Difference between revisions of "Security"

From ICO wiki
m (Materials (slides etc))
(Feedback from Matis Palm)
Line 390: Line 390:
===Feedback from Matis Palm===
===Feedback from Matis Palm===
* '''What I did like: '''
**The people with motivation to work and communicate with each other
**The social events
**The schedule of days
**The freedom to choose where and how to work together.
* '''What I did not like: '''
**Too much theoretical lectures with teachers who couldn't speak english very well and give their subject information forward understandably.
**Some mentors had no experience in the field they were supposed to support and help with.
===Feedback from Sandra Suviste===
===Feedback from Sandra Suviste===

Latest revision as of 14:53, 5 April 2013

Team page for Deploying IT Infrastructure Solutions.

Team Members

  • Sten Aus, Estonian Information Technology College
  • Matis Palm, Estonian Information Technology College
  • Sandra Suviste, Estonian Information Technology College
  • Markus Rintamäki, Vaasa University of Applied Sciences
  • Tomas Lepistö, Vaasa University of Applied Sciences
  • Mika Salmela, Vaasa University of Applied Sciences
  • Kęstutis Tautvydas, Vilnius University of Applied Sciences
  • Jurij Lukjančikov, Vilnius University of Applied Sciences


  • OWASP top 10
  • BackTrack, SamuraiCD (Last year experience)
  • Scanning and testing tools - Qualys SSL Labs
  • Acunetix Web Vulnerability Scanner v.8
  • SubGraph Vega
  • BEAST attack
  • RC4


Monday - 25.03.13

Things what we did that day:

  • Lectures
  • Sumorobot programming
  • Dinner @ St Patricks

Tuesday - 26.03.13

Things what we did that day:

  • Documentation!

A1 Injection - Sandra

A2 Broken Authentication and Session Management (was formerly A3) - Kestutis

A3 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) (was formerly A2) - Kestutis

A4 Insecure Direct Object References - Markus

A5 Security Misconfiguration (was formerly A6)- Tomas

A6 Sensitive Data Exposure (merged from former A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage and former A9 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection) - Mika

A7 Missing Function Level Access Control (renamed/broadened from former A8 Failure to Restrict URL Access) - Sten

A8 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) (was formerly A5) - Matis

A9 Using Known Vulnerable Components (new but was part of former A6 – Security Misconfiguration) - Jurij

A10 Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards - Sten

Problems what we faced:

  • Still need to get everyone a VM with DVWA running

Things what we plan to do:

  • Copy Paste documentation tasks to Wiki :)
  • Divide OWASP tasks

Wednesday - 27.03.13

Things what we did that day:

  • Meeting with clients. It was very open-minded meeting. We got to know more about requirements.
  • Analysing the user needs. We discussed face to face with our client and mentor (Margus Ernits) what needs to be done in order to perform security testing. Also, we found some tools from the Internet, which we can use for testing purposes.
  • We divided roles and shared our areas of competences. Also, we agreed that one should not be doing always the same thing, so we can share our work with eachother.
  • Estonian ICT Presentation and Wireshark practice. Wireshark was more-less known for everyone in our team. Despite that fact, we all found something enjoyable and new from Antti's presentation and Wireshark.
  • Estonian members made Study Information System presentation to Finnish and Lithuanians. We talked about some potential vulnerabilities (such as VÕTA declaration, file upload, sending messages, voting system)

Problems what we faced:

  • As none of us have done security testing before, we have a lot to learn before we can actually do something. But I think with such a team as we are, it's nothing.

Things what we plan to do:

  • Estonian members are going to study last year's report and going to make a short overview to other members about it.
  • We are going to study OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities and everyone of us is going to make a short presentation to others about what they have learned.
  • We are going to ask in demo (development) environment if they can open a new survey for us, new declaration period; Also we need teacher and demo accounts, in order to test teacher's side as well, because teachers have a little more access than students (grades, information about student etc).
  • In demo environment we are going to test new functions (what haven't been included in main environment, yet) - as there's some new functionality.

