[SecurityRatty] tag: cyberspace

Modelling Situations for Event Processing

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:04:21 +0000

CEP, in a nutshell, is about the real-time detection of business opportunities and threats in cyberspace. Business opportunities and threats are often referred to as situations, so we can simply say that CEP is about the real-time situation detection.

We represent situations in the domain of event processing by building and refining models of situations. This means that one way to develop CEP applications or designing CEP architectures is to define situations of interest and build models that define the situation.

After we have a working model of the situation we will generally have a hierarchical model of the situation composed of various components of the situation. For purposes of discussion I refer to this as situation modelling.

If a situation is modelled with 15 components then we need to detect these components of the situation. In addition, it is generally not good enough to simply detect each one of these components of the situation. We also have to hold the state of each one of the situational components.

However, it is not good enough to simply observe the state of 15 components of a situation in the detection process; we also need to observe the relationship between the components.

So, let’s say the situation we are looking for is “commercial air plane collision” and we are building a model of this situation. To keep the model simple we will limit the model to airplanes and omit objects like birds, buildings; but we will include wind, air speed, and direction.

Our situational model consists of primary objects, in this case an airplane. Now we need a simple model of an airplane, which is modelled, in this overly simple example, as span, velocity, acceleration, altitude, orientation and relative wind speed and direction. Generally, an object-oriented approach to model building is preferred so we can reuse the model and overload, morph, inherit and encapsulate as necessary.

One example would be when our boss comes to us and says, great job on the airplane collision model, but I also want to know how much jet fuel is on the planes at the moment of our projected situation, so we can estimate the intensity of the explosion. So we need another model and our earlier very simple airplane model would inherit the jet fuel tank model our boss requires.

I hope from this simple example of model building that you will conclude that modelling is one of the most important aspects of CEP. Without good models, situation detection impossible, and CEP engines are useless. Situation modelling is critical to CEP.

So, if a CEP vendor comes to you and says they have a very powerful CEP engine, ask them to show you a complex model of a situation that is important to you and explain to you how they represent the object. If models are not represented using an object-oriented approach, I recommend you send the vendor back to their software development lab, because without an OO approach to modelling, you can only represent very simple situations.

Furthermore, let’s say you are leading a team building a large model. If there are several teams working on various parts of the model, you need a common framework to integrate the work of the various teams. I strongly recommend an OO approach to your model building systems architecture and work breakdown structure.

In a future post, I will write about the companion to modelling – simulation

Messaging and Event Processing

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 05:02:47 +0000

In On Messaging and Events Opher asks, “Is event processing just fancy name to message processing ?”

Most event processing systems would be incomplete without the ability to process events in the form of messages. Messages can be delivered in either a connection-oriented protocol or a connectionless protocol. Most enterprise-class messaging systems have both. Many messaging systems have features like guarenteed delivery, which are important to many applications.

On the other hand, you do not have to work with a messaging system or enterprise service bus (ESB) to process events, because the transport layer is independent from the event processing layer, theoretically. Most enterprise-class event processing system architectures will use a combination of both asynchronous and synchronous messaging.

To understand event processing I recommend you turn to network management and the practical use of Simple Network Management Protocol (SMNP) for a basic undertanding of event processing. SNMP uses both synchronous event-based messaging, called polling, and asynchronous messaging, called traps. Network management systems engineers use a combination of both polling and trapping in all enterprise-class operational NMS. Optimizing polling and trapping is one of the tasks good NMS engineers do well. The same holds true in most distributed event processing architectures.

For example, look at the CEP/EP reference architecture on this site. You will notice that the mechanism for event transport is generic, represented as an event bus, but it does not specify the transport protocol. If you are receiving raw events and comparing correlated results against a signature in a database, you are using both asynchronous and synchronous messaging. In theory, you could build an event processing system with only connection-oriented protocols, but this would be an exeception, not the rule.

