Errata: Version 1.1 of the paper, reference, and optimized code corrects an error in which the length of the configuration string was passed in as the size of the internal block (256 bits for Skein-256, 512 for Skein-512, and 1024 for Skein-1024), instead of a constant 256 bits for all three sizes. This error has no cryptographic significance, but affected the test vectors and the initialization values. The revised code also fixes a bug in the MAC mode key processing. This bug does not affect the NIST submission in any way.

NIST has received 64 submissions. (This article interviews one of the submitters, who is fifteen.) Of those, 28 are public and six have been broken. NIST is going through the submissions right now, making sure they are complete and proper. Their goal is to publish the accepted submissions by the end of the month, in advance of the Third Cryptographic Hash Workshop to be held in Belgium right after FSE in February. They expect to quickly make a first cut of algorithms -- hopefully to about a dozen -- and then give the community about a year of cryptanalysis before making a second cut in 2010.

Lastly, this is a really nice article on Skein.

These submissions make some accommodation to the Core 2 processor. They operate in "little-endian" mode (a quirk of the Intel-like processors that reads some bytes in reverse order). They also allow a large file to be broken into chunks to split the work across multiple processors.

However, virtually all of the contest submissions share the performance problem mentioned above. The logic they use won't optimally fit within the constraints of a Intel Core 2 processor. Most will perform as bad or worse than the existing SHA-1 algorithm.

One exception to this is Skein, created by several well-known cryptographers and noted pundit Bruce Schneier. It was designed specifically to exploit all three of the Core 2 execution units and to run at a full 64-bits. This gives it roughly four to 10 times the logic density of competing submissions.

This is what I meant by the Matrix quote above. They didn't bend the spoon; they bent the crypto algorithm. They moved the logic operations around in a way that wouldn't weaken the crypto, but would strengthen its speed on the Intel Core 2.

In their paper (PDF), the authors of Skein express surprise that a custom silicon ASIC implementation is not any faster than the software implementation. They shouldn't be surprised. Every time you can redefine a problem to run optimally in software, you will reach the same speeds you get with optimized ASIC hardware. The reason software has a reputation of being slow is because people don't redefine the original problem.

That's exactly what we were trying to do.

I’ve often read people who say that we (security, risk management) need to “think like the attacker”.  And when you read this sort of article, that usually alludes to trying to anticipate the tactics an attacker might use to mess with your C, I, or A.  Smart stuff, that, and very useful when architecting security solutions.  But as I was training some folks Monday, I was thinking in the back of my head about Threat Capability (TCap) in FAIR.  As you might know, we like to estimate the capability of a threat to apply some level of “force” against our assets.  This ability to apply force is a byproduct of the attacker’s skills and resources.  And thinking of how an attacker applies skills and resources, I came across another way we might “think” like an attacker.

Traditionally, I’ve thought of “skills” as being a byproduct of the toolset an attacker has.  This mindset probably stems from my time with Penetration Testing teams, where in the process of scoping the  PenTest I would ask our clients to select the level of effort that they wanted us to throw at them.  If a client chose “high” we’d throw every ‘spoit we had at them.  If they chose “low” we’d limit ourselves to a more commonly available toolset.

But while the resources part of TCap is time & materials (money) - the skills are really more than just the toolset.  Skills would include the ability of the attacker to be creative and innovative.    As an example of that innovation from those PenTesting days - when we got a “high” effort request, we would always try to couple that with some “social engineering”-type of attack, or some unique means of delivering an existing exploit.  Our creativity was not necessarily a byproduct of a unique exploit or tool we had, but the process by which we might deliver pre-existing or commonly available exploits.  I remember when we first got ahold of a handful of 32mb thumb drives (hey, 32mb was huge back then) and “dropped” a few in the lobby of a client’s retail space.  The keystroke loggers and phone-home script weren’t new, but using the thumb drive as delivery vehicle certainly was.

So I’ve started to really think about this concept of innovation, and how if “thinking like an attacker” means to be innovative, we ought to do the same.  I’ve been thinking of two main categories of innovation this morning.

INNOVATION

The first I’ll call Technology Innovation.  And by Technology Innovation, I mean some new, unique, “ahead of the curve” technology that an attacker can use against us.  The obvious example of which is a zero-day.  It’s that “high” tool set our PenTesters would use against the clients.  For security departments, this might be the latest security product designed to enhance our ability to P, D, and/or R.

