6665 lines
156 KiB
Plaintext
6665 lines
156 KiB
Plaintext
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
PHUK MAGAZINE - Phile 0 of 10
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Welcome to the second issue of P/H-UK magazine, an ezine for the
|
||
|
||
Hackers & Phreakers in the United Kingdom.
|
||
|
||
Distrubition of PHUK#1 has gone excedingly well,please keep it
|
||
|
||
up ! Dr. Kaos has managed to upload PHUK#1 to a few BBS's and
|
||
|
||
apprently it has spread like wild fire since giving out the
|
||
|
||
first issure at the December 2600 meeting. The D.A! has been
|
||
|
||
able to distrubute PHUK#1 to a few eduacational establishments
|
||
|
||
through a few of his data courier agents. Also the D.A! has
|
||
|
||
cunningly spread it through covert means by leaving it on
|
||
|
||
computers in directorys called SEX , SEXGAMES AND PORN .
|
||
|
||
This is due to the fact the file is called PHUK01.ZIP which
|
||
|
||
sounds a little rude and and should get people to be a little
|
||
|
||
curious , who said a little anarchy does not work ! ;-)
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Well on to the contents , this issure we have a report on
|
||
|
||
the 2600 SE meeting that was sent in by THE PRANKSTER which was
|
||
|
||
received on 01-04-95 with all the local gossip of the south east.
|
||
|
||
Also we have the second part of the BT MANUAL which I know you
|
||
|
||
have all be en waiting for.More answer phone antics by HILO , and
|
||
|
||
a lot more so I won't spoil the surprise !
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
STANARD DISCLAIMER
|
||
|
||
==================
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
THIS IS AN ALPHA COPY OF PHUK#2 ..... NO RESPONSIBILITY CAN
|
||
|
||
BE HELD FOR THE ACTIONS OF PHUK READERS WHO USE THE INFORMATION
|
||
|
||
WITHIN UNWISELY !! SO SAY THE PHREAKERS / HACKERS UNITED KINGDOM
|
||
|
||
EDITORIAL MANAGEMENT OR PHUKEM FOR SHORT <GRIN> ;-) .
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
P / H - U - K -- C O N T E N T S
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
0: INTRO: You're reading it!
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
1: EDITORIAL: Time for revolution ?
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
2: NEWSBYTES: UK News
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
3: HACKING THE BASICS - Death's Apprentice !
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
4: UK HACKER'S CONFERNCE:
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
5: ANSWERPHONE - The Audioline 815 Digital Answer System - Hilo
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
6: INTERNET SHOPPING AT THE LINK - Korporate Konsumer
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
7: PHONE CARDS AROUND THE GLOBE - Korporate Mole
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
8: BT Computer Security Manual Part 2 - Mrs. Brady of Doncaster
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
9: Notes & Queries: A question & Answer Forum
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
10: OUTRO: Next Issue .... Real soon now , we hope!!
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
+++
|
||
|
||
EOF
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
PHUK MAGAZINE - Phile 1 of 10
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
TIME FOR REVOLUTION ? - Phuk-Ed
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Well what do you know a second issue of PH-UK has finally arrived ,
|
||
|
||
isn't that amazing ! How things have changed since the last time an
|
||
|
||
issue was let loose on the computer underground . History will soon
|
||
|
||
be made when we have our first Hackers Conference in July , (Details
|
||
|
||
are in the ezine) , I can hardly wait what the media are going to say !
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
I mean , all those hackers and phreakers in the same location at the
|
||
|
||
same time in full view of the press and MI5 ... ;-) How will the
|
||
|
||
UK cope after such an event , what disasters are in the pipeline
|
||
|
||
to be blamed on electronic terrorism by teenage technocrats .
|
||
|
||
I can just see the the headlines in The Sun now .... but wait , what
|
||
|
||
does the UK have to fear . Are the any hackers and phreakers
|
||
|
||
actively doing what they do best ? If they are then they must
|
||
|
||
be very covert operations ! More like that there are few
|
||
|
||
hardcore hackers and phreakers playing with the system then you
|
||
|
||
would imagine . There are a few that are cloning cellular phones
|
||
|
||
but they are doing it for a profit and not for the sheer thrill
|
||
|
||
of it . What about computer penetrations then , no , nobody
|
||
|
||
there either due to the fact that a certain teenage hacker
|
||
|
||
got caught hacking the Penatagon and frightened off half of
|
||
|
||
the computer undergroud into states of paranoia . If you
|
||
|
||
want proof then look at the numbers going to the 2600
|
||
|
||
meetings !
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Although it has been reported by CERT that hackers are loners
|
||
|
||
that do not work together sharing information on computer
|
||
|
||
penetration and other technical wizardary . If that is the
|
||
|
||
case how can all the hackers attending the event learn anything ?
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
I think it is time for change , time for us to work together
|
||
|
||
as brothers in the technilogical revolution that is happening
|
||
|
||
NOW ! Share the information people and let the UK really be a
|
||
|
||
nation that is just as advanced as the USA in our hacking and
|
||
|
||
phreaking exploits .
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Phuk-Ed.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
+++
|
||
|
||
EOF
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
PHUK MAGAZINE - Phile 2 of 10
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
------------
|
||
|
||
UK NEWSBYTES
|
||
|
||
------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
-- FIRST EVER 2600 SE MEETING RAIDED BY POLICE
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The scene is set , saturday 18th of March there would be the
|
||
|
||
first 2600 meeting in the South East of London.Slowly members
|
||
|
||
of the phreaking and hacking community meet up at the Roebuck
|
||
|
||
pub.Alcholic beverages were consumed and hacking / phreaking
|
||
|
||
information was discussed openly ! (WOW !).
|
||
|
||
All was going fine until a small group of fruit machine
|
||
|
||
hackers disturbed the atmosphere by blantly and openly abusing
|
||
|
||
a lone fruit machine.Verbal obsenties and threats were showered
|
||
|
||
upon the confused bar staff , who looked on helplessly unwilling
|
||
|
||
to face a vilent confrontation.
|
||
|
||
The 2600 memebers tried to keep a low profile by drinking more
|
||
|
||
beer as they thought it would help. As each person tried to drink
|
||
|
||
ecah other under the table , the fruit machine hackers fled into
|
||
|
||
the night.
|
||
|
||
A fruit machine medic was called for and procceded to examine
|
||
|
||
said machine. After much probing and examination , he proclaimed
|
||
|
||
that yes , the machine had obviously benn tampered with !
|
||
|
||
It was at this point that unknowingly to the 2600 members the police
|
||
|
||
were called for.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
When two police officers from the the nearby constabulury walked
|
||
|
||
through the door all 2600 members not suffering from mild cardiac
|
||
|
||
arrests , did what most people would have done in similiar
|
||
|
||
circumstances . More alchol was ordered very quickly . Statements
|
||
|
||
were taken from the bar staff concerned .
|
||
|
||
A finger was pointed in our direction by one of the police officers
|
||
|
||
and a hidden two finger salute was sent back.It seemed that a proper
|
||
|
||
communications protocol had been established . The police officer
|
||
|
||
kept pointing and we kept sending hidden binary.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Just as we thought we were going to be arrested one of the bar maids
|
||
|
||
jumped to our defence by saying we had nothing to do with said incident
|
||
|
||
and had been very good patrons of said establishment as we had
|
||
|
||
consumed large volumes of alcoholic beverages.
|
||
|
||
With this new piece of information the police officers duly left
|
||
|
||
and we drank more beer.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
All in all the night had been a memorable event and yes we going
|
||
|
||
back next month ....hic ! We need the alchol to get over the
|
||
|
||
shock ....hic!
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
[from CTW, 20-03-95]
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
-- AMERICAN GIANT JOINS ELSPA AFTER HACKER BUST
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
AT&T , the global computer and communications firm , has become
|
||
|
||
an associate member of ELSPA , following a successful operation
|
||
|
||
by the trade body's crime unit which uncovered extensive telephone
|
||
|
||
calling card fraud . The operation , which led to two arrests in the USA
|
||
|
||
and one in the UK , began when ELPSA investigators discovered a cache
|
||
|
||
of over 50,000 stolen AT&T calling card numbers on a bulletin board .
|
||
|
||
Computer hackers were using the numbers to call all over the world , at
|
||
|
||
AT&T's expense , in order to download illegaly pirated material .
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
-- UK VERSION OF WIRED
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Well I think you all know that there is a UK version of WIRED , but
|
||
|
||
correct me if you think differently but it sucks big time . I am sorry
|
||
|
||
but the UK issure does not cut the mustard and I doubt if I will
|
||
|
||
continue to buy the UK version but instaed I think I will stick with
|
||
|
||
the US one . If you have different views the write in and let us know
|
||
|
||
why you think it is worth a good read .
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
That's all for this ish, don't forget, NEWSBYTE exists on
|
||
|
||
contributions from its readers, so send your snippets, comments etc to
|
||
|
||
PHUK magazine at anon19143@anon.penet.fi, where we will do our best to
|
||
|
||
include them in the next issue.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
+++
|
||
|
||
EOF
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
PHUK MAGAZINE - Phile 3 of 10
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
HACKING THE BASICS
|
||
|
||
------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
So you want to be a hacker ? Silly question if you are reading this you
|
||
|
||
you must think , well I had to ask ! Okay , well where do you start ?
|
||
|
||
The equipment is useful I suppose or you would not be reading this phile
|
||
|
||
so you must know some thing about computers or at least the computer you
|
||
|
||
are using .
|
||
|
||
But to hack you need just a little more than the equipment , you also need
|
||
|
||
information and a lot of common sense !
|
||
|
||
For example , do you know your local hacker at work or in school ? You do !
|
||
|
||
Well how many times have you gone up to them and asked how do you hack or
|
||
|
||
how do you manage to do that . After a while they will get fed up and clam
|
||
|
||
up about information they might of shared with you . Your not the only one
|
||
|
||
who wants to know there is probabiliy a few dozen people who keep asking the
|
||
|
||
same old questions time after time . There is a simple solution to get on
|
||
|
||
side of your mentor , STOP ASKING DUM QUESTIONS ! Simple isn't it .
|
||
|
||
Okay , you might think well how do I learn if I don't have a hacker for a
|
||
|
||
teacher ?
|
||
|
||
READ A LOT OF BOOKS AND MAGAZINES !!!
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Go to the library get out anything on hackers or hacking or general computer
|
||
|
||
books and read them and take notes on any thing you might think will come in
|
||
|
||
useful . Read computer related magazines , you might read some already if you
|
||
|
||
own a computer and look at the comms section , I know that during 1994 there
|
||
|
||
was a lot of Internet related information being written . Learn the jargon ,
|
||
|
||
do a lot of research , let your friends know that you are into computers and
|
||
|
||
to let you know if they hear of any computer related news in the press or on
|
||
|
||
TV .
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Then at least you will be able to hold a decent conversation with your local
|
||
|
||
hacker and at least sound knowledgable .
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Right how to hack without getting caught ! Simple DON'T HACK ! Sounds
|
||
|
||
stupid you think , well not really . Use a little bit of common sense , try a
|
||
|
||
hacker trainer , in the old days of computers there was a computer game
|
||
|
||
called SYSTEM 15000 for the ZX Spectrum and I know of a program for the Atari
|
||
|
||
ST called NAARJEK . The basic idea of the game is to hack your way in to a
|
||
|
||
computer system by any means neccessary . If you find that you get fed up
|
||
|
||
easily then hacking is not for you . The advantages of this is that you gain
|
||
|
||
experience of hacking without the risk of getting caught and two you will
|
||
|
||
not run up a huge phone bill learning some of the basics . There are other
|
||
|
||
computer hacking simulators about for other home computers or if you want
|
||
|
||
you could even write your own in BASIC or another computing language and
|
||
|
||
set a challenge to all you friends to break into the system . Get them to
|
||
|
||
write a hacking trainer that you can try your hand to get into their system .
|
||
|
||
At the very least it will get you programming and teach you part of the
|
||
|
||
HACKER ETHIC , " Always yield to the hands-on imperative ! "
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Also you can try programs like MINIX or LINUX to learn UNIX and get a feel
|
||
|
||
of the UNIX operating system and you can also set it up to learn other
|
||
|
||
hacking skills .
|
||
|
||
There are also PC emulators so you can try the MS DOS / PC DOS operating
|
||
|
||
system and learn a few commands .
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Right now you are ready for some real hacking , try your work or school
|
||
|
||
computer network system , put the things you have learned into practice
|
||
|
||
and try to gain entry or access to other computer users accounts or disk
|
||
|
||
areas . If you are at school or in a place of eduacation then you might
|
||
|
||
have a NIMBUS 186 network running . These are particular easy to abuse if
|
||
|
||
you already have an account on them as you can use a back door to your
|
||
|
||
classmates area ! (ASK ME AT THE 2600 MEETINGS IF YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE !)
|
||
|
||
Very handy if you are to lazy to do your own work then copy someone elses !
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Well I think I will leave it there for now ! But I will say if you think you
|
||
|
||
can do better then this article then type it up and send it to PH-UK !
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
A FEW THINGS YOU MIGHT LIKE TO READ ! ( HINT !! )
|
||
|
||
-------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
THE HACKER'S HANDBOOK - A BIT DATED NOW BUT STILL A GOOD READ IF YOU
|
||
|
||
CAN FIND IT ! (E-BOOK)
|
||
|
||
APPROACHING ZERO - A GOOD READ TO TEACH YOU ABOUT THE RISKS OF
|
||
|
||
HACKING (E-BOOK)
|
||
|
||
SECRETS OF A SUPERHACKER - VERY AMERICAN ! BUT HAS A LOT OF GOOD INFO !
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
2600 THE HACKER QUARTERLY - HARD TO FIND <GRIN>
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
PHRACK - AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
( SEE THE D.A ! FOR THE E-BOOKS )
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
This phile is copyright of DEATH 'S APPRENTICE of H.A.D.E.S. , 1995
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
+++
|
||
|
||
EOF
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
PHUK MAGAZINE - Phile 4 of 10
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
ACCESS ALL AREAS
|
||
|
||
Hacking Conference
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
1st - 2nd July, 1995
|
||
|
||
(Saturday & Sunday)
|
||
|
||
King's College, London, UK
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
-------------------------------WHAT-IT-IS---------------------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The first UK hacking conference, Access All Areas, is to be run in London
|
||
|
||
later this year. It is aimed at hackers, phone phreaks, computer security
|
||
|
||
professionals, cyberpunks, law enforcement officials, net surfers,
|
||
|
||
programmers, and the computer underground.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
It will be a chance for all sides of the computer world to get together,
|
||
|
||
discuss major issues, learn new tricks, educate others and meet "The
|
||
|
||
Enemy".
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
-------------------------------WHERE-IT-IS--------------------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Access All Areas is to be held during the first weekend of July, 1995 at
|
||
|
||
King's College, London. King's College is located in central London on
|
||
|
||
The Strand and is one of the premier universities in England.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------WHAT-WILL-HAPPEN-----------------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
There will be a large lecture theatre that will be used for talks by
|
||
|
||
computer security professionals, legal experts and hackers alike. The
|
||
|
||
topics under discussion will include hacking, phreaking, big brother and
|
||
|
||
the secret services, biometrics, cellular telephones, pagers, magstrips,
|
||
|
||
smart card technology, social engineering, Unix security risks, viruses,
|
||
|
||
legal aspects and much, much more.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Technical workshops will be running throughout the conference on several
|
||
|
||
topics listed above.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
A video room, equipped with multiple large screen televisions, will be
|
||
|
||
showing various films, documentaries and other hacker related footage.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The conference facilities will also include a 10Mbps Internet link
|
||
|
||
connected to a local area network with various computers hanging off of it
|
||
|
||
and with extra ports to connect your laptop to.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
------------------------------REGISTRATION--------------------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Registration will take place on the morning of Saturday 1st July from
|
||
|
||
9:00am until 12:00 noon, when the conference will commence. Lectures and
|
||
|
||
workshops will run until late Saturday night and will continue on Sunday
|
||
|
||
2nd July from 9:00am until 6:00pm.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
----------------------------------COST------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The price of admission will be 25.00 (approximately US $40.00) at the
|
||
|
||
door and will include a door pass and conference programme.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------ACCOMMODATION--------------------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Accommodation in university halls of residence is being offered for the
|
||
|
||
duration of the conference. All prices quoted are per person, per night
|
||
|
||
and include full English breakfast.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
SINGLE TWIN
|
||
|
||
WELLINGTON HALL 22.00 16.75
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Special prices for British and Overseas university students, holding
|
||
|
||
current student identification, are also available - please call King's
|
||
|
||
Campus Vacation Bureau for details.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
All bookings must be made directly with the university. They accept
|
||
|
||
payment by cash, cheque and credit card.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
To making a booking call the following numbers...
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
KING'S CAMPUS VACATION BUREAU
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Telephone : +44 (0)171 351 6011
|
||
|
||
Fax : +44 (0)171 352 7376
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
----------------------------MORE-INFORMATION------------------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
If you would like more information about Access All Areas, including
|
||
|
||
pre-registration details then please contact one of the following...
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Telephone : +44 (0)973 500202
|
||
|
||
Fax : +44 (0)181 224 0547
|
||
|
||
Email : info@phate.demon.co.uk
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
PHUK MAGAZINE - Phile 5 of 10
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
ANSWERPHONES - AUDIOLINE 815 DIGITAL ANSWERING MACHINE
|
||
|
||
------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Instruction manual for the Audioline 815 Digital Answering System
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Remote Access
|
||
|
||
-------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
1. Dial the telephone number.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
2. Listen to the OGM and subsequent beep , but instead of leaving a
|
||
|
||
message enter the remote access code , (depress for at least 3 seconds).
|
||
|
||
NOTE: You will not hear the OGM if the total recording time has
|
||
|
||
has been filled .
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
3. The 815 will replay your messages to you. Every 3 minutes the 815 will
|
||
|
||
automatically check that you are still listening by pausing and
|
||
|
||
prompting you to enter your access code . If you do not enter the code ,
|
||
|
||
the remote sequence will be terminated and the system will save the
|
||
|
||
messages and return to the answer mode .
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Options at the end of the remote playback
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
At the end of thw message playback you will hear a double beep followed
|
||
|
||
by a 10 second decision period.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
1. To repeat you messages enter the remote access code .
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
2. To save the current messages hang up the phone .
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
3. To cancel current messages and rest the system ,WAIT FOR A SECOND BEEP ,
|
||
|
||
enter the remote access code and hang up the phone .
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Turning on the system remotely
|
||
|
||
------------------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
1. Call the system and allow it to ring for 16 times .
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
2. The system will respond with a continuous tone for about 3 seconds .
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The system automatically switches to answering mode .
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Of course that is all very well but what if you don't know the access
|
||
|
||
code , well it is a single digit and you will find it on the sticker
|
||
|
||
underneath the unit. Most people will leave the instruction manual to the
|
||
|
||
machine with the phone directories , logical huh ?