Thursday - 28.03.13

Things what we did that day:

  • OWASP TOP 10 presentations: Everybody presented on their subjects + discussion (slides)
  • Discussed the schedule and to-do list for next days
  • Discussed some potential vulnerabilities of SIS
  • Made shared Googledoc to document the testing and to exchange information. Also we made Skype group in order to share files effectively and fast.
  • Prepared software for testing (Backtrack, Kali)

Problems what we faced:

  • There is a lot of information, we need to focus on something and just start. There is no such thing as start-line ("Start here and go this way"), we will just need to start and see what we will find.

Things what we plan to do:

  • Find attack examples for the vulnerabilities
  • Try them out on DVWA
  • Get familiar with Tamper Data, Kali and Backtrack
  • Familiarise ourselves with XSS, Injection, CSRF before testing SIS
  • See how to get authentication info from POST and GET

Security threat of a day

  • There are three environments of SIS. Live, demo and developer. We found out that developer environment is accesible with our live users and passwords. What's more -> developer environment has LIVE data!!! Like! Does that ring any bell to you? NEVER, we mean like NEVER use live data (data, grades, schedule, students, personal ID-s etc) in demo/developer environment!

Friday - 29.03.13

Things what we did that day:

  • Learned how to perform attacks. We learned different attack methods and tried them out.
  • Learned how to use different automated tools. Automated tools are not very efficient to SIS, but still - there might pop up something interesting from the results. Results are saved for later analysis.
  • Talked about last year's experience. Tried if most of the security holes are patched or not.

Problems what we faced:

  • We need student access to developer environment
  • We need new survey and declaration period opened (we asked Margus, he promised to give our request to someone who can make it)

Things what we plan to do:

  • Analysis of the results needs to be done
  • Learn a little bit more about attacks
  • Create some attacks
  • Start to test simpler attacks to SIS

Security threats of the day:

  • One can see other student's exam plan just by chaning student_id value in the URL (you don't need to be logged in). You cannot see his/her name directly, but according to security holes now: See the schedule, just change ID - you get the name. Or if you are logged in, then you can go to "My data" and just change ID from the URL again.

For example: https://itcollege.dev.ois.ee/en/schedule/agenda?student_id=2322

Saturday - 30.03.13

Things what we did that day:

  • Visiting Tallinn TV Tower
  • Visitinig The Seaplane Harbour

Sunday - 31.03.13

Free day

Monday - 01.04.13

NB! April fools' day! Beware!

Things what we did that day:

  • We analyzed student information fields in "My data" section
  • We test different sections and tried to change user IDs - luckily these are safe now.
  • Tried to use HTTP for different areas in SIS. Luckily, everything is forced to HTTPS.
  • Study materials testing. If study materials are available to everyone (public), then it is possible to download them from HTTP and/or HTTPS!
  • Tried reflected XSS, most SIS areas escape "bad characters" out from input boxes.
  • As the SIS allows academicians (lecturers) to change their picture, we tried to insert some malicious code into picture. Scenario was that when someone opens the picture, some bad things will happen. This did not work in SIS. Students are not allowed to change their picture due to security reasons (for example: other person taking exams claiming he/she is someone he/she is not)

Problems what we faced:

  • Still no new declaration etc opened for us. Maybe tomorrow?

Things what we plan to do:

  • We strongly hope that there will be new declaration period, survey, scolarship application and VÕTA opened for us for tomorrow morning, because we could test them as well and we don't have much time left.
  • Go deeper with different attacks and methods.

Security threat's of the day:

  • SIS (Study Information System) is vulnerable to BEAST attack, because it uses RC4 encryption algorithm in SSL. We as a test-team are not capable to perform this kind of attack, thus we cannot test how far can we go, but this is a threat to whole system. BEAST attack can sniff authorized user's cookies and then grant access to attacker.
  • There's no character limit for input fields (search, names). This can lead to DOS-attack because attacker can send multiple requests with long URLs and then server freezes.
  • Calendar: there's no limit or check if user have just typed numbers. Error is rendered back to user, but it is escaped.
  • There are some developer's notes left in different SIS parts (not only in developer environment).