Alternately, we can be creative in the way we deliver (manage) existing technology.  I think of this as Process Innovation.  It’s doing more with what we already have, just like the PenTest team would be creative in the delivery of an existing exploit.

Unfortunately for us - attackers have traditionally had quite a leg up on us in terms of Process Innovation.  It is much easier fro them to be creative, as they are free of political constraints and bureaucracy.  In contrast, when the security industry tries Process Innovation, the results are checklists and “standards”.  It’s committees and consensus.  An extreme example of which might be something like SABSA - a great work if you want to understand some very smart people’s comprehensive understanding of organizational security  - but the “adoption”of which will do very little to help you be innovative in P/D/R.

It’s worth noting that ultimately, this is one reason I don’t like regulatory compliance efforts - they simply serve to prove how mundane your security department is,  wasting valuable resources that could be spent on creating ways to be more effective.

PROCESS INNOVATION AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION

As we come to the close of 2009, some surveys suggest that security spending isn’t horribly impacted yet by the economy (the latest from E&Y points to only 5% of their respondents getting budget cuts).  But if this is a protracted downturn, and because InfoSec is an operational expense, I would expect cash to become more and more difficult to keep.  And regardless if technology spends do slow, I believe it makes sense to think about Process Innovation because I see Process Innovation as a means to increase effectiveness without significant capital expenditures (effectiveness increases because our ability to manage risk has a direct correlation to the amount of risk we have).

The bad news is, of course, that great innovation is hard.  It is R & D.  Failure is usually a pre-requisite to success.

The good news is, our current state is so bad that many of us don’t need to come up with a whizbang new way of reducing software defects in the SDLC as innovation.  Simply inserting a risk analyst into the PMO’s processes might count as a big enough victory. Be cautioned, though,  that if we’re substituting the risk reductions provided by technology acquisition - Process Innovation might actually be even more “expensive” as it requires us to expend political capital.   But there are (forgive the term) innovative ways to spend this political capital.

For example, by taking a second now and figuring out the 3 things that the rest of the organization can do to make your life easier, when that “I need to reduce your budget” talk comes, you can be prepared to negotiate.  Get a political capital “loan” or “investment” from the C-Suite reducing your budget.  Something to the effect of: “I expected this, and am happy to give up my budget.  But if our tolerance for risk hasn’t changed, what I’d like to do is get you to personally back my office on three projects I’ve identified that can reduce our risk without requiring significant capital expenditure.”

Dan described the Managed Hosting and colocation sector as “on fire” The sector is humming – incredible growth, outstanding execution, blowing away expectations. I must say, looking back 5 years ago after the tech bubble collapse, I can’t believe how strong the sector bounced back from those very difficult times.

His presentation was focused on a future, and a longer view for the industry. The HTS conference is packed this year with the largest attendance of Datacenter owners, Managed hosting and colocation companies ever to attend this conference.

• Demand steady or increasing in all markets, driven largely by capex constraints and greater awareness and choices.
• Supply is growing more slowly in the past 18 months as the credit crunch has hurt the ability of providers to expand ( it is very hard to get mortgages, loans only on new datacenter projects). Expansion build-out of existing shells is occurring, but very little on spec.
• Demand Growth of 15% in 2008. (Steady and increasing in the out years) However after supply growth peaked at 7.5% in 2007 supply growth now has slowed to 5%
• Dan believes that supply growth will pick back up again in 2011

Conclusions – supply is tight, demand is high and growing…this very good news for the industry.

• Some other trends:
  • The green initiatives are more than just a trend as datacenter owners who don’t figure out how to maximize power efficiency will be painted as villains.
  • Internet traffic and services consumption are linked as Internet traffic growth has been doubling every year (2005-2007)
  • Prediction: 2011 -2012 - internet traffic will get an exaflood – it is coming with a new breed of applications (set to boxes HD Video, games, etc.) that will drive new traffic patterns. Growth driven by consumer broadband + applications (HD video) applications, which in turn will drive demand for Managed Hosting / Colocation Services…

Managed Hosting Services Highlights

• Incredibly fast growth 30%+
• $10 Billion worldwide revenue by end of 2008
• We’ll keep growth pace until at least 2011
• Good news, Dan believes that fears about slowdown in growth are wildly overblown.

Why is managed hosting growing so fast?