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
HILO
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
+++
|
||
|
||
EOF
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
PHUK MAGAZINE - Phile 6 of 10
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Internet Shopping with DIXONS LINK
|
||
|
||
----------------------------------
|
||
|
||
You know that most LINK shops have modems & inet links available ...
|
||
|
||
.. no? well wander in when they're not too busy and browse ... or
|
||
|
||
maybe when they're busy ... whenever you get left alone to play with
|
||
|
||
their pc's and modems ...:)
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Here's a couple of files off the machine in the local LINK ... not a
|
||
|
||
lot, but maybe useful to somebody out there. One is a 'global
|
||
|
||
internet dial access phone list', and the other is the set up strings
|
||
|
||
for loads of modems to dial into the internet. Hope its useful.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Korporate Konsumer
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
*****************************************************
|
||
|
||
* IBM Global Network Internet dial access phone list
|
||
|
||
*****************************************************
|
||
|
||
01-2144020 Austria Vienna
|
||
|
||
078-154643 Belgium Brussels
|
||
|
||
011-884-2870 Brazil Sao Paulo
|
||
|
||
1-604-380-2777 Canada Victoria
|
||
|
||
1-604-683-3416 Canada Vancouver
|
||
|
||
1-403-429-7125 Canada Edmonton
|
||
|
||
1-403-266-4013 Canada Calgary
|
||
|
||
1-306-525-4022 Canada Regina
|
||
|
||
1-204-956-4701 Canada Winnipeg
|
||
|
||
1-519-667-2225 Canada London
|
||
|
||
1-416-491-7112 Canada Toronto
|
||
|
||
1-613-233-4360 Canada Ottawa
|
||
|
||
1-514-931-0180 Canada Montreal
|
||
|
||
1-418-648-8684 Canada Quebec
|
||
|
||
1-902-492-8683 Canada Halifax
|
||
|
||
1-800-308-3173 Canada fee 800
|
||
|
||
90-4582133 Finland Helsinki
|
||
|
||
1-43051999 France Paris (east)
|
||
|
||
1-47760055 France Paris (west)
|
||
|
||
040-6301861 Germany Hamburg
|
||
|
||
030-7231021 Germany Berlin
|
||
|
||
0711-7800264 Germany Stuttgart
|
||
|
||
03-3505-5885 Japan Tokyo
|
||
|
||
020-6692333 Netherlands Amsterdam
|
||
|
||
079-219206 Netherlands Zoetermeer
|
||
|
||
66803850 Norway Oslo
|
||
|
||
93-4140122 Spain Barcelona
|
||
|
||
94-4157922 Spain Bilbao
|
||
|
||
981-266388 Spain La Coruna
|
||
|
||
91-5190938 Spain Madrid
|
||
|
||
91-4130003 Spain Madrid
|
||
|
||
98-5275755 Spain Oviedo
|
||
|
||
948-177809 Spain Pamplona
|
||
|
||
943-217577 Spain San Sebastian
|
||
|
||
95-4280710 Spain Sevilla
|
||
|
||
96-3616611 Spain Valencia
|
||
|
||
976-212018 Spain Zaragoza
|
||
|
||
08-6320224 Sweden Stockholm
|
||
|
||
01-433-0320 Switzerland Z<>rich
|
||
|
||
01179-292037 UK Bristol
|
||
|
||
0131-5570465 UK Edinburgh
|
||
|
||
0171-9280771 UK London (South Bank)
|
||
|
||
0161-9621452 UK Manchester
|
||
|
||
01926-497855 UK Warwick
|
||
|
||
1-404-885-5580 US Atlanta, GA
|
||
|
||
1-617-247-6754 US Boston, MA
|
||
|
||
1-303-442-0842 US Boulder, CO
|
||
|
||
1-312-245-0156 US Chicago, IL
|
||
|
||
1-214-620-9180 US Dallas, TX
|
||
|
||
1-810-827-7240 US Detroit, MI
|
||
|
||
1-713-993-7226 US Houston, TX
|
||
|
||
1-213-687-7247 US Los Angeles, CA
|
||
|
||
1-305-529-4700 US Miami, FL
|
||
|
||
1-612-338-3988 US Minneapolis, MN
|
||
|
||
1-212-644-4153 US New York, NY
|
||
|
||
1-201-265-0681 US Paramus, NJ
|
||
|
||
1-215-564-5918 US Philadelphia, PA
|
||
|
||
1-919-380-4300 US Raleigh, NC
|
||
|
||
1-314-621-9290 US ST. Louis, MO
|
||
|
||
1-415-979-0319 US San Fran, CA
|
||
|
||
1-206-382-0552 US Seattle, WA
|
||
|
||
1-813-877-1117 US Tampa, FL
|
||
|
||
1-202-293-5076 US Washington, DC
|
||
|
||
1-800-933-3997 US fee 800
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
******************************************************
|
||
|
||
* IBM Global Network Internet registration phone list
|
||
|
||
******************************************************
|
||
|
||
008-811-094 Australia Registration
|
||
|
||
0660-6832 Austria Registration
|
||
|
||
1-800-463-8331 Canada Registration
|
||
|
||
0800-1-1997 Belgium Registration
|
||
|
||
011-884-2870 Brazil Registration
|
||
|
||
8001-8278 Denmark Registration
|
||
|
||
0800-114465 Finland Registration
|
||
|
||
0590-8561 France Registration
|
||
|
||
0130-821202 Germany Registration
|
||
|
||
1-800-709-905 Ireland Registration
|
||
|
||
1678-72031 Italy Registration
|
||
|
||
060-228488 Netherlands Registration
|
||
|
||
0800-105765 New Zealand Registration
|
||
|
||
800-11783 Norway Registration
|
||
|
||
900-994443 Spain Registration
|
||
|
||
020-795181 Sweden Registration
|
||
|
||
155-9222 Switzerland Registration
|
||
|
||
0800-614012 United Kingdom Registration
|
||
|
||
1-800-933-3997 US Registration
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
NOW FOR THE MODEM SET UP LIST
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
**********************************************
|
||
|
||
* IBM Global Network Internet dial modem list
|
||
|
||
**********************************************
|
||
|
||
Alliance V.32 AT&F AT&C1&D2\B1\C5\D0\N3\Q1\V0S7=60
|
||
|
||
Anchor 2400E AT&F ATE1Q0V1X4&C1&D2S7=30S0=0
|
||
|
||
Apex PCMCIA AT&F ATE0&K3
|
||
|
||
Apex V.32, V.32bis Data/Fax AT&F ATE0S11=50X4\N7\Q3\V2&C1&D2
|
||
|
||
Apex 9600 Data/Fax AT&F ATE0S11=50X4\N7\Q3\V2&C1&D2
|
||
|
||
Arima AT&F ATE0Q0V1&C1&D2&K3
|
||
|
||
AT&T DataPort 14.4 AT&F ATE0Q0V1X4&C1&D2&R0S11=50
|
||
|
||
AT&T Model 4000 AT&F ATE1Q0V1X1S7=60S0=0
|
||
|
||
ATI 2400etc AT&F1 AT&C1&D2X6S7=60S11=60S9=10S10=18
|
||
|
||
ATI 2400etc V.42 AT&F2 AT&C1&D2X6S7=60S11=60
|
||
|
||
ATI 9600etc AT&F2 AT&C1&D2X6S7=60S11=60
|
||
|
||
Avatech 2400E AT&F ATE1Q0V1X4&C1&D2S7=60S11=55S0=0
|
||
|
||
BSM Quik Com MNP AT&F AT\Q3\J0\N3%C1&C1&D2S7=60S0=0
|
||
|
||
Cardinal 2400 MNP AT&F AT\Q3\N3\J0\C1S0=0S7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
Cermetek 2400 R/2400 SPC AT&F ATE1Q0V1X4S7=60S11=55S0=0
|
||
|
||
Codex 2264 AT&F AT&C1&D2*FL3*XC1*PT0&R0
|
||
|
||
Compaq Enhanced Int. V.42bis AT&F AT&C1&D2X4W1S7=60S11=60&Q5S46=2&K3S36=7
|
||
|
||
Compaq Enhanced Internal Modem AT&F AT&C1&D2X4W1S7=60&Q5S46=2&K3S36=7
|
||
|
||
CompuCom Speedmodem AT&F2 AT*H1\N3\Q3%C1&C1&D1S7=60S11=55S0=0
|
||
|
||
Default AT&F ATE0Q0S0=0V1X1&C1&D2
|
||
|
||
Digicom 9624LE AT&F AT*F3
|
||
|
||
Digicom DSI9624 AT&F AT*F3*E1&C1S0=0S7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
Digicom DSI9624 Plus AT&F AT*F3*E9&C1S0=0S7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
Eagle V.32 Data/Fax AT&F ATE0Q0V1X4&B0&C1&D2&M0&R2*F3
|
||
|
||
Everex Carrier 96/24 AT&F AT\Q3\N3\J0\V1\C1S7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
Everex EV941 AT&F ATE1V1Q0X4&C1&D2&I1S7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
Everex Evercom 24e AT&F ATE1Q0V1X4&C1&D2S7=60S11=55S0=0
|
||
|
||
Everex Evercom 24e+ (MNP 5) AT&F ATQ0V1X4&C1&D2\Q3\C1\N3\J0\V1
|
||
|
||
Forval IM14400 AT&F AT&C1&D2\J0\N3\Q3\V1S7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
GVC Super Modem 2400 MNP-5 AT&F AT\V1%C1\C1\J0\N3\Q3S0=0S7=60S11=60
|
||
|
||
GVC Super Modem 9600 V.32 AT&F ATE1V1Q0X4&C1&D2%C1\C1\G0\J0\N3\Q3\V1S11=55S7=60
|
||
|
||
Hayes Personal Modem 2400 AT&F ATE1Q0V1X4&C1&D2S0=0
|
||
|
||
Hayes Smartmodem 2400/2400B AT&F ATE1Q0V1X4&C1&D2S7=60S11=55S0=0
|
||
|
||
Hayes Smartmodem Optima 144 + FAX 144 AT&F ATE0Q0V1W2X4&Q9S95=46
|
||
|
||
Hayes Smartmodem Optima 14400FX AT&F ATE0Q0V1W2X4&Q9S95=46
|
||
|
||
Hayes Smartmodem Optima 28800 AT&F ATB75E0Q0V1W2X4&D2&Q9S37=11S11=50S95=46
|
||
|
||
Hayes Smartmodem Optima 9600FX AT&F ATE0Q0V1W2X4&Q9S95=46
|
||
|
||
Hayes Smartmodem V Series 2400 AT&F AT&C1&D2S7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
Hayes Smartmodem V Series 9600 V.32 AT&F AT&C1&D2S7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
Hayes Ultima Smartmodem 14400 AT&F ATE0&D2
|
||
|
||
Hayes Ultra 14400 AT&F AT&C1&D2S7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
Hayes Ultra 9600 AT&F AT&C1&D2S7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
Hayes V Series 2400/2400B V.42 AT&F AT&C1&D2&K3S7=60S11=55&Q5S36=3
|
||
|
||
Hayes V Series 9600/9600B V.42 AT&F AT&C1&D2&K3S7=60S11=55&Q5S36=7
|
||
|
||
IBM (PNB) 9600 Internal AT&F ATE0Q0X4S11=50&C1
|
||
|
||
IBM 7855 (12000 bps) AT&F ATS0=0E0&M0&AP8&C1&S0#X2)N3)R2)A3)M14&B8N1S25=5
|
||
|
||
IBM 7855 (9600 bps) AT&F ATS0=0E0&M0&AP7&C1&S0#X2)N3)R2)A3)M14&B8N1S25=5
|
||
|
||
IBM PCMCIA AT&F ATL3
|
||
|
||
IBM MWave Windsurfer Adapter AT&F ATE0Q0S0=0V1X1&C1&D2\N2%C1
|
||
|
||
InfoMate 212X/PC AT&F ATE1Q0V1X1S7=60S11=55S0=0
|
||
|
||
Intel 2400B AT&F ATE1V1Q0X4&C1&D2S11=55
|
||
|
||
Intel 2400B MNP AT&F AT\Q3\N3\J0\V1\C1S11=55
|
||
|
||
Intel 2400EX MNP AT&F AT\Q3\N3\J0\V1\C1S11=55
|
||
|
||
Intel 9600EX AT&F AT\Q3\N3\J0\V1\C1S11=55S7=60
|
||
|
||
Intel 14400EX AT&F AT&C1&D2S0=0S11=55
|
||
|
||
Intel 144e external modem AT&F ATL0
|
||
|
||
Intel 144i internal modem AT&F ATL0
|
||
|
||
Intel SatisFAXtion Board AT&F AT\C1\N0S11=55
|
||
|
||
Maxwell Modem 2400PC AT&F ATE1Q0V1X1S7=30S0=0
|
||
|
||
MegaHertz 14.4 Data/Fax PCMCIA AT&F ATE0&D2S11=50
|
||
|
||
MegaHertz C5144 and C596FM AT&F1 ATE0
|
||
|
||
MegaHertz T3144 and T396FM AT&F1 ATE0
|
||
|
||
MegaHertz Z3144 and Z396FM AT&F1 ATE0
|
||
|
||
MegaHertz EasyTalk 2400 AT&F ATE1Q0V1X4&C1&D2S7=60S11=55S0=0
|
||
|
||
MicroCom AX/2400 MNP4 AT&F AT\J0\Q3\N3S0=0
|
||
|
||
MicroCom AX/2400c MNP5 AT&F AT&C1&D2M1\G0\J0\Q3\N3S0=0
|
||
|
||
MicroCom AX/9612c AT&F AT\J0\Q3\N3S0=0
|
||
|
||
MicroCom AX/9612c-AX/9624c AT&F AT\J0\Q3\N3S0=0
|
||
|
||
MicroCom AX/9624c AT&F AT\J0\Q3\N3S0=0
|
||
|
||
MicroCom QX 2400t AT&F AT&C1&D2\Q3\N3\V1%C3\C1\J0S7=60
|
||
|
||
Microcom QX/V.32c AT&F ATV1&C1\Q3\J0%C3&S0&D3X4
|
||
|
||
MultiTech MultiModem 224/224PC AT&F ATE1Q0V1X4&C1&D2S7=60S11=55S0=0
|
||
|
||
MultiTech MultiModem 224E/224EC AT&F ATQ0&E1&E4&E7&E13X4$SB9600$BA0$A1S11=55
|
||
|
||
MultiTech MultiModem 224E7 V.42bis AT&F ATQ0&E1&E4&E7&E13X4$SB19200$BA0$A1S11=55
|
||
|
||
MultiTech MultiModem V.32 AT&F ATB0&E1&E4&E7&E13X4$SB19200$BA0$A1S7=60S11=55S0=0
|
||
|
||
MultiTech MultiModem V.32 EAB V.42bis AT&F ATB0&E1&E4&E7&E13X4$SB19200$BA0$A1S7=60S11=55S0=0
|
||
|
||
NEC N2431/2431C AT&F AT&C1&D2&E1S7=60S11=55<C1T1Q
|
||
|
||
Novation Professional 2400 AT&F ATE1Q0V1X3YC0YF1YT0S7=45S0=0
|
||
|
||
Okidata CLP 296 AT&F AT&C1&D2\V1\Q3\J0\C1S7=60
|
||
|
||
Okidata Okitel 2400 Plus/2400B Plus AT&F AT&C1&D2\V1\N3\Q3\J0\C1S7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
Okidata Okitel 2400/2400B AT&F ATE1Q0V1X4&C1&D2S7=60S11=55S0=0
|
||
|
||
Okidata Okitel 9600 AT&F AT&C1&D2\C1\J0&K3\N3\Q3
|
||
|
||
PNB (IBM) 9600 Internal AT&F ATE0Q0X4S11=50&C1
|
||
|
||
Practical Peripherals 2400SA AT&F ATE1Q0V1X4&C1&D2S7=60S11=55S0=0
|
||
|
||
Practical Peripherals 2400SA MNP AT&F ATE1Q0V1X4&C1&D2\Q3\N3\J0\V1S7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
Practical Peripherals 2400SA V.42bis AT&F AT&C1&D2
|
||
|
||
Practical Peripherals PM14400FXMT AT&F ATE0Q0V1W2X4&C1&D2&Q9S95=46
|
||
|
||
Practical Peripherals PM14400FXSA AT&F ATE0Q0V1W2X4&C1&D2&Q9S95=46
|
||
|
||
Practical Peripherals PM9600FXMT AT&F ATE0Q0V1W2X4&C1&D2&Q9S95=46
|
||
|
||
Practical Peripherals PM9600SA V.32 AT&F AT&C1&D2S7=60S11=55S95=44
|
||
|
||
Practical Peripherals Practical 2400 AT&F ATE1Q0V1X4&C1&D2S11=55S0=0S7=60
|
||
|
||
Premier Innovations P2400 / P2400E AT&F ATS7=60
|
||
|
||
Prometheus 2400 MCT-24I Half-card AT&F ATE1Q0V1X4&C1&D2S7=60S11=55S0=0
|
||
|
||
Prometheus 9600 MNP AT&F AT*F3
|
||
|
||
Prometheus LineLink 144e AT&F2 AT&C1&D2
|
||
|
||
Racal-Milgo RMD 3221 AT&F ATX9&C1&D2*F2S7=60S11=55S0=0
|
||
|
||
Racal-Vadic 2400/PS AT&F AT*F2&C1&D2*E1S7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
Racal-Vadic 2400LC AT&F AT&C1&D2*E1*F2*P1S7=60S11=55S7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
Racal-Vadic 2400PA Model 2 AT&F AT&C1&D2X4*E1*L1*Q1*F2*P1S7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
Racal-Vadic 2400VP AT&F AT&C1*C1&D2*E1*F2Y1S7=60*Q1S11=55
|
||
|
||
Racal-Vadic 9600VP AT&F AT&C1*C1&D2*F2Y1*Q1S7=60
|
||
|
||
Racal-Vadic 9632PA AT&F ATS7=60
|
||
|
||
Racal-Vadic LC2400PC AT&F ATS7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
Stowaway 14.4 AT&F0 ATE0L3S11=50&C1&D2
|
||
|
||
Supra Fax V.32bis Internal Modem AT&F ATE0LW1X4S11=55
|
||
|
||
Supra Fax Modem V.32 AT&F2 ATE0
|
||
|
||
Supra Modem V.32bis AT&F2 ATE0LW1X4
|
||
|
||
Supra Modem 2400 AT&F ATE1Q0V1X4&C1&D2S7=60S11=55S0=0
|
||
|
||
Sysdyne MDM 24H AT&F ATE1Q0V1X4&C1&D2S7=60S11=55S0=0
|
||
|
||
Telebit Internal PC Card w/ MNP AT&F ATS11=60S51=5S58=2S66=1S95=2
|
||
|
||
TeleBit QBlazer 9600 AT&F ATE0X2&D2S58=2S59=3
|
||
|
||
Telebit T1000 AT&F ATS51=5S11=55S52=1S54=2S58=2S66=1S68=2S95=2S131=1
|
||
|
||
Telebit T1500 AT&F ATS11=60S50=6S51=254S52=1S131=1S58=2S66=1S97=1S106=1
|
||
|
||
Telebit T1600 AT&F ATS11=60S51=253&C1&D2L1X12S58=2S59=15
|
||
|
||
Telebit T2000 AT&F ATS51=5S11=55S52=1S53=1S58=2S66=1S68=2S95=2S110=1
|
||
|
||
Telebit T2500 AT&F ATS11=60S51=254S52=1S131=1S58=2S66=1S97=1S106=1
|
||
|
||
Telebit Trailblazer AT&F ATS11=60S51=5S52=1S53=1S58=2S66=1
|
||
|
||
Telebit Trailblazer Plus AT&F ATS11=60S51=5S52=1S53=1S58=2S66=1
|
||
|
||
Telebit Worldblazer AT&F ATE0&C1&D2S11=50S68=2S52=4S58=2S96=1
|
||
|
||
Twincom 14400 AT&F ATE0Q0V1W2X4&C1&K3&L0&D2&Q5&R0%C1
|
||
|
||
UDS Fastalk V.32/V.42 AT&F AT&C1&D2%B9600C%C1\C1\J0\N3\Q3
|
||
|
||
UDS V.3224/V.3225 AT&F AT&C1&D2%B6\N3\C1\J0\Q3\V1
|
||
|
||
Universal Data Systems Fastalk 2400 AT&F ATE1Q0V1X4&C1&D2S7=60S0=0
|
||
|
||
US Robotics 2400PC AT&F ATE1Q0V1X4&C1&D2S7=60S11=55S0=0
|
||
|
||
US Robotics Courier 2400 AT&F ATE1Q0V1X6&C1&D2S7=60S11=55S0=0
|
||
|
||
US Robotics Courier 2400e/ 2400e/ps AT&F ATX6&B6&H1&R2S7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
US Robotics Courier 2400PC AT&F ATX6&B7&H1&R2S7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
US Robotics Courier V.32bis with ASL AT&F ATE0S11=50&B1&D2&H1&R2
|
||
|
||
US Robotics Courier V.34 AT&F ATE0S11=50&B1&D2&H1&R2&A3
|
||
|
||
US Robotics Dual Standard AT&F ATX6&B1&H1&R2S7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
US Robotics HST AT&F ATX6&B1&H1&R2S7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
US Robotics HST V.42 AT&F ATX6&B1&H1&R2&M4&A3S7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
US Robotics Sportster 14400 AT&F ATE0Q0V1X4S11=50&A3&B1&C1&D2&H1&K3&R2
|
||
|
||
US Robotics Sportster 2400/2400 PC AT&F ATE1Q0V1X6&C1&D2S7=60S11=55S0=0
|
||
|
||
US Robotics Sportster 9600FX AT&F ATE0Q0V1X4S11=50&A3&B1&C1&D2&H1&K3&R2
|
||
|
||
US Robotics TelePath 14.4 AT&F ATE0Q0V1X4&C1&D2&H1&R2
|
||
|
||
US Robotics V.32 AT&F ATX6&H1&R2&B1S7=60S0=0
|
||
|
||
US Robotics WorldPort 9600FX AT&F ATE0Q0V1X4S11=50&A3&B1&C1&D2&H1&K3&R2
|
||
|
||
Ven-Tel 212Plus AT&F ATE1Q0V1X1S7=60S11=55S0=0
|
||
|
||
Ven-Tel 2400 Plus II AT&F AT&C1&D2S7=60S11=55S0=0\N3\Q3%C1\C1\G0\J0\V1
|
||
|
||
Ven-Tel 9600 Plus / Plus II AT&F AT&C1&D2S7=60S11=55S0=0*S0%F2\N3\Q3%C1\V11
|
||
|
||
Ven-Tel Halfcard AT&F ATE1Q0V1X4S7=60S0=0
|
||
|
||
Ven-Tel Halfcard 24 AT&F ATE1Q0V1X4S7=30S0=0
|
||
|
||
Ven-Tel Pathfinder AT&F ATS51=5ATS11=55S52=1S53=1S58=2S66=1S68=2S95=2S110=1
|
||
|
||
Ven-Tel PCM2400E AT&F AT&C1&D2X4E1\N3\Q1\G1\V1S7=60S11=55
|
||
|
||
Viva 14.4 AT&F ATE0S0=0Q0V1X1&C1&D2
|
||
|
||
Zoom 2400 V.42bis AT&F AT&C1&D2S7=60S11=55S36=7S95=43
|
||
|
||
Zoom Modem PC 2400 AT&F ATE1Q0V1X4&C1&D2S7=60S11=55S0=0
|
||
|
||
Zoom V.32 14.4 AT&F AT&C1&D2
|
||
|
||
Zoom 9600 V.32bis AT&F AT&C1&D2
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
th...th...thats all ffolks!! - KK
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
+++
|
||
|
||
EOF
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
PHUK MAGAZINE - Phile 7 of 10
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
PHONE CARDS AROUND THE GLOBE
|
||
|
||
----------------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Here is a list of all the different types of phonecard in the world ...
|
||
|
||
it comes from an industry mag called "Card Technology Today", a DTP based
|
||
|
||
A4 magazine which costs a STAGGERING 249 UK Pounds per year for its
|
||
|
||
photocopied 18 pages !!! Seeing as though they print at the bottom of
|
||
|
||
EVERY page that "No part of this publication may be copied etc etc", I
|
||
|
||
thought I'd "contribute" their article on phone cards to PHUK magazine.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
- Korporate Mole
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
COUNTRY SYSTEM SUPPLIERS COMMENTS
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Albania - Alcatel Bell Trial Card
|
||
|
||
Algeria Smart Gemplus -
|
||
|
||
Andorra Smart Schlumberger -
|
||
|
||
Anguilla - GPT Caribbean Series
|
||
|
||
Antigua Magnetic GPT -
|
||
|
||
Antigua Smart GPT -
|
||
|
||
Ascension magnetic GPT, Datacard -
|
||
|
||
Argentina smart Schlumberger, Telefonica
|
||
|
||
Gemplus
|
||
|
||
Argentina Optical Landis & Gyr Provinox
|
||
|
||
Argentina Magnetic Urmet Telecom
|
||
|
||
Argentina Smart Gemplus Telecom
|
||
|
||
Aruba Optical Landis & Gyr -
|
||
|
||
Austria Optical Landis & Gyr -
|
||
|
||
Australia Magnetic - Payphonics
|
||
|
||
Australia Magnetic - Pay*Tels
|
||
|
||
Australia Optical - Telecom
|
||
|
||
Azerbaijan Smart Schlumberger, -
|
||
|
||
Alcatel Bell
|
||
|
||
Bahamas Smart Gemplus -
|
||
|
||
Bahrain Magnetic GPT -
|
||
|
||
Bangladesh Magnetic Urmet -
|
||
|
||
Belgium Optical Alcatel Bell -
|
||
|
||
Belgium Smart Alcatel Bell -
|
||
|
||
Benin Optical Landis & Gyr -
|
||
|
||
Bermuda Smart Gemplus -
|
||
|
||
Bolivia Magnetic Tamura -
|
||
|
||
Botswana Smart Solaic -
|
||
|
||
Brazil Inductive - -
|
||
|
||
Brazil Magnetic - Bus cardphone
|
||
|
||
Brunei Magnetic Ascom Autelca -
|
||
|
||
BVI (1) Magnetic GPT Caribbean Series
|
||
|
||
Burkina Smart Schlumberger -
|
||
|
||
Burkina Optical Landis & Gyr -
|
||
|
||
Burundi Optical Landis & Gyr -
|
||
|
||
Bulgaria - GPT Betkom
|
||
|
||
Cambodia Magnetic Amritsu -
|
||
|
||
Cameroon Smart Schlumberger, -
|
||
|
||
Gemplus
|
||
|
||
Cameroon Magnetic Ascom Autelca -
|
||
|
||
Canada - Landis & Gyr BTel
|
||
|
||
Canada Remote - Bell
|
||
|
||
Canada - - Phoneline Int.
|
||
|
||
Canada Magnetic - Calgary
|
||
|
||
Cayman I. - Datacard -
|
||
|
||
Cayman I. - GPT -
|
||
|
||
Cape Verde Optical Landis & Gyr Previously in use
|
||
|
||
Cape Verde Smart Schlumberger Now in use
|
||
|
||
CAR (2) Smart Schlumberger -
|
||
|
||
CAR Optical Landis & Gyr -
|
||
|
||
Chile Smart Gemplus -
|
||
|
||
Chile Magnetic Tamura -
|
||
|
||
China Magnetic GPT Shenda Telephone
|
||
|
||
China - - Shenzen
|
||
|
||
China - - Beijing
|
||
|
||
China - - Guangzhou
|
||
|
||
Cyprus Magnetic GPT -
|
||
|
||
Czech Smart GPT Prague CityCard
|
||
|
||
Colombia Magnetic Tamura Barranquilla
|
||
|
||
Colombia Smart Alcatel Bell Local Company
|
||
|
||
Congo Smart Schlumberger Braziville
|
||
|
||
Cook I. Magnetic GPT -
|
||
|
||
Costa Rica Magnetic GPT -
|
||
|
||
Costa Rica Smart Schlumberger -
|
||
|
||
Croatia Smart Amper, Gemplus -
|
||
|
||
Cuba Smart Schlumberger -
|
||
|
||
Curacao Optical Landis & Gyr -
|
||
|
||
Cyprus Magnetic GPT -
|
||
|
||
Denmark Smart - KTAS
|
||
|
||
Diego G. Magnetic Ascom Autelca Cable & Wireless
|
||
|
||
Djbouti Smart Schlumberger Chip in AFNOR Position
|
||
|
||
Dominica Magnetic GPT Caribbean Series
|
||
|
||
Egypt - Gemplus Africa Telecom
|
||
|
||
Egypt - Schlumberger Special Event Cards
|
||
|
||
Egypt Magnetic Amritsu -
|
||
|
||
Estonia - Landis & Gyr Estonian Telecom
|
||
|
||
Estonia Magnetic Alcatel Bell On Trial
|
||
|
||
EG (3) Smart Schlumberger Chip in AFNOR Position
|
||
|
||
Falkands - Datacard Cable & Wireless
|
||
|
||
Falklands Magnetic Alcatel Bell On Trial
|
||
|
||
Faroes - DZ Danmark -
|
||
|
||
Fiji Magnetic GPT Fintel (C&W)
|
||
|
||
Fiji Magnetic GPT Post & Telecom NZ
|
||
|
||
Finland Smart Avant Avant Electronic Purse
|
||
|
||
France Smart Solaic, Gemplus France Telecom,
|
||
|
||
Schlumberger Chip in ISO Position
|
||
|
||
France Smart Monetel -
|
||
|
||
France Smart Smart Ingeniere Private Cardphones
|
||
|
||
Fr.Poly Smart Schlumberger -
|
||
|
||
Gabon Smart Schlumberger -
|
||
|
||
Gabon Magnetic Ascom Autelca -
|
||
|
||
Gambia Smart Schlumberger, -
|
||
|
||
Gemplus
|
||
|
||
Gibraltar Optical Landis & Gyr -
|
||
|
||
Ghana Optical Landis & Gyr -
|
||
|
||
Ghana Smart Schlumberger -
|
||
|
||
GB Smart Delphic Cambridge Telephones, plan to
|
||
|
||
launch Cardphones & Chipcards
|
||
|
||
GB Smart GPT, Gemplus, BT start converting all card
|
||
|
||
Schlumberger and cashphones this year.
|
||
|
||
GB Optical Landis & Gyr BT, now being phased out.
|
||
|
||
GB Smart Siemens ACC, private site service
|
||
|
||
GB Magnetic GPT Mercury, being phased out
|
||
|
||
GB Magnetic Ascom Autelca Kite, took over from IPLS
|
||
|
||
GB - GPT BR Telecom, railway payphones
|
||
|
||
Greece Smart GPT, Gemplus -
|
||
|
||
Grenada Smart GPT Caribbean Series
|
||
|
||
Guatemala Smart Gemplus About to be introduced
|
||
|
||
Guernsey Smart GPT Guernsey Telecom
|
||
|
||
Guinea B. Optical Landis & Gyr -
|
||
|
||
Guinea C. Smart Schlumberger -
|
||
|
||
Hong Kong Remote GPT Telecom
|
||
|
||
Hong Kong Magnetic Ascom Autelca -
|
||
|
||
Hungary Smart GPT, Gemplus -
|
||
|
||
Iceland Smart Schlumberger Radiomidun, ship to shore use
|
||
|
||
Iceland Optical Landis & Gyr -
|
||
|
||
India Smart Aplab, Urmet SGS-Thomson Module
|
||
|
||
Indonesia Magnetic Tamura Indonesia Telkom
|
||
|
||
Iran Smart Solaic Square Centred Contact
|
||
|
||
Ireland Smart Gemplus, Telecom Eireann
|
||
|
||
Schlumeberger
|
||
|
||
Ireland Smart Gemplus Superphone, Ferries & Buses
|
||
|
||
Isle of Man Smart GPT -
|
||
|
||
Israel Optical Landis & Gyr Bezeq
|
||
|
||
Italy Magnetic Urmet -
|
||
|
||
Ivory C'st Magnetic Ascom Autelca CI Telecom
|
||
|
||
Jamaica Magnetic GPT -
|
||
|
||
Japan Remote - -
|
||
|
||
Japan Magnetic Tamuru, Anritsu NTT
|
||
|
||
Jersey - McCorquodale, GPT Jersey Telecom
|
||
|
||
Jordan Magnetic Ascom Autelca? PTT, withdrawn
|
||
|
||
Kazakhstan Smart Schlumberger AlmaAta, Trial card
|
||
|
||
S.Korea Magnetic Ascom Autelca -
|
||
|
||
Kuwait Magnetic GPT, Tamura -
|
||
|
||
Latvia - Alcatel Bell -
|
||
|
||
Lebanon Smart Schlumberger Chip in AFNOR Position
|
||
|
||
Libya Smart Gemplus Chip in AFNOR Position
|
||
|
||
Lithuania Magnetic Urmet -
|
||
|
||
Lux'bourg Smart Schlumberger, -
|
||
|
||
Gemplus
|
||
|
||
Macau Magnetic GPT CTM
|
||
|
||
Macedonia Smart Schlumberger -
|
||
|
||
Madagascar Smart Schlumberger -
|
||
|
||
Malaysia Magnetic GPT Uniphone, smart cards soon
|
||
|
||
Maldives Magnetic GPT -
|
||
|
||
Mali Optical Landis & Gyr -
|
||
|
||
Mali Smart Schlumberger -
|
||
|
||
Malta Smart Schlumberger -
|
||
|
||
Mauritius Optical Landis & Gyr -
|
||
|
||
Mexico Smart Monetel, Gemplus, Telmex
|
||
|
||
Schlumberger,
|
||
|
||
Anritsu
|
||
|
||
Mexico Smart Amper, Gemplus, Telnor
|
||
|
||
GPT
|
||
|
||
Micronesia Magnetic Tamura FSMTC
|
||
|
||
Micronesia Magnetic Tamura MTC
|
||
|
||
Monaco Smart Gemplus, Solaic, -
|
||
|
||
Schlumberger
|
||
|
||
Monserrat Magnetic GPT Caribbean Series
|
||
|
||
Morocco Smart Schlumberger Alfatel, field trial
|
||
|
||
Morocco Optical Landis & Gyr For GATT Meeting
|
||
|
||
Namibia Smart GPT -
|
||
|
||
N.Caledonia Smart Schlumberger Chip in AFNOR Position
|
||
|
||
N.Zealand - - Global Telecom Systems,
|
||
|
||
about to launch 1st cards
|
||
|
||
N.Zealand Remote GPT Telecom NZ
|
||
|
||
Netherlands Smart Solaic, Gemplus, PTT Telecom
|
||
|
||
SDU Payphones accept optical,
|
||
|
||
magnetic & smartcards
|
||
|
||
Netherlands Optical Landis & Gyr -
|
||
|
||
Nicaragua Smart Gemplus -
|
||
|
||
Niger Optical Landis & Gyr -
|
||
|
||
Nigeria Magnetic Ascom Autelca -
|
||
|
||
Nigeria Smart Schlumberger, AVE
|
||
|
||
Gemplus
|
||
|
||
Norway Smart Schlumberger, -
|
||
|
||
Gemplus
|
||
|
||
Norway Magnetic - Long Distance railcard
|
||
|
||
Oman Magnetic GPT -
|
||
|
||
Pakistan - Landis & Gyr Telecom Foundation
|
||
|
||
Pakistan Smart Schlumberger -
|
||
|
||
Pakistan Magnetic Urmet Telips, partnership with
|
||
|
||
Telefon & Int. Payphones
|
||
|
||
Papua N.G. Optical Landis & Gyr -
|
||
|
||
Peru Smart Solaic Telepoint
|
||
|
||
Peru Smart Gemplus Provincial Telco
|
||
|
||
Peru Magnetic Tamura -
|
||
|
||
Philippines Magnetic GPT Eastern Telecom
|
||
|
||
Philippines Magnetic DZ Danmark -
|
||
|
||
Poland Optical Landis & Gyr Trial Cards
|
||
|
||
Poland Magnetic Urmet Trial Cards
|
||
|
||
Poland Smart Schlumberger Trial Cards
|
||
|
||
Portugal Smart Schlumberger Telecom Portugal
|
||
|
||
Portugal Optical Landis & Gyr Telecom Portugal
|
||
|
||
Portugal Smart Schlumberger TLP
|
||
|
||
Puerto Rico - - Puerto Rico Telecom, mainly
|
||
|
||
for US islands
|
||
|
||
Puerto Rico Remote - Trescom, expected shortly
|
||
|
||
Qatar Magnetic Ascom Autelca -
|
||
|
||
Romania Smart Schlumberger Rom Telecom
|
||
|
||
Romania Smart Alcatel -
|
||
|
||
Romania Smart Gemplus Emcom
|
||
|
||
Romania Magnetic - Telefonica Romania, attendant
|
||
|
||
operated
|
||
|
||
Russia Smart Gemplus Moscow cellular Systems
|
||
|
||
Russia Smart Gemplus St. Petersburg, field trials
|
||
|
||
Russia Optical Landis & Gyr -
|
||
|
||
Russia Magnetic GPT Peterstar, owned with GPT
|
||
|
||
Russia Magnetic GPT Nakhoda
|
||
|
||
Russia Magnetic GPT Sakhalin Telecom
|
||
|
||
Russia - Alcatel Bell Combelga, installation soon
|
||
|
||
Sao Tome Optical Landis & Gyr -
|
||
|
||
San Marino - Urmet -
|
||
|
||
Saudi Magnetic GPT -
|
||
|
||
Senegal Smart Schlumberger,
|
||
|
||
Gemplus
|
||
|
||
Seychelles Optical Landis & Gyr Cable & Wireless
|
||
|
||
Singapore Smart Gemplus, GPT -
|
||
|
||
Sierra L. Magnetic Urmet -
|
||
|
||
Slovakia Smart GPT Slovakian Telecom
|
||
|
||
Solomon I. Magnetic GPT -
|
||
|
||
Sth. Africa Smart GPT Telkom SA
|
||
|
||
Sth. Africa Smart Solaic Transtel
|
||
|
||
Sth. Africa Smart - Telkor, International Payphone
|
||
|
||
Conference
|
||
|
||
Sth. Africa - - Transnet Railways
|
||
|
||
Slovenia Smart Gemplus -
|
||
|
||
Spain Smart - CabiTel
|
||
|
||
Spain Smart - Telefonica
|
||
|
||
Sri Lanka Optical GPT -
|
||
|
||
Sri Lanka Magnetic Anritsu Sri Lanka Telecom
|
||
|
||
St Helena Magnetic GPT -
|
||
|
||
St Lucia Magnetic GPT Caribbean Series
|
||
|
||
St Kitts Magnetic GPT Caribbean Series
|
||
|
||
St Martin Smart Gemplus Chip in AFNOR Position
|
||
|
||
St Vincent Magnetic GPT Caribbean Series
|
||
|
||
Sweden Optical Landis & Gyr Stena Link Ferries
|
||
|
||
Sweden Magnetic - -
|
||
|
||
Sweden Smart - Televerket
|
||
|
||
Switz'land Smart - From 1996
|
||
|
||
Switz'land Optical Landis & Gyr -
|
||
|
||
Syria Magnetic Urmet -
|
||
|
||
Taiwan Opticla Landis & Gyr -
|
||
|
||
Tanzania - Landis & Gyr Trial cards
|
||
|
||
Tchad Smart Gemplus, -
|
||
|
||
Schlumberger
|
||
|
||
Thailand Optical Landis & Gyr Field Trials
|
||
|
||
Thailand Smart GPT Lenso Phone, for International
|
||
|
||
Use.
|
||
|
||
Togo Magnetic GPT Rumoured to be changing to
|
||
|
||
smartcard
|
||
|
||
Tonga - GPT -
|
||
|
||
T&T (4) Magnetic GPT -
|
||
|
||
Tunisia Optical Urmet Field Trials
|
||
|
||
Tunisia Smart Schlumberger -
|
||
|
||
Turkey Magnetic Alcatel Bell -
|
||
|
||
Turkey Optical Landis & Gyr -
|
||
|
||
Turkey Smart Schlumberger Event Card
|
||
|
||
T&C (5) Magnetic GPT Caribbean Series
|
||
|
||
Ukraine Magnetic Ascom Autelca -
|
||
|
||
Uganda Magnetic Tamura -
|
||
|
||
UAE Magnetic Tamura -
|
||
|
||
Uraguay Magnetic Tamura -
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - ACI, small new company
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - AFSCOM, military
|
||
|
||
USA Smart Schlumberger Alaska, fish processing plants
|
||
|
||
USA Magnetic/ - Americtech, Known as Coinsavers
|
||
|
||
Remote
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Ameratel, launch soon
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - American Public & Private Comms
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Amerivox
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - AT&T
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Bell Atlantic
|
||
|
||
USA Magnetic - Bell South
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Cable & Wireless
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Cardcaller, maybe withdrawn
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - CCT, minor player
|
||
|
||
USA Smart Schlumberger Comsat, ship to shore
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Communications Gateway Network
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Connect 1 Comms
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Conquest 6, debit card
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - DCD Comms, dialback service
|
||
|
||
USA Magnetic Tamura FSMTC
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Fone America
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Global Telecomms Solutions
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Gophone/Actionline, uses
|
||
|
||
Amerivox system
|
||
|
||
USA Magnetic Tamura GTE Hawaii
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Metromedia Comms Corp
|
||
|
||
USA Magnetic Tamura MTC. Nt. Marianna Islands
|
||
|
||
USA Magnetic Tamura NYNEX
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Peoples Telephone Co, prompts
|
||
|
||
in 12 languages
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Phoneline USA
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Phonetime
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Quest Comms
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Select Net
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Sprint
|
||
|
||
USA Magnetic Tamura Teleconcepts
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Renewal through credit card
|
||
|
||
debit
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Telekey, uses 9 languages
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Timemachine, uses autorenewal
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Teletext, uses 9 languages
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Varetic Telecom
|
||
|
||
USA Smart Gemplus US West
|
||
|
||
USA Smart Schlumberger US South
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Western Union
|
||
|
||
USA Remote - Worldwide Comms
|
||
|
||
UN - - Telepax, cards for peace
|
||
|
||
related projects
|
||
|
||
Uzbekistan Smart Schlumberger -
|
||
|
||
Vatican Magnetic Urmet -
|
||
|
||
Vanuatu Smart Schlumberger -
|
||
|
||
Venezuela Smart Solaic, Gemplus CANTV
|
||
|
||
Venezuela Smart Solaic Yellow Pages
|
||
|
||
Vietnam - - Telecom Australia
|
||
|
||
Vietnam Smart Schlumberger Trials in Hanoi
|
||
|
||
Vietnam Magnetic Sapura Hanoi City PTT
|
||
|
||
W&F (6) Smart Schlumberger Chip in AFNOR Position
|
||
|
||
Yemen Magnetic Ascom Autelca TeleYemen
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
(1) British Virgin Isles
|
||
|
||
(2) Central African Republic
|
||
|
||
(3) Equatorial Guinea
|
||
|
||
(4) Trinidad & Tobago
|
||
|
||
(5) Turks & Caicos
|
||
|
||
(6) Wallace & Fortuna
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
+++
|
||
|
||
EOF
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
PHUK MAGAZINE - Phile 8 of 10
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
British Telecom - Computer Security Manual
|
||
|
||
------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Mrs. Brady, of Doncaster
|
||
|
||
------------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Sent to us anonymously by someone who wishes only to be known by
|
||
|
||
the name of Mrs. Brady of Doncaster .
|
||
|
||
Run in PHUK as a three part series, here is the second part of
|
||
|
||
British Telecom Computer Security manual right up to the bits about
|
||
|
||
personal computers and software and data ... which should make you
|
||
|
||
all look forward to the next issue of PHUK magazine for the final part
|
||
|
||
of this classified manual !
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Personal computers
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Contents
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
|
||
|
||
5.1.1 Use outside BT premises . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.2 Personal security responsibility. . . . . . . . 5-3
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.3 PC and data access security . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
|
||
|
||
5.3.1 Keylocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
|
||
|
||
5.3.2 Password protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
|
||
|
||
5.3.3 Removable disks and cassettes . . . . . . . . . 5-6
|
||
|
||
5.3.4 Protection of data in memory. . . . . . . . . . 5-6
|
||
|
||
5.3.5 Hard copy (printouts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.4 Security of software. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.5 Personal computer communications. . . . . . . . 5-8
|
||
|
||
5.5.1 Public network access . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
|
||
|
||
5.5.2 Use of PC as a computer terminal. . . . . . . . 5-9
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.6 Contingeny planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10
|
||
|
||
5.6.1 Archiving and backup. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.7 Flle Servers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.1 Introduction
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Personal Computers (PCs) are often sited in open plan offices and, as such, are
|
||
|
||
accessible by many people. In general, PCs and their peripherals can be removed
|
||
|
||
more easily than other types of computer. Due to these two facts, PCs are more
|
||
|
||
vulnerable than equipment housed in purpose built accommodation, for example
|
||
|
||
dedicated computer centres, and so require additional provisions for their
|
||
|
||
protection.
|
||
|
||
The following threats are more likely:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o the theft of PC or peripherals,
|
||
|
||
o the theft or damage to the information stored on the PC,
|
||
|
||
o accidental or malicious physical damage, and
|
||
|
||
o the possibility of screens displaying sensitive information being overlooked.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Some deterrent against theft can be offered by clearly marking equipment with
|
||
|
||
the name and office address of the person responsible for the equipment. The
|
||
|
||
serial numbers of the equipments should also be recorded.
|
||
|
||
PC users should pay careful attention to the environment of the machine:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o ensure vents on the PC are not blocked by printout, manuals etc.
|
||
|
||
o eating, drinking and smoking while using a PC can cause damage to the machine
|
||
|
||
and should therefore be avoided.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
When choosing a site for the machine in an open plan office, ensure that
|
||
|
||
consideration has been given to the confidentiality required for data on the
|
||
|
||
machine. In particular ensure that visitors or people outside a building cannot
|
||
|
||
overlook the screen if sensitive information is displayed.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.1.1 Use outside BT premises
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
There are dangers in using PCs outside BT premises, for example, on trains or at
|
||
|
||
home. These threats include the increased possibility of theft, the likelihood of
|
||
|
||
onlookers and potential damage by extending access to inexperienced users. An
|
||
|
||
unprotected communications link may also present a security risk. Managers
|
||
|
||
must consider carefully whether the risks involved are justified.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 5.1: USE OF BT COMPUTING EQUIPMENT OUTSIDE BT
|
||
|
||
PREMISES
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Privacy marked or commercially sensitive information shall not be processed
|
||
|
||
on portable computers anywhere other than BT premises unless the computer
|
||
|
||
or the information stored therein is adequately protected.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.2 Personal security responsibility
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fundamental to good security is control. Control of access and resources can only
|
||
|
||
be achieved by co-ordination. For this reason it is important to distinguish
|
||
|
||
between the person responsible for a personal computer (PC) and those that use it.
|
||
|
||
Although the actual assignment of responsibilities for personal computers is a
|
||
|
||
local management issue, the following issues shall be addressed by the person
|
||
|
||
nominated as responsible for the PC:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o Physical security of the PC,
|
||
|
||
o Controlling the access of individuals to the PC,
|
||
|
||
o Ensuring that users are aware of their responsibilities,
|
||
|
||
o Controlling external access to the PC (LANs, PSI N etc),
|
||
|
||
o Backup of software (see contingency planning section),
|
||
|
||
o Maintain a list of the software and hardware,
|
||
|
||
o Co-ordinate maintenance engineers access,
|
||
|
||
o Regular audit of PC hardware and software against licences held.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The users of the PC should be made aware of their responsibilities by the person
|
||
|
||
who controls the PC. Authorisation should only be granted if the proposed user
|
||
|
||
accepts the responsibilities in writing.
|
||
|
||
The responsibilities of the users must include:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o To use only legitimate authorised and licensed socware from a proven source,
|
||
|
||
o To ensure that no sensitive data is put on the hard disk (unless it is equipped with
|
||
|
||
appropriate protection),
|
||
|
||
o To ensure that they take backups of their data at appropriate intervals,
|
||
|
||
o To read and abide by the guidance of the Computer Security Manual and the
|
||
|
||
Information Security Code.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Where the person responsible for the machine is also the user of the machine, the
|
||
|
||
duties of audit and checking outlined above fall upon that individual's line manager
|
||
|
||
or nominated representative.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 5.2: CONTROL OF PERSONAL COMPUTERS
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Every personal computer shall have a named individual who is responsible for
|
||
|
||
controlling its use.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The owner must maintain a list of sensitive data in a secure place, in addition to
|
||
|
||
the list of applications. The degree of compromise should local data be lost must
|
||
|
||
be known.
|
||
|
||
Any user who stores sensitive data on servers used by the PC must never assume
|
||
|
||
that backups are being done. It is incumbent upon the user to verify the server
|
||
|
||
conditions.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.3 PC and data access security
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Many PCs are sited in open-plan offices and there may be no particular physical
|
||
|
||
security measures to restrict access to the processor, network features or
|
||
|
||
peripherals. For this reason, care needs to be exercised over the use of the PC and
|
||
|
||
access to the data. The criteria for choosing suitable controls should be the
|
||
|
||
sensitivity of the data processed, and the physical environment (who may have
|
||
|
||
physical access to the PC).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
To assess the sensitivity of the data it is necessary to consider the effect of a loss
|
||
|
||
of confidentiality (to competitors, to the press, to other employees etc.); the effect
|
||
|
||
of inaccurate data or incomplete data, and the effect if data on the PC were
|
||
|
||
unavailable. The implications of the Data Protection Act and other legislation and
|
||
|
||
regulatory issues should also be considered.
|
||
|
||
The security principles to be borne in mind are:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o Need to know,
|
||
|
||
o Need to modify,
|
||
|
||
o Individual responsibility, and
|
||
|
||
o Accountability.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
To enforce these security principles access to the PC, and more importantly to
|
||
|
||
data must be controlled. It is important to segregate data into compartments so as
|
||
|
||
to ensure that the security principles can be enforced. This can be achieved by use
|
||
|
||
of removable disks, or by encryption of individual files on a hard disk.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
While it is not always practicable for PCs to be locked in a room if they operated
|
||
|
||
unattended, access to their contents must be restricted. Without adequate
|
||
|
||
protection, the PC, the data it is processing, and networks to which it may be
|
||
|
||
connected are at risk not only from unauthorised access but also accidental or
|
||
|
||
deliberate corruption.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
An unprotected and unattended PC is vulnerable to being used to run
|
||
|
||
unauthorised software, for example games, which may carry a computer virus.
|
||
|
||
Some security can be achieved by:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o provision of key locks to safeguard internal pre-set hardware,
|
||
|
||
o physical locks to prevent use of the floppy disk drive,
|
||
|
||
o hardware-based password protection invoked during the startup procedure,
|
||
|
||
o an add-in hardware assisted access control protection device,
|
||
|
||
o hardware-based data encryption,
|
||
|
||
o removable hard-disks.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.3.1 Key locks
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
A PC may have a key lock built into it. Some of these locks give a degree of
|
||
|
||
security by disabling the processor power unit. Others may simply disable the
|
||
|
||
screen or keyboard.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
There is also a (somewhat limited) range of external locks for most PCs. These
|
||
|
||
locks can be fitted over the mains and auxiliary power switches to the processor
|
||
|
||
thus preventing unauthorised operation of the computer and providing safeguards
|
||
|
||
against theft of hard disks, plug-in cards and the system unit.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Lockable devices may also be fitted over, or into, the floppy disk unit so guarding
|
||
|
||
against loading of unauthorised software.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.3.2 Password protection
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
There are numerous proprietary packages available which control access to the
|
||
|
||
PC operating system and disk storage by means of a user ID and password
|
||
|
||
system. Some of these packages depend on the installation of a plug-in card within
|
||
|
||
the PC, others are totally software-controlled. In some cases encryption of files on
|
||
|
||
the hard disk is an option, however the following points must be considered
|
||
|
||
before using this facility:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o whether or not the password protection can be circumvented,
|
||
|
||
o whether the method of encryption (the algorithm) is strong enough,
|
||
|
||
o whether the danger exists that encrypted files could accidentally or deliberately
|
||
|
||
become corrupted and irretrievable.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
For technical guidance, refer to Chapter 10 for contacts.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.3.2.1 Protection of data on non-removable disks
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Files resident on fixed disks are particularly vulnerable. Unless an encryption
|
||
|
||
system approved by the Director of Security and Investigation is used or the PC is
|
||
|
||
protected by other suitable means, sensitive data must not be stored on
|
||
|
||
non-removable disks.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Many application programs used on personal computers use the (often larger and
|
||
|
||
faster) non-removable disk to temporarily store user data automatically, even if the
|
||
|
||
file being edited is being held on removable media After processing, the
|
||
|
||
temporary files are deleted from the disk; the data, however, remains intact until
|
||
|
||
the space it is occupying is ovenvritten by another file. Many word-processing
|
||
|
||
packages and similar programs produce back-up files and these also need to be
|
||
|
||
erased.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
PCs on which has been loaded unknown or unauthorised software are particularly
|
||
|
||
vulnerable to attack by a Trojan Horse which may copy software or sensitive data
|
||
|
||
in a way that is unobserved and unknown by the usual PC user. Trojan Horse
|
||
|
||
software is often distributed by means of a computer virus.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Files deleted from disks, for example with the DOS DELETE command can be
|
||
|
||
easily recovered as only the directory entry is amended to indicate the disk space
|
||
|
||
is free for reuse; the data remains intact on the disk until it is overwritten. To
|
||
|
||
completely delete a file it must be erased by overwriting it with zeros or a random
|
||
|
||
data pattern. For increased privacy, this may need to be performed several times
|
||
|
||
in succession. There are third-party programs available to do this.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Files stored on file servers, such Novell's Network Operating System (NOS),
|
||
|
||
when deleted, are actually moved to a 'deleted' directory, still accessible by system
|
||
|
||
administrators. These files are not fully deleted until the Deleted directory space
|
||
|
||
is exhausted. Administrators should set up procedures for the automatic deletion
|
||
|
||
of these files. Copies may also exist on backup tapes.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Should a non-removable disk, or a PC containing a non-removable disk, require
|
||
|
||
maintenance, special precautions may be necessary to render unusable any
|
||
|
||
information contained on the disk. If an approved encryption system is used on a
|
||
|
||
non-removable disk, the privacy marking then applies only to the encryption key
|
||
|
||
protecting that information. If the information is very sensitive, it may be
|
||
|
||
appropriate to destroy the disk using destruction procedures approved by the
|
||
|
||
Director of Security and Investigations. See also Software And Data: Disposal Of
|
||
|
||
Media for policies on this subject.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 5.3: STORAGE OF DATA ON NON-REMOVABLE DISKS
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Any personal computer fitted with a non-removable disk and containing privacy
|
||
|
||
marked information shall be handled and stored accordingly. IN
|
||
|
||
CONFIDENCE data shall be protected by an approved software access control
|
||
|
||
and IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE data protected by a hardware based access
|
||
|
||
control and encryption system approved by the Director of Security and
|
||
|
||
Investigation.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 5.4: SENSITIVE DATA PROCESSED ON A PERSONAL COMPUTER
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
When using a personal computer with a non-removable disk to process
|
||
|
||
sensitive information, even if the data is held on a removable disk, the
|
||
|
||
non-removable disk shall be assumed to contain sensitive information, and be
|
||
|
||
treated appropriately.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.3.3 Removable disks and cassettes
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
All disks and cassettes must be put away when not in use. To guard against
|
||
|
||
extraneous magnetic influences they should be stored away from any electrical
|
||
|
||
equipment. Any removable media which contain sensitive information should be
|
||
|
||
clearly labelled with the appropriate privacy marking. If sensitive information is
|
||
|
||
being held they must be locked away in a suitable cabinet or drawer appropriate to
|
||
|
||
its privacy marking. Lockable plastic disk cases by themselves are not sufficient
|
||
|
||
protection.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
CSM Policy 7.17: MARKING OF MEDIA applies.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.3.4 Protection of data in memomy
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Random Access Memory (RAM) is the PC's working memory. It holds the
|
||
|
||
programs currently running and the data currently being processed.
|
||
|
||
Frequently-accessed data on a floppy or non-removable disk may be loaded into
|
||
|
||
RAM to improve access time. When the PC is powered off, RAM is normally
|
||
|
||
erased. On some PCs, however, data in RAM is saved when the power is turned
|
||
|
||
off, and can be reloaded when the power is turned on again.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Some multitasking Operating Systems (OSs), such as UNIX in all its variants,
|
||
|
||
OS/2 and Microsoft Windows manage virtual memory areas on a per process
|
||
|
||
basis. When free memory becomes low on such systems, parts of memory are
|
||
|
||
written out to a special disk area managed by the OS. The data remains on disk
|
||
|
||
and can be accessed by persons familiar with the OS.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Some OSs also generate memory dumps when the system malfunctions, at which
|
||
|
||
point some, if not all, of memory is written out to disk before the system goes
|
||
|
||
down. It may, under certain circumstances, be advantageous to make this
|
||
|
||
information available to vendor representatives to help debug the problem, but the
|
||
|
||
security implications associated with doing this must be assessed.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
If sensitive data is held on a PC and the operating system uses virtual memory, or
|
||
|
||
RAM, is saved when the PC is powered off, then the person responsible must
|
||
|
||
protect the PC in accordance with Policies 5.3 and 5.4.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 5.5: RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Where there is a possibility that an unauthorised person may have gained
|
||
|
||
access to an unattended Personal Computer, it shall be switched off to clear
|
||
|
||
volatile memory.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
PCs containing non-volatile memory shall be protected as though they
|
||
|
||
contained a non-removable disk.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.3.5 Hard copy (printouts)
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Where resources such as printers are shared, or several are available, special
|
||
|
||
precautions should be effected to ensure privacy marked material is not seen by,
|
||
|
||
or delivered to an inappropriate person.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Printout should always have the appropriate privacy marking clearly displayed at
|
||
|
||
the top and bottom of each page and handled in accordance with the appropriate
|
||
|
||
rules in the Information Security Code. Partial printouts, perhaps resulting from
|
||
|
||
failures or aborted print runs, should be disposed of in accordance with their
|
||
|
||
intended privacy marking. Note that many printers contain a memory which holds
|
||
|
||
information used for printing. In the event of failure during a print this information
|
||
|
||
may remain in memory until the printer is powered off.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Because some personal computers (and dumb terminals) offer the facility to take a
|
||
|
||
printed copy of the contents of the screen (for example, screen dumps or print
|
||
|
||
screen), each screen displayed should contain the sensitivity marking for that
|
||
|
||
information.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
It should be noted that most laser printers hold a copy of the last printed page on
|
||
|
||
the laser printer drum and that it is a relatively easy task to read this page of
|
||
|
||
information directly from the drum.Therefore, whenever particularly sensitive
|
||
|
||
information is printed on is type of device, the user should consider printing a
|
||
|
||
full page of non-sensitive text in order to overwrite the previous page.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 5.6: MANAGEMENT OF PRINTERS
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
A Procedure shall be prepared and implemented when a shared or networked
|
||
|
||
printer is used for producing privacy marked material.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Printing over networked printers introduces additional possibilities for the
|
||
|
||
compromise of sensitive information. The network, comprising both the hardware
|
||
|
||
and software, maintains buffers for information to be printed. In some cases the
|
||
|
||
data remains in the buffers after printing has occurred. The buffers may be
|
||
|
||
accessed by unauthorised users or by mistake and data compromised. Sensitive
|
||
|
||
information should only be printed to approved print locations where an analysis
|
||
|
||
has been done on the security risks.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.4 Security of software
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Only legitimate (licensed) authorised copies of software from reputable sources
|
||
|
||
supplied by a secure distribution mechanism should be used on PCs.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Any software from colleges etc, legitimately used by BT students, for instance,
|
||
|
||
should be checked for hazardous code before loading as this is a potential source
|
||
|
||
of viruses or untrustworthy software.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Computer games are recognised as a source of computer viruses and their use is
|
||
|
||
explicitly forbidden.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 5.7: PUBLIC DOMAIN AND OTHER UNTRUSTWORTHY
|
||
|
||
SOFTWARE
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Public domain and other untrustworthy software shall not be held or used on
|
||
|
||
BT's personal computers. Exemptions to this policy may only be granted by the
|
||
|
||
Director of Security and Investigation if there is a proven operational need.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 5.8: GAMES
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Games shall not be used on BT's personal computers. Games must not be
|
||
|
||
loaded onto BT's personal computers except where they come as part of a
|
||
|
||
legitimate business sofhvare package and there is no facility for not installing
|
||
|
||
the games. Exemptions to this policy may only be granted by the Director of
|
||
|
||
Security and Investigation if there is a proven business need.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.5 Personal computer communications
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
PCs are capable of connection by means of modem cards and interface cards to
|
||
|
||
the PSTN, Local Area Networks and other computers by various means. The
|
||
|
||
connection of a PC to a network introduces additional threats to both the PC and,
|
||
|
||
in some instances, the network. Although the chapter on Networks and
|
||
|
||
Communications covers this topic in depth, this section considers the subject in
|
||
|
||
the context of personal computers.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.5.1 Public netvork access
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
In general communication sessions controlled externally to the PC from the public
|
||
|
||
network should be avoided. Where network access is unavoidable, strict controls
|
||
|
||
should be applied.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.5.2 Use of PC as a computer terminal
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Most PCs are capable of emulating various types of terminal, either by the use of
|
||
|
||
sohware packages or the installation of an extension board. When used in this
|
||
|
||
mode the PC appears to the mainframe processor as if it were the appropriate
|
||
|
||
terminal type but it also retains the capabilities of a PC.