Tuesday - 02.04.13

Things what we did that day:

  • Visiting Skype office.
  • Learning the principles of good presentation to put into practice tomorrow and on Thursday.
  • SIS is using a field called "security_key_sis_global". This form value does not change and is based on user data. We have found out that this does not change even on change of password, so that means, this has to be calculated from person's name and/or username and/or personal ID code and/or user_id value. We have assumption that this is a SHA1 hash, as it is 40 characters long. Maybe salted, maybe not? Anyway, this could be a threat to SIS in long term perspective.
  • Studied the OWASP ASVS (Application Security Verification Standard) with SIS in mind. Marked the requirements we can not check for (because we do not have the source code etc), the requirements we believe are met and those that need further testing.
  • Got the chance to insert a new VÕTA (APEL) request that also allows for uploading files. This is interesting because it might be possible to upload a file containing malicious code.
  • The SIS does not ask for password when changing the personal e-mail address. This is a risk, because this is the mail address SIS sends a password reset link to if the user clicks on "Forgot my password".

Problems what we faced:

  • Really would have liked to have more time to test.

Things what we plan to do:

  • Prepare and rehearse the presentation
  • Look further into the e-mail modification issue.
  • Finalise ASVS review

Wednesday - 03.04.13

Things what we did that day:

  • Studied and analysed ASVS. Went through requirements and aspects about web application security, analysed what applies to SIS and what not.
  • We learned and practiced public presentation. Discussed structure and divided roles. Rehearsed presentation to "audience".
  • SIS testing (security token), javascript upload, tried to find XSS vulnerabilities in APEL (VÕTA) application and file upload areas etc.

Problems what we faced:

  • Lack of time. Doing presentation and rehersal took so much time which could be used for testing SIS. Also, testing SIS took so much time, which again could be have been used for rehearsal.

Things what we plan to do:

  • We want to review and rehearse our final presentation.
  • Update our documentation in Wiki.
  • Upload and link presentations to persons and fill gaps in documentation.

Thursday - 04.04.13

Things what we did that day:

  • Dress rehearsal. Updated presentation according to feedback and capabilities.
  • Updated documentation to Wiki and uploaded missing presentations.
  • Personal input section filling in Wiki.
  • Went bowling. :)

Problems what we faced:

  • Sometimes one minute feels like it is not a minute. :)

Things what we plan to do:

  • Final documentation (link to Google docs).
  • IP feedback
  • Summarisation

Friday - 05.04.13

Things what we did that day:

  • Discussion about today's plans.
  • Upgraded and linked final documentation from Google Drive (aka Google Docs) (link can be found in Materials#Materials_.28slides_etc.29 section and #Final documentation section).
  • Every member wrote a feedback to Wiki page
  • Every member wrote a feedback according to requirements of the Intensive Programme (Erasmus feedback)
  • IP summarisation.
  • Farewell party at St. Patrick's.

Problems what we faced:

Things what we plan to do:

  • Farewell party, sleep well and start trip to home! :)

Saturday - 06.04.13

Departure! Bye bye!

Materials (slides etc)

  • Final presentation of the project to the clients (4 April 2013)


Summary of what we did and solution what we developed

Personal input

Sten Aus

  • What I did:
    • I was selected as a group leader (project manager) on the first day (25 March). We decided also that this is a democracy not a tyranny. :)
    • Helped others to use different kind of tools (Apache, Linux, DVWA, Wordpress etc, as I have dealt with them before (subjects in college with Margus, pre-school experience).
    • Presentations to each other about OWASP TOP 10 (A7 - Missing Function Level Access Control and A10 - Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards).
    • Demos about SIS vulnerabilities in different presentations (to group members, other participants and audience).
  • What I learned:
    • How to do documentation? I have documented my work before as well, but in such a big group as we had, it was first time experience for me.
    • I learned how big value "same day feedback and summarisation" has.
    • What security threats are out there and how to protect yourself (and your systems) against them. I have already taken different security measures into account in many web applications what I am using (or administering).

