Back to home.

The Hidden Dangers of Malicious Contributors and How to Safeguard Your Organization

Bologna on 2023-08-22T15:53:00.000+02:00
by Angelo Reale
tags: cybersecurity

In an age where collaboration is key, many organizations rely on external contributors or agencies to augment their in-house teams. But with increased collaboration comes potential risks, including the sinister prospect of malicious contributors who might have ulterior motives. In this post, we'll delve into the dangers posed by malicious insiders and provide steps to protect your organization.

An external collaborator who purposely adds code to degrade the performance of a new product, hidden amidst other legitimate-looking code, can be termed as:

  1. Malicious Contributor

  2. Saboteur

  3. Insider Threat (though the term 'insider' typically refers to employees; in this context, it refers to someone with inside access to the code)

Reasons for Adding Harmful Code

  • Espionage: This can be for industrial or corporate espionage. Competing organizations might benefit from the degradation of a rival's product.

  • Personal Grudge: A disgruntled collaborator might want to harm the product or organization out of spite.

  • Financial Gain: This can take many forms, including shorting a company's stock and then damaging its product or being paid by another party to sabotage the product.

  • Testing and Ego: Some might do it to prove they can or to highlight perceived inadequacies in the product or the organization.

  • Accidental: It's also worth noting that not all performance degradation or bugs are intentional; some may arise from oversight, lack of knowledge, or coding errors.

Diversion by Providing Inaccurate Answers

If confronted, a malicious contributor may give inaccurate or misleading technical explanations for the following reasons:

  • Obfuscation: By providing complex or jargon-filled answers, they may hope that the inquirer will be confused or deterred.

  • Time: Giving inaccurate answers can buy them time, allowing the code to be integrated, causing the intended damage before it's caught.

  • Preservation: They might wish to keep their position as a trusted contributor, so they try to provide reasons that shift the blame away from them.

The Risks

  1. Sabotage: Malicious contributors can insert harmful code, causing technical issues, security breaches, or degraded performance.

  2. Undermining Trust: By causing inexplicable issues, they can sow distrust within internal teams, leading to reduced morale and efficiency.

  3. Growing Dependence on External Agencies: A breakdown in trust might compel organizations to lean more on external collaborators, increasing an agency's influence and control.

  4. Loss of Intellectual Property: Malicious actors might not just sabotage; they can also steal valuable data or intellectual property.

Undermining trust within a team or organization can be a strategic tactic to achieve various goals. Here's how that scenario might play out:

  1. Undermining Trust: By introducing bugs, performance issues, or other problems into a product, a malicious contributor can sow seeds of doubt within the organization. When internal teams cannot pinpoint the origin of these issues, they might begin to suspect each other, leading to internal strife and a breakdown of trust.

  2. Creation of Dependence: Once there's a perceived lack of capability or trustworthiness within the internal team, external collaborators or agencies might pitch themselves as solutions to these problems. They could argue that their expertise, oversight, or additional manpower is required to fix the issues or improve the product. If the organization believes its internal team is lacking or untrustworthy, it might be more inclined to bring in more external collaborators.

  3. Expanding Influence: Once one external collaborator from an agency has successfully infiltrated or been invited into an organization, it can be easier for others from the same agency to get in. The initial collaborator can vouch for their colleagues, making it easier for the agency to embed more of its people within the organization.

  4. Benefits to the Agency: With more of its people inside the organization, the agency gains more control and influence. This could lead to more lucrative contracts, a say in decision-making, or access to valuable information.

  5. Final Outcome: Over time, the organization might become heavily reliant on the external agency, granting it significant power and influence. The organization may also see a decrease in morale among its actual employees, who might feel sidelined, mistrusted, or undervalued.

Such tactics are manipulative and ethically questionable. They could lead to both short-term and long-term damage to the organization, from flawed products to a toxic work culture. It's essential for organizations to have strong internal communication channels, transparent processes, and a culture of trust to combat such strategies. If there are genuine deficiencies in the skills or trustworthiness of employees, addressing them directly and constructively is always better than covert manipulations.

The Subtle Art of Influencing Leadership

Another, perhaps more insidious risk, is when these external actors maneuver their way into influencing decision-makers within the organization. Here's how such a scenario might play out:

  1. Rationalization: By creating artificial problems or emphasizing minor issues, these malicious contributors can make a case for larger budgets. They argue that the problems are complex and require additional resources to solve.

  2. Promises of Bonuses and Incentives: By tying these increased budgets to the promise of better outcomes, they may suggest that the entire team or department stands to benefit from bonuses, raises, or other incentives. This can make their proposition alluring, especially to those in management who also stand to gain from larger budgets and bonuses.

  3. A Seeming Win-Win: On the surface, it might seem like a win-win situation for the organization. If more resources lead to better products or solutions, wouldn't that justify the increased expenditure? However, when these needs are artificially created, it's a slippery slope that can lead to inflated budgets, bloated projects, and a culture of inefficiency.

Steps to Prevent or Mitigate These Risks

  1. Robust Vetting Process: Before onboarding any external collaborators or agencies, conduct comprehensive background checks. Look for past work history, references, and any red flags.

  2. Comprehensive Code Review Process: Implement a rigorous code review process where multiple in-house team members review contributions. This not only catches potential malicious inserts but also ensures quality.

  3. Continuous Training: Ensure your internal team is continuously trained in the latest security practices and code quality standards. A well-informed team is your first line of defense.

  4. Open Communication Channels: Foster a culture where team members can voice concerns without fear. When everyone feels they can speak up, suspicious activities are more likely to be flagged.

  5. Limit Access: Not every collaborator needs access to all parts of your system. Implement a principle of least privilege, granting access only to what's necessary for a contributor's role.

  6. Regular Audits: Regularly audit your systems and codebase for anomalies. Using third-party security firms can provide an unbiased look at your systems and practices.

  7. Whistleblower Protections: Protect those who flag potential issues from retaliation. This encourages more people to come forward if they spot something amiss.

  8. Establish a Response Protocol: In the event that a malicious contributor is identified, have a clear protocol in place for how to address the situation, from technical remediation to potential legal actions.

While the benefits of collaboration are manifold, it's vital to recognize the potential pitfalls. By staying vigilant, fostering open communication, and implementing rigorous checks and balances, organizations can harness the power of collaboration without falling prey to hidden dangers.

Remember, the goal isn't to foster suspicion but to cultivate an environment of trust built on transparency, vigilance, and mutual respect.