|
||
|
||
As a consequence of the above, three major threats to security arise as follows:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
1 programmable interrogation,
|
||
|
||
2 storage playback capability,
|
||
|
||
3 bridging of communication capability to other systems.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.5.2.1 Interroga1ion and storage
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fixed mode (dumb) terminals can only interrogate and search authorised
|
||
|
||
transactions at a rate which is limited by the human operator. The results would
|
||
|
||
normally have to be transcribed from the VDU or printed on a slave printer. A PC,
|
||
|
||
on the other hand, could be programmed to carry out a range of interrogations,
|
||
|
||
examine the resultant responses and store the details of any transactions which
|
||
|
||
satisfy predetermined criteria.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Once a procedure is established this exchange can take place at speeds which are
|
||
|
||
limited only by the speed of the communications interface and a great deal of
|
||
|
||
information could be sifted in a short period. When used legitimately this is
|
||
|
||
considered to be a authorised use of PC power. However the security of the
|
||
|
||
system may rely to some extent on the (perhaps limited) rate at which information
|
||
|
||
can be extracted.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.5.2.2 Connection to other systems
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Suitably equipped PCs could connect to a mainframe computer and a public access
|
||
|
||
or BT-private network at the same time. Although the capability may seem
|
||
|
||
attractive to the PC user, the administrator of the mainframe computer might view
|
||
|
||
the potentially increased user community that may gain access to his system with
|
||
|
||
some trepidation. It could be the view that, if incorrectly managed, such a PC
|
||
|
||
could act as a switch or slave processor in order to connect the two. Thus an
|
||
|
||
unanticipated method of communication could be established which would allow
|
||
|
||
remote access from an unauthorised location and so constitute a breach of
|
||
|
||
security particularly if the PC were left on all day.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Similar concerns might be raised if the PC were to be simultaneously connected to
|
||
|
||
two networks, for example, the PSTN and a BT internal network.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
It will be frequently both convenient and operationally legitimate to substitute a
|
||
|
||
PC for a terminal device in order to limit the items installed on the desk-top and to
|
||
|
||
streamline procedures. In recognition however of the risks to security, any
|
||
|
||
proposal to substitute a PC for a terminal device must have the approval of the
|
||
|
||
appropriate network or systems administration. They, in turn, must satisfy
|
||
|
||
themselves with regard to the additional risks which might arise as a consequence
|
||
|
||
of either enhanced interrogation or extended communication.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 5.9: PCs USED AS TERMINALS FOR SYSTEMS
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
A PC shall be used as a terminal for a BT system if, and only if, the use of a PC
|
||
|
||
has been permitted in the Security Policy Document of that system.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 5.10: PCs CONNECTED TO SYSTEMS
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
A PC shall not be connected to more than one system at a time unless approval
|
||
|
||
has been granted by the administrators of those systems.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.6 Contingency planning
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The business is dependent for its functions on information of which a greater
|
||
|
||
amount is being stored and processed on PCs. There is now, therefore, a business
|
||
|
||
imperative to ensure that information on PCs is available when the business needs
|
||
|
||
it. PC users should evaluate the needs of the business process supported by
|
||
|
||
information on PCs, and ensure that these requirements can be met, even if there
|
||
|
||
is a computer or disk failure.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Mistakes are made and machines can fail, either potentially leading to corruption
|
||
|
||
of data or software. Measures must be taken so that when corruption does occur,
|
||
|
||
service can be restored with the minimum of inconvenience and cost to the
|
||
|
||
business. The following are measures can be taken to reduce the impact of such a
|
||
|
||
failure.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.6.1 Archinng and backup
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Data and/or software should periodically be copied to removable media for one of
|
||
|
||
several reasons:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o in order to ensure that data is not lost in the event of a failure (BACKUP),
|
||
|
||
o to free up the space occupied when the information is no longer required for
|
||
|
||
immediate access (ARCHIVE), or
|
||
|
||
o because the information must be retained for some time to meet legal obligations
|
||
|
||
(ARCHIVE).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The software and hardware products needed to achieve the above are usually
|
||
|
||
identical; only the strategy of their use changes. Neither a backup nor archive is of
|
||
|
||
any value unless it can be demonstrated that the information can be recovered
|
||
|
||
reliably.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Data held on non-removable disks should be backed-up regularly, perhaps daily or
|
||
|
||
weekly depending on usage and criticality. The backup might be of the whole
|
||
|
||
system or only of those parts that have recently changed - an 'incremental backup'.
|
||
|
||
The copy should be stored either off-site or in a fire resistant cabinet, suitable for
|
||
|
||
its level of sensitivity.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
There are four methods by which archive or backup copies of a system can be
|
||
|
||
taken:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Utility software
|
||
|
||
Most PCs have a software facility on the system disk to back-up and restore files to
|
||
|
||
and from a floppy disk. The process is time consuming but there is no other cost
|
||
|
||
except that of the floppy disks used.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Note there are compatibility problems between differing versions of the DOS
|
||
|
||
BACKUP and RESTORE utility programs such that may it impossible to restore
|
||
|
||
files written using one version of BACKUP using a version of RESTORE from a
|
||
|
||
different vendor or different version of DOS. For this reason, it is advisable that a
|
||
|
||
copy of the RESTORE program is kept with the backup or archive.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
2 Third-party archive sofare
|
||
|
||
Off the shelf software is available that enables files to be copied onto floppy disks
|
||
|
||
or a tape streamer. This software is often considerably faster than using the utility
|
||
|
||
software that came with the operating system, it is more flexible, and usually more
|
||
|
||
reliable. There is a small charge for this software.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
3 Tape streamer
|
||
|
||
This is a separate item of equipment and often is supplied with the software to
|
||
|
||
drive it. Though the cost of a tape streamer is not insignificant, it can usually be
|
||
|
||
justified in the savings in time and floppy disks. Remember that a complete backup
|
||
|
||
of an 80% full 40Mb hard disk will use well over 30 720Kb floppies or in excess of
|
||
|
||
60 360Kb floppies. The task may take over an hour and is often used as the excuse
|
||
|
||
why a backup was not taken after the disk crashed!
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
A tape streamer is essential equipment where several users share a file-server on a
|
||
|
||
LAN. The capital cost can be spread amongst all of the LAN users, and all user
|
||
|
||
files can be copied at once.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
4 External disk drives
|
||
|
||
External disk drives are available for many machines and can be used as a means
|
||
|
||
of archiving. Though fast, they are sometimes neither rugged nor particularly
|
||
|
||
economical. Iis situation may change with the introduction of high capacity
|
||
|
||
floppy disk drives.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Should any of the information copied for backup or archive purposes be in
|
||
|
||
encrypted form, it is prudent to retain a copy of the cryptographic key so that the
|
||
|
||
information can be recovered. The cryptographic key should be kept securely
|
||
|
||
because it may be used to gain access to both the backup/archive and the original
|
||
|
||
information still on the PC.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.7 File Servers
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
File Servers on Local Area Networks pose similar security problems to PCs, due
|
||
|
||
to the fact that they are often sited in open plan offices, are small and are
|
||
|
||
accessible by many people. If privacy marked information is held on a LAN server
|
||
|
||
then precautions must be taken to safeguard that data.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 5.11: FILE SERVER SECURlTY
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
File servers shall be protected in accordance with the sensitivity of the
|
||
|
||
information they contain, either through physical access controls, or through
|
||
|
||
logical controls. Policies 4.6 and 5.3 refer.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
User access to computers
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Contents
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.2 Regulating access to computers. . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
|
||
|
||
6.2.1 Identification and authorisation principles . . . . 6-3
|
||
|
||
6.2.2 Logical access control packages . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
|
||
|
||
6.2.3 Siting of terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
|
||
|
||
6.2.4 Intelligent terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.3 Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
|
||
|
||
6.3.1 User identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
|
||
|
||
6.3.2 Terminal identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.4 Passwords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6
|
||
|
||
6.4.1 Password management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6
|
||
|
||
6.4.2 Password selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6
|
||
|
||
6.4.3 System passwords. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
|
||
|
||
6.4.4 Password secrecy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
|
||
|
||
6.4.5 Dual passwords. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
|
||
|
||
6.4.6 Preprogramming of passwords . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
|
||
|
||
6.4.7 Computer storage of passwords . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8
|
||
|
||
6.4.8 Password change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8
|
||
|
||
6.4.9 Administrator control of passwords. . . . . . . . . 6-8
|
||
|
||
6.4.10 Manufacturer's installed UIDs and passwords . . . . 6-9
|
||
|
||
6.4.11 Software maintenance by third parties . . . . . . . 6-9
|
||
|
||
6.4.12 Password transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.5 Limitations of password security. . . . . . . . . . 6-10
|
||
|
||
6.5.1 Weaknesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10
|
||
|
||
6.5.2 Random one-time passwords . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10
|
||
|
||
6.5.3 Challenge systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.6 Logging on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11
|
||
|
||
6.6.1 Welcome screens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11
|
||
|
||
6.6.2 Silent logon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11
|
||
|
||
6.6.3 Log on security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12
|
||
|
||
6.6.4 Prescribed warning screen . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12
|
||
|
||
6.6.5 Log on failure conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12
|
||
|
||
6.6.6 Repeated log on attempts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12
|
||
|
||
6.6.7 Recording access attempts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13
|
||
|
||
6.6.8 Last access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13
|
||
|
||
6.6.9 Unauthorised access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-14
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.7 Logging off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-14
|
||
|
||
6.7.1 Terminal inactivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-14
|
||
|
||
6.7.2 Prolonged activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-14
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.7.3 Link interruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-14
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.8 User privileges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15
|
||
|
||
6.8.1 Privilege table establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15
|
||
|
||
6.8.2 Facility privileges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15
|
||
|
||
6.8.3 Function privileges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.9 Access to user files. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16
|
||
|
||
6.9.1 Implementation of logical access controls . . . . . . 6-16
|
||
|
||
6.9.2 Default privileges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-17
|
||
|
||
6.9.3 Password control of file access . . . . . . . . . . . 6-17
|
||
|
||
6.9.4 Encryption of files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-17
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.10 Customer access to BT computers . . . . . . . . . . . 6-17
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.11 Contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18
|
||
|
||
6.11.1 Software development by third parties . . . . . . . . 6-18
|
||
|
||
6.11.2 Operational activities by third parties . . . . . 6-19
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.1 Introduction
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The Computer Misuse Act 1990, has been in force in the United Kingdom since
|
||
|
||
August. This law makes the unauthorised access to, and misuse of computer
|
||
|
||
facilities a criminal offence.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
No amount of legislation will actually prevent unauthorised access and misuse of
|
||
|
||
facilities. This chapter offers guidance on methods that may be employed to
|
||
|
||
reduce or eliminate unauthorised access.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Access to computers by users, in contrast to system operators and maintainers will
|
||
|
||
normally be via a terminal device. It can vary from a simple Visual Display Unit
|
||
|
||
(VDU), a sophisticated Personal Computer (PC), or a workstation. In order to
|
||
|
||
regulate access, it is essential that controls are exercised which are capable of
|
||
|
||
identifying both the source and origin of each session.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 6.1: COMPUTER MISUSE ACT 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
It is a criminal offence for an unauthorised person to attempt to access systems
|
||
|
||
or information within systems, or to attempt to exceed the computer facilities
|
||
|
||
and privileges granted to them. Wherever possible, BTwill prosecute using the
|
||
|
||
Computer Misuse Act 1990.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.2 Regulating access to computers
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Logical access control and associated audit trails and logs provide essential
|
||
|
||
deterrents against abuse of privilege by authorised system users.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The unauthorised testing of the security controls of an operational system is
|
||
|
||
expressly forbidden.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 6.2: OPERATIONAL SYSTEM PENETRATION TESTING
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The testing of the security controls of an operational system shall only be done
|
||
|
||
under strictly controlled conditions. All testing shall be carried out in
|
||
|
||
accordance with a written schedule. Prior approval of the Director of Security
|
||
|
||
and Investigation shall be obtained.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.2.1 Identification and authorisation principles
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
To prevent unauthorised individuals attempting to access computer systems,
|
||
|
||
identification and authentication controls of users are necessary. The most
|
||
|
||
common practice is to use identifiers and passwords when logging onto the
|
||
|
||
computer system. Other methods such as keys, badges, and smart cards can also
|
||
|
||
be used effectively. Other techniques are possible (for example,
|
||
|
||
challenge-response systems) using some form of personal token. Specialist advice
|
||
|
||
should be sought on the security characteristics of proposed systems prior to their
|
||
|
||
adoption.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.2.2 Logical access control packages
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
For some major operating systems, special purpose access control packages are
|
||
|
||
available. These provide degrees of protection by ensuring that all users are
|
||
|
||
positively identified and only granted access to the system resources and files for
|
||
|
||
which they have previously been authorised.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The packages frequently complement the standard operating system by exploiting
|
||
|
||
hooks or by the replacement of standard routines and log details of all accesses for
|
||
|
||
later analysis. They may or may not identify that the data has been seen or
|
||
|
||
changed.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Before implementing any security enhancement package it should be thoroughly
|
||
|
||
evaluated to ensure it meets the operational requirement.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.2.3 Siting of terminals
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Terminal devices must be sited so that they cannot be easily overlooked by
|
||
|
||
unauthorised individuals. This is especially important when it is necessary to site
|
||
|
||
terminals in reception areas, telephone shops or other public places. Customer
|
||
|
||
information displayed on a screen which can be overlooked by the public or even
|
||
|
||
unauthorised employees potentially constitutes a breach of Data Protection
|
||
|
||
Legislation, Section 45 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, and the Code of
|
||
|
||
Practice on Disclosure of Customer Information. The inadvertent disclosure of
|
||
|
||
logon details may also result.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
When it is operationally necessary to site a terminal in a public area, it must be
|
||
|
||
screened so that it can only be viewed by authorised employees. If this is not
|
||
|
||
practical then serious consideration must be given to the benefits derived weighed
|
||
|
||
against the possible risk of irregular divulgence of information displayed on the
|
||
|
||
screen.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The communication links for terminals in public places should be adequately
|
||
|
||
protected from the threat of tampering and rerouting.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 63: SITING OF REMOTE TERMINAL
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Terminals in public view but not for public access shall be sited carefully, and
|
||
|
||
particular attention shall be given to their physical security and
|
||
|
||
communications links.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.2.4 Intelligent terminals
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Special care must be taken if ever a 'dumb' terminal is replaced by one with local
|
||
|
||
processing power, for example, a personal computer. Iis subject is covered in
|
||
|
||
detail in the chapter on Personal Computers.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.3 Identification
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Identifiers are used to keep track of, and control the use of system resources.
|
||
|
||
Users and terminals may both have identifiers which can be used for the purposes
|
||
|
||
of auditing.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.3.1 User identification
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Each user of a computer system should have an exclusive user identification
|
||
|
||
(UID).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o UIDs are used to uniquely identify users and their associated characteristics
|
||
|
||
(access rights, capabilities, time based access and control privileges) to permit the
|
||
|
||
correct allocation of resources,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o UIDs provide a means of recording system usage
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o UIDs should be allocated to individual users to permit unambiguous identification
|
||
|
||
in the interests of accountability. They should not be shared among groups of
|
||
|
||
individuals and may be constant as long as the user is authorised on the system
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o UIDs are not usually confidential (indeed in some systems users can obtain lists of
|
||
|
||
UIDs) and security must never depend solely on the user's ability to provide a
|
||
|
||
valid UID.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 6.4: UNIQUE USER IDENTIFIER
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Each user of a multi-user system shall be uniquely identifiable to that system.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
A network of computers that allows remote processes access to information on
|
||
|
||
any of the networked computers must also maintain unique user identification
|
||
|
||
for users, unless other means of security are implemented, for example by
|
||
|
||
disabling the facility for cross-machine recognition of UIDs. Separate UID
|
||
|
||
naming strategies for each machine can greatly assist in ensuring uniqueness.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.3.2 Terminal identification
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Each terminal authorised to access the system may also have a Terminal
|
||
|
||
Identification (TID) built into it which is automatically communicated to the host
|
||
|
||
during log on. The system may then check that an attempted access comes from a
|
||
|
||
bona fide source at the correct physical location, and by comparing the signalled
|
||
|
||
TID with the UID of the user, may confirm an appropriate match.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
TIDs should not be implemented alone since this does not assist accountability.
|
||
|
||
Moreover as a security measure they are rather limited. It is difficult to engineer
|
||
|
||
an unmodifiable TID into a terminal and TIDs may also become known in which
|
||
|
||
case they can be simulated.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Terminal identification can also be by means of physical access controls such as
|
||
|
||
locks or removable badges and keys. In this case a code may be transmitted
|
||
|
||
automatically by the terminal over the communications link at the beginning of
|
||
|
||
every message. Any badges or keys must be removed when the terminal is not in
|
||
|
||
use and securely stored.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 6.5: TERMINAL IDENTIFERS IN A NETWORK
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
In the design of systems, the use of terminal identities shall be considered
|
||
|
||
where technically feasible.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
On some systems, source identification uniquely identifying the device and user,
|
||
|
||
for example, based on Kerberos, can be implemented. These systems provide a
|
||
|
||
very secure mechanism for forming a closed network of systems and users.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.4 Passwords
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The knowledge of a password is sometimes used as corroborating evidence that
|
||
|
||
the accessor is entitled to the facilities associated with a particular UID.
|
||
|
||
Passwords must be allocated on an individual basis and not be shared.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.4.1 Password management
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
To afford reasonable protection against unauthorised access, passwords should be
|
||
|
||
a minimum of six characters long, with at least one non-alphabetic. Passwords
|
||
|
||
used for system privileges should contain at least eight characters. It is desirable
|
||
|
||
that the system software should check for too simple a combination such as all the
|
||
|
||
same characters. There is an advantage in allowing a range of password lengths
|
||
|
||
(down to the prescribed minimum) since this makes searching by adversaries
|
||
|
||
harder.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 6.6: PASSWORD MANAGEMENT
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Passwords to systems shall be properly managed so that:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o They are not easily guessable,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o They are changed at least every 90 days,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o They are at least 6 characters long for user access and at least 8 for system
|
||
|
||
privilege access,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o Preferably they consist of all the possible character set,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o They contain at least one non-alphabetical character,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o They cannot be easily changed back to previously used passwords,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o They cannot be easily exhaustively searched (unless denial of service is a
|
||
|
||
threat),
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o They are not echoed to screens or paper,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o They are not written down, except if treated with appropriate security levels to
|
||
|
||
protect their confidentiality, integrity and accountability, and where there is a
|
||
|
||
valid business reason
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o Not related to the UID,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o They are not related to the identity of the user.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.4.2 Password selection
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Users should be permitted to select their own passwords since these are more
|
||
|
||
easily remembered but users must be warned against guessable or predictable
|
||
|
||
values. The system should check that all passwords are not one of the 'standard'
|
||
|
||
or guessable words that an adversary would try, for example, password the same
|
||
|
||
as the UID.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Meaningful terms such as SYS or SYSTEM, initials, Christian names, car
|
||
|
||
registration numbers and the names of spouses are all popular choices for
|
||
|
||
password and are worthless from a security viewpoint, as are certain popular
|
||
|
||
words such as FRED.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The more common or computer-relevant meaningful words of the English
|
||
|
||
language are also to be avoided. There are surprisingly few of them - perhaps only
|
||
|
||
4000, and many cases exist of hackers breaking a system by simply trying a few
|
||
|
||
hundred of the most likely words one after another.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Password strength is greatly enhanced by the selection of non-meaningful
|
||
|
||
character combinations. An adversary is far less likely to guess a password such as
|
||
|
||
XAC/9 than ANDREW although initial memorisation may be more difficult.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.4.3 System passwords
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
An extra level of security is obtained if users are required to enter a system
|
||
|
||
password prior to and as well as their own selected application password. System
|
||
|
||
passwords provide the additional facility of rapid lock-out of groups of users if
|
||
|
||
need be.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
System passwords must never be used as a substitute for personal passwords.
