The McAfee Secure Double Standard

McAfee Secure claims to be McAfee Secure while not McAfee Secure

It's been a rough week for our McAfee Secure friends.
First, an XSS, Iframe injections, and XMLHTTP outing provided by XSSed.com, followed quickly by a CSRF browbeating from The Skeptikal One, Mike Bailey.
While these findings should not come as a surprise, I have no doubt McAfee moved as quickly as possible to resolve the issues.

What sadly should also not come as a surprise is that the entire time these numerous vulnerabilities were live, so too was the McAfee Secure trustmark.

I realize the odds of McAfee Secure removing the McAfee Secure trustmark when they are not McAfee Secure is highly unlikely, it nonetheless exemplifies a double standard.
The key question is this.
If the McAfee Secure customer portal is vulnerable to CSRF for 4-5 weeks while the portal code is under repair, should it declare itself McAfee Secure?

To further my point, language from the McAfee Secure Standard:
In the event that McAfee discovers a vulnerability that prevents a merchant’s website from complying with the McAfee SECURE standard, the merchant will have a 72-hour remediation window. In instances where McAfee believes confidential customer data is at immediate risk, or in those cases where McAfee has evidence of prior compromise, the McAfee SECURE trustmark may be removed before expiration of this 72-hour window.

While the McAfee Secure Standard does not indicate that CSRF by itself is worthy of pulling a trustmark, the fact remains that because Mike had demonstrated what could be done with this paricular vulnerability, such as a live weaponized attack script, McAfee was treating it like a high-priority critical issue.
I can therefore only hope that a McAfee Secure customer under the same circumstances would NOT have been displaying a McAfee Secure trustmark.

So there it, plain and simple, for your consideration.
A double standard?
You decide...comments welcome.

del.icio.us | digg | Submit to Slashdot

Please support the Open Security Foundation (OSVDB)

Recommendations for trustmark providers

I've been slow in responding to Pete Lindstrom's (Spire Security) prompt for recommendations and solutions for trustmark (security badge) providers, beyond my typical griping about same.
I appreciate Pete's candor and perspective, and shall endeavor to make amends.
Having repetitively taken issue with trustmarks, with McAfee Secure\Hackersafe facing the brunt of it, I propose the following to ALL trustmark providers, as I did during the creation of the McAfee Secure Standard.

1) Check the arrogance and sales hype at the door.
We have no doubt that you're in business to drive conversions first and security second, so just be honest about it.
We also have no doubt that there will be vulnerabilities in your customer's sites, so cut out the "we guarantee their security" angle and opt for the "we do the best we can to contribute to the security and well being of our customers, and their customers" approach.

2) Practice transparency.
How do you scan (very specifically)? If you simply run Nessus, say so. If you make use of custom algorithms and signatures, say so.

3) Publish your standard, most importantly inclusive of your intentions on how to enforce it.
If a customer's site is not compliant, how and when, if at all, will you pull down the trustmark badge?
I can't believe I'm about to say this but McAfee Secure really has set the standard for establishing a standard. While I believe it to be lacking in areas, at least they have one.

4) Actually enforce.
So often I've found websites in flagrant violation of any feasible security standards, and yet they display a trustmark. This simply should not be. It is misleading, dishonest, and deceptive.

5) Offer resources.
As an alleged security provider, offer your customers resources. Not just the "use SSL and all is well" bunk. Real resources: OWASP, SANS Top 25, SDL, how-to, the list goes on.

6) Provide an immediately evident point of contact for your trustmark program; an abuse@, security@, and/or info@ alias to which we can report sites we determine to be vulnerable.
I have found it difficult in the past to disclose vulnerabilities; it shouldn't be.

7) Offer incentives.
People often do well with incentive. A reward system for strong security practices demonstrated by your customers will reap benefits, and adversely, so too will a punishment system for non-performers.

Note: Keep a close eye on Skeptikal.org. Mike's of the same mindset, and has applied this spirit of thinking to PCI ASVs who themselves have missed the mark on security, while holding others to the embattled PCI DSS. Look for some interesting content next week.