Matis Palm

  • What I did:
    • Helped teaching Apache & Linux & DVWA to other participants (due to having some experience already from before).
    • Helping with sumorobot programming (Being from the robotics club).
    • I helped to push the team in some direction at start, because no-one had previous experience and I was here last year on the Intensive Programme with the previous Security team.
  • What I learned:
    • Learned alot about how to use and search information for security testing (XSS, CSRF and so on).
    • I learned about ASVS and OWASP and a few tools used for testing (e.g. TamperData, InjectMe XSS and CSRF and so on).

Sandra Suviste

  • What I did:
    • Researched and presented vulnerability No 1 from the OWASP Top 10 list - Injection (A1 - Injections).
    • Practised attacks on the DVWA.
    • Went through the OWASP ASVS document for possible shortcomings of the SIS.
    • Tested the SIS for vulnerabilities, mostly SQL and XSS injections - both in web forms and in the URL.
    • Documented my own and others' work.
    • Together with Jurij we were responsible for the final presentation structure (Final presentation slides).
  • What I learned:
    • A lot about web application vulnerabilities - from my own research & practice and from others' presentations and teachers' lectures.
    • Became more experienced in working in a multinational group with English as the working language.
    • I learned how to document my work in order to keep track of the work of the team.
    • I also learned what are the issues connected to the preparing of and giving a presentation with several (>3) presenters.

Markus Rintamäki

  • What I did:
    • OWASP TOP 10 presentations to each other (A4 - Insecure Direct Object References).
    • Different attacks on SIS, changing user ids, SQL injection and XSS.
    • Tried to upload a picture (for a lecturer) infected with malicious .php code.
    • I also used a tool in Backtrack to decrypt the token that we found. This was also unsuccessful.
    • We made the presentation structure together.
    • Googeled a lot :)
  • What I learned:
    • My knowledge in hacking a real system before this course was close to a zero. I had to learn the basic attack methods and so I did.
    • Basic attack methods in DVWA: SQL injection, XSS and CSRF.
    • What is SIS and how does it works?
    • I also learned to program sumorobots, more about Linux and Wireshark.
    • And also of course I learned to speak english more fluently. :)

Tomas Lepistö

  • What I did:
    • Tried to find out possible security holes from OIS site.
    • Tested different attacking methods with DVWA
    • SQL-injection tests into various places on OIS site.
    • Tested some XSS methods
    • OWASP TOP 10 presentation to each other (A5 - Misconfigured Configuration).
    • Prepared our presentation with other group members
    • Spoke in daily summary
    • Studied a lot of information to know what is hacking about?
  • What i learned:
    • I learned how to use SQL-injection, XSS, Brute force, CSRF
    • I learned also how to use Kali,Backtrack,Temper data, DVWA
    • Working in international group
    • How important documentation is
    • Found out how important it is to make web-application secure

Mika Salmela

  • What I did:
    • I studied hacking methods
    • Tried some hacking methods with DVWA
    • Iscanned website, try to find if there is some security risks
    • Tried some SQL and XSS injections
    • OWASP TOP 10 presentations to each other (A6 - Sensitive Data Exposure).
  • What I learned:
    • More than basics of how to hack?
    • The most common hacking methods and how to use them.
    • How to do SQL and XSS injections
    • Basics of hacking tools
    • How to find security risks
    • How to work in international team.
    • Learned much about what these are: DVWA, OWASP and ASVS.

Kęstutis Tautvydas

  • What I did:
    • OWASP TOP 10 presentations to each other (A2 - Broken Authentication and Session Management and A3 - Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)).
    • Searched for security holes in OIS student information site.
    • Used DVWA tool to test sql injections and xss scripting.
    • Tried some sql injections and xss scripting on OIS page
    • Made presentations about broken authentication and session management and cross-site scripting and introduced them to my team mates
    • Prepared some slides for the main presentation
  • What have I learned:
    • Theory about OWASP TOP 10 threats
    • How to do sql injections
    • How to use Firefox tamperdata tool
    • How to do cross-site scripting
    • Completely understood what is use case and how to draw them
    • How to monitor activities with Wireshark
    • How to do a scan of web site vulnerability using Acunetix Web Vulnerability Scanner 8

Jurij Lukjančikov

  • What have I learned:
    • I have learned about security breaches on the web.
    • I have tried different parts of web for vulnerabilities and injection.
    • Together with team learned how to make injection and XSS attacks using Linux (Linux was unfamiliar for me before that).

Final documentation

Our final documentation can be found from Google Drive. Final Documentation

NB! This can be updated in a few hours or so?

IP Feedback

Feedback from Sten Aus

  • What I did like:
    • I liked IP very much. It was very mindopening experience and definitely I am going to suggest this to my friends, so they can participate next time.
    • Multicultural groups, where all the participants are from different countries.
    • I enjoyed food a lot, it was a good choice to take lunches and dinners from Rahva Toit. :) Also, the pricing was good.
    • I enjoyed out-of-schedule activities. For example, I liked visiting Skype, TV tower and Seaplane Harbour. I have been to TV tower before, but still it was very enjoyable experience. Also, I appreciate that Sander organized pool and bowling. Despite the fact I could not participate in pool, I was in bowling "competition" and it was fun!
  • 'What I did not like:
    • I did not like that we had to sit so much in lectures. :) (Wanted to stretch some more)
    • From time to time it was hard to understand the meaning of lecture, I could not link it to our project. But I think it will come to me after a few days, months or years, as a lot in this life - you don't know the purpose yet, but you will find it out in the future.

Feedback from Matis Palm

  • What I did like:
    • The people with motivation to work and communicate with each other
    • The social events
    • The schedule of days
    • The freedom to choose where and how to work together.
  • What I did not like:
    • Too much theoretical lectures with teachers who couldn't speak english very well and give their subject information forward understandably.
    • Some mentors had no experience in the field they were supposed to support and help with.

Feedback from Sandra Suviste

  • What I did like:
    • Working in a team on a real-life problem.
    • Practising problem-solving and working as a team.
    • Learned a lot of new stuff.
    • Organisation - well done
    • Had a wonderful team!
  • What I did not like:
    • A couple of days short of time - as usual...

Feedback from Markus Rintamäki

  • What I did like:
    • Everything was organized really well.
    • I liked the arranged events like sauna, visiting Skype and Tallinn teletorn.
    • Everything was also free for us except the beer.
    • I met many new interesting people and got to know about their cultures.
    • I got new friends for life.
    • Our project was interesting and i learned new skills.
    • I also liked FREE water, Estonian girls and Americana pizza place.
    • This IP was one of my best experiences ever.
  • What I did not like:
    • Lack of free time

Feedback from Tomas Lepistö

  • What I did like:
    • It was nice to meet new people and get new friends from different cultures.
    • Also all the events that was arranged were very funny, specially sauna-event!
    • Visiting Skype office was something that you don’t get to do everyday!
    • Free food!
    • Everything was well organized and teachers were truly interested about this intensive course!
  • What I did not like:
    • Too long studying/working days.

Feedback from Mika Salmela

  • What I did like:
    • First of all, i would like thank you everyone!
    • Everything was organized well. It was nice to meet new people from other countries. Also all events were excellent!
  • What I did not like:
    • Not so much free time T.T

Feedback from Kęstutis Tautvydas

  • What I did like:
    • Accommodation
    • The equipment we used
    • The capabilities and expertise of the professors
    • The overall quality of teaching
    • The expected learning outcomes
    • The activities besides the general course
    • Friendly environment
    • Working in teams. Thanks guys!
    • Free water
    • Tasty food
  • What I did not like:
    • To long working hours

Feedback from Jurij Lukjančikov

  • What I did like:
    • Working in teams.
    • Meeting new people.
    • Seeing new places.
    • Learning new things.
  • What I did not like:
    • Too long studying/working days.
    • Brainstorming after whole day of lectures.