|
||
|
||
They must be chosen in line with the password generation guidelines and be
|
||
|
||
controlled by the systems administrator.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.4.4 Password secrecy
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Users must be properly briefed on the importance of the correct use of passwords
|
||
|
||
and that they have a responsibility to safeguard them.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
All passwords should be assumed to be as valuable as the system or information to
|
||
|
||
which it can be used to gain access. If the password is written down, the text
|
||
|
||
should be protected accordingly. A password should not be disclosed to others
|
||
|
||
nor should it ever be entered at a terminal when others are in a position to watch
|
||
|
||
so closely as to deduce the password.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
When a password is used to gain access to a system or entered for the purposes of
|
||
|
||
password change, the password text must be obscured either by overprinting, in
|
||
|
||
the case of hardcopy local echo terminals, or the echo suppressed where
|
||
|
||
full-duplex communications are used between the terminal and the host.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.4.5 Dual passwords
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Under some circumstances, business transactions might be so important that no
|
||
|
||
one individual may be permitted to initiate the transaction by themselves. If these
|
||
|
||
transactions are actually carried out by computer then a way must be found to
|
||
|
||
ensure that two people are present to 'authorise' the transaction and be
|
||
|
||
responsible for it. One approach is to ensure that system accounts that have the
|
||
|
||
privilege to initiate such transactions need two passwords to access them. An
|
||
|
||
alternative approach might be to have one long password formed by the
|
||
|
||
concatenation of two shorter passwords. Other schemes could be devised.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.4.6 Preprogramming of passwords
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Storage of preprogrammed passwords or entire logon sequences on intelligent
|
||
|
||
terminals or function keys or stored files is extremely dangerous practice and is
|
||
|
||
forbidden unless the circumstances have been agreed by the Director of Security
|
||
|
||
and Investigation. Any brief unauthorised access to the terminal or stored data will
|
||
|
||
then permit the password to be compromised.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 6.8: PREPROGRAMMING OF PASSWORDS
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The automation of entire logon sequences is expressly forbidden except with
|
||
|
||
the permission of the Director of Security and Investigation.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.4.7 Computer storage of passwords
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Users' passwords should be under their own control and should not be available
|
||
|
||
from the system to anybody else including operational or maintenance staff.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
To this end it is highly desirable that the computer logon procedures use one-way
|
||
|
||
encrypted password files. This means that passwords are stored in irreversibly
|
||
|
||
encrypted form within the computer.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Passwords entered by users at logon are encrypted using the same algorithm, and
|
||
|
||
the two encrypted forms are checked for a match to prove authentication.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The encryption algorithm must however be strong and guidance must be sought
|
||
|
||
from The Director of Security and Investigations, since some password encryption
|
||
|
||
systems have been found to be very weak indeed.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.4.8 Password change
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The system should ensure that all passwords (individual and system) are changed
|
||
|
||
regularly. Passwords should be changed at least every 90 days.
|
||
|
||
Password change may be enforced by:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o forcing users to change their passwords after a given period, or
|
||
|
||
o allowing users to change their passwords at will ess desirable since less reliable),
|
||
|
||
o or preferably both.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The change of existing passwords should involve a verification of the user's
|
||
|
||
identity on the basis of the existing password and double entry of the proposed
|
||
|
||
new password as a check against input errors. The system should not permit an
|
||
|
||
old password to be used again until at least a certain number of different new
|
||
|
||
passwords have been registered.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Where forced password change is not implemented the system should record the
|
||
|
||
date of last change to permit identification of users not complying with security
|
||
|
||
requirements. If there is a possibility that a password has been compromised, it
|
||
|
||
must be changed immediately.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.4.9 Administrator control of passwords
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
It should be possible for the system administrator to force a user's password to a
|
||
|
||
value of the administrator's choosing in the event that a user genuinely forgets his
|
||
|
||
or her password. However neither the administrator nor anybody else should be
|
||
|
||
able to obtain the value of a current password from the computer.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
As an alternative, stronger security is obtained (at slightly greater administrative
|
||
|
||
cost) if password forcing is simply not allowed. In this case forgetting a password
|
||
|
||
compels full reauthorisation.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 6.21: UID EXPIRY
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
When a UID remains unused for greater than 60 days, it shall be disabled.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.4.10 Manufacturer's installed UIDs and passwords
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Manufacturer's installed UIDs and passwords present at equipment and software
|
||
|
||
delivery must be changed to user-selected values as soon as practicable since the
|
||
|
||
manufacturer's choice of values may be standard and well known.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
It is also essential that passwords are changed after every visit by the
|
||
|
||
manufacturer or computer servicing agency to remove the danger of passwords
|
||
|
||
becoming known to contractors. Care must be taken when the system is reloaded
|
||
|
||
and upgraded that any manufacturers passwords are not reinstated.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 6.9: MANUFACTURERS PASSWORDS
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Manufacturer installed passwords shall be removed and replaced with new
|
||
|
||
passwords in operational systems.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.4.11 Sofware maintenance by third parties
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Systems requiring access for software maintenance by non-BT personnel should
|
||
|
||
not permit total system software and data file eedom to the contractor.
|
||
|
||
Maintenance should only be possible at agreed times and under BT supervision.
|
||
|
||
Sensitive data should, if necessary, be removed from the system prior to
|
||
|
||
maintenance.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Some computer vendors encourage remote access to their customers computer
|
||
|
||
systems via the PSTN for the purposes of fault diagnosis. If this option is taken,
|
||
|
||
access must be very strictly controlled since large quantities of information could
|
||
|
||
easily be made available, perhaps by means of uncontrolled software dumps.
|
||
|
||
Access to the system should be controlled manually, for example using a port
|
||
|
||
configured for outward dialled calls only with incoming calls barred. Special care
|
||
|
||
must be taken to change passwords after maintenance sessions by contractors.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 6.10: REMOTE ACCES FOR MAINTENANCE PURPOSES
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Remote access for diagnostic or preventative maintenance purposes shall be
|
||
|
||
strictly controlled so as to protect the security of the system.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.4.12 Password transmission
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Passwords used to protect information of a given sensitivity must be afforded at
|
||
|
||
least the same protection and preferably a higher level of protection than the
|
||
|
||
information and processes to which they give access. This is particularly important
|
||
|
||
when accessing a system remotely across a public network. Distribution of
|
||
|
||
passwords must be done in a way which ensures that disclosure en route would
|
||
|
||
not result in a compromise of the system on which the password would be used. In
|
||
|
||
particular, electronic mail systems must not be used for distribution of passwords.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.5 Limitations of password security
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Most experts no longer regard traditional password practices as fully secure. This
|
||
|
||
section outlines their limitations and indicates favoured methods of enhancing
|
||
|
||
security
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.5.1 Weaknesses
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The advice concerning minimum password length, secrecy and frequency of
|
||
|
||
change should be viewed as the minimum requirements. Unless users are
|
||
|
||
strongly encouraged (or forced) to employ highly random passwords they will
|
||
|
||
tend only to select passwords from a total of about 4000 English words.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Even if passwords are highly random the fact that they are used more than once
|
||
|
||
represents a security weakness since any person obtaining a password value (by
|
||
|
||
line tapping, by watching the operator key in the value, by finding a written
|
||
|
||
copy...) can then penetrate the system freely until that password is changed.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
These weaknesses can be overcome by both using truly random passwords, and
|
||
|
||
changing passwords every access.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.5.2 Random one-time passwords
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
This can be achieved by adopting one-time password procedures whereby each
|
||
|
||
user is given a list of random password values which must be used once only each
|
||
|
||
and in the given order. However, this would involve writing down passwords
|
||
|
||
which is contrary to good practice.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
In certain systems, the distribution of such lists may be acceptable, but generally
|
||
|
||
the challenge system of the next paragraph is to be preferred.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.5.3 Challenge systems
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
In a challenge system, random one-time passwords are obtained by providing
|
||
|
||
each user with a Personal Identification Unit (PIU) usually resembling a pocket
|
||
|
||
calculator. On attempted access with a valid UID, the host generates a random
|
||
|
||
number or challenge value which it sends to the user. The user must then enter
|
||
|
||
the value manually on their PIU. The PIU then performs a complex mathematical
|
||
|
||
operation on this number and displays the result on its display. The user then
|
||
|
||
transcribes this number to the terminal which, in turn, is sent to the host for
|
||
|
||
checking. If the check is successful, the host can be reasonable certain that the
|
||
|
||
user has the correct PIU in his possession and access can be granted.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Each PIU should use a different cryptographic key to permit identification of an
|
||
|
||
individual user. The PIU will work correctly only in conjunction with its associated
|
||
|
||
UID. Attempts to use the PIU with an alternative or incorrect UID will result in an
|
||
|
||
incorrect response being generated. To prevent unauthorised system access
|
||
|
||
should a PIU fall into the wrong hands the user may also be required to enter a
|
||
|
||
secret Personal Identification Number (PIN) into the PIU prior to keying in the
|
||
|
||
challenge value.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The access thus depends on something:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o possessed by the user (the PIU), and
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o known by the user (the PIN).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The algorithm should be cryptographically strong so as to prevent analysis of the
|
||
|
||
method by an adversary.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Alternative types of PIU, which generate a new one-time password every minute or
|
||
|
||
so, obviate the need for a challenge-response sequence, are also available.
|
||
|
||
Biometric devices are becoming more commercially available and are worthy of
|
||
|
||
consideration for sensitive systems, they are however rather costly for widespread
|
||
|
||
use.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 6.11: USER AUTHENTICATION DEVICES
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
In the design of systems, the use of user authentication devices should be
|
||
|
||
considered and documented.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.6 Logging on
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
No user should be able to log onto a system containing high integrity,
|
||
|
||
commercially sensitive, or privacy marked information without first executing a
|
||
|
||
security dialogue, such as a correct entry of a valid UID and matching password
|
||
|
||
(or equivalent). This ensures full identification and authentication and permits
|
||
|
||
logging for subsequent accountability.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.6.1 Welcome screens
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The initial screen (traditionally called the "Welcome" screen) displayed before
|
||
|
||
successful completion of the security dialogue should be designed to reveal the
|
||
|
||
minimum amount of information about the system.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 6.12: WELCOME SCREENS
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Text displayed before logon shall provide only the minimum amount of
|
||
|
||
information for access authorisation.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.6.2 Silent log on
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
No system facilities, not even the 'HELP' command, should be available to the
|
||
|
||
user prior to successful completion of these steps. Security is appreciably
|
||
|
||
enhanced by adopting log on procedures which give no help to potential
|
||
|
||
adversaries.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 6.13: SILENT LOGON
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Other than a minimal prompt for user ID and password, no additional help shall
|
||
|
||
be given when logging on to BT multi-user, administration or management
|
||
|
||
systems. Failure of a logon sequence shall not identify which part of the logon
|
||
|
||
process failed.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.6.3 Log on security
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The logon procedure should be fully secure. No trap-door method shall be
|
||
|
||
possible by, for example, through use of zero-length, excessive length UIDs or
|
||
|
||
passwords, or by control, escape or break signals.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.6.4 Prescribed warning screen
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
As soon as access has been successfully achieved, the following screen should be
|
||
|
||
displayed by all BT multi-user, administration and management systems
|
||
|
||
processing high integrity, commercially sensitive, or privacy-marked material.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
British Telecommunications plc
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
COMPUTER NAME
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
WARNING: You have accessed the COMPUTER NAME operated by BT. You are required to
|
||
|
||
have a personal authorisation from the system administrator before you use this
|
||
|
||
computer and you are strictly limited to the use set out in that written
|
||
|
||
authorisation, Unauthorised access or use of this system is prohibited.
|
||
|
||
Unauthorised access to or misuse of a computer constitutes an offence under the
|
||
|
||
Computer Misuse Act 1990.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
If you understand this message and have been authorised to use this system
|
||
|
||
please type YES. Otherwise type NO to terminate this access.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Are you authorised to use this computer? <Yes/No>
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLlCY 6.14: PRESCRIBED WARNING SCREEN AND AUTHORISATION
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
A prescribed warning screen shall be displayed immediately after an accessor
|
||
|
||
successfully completes the logon sequence. The system administrator shall set
|
||
|
||
up procedures to provide written authorisation to users stating their access
|
||
|
||
privileges.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.6.5 Log on failure conditions
|
||
|
||
Logon must not be permitted if:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o the UID is invalid,
|
||
|
||
o the UID is barred,
|
||
|
||
o the password is invalid,
|
||
|
||
o the UID and password combination is invalid,
|
||
|
||
o the claimed UID is already active unless it is a system requirement,
|
||
|
||
o the logon would contravene local policy, for example, time of day restrictions.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.6.6 Repeated log on attempts
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The rate at which an adversary can make log on attempts must be limited to
|
||
|
||
prevent exhaustive searching of UID and password combinations.
|
||
|
||
Such an attack can be rendered imoractical bv compelling:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o a modest time delay (eg. two seconds) between each individual access attempt
|
||
|
||
made on any given port, and
|
||
|
||
o a substantial time delay (eg. one minute) every few attempts (eg. three).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
This may be accomplished by including an attempt counter in the log on
|
||
|
||
procedure such that no more than three attempts may be made subject only to the
|
||
|
||
modest time delay, after which attempts from that port are disabled for a
|
||
|
||
substantial time delay. The preferred option is that the link is actually
|
||
|
||
disconnected and the user compelled to obtain reconnection.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
A stronger measure would be to permanently disable the UID or port with
|
||
|
||
appropriate messages being sent to system log and the system administrator. In
|
||
|
||
such cases the UIDs should be taken out of service automatically after a
|
||
|
||
predefined number of consecutive unsuccessful access attempts - perhaps three.
|
||
|
||
Before the locked-out UID can be used again, an approach has to be made to the
|
||
|
||
Systems Administrator who will decide, if necessary in consultation with the
|
||
|
||
Application Manager, whether to reactivate the original UID or issue a new one.
|
||
|
||
This strategy is recommended for consideration only for High Impact Systems
|
||
|
||
because an adversary may abuse the feature to disable all UID and/or ports
|
||
|
||
causing a 'Denial of Service' problem. The running of verification utilities against
|
||
|
||
system critical commands should be considered prior to reinstatement of the UID.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 6.15: TERMINAL OR UID LOCKOUT
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
When a terminal or UID is repeatedly misused in an attempt to breach a
|
||
|
||
system, the terminal or UID shall be disabled and an alarm given. The period
|
||
|
||
during which the terminal or UID is disabled must be commensurate with the
|
||
|
||
impact of Denial of Service.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.6.7 Recording access attempts
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Where possible all access attempts (whether or not successful and whether or not
|
||
|
||
exceeding the counter limit) should be recorded on the system log. Alarms to the
|
||
|
||
system manager may also be raised in real-time depending on the sensitivity of the
|
||
|
||
system following repeated logon failures. The record should indicate the
|
||
|
||
attempted UID, the time of the event and the link involved but should not record
|
||
|
||
the attempted passwords.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Exceptional events (such as apparent exhaustive trialling of password on a
|
||
|
||
particular UID) should be so recorded as to come rapidly to the attention of
|
||
|
||
supervisory personnel. The log must be scrutinised at frequent intervals for any
|
||
|
||
evidence of unauthorised access attempts. Any unusual logged events must be
|
||
|
||
investigated.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 6.16: SECURE ALARMS
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Security alarms shall be used to inform the system administrator when an
|
||
|
||
attempted breach of security has been detected.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.6.8 Last access
|
||
|
||
On successful logon the user should be informed of the time and date of last
|
||
|
||
access, and of any unsuccessful access attempts since then.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.6.9 Unauthorised access
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Any (suspected or known) unauthorised access attempt or criminal activity should
|
||
|
||
be reported immediately to the BT Investigation Department Help Desk and line
|
||
|
||
management. Further investigatory action should await specialist advice from
|
||
|
||
BTID.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 8.8: REPORTING OF SECURITY INCIDENTS applies.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.7 Logging off
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.7.1 Terminal inactinty
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The system should include an activity sensing feature to identify terminals which,
|
||
|
||
although logged on, appear to have been abandoned. These are a security risk
|
||
|
||
since an adversary finding such a terminal unattended could employ it with all the
|
||
|
||
access rights of the previous user. If no input is detected after a certain timeout
|
||
|
||
(eg. five minutes) the system should log the terminal off automatically.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
This may be undesirable for some very limited facilities, such as batch processing
|
||
|
||
or program development, in which case longer timeouts may be associated with
|
||
|
||
specific UIDs.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
PCs should have approved security programs installed on them such that, if no
|
||
|
||
user activity has been detected for a period of time, the program will lock the PC
|
||
|
||
terminal and require a password entry to be reactivated. is must be done
|
||
|
||
especially for PCs logged into a server system. Such programs should also blank
|
||
|
||
out the actual contents of the display (it may be replaced by some other display)
|
||
|
||
until the PC has been reactivated through the password. Screen blanking options
|
||
|
||
that only jumble the contents of the screen should not be used. Preferably, the
|
||
|
||
blanking of data should be combined with a screen saver function, which reduces
|
||
|
||
the display duty cycle significantly, to help prolong the life of the display.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 6.17: TERMINAL OR UID TIMEOUT
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
When a port or UID remains dormant for a period of time, it shall be disabled.
|
||
|
||
Terminal timeout shall also occur when a terminal remains logged onto a
|
||
|
||
system, but remains unused for a period of time. The screen shall be cleared of
|
||
|
||
any display when the forced logoff occurs.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.7.2 Prolonged activity
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The system should require users present on the system for prolonged periods
|
||
|
||
(hours rather than days) to reenter their log on sequence (UID and password) .
|
||
|
||
This is to ensure that the authorised user is still present and that the
|
||
|
||
communication link has not been hijacked by an adversary.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.7.3 Link interruption
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The system should similarly automatically log off and clear down completely and
|
||
|
||
immediately the session with any terminal whose communications path is
|
||
|
||
interrupted. Many terrninals have a carrier detection light to show at the
|
||
|
||
communications path is open and the failure of this may indicate an interruption.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 6.18: LOG OFF WHEN COMMUNICATION SESSION IS
|
||
|
||
INTERRUPTED
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Precautions shall be taken during the design of systems to ensure that active
|
||
|
||
sessions are aborted if a failure in communications occurs.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.8 User privileges
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
It is usually a requirement that user capabilities still be restricted after log on. This
|
||
|
||
is to prevent unauthorised use of computer facilities and unauthorised access of
|
||
|
||
system software and data to which the user is not entitled. It is generally
|
||
|
||
accomplished by establishing a set of 'privileges' associated with each UID such
|
||
|
||
that users are not permitted to perform functions or access data except as
|
||
|
||
indicated in their privilege tables. Controls shall ensure this by such means as
|
||
|
||
password controls, access control lists, labelling of data fields.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 6.19: DATA ACCESS CONTROLS
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Processing capability and data shall be accessible only by authorised staff with
|
||
|
||
the appropriate privileges.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.8.1 Privilege table establishment
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The default condition of all privilege tables should be that corresponding to no
|
||
|
||
privileges. Privilege tables must be under the ultimate control of user
|
||
|
||
management who must authorise all changes.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.8.2 Facility privileges
|
||
|
||
Privileges speciing the computer facilities available to users should be controlled
|
||
|
||
only by system administrator staff. Facility privileges include:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o I/O device allocations,
|
||
|
||
o available storage volume,
|
||
|
||
o maximum job size,
|
||
|
||
o financial budget and its consumption.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
This restriction must be applied with particular rigour to security privileges. It
|
||
|
||
must not be possible under any circumstances for an ordinary user to redefine
|
||
|
||
himself as a system operator or system administrator for example or obtain access
|
||
|
||
to their data files or facilities or obtain access to security-related software such as:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o operating systems,
|
||
|
||
o password control software,
|
||
|
||
o system log software,
|
||
|
||
o access control software,
|
||
|
||
o time restrictions.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Where a job consists of several tasks run in sequence, the authority of the user
|
||
|
||
should be checked at each task and not solely on the first one.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Staff whose job is to run a limited set of programs should not have the facility to
|
||
|
||
edit, read or write programs. Menu-driven software may be helpful to ensure this.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 6.20: ADMINISTRATION OF PRIVILEGES
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Privileges shall be administered only by the system administrator (or
|
||
|
||
equivalent role) .
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.8.3 Function privileges
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Privileges defining the computer functions available to users should also be
|
||
|
||
controlled by system administration staff only. Procedures for the replication of
|
||
|
||
user privileges should only allow the minimum to be created appropriate with the
|
||
|
||
users authority. Users should only be permitted to use those commands required
|
||
|
||
in the normal course of their duties.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.9 Access to user files
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Privileges defining the rights of users to access each other's data files may be
|
||
|
||
exclusively under system administrator control, especially on high risk systems.
|
||
|
||
However, on less sensitive systems discretionary control is frequently all that is
|
||
|
||
required whereby each user controls the access of others to his own data files. In
|
||
|
||
general systems developers should not have access to live files.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.9.1 Implementation of logical access controls
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
In this context 'access' may imply any of a number of operations (eg read, write,
|
||
|
||
delete, modify, execute...) and it is essential that each of these should be
|
||
|
||
separately specifiable. In any case there is implied the creation of a more or less
|
||
|
||
detailed set of access restrictions for each user data file and the existence of
|
||
|
||
special system control software for enforcement.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
There may also be a need for user identification control within applications, for
|
||
|
||
example to test for the maintenance of separation of duties.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Software development tools, for example, compilers, program libraries, source
|
||
|
||
code etc, should not be available on operational systems. If they are present, their
|
||
|
||
use must be strictly controlled.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
It is important that as much as possible of the control procedure should be
|
||
|
||
performed automatically by the system and in a 'user friendly' and efficient
|
||
|
||
manner. User acceptance and co-operation cannot be obtained otherwise and the
|
||
|
||
security system will be viewed as an enemy by those it is intended to serve with
|
||
|
||
the result that users will tend to avoid and circumvent its protective measures
|
||
|
||
where possible.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Most Operating Systems implement some form of access control but the degree of
|
||
|
||
real security obtained varies dramatically from one system to another.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.9.2 Default privileges
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The preferable default privilege is that no user other than the file owner can
|
||
|
||
access (read, write, etc.) any given file unless given explicit authority to do so by
|
||
|
||
the owner.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.9.3 Password control of file access
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
A limited degree of control may be obtained by password protection of files such
|
||
|
||
that access is only available to users who know the correct password. Separate
|
||
|
||
control of the different types of access (read, write, etc.) is then not generally
|
||
|
||
possible, and the overall degree of security is much poorer than the fully
|
||
|
||
specifiable, fully managed systems indicated above.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
This is partly because of user reluctance to undertake the burden of the additional
|
||
|
||
passwords especially when all the issues concerning randomness and regular
|
||
|
||
change of password are taken into account.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.9.4 Encryption of files
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Files may also be encrypted by users to obtain a degree of protection rather
|
||
|
||
higher than password control since simple access to the file no longer yields
|
||
|
||
useful information.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.10 Customer access to BT computers
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
As communications technology becomes more and more sophisticated, and
|
||
|
||
external companies become more demanding in the flexibility and management of
|
||
|
||
the BT services which they use, BT is required to offer management and
|
||
|
||
administrative services to its customers. The risks associated with this are well
|
||
|
||
known and understood within the security community. However, systems
|
||
|
||
implementors and administrators are not always aware of these. Systems which
|
||
|
||
provide customer access are vulnerable in a number of areas, specifically the risk
|
||
|
||
of access to system facilities which are beyond their anticipated privilege profile.
|
||
|
||
Ihis can lead to:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Compromise of the BT system
|
||
|
||
Compromise of connected networked systems
|
||
|
||
Compromise of other customers data
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Where customers are given access to a BT system, the system must be designed
|
||
|
||
in a way that separates the customer access facility from the system's internal BT
|
||
|
||
facilities. Where access to the system is initially regulated by the standard
|
||
|
||
operating system User ID/password system, access to the internal BT facilities
|
||
|
||
must be via a strong authentication method, preferably based upon a token or
|
||
|
||
one-time password system.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Customers place a high degree of trust in the service BT provides. It is the
|
||
|
||
responsibility of systems implementors to consider the impact of failure upon a
|
||
|
||
customer. Depending upon the risks it may be beneficial to provide access upon
|
||
|
||
strong authentication techniques.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
When customers are given access to BT Service Management Systems, used by
|
||
|
||
other customers, or holding sensitive information about other customers,
|
||
|
||
processes or contracts undertaken by BT, then the Service Management System
|
||
|
||
shall be considered to be a "high impact" system and subject to accreditation by
|
||
|
||
the Director of Security and Investigation. (See section 2.8)
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 6.21: SENSlTIVllY OF SYSTEMS WlTH CUSTOMER ACCESS
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Systems providing customer access are deemed to be HIGH IMPACT systems
|
||
|
||
where there is a connection between that system and other BT systems.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 6.22- AUIHENTFICATION ON SYSTEMS VVlTH CUSIOMER
|
||
|
||
ACCESS
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Access to non-customer facilities on a system providing customer access shall
|
||
|
||
be via strong authentication methods.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.11 Contractors
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.11.1 Software development by third parties
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Development of applications for BT by external companies should adhere to the
|
||
|
||
same standards of development practice that we expect of internal developments.
|
||
|
||
The quality assurance of the system is a crucial issue, particularly for systems
|
||
|
||
which are of an operational or mission critical nature. Assurance standards should
|
||
|
||
be quoted in terms of the Information Technology Security Evaluation Criteria
|
||
|
||
(ISEC) levels, which should be specified at the start of the project.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
There are greater risks associated with software produced by external companies,
|
||
|
||
where the level of direct BT supervision is likely to be minimal. The introduction
|
||
|
||
of Trojan horse code is not easy to detect without extensive analysis of the
|
||
|
||
program code.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
On-line systems need to be afforded protection from development people, and
|
||
|
||
segregation of roles is a key element of this. Development contractors need to be
|
||
|
||
separated from live environments.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Default access to live data is not permitted. Access to live data in support of the
|
||
|
||
contract should be for specific activities and must be monitored. Access must be
|
||
|
||
withdrawn immediately following completion of the activity, or between phases of
|
||
|
||
it.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 6.23: CONTRACTOR ACCESS TO DATA
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Third Party Contractors used for development of systems shall not have direct
|
||
|
||
access to on-line BT systems or live data, unless such facilities are absolutely
|
||
|
||
necessary for execution of the contract. In this case, the contract shall specify
|
||
|
||
the security requirements to protect BT's information.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Operational activies by third parties
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
BT has used outside contractors and agents for carrying out work for many years.
|
||
|
||
Examples of this are building maintenance and other non-communications related
|
||
|
||
activities. Increasingly, activities are being transferred to outside specialists.
|
||
|
||
However, over the last decade, almost all of our activities and functions have been
|
||
|
||
computerised and have become highly integrated with other systems. Therefore,
|
||
|
||
outsourcing of an activity has to be viewed against the threats to BT as a whole
|
||
|
||
from such a scheme.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLlcY 6.24: OUTSOURCING
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Proposals to outsource a process, to be carried out without direct BT
|
||
|
||
supervision off BT premises, and which requires electronic access to BT
|
||
|
||
information, must be supported by a Security Policy Document. If the process
|
||
|
||
involves on-line access to a BT system processing information at Sensitivity
|
||
|
||
level 2 or higher, the system must be accredited in accordance with Policy 2.7
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Software and data
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Contents
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.2 Software installation and maintenance . . . 7-2
|
||
|
||
7.2.1 Software changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2
|
||
|
||
7.2.2 Protection of production systems. . . . . . 7-2
|
||
|
||
7.2.3 Software copyright. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3
|
||
|
||
7.2.4 System backup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
|
||
|
||
7.2.5 Failures and recovery . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.3 Log faciliffes and system data. . . . . . . 7-4
|
||
|
||
7.3.1 Log facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
|
||
|
||
7.3.2 Logging system activity . . . . . . . . . . 7-5
|
||
|
||
7.3.3 Logging user activity . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5
|
||
|
||
7.3.4 Checking logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5
|
||
|
||
7.3.5 Retention of logs and journals. . . . . . . 7-6
|
||
|
||
7.3.6 Condition records . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6
|
||
|
||
7.3.7 Storage of logs in microfiche form. . . . . 7-6
|
||
|
||
7.3.8 Encryption of system data . . . . . . . . . 7-7
|
||
|
||
7.3.9 Back-up copies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.4 Data sensiffvity
|
||
|
||
7.4.1 Data ownership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.5 Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8
|
||
|
||
7.5.1 Write protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8
|
||
|
||
7.5.2 Labelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8
|
||
|
||
7.5.3 Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9
|
||
|
||
7.5.4 Extraneous magnetic influences. . . . . . . 7-9
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.6 Disposal of media . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9
|
||
|
||
7.6.1 Magnetic media. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9
|
||
|
||
7.6.2 Disposal of computer equipment. . . . . . . 7-11
|
||
|
||
7.6.3 Documents, printout and consumables . . . . 7-11
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.7 Computer viruses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11
|
||
|
||
7.7.1 Vulnerability of systems. . . . . . . . . . 7-12
|
||
|
||
7.7.2 What a computer virus does. . . . . . . . . 7-12
|
||
|
||
7.7.3 Detection of computer viruses . . . . . . . 7-13
|
||
|
||
7.7.4 Group policy on computer viruses. . . . . . 7-13
|
||
|
||
7.7.5 Guidance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-14
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.1 Introduction
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
It is a security objective that software and data are correct complete and available
|
||
|
||
to authorised users. Full use should be made of the security features provided by
|
||
|
||
the operating system to achieve this objective. If software needs to be written,
|
||
|
||
security and audit requirements should be considered at the system design stage.
|
||
|
||
Users must ensure that the Statement of Requirements document contains a
|
||
|
||
definition of security requirements and access restrictions.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.2 Software installation and maintenance
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.2.1 Software changes
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
All software modifications to a computer system must be authorised and fully
|
||
|
||
recorded. The modification log should be held by the system administrator.
|
||
|
||
Emergency patches (those that are not scheduled) must be properly documented
|
||
|
||
and reviewed by the appropriate authority within one working day.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Checks should be implemented to ensure that only one change is carried out at a
|
||
|
||
time. If development pressure compels the packaging of changes in order to
|
||
|
||
minimise the system testing overheads, the checking must be even more vigilant.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Expert personnel should check all new and modified software for correctness and
|
||
|
||
completeness with special regard to the possibility of security flaws. It should also
|
||
|
||
be verified to ensure that it functions according to design, that it does not
|
||
|
||
adversely affect other functions in the system and that no unauthorised changes
|
||
|
||
have been made to the system. These checks should be conducted on an off-line
|
||
|
||
system and not on operational machines.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Verification should be performed after all software changes and on a regular basis.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
While full verification testing of the type outlined above is not always possible due
|
||
|
||
to operational constraints, use of unverified software provided by a third party
|
||
|
||
represents an unknown quantity from a security viewpoint, especially in cases
|
||
|
||
where the source code is not available. In any case assurances must be obtained
|
||
|
||
from the supplier about the integrity of the software and especially about the
|
||
|
||
removal of undeclared commands incorporated for debugging purposes.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
It is preferable that user software should be written in a high level language. Only
|
||
|
||
compiled programs should be released. Source code should only be available to
|
||
|
||
the programmer creating or amending the program or for the verification of the
|
||
|
||
validity of any changes; this applies equally to operational Job Control Language
|
||
|
||
text. Job Control Language which cannot be compiled should be held in a discrete
|
||
|
||
library store with controlled access.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.2.2 Protection of production systems
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Ideally the software development cycle should involve a separation of
|
||
|
||
Development, Test and Production environments. These three areas often have
|
||
|
||
quite different security requirements. As far as technical restraints and costs
|
||
|
||
permit, they should be isolated from each other. Technical and procedural
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
controls should be applied to the promotion of software from Development to Test
|
||
|
||
and from Test to Production environments. Special care should be taken to protect
|
||
|
||
the integrity of code accepted into Production use.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.1: VERSION CONTROL OF SOFTWARE
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Software shall be subject to version control to ensure that only current and
|
||
|
||
approved software is in use on an electronic system.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.2: PROTECTION OF DATA IN SYSTEM TESTING
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Live data shall not be used in system testing. Test data derived from, and
|
||
|
||
traceable to, live data shall be afforded a similar level of protection to the
|
||
|
||
original source.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.3: SOFTWARE OF UNKNOWN INTEGRlTY
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Unless a trustworthy method has been used to create and distribute software
|
||
|
||
then the integrity of the software shall be considered to be unknown and shall
|
||
|
||
not be used on BT systems.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.4: LIMITED USE OF DEVELOPMENTAND MAINTENANCE
|
||
|
||
SOFTVVARE
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Software that can be used to modify existing programs on systems (such as
|
||
|
||
editors and compilers) shall be restricted in their use to authorised staff. Any
|
||
|
||
such software that is not needed for operational reasons shall be removed.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.5: EMERGENCY ACCESS TO PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Emergency access to Production systems, using powerful utilities, for the
|
||
|
||
purpose of data repair shall be subject to rigorous change control and every
|
||
|
||
access of this nature must be recorded.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.2.3 Softvare copyright
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 expressly accords computer
|
||
|
||
programs the same copyright protection as written documentation. When BT
|
||
|
||
owns the copyright in a computer program because it was written in-house or
|
||
|
||
under a contract assigning copyright to BT, it is BT policy to mark the program
|
||
|
||
appropriately. Details on how to mark information are contained within the
|
||
|
||
Information Security Code.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.6: COPYRIGHT OF BT SOFTWARE
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
All software written in BT, or written for BT under a contract which provides for
|
||
|
||
ownership of copyright by BT, shall be clearly marked so as to identify BT as
|
||
|
||
the owner of copyright in such software.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.7: COPYRIGHT IN NON-BT SOFTWARE
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Copyright law restrictions prohibiting the unauthorised copying, modification
|
||
|
||
or unlicensed use of software and software documentation, in which the
|
||
|
||
copyright is not owned by BT, shall be respected at all times.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Unless BT has been granted an appropriate licence by the copyright owner,
|
||
|
||
software and software documentation in which the copyright is owned by anyone
|
||
|
||
other than BT, must not be copied, modified or used in BT. Where BT has a
|
||
|
||
licence, the terms of the licence, including any limitations on copying, modifying
|
||
|
||
or using such software and software documentation must be complied with at all
|
||
|
||
times. Copyright markings applied by the copyright owner must not be removed
|
||
|
||
(unless expressly permitted under the licence).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.2.4 System backup
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Interruptions to normal working may be caused by such events as fires, hardware,
|
||
|
||
software or environmental failures and malicious damage.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.8: SYSTEM BACKUP
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Copies of the current versions of the system software, data, and accompanying
|
||
|
||
documentation shall be safely stored and available so as to enable a quick and
|
||
|
||
controlled recovery in case of a processing interruption.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.2.5 Failures and recovery
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
All abnormal program terminations should be monitored by the system to permit
|
||
|
||
control to be passed to system recovery routines when necessary. Any software
|
||
|
||
failure must be documented and investigated as this may be an indication of a
|
||
|
||
breach in security.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
There should also be controls to ensure the validity of the software itself.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.9: RECOVERY FROM PROCESSING FAILURES
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The planning of systems shall take into account the need to detect failures of
|
||
|
||
software and hardware and provide recovery features such that the integrity of
|
||
|
||
the data shall not be compromised.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.3 Log facilities and system data
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
System data is the information used by the operating system and application
|
||
|
||
software to control and monitor access to system resources by users. Logs kept by
|
||
|
||
the system form a large component of system data.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.3.1 Log facilities
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
A system log is required to identify users who have invoked transactions so as to
|
||
|
||
assign accountability. The logs should reflect both system performance and user
|
||
|
||
activity and each event on the system log should have an associated reference
|
||
|
||
number and be time-stamped.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
It is essential that log hard copy and log software, eg reporting programs for logs
|
||
|
||
held on disk or tape, should be afforded maximum protection from unauthorised
|
||
|
||
modification and should be unaffected by system restarts etc. Hard copy logs
|
||
|
||
should be kept for critical system logs. The pages of a hard copy log should be
|
||
|
||
pre-numbered so that it may readily be checked for completeness.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.3.2 Logging system activity
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
System activity should be recorded on the log to include matters such as:
|
||
|
||
- processing software errors,
|
||
|
||
- program aborts,
|
||
|
||
- crashes,
|
||
|
||
- machine failures,
|
||
|
||
- restarts
|
||
|
||
together with information about causes.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.3.3 Logging user actinty
|
||
|
||
Monitoring user activity is especially dependent on the existence of a user activity
|
||
|
||
log and may be regarded as an audit trail for the detection of unauthorised activity
|
||
|
||
and identification of its origination. The user activity log should record such
|
||
|
||
events as the following and include for each record any relevant information such
|
||
|
||
as date, time, physical access point or port, UID, and nature of the attempt:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o all system log on attempts (successful or unsuccessful),
|
||
|
||
o all log off events,
|
||
|
||
o all attempts by users to access system facilities outside their range of privilege,
|
||
|
||
o all attempts by users to access data files belonging to other users in contravention
|
||
|
||
of system access controls,
|
||
|
||
o all attempts by users to employ commands outside their range of privilege
|
||
|
||
o all use of high level privilege.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The log should particularly include all security-relevant events, that is, interaction
|
||
|
||
and attempted interaction with the security system such as:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o password changes (although without logging password values)
|
||
|
||
o access to restricted or critical system tables
|
||
|
||
o modification of privilege lists
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.10: ELECTRONIC SYSTEM ACTIVlTY RECORDS
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
An audit log of the system activity shall be maintained and regularly reviewed
|
||
|
||
so as to identify abnormal system or user activity. Activity records shall be kept
|
||
|
||
of events on all High Impact Systems, particularly of any activity which might
|
||
|
||
be abnormal. Abnormal activity shall raise an alarm.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.3.4 Checking logs
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
While it may be impracticable to scrutinise an entire system log by hand, a regular
|
||
|
||
spot check must be made on random samples of the log and on periods of
|
||
|
||
unusually high logon activity, or access at abnormal hours. Project documentation
|
||
|
||
should give precise instructions regarding the checking of system logs.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The use of a software tool to separate unusual log entries from routine and
|
||
|
||
non-contentious information which would enable a more careful scrutiny to be
|
||
|
||
made, should be considered. Specialist audit packages, data test equipment are
|
||
|
||
examples.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.11: CHECKING OF LOGS
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
System logs shall be regularly checked so as to detect unauthorised system
|
||
|
||
activity. The use of automated techniques shall be considered.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.12: CONTROL OF AUDIT TOOLS
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The automated tools used to analyse the system log files shall be protected and
|
||
|
||
subject to management and control procedures.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.3.5 Retention of logs and journals
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The length of the retention period should take into account audit and legal
|
||
|
||
requirements, error recovery and investigation of any unusual occurrences.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.3.6 Condition records
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Hard copy logs of important system parameters, data modifications, and details
|
||
|
||
pertaining to hardware and software conditions, must be securely maintained by
|
||
|
||
the system administrator. Iis permits a comparison to the system state after
|
||
|
||
events such as software updates, fix or patch insertions and system restarts to
|
||
|
||
verify that no accidental or unauthorised changes have been made. Parameters to
|
||
|
||
be verified include:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o billing options,
|
||
|
||
o access control features,
|
||
|
||
o user privilege profiles,
|
||
|
||
o audit trails,
|
||
|
||
o configuration management.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
This inforrnation can be used to provide legally submissable evidence concerning
|
||
|
||
the correctness of the system in the pursuance of Section 69 of the Police And
|
||
|
||
Criminal Evidence Act (1984).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.13: LOGGING OF FAULT REPORTS
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
A log shall be kept of fault reports by users, and hardware and software
|
||
|
||
maintenance on systems.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.14: AUDlTS AND JOURNALS
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
All audit and journals of system activity shall be retained or archived for a
|
||
|
||
reasonable amount of time in the event that the information is required for
|
||
|
||
evidential purposes.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.3.7 Storage of logs in microfiche form
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Special precautions must be taken to preserve the usefulness of logs as evidence if
|
||
|
||
they are processed onto microfiche. The people responsible for the operation of
|
||
|
||
the process and the subsequent storage must provide clear evidence that there
|
||
|
||
can have been no interference with the logs during the process, or with the
|
||
|
||
subsequent microfiche.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.3.8 Encryption of system data
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Particularly sensitive files and data such as password listings should be given
|
||
|
||
extra protection by being encrypted by the system. Passwords in particular should
|
||
|
||
be one-way encrypted such that the original data cannot be recovered under any
|
||
|
||
circumstances.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.3.9 Back-up copies
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
A system backup must be taken by system management personnel at regular
|
||
|
||
intervals, the frequency of which will reflect the importance of the system and the
|
||
|
||
impact of a system failure. The backup data should be stored securely
|
||
|
||
o<EFBFBD> premises. Current copies of all on-site system images should be kept in
|
||
|
||
approved locked, fire-resistant cabinets.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
A definitive copy of important data files must be securely maintained and used by
|
||
|
||
system management to detect unauthorised changes to such things as access
|
||
|
||
control mechanisms, user rights profiles, backup controls and audit mechanisms.
