“I have quite a few other concerns the with EPTS Member Agreement.   Basically, the agreement needs to be written with an eye toward a more flexible, open and inclusive process that puts the future of the EPTS square into the hands of the event processing community, not a small group of well intended folks who represent a small part of the overall event processing community and worldview.”

Opher’s reply was to just dismiss these comments, a bit surprising since I served the CEP/EP community on the EPTS steering committee; worked quite hard as a matter of fact, for a number of years.   Opher’s appreciation for the years of work is to just off-handly dismiss my comments.

Then in On faithfull representation and other comments and On Top Down and Bottom Up Opher does the same thing, he simply dismisses my comments, defensively, adding humor, sarcasm and fallacy.

I am sorry Opher is so defensive of his narrow society; however I will not yield, because I do not need to resort to sarcasm, fallacy and ad hominums; the facts obviously support my view.  For proof that Opher has a narrow view of event processing, go no further than look at the companies he hand-picked for his EPTS Steering Committee; most startups (or with startup products) in the event processing space, working on common messages to distinguish themselves in a market with much more mature players excluded - classic “not invented here,” isn’t it?

Opher’s claims the EPTS view on event processing is quite general, but the  majority of vendors on the EPTS Steering Committee members are selling similar platforms, a very narrow segment of the CEP/EP space.    Opher claims that he agrees that other domains (like sensor fusion) are significant to CEP/EP, but he simply dismisses my advice to create a true, general EPTS, inclusive of the prior-art and science of CEP/EP (before the marketing folks took over).  He insists on having the EPTS “reinvent the wheel” and develop their own vocabulary, as if event processing did not exist prior to one book on CEP.

Opher’s fun-to-read blog counterpoints to my concerns are evolving to a mixture of ad hominums and sarcasm, sometime wrapped in a defensive tone.   I think we can do better and we must be more inclusive of the other prior-art.  I say we, because I am also a founding member of the EPTS, althought I suspect Opher will banish my name from the membership for trying to diminish the “not invented here” attitude that seems to dominate the EPTS since inception.

The truth of the matter is that the EPTS has a relatively narrow view of event processing, evident by the makeup of the steering committee and the focus of their discussions.    It is not a technical society about event processing, per se; it is a marketing society with a narrowly focused membership that discounts most of the prior-art in the event processing space, it is really, an Event Processing Marketing Society (EPMS) for a narrow group of niche players.

The event processing domain is much, much larger.   The art-and-science of event processing is deep and mature, much more mature (and inclusive) than what we see in the EPTS. 

I think Opher (and the EPTS committee) should take these comments seriously and not discount them with sarcasm and subtle ad hominum replies.

As a reference, you may have seen this briefing, one of many where I show these functional relationships, Mythbusters: Event Stream Processing Versus Complex Event Processing, from DEBS2007.  For example slide 23 shows the functional relationship between events, pre-processing, event tracking, situational detection, historical patterns (the output of BI tools, for example), visualization and business process management.

In Faithful Representation, Richard Veryard reminds his readers that the most challenging part is in the situation models (not the system integration).  Unfortunately, by accident, Richard incorrectly attributes Opher Etzion’s “first order situation model approximation” to both Opher and I in this quote from Richard’s post, “a simple situation model of complex events, in which events (including derived, composite and complex events) represent the “situation”.   

Actually, that simple situation model above is Opher’s, not mine.  I have offered a more general and comprehensive (first draft) situation model, in A Simple Situation Model for Complex Events based on a cognitive situation model used by researchers at the University of Notre Dame.  I do not believe that complex events and situations can be modelled accurately using Opher’s simple model of derived, composite and complex events.   This model is overly simple, in my opinion. to represent the vast majority of CEP classes of problems, perhaps explaining why Opher and I do not agree on the state-of-the-art of CEP.  Opher tends to view CEP as mostly an extension of active database technology where I see CEP as a technology that is much more closely aligned with the cognitive models represented in the art-and-science of multi-sensor data fusion (MSDF).  

Complex events represent situations, and situations must be accurately modelled if we are going to accurately detect them in real-time.  If your business cannot model a complex event (situation) then it does not matter what software you buy, how much money you spend, or what event processing and integration platform you use.   The models are hard.  The system integration is relatively easy.

The secret sauce is the situation and complex event models.

As mentioned here a few times, it does not matter how fast you process events in real-time, if your model is wrong, you just detect the wrong thing very fast.  This is very bad and quite dangerous.  You will make bad decisions fast.  You will waste time, money and resources.

This is why CEP benchmarks should be based on accuracy in situation detection, not in latency and other low-level performance metrics.   First, get the models right; then refine to detect faster, if speed is required.   What has happened in CEP to date, is that the models are so simple, they do not really detect complex events, they just process and act on simple events that are easy to model. 

At any rate, legit torrents of the video presentations are available from The Last HOPE Video Tracker. Art of Information Security is seeding torrents, and plans to do so for the next 10 days.

Check ‘em out.

Cheers, Erik

Last HOPE Session Videos - Seeded by AoIS

“Actually, it is fair to say that some of CEP can be found in other disciplines. Event processing has been going on in one form or another, for the past 50 years. Simulation, Networking, Active DBs, Middleware.

{ …. }

CEP has only just begun. The foundations are unexplored. Its an open field of research issues.”

Actually, on slide 12 of this presentation from 2006 Processing Patterns for PredictiveBusiness, we show that the foundations for complex event processing have been in place for many years and in many disciplines such as multisensor data fusion, control theory, sensor management, planning, correlation, estimation, tracking, information fusion, data fusion, data mining and more.

One obvious problem (or at least obvious to many of us) with the current group think marketing CEP is that many have ignored the established foundations for event processing and complex event processing that have been mature for many decades. It is not very efficient (nor good for customers) to pick a phrase, or concept, like “CEP” and ignore the relevant mulitiple disciplines that have been used to solve complex classes of distributed event processing problems for decades.

Therefore, “CEP has only begun” is only true for those who have ‘drank the CEP koolaid” and do not understand (yet) that they are “reinventing the event processing wheel” and ignoring (by accident or purposely, I have no idea of the motives) the prior-art and/or selectively picking the prior art or research associated with their company, byline, favorite researcher, CEO, etc. This is a fundamental issue (and constraint) with CEP, in my opinion. Complex event processing does not stand alone as an art or a science, nor should it, nor should it be based on single dimensional, or small groups of single dimensional, technologies.

If you want to see many of the foundations of CEP, you don’t need to go much further than slide 12 of this  presentation from 2006, Processing Patterns for PredictiveBusiness.

Based on my observation, it reminds me of a small group of folks on a discovery mission where their ship lands on the shore of a distant land and they call this “new land” — “CEP” because they feel they have discovered a new land.  Nevermind the big cities that already exist or the many people already “in the fields” of their new land.  These ”CEP explorers” are seemingly in some kind of modern day epic struggle to define themselves as “discoverers” or “founders” and they are coming up with new names of the lakes, rivers, streams and mountains that defined the landscape long before their ship arrived.

Note: It is encouraging to see folks slowly “catching up”…. maybe in a few years we will move CEP beyond the “not invented here” mind share that we see today.

Also note that, recently we saw a flurry of posts where many people rightly stated that “CEP was overhyped” - but then in rebuttal the EPTS community leaders came back with “Is CEP a mere hype?” or “Is CEP a hype?”. spinning the discussion to an extreme position that is wildly different than “CEP is Overhyped”.   

Of course, a major problem with that approach is that the “persons of interest” are long gone by the time the video shows that “yep, you can defiantly see some guy cutting off that lock and stealing that…”.

Another problem is that unless the equipment is being checked on a regular basis, it may be defeated (or just broken) for a long time before any problems are identified.

In the photo to the right, a NYC artist William Lamson, has created an interesting photo of hacking (or blocking) a security camera with a helium balloon. This is such a simple and inexpensive attack on the video surveillance camera that I am shocked I haven’t seen this before. I am also certain that the appearance of this in a TV or movie plot is imminent. It would have been pretty simple to use two balloons to block the camera without providing the nice tether to “fix” the problem.

Digital photography is a hobby of mine, and I have a mild obsession for photographing physical security faux pas (which to date has not resulted in any ‘Imperial Entanglements’ ). So I am going to use Mr. Lamson’s photo to kick off a new category (and series) on Art of Information Security, called “Security faux pas” - stay tuned…

Cheers, Erik

Coming Soon to a Movie Plot Near You…

Blogger: Pete Lindstrom

On July 8th, Dan Kaminsky of IOActive announced a major DNS “vulnerability” in conjunction with a number of major DNS vendors. The announcement was off the charts in fanfare and attention, but what was the real impact on risk?

First, it is worth noting that this “bug” is more properly classified as a new attack technique invented by Dan. It combines two vulnerabilities that have been well-known for some time – the ability to guess non-random transaction IDs and the use of Additional RRs to insert new entries into the DNS cache. A fix against either of these vulnerabilities also negates the attack itself.

The fundamental question that determines the risk impact revolves around whether it is reasonable to expect fewer or more incidents that use this technique when comparing the period prior to disclosure -- or, more properly, before the date of Dan’s invention of the technique (this also assumes prior art) – with the period after invention/disclosure and into the future. If the disclosure reduces the number of those incidents, then risk is reduced; if the disclosure increases the number of those incidents, then risk is increased.

With that litmus test as our guideline, it is useful to break down the functional elements of risk and look at the impact on threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences (we will cover consequences, then vulnerabilities, and finally threat).

Consequences
Though the consequences are the same before and after disclosure, it is worth discussing the impact here, given that the implication was that the “entire web” could be taken down. The nature of the attack requires the following:

1. An attacker must convince/trick a user into making a DNS request for a domain that doesn’t already exist in their DNS server’s cache. The expectation here is that s/he can be easily tricked into doing this.
2. Then, the attacker must simultaneously attack the DNS server by guessing the transaction ID. According to Kaminsky, the request/attack phase can be done reliably in about 10 seconds.
3. The attack is DNS server-specific. Only users on the same DNS server are affected.
4. Propagation: once the cache is poisoned, anyone requesting that domain will be routed to a malicious server.

Without combining this attack with other attack techniques, there can be three results:

1. Spoofing of a single website for multiple, perhaps many, users using the same DNS server. Presumably, this would be followed by more traditional phishing and malware attacks.
2. Denial-of-service by rerouting traffic from a legitimate site thereby taking potential customers or “eyeballs” away.
3. Denial-of-service be rerouting traffic from a legitimate high volume site to a legitimate low-volume site thereby overloading the servers on the low-volume site.

Because of the point-to-point (user-to-website) nature of the attack, to do something that constitutes “taking over the entire web” is infeasible by a longshot.

The bottom line analysis for the effect on risk due to a change in consequences from pre-invention to post-invention: no change, and therefore no impact.

Vulnerabilities
These vulnerabilities have existed for years, and there have been workarounds for years. Along with this announcement, new patches were introduced in all major DNS server solutions. It is reasonable to assume that many DNS server implementations have been patched, though public accounts have suggested that number is in the 66%-75% range.

Bottom line analysis: the vulnerability level has been reduced, probably significantly, and the affect is positive for risk reduction. If 100% of DNS servers were patched, then overall risk would be reduced for this attack (assuming that there were actual attacks using this technique in the past.)

Threats
The real question regarding risk impact comes in the arena of the less-controllable manipulation of threat. The general threat equation revolves around an attacker’s willingness to attack, based on his/her own cost/benefit analysis that compares the cost to attack to the expected benefits, tempered by the potential for being caught and penalized.

Cost to attack – prior to disclosing the invention, there were likely few, if any attackers with “prior art” that mirrored this technique. It is anybody’s guess how many potential attackers might have figured it out eventually, but they would have had to come from the pool of folks with enough expertise to do so – I am going to guess 500,000 people.

After the disclosure, the hints provided in the press release, the podcast, the sorted stories, and the blog entries made it much easier to figure out. Let’s guess that 5 million people could execute the attack. With automated tools, that number goes up to 50 million.

These numbers are estimates that illustrate the nature of the exercise. You are welcome to fill in your own estimates and come to your own conclusions.

Bottom line analysis: a significant increase in threat and corresponding risk.

Net Effect
The risk manager's challenge is to weigh the decrease in vulnerable systems compared with the corresponding increase in threat, within the context of number of incidents and anticipated future incidents. Given the sheer size differential, it is difficult to conceive of a situation where risk is not increased.

Sometimes it "feels" like someone is taking action for the greater good, when that action actually creates a negative impact for all. For example, it is common for people to believe that raising prices of scarce resources during  times of trouble (e.g. gasoline in the hurricane Katrina aftermath) is unconscionable even though a majority of economists recognize that raising prices actually provides for the greater public good. Vulnerability discovery and disclosure, and attack inventions, might feel like the right thing to do, but the net result is almost always a negative impact.

However, I should briefly clarify Paul’s note that “blackboard systems historically used a single memory model (i.e. multiple threads or processes using a single machine’s memory model)“.

In fact, there were many blackboard systems, some more than a decade old, that used a distributed memory data-model. What I think Paul meant to say, and my apologies to Paul for being so literal, is that “blackboard systems originally used a single memory model (i.e. multiple threads or processes using a single machine’s memory model)”

John McManus, former CTO of NASA, wrote an excellent PhD dissertation in 1992, Design and Analysis Techniques for Concurrent Blackboard Systems. John’s thesis, now more than 16 years old, examined many details of concurrent blackboards where memory is distributed. For example, refer to Figure 2.3. Distributed Blackboard System with Distributed Blackboard Data Structure, page 36 of John’s dissertation.

Quoting directly from page 37 of John’s disseration;

Rice, Aiello and Nii [20] present several options for gaining speedups in a distributed blackboard system.

• 1) Eliminate the centralized scheduling mechanism
• 2) Optimize system design for a distributed memory, message-passing hardware
• 3) Distribute the data across the blackboard to reduce hotspots

Quoting further from the same page;

Poligon [21] is based on a distributed memory hardware model when each processor is viewed as a blackboard node. They define a blackboard node as follows: “a blackboard node is a process on a processor, surrounded by a collection of processors able to service its requests to execute rules.” [22] The implicit assumption in this definition is that all knowledge sources are rule–based systems. This assumption may severely limit the performance of systems implemented using Poligon, and limits the types of problems it is suited to address.

In Blackboards for Complex Event Processing, Paul concludes,

“One suspects the blackboard systems domain and terminology is overdue some updates thanks to developments in the Complex Event Processing space.”

If you look at the historical literature, I would say that the following restatement is more accurate:

“The CEP domain and terminology is overdue some updates because folks working in CEP did not reference or incorporate the advanced event processing prior art in a number of very important areas, blackboard systems being only one.”

On the other hand, commercial off-the-shelf rule-processing technology such as TIBCO’s BusinessEvents (BE), advances the ability to economically implement myriad complex problems that blackboard systems are designed to address.