Had a chance to casually ask about the washed check thing today. Big eye-roll. Police report. Affidavits. Close the checking account. Big investigation. Sounds like a PITA. Regards, George Toft On 7/4/2024 3:14 PM, techlists@phpcoderusa.com wrote: > Thanks George!!  Lot s to think about. > > > On 2024-07-04 14:23, George Toft wrote: >> >> >> Regards, >> >> George Toft >> >> On 7/4/2024 6:50 AM, techlists@phpcoderusa.com wrote: >>> Thank you so much George!! >>> >>> Another Question.  I was a police officer in the 80's and 90's. >>> During my tenure the bank was on the hook for any criminal acts as >>> long as the customer was not negligent. I only dealt with this on a >>> couple occasional. >>> >>> So If someone gets access to my online banking and I report it in a >>> timely manner, or if someone washes one of my checks and I report it >>> in a timely manner, is the bank on the hook or am I? >> >> There are a ton of rules with more acronyms than the IT world has. I >> would love to tell you what I understand, but I'd be talking out my ass. >> >> >>> BTW I thought going old school was the most secure.  I do not trust >>> the Internet.  My daily driver is a Linux Box and I do not use my >>> cellular phone for anything except to talk and read some news.  I am >>> semiretired and have home officed for a long time. >> >> Not sure there is any magic incantation that I can say that would put >> you at ease, other than "Risk Analysis," "Government Regulation," >> "Audit and Reviews," "Compliance," "Controls and Countermeasures," >> and "Fines." We have to comply with a bazillion rules all designed to >> protect you, the bank customer. Some regions are really strict and >> their governments show they really care, like the EU - their rules >> are so restrictive. Here's an example: You cannot log into a server >> that serves the EU if Payment Card Information (PCI) is involved with >> the same user ID that you used to log into your work station. This >> prevents lateral movement from an insider attack should the attacker >> get an employee's credentials or Kerberos TGT (Hey!!! It's now >> on-topic!!!) . This is just an example. We have external inspectors >> and government auditors on site almost every two weeks making us >> prove compliance with all the rules, and the bigger we get, the more >> rules and more regulatory auditors we get to talk to. We actually >> have two people on my team of 27 whose job used to be project >> management, now is audit and compliance. All of this to protect you. >> >> Let's not forget about the Security Operations Center monitoring >> employee activities. Refer to the GTFOBins email from yesterday. I >> documented a chained attack to get root based on that page, and the >> SOC came knocking saying "George, we noticed suspicious activity on >> this server and this date. Whatcha doin'?" Fortunately, I documented >> everything and emailed it to my manager, so all I had to do was >> forward that back to the SOC. >> >> Mail scares me. I had to send my LEA ID in recently via USPS. I'm >> hoping they got it. >> >> >>> Any suggestions are appreciated. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2024-07-03 21:48, George Toft wrote: >>>> Sorry, Kieth, I have bad news for you. You took a 30+ year leap >>>> backwards in security. >>>> >>>> I can tell you for certain, from my bank fraud analyst friend (just >>>> got promoted to financial crimes investigator), checks are the >>>> second most insecure way of transferring money, first being putting >>>> the money in the envelope. They helped the USPS bust a fraud ring >>>> who worked in the Post Office - fraudsters were pulling checks out >>>> of envelopes inside the local Post Office. My friend pulled out all >>>> the details for the Postmaster General. >>>> >>>> ACH is free (for you) and secure and guaranteed by the originator >>>> as they are on the hook to prove the identity of who initiated the >>>> transaction and they have to pay. It's all very complicated, and >>>> I'm not going into details here. >>>> >>>> I use ACH all the time. My physical devices have multi-layer >>>> physical protection. Logical access control is in-place. Both have >>>> multi-factor authentication. Password resets require multi-factor >>>> authentication. >>>> >>>> And the DoD is worse - their systems have so many layers, it was >>>> easier to just let my account get deleted from lack of use and >>>> rebuilt it from scratch. I have notes that tell me screen-by-screen >>>> what to put in each box and which ones to ignore. It's so secure, >>>> legitimate users can't even get in... and this is just my health >>>> insurance. >>>> >>>> Where all of this can break down - getting on topic - is with the >>>> SSH protocol and web proxies. When you connect to a website using >>>> HTTPS using a web proxy, your web browser uses it's cert to set up >>>> the connection, or so it thinks. What's really happening is the >>>> proxy is responding to the request and decrypting the message, then >>>> it forms a new request and sends it to the bank, which believes the >>>> proxy and sends it back. Everything gets decrypted on the proxy, so >>>> whoever has admin access to the proxy can see everything. Kinda >>>> like opening envelopes in the mail room :) Disclaimer: This is what >>>> some networking guys told me in a presentation about 10 years ago. >>>> >>>> In summary, ACH is safe if you do it from home without a proxy. Of >>>> course "safe" is relative, but it's safer than checks in the mail. >>>> Drop into your bank and ask the branch manager, or call their >>>> customer service and ask. They won't tell you checks are bad, but >>>> they will steer you to ACH and tell you it's better. Break out the >>>> Rosetta Stone and figure out what "better" means in >>>> corporate-speak. Banks are in it to win it, and they don't offer >>>> something for free unless they are saving money (cost avoidance) on >>>> the alternatives. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> George Toft >>>> >>>> On 7/3/2024 6:21 AM, techlists@phpcoderusa.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2024-07-02 18:20, George Toft via PLUG-discuss wrote: >>>>>> I work for a bank, and you would be amazed at how much security >>>>>> is baked into the connecting your browser to their web servers. >>>>>> Makes the NSA look like freshmen. And no, I'm not telling you who >>>>>> I work for. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> George Toft >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to hear more.  The world is a hostile place.  I recently >>>>> went old school.  I asked the bank to disarm my online banking.  I >>>>> now deal with paper statements and everything gets paid by check. >>>>> Not as convenient as on-line banking, however I am hoping it makes >>>>> my world a little bit more secure. >>>>> >>>>> What are your thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> Keith >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 6/29/2024 5:19 PM, Keith Smith via PLUG-discuss wrote: >>>>>>> Mike, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The world is a hostile place.  The more precautions you take the >>>>>>> better.  I cover the camera on my cellular phone while not in >>>>>>> use.  I cover the camera that is built into my laptop while it >>>>>>> is not in use. I think on-line banking is dangerous.  At some >>>>>>> point I want to turn off WIFI and go to wired only on my local net. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We lock our cars and houses for a reason. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not know as much security as I'd like, however it might be >>>>>>> necessary at some point to to become more cyber. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> About 24 years ago the members of the Tucson Free Unix Group >>>>>>> (TFUG) helped me build a server that I ran out of my home.  We >>>>>>> left the email relay open and I got exploited. About 10 years >>>>>>> ago I became root and I accidentally overwrote my home >>>>>>> directory. yikes... both were painful. The first example is a >>>>>>> reason we must be more aware of what we are doing. The 2nd is an >>>>>>> example why we should use sudo as much as we can instead of >>>>>>> becoming root. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Keith >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2024-06-29 08:55, Michael via PLUG-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>> I just realized, while 99% of the people on this list are >>>>>>>> honest there >>>>>>>> is the diabolical 1%. So I guess I enter my password for the >>>>>>>> rest of >>>>>>>> my life. Or do you think that it really matters considering >>>>>>>> this is >>>>>>>> only a mailing list? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2024, 10:22 AM Michael wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for saying this. I realized that I only needed to run >>>>>>>>> apt as >>>>>>>>> root. I didn't know how to make it so I could do that..... but >>>>>>>>> chatgt did! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2024, 5:53 AM Eric Oyen via PLUG-discuss >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> NO WORRIES FROM THIS END RUSTY. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As a general rule, I use sudo only for very specific tasks >>>>>>>>>> (usually updating my development package tree on OS X) and no >>>>>>>>>> where else will I run anything as root. I have seen what happens >>>>>>>>>> to linux machines that run infected binaries as root and it can >>>>>>>>>> get ugly pretty fast. In one case, I couldn’t take the machine >>>>>>>>>> out of service because of other items I was involved with, so I >>>>>>>>>> simply made part of the dir tree immutable after replacing a few >>>>>>>>>> files in /etc. That would fill up the system logs with an error >>>>>>>>>> message about a specific binary trying to replace a small number >>>>>>>>>> of conf files. Once the offending binary was found, it made >>>>>>>>>> things >>>>>>>>>> easier trying to disable it or get rid of it. However, after a >>>>>>>>>> while, I simply pulled the drive and ran it through a Dod secure >>>>>>>>>> erase and installed a newer linux bistro on it. I did use the >>>>>>>>>> same >>>>>>>>>> trick with chattr to make /bin, /sbin and /etc immutable. That >>>>>>>>>> last turned out to be handy as I caught someone trying to >>>>>>>>>> rootkit >>>>>>>>>> my machine using a known exploit, only they couldn’t get it to >>>>>>>>>> run because the binaries they wanted to replace couldn’t be >>>>>>>>>> written to. :)Yes, this would be a bit excessive, but over the >>>>>>>>>> long run, proved far less inconvenient than having to wipe and >>>>>>>>>> reinstall an OS. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -Eric >>>>>>>>>> From the central Offices of the Technomage Guild, security >>>>>>>>>> Applications Dept. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 2024, at 6:43 PM, Rusty Carruth via PLUG-discuss >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> (Deep breath.  Calm...) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I can't figure out how to respond rationally to the below, so >>>>>>>>>> all I'm going to say is - before you call troll, you might want >>>>>>>>>> to research the author, and read a bit more carefully what they >>>>>>>>>> wrote.  I don't believe I recommended any of the crazy things >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> suggest.  And I certainly didn't intend to imply any of that. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, it may not have  been clear, so I'll just >>>>>>>>>>> say >>>>>>>>>> "Sorry that what I wrote wasn't clear, but english isn't my >>>>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>>>> language.  Unfortunately its the only one I know". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And on that note, I'll shut up. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/26/24 15:05, Ryan Petris wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> I feel like you're trolling so I'm not going to spend very >>>>>>>>>>>> much >>>>>>>>>> time on this. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's been a generally good security practice for at least the >>>>>>>>>> last 25+ years to not regularly run as a privileged user, >>>>>>>>>> requiring some sort of escalation to do administrative-type >>>>>>>>>> tasks. >>>>>>>>>> By using passwordless sudo, you're taking away that escalation. >>>>>>>>>> Why not just run as root? Then you don't need sudo at all. In >>>>>>>>>> fact, why even have a password at all? Why encrypt? Why don't >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> just put all your data on a publicly accessible FTP server and >>>>>>>>>> just grab stuff when you need it? The NSA has all your data >>>>>>>>>> anyway >>>>>>>>>> and you don't have anything to hide so why not just leave it out >>>>>>>>>> there for the world to see? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As for something malicious needing to be written to use sudo, >>>>>>>>>> why wouldn't it? sudo is ubiquitous on unix systems; if it >>>>>>>>>> didn't >>>>>>>>>> at least try then that seams like a pretty dumb malicious script >>>>>>>>>> to me. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You also don't necessarily need to open/run something for >>>>>>>>>>>> it to >>>>>>>>>> run. IIRC there was a recent image vulnerability in Gnome's >>>>>>>>>> tracker-miner application which indexes files in your home >>>>>>>>>> directory. And before you say that wouldn't happen in KDE, it >>>>>>>>>> too >>>>>>>>>> has a similar program, I believe called Baloo. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There also exists the recent doas program and the systemd >>>>>>>>>> replacement run0 to do the same. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024, at 12:23 PM, Rusty Carruth via >>>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I'd like to start a bit of a discussion on this. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> First, I know that for some reason RedHat seems to think that >>>>>>>>>> sudo is >>>>>>>>>>>>> bad/insecure. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to know the logic there, as I think the argument FOR >>>>>>>>>> using sudo >>>>>>>>>>>>> is MUCH stronger than any argument I've heard (which, >>>>>>>>>> admittedly, is >>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty close to zero) AGAINST it.   Here's my thinking: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Allowing users to become root via sudo gives you: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - VERY fine control over what programs a user can use as root >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - The ability to remove admin privs (ability to run as root) >>>>>>>>>> from an >>>>>>>>>>>>> individual WITHOUT having to change root password everywhere. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, remember, RH is supposedly 'corporate friendly'. As a >>>>>>>>>> corporation, >>>>>>>>>>>>> that 2nd feature is well worth the price of admission, PLUS I >>>>>>>>>> can only >>>>>>>>>>>>> allow certain admins to run certain programs? Very nice. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, for example, at my last place I allowed the 'tester' user >>>>>>>>>> to run >>>>>>>>>>>>> fdisk as root, because they needed to partition the disk >>>>>>>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>>>> test.  