In addition to the above services, KBank offers a service that permits users to receive an SMS message that details any change in account balance and/or point-of-sale (POS) transaction with your debit card.   I really like this service and the feeling of security knowing when, where and by how much my balance changes or my debit card is used in a transaction.    The KBank POS SMS notification is so fast that when I present my card to a merchant I normally receive an SMS message detailing the transaction before the merchant returns for my signature.  (There is an unfortunate lag in the balance change notification that can run minutes to hours behind real-time, but the POS VISA debit card notification is real-time).

As the story goes,  I should have been using my KBank card and account a few weeks ago and not my US-based VISA debit dard.  Why?

My US-based VISA debit card was cloned sometime on or before August 8th.   I am really careful with this card, so I was surprised the magnetic strip was cloned at a POS merchant.   The fraudster made 7 fraudulent transactions beginning on August 8th for a total of around $2500 USD, mostly on August 11th, before I discovered the fraudulent transactions viewing my account on-line.

This would not have happened with KBank SMS-based transaction notification services.

The first transaction with my cloned VISA debit card was less than $50 USD (I assume the fraudster was “testing the water”).   If I was using my KBank card, I would have received an immediate SMS message detailing a POS transaction in Bangkok when I was physically far away from Bangkok in Chiang Mai.   I could have immediately called the bank (or logged in) and blocked the debit card, limiting potential losses to the bank or the merchant to one fraudulent transaction, not seven.

In addition, KBank offers what they call a Web-Shopping VISA card, where you can go into your on-line account (verified by SMS OTP as mentioned) and request a VISA debit card number (with expiration date, CCV etc).   You set the limit from 0 to 500,000 THB (Thai Baht) per day; and you can login to your account and change this anytime (authenticating your transaction with another SMS-based OTP). You can also block or cancel this number anytime and apply for another one.

I am amazed that in Thailand I receive much better anti-fraud prevention and detection services than with banks in the US.   I know of no bank or brokerage in the US that offers the same quality of service and security as KBank in Thailand.  

It's basically what you would expect: Appoint a national cyber security advisor, invest in math and science education, establish standards for critical infrastructure, spend money on enforcement, establish national standards for securing personal data and data-breach disclosure, and work with industry and academia to develop a bunch of needed technologies.

I could comment on the plan, but with security the devil is always in the details -- and, of course, at this point there are few details. But since he brought up the topic -- McCain supposedly is "working on the issues" as well -- I have three pieces of policy advice for the next president, whoever he is. They're too detailed for campaign speeches or even position papers, but they're essential for improving information security in our society. Actually, they apply to national security in general. And they're things only government can do.

One, use your immense buying power to improve the security of commercial products and services. One property of technological products is that most of the cost is in the development of the product rather than the production. Think software: The first copy costs millions, but the second copy is free.

You have to secure your own government networks, military and civilian. You have to buy computers for all your government employees. Consolidate those contracts, and start putting explicit security requirements into the RFPs. You have the buying power to get your vendors to make serious security improvements in the products and services they sell to the government, and then we all benefit because they'll include those improvements in the same products and services they sell to the rest of us. We're all safer if information technology is more secure, even though the bad guys can use it, too.

Two, legislate results and not methodologies. There are a lot of areas in security where you need to pass laws, where the security externalities are such that the market fails to provide adequate security. For example, software companies who sell insecure products are exploiting an externality just as much as chemical plants that dump waste into the river. But a bad law is worse than no law. A law requiring companies to secure personal data is good; a law specifying what technologies they should use to do so is not. Mandating software liabilities for software failures is good, detailing how is not. Legislate for the results you want and implement the appropriate penalties; let the market figure out how -- that's what markets are good at.

Three, broadly invest in research. Basic research is risky; it doesn't always pay off. That's why companies have stopped funding it. Bell Labs is gone because nobody could afford it after the AT&T breakup, but the root cause was a desire for higher efficiency and short-term profitability -- not unreasonable in an unregulated business. Government research can be used to balance that by funding long-term research.