Event processing is generally associated with messaging because we generally represent event-objects as electronic messages. In theory, we could call these cyber event-objects anything we want; for example, we could call them “packets.” However, packets are generally associated with the underlying Internet Protocol (IP) layer by network engineers.

Moving up the stack, we think in terms of a complete message-object, which we generally call “a message.” This message could be an SNMP event-object, an SMTP event-object (an email message), or an HTML request to a web server, to only name a few. In fact, the basic unit of work at the application level of a distributed network application is what we call “a message.”

So, in On Messaging and Events Opher asks, “Is event processing just fancy name to message processing ?”

Events are generally represented in some electronic format. The event-object must be transported electronically in cyberspace, and the way that it is transported is in what network engineers generally call “a message.” It make no difference what we call it, really; because whatever we call it, it is still binary data representing information we are interested in, hopefully in a format we can efficiently process. Enterprise-class event processing systems are designed to work with myriad formats, protocols and transports. One size does not fit all.

Mashup of the Titans

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:29:25 +0000

Information Security - an Oxymoron for the information age

“Always the beautiful answer who asks a more beautiful question.” e. e. cummings

...or why i am with Gelernter

This is a mashup of Saltzer & Schroeder's famous information security principles with David Gelernter's Manifesto.

The premise of this mashup is to examine the paper by Saltzer and Schroeder which was written in 1975 and serves as the basis for most information security programs against the Gelernter's manifesto as to where computing is actually going. Each of the eight principles in Saltzer and Schroeder's paper is listed in order, and followed by select excerpts of Gelernter's manifesto. This comparison is to examine theoretical information security principles vis a vis the actual utility of modern information systems. I will not make an attempt to reconcile theory and practice, but will point out where the two schools of thought agree. In fairness, Saltzer and Schroeder's paper was written 25 years before Gelernter's, however Saltzer and Schroeder's principles dominate the thinking about information security to this day and so its important to view them side by side with Gelernter's thinking on the direction of computing.

Saltzer and Schroeder:

"a) Economy of mechanism: Keep the design as simple and small as possible. This well-known principle applies to any aspect of a system, but it deserves emphasis for protection mechanisms for this reason: design and implementation errors that result in unwanted access paths will not be noticed during normal use (since normal use usually does not include attempts to exercise improper access paths). As a result, techniques such as line-by-line inspection of software and physical examination of hardware that implements protection mechanisms are necessary. For such techniques to be successful, a small and simple design is essential."

Gelernter:

"9. The computing future is based on "cyberbodies" — self-contained, neatly-ordered, beautifully-laid-out collections of information, like immaculate giant gardens."

Conclusion(gp): So far, so good

Saltzer and Schroeder:

"b) Fail-safe defaults: Base access decisions on permission rather than exclusion. This principle, suggested by E. Glaser in 1965,8 means that the default situation is lack of access, and the protection scheme identifies conditions under which access is permitted. The alternative, in which mechanisms attempt to identify conditions under which access should be refused, presents the wrong psychological base for secure system design. A conservative design must be based on arguments why objects should be accessible, rather than why they should not. In a large system some objects will be inadequately considered, so a default of lack of permission is safer. A design or implementation mistake in a mechanism that gives explicit permission tends to fail by refusing permission, a safe situation, since it will be quickly detected. On the other hand, a design or implementation mistake in a mechanism that explicitly excludes access tends to fail by allowing access, a failure which may go unnoticed in normal use. This principle applies both to the outward appearance of the protection mechanism and to its underlying implementation."

Conclusion(gp): A conservative design principle that puts the object's owner in control of permissions. This makes a lot of sense from the object point of view, but does little to address the use case in which it executes.

Saltzer and Schroeder:

"c) Complete mediation: Every access to every object must be checked for authority. This principle, when systematically applied, is the primary underpinning of the protection system. It forces a system-wide view of access control, which in addition to normal operation includes initialization, recovery, shutdown, and maintenance. It implies that a foolproof method of identifying the source of every request must be devised. It also requires that proposals to gain performance by remembering the result of an authority check be examined skeptically. If a change in authority occurs, such remembered results must be systematically updated."