• Demographic shifts – new breed of IT employees that embrace outsourcing
• Growth in internet applications (SaaS) The acceptance and growth of browser based applications has been enormous!
• Ambiguity between web hosting and managed hosting has turned positive

Dan’s Key success factors managed hosting and services

• High margin services – and not too many – it is so tempting in our day to day business when a customer comes along and wants to come and give us money for a unique on-off service… at this point the answer has to be no – or do it through a partner.
• High level of support delivery is critical – don’t cut pay in support people or outsource support to save a nickel… what you are selling is support. Keep doing this well or you will head into a bad place… just as examples in retail like Home Depot and others who have struggled with customer service challenges – the whole business starts to slide into the toilet… High levels of support delivers a strong word of mouth buying cycle

Final thoughts, the industry is healthy and will continue to thrive. Customers are looking for the one stop shop, one company that is a trusted advisor to the customer. As customers place more eggs in the Managed Service bucket, the industry will need to tighten-up those SLA’s. Today some parts of the industry have been getting away with loose SLA’s… as customers get more sophisticated and have more on the line, they will become more demanding and require robust multi-component SLAs and back-it –up.

Making IT work as One

How does my company stay efficient while we’re using technologies around interoperability? How can innovation help my business?

Top business needs:

• Reduce cost
• Manage complexity
• Mitigate risk

Mixed IT environments are a reality for almost all organizations. Different environments, architectural strategies, desktop profiles, etc. There are benefits to having mixed source environments, although homogenous environments are ideal. On average 46,000 hours in an organization are spent on Sarbanes-Oxley standards.

Some considerations to make IT work as one:

• Strategy
• Solutions
• Ecosystem

Strategy

Actionable strategy is key. The emergence of three silos (applications, systems and infrastructure, and operations) are now moved into one. There is a lot of pressure to make these pieces come together.

Solutions

You need focused solutions to solve problems today while keeping an eye to the future. There are three main needs: the data center, end-user computing, and identity and security. This is also what is the most important to the market right now. The end goal is the agility of the data center.

Data Center Challenges

• Create an agile IT infrastructure
• Address power and space constraints
• Deliver performance, security and availability
• Manage hardware, software and labor costs
• Meet service level agreements

Data Center Solutions

• Workload management - green IT and server efficiency, unified physical and virtual environment
• Virtualization and Consolidation - business continuity and disaster recovery
• Enterprise Servers

End-User Computing Solutions

• Collaboration
• Enterprise desktops - Novell uses Linux and Open Office, interesting to note
• Endpoint management

Identity and Security Challenges

• Minimize risk, uncertainty and policy violations
• Provide timely and secure access to information
• Ensure, document and prove information security
• Reduce the cost of proving compliance
• Reduce the cost and complexity of governance

Identity and Security Solutions

• Identity and Access Management - user provisioning, role management, access management
• Compliance Management - Audit, Governance, Risk Management and Compliance (GRC), IT controls automation, Security, Information and Event Management (SIEM)

Ecosystem

The ecosystem is powerful. Companies should challenge partners for innovation and interoperability.

Community Innovation - open source and open standards

IT Landscape - Mixed IT Environments

• Consulting, systems integration vendors
• Application vendors
• Systems software vendors (Novell)
• Hardware, network vendors

How does your ecosystem help your company? How do your partners help? What is their role in the industry to help you? How are all the vendors in the industry helping you?

Someone on the IE security team forwarded me a document that had additional details. So here, for your enjoyment, is a chart listing the default settings for each security level. To answer the newsgroup poster, "medium" and "medium-high" aren't the same.

About the formatting: to get it to fit within the width of the blog's text section, I've made some abbreviations.

In a few cases, the table shows a number rather than D or E or P; below the table is a description of each such entry.

At the very bottom of this post I've included the settings from the privacy tab, too.

Note: these settings reflect those for Internet Explorer 7 on Vista SP1. Please see the MDSN link above for differences between IE 6 and IE 7.

.NET Framework

.NET Framework-reliant components

     1 = High safety

ActiveX controls and plug-ins

Downloads

Enable .NET Framework setup

Miscellaneous

     1 = Prohibit downloads from software update channels
     2 = Cache content downloaded from software update channels
     3 = Automatically install software updates

Scripting

User authentication

     1 = Prompt the user for name and password
     2 = Automatic logon only in intranet zone
     3 = Automatic logon with current user name and password

Privacy settings (on the "Privacy" tab)

The Bottom Line

While there has been much consternation and alarm-raising over the potential for widespread proliferation of biological weapons and the possible use of such weapons on a massive scale, there are significant constraints on such designs. The current dearth of substantial biological weapons programs and arsenals by governments worldwide, and the even smaller number of cases in which systems were actually used, seems to belie -- or at least bring into question -- the intense concern about such programs.

While we would like to believe that countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia have halted their biological warfare programs for some noble ideological or humanitarian reason, we simply can’t. If biological weapons were in practice as effective as some would lead us to believe, these states would surely maintain stockpiles of them, just as they have maintained their nuclear weapons programs. Biological weapons programs were abandoned because they proved to be not as effective as advertised and because conventional munitions proved to provide more bang for the buck.

To solve a complex problem in the blackboard-style, the intelligent agents cooperate as functional specialists, observing updates to the blackboard and self-actualizing in an event driven process) when there is new information to process.  Agents continually update the blackboard with partial solutions when the agents capabilities for processing match the state of the blackboard. 

The blackboard architecture is a distributed computing model for a metaphor describing how people work together to collaboratively solve a problem around a blackboard (whiteboard in todays lingo).   For example, one person is standing at the whiteboard working on a solution while three other people are sitting (or standing) around watching.   One of the observers sees new information on the whiteboard, thinks of how he (or she) can contribute, and then jumps up, takes the whiteboard marker from the person working, and adds to the solution.  This process is repeated in various scenarios.  

The blackboard architecture can be very effective in solving complex distributed computing problems, including event processing problems; however, scheduling the self-actuating agents can be a key challenge.   Another core challenge is how to model and manage the blackboard itself, especially in distributed blackboard architectures.  

John McManus, former CTO of NASA, wrote an excellent PhD dissertation in 1992,  Design and Analysis Techniques for Concurrent Blackboard Systems, at the College of William and Mary, addressing challenges in BB systems.

The table below lists two books that focus on blackboard architecture:

One of the thought leaders in blackboard architecture is Daniel D. Corkill a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. 

Blackboard architecture is relevant to the field of event processing, and in particular complex event processing.   I will go into more details in future blog posts on this topic, including how blackboard architectures relate to grid computing, distributed object caching (of the blackboard), and CEP.

Complex event processing (CEP) is a new technology. It can be applied to extracting and analyzing information from any kind of distributed message-based system. It is developed from the Rapide concepts of (1) causal event modeling, (2) event patterns and pattern matching, and (3) event pattern maps and constraints. Complex event processing can be applied to a wide variety of Enterprise monitoring and management problems, from low level network management to high level enterprise intelligence gathering.

Applications of Complex Event Processing:

• Instant Insight  - hierarchical event viewing applied to the Enterprise IT layer. (coming soon)
  • Analysing business processes (paper in pdf format)
• Network Level Monitoring and Management (Powerpoint presentation)
• Cyber Security: Network Intrusion Detection
• Enterprise Monitoring and Management (coming soon)
• Modeling and Simulation of Collaborative Business Processes
• Business Policy Monitoring. (coming soon)
• Analysis and Debugging of Distributed Systems (coming soon)

Presentations:

• “Complex Event Processing: An Essential Technology for Instant Insight into the Operation of Enterprise Information Systems,” lecture at the Stanford University Computer Systems Laborary EE380 Colloquium series. Video of the lecture (duration: 60 minutes).

Publications:

• Complex Event Processing in Distributed Systems. David C. Luckham and Brian Frasca, Stanford University Technical Report CSL-TR-98-754, March 1998, 28 pages.Abstract: Complex event processing is a new technology for extracting information from distributed message-based systems. This technology allows users of a system to specify the information that is of interest to them. It can be low level network processing data or high level enterprise management intelligence, depending upon the role and viewpoint of individual users. And it can be changed from moment to moment while the target system is in operation. This paper presents an overview of Complex Event Processing applied to a particular example of a distributed message-based system, a fabrication process management system. The concepts of causal event histories, event patterns, event filtering, and event aggregation are introduced and their application to the process management system is illustrated by simple examples. This paper gives the reader an overview of Complex Event Processing concepts and illustrates how they can be applied using the Rapide toolset to one specific kind of system.
   
