K.S. Rajan (4
Feb 2012)
"Key Internet operator
VeriSign hit by hackers"
"VeriSign Inc, the company in charge of delivering people safely
to more than half the world's websites, has been hacked
repeatedly by outsiders who stole undisclosed information from
the leading Internet infrastructure company."
From Reuters, also available at
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/02/us-hacking-verisign-idUSTRE8110Z820120202
, FYI,
David
Key Internet operator VeriSign hit by hackers
By Joseph Menn
SAN FRANCISCO | Thu Feb 2, 2012 7:36am EST
(Reuters) - VeriSign Inc, the company in charge of delivering
people safely to more than half the world's websites, has been
hacked repeatedly by outsiders who stole undisclosed information
from the leading Internet infrastructure company.
The previously unreported breaches occurred in 2010 at the
Reston, Virginia-based company, which is ultimately responsible
for the integrity of Web addresses ending in .com, .net and
.gov.
VeriSign said its executives "do not believe these attacks
breached the servers that support our Domain Name System
network," which ensures people land at the right numeric
Internet Protocol address when they type in a name such as
Google.com, but it did not rule anything out.
VeriSign's domain-name system processes as many as 50 billion
queries daily. Pilfered information from it could let hackers
direct people to faked sites and intercept email from federal
employees or corporate executives, though classified government
data moves through more secure channels.
"Oh my God," said Stewart Baker, former assistant secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security and before that the top
lawyer at the National Security Agency. "That could allow people
to imitate almost any company on the Net."
The VeriSign attacks were revealed in a quarterly U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filing in October that
followed new guidelines on reporting security breaches to
investors. It was the most striking disclosure to emerge in a
review by Reuters of more than 2,000 documents mentioning breach
risks since the SEC guidance was published.
Even if the name system is safe, VeriSign offers a number of
other services where security is paramount. The company defends
customers' websites from attacks and manages their traffic, and
it researches international cybercrime groups.
VeriSign would possess sensitive information on customers, and
its registry services that dispense website addresses would also
be a natural target.
Ken Silva, who was VeriSign's chief technology officer for three
years until November 2010, said he had not learned of the
intrusion until contacted by Reuters. Given the time elapsed
since the attack and the vague language in the SEC filing, he
said VeriSign "probably can't draw an accurate assessment" of
the damage.
Baker said VeriSign's description will lead people to "assume
that it was a nation-state attack that is persistent, very
difficult to eradicate and very difficult to put your hands
around, so you can't tell where they went undetected."
VeriSign declined multiple interview requests, and senior
employees said privately that they had not been given any more
details than were in the filing. One said it was impossible to
tell if the breach was the result of a concerted effort by a
national power, though that was a possibility. "It's an ugly,
slim sliver of facts. It's not enough," he said.
The 10-Q said that security staff responded to the attack soon
afterward but failed to alert top management until September
2011. It says nothing about a continuing investigation, and the
Department of Homeland Security did not respond to questions
about an inquiry or recommendations for VeriSign customers.
Until August 2010, VeriSign was one of the largest providers of
Secure Sockets Layer certificates, which Web browsers look for
when connecting users to sites that begin "https," including
most financial sites and some email and other communications
portals.
If the SSL process were corrupted, "you could create a Bank of
America certificate or Google certificate that is trusted by
every browser in the world," said prominent security consultant
Dmitri Alperovich, president of Asymmetric Cyber Operations.
VeriSign sold its certificate business in the summer of 2010 to
Symantec Corp, which has kept the VeriSign brand name on those
products.
Symantec spokeswoman Nicole Kenyon said "there is no indication
that the 2010 corporate network security breach mentioned by
VeriSign Inc was related to the acquired SSL product production
systems."
Some smaller issuers of such validation certificates have been
compromised in the past, and false certificates have been used
to spread the most sophisticated malicious software yet
detected, including Stuxnet, which attacked the Iranian nuclear
program.
In written Senate testimony on Tuesday, U.S. Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper called the known certificate
breaches of 2011 "a threat to one of the most fundamental
technologies used to secure online communications and sensitive
transactions, such as online banking." Others have said SSL as a
whole is no longer trustworthy and effective.
In a section of its filing devoted to risk factors, VeriSign
said it was a frequent subject of "the most sophisticated form
of attacks," including some that are "virtually impossible to
anticipate and defend against."
Security experts said the breach reminded them of last year's
attack on RSA, an authentication company owned by storage maker
EMC Corp. RSA's SecurID tokens authorize remote access and have
been in wide use by government agencies and military contractors
including Lockheed Martin Corp, which said it was probed on the
heels of the RSA breach.
"This breach, along with the RSA breach, puts the authentication
mechanisms that are currently being used by businesses at risk,"
said Melissa Hathaway, a former intelligence official who led
U.S. President Barack Obama's cybersecurity policy review and
later pushed for the SEC guidance. "There appears to be a
structured process of hunting those who provide authentication
services."
Even if VeriSign's certificates were not compromised, a
significant breach "means that prevention is futile," Alperovich
said. He said he hoped new legislation on cybersecurity,
expected to reach the Senate floor this month, would call for
more disclosures and bring more aid to companies under attack.
(Reporting by Joseph Menn; Editing by Gary Hill)