Gelernter:

"8. The software systems we depend on most today are operating systems (Unix, the Macintosh OS, Windows et. al.) and browsers (Internet Explorer, Netscape Communicator...). Operating systems are connectors that fasten users to computers; they attach to the computer at one end, the user at the other. Browsers fasten users to remote computers, to "servers" on the internet.

Today's operating systems and browsers are obsolete because people no longer want to be connected to computers — near ones OR remote ones. (They probably never did). They want to be connected to information. In the future, people are connected to cyberbodies; cyberbodies drift in the computational cosmos — also known as the Swarm, the Cybersphere.

13. Any well-designed next-generation electronic gadget will come with a ``Disable Omniscience'' button.

17. A cyberbody can be replicated or distributed over many computers; can inhabit many computers at the same time. If the Cybersphere's computers are tiles in a paved courtyard, a cyberbody is a cloud's drifting shadow covering many tiles simultaneously.

20. If a million people use a Web site simultaneously, doesn't that mean that we must have a heavy-duty remote server to keep them all happy? No; we could move the site onto a million desktops and use the internet for coordination. The "site" is like a military unit in the field, the general moving with his troops (or like a hockey team in constant swarming motion). (We used essentially this technique to build the first tuple space implementations. They seemed to depend on a shared server, but the server was an illusion; there was no server, just a swarm of clients.) Could Amazon.com be an itinerant horde instead of a fixed Central Command Post? Yes."

Conclusion(gp): Complete mediation provides the underpinning for Saltzer and Schroeder's system, but does not appear to scale to the desired itinerant horde at least in common interpretation.

Saltzer and Schroeder:

"d) Open design: The design should not be secret. The mechanisms should not depend on the ignorance of potential attackers, but rather on the possession of specific, more easily protected, keys or passwords. This decoupling of protection mechanisms from protection keys permits the mechanisms to be examined by many reviewers without concern that the review may itself compromise the safeguards. In addition, any skeptical user may be allowed to convince himself that the system he is about to use is adequate for his purpose. Finally, it is simply not realistic to attempt to maintain secrecy for any system which receives wide distribution."

Conclusion(gp): both seem to agree, hard to get the itinerant horde moving in a swarm without open standards.

Saltzer and Schroeder:

"e) Separation of privilege: Where feasible, a protection mechanism that requires two keys to unlock it is more robust and flexible than one that allows access to the presenter of only a single key. The relevance of this observation to computer systems was pointed out by R. Needham in 1973. The reason is that, once the mechanism is locked, the two keys can be physically separated and distinct programs, organizations, or individuals made responsible for them. From then on, no single accident, deception, or breach of trust is sufficient to compromise the protected information. This principle is often used in bank safe-deposit boxes. It is also at work in the defense system that fires a nuclear weapon only if two different people both give the correct command. In a computer system, separated keys apply to any situation in which two or more conditions must be met before access should be permitted. For example, systems providing user-extendible protected data types usually depend on separation of privilege for their implementation."

Gelernter:

"37. Elements stored in a mind do not have names and are not organized into folders; are retrieved not by name or folder but by contents. (Hear a voice, think of a face: you've retrieved a memory that contains the voice as one component.) You can see everything in your memory from the standpoint of past, present and future. Using a file cabinet, you classify information when you put it in; minds classify information when it is taken out. (Yesterday afternoon at four you stood with Natasha on Fifth Avenue in the rain — as you might recall when you are thinking about "Fifth Avenue," "rain," "Natasha" or many other things. But you attached no such labels to the memory when you acquired it. The classification happened retrospectively.)"

Conclusion(gp): Information Security models tend to look at things statically through information classification lenses, but its how information is used that makes it valuable. In practice this is how information security theory breaks down in the face of reality - what does an access control matrix look like for a mashup? What does it look like for a data mining app?