In >>>>>>>>>>>>> my case, and since the network that we ran on was totally >>>>>>>>>> isolated from >>>>>>>>>>>>> the corporate network, I let fdisk be run without needing a >>>>>>>>>> password. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, and if they messed up and fdisk'ed the boot partition, it >>>>>>>>>> was no big >>>>>>>>>>>>> deal - I could recreate the machine from scratch (minus >>>>>>>>>> whatever data >>>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been copied off yet - which would only be their most >>>>>>>>>> recent run), >>>>>>>>>>>>> in 10 minutes (which was about 2 minutes of my time, and 8 >>>>>>>>>> minutes of >>>>>>>>>>>>> scripted 'dd' ;-) However, if the test user wanted to become >>>>>>>>>> root using >>>>>>>>>>>>> su, they had to enter the test user password. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, back to the original question - setting sudo to not >>>>>>>>>> require a >>>>>>>>>>>>> password.  We should have asked, what program do you want to >>>>>>>>>> run as root >>>>>>>>>>>>> without requiring a password? How secure is your system? What >>>>>>>>>> else do >>>>>>>>>>>>> you use it for?  Who has access?  etc, etc, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There's one other minor objection I have to the 'zero >>>>>>>>>>>>> defense' >>>>>>>>>> statement >>>>>>>>>>>>> below - the malicious thing you downloaded (and, I assume >>>>>>>>>>>>> ran) >>>>>>>>>> has to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> written to USE sudo in its attempt to break in, I believe, or >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't matter HOW open your sudo was. (simply saying 'su - >>>>>>>>>> myscript' >>>>>>>>>>>>> won't do it). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And, if you're truly paranoid about stuff you download, you >>>>>>>>>> should: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 - NEVER download something you don't have an excellent >>>>>>>>>> reason to >>>>>>>>>>>>> believe is 'safe', and ALWAYS make sure you actually >>>>>>>>>> downloaded it from >>>>>>>>>>>>> where you thought you did. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 - For the TRULY paranoid, have a machine you use to >>>>>>>>>>>>> download >>>>>>>>>> and test >>>>>>>>>>>>> software on, which you can totally disconnect from your >>>>>>>>>> network (not >>>>>>>>>>>>> JUST the internet), and which has NO confidential info, and >>>>>>>>>> which you >>>>>>>>>>>>> can erase and rebuild without caring.  Run the downloaded >>>>>>>>>> stuff there, >>>>>>>>>>>>> for a long time, until you're pretty sure it won't bite you. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 - For the REALLY REALLY paranoid, don't download anything >>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>> anywhere, disconnect from the internet permanently, get >>>>>>>>>> high-tech locks >>>>>>>>>>>>> for your doors, and wrap your house in a faraday cage! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And probably don't leave the house.... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The point of number 3 is that there is always a risk, even >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'well-known' software, and as someone else said - they're >>>>>>>>>> watching you >>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway.  The question is how 'safe' do you want to be? And >>>>>>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>> paranoid >>>>>>>>>>>>> are you, really? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, talk about rabbit hole! ;-) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Let the flames begin!' :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/24 18:50, Ryan Petris via PLUG-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted sudo not to require a password. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please reconsider this... This is VERY BAD security >>>>>>>>>>>>>> practice. >>>>>>>>>> There's basically zero defense if you happen to download/run >>>>>>>>>> something malicious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024, at 6:01 PM, Michael via PLUG-discuss >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I remember that a PLUG member mentioned ChatGPT being >>>>>>>>>> good at troubleshooting so I figured I'd give it a go. I sprint >>>>>>>>>> about half an hour asking it the wrong question but after >>>>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>>>>> took 2 minutes. I wanted sudo not to require a password. it is >>>>>>>>>> wonderful! now I don't have to bug you guys. so it looks like >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> is the end of the user group unless you want to talk about OT >>>>>>>>>> stuff. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- :-)~MIKE~(-: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>>>>>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>>>>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>>>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>>>>> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss