An internal memo obtained by The Associated Press says the FBI has received a "plausible but unsubstantiated" report that al-Qaida terrorists in late September may have discussed attacking the subway system.

[...]

The internal bulletin says al-Qaida terrorists "in late September may have discussed targeting transit systems in and around New York City. These discussions reportedly involved the use of suicide bombers or explosives placed on subway/passenger rail systems," according to the document.

"We have no specific details to confirm that this plot has developed beyond aspirational planning, but we are issuing this warning out of concern that such an attack could possibly be conducted during the forthcoming holiday season," according to the warning dated Tuesday.

[...]

Rep. Peter King, the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, said authorities "have very real specifics as to who it is and where the conversation took place and who conducted it."

"It certainly involves suicide bombing attacks on the mass transit system in and around New York and it's plausible, but there's no evidence yet that it's in the process of being carried out," King said.

Knocke, the DHS spokesman, said the warning was issued "out of an abundance of caution going into this holiday season."

Got that: "plausible but unsubstantiated," "may have discussed attacking the subway system," "specific details to confirm that this plot has developed beyond aspirational planning," "attack could possibly be conducted," "it's plausible, but there's no evidence yet that it's in the process of being carried out."

I have no specific details, but I want to warn everybody today that fiery rain might fall from the sky. Terrorists may have discussed this sort of tactic, and while there is no evidence yet that it's in the process of being carried out, I want to be extra-cautious this holiday season. Ho ho ho.

After meetings and calls, I was finally able to slip into a conference session – just in time to catch uber-smart analysts Rachel Chalmers (The 451 Group) and Dan Golding (Tier1 Research) engage in a lively and not-so-mock debate on “Hosting Meets the Cloud”.

Now this doesn’t cover the entire debate – and part II is coming tomorrow. But what it does cover is the most interesting questions (to me) and paraphrase the points made by the analysts. I thought they both had very interesting points and more similarities than differences in the end; the real difference is how they thought about the issues and through what lens – for Rachel it was the enterprise and for Dan it was managed hosting providers. (image from inmagine)

Question: What is a cloud and why?

Dan: Shared infrastructure leveraged/run by third parties for the benefit of enterprises, developers, etc. This is not a new idea – just recently “rebranded.” Given all the discussion and disagreement over this now, what will the cloud end up looking like?

Rachel: The cloud is “IT infrastructure as a service” down to the level of a server operating system. Take the example of Amazon web services – in this case it’s not just the infrastructure but also the internal processes built around service delivery, e.g., provisioning, that are being exposed as a commodity to external customers.

Dan’s Question for Rachel: In your opinion, how much is the cloud a fad versus CIOs really trying to solve a problem?

Rachel: For the practical, roll-up-your-sleeves types of CIOs – those coming up from the engineering ranks – that I talk to, the cloud is real, as opposed to SOA and middleware.

What about “internal” cloud computing – built and maintained by an enterprise versus a third-party provider?

Dan: Cloud computing is done by providers for customers. Certainly there are enterprises that have made internal computing investments, e.g., for publishing, large-scale phone systems, etc - but they were stupid ideas made by companies that have too much money. A better question here is does it make any sense for an enterprise to create their own cloud? While an enterprise can play at it, they can’t do it cost-effectively, not in a way that a third party provider can do it.

Rachel: Many CIOs have “managed-hoster” envy – for things like chargeback and billing that hosters understand a do better. Of course there has been a rise in automation and virtualization tools in the enterprise which may not be as efficient and built for scalability as a hoster can achieve, but what is important is that they are customized/specialized for that business.

Dan: Can you give a specific example of optimization to make it worthwhile for enterprises to do it themselves?

Rachel: One example is sovereignty. The privacy laws around financial and healthcare information are not the same everywhere. Clouds and their geographically-dispersed data centers don’t necessarily have “national” borders. This is definitely a concern for the CIO that has to comply with regulations in their industry around privacy protection, for instance. Another example is security. Dow Chemical does a lot of work via joint ventures and has a need to provide but lock down desktops given to contractors as corporate workspaces. For their level of security, they need to “own” their computing resources.

Dan: But why can’t someone like SunGard provide that as they do for many other large companies?

Rachel: It comes down to a question of trust.

Do people trust their hosting providers?

Dan: Yes. Whether it’s for a content delivery network or collocation, hosting the customers of hosting providers are some of the largest companies in the world in industries like energy and financial services. Give me a case when there was a major security issue with a hosting company. In fact, managed hosting providers usually provide better security than enterprises are capable of.

And a question provided by an attendee from EMC: A few years ago, this would have been a grid discussion. How is the cloud different?

Rachel: Grid computing ended up being applicable only for niches – which I predicted. The real opportunity for everyone else with the cloud only comes up when you combine the kinds of automation tools (originally developed for grid computing) with x86 virtualization.

Dan: I agree. Grid was a niche play. There were very few orgs that needed it and that the economics worked for. There were very few enterprises for whom it made sense to build their own for. The cloud is shared/leveraged versus grid computing. It economically makes sense in a way grid never did.

In the paper, we propose a simple solution: take-down companies should share their raw, unverified feeds of phishing URLs with their competitors. Each company can examine the raw feed, pick out the websites impersonating their clients, and focus on removing these sites.

Since we presented our findings to the Anti-Phishing Working Group eCrime Researchers Summit, we have received considerable feedback from take-down companies. Take-down companies attending the APWG meeting understood that sharing would help speed up response times, but expressed reservations at sharing their feeds unless they were duly compensated. Eric Olsen of Cyveillance (another company offering take-down services) has written a comprehensive rebuttal of our recommendations. He argues that competition between take-down companies drives investment in efforts to detect more websites. Mandated sharing of phishing URL feeds, in his view, would undermine these detection efforts and cause take-down companies such as Cyveillance to exit the business.

I do have some sympathy for the objections raised by the take-down companies. As we state in the paper, free-riding (where one company relies on another to invest in detection so they don’t have to) is a concern for any sharing regime. Academic research studying other areas of information security (e.g., here and here), however, has shown that free-riding is unlikely to be so rampant as to drive all the best take-down companies out of offering service, as Mr. Olsen suggests.

While we can quibble over the extent of the threat from free free-riding, it should not detract from the conclusions we draw over the need for greater sharing. In our view, it would be unwise and irresponsible to accept the current status quo of keeping phishing URL feeds completely private. After all, competition without sharing has approximately doubled the lifetimes of phishing websites! The solution, then, is to devise a sharing mechanism that gives take-down companies the incentive to keep detecting more phishing URLs.

Here is our stab at devising a suitable sharing mechanism. We propose the creation of a members-only sharing club with compensation for net contributors paid for by net receivers. Take-down companies submit real-time copies of their entire feeds to a trusted third party (for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the APWG takes on this role). The APWG collates the individual feeds, marks the source of each submission (i.e., which take-down company) along with a timestamp. The APWG makes the amalgamated feed available immediately to all members. The members pick out phishing URLs impersonating their own clients, while ignoring the rest. Crucially, the expensive task of verifying phishing URLs and initiating take-down continues to be performed by the take-down company.

Periodically, the combined feed is audited to determine the reciprocity of contributions. Take-down companies provide a list of their clients to the auditor. The auditor then computes the number of phishing websites impersonating each take-down company’s clients that are missed by the takedown company but identified by others. The auditor also tallies the time difference for phishing websites that are identified by others first.

For example, suppose bank A1 has hired take-down company A to remove phishing sites on its behalf, and bank B1 has hired take-down company B. Suppose 500 phishing sites impersonate A1, and that A identifies 400 while B identifies an additional 100 sites missed by A. Likewise, suppose another 500 phishing sites impersonate bank B1, and that B identifies 300 while A identifies an additional 200 sites missed by B. B has received a net of 100 useful phishing sites more from A than B has given to A. Consequently, B should pay A a previously-agreed ‘finder’s fee’ for identifying these extra 100 websites.