• Event Mining with Event Processing Networks. Louis Perrochon and Walter Mann and Stephane Kasriel and David C. Luckham, The Third Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. April 26-28, 1999. Beijing, China, 5 pages.Abstract: Event Mining discovers and delivers information and knowledge in a real-time stream of data, or events. We show that the process of delivering knowledge by searching patterns in data and subsequent abstraction of found patterns can be applied in real-time to a complex, asynchronous system. Our event processing engine consists of a network of event processing agents (EPAs) running in parallel that interact using a dedicated event processing infrastructure. The agents can be configured at run-time using a formal pattern language. The underlying infrastructure (1) provides an abstract communication mechanism and thus allows dynamic reconfiguration of the communication topology between agents at run-time and (2) provides transparent, location-independent access to all data. These features allow dynamic allocation of EPAs to different threads and processes on different machines at run time.
   
• eJava - Extending Java with Causality. Alexandre Santoro and Walter Mann and Neel Madhav and David Luckham, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, June 1998, 10 pages.Abstract: Programming languages like Java provide designers with a variety of classes that simplify the process of program development. Some of these classes allow one to easily build multithreaded programs. Though useful, especially in the creation of reactive systems, multithreaded programs present challenging problems such as race conditions and synchronization issues. Validating these programs against a specification is not trivial since Java does not clearly indicate thread interaction. These problems can be solved by modifying Java so that it produces computations, collections of events with both causal and temporal ordering relations defined for them. Specifically, the causal ordering is ideal for identifying thread interaction. This paper presents eJava, an extension to Java that is both event based and causally aware, and shows how it simplifies the process of understanding and debugging multithreaded programs.
   
• Event-Based Execution Architectures for Dynamic Software Systems. James Vera, Louis Perrochon, David C. Luckham.
  Proceedings of the First Working IFIP Conf. on Software Architecture. 1999. San Antonio, Texas.Abstract: Distributed systems’ runtime behavior can be difficult to understand. Concurrent, distributed activity make notions of global state difficult to grasp. We focus on the runtime structure of a system, its execution architecture, and propose representing its evolution as a partially ordered set of predefined architectural event types. This representation allows a system’s topology to be visualized, analyzed and con-strained. The use of a predefined event types allows the execution architectures of different systems to be readily compared.
   
• Using Context-Based Correlation in Network Operations and Management. Louis Perrochon (work in progress, mail author for newest version)Abstract: Network operation consists to a large degree of reaction to activities happening in the network. Better knowledge of the network at any time allows more appropriate reactions. On the example of intrusion detection, we show how context-based correlation of such activities can provide a more detailed view of the network in shorter time. We first present how we model context and then describe the architecture of the Stanford University CEP context-based correlator. Correlation is specified as event patterns in a declarative language that allows us to specify what needs to be detected, instead of specifying how it should be detected. CEP introduces the concept of causal context to intrusion detection. The correlator is able to process events on-line, as they are generated and it can be reconfigured at dynamically. We then show how it increases detection rate, reduce false alarms, and detect large-scale attack patterns at an early stage.

After hearing his speech, I thought about how Eric and Google are impacting the digital revolution after so many others have tried unsuccessfully over the last 25 years. He has led the company through a period of explosive growth from $1 Billion to over $16 Billion in the past year, while keeping the young, fun, irreverent culture intact. Considering the meteoric rise of Google’s popularity in a reasonably short period of time, to the point that the company name is now actually a verb!

The point that I found enlightening was his summary, which you can scroll to at the 26 - 30 minutes timeframe in the presentation, where he shared an interesting glimpse into the culture of Google. “Creating more luck, giving yourself more at bats, being out there… to think big and inspire a culture of YES.” The culture of Yes inspires people to aim higher and be ambitious in their reach and goals.

That is a very interesting point in which I really believe. If there is one thing that all companies and especially small companies struggle with because of natural resource constraints, it is building a strong culture of Yes. We have tried to do this from the very inception of ScienceLogic, but it continues to get harder and harder the larger the business grows. To consistently inspire a principle of Yes, without agreeing to every idea that flows across my desk is amongst the most challenging parts of our daily jobs. However if I could create the perfect scenario, we would intuitively strive for a principle of Yes and inspire our associates and our ecosystem of partners and customers to use this simple concept to confidently go forward.

Eric says, “It is possible to build a culture around innovation. It is possible to build a culture around leadership, and it is possible to build a culture around optimism.” Google is a great example, but by no means the only example. I agree with Eric’s summary and hope to lead ScienceLogic according to these very basic but essential principles. “Let’s be revolutionaries. Let’s take this opportunity, this huge change that is before us with technology and let’s change our businesses, our communication and the way we interact on some new principles that reflect the very best in America.”

ShareThis