Finally, dear trustmark provider, think integrity. Operating from that position should lead you down the right path.

del.icio.us | digg | Submit to Slashdot

The McAfee Secure Standard has been published

McAfee has alerted me that the McAfee Secure Standard has been published on the McAfee Secure (formerly ScanAlert Hacker Safe) website.
The McAfee SECURE Standard
Joe Pierini and Kirk Lawrence started this process with me prior to their departure from McAfee, and work continued in their absence, largely at the hands of Will M., who's been communicative and inclusive in their stead.
I applaud McAfee for staying true to their commitment to publish the McAfee Secure Standard.
While I may not agree with everything in it, a standard is better than no standard.
That said, my concerns with the Standard as discussed earlier remain unaddressed.
First, you will find that remediation of what McAfee deftly refers to as Client Side Vulnerabilities is Optional. The Client Side Vulnerabilities category includes the entire family of script insertions.
Clarified, this means that merchants displaying the McAfee Secure trustmark are under no obligation to repair such vulnerabilities; the trustmark will remain displayed unabated by the truth.
My position here is clear.
If a website declaring itself secure via a McAfee Secure trustmark is vulnerable to cross-site scripting (XSS), I believe that declaration to be false and misleading. Further elaborated, the McAfee Secure Standard's Client Side Vulnerability category includes cross-site request forgery (CSRF).
While I choose not to out any site in particular at this time, I can assure you with all professional certainty that there are sites displaying a McAfee Secure trustmark that are vulnerable to CSRF. In the case of sites using one particular application, the CSRF vulnerability is so severe, an attacker can escalate privilege in short order.
This is a vulnerability that I've discovered and disclosed responsibly, so I won't discuss it further at this time.
But I ask you, should a site vulnerable to such an attack be labeled as McAfee Secure, per their freshly published Standard?
I think not.
Also Optional on the McAfee Secure Standard: SSL Encryption.
Should a website that conducts financial transactions, yet does not choose to encrypt transaction traffic, be allowed to display a McAfee Secure trustmark?
I think not.
Ironically, the McAfee Secure Standard directly compares itself to PCI DSS. None of the vulnerabilities listed as Optional, per the McAfee Secure Standard, are acceptable for PCI certification.
While the McAfee Secure Standard careful delineates the difference between the Secure trustmark program and their PCI Compliance program, it's not as black and white as they may think. McAfee is a PCI approved scanning vendor (ASV), and a provider of a popular PCI compliance service.
Should they really hold one set of customers to a different standard than the other?
I think not.
Again, I applaud McAfee for publishing the McAfee Secure Standard.
I never imagined we'd get this far, so I humbly ask McAfee to consider the following.
1) Don't bury the Standard. Announce it. Publicize it. Embrace discussion about it. Provide a link to it from the McAfee Secure website. While we may have differences over some of its content, the McAfee Secure Standard is a bold step. Let people know.
2) Disguising script insertions (XSS and CSRF) in the Client Side Vulnerabilities category is a disservice to your customers, and their customers. The "clients" in Client Side Vulnerabilities are consumers using these sites. I believe you are beholden to these consumers as much as you are your own.
Extend the timetable for merchant repair of these vulnerabilities if you must, but said repair should not be Optional.
3) A McAfee Secure site, with a McAfee Secure trustmark, without an SSL certificate is unfathomable. While many a vulnerability can be exploited under the umbrella of SSL protection, SSL encryption is nonetheless an industry standard that should not be Optional.
These things I ask of McAfee in the name of common sense and consumer well-being.
To quote the McAfee Secure website:
"When you display the McAfee Secure certification mark, you not only increase sales by increasing shopper confidence, you build your brand with the security seal seen on more top sites than any other."
Is "increasing confidence" at the expense of industry standards, and real web security a violation of good faith and the very trust you seek to build?
I think so.

As always, I welcome constructive and thoughtful comments and feedback.

del.icio.us | digg | Submit to Slashdot