|
||
|
||
Any file amendments must be logged.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.15: BACKUP OF SENSITIVE DATA
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Sensitive information shall be backed up by a cycle of copies, devised so that
|
||
|
||
the system can be brought into service after any accidental or deliberate
|
||
|
||
erasure of data.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.4 Data sensitivity
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Systems that perform security functions, or which safeguard commercially
|
||
|
||
sensitive information whereby the failure to protect the confidentiality, integrity,
|
||
|
||
availability of that information would cause:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o a substantial loss to BT,
|
||
|
||
o a substantial gain to a competitor,
|
||
|
||
o severe embarrassment to BT,
|
||
|
||
o serious loss of confidence in BT, or
|
||
|
||
o a serious reduction of BT's standing in the community, or relationships generally,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
are called HIGH IMPACT SYSTEMS.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.4.1 Data ownership
|
||
|
||
Data ownership is an essential element in safeguarding BT's commercially
|
||
|
||
sensitive information. The Data Owner is responsible for identifying the value and
|
||
|
||
sensitivity of their data. This decision must be respected by all users and systems.
|
||
|
||
Ownership conveys both responsibility for, and authority to:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o judge the value and importance of the information,
|
||
|
||
o assign a sensitivity level,
|
||
|
||
o specify operational controls and permitted uses,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o communicate control and protection requirements to users and custodians.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.16: DATA OWNERSHIP
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
All data shall have an owner who is responsible for deciding its sensitivity.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.5 storage
|
||
|
||
It is essential that software and data stored on magnetic or equivalent media
|
||
|
||
should be properly handled, stored and protected so as to ensure the accuracy and
|
||
|
||
completeness of all records. A full set of all software and data must be retained and
|
||
|
||
filed for backup and recovery purposes.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.5.1 Write protection
|
||
|
||
Where possible all storage media should be write-protected prior to shipping and
|
||
|
||
at all times when not active in the system.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.5.2 Ibelling
|
||
|
||
Magnetic media should be labelled with a unique identifier and the relevant
|
||
|
||
privacy marking if appropriate. Methods of marking may be:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
1 Magnetic tape spools - attaching marked labels to the front flange, and/or the
|
||
|
||
edge of their protective canisters, and/or the front of any suspension rings used to
|
||
|
||
support the tape spools during storage.
|
||
|
||
2 The front and back faces of cassettes and spines of protective boxes should be
|
||
|
||
clearly marked.
|
||
|
||
3 Removable magnetic disks and disk packs should be marked on the top of the
|
||
|
||
disk or pack or labels fixed to the top and side of the storage covers.
|
||
|
||
4 Floppy disks should be labelled on one side as specified by the manufacturer. If
|
||
|
||
disks are kept in boxes, the front and back of these should also be marked.
|
||
|
||
5 A log should be kept of their use with the following information included:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
o system name and reference number,
|
||
|
||
o date and time of last use,
|
||
|
||
o present privacy status,
|
||
|
||
o other corresponding tapes or disks,
|
||
|
||
o name or initials of the person responsible for their use.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.17: MARKING OF MEDIA
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Media shall be marked to indicate the most sensitive information on the media
|
||
|
||
in accordance with the Information Security Code. Where a medium is shared
|
||
|
||
it should be treated as containing the highest sensitivity level that may be
|
||
|
||
stored upon it.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.18- MARKING OF DATA
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Data shall be marked in accordance with the Information Security Code.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.5.3 Documentation
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Systems specifications, program listings, details of test data etc. for systems
|
||
|
||
containing sensitive information must be accorded a similar degree of protection
|
||
|
||
as that of the computer held data. They should be marked with the appropriate
|
||
|
||
privacy marking, locked away when not in use and spare copies held securely
|
||
|
||
either in a fire-resistant safe or at another location.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.5.4 Extraneous magnetic influences
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Magnetic media may be corrupted accidentally simply by being in the wrong
|
||
|
||
location. Most electronic and electrical equipment generates a magnetic field
|
||
|
||
either of a permanent nature or specifically when powered up. Such magnetic
|
||
|
||
fields can both corrupt and erase data stored on disks and tapes.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Floppy disks are much more prone to corruption from magnetic sources than hard
|
||
|
||
disks and it is recommended that when not in use they should be stored away
|
||
|
||
from office electrical equipment such as electronic typewriters, printers,
|
||
|
||
computers or telephones.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.6 Disposal of media
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.6.1 Magnetic media
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Magnetic and optical media holding sensitive information requires precautions to
|
||
|
||
be taken before its reuse or disposal. Media which is damaged may be read easily
|
||
|
||
by sophisticated equipment. Even magnetic media which is overwritten many
|
||
|
||
times using seemingly complex patterns may be read using specialist techniques.
|
||
|
||
Details of the secure destruction facility may be found in chapter 10.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.19: ERASURE AND DESTRUCTION OF MEDIA
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Where media is to leave the boundary of a system, or there is a requirement to
|
||
|
||
change a disk drive, or other vise dispose of media, one of the following rules
|
||
|
||
shall be applied.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
A - Destruction of media, using facilities approved by the Director of Security
|
||
|
||
and Investigation.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
B - Overwriting of media, using a technique approved by the Director of
|
||
|
||
Security and Investigation.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
C - Reformatting, using a fail safe operating system low level format facility.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
D - Release permitted, but only to reputable companies with which BT has a
|
||
|
||
non-disclosure agreement.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
E - Bulk erasing (degaussing), using equipment approved by the Director of
|
||
|
||
Security and Investigation.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
X - This option is not permitted.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The sensitivity level refers to the highest sensitivity of the information that has
|
||
|
||
ever been stored on the media.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fixed Disks
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Sensitivity level Damaged disks Trade in disks
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
>3 A A
|
||
|
||
3 A A
|
||
|
||
2 D B
|
||
|
||
1 D B/C
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Removable Media
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Disposal Disposal Reuse Reuse
|
||
|
||
Sensitivity level damaged good on same within
|
||
|
||
media media system BT
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
>3 A A c x
|
||
|
||
3 A A C B
|
||
|
||
2 A C/E C/E B
|
||
|
||
1 E C/E - -
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
If in the opinion of the system owner, the cost to BT of destroying media
|
||
|
||
outweighs the value of the information, the system owner may seek approvel from
|
||
|
||
DSecI to take alternative action. Also. see chapter 13 of the ISC.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.6.2 Disposal of computer equipment
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Computer systems which are withdrawn from service pose a serious threat to BT
|
||
|
||
if they are not processed properly before disposal. All systems to be disposed of by
|
||
|
||
BT must have the disk formatted or destroyed according to policy 7.19. No
|
||
|
||
software must reside on the hard disk of any machines which are disposed of,
|
||
|
||
apart from the operating system. Entitlement to these must be documented at the
|
||
|
||
time of the transfer. All master copies of software should be either retained or
|
||
|
||
returned to the local computer administration unit for re-allocation. Managers
|
||
|
||
should note the possible conflict of interest associated with the local scrapping and
|
||
|
||
subsequent sale to BT people. If equipment is to be locally scrapped, the
|
||
|
||
procedure for doing this must be documented and all records must be made
|
||
|
||
available for audit and scrutiny.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.21: DISPOSAL OF COMPUTER EQUPMENT
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
No computer equipment containing non-volatile data storage capabilities that
|
||
|
||
has been used for processing IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE information shall
|
||
|
||
be disposed of as surplus equipment until it has been examined by a person
|
||
|
||
approved by the Director of Security and Investigation to ensure that all
|
||
|
||
sensitive inforrnation has been removed.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.6.3 Documents, printout and consumables
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE waste must be disposed of under direct BT
|
||
|
||
supervision by burning, shredding using a Director of Security and Investigation
|
||
|
||
approved shredder, or by using a disintegrator.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
IN CONFIDENCE waste including personal and other sensitive data must be
|
||
|
||
destroyed by burning, shredding, or disintegration. For large quantities of IN
|
||
|
||
CONFIDENCE material, use can be made of the approved sensitive waste paper
|
||
|
||
collection services.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.22: DESTRUCTION OF PRINTER-BASED MATERIAL
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Sensitive media shall be destroyed in accordance with the Information Security
|
||
|
||
Code.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.7 Computer viruses
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
A computer virus is an element of executable software that can be transferred
|
||
|
||
between programs, or between computers, with or without the knowledge of the
|
||
|
||
users. When triggered by an event determined by the perpetrator of the virus, it
|
||
|
||
can carry out any of a wide range of unauthorised activities. Examples include
|
||
|
||
infecting other programs or the operating system, sending infected messages to
|
||
|
||
other systems, deleting files. Furthermore, these unauthorised events may occur
|
||
|
||
while giving the impression that the computer is functioning normally.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
These actions can be malicious or benign, but in any event they breach the
|
||
|
||
integrity of the system. Given BT's dependency on computerised systems for
|
||
|
||
business-critical activities, it is essential that the integrity of such systems is
|
||
|
||
maintained.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.7.1 Vulnerability of systems
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Computer systems can be designed with built in capabilities to resist viruses. This
|
||
|
||
may be achieved by erecting logical compartments enforcing strict segregation of
|
||
|
||
the operating system, and the program areas and data areas of each user. Another
|
||
|
||
measure is to prohibit terminals that have media entry capability or can be
|
||
|
||
connected to untrusted networks.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
While these restrictions may pary solve the problems for defence systems, they
|
||
|
||
are onerous, impractical and too expensive for most commercial of fice systems, IT
|
||
|
||
systems and network management systems. Because most commercial computer
|
||
|
||
systems are vulnerable to viruses, the primary protection depends mainly on
|
||
|
||
management policy and the active co-operation of the users to ensure that viruses
|
||
|
||
are not introduced into systems. However, many of the working practices that
|
||
|
||
have evolved with the Personal Computers encourage virus propagation.
|
||
|
||
Borrowing or lending disks containing programs or utilities is typical example.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Downloading of software from the public databases and bulletin boards is
|
||
|
||
particularly risky.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.7.2 What a computer virus does
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
A virus does two things. Firstly it has a mechanism to propagate itself For
|
||
|
||
instance the perpetrator of the computer virus may attach it to a commonly run
|
||
|
||
program or routine. Having carried out the legitimate function of the program, the
|
||
|
||
virus takes control and attaches a copy of itself onto other programs that are
|
||
|
||
resident, either directly or by altering the operating system. Thus once a
|
||
|
||
computer has been infected it may infect the programs on any other floppy disk
|
||
|
||
placed in its environment. These in turn may infect any other computer in which
|
||
|
||
the infected disk is placed.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Unless strict precautions are taken, advanced viruses are capable of causing
|
||
|
||
infection to remote computers via networking facilities.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The second feature of the virus is its function. The function can consist of any
|
||
|
||
activity that can be performed by the computer. The virus function can be
|
||
|
||
triggered by any detectable event, eg: a time, a date, execution of a particular
|
||
|
||
routine, receipt of a message, deletion of a file or cancellation of a UID.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
In short, a computer virus is self-replicating software used to propagate a Trojan
|
||
|
||
Horse or Logic Bomb.
|
||
|
||
7.7.3 Detection of computer viruses
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
In the event of discovering a virus the Local Computing Help Desk should be
|
||
|
||
contacted immediately for advice. For most parts of the business, this will be the
|
||
|
||
GCS Help Desk. The suspect machine and disks which have been used on the
|
||
|
||
machine should not be used further until the Help Desk has been contacted.
|
||
|
||
Programs are now becoming available for most popular machines that claim to be
|
||
|
||
able to prevent, detect or eradicate virus infections. These tools may certainly help
|
||
|
||
to detect the presence of viruses. Unfortunately the indeterminate nature of
|
||
|
||
computer viruses makes an absolute guarantee of detection virtually impossible.
|
||
|
||
Nevertheless, virus detection tools should be regarded as a contributory factor in
|
||
|
||
maintaining computer system integrity.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The prevention of virus attack demands a fundamental shift of behavioural pattern
|
||
|
||
on the part of users of micro- and mini-systems. Many of the procedures that have
|
||
|
||
evolved to help and assist colleagues now need to be reconsidered in the context
|
||
|
||
of possible attack by computer viruses. For instance, operating system, program
|
||
|
||
or utility disks must not be borrowed or lent. Manufacturers source disks must be
|
||
|
||
securely protected, not left inside the instruction manual in the open. Transit
|
||
|
||
disks, that is those containing data files, should not be bootable or contain any
|
||
|
||
executable files. Except when being written to at the beginning of the transfer
|
||
|
||
process, the disks should be write- protected.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.7.4 Group policy on computer viruses
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
BT attaches considerable importance to the integrity of its computer systems,
|
||
|
||
particularly those systems that provide applications that are critical to the smooth
|
||
|
||
functioning of the Business. The recent emergence of computer viruses presents a
|
||
|
||
serious threat to BT s computer systems.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.23: VIRUSES: RESPONSIBILITY OF USERS
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
It is the personal responsibility of each individual to ensure that viruses are not
|
||
|
||
introduced into any BT system, or customers' system, that they come into
|
||
|
||
contact with.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.24: VIRUSES: POLICY FOR HIGH IMPACT SYSTEMS
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Detailed procedures on combating virus attacks shall be prepared for the
|
||
|
||
security of systems for which the impact of security failure is high. These
|
||
|
||
policies are to be submitted to Director of Security and Investigations for
|
||
|
||
concurrence.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLICY 7.25: VIRUS DETECTION
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
All disks inserted into customers' PCs must be virus checked before hand,
|
||
|
||
using approved virus detection software, or be certified as being virus free by
|
||
|
||
the manufacturer.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.7.5 Guidance
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Utilities are available for many popular machines that claim to be able to prevent,
|
||
|
||
detect or eradicate computer viruses. While their rigour and scope is unproven,
|
||
|
||
they may certainly help detect the presence of viruses. Nevertheless, the primary
|
||
|
||
objective is to avoid infection in the first place by means of careful operating
|
||
|
||
procedures.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The following steps should be followed by users to reduce the possibility of any
|
||
|
||
system being infected by computer viruses:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
1 Reduce the risk by only using software that is sourced directly from reputable
|
||
|
||
manucturers and for which there is a customer/supplier contract that identifies
|
||
|
||
a requirement for quality so%ware.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
2 Machine-readable media containing master copies of operating systems, programs
|
||
|
||
or utilities should be locked away securely at all times.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
3 Computers containing executable copies of operating systems, programs and
|
||
|
||
utilities should be kept within a local secure perimeter, else some means of logical
|
||
|
||
access control should be deployed to prevent malicious infection.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
4 Operating system and program media should never be lent, borrowed or
|
||
|
||
exchanged (except where the highest levels of personal trust prevail) .
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
5 Machine-readable media used for data file exchange should contain only the data.
|
||
|
||
Media should be inspected for executable files.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
6 Machine-readable media should not be exposed to systems whose integrity is
|
||
|
||
unknown, for example, systems at home or university systems.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
7 Public-domain programs shall not be downloaded, and in particular, computer
|
||
|
||
games should not be held or played on BT machines. Where games arrive as a
|
||
|
||
part of a software package they should be erased.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
8 All incoming and outgoing machine-readable media should be checked for known
|
||
|
||
viruses. The preferred method of doing this is on a standalone machine, dedicated
|
||
|
||
to that purpose (commonly called a sheep-dip PC). For further information on the
|
||
|
||
approved high integrity product, please refer to section 11.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
+++
|
||
|
||
EOF
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
PHUK MAGAZINE - Phile 9 of 10
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
---------------
|
||
|
||
Notes & Queries
|
||
|
||
---------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Note: Notes & Queries is the section where the readers send in any
|
||
|
||
questions, problems etc that they might have, and other readers can
|
||
|
||
send in the answers. We want YOU the reader to send your
|
||
|
||
questions and answers to us, at anon93143@anon.penet.fi .
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Let me start off with some feedback that PHUK has got.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Dear PHUK,
|
||
|
||
First of all , loved the first issure of PHUK , its
|
||
|
||
about time there was something decent to read in the UK , well
|
||
|
||
done , look forward to reading the next one.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
You asked what the difference was between "Breach of confidentiallity"
|
||
|
||
and "Hacking" , well , after consultation with my legal expert it
|
||
|
||
appears that Breach of confidentiallity is to do with the trust
|
||
|
||
that an employer gives to his employee in terms of access to data ,
|
||
|
||
(not necessarily computer data ).
|
||
|
||
Hacking is the activity of unauthorised access to computers via
|
||
|
||
any means. Usually hacking is done at a remote location rather than
|
||
|
||
on site as the " BT Hacker " did . As far as I can see , he didn't
|
||
|
||
hack anything , he just used the computer as part of his job and
|
||
|
||
leaked dodgy data to the press.
|
||
|
||
Keep up the good work.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Regards
|
||
|
||
HILO.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Well thanks for the praise , your cheque is in the post ! ;-) Phuk-Ed.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Now for some queries .
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Q: Does anyone know what frequencies the secrurity people use at
|
||
|
||
the Troc , or does anyone know of some really interesting
|
||
|
||
frequencies I could scan for ?
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
A: Well readers , I will wait for your answers - Phuk-Ed .
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Q: Who do I ask to find out about the 2600 SE meeting ?
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
A: Any one who knows about it , ok only joking the the details
|
||
|
||
are as follows.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
LOCATION: ROEBUCK PUB IN LEWISHAM
|
||
|
||
TIME : FROM 8PM ONWARDS
|
||
|
||
DATE : 2Oth MAY 1995 OR ROUGHLY
|
||
|
||
3 SATURDAYS AFTER THE FIRST
|
||
|
||
FRIDAY OF THE MONTH
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
+++
|
||
|
||
EOF
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
PHUK MAGAZINE - Phile 10 of 10
|
||
|
||
=============================================================================
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----
|
||
|
||
OUTRO
|
||
|
||
-----
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Well this issure is finally finished and I hope you enjoyed it !
|
||
|
||
Hopefully there has been a general round up of the phreaking / hacking
|
||
|
||
scene as it is happening in the UK .
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Although if you think a certain topic has not been covered the why not
|
||
|
||
submit an article for PH-UK and it will go in the next issure .
|
||
|
||
The only way this E-zine is going to survive is by people sending us
|
||
|
||
snippets of news, articles, code, numbers, hints, tips and
|
||
|
||
general ideas to keep the ball rolling.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Send all articles, flames, Letters of Comment etc etc to PHUK
|
||
|
||
magazine, anon93143@anon.penet.fi, OR speak to any of the PHUK crew
|
||
|
||
at any London 2600 meeting .........
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Anyhow, next month we have the following goodies for you ....we hope !
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Green Boxing - DrKaos & TheGoat
|
||
|
||
BT Computer Security Manual Part III
|
||
|
||
Tracing people - Death's Apprentice
|
||
|
||
Something on Novell Networks ...
|
||
|
||
Some trash from BT wastebins ....
|
||
|
||
Mecury Mailboxes ....
|
||
|
||
UK News ....
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
- Phuk-Ed
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
+++
|
||
|
||
EOF
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
.
|
||
|