Spread those research dollars wide. Lately, most research money has been redirected through DARPA to near-term military-related projects; that's not good. Keep the earmark-happy Congress from dictating how the money is spent. Let the NSF, NIH and other funding agencies decide how to spend the money and don't try to micromanage. Give the national laboratories lots of freedom, too. Yes, some research will sound silly to a layman. But you can't predict what will be useful for what, and if funding is really peer-reviewed, the average results will be much better. Compared to corporate tax breaks and other subsidies, this is chump change.

If our research capability is to remain vibrant, we need more science and math students with decent elementary and high school preparation. The declining interest is partly from the perception that scientists don't get rich like lawyers and dentists and stockbrokers, but also because science isn't valued in a country full of creationists. One way the president can help is by trusting scientific advisers and not overruling them for political reasons.

Oh, and get rid of those post-9/11 restrictions on student visas that are causing (.pdf) so many top students to do their graduate work in Canada, Europe and Asia instead of in the United States. Those restrictions will hurt us immensely in the long run.

Those are the three big ones; the rest is in the details. And it's the details that matter. There are lots of serious issues that you're going to have to tackle: data privacy, data sharing, data mining, government eavesdropping, government databases, use of Social Security numbers as identifiers, and so on. It's not enough to get the broad policy goals right. You can have good intentions and enact a good law, and have the whole thing completely gutted by two sentences sneaked in during rulemaking by some lobbyist.

Security is both subtle and complex, and -- unfortunately -- it doesn't readily lend itself to normal legislative processes. You're used to finding consensus, but security by consensus rarely works. On the internet, security standards are much worse when they're developed by a consensus body, and much better when someone just does them. This doesn't always work -- a lot of crap security has come from companies that have "just done it" -- but nothing but mediocre standards come from consensus bodies. The point is that you won't get good security without pissing someone off: The information broker industry, the voting machine industry, the telcos. The normal legislative process makes it hard to get security right, which is why I don't have much optimism about what you can get done.

And if you're going to appoint a cyber security czar, you have to give him actual budgetary authority -- otherwise he won't be able to get anything done, either.

This essay originally appeared on Wired.com.

It's basically what you would expect: Appoint a national cyber security advisor, invest in math and science education, establish standards for critical infrastructure, spend money on enforcement, establish national standards for securing personal data and data-breach disclosure, and work with industry and academia to develop a bunch of needed technologies.

I could comment on the plan, but with security the devil is always in the details -- and, of course, at this point there are few details. But since he brought up the topic -- McCain supposedly is "working on the issues" as well -- I have three pieces of policy advice for the next president, whoever he is. They're too detailed for campaign speeches or even position papers, but they're essential for improving information security in our society. Actually, they apply to national security in general. And they're things only government can do.

One, use your immense buying power to improve the security of commercial products and services. One property of technological products is that most of the cost is in the development of the product rather than the production. Think software: The first copy costs millions, but the second copy is free.

You have to secure your own government networks, military and civilian. You have to buy computers for all your government employees. Consolidate those contracts, and start putting explicit security requirements into the RFPs. You have the buying power to get your vendors to make serious security improvements in the products and services they sell to the government, and then we all benefit because they'll include those improvements in the same products and services they sell to the rest of us. We're all safer if information technology is more secure, even though the bad guys can use it, too.

Two, legislate results and not methodologies. There are a lot of areas in security where you need to pass laws, where the security externalities are such that the market fails to provide adequate security. For example, software companies who sell insecure products are exploiting an externality just as much as chemical plants that dump waste into the river. But a bad law is worse than no law. A law requiring companies to secure personal data is good; a law specifying what technologies they should use to do so is not. Mandating software liabilities for software failures is good, detailing how is not. Legislate for the results you want and implement the appropriate penalties; let the market figure out how -- that's what markets are good at.

Three, broadly invest in research. Basic research is risky; it doesn't always pay off. That's why companies have stopped funding it. Bell Labs is gone because nobody could afford it after the AT&T breakup, but the root cause was a desire for higher efficiency and short-term profitability -- not unreasonable in an unregulated business. Government research can be used to balance that by funding long-term research.

Spread those research dollars wide. Lately, most research money has been redirected through DARPA to near-term military-related projects; that's not good. Keep the earmark-happy Congress from dictating (.pdf) how the money is spent. Let the NSF, NIH and other funding agencies decide how to spend the money and don't try to micromanage. Give the national laboratories lots of freedom, too. Yes, some research will sound silly to a layman. But you can't predict what will be useful for what, and if funding is really peer-reviewed, the average results will be much better. Compared to corporate tax breaks and other subsidies, this is chump change.

If our research capability is to remain vibrant, we need more science and math students with decent elementary and high school preparation. The declining interest is partly from the perception that scientists don't get rich like lawyers and dentists and stockbrokers, but also because science isn't valued in a country full of creationists. One way the president can help is by trusting scientific advisers and not overruling them for political reasons.

Oh, and get rid of those post-9/11 restrictions on student visas that are causing (.pdf) so many top students to do their graduate work in Canada, Europe and Asia instead of in the United States. Those restrictions will hurt us (.pdf) immensely in the long run.

Those are the three big ones; the rest is in the details. And it's the details that matter. There are lots of serious issues that you're going to have to tackle: data privacy, data sharing, data mining, government eavesdropping, government databases, use of Social Security numbers as identifiers, and so on. It's not enough to get the broad policy goals right. You can have good intentions and enact a good law, and have the whole thing completely gutted by two sentences sneaked in during rulemaking by some lobbyist.

Security is both subtle and complex, and -- unfortunately -- it doesn't readily lend itself to normal legislative processes. You're used to finding consensus, but security by consensus rarely works. On the internet, security standards are much worse when they're developed by a consensus body, and much better when someone just does them. This doesn't always work -- a lot of crap security has come from companies that have "just done it" -- but nothing but mediocre standards come from consensus bodies. The point is that you won't get good security without pissing someone off: The information broker industry, the voting machine industry, the telcos. The normal legislative process makes it hard to get security right, which is why I don't have much optimism about what you can get done.

And if you're going to appoint a cyber security czar, you have to give him actual budgetary authority -- otherwise he won't be able to get anything done, either.

---

Bruce Schneier is chief security technology officer of BT, and author of Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World.

ScienceLogic: How long have you been involved in InteropNet?

Katsev: I started at Coyote Point 3 years ago and InteropNet 2006 was my first “big” assignment.  This was the first time Coyote Point had put in a proposal to participate, so we were very excited when we were selected.

ScienceLogic: How long has Coyote Point been involved in Interop overall?

Katsev: We’ve been exhibiting at Interop for a number of years, and after seeing the InteropNet in action, we decided to submit a proposal in ‘06.  We were actually one of the first companies in the load balancing/traffic management space (we’ve been doing this for almost 10 years), so we have a lot of experience to share with InteropNet.

ScienceLogic: What is your role at Coyote Point?

My official title is “Engineering Project Manager”.  Basically, that means that I’m in charge of product releases and maintenance.  It sounds like a weird title for someone participating in InteropNet, but I’ve actually found it extremely useful since my position means that I don’t get to see our systems out in the field a lot.  We’ve added several features and have ideas for others just from my experiences at InteropNet.

ScienceLogic: What do the Coyote Point products do?

Katsev: Coyote Point makes a Traffic Management appliance called Equalizer.  What this means is that any traffic destined for a datacenter’s servers goes through our appliances and we make sure that the server which is best equipped to handle it, does.  Our systems sit between the clients and the servers and monitor the client traffic and the state of the servers.  If the clients start sending more traffic, we’ll balance it out so that no server is overloaded.  If one of the servers stops responding or starts responding very slowly, we’ll steer traffic away from that server.

ScienceLogic: In what way are your products being used as part of InteropNet?

Katsev: In the InteropNet, we’re utilizing a lot of our expertise:  We’re making sure that traffic is balanced and servers are redundant for show services such as DNS and SMTP.  We’re also using our geographic load balancing technology to ensure that the ScienceLogic EM7 appliances and some other internal NOC services are available from anywhere, with the lowest latency, with our SSL acceleration and GZIP compression technology.  Finally, we’re helping logistics in the NOC by allowing a physical separation between systems located in the NOC and those in an emergency rack outside of the NOC.  If either of these two locations were to fail, the network will continue operating without a glitch.

ScienceLogic: Are there any special considerations for Interop that cause you to deploy your systems there differently that any other place?

Katsev: Interop is definitely different than most of our customer installations.   One difference from a standard environment is that the network (at least this year) is one large flat network, with pieces carved out where extra security is needed.  Because of this, we can actually run our failover pairs of Equalizer systems in a non-standard configuration where the two peers are in different racks, or even on different floors.  That’s one of the things that I really like about InteropNet — it definitely brings new ideas to mind, which end up becoming ’special configuration’ white papers after the show.

ScienceLogic: Has InteropNet taught you anything that caused you to actually change your product?

Katsev: In addition to the failover configuration differences I mentioned above, participating in InteropNet has actually caused us to add several new features and allowed configurations.  One example is the “no-spoof” option for Layer 4 clusters.  Prior to the 2006 shows, we always ’spoofed’ the client’s IP address when talking to a server so that the server would see the client’s IP address instead of our own.  At Interop, we ran into a special configuration which would’ve been very difficult to set up in this manner, so our engineers added this feature, and it’s been very a very popular configuration with our customers ever since.

We have also had a couple of business relationships that extended outside of the show.  In 2006, we had a good experience using Spirent Communications gear to benchmark the network, so we ended up purchasing a couple of these systems to test our products.  More recently, we have found a way to bundle our Equalizer e350si load balancers with the ScienceLogic EM7 collector appliances to help ScienceLogic get the best performance in load balancing large quantities of syslog messages to be processed.  If it wasn’t for our participation in InteropNet, neither of these relationships would’ve happened.

ScienceLogic: What’s the best part of being involved with InteropNet?  What do you most look forward to?

Katsev: InteropNet is an amazing networking opportunity (no pun intended).  The group of engineers that put the network together every year is, well, amazing.  There is so much combined experience that any question instantly has several possible answers, and the best answer is chosen very quickly.  One of the ’sayings’ at Interop is “if you run into a problem, ask someone… we’ve probably seen that problem before… five times.”  One would think that being part of InteropNet is the same thing, year after year.  However, in the two years that I’ve been part of this (for four shows), there have been huge differences in the way that the network is designed and put together.  These are both because the vendors selected every year are different, and because the engineers who design the network change from year to year.  Somehow, though, when all is said and done, we have a network that works.

ScienceLogic: You don’t have to answer this one if you’re not comfortable… What would you like to see changed with the way things are done at InteropNet?

Katsev: This isn’t a cop-out… I really can’t think of anything I would do differently.  Sure, there are small problems that pop up sometimes, but every project has those, and the people at InteropNet are more than capable of figuring them all out.  In fact, I know that Interop started out as a show to test the interoperability of devices… but I’m still amazed that all of these devices actually talk to each other and “play nice” together.

ShareThis

Hmm.

From GCN:

“This is a change we have not faced in the IT security industry before,” he added.

The closest parallel has been in the Defense Department, which anticipated OMB’s reaction in this area. DOD’s Directive 8570 on information assurance, approved in December 2005, requires all of the department’s information assurance workers to obtain an accredited commercial certification in computer security. DOD has approved 13 certifications for the directive.

The DOD requirement already has thrown what one conference attendee called a giant monkey wrench into the IT security manpower market.

“If OMB issues a similar requirement, it’s going to throw the supply and demand curve even more out of balance,” he said.

Datesman agreed, saying it probably would take years for the supply of certified workers to catch up with demand. A CISSP certification requires five years’ experience. “You don’t mint them out of college,” he said.

OK, this is where this trolley leaves the track. I have met CISSP certified folks that I would wager they’d be lucky to fight their way out of a wet paper bag. “Don’t mint them out of college” is a phrase that I’d argue. I would offer that the ISC2 should start auditing certified members. The validity of the CISSP cert is becoming diluted in the eyes of the market.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

It’s great for the mandatory HR tick box but, how many of these folks actually have the ability? Sure they can memorize some flash cards and pass a test but, are they effective? Some, not so much.

On the face of it this is a good idea.

Like all good intentions, they make great paving stones on the road to hell.

Article Link

There are some days where nothing strikes me as interesting enough to blog.  Than there are days like today where there are just too many things that I find compelling enough to comment on.  So rather than do 4 or 5 posts today, let me condense all of this goodness (I hope) into one post:

1. Sophos releases "financial results ahead of analysts expectations". While I applaud the Sophos folks for making public their revenue numbers (at least gross, net and deferred totals it seems), I am not sure what analysts they are talking about.  As a private company, it is not like people are trading their stock and the financial analyst crowd is putting their numbers on the street.  200+m is a lot of revenue, even for an AV company and 40+m to the bottom line is impressive, but until you are public, no one is holding your feet to the fire and analyst coverage is just not the same.

Authors note: Dr. Jan Hruska, co-founder of Sophos wrote me off line and gave me permission to publish this comment: 2. Apple is ready to enter the platform war - Larry Dignan over at ZDNet has some good comments and stats on Apple vying with Microsoft and Linux/open source to be "the platform" of the future. I agree that the iPhone and iPod are Trojan Horses into the enterprise and along with the Mac represent a viable platform that could compete with Microsoft and the Linux/open source crowd.  However, I don't think you can judge how many developers are developing Mac/iPhone apps based on the crowd at the upcoming WWDC (worldwide developer conference).  Steve Jobs is a master showman and I think these conferences have become media events.  Many people are there to to twitter and report and to "be there".

In October last year we prepared for a float on the London Stock Exchange. As a part of the exercise we had analysts from the three sponsor banks produce their projections for revenue etc for the next three years. We did better that their projections for 2007/08.

Larry is right though that Apple has to balance being too iPhone and iPod crazy at the risk of ignoring the "real" platform here the Mac.  His example about PGP developing a Mac version is a great point.  I have heard many other security companies likewise bringing Mac versions to market. This graphic I think shows the point well:

  But my ultimate point on this one is that the ultimate platform will be the web.  What the underlying OS is for future web apps should be somewhat meaningless.  The webtop platform would seem to me to be the platform going forward!

In any event the WWDC should be a lot of fun and I will be watching to see if any new reports come out.

3. Belden buys Trapeze - Another independent WLAN provider gets bought. Doesn't seem like a great multiple, 133m on 2007 revenue of 56m.  There are not many independent WLAN providers out there now.  Meru Networks is probably the biggest of the bunch. You don't hear too many people saying that wireless is not here yet anymore.

4. McAfee still chasing the dragon on security ROI - McAfee announced that using the Forrester Economic Impact Calculator you can now easily find out your ROI from buying a McAfee product. They have a very nice diagram that I have pasted in here. They ask you to plug in a few numbers about type of security you want, desktops, laptops and servers and presto - they give you an ROI.  I didn't call them to get the scoop, but it really underwhelmed me.  Looks like smoke and mirrors to me, just like many of these security ROIs do.