The ‘finder’s fee’ provides additional incentive for take-down companies to invest in better phishing website detection. Designed properly, such a sharing club can overcome the potential for free-riding that companies such as Cyveillance fret about, while increasing sharing to shorten phishing website lifetimes.

Some subtleties must be mentioned, however. If the finder’s fee is big enough, some companies may be tempted to cheat to minimize their payout. For instance, underperforming take-down companies could claim to have independently discovered missing data from their feed shortly after collecting it from the shared feed. This can be mitigated by adding a credible threat of detection — inserting a few dubious fake phishing URLs that only appear in the shared feed. If the company claims to have ‘independently’ rediscovered these URLs, then they will be caught cheating. Another issue is that the auditing system does incur some overhead, which could be avoided if sharing was made unconditional.

To sum up, we recognize that many take-down companies will be reticent to share. However, we feel that sharing is too important to the goal of tackling phishing to brush aside because of a few inevitable complications. For the good of protecting consumers, the anti-phishing industry should learn to co-operate!

Welcome to Blue Box: The VoIP Security Podcast #85, a 32-minute podcast  from Dan York and Jonathan Zar covering VoIP security news, comments and opinions.   

Download the show here (MP3, 15 MB) or subscribe to the RSS feed to download the show automatically. 

You may also listen to this podcast right now:

Show Content:

• 00:20 - Intro to the show, contact information and how to provide comments.  Welcome to all the new listeners - and to all those listeners who have been here for so long!
• Programming notes:
  • Three-year anniversary of Blue Box coming up on October 24th - any thoughts you'd like to share with us? (Please send them to us by October 23rd.)
• The Times: "Internet phone calls are crippling fight against terrorism" - and my response on the Voice of VOIPSA blog
• FierceVoIP: "UK crimefighting concern over VoIP calls, social networks" 
• BBC: Data powers behind the times 
  
• GA Tech Survey (PDF) (link about the GA conference )
• Dark Reading: Cellphone Botnets, Blackmailing VOIP & a Healthy Cybercrime Economy
• bMighty.com: Georgia Tech Security Report Scarier Than Its Football Team
• cNet: Botnets on cell phones in 2009?
• telecoms.com: Smartphone is a hotbed of security issues
  
• VNUnet: Security industry falling behind hackers
  
• AP: Phone Jamming in NH
  
• GigaOm: EEF Challenges Telco Immunity in Court 
  
• Information Week: New Protocols Secure Layer 2
• Voice of VOIPSA: Asking The Cisco Systems IPICS and JPS Raytheon ACU-2000 Experts: Questions 36-40
• Other Voice of VOIPSA articles
• snom technology AG: snom 820 combines mature VoIP technology with exclusive design
• IDC Finds Increasing Hype Around Unified Communications Is Affecting How Customers Select Telephony Systems and Services (interesting movement in the top vendors used  - Nortel out and IBM in)
• Peerless VoIP Peering
• Comment (IM) from Christian Wieser
• Review of the last week's traffic on the VOIPSEC public mailing list
  
• Wrap-up of the show
  
• 32:10 - End of show 

Comments, suggestions and feedback are welcome either as replies to this post  or via e-mail to blueboxpodcast@gmail.com.  Audio comments sent as attached MP3 files are definitely welcome and will be played in future shows.  You may also call the listener comment line at either +1-415-830-5439 or via SIP to 'bluebox@voipuser.org' to leave a comment there. 

Thank you for listening and please do let us know what you think of the show.

Richard Stallman - the man that gave us GNU - doesn’t trust Cloud providers with his data and says you shouldn’t either.  Richard believes we should store our private data on our own computers using ‘free’ (as in freedom) software.  The ironic part for Richard is that a significant portion of the Cloud is powered by open source software which he indirectly created (think gcc).

