I think the word you’re looking for is physicist. A physician is a medical doctor (as in a person that treats sick people). A physicist is a person that studies physics (as in a person that knows how to solve word problems involving pool tables).
You’re using the triune model to draw some rather lofty conclusions that aren’t really up to date with our understanding of neurology. It’s way over simplified and doesn’t really work that way. More recent studies suggest that the neocortex was already present in even the earliest mammals, so it’s not quite as straightforward and the demarcation isn’t quite as clear cut, as you seem to be presenting it. “Old brain” doesn’t “take over” in the way you’re presenting it either but appears to act as a primary driver for those basic functions.
Not sure how to even tackle the loftly conclusions you’ve made because the don’t seem to be built on a solid foundation. I think things might be quite a bit more interesting, and wildly more complex, then you seem to be presenting it. I’ll just leave some sources below with a quick note. Not trying to be condescending, or rude, just a topic that is a bit interesting, and a lot of people tend to draw some lofty conclusions from the triune model which has largely fallen by the wayside in neurology.
They are sort of right but have implemented it terribly. Serving out a static webpage is pretty low on the “things that are exploitable” but it’s still an entry point into the network (unless this is all internal then this gets a bit silly). What you need to do is get IT to set up a proxy and run apt/certbot through that proxy. It defends against some basic reverse shell techniques and gives you better control over the webhosts traffic. Even better would be to put a WAP and a basic load balancer in front of the webhost, AND proxy external communications.
Blocking updates/security services is dogshit though and usually is done by people that are a bit slow on the uptake. Basically they have completely missed the point of blocking external comms and created a way more massive risk in the process… They either need to politely corrected or shamed mercilessly if that doesn’t work.
Good luck though! I’m just glad I’m not the one that has to deal with it.
I’m absolutely shocked that a company had a software whitelist before the widespread adoption of the internet. Ahead of their time in implementing, and fucking up, software whitelisting!
Yep you’re right, but at least that adds another layer of complexity to their attack. A lot of security controls are at least somewhat situational, and most non-draconian companies have a process to put further mitigations around those exceptions either from increased monitoring or adding additional supplemental controls.
There’s no such thing at perfect security, just better risk mitigation. Slipping in a usb hub between the computer and keyboard while someone isn’t looking is a bit trickier then just plugging in a usb stick. If you disable unused usbs in the bios, instead of trying to do silly stuff like glue them shut, then the attacker has at least been temporarily thwarted if they slot it into a dead port. Aside from the high traffic areas, disabling ALL usb ports in places like datacenters and especially colocated datacenters, can thwart the attack outright as well.
Really from looking through this thread a lot of people seem to be under the misconception that security that isn’t perfect is pointless. It’s like claiming that locking your doors is pointless because lockpicks exists. The point isn’t to keep a sophisticated attack at bay, but rather to keep script kiddies and drive-by attacks from hitting your network. To defend against sophisticated attacks you really have to go a bit crazy, and even then very small slip ups can be disastrous. Ask Microsoft about their root cert getting leaked via a core dump!
I fully acknowledge that many people also work for places with dumbass security controls. Gluing usbs is WAYYYY up there on that list in my opinion. It also looks like a lot of people work at places that have really shitty security teams that haven’t quite figured out that controls are situational and require more thought then, “see checkbox, execute checkbox.”
That’s obvious when a mouse or keyboard doesn’t work. OP, and clealy other people in here, don’t really understand the actual attack vector in play. They aren’t using the USB as data storage, they are using as a cellular connected RAT and/or a tool to deploy a RAT to a workstation.
I think gluing usbs is dumb in just about any environment (disable them on the BIOS is the right answer), but attackers aren’t using it to drag and drop files and then physically take the usb with them. They are plugging them into a workstation, or just leaving them in the parking lot and letting other people plug them in, leveraging them to get initial access, and then essentially abandoning them.
I made one comment to you clarifying the other person’s point because you clearly didn’t understand what they were saying. Personally seen a couple of small companies fold because they were ransomed from a password on a post it. But you do you.
The guideline is abundantly clear too with little room for interpretation:
5.1.1.1 Memorized Secret Authenticators
Verifiers SHOULD NOT impose other composition rules (e.g., requiring mixtures of different character types or prohibiting consecutively repeated characters) for memorized secrets. Verifiers SHOULD NOT require memorized secrets to be changed arbitrarily (e.g., periodically). However, verifiers SHALL force a change if there is evidence of compromise of the authenticator.
Nope. The premise is they pwn ANOTHER, less secure, personal device and use the camera from the DIFFERENT device to pwn your work computer. For example, by silently installing Pegasus on some cocky “security is dumb lol” employee’s 5 year out-of-date iphone via text message while they’re sleeping, and use the camera from that phone to recon the password.
They probably wouldn’t want the $3.50 that person has in their bank account, but ransoming corporate data pays bank, and wire transfering from a corporate account pays even better! If you’re in a highly privileged position, or have access to execute financial transactions at a larger company, pwning a personal device isn’t outside of the threat model.
Most likely that threat model doesn’t apply to you, but perhaps at least put it under the keyboard out of plain sight?
Misunderstood STIG from the sound of it. The STIG is only applicable to unprivileged users but tends to get applied to all workstations regardless of user privileges. Also I think the .mil STIG GPOs apply it to all workstations regardless of privileges.
The other thing that tends to get overlooked is that AC-12 let’s you set it to whatever the heck you want. Ao you could theoretically set it to 99999 year by policy if you wanted.