Multifaceted Faculty Network Design and Management: Practice and Experience Report

We report on our experience on multidimensional aspects of our faculty's network design and management, including some unique aspects such as campus-wide VLANs and ghosting, security and monitoring, switching and routing, and others. We outline a historical perspective on certain research, design, and development decisions and discuss the network topology, its scalability, and management in detail; the services our network provides, and its evolution. We overview the security aspects of the management as well as data management and automation and the use of the data by other members of the IT group in the faculty.Comment: 19 pages, 11 figures, TOC and index; a short version presented at C3S2E'11; v6: more proofreading, index, TOC, reference

Herding Vulnerable Cats: A Statistical Approach to Disentangle Joint Responsibility for Web Security in Shared Hosting

Hosting providers play a key role in fighting web compromise, but their ability to prevent abuse is constrained by the security practices of their own customers. {\em Shared} hosting, offers a unique perspective since customers operate under restricted privileges and providers retain more control over configurations. We present the first empirical analysis of the distribution of web security features and software patching practices in shared hosting providers, the influence of providers on these security practices, and their impact on web compromise rates. We construct provider-level features on the global market for shared hosting -- containing 1,259 providers -- by gathering indicators from 442,684 domains. Exploratory factor analysis of 15 indicators identifies four main latent factors that capture security efforts: content security, webmaster security, web infrastructure security and web application security. We confirm, via a fixed-effect regression model, that providers exert significant influence over the latter two factors, which are both related to the software stack in their hosting environment. Finally, by means of GLM regression analysis of these factors on phishing and malware abuse, we show that the four security and software patching factors explain between 10\% and 19\% of the variance in abuse at providers, after controlling for size. For web-application security for instance, we found that when a provider moves from the bottom 10\% to the best-performing 10\%, it would experience 4 times fewer phishing incidents. We show that providers have influence over patch levels--even higher in the stack, where CMSes can run as client-side software--and that this influence is tied to a substantial reduction in abuse levels

Protecting your software updates

As described in many blog posts and the scientific literature, exploits for software vulnerabilities are often engineered on the basis of patches, which often involves the manual or automated identification of vulnerable code. The authors evaluate how this identification can be automated with the most frequently referenced diffing tools, demonstrating that for certain types of patches, these tools are indeed effective attacker tools. But they also demonstrate that by using binary code diversification, the effectiveness of the tools can be diminished severely, thus severely closing the attacker's window of opportunity

The New South Wales iVote System: Security Failures and Verification Flaws in a Live Online Election

In the world's largest-ever deployment of online voting, the iVote Internet voting system was trusted for the return of 280,000 ballots in the 2015 state election in New South Wales, Australia. During the election, we performed an independent security analysis of parts of the live iVote system and uncovered severe vulnerabilities that could be leveraged to manipulate votes, violate ballot privacy, and subvert the verification mechanism. These vulnerabilities do not seem to have been detected by the election authorities before we disclosed them, despite a pre-election security review and despite the system having run in a live state election for five days. One vulnerability, the result of including analytics software from an insecure external server, exposed some votes to complete compromise of privacy and integrity. At least one parliamentary seat was decided by a margin much smaller than the number of votes taken while the system was vulnerable. We also found protocol flaws, including vote verification that was itself susceptible to manipulation. This incident underscores the difficulty of conducting secure elections online and carries lessons for voters, election officials, and the e-voting research community

TKEY Vulnerability in BIND DNS Server

The Domain Naming System (DNS) has been a core technology to the usefulness of the Internet since the beginning of its public introduction. The ability to associate an English-readable fully qualified domain name (FQDN) with an IPv4 address is crucial to its user-friendliness. Due to its age, several flaws have been discovered in its code, one of the more recent being referenced as CVE-2015-5477, which affects all versions of Berkeley Internet Naming Daemon (BIND) available before July 31, 2015. We will cover what this error is, describe and test its effectiveness against an older BIND v. 9.9.6 server, and discuss options for resolving the issue

Evaluation of Dnssec in Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2

The Domain Name System (DNS) provides important name resolution services on the Internet. The DNS has been found to have security flaws which have the potential to undermine the reliability of many Internet-based systems. DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) offers a long-term solution these DNS security flaws. However, DNSSEC adoption has been slow because it is challenging to deploy and administer. DNSSEC has also been criticized for not being an end-toend solution. Microsoft included support for DNSSEC in its latest operating systems, Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7. This thesis concluded that DNSSEC features in Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7 are not fully developed and are unlikely to impact DNSSEC adoption rates