Richard sees it as a question of control.  Control is important but it isn’t the only variable.  Rather, I see it as a question of control, competence and economics.

The quick rebuttal to Richards’ view is this: the average computer user is not as smart as you.  Control is not the same as competence.  Control is about exercising choice, not about requiring everyone in the world to develop sufficient skills to protect complex hardware and software systems (aka their computer) against ever increasing threats.

My view is that privacy is not ‘free’.  It comes at a cost.  Whether you run your own systems or rely on someone else to do it, there is a cost.  There is cost in designing and implementing mechanisms to support privacy.  Beyond upfront costs there are ongoing expenditures to ensure privacy is maintained e.g. maintaining access control lists, testing and applying security patches, data leakage prevention etc.  None of these things are ‘free’.

If we agree that privacy costs money then how much is your privacy worth?

Stop for a second - think of a number…  

Now did we all think of the same number?

The problem with a one size fits all approach to privacy is that we each place a different value on it.

Checking in on the EPIC site, I saw this:  

A new report from Pew Internet and American Life Project indicates that “cloud computing” applications, such as web-based email and other web apps, are raising new privacy concerns. The report Use of Cloud Computing: Applications and Services found that 69% of online Americans use webmail services, store data online, or use software programs such as word processing applications whose functionality is located on the web. At the same time, “users report high levels of concern when presented with scenarios in which companies may put their data to uses of which they may not be aware.” For example, 90% of respondents said that they “would be very concerned if the company at which their data were stored sold it to another party,” 80% say “they would be very concerned if companies used their photos or other data in marketing campaigns,” and 68% of “users of at least one of the six cloud applications say they would be very concerned if companies who provided these services analyzed their information and then displayed ads to them based on their actions.”

What does that tell us?

The average (American) Internet user finds Cloud services convenient but has concerns about how their privacy might be affected by Cloud providers actions (duh!).  The survey identifies a lack of awareness in how private data is used in some consumer based Cloud services (consistent with web advertising awareness surveys).  

Unfortunately, the results of this survey are not very actionable.  The survey doesn’t mention whether these are all ‘free’ Cloud services (we can only assume they are) or ask the respondents what their expectations of privacy are and how much they would be willing to pay for different privacy assurance levels. 

On a sidenote, respondents were not asked if they had actually read the privacy agreement for the services they signed up to.  But the providers know if they did or not…  Or at least, they have the data to figure it out.  At sign up time they can measure the time between displaying the privacy agreement and the user clicking ‘I accept’.  If its just a few seconds then its pretty obvious there was more scrolling than reading going on.  But I think we can probably guess the answer without the data ;-).

I believe we need to be able to link expectation of privacy with cost.

• How much are you willing to pay for privacy?  What level of privacy assurance do you need?
• How much is your Cloud Provider paying to protect your privacy today?  What privacy services could they reasonably offer if they had customers willing to pay?  How might this compare with how you manage your private data on your home computer today?

The cynical view is that we expect privacy but don’t want to pay for it.  Its a bit like uptime - there is a parallel universe out there, where internal IT departments allegedly meet their 99.999% uptime SLAs, but when Gmail goes down, the Sergey Brin witchcraft dolls come out.

From a provider perspective, the “cost” of privacy invariably gets bundled under that line item called ‘Information Security’.  And don’t be fooled, the cost of privacy in reality is more than the salary of the person employed to be the privacy advocate (if there is one).  If we can’t see how much our providers are spending on our privacy then how can we judge if they are spending enough?  And what is enough?  And what can I get if I’m willing to pay a little extra?

Personally, I would rather we get some transparency around privacy costs and assessment of offerings.  However, without a sufficiently sized market of customers willing to pay for privacy assurance and Cloud Providers willing to be more open, I won’t hold my breath.

What about you?  Would you be prepared to pay for privacy?  Should providers be more transparent about what they do and don’t do and how they do it?