But that credit card weirdness is nothing compared to the one I’m about to describe.

Before we do that, let’s take a moment to discuss the design principle of failing securely. The general idea is that if a security mechanism fails, it should fail closed. If your firewall crashes, it should block all traffic, not allow all the packets through. If the power source to your card key system is interrupted, it shouldn’t unlock all the doors. If the connection between your application server and your LDAP directory is severed, subsequent authentication requests should be rejected, not approved. This is not rocket science.

So back to credit cards. I had a conversation last night with an old friend who related a bizarre situation they had encountered during the QA process for one of their web applications. One of their tests involved repeatedly attempting a credit card transaction using a canceled/expired American Express card. Here’s what they saw in their logs, paraphrased by me:

Attempt 1: Denied
Attempt 2: Denied
Attempt 3: Denied
 .
 .
 .
Attempt 49: Denied
Attempt 50: Denied
Attempt 51: Approved

What the…? Approved? That can’t be right. So they ran the test again. Every time, after multiple consecutive rejected attempts, the transaction would inexplicably go through. The threshold wasn’t always 50, but the general pattern was consistent — keep trying and eventually it’ll work. Clearly, this had to be a bug in the code, but a deep-dive into the guts of the application turned up nothing. The application security group got American Express on the phone to see if they had any insight on this odd behavior. The answer? They didn’t concede the failure was on their end, despite log data showing the successful authorization codes.

My gut instinct would be that the application requesting the transactions wasn’t failing securely (e.g. network connection to AmEx timed out, so just approve the transaction). But that explanation wouldn’t account for authorization codes coming back.

So what in the world is going on here? Why would the system behave this way? Is it by design? I can’t think of a single legitimate use case for failing open like this. If this is actually a design decision by the credit card companies, I have no doubt that someone in our audience knows the rest of the story.

It's not just terrorism; it's any rare risk in the news. The big fear in Canada right now, following a particularly gruesome incident, is random decapitations on intercity buses. In the US, fears of school shootings are much greater than the actual risks. In the UK, it's child predators. And people all over the world mistakenly fear flying more than driving. But the very definition of news is something that hardly ever happens. If an incident is in the news, we shouldn't worry about it. It's when something is so common that its no longer news - car crashes, domestic violence - that we should worry. But that's not the way people think.

Psychologically, this makes sense. We are a species of storytellers. We have good imaginations and we respond more emotionally to stories than to data. We also judge the probability of something by how easy it is to imagine, so stories that are in the news feel more probable - and ominous - than stories that are not. As a result, we overreact to the rare risks we hear stories about, and fear specific plots more than general threats.

The problem with building security around specific targets and tactics is that its only effective if we happen to guess the plot correctly. If we spend billions defending the Underground and terrorists bomb a school instead, we've wasted our money. If we focus on the World Cup and terrorists attack Wimbledon, we've wasted our money.

It's this fetish-like focus on tactics that results in the security follies at airports. We ban guns and knives, and terrorists use box-cutters. We take away box-cutters and corkscrews, so they put explosives in their shoes. We screen shoes, so they use liquids. We take away liquids, and they're going to do something else. Or they'll ignore airplanes entirely and attack a school, church, theatre, stadium, shopping mall, airport terminal outside the security area, or any of the other places where people pack together tightly.

These are stupid games, so let's stop playing. Some high-profile targets deserve special attention and some tactics are worse than others. Airplanes are particularly important targets because they are national symbols and because a small bomb can kill everyone aboard. Seats of government are also symbolic, and therefore attractive, targets. But targets and tactics are interchangeable.

The following three things are true about terrorism. One, the number of potential terrorist targets is infinite. Two, the odds of the terrorists going after any one target is zero. And three, the cost to the terrorist of switching targets is zero.

We need to defend against the broad threat of terrorism, not against specific movie plots. Security is most effective when it doesn't require us to guess. We need to focus resources on intelligence and investigation: identifying terrorists, cutting off their funding and stopping them regardless of what their plans are. We need to focus resources on emergency response: lessening the impact of a terrorist attack, regardless of what it is. And we need to face the geopolitical consequences of our foreign policy.

In 2006, UK police arrested the liquid bombers not through diligent airport security, but through intelligence and investigation. It didn't matter what the bombers' target was. It didn't matter what their tactic was. They would have been arrested regardless. That's smart security. Now we confiscate liquids at airports, just in case another group happens to attack the exact same target in exactly the same way. That's just illogical.

This essay originally appeared in The Guardian. Nothing I haven't already said elsewhere.

"The rigorous studies clearly show red-light cameras don't work," said lead author Barbara Langland-Orban, professor and chair of health policy and management at the USF College of Public Health. "Instead, they increase crashes and injuries as drivers attempt to abruptly stop at camera intersections."

Comprehensive studies from North Carolina, Virginia, and Ontario have all reported cameras are associated with increases in crashes. The study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council also found that cameras were linked to increased crash costs. The only studies that conclude cameras reduced crashes or injuries contained "major research design flaws," such as incomplete data or inadequate analyses, and were always conducted by researchers with links to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The IIHS, funded by automobile insurance companies, is the leading advocate for red-light cameras since insurance companies can profit from red-light cameras by way of higher premiums due to increased crashes and citations.

And, of course, the agenda of the government is to increase revenue due to fines:

A 2001 paper by the Office of the Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives reported that red-light cameras are "a hidden tax levied on motorists." The report came to the same conclusions that all of the other valid studies have, that red-light cameras are associated with increased crashes and that the timings at yellow lights are often set too short to increase tickets for red-light running. That's right, the state actually tampers with the yellow light settings to make them shorter, and more likely to turn red as you're driving through them.

In fact, six U.S. cities have been found guilty of shortening the yellow light cycles below what is allowed by law on intersections equipped with cameras meant to catch red-light runners. Those local governments have completely ignored the safety benefit of increasing the yellow light time and decided to install red-light cameras, shorten the yellow light duration, and collect the profits instead.

The cities in question include Union City, CA, Dallas and Lubbock, TX, Nashville and Chattanooga, TN, and Springfield, MO, according to Motorists.org, which collected information from reports from around the country.

But there are some cases where exploits can cause data loss and hard drive crashes, so that’s where the issue definitely falls under the security umbrella. A new study however has discovered that this is actually pretty rare:

A new university study suggests that hard-drive-killing attacks launched by hackers are actually pretty rare — but when they do occur, they can be more costly than most companies think.

The study, published last quarter by professors at the University of Pepperdine and commissioned by data recovery vendor Deepspar Technologies, looks at the causes of hard drive failure and offers insights on just how “fatal” a fatal drive error can be.

Aside from physical theft, hard drive failure is the most common cause of data loss on PCs, the study says, accounting for 38 percent of data loss incidents. In about 30 percent of these cases, the loss of access is the result of drive problems, where corruption of the media makes the data unreadable.

Apparently they have estimated the average hard drive loss costs about $2900 in lost data and productivity, assuming some data is recoverable. Read the full story at DarkReading.