryption Key Management Software Market
1.1 Overview of the Market1.2 Scope of Report1.3 Assumptions
2 Executive Summary
3 Research Methodology
3.1 Data Mining3.2 Validation3.3 Primary Interviews3.4 List of Data Sources
4 Encryption Key Management Software Market Outlook
4.1 Overview4.2 Market Dynamics4.2.1 Drivers4.2.2 Restraints4.2.3 Opportunities4.3 Porters Five Force Model4.4 Value Chain Analysis
5 Encryption Key Management Software Market, By Deployment Model
5.1 Overview
6 Encryption Key Management Software Market, By Solution
6.1 Overview
7 Encryption Key Management Software Market, By Vertical
7.1 Overview
8 Encryption Key Management Software Market, By Geography
8.1 Overview8.2 North America8.2.1 U.S.8.2.2 Canada8.2.3 Mexico8.3 Europe8.3.1 Germany8.3.2 U.K.8.3.3 France8.3.4 Rest of Europe8.4 Asia Pacific8.4.1 China8.4.2 Japan8.4.3 India8.4.4 Rest of Asia Pacific8.5 Rest of the World8.5.1 Latin America8.5.2 Middle East
9 Encryption Key Management Software Market Competitive Landscape
9.1 Overview9.2 Company Market Ranking9.3 Key Development Strategies
10 Company Profiles
10.1.1 Overview10.1.2 Financial Performance10.1.3 Product Outlook10.1.4 Key Developments
11 Appendix
11.1 Related Research
Get Complete Report
@ https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/need-customization/?rid=182608&utm_source=NYH&utm_medium=888
About Us:
Market Research Intellect provides syndicated and customized research reports to clients from various industries and organizations with the aim of delivering functional expertise. We provide reports for all industries including Energy, Technology, Manufacturing and Construction, Chemicals and Materials, Food and Beverage and more. These reports deliver an in-depth study of the market with industry analysis, market value for regions and countries and trends that are pertinent to the industry.
Contact Us:
Mr. Steven Fernandes
Market Research Intellect
New Jersey ( USA )
Tel: +1-650-781-4080
Tags: Encryption Key Management Software Market Size, Encryption Key Management Software Market Trends, Encryption Key Management Software Market Growth, Encryption Key Management Software Market Forecast, Encryption Key Management Software Market Analysis Sarkari result, Government Jobs, Sarkari naukri, NMK, Majhi Naukri,
Our Trending Reports
Silage Additives Market Size, Growth Analysis, Opportunities, Business Outlook and Forecast to 2026
Silage Sorghum Seed Market Size, Growth Analysis, Opportunities, Business Outlook and Forecast to 2026
Here is the original post:
Encryption Key Management Software Market Growth by Top Companies, Trends by Types and Application, Forecast to 2026 - Cole of Duty