Saltzer and Schroeder:

"f) Least privilege: Every program and every user of the system should operate using the least set of privileges necessary to complete the job. Primarily, this principle limits the damage that can result from an accident or error. It also reduces the number of potential interactions among privileged programs to the minimum for correct operation, so that unintentional, unwanted, or improper uses of privilege are less likely to occur. Thus, if a question arises related to misuse of a privilege, the number of programs that must be audited is minimized. Put another way, if a mechanism can provide "firewalls," the principle of least privilege provides a rationale for where to install the firewalls. The military security rule of "need-to-know" is an example of this principle."

Gelernter:

"28. Metaphors have a profound effect on computing: the file-cabinet metaphor traps us in a "passive" instead of "active" view of information management that is fundamentally wrong for computers.

29. The rigid file and directory system you are stuck with on your Mac or PC was designed by programmers for programmers — and is still a good system for programmers. It is no good for non-programmers. It never was, and was never intended to be.

30. If you have three pet dogs, give them names. If you have 10,000 head of cattle, don't bother. Nowadays the idea of giving a name to every file on your computer is ridiculous."

Conclusion(gp): Least Privilege is the point where the practical matter of applying Saltzer and Schroeder's principles breaks down in modern systems. Its a deployment issue, and a matter of insufficient models and modes.

Saltzer and Schroeder:

"g) Least common mechanism: Minimize the amount of mechanism common to more than one user and depended on by all users [28]. Every shared mechanism (especially one involving shared variables) represents a potential information path between users and must be designed with great care to be sure it does not unintentionally compromise security. Further, any mechanism serving all users must be certified to the satisfaction of every user, a job presumably harder than satisfying only one or a few users. For example, given the choice of implementing a new function as a supervisor procedure shared by all users or as a library procedure that can be handled as though it were the user's own, choose the latter course. Then, if one or a few users are not satisfied with the level of certification of the function, they can provide a substitute or not use it at all. Either way, they can avoid being harmed by a mistake in it."

Gelernter:

"6. Miniaturization was the big theme in the first age of computers: rising power, falling prices, computers for everybody. Theme of the Second Age now approaching: computing transcends computers. Information travels through a sea of anonymous, interchangeable computers like a breeze through tall grass. A dekstop computer is a scooped-out hole in the beach where information from the Cybersphere wells up like seawater.

16. The future is dense with computers. They will hang around everywhere in lush growths like Spanish moss. They will swarm like locusts. But a swarm is not merely a big crowd. The individuals in the swarm lose their identities. The computers that make up this global swarm will blend together into the seamless substance of the Cybersphere. Within the swarm, individual computers will be as anonymous as molecules of air.

55. Software can solve hard problems in two ways: by algorithm or by making connections — by delivering the problem to exactly the right human problem-solver. The second technique is just as powerful as the first, but so far we have ignored it.

56. Lifestreams and microcosms are the two most important cyberbody types; they relate to each other as a single musical line relates to a single chord. The stream is a "moment in space," the microcosm a moment in time."

Saltzer and Schroeder:

"h) Psychological acceptability: It is essential that the human interface be designed for ease of use, so that users routinely and automatically apply the protection mechanisms correctly. Also, to the extent that the user's mental image of his protection goals matches the mechanisms he must use, mistakes will be minimized. If he must translate his image of his protection needs into a radically different specification language, he will make errors."

Gelernter:

"7. "The network is the computer" — yes; but we're less interested in computers all the time. The real topic in astronomy is the cosmos, not telescopes. The real topic in computing is the Cybersphere and the cyberstructures in it, not the computers we use as telescopes and tuners.

27. Modern computing is based on an analogy between computers and file cabinets that is fundamentally wrong and affects nearly every move we make. (We store "files" on disks, write "records," organize files into "folders" — file-cabinet language.) Computers are fundamentally unlike file cabinets because they can take action.

31. Our standard policy on file names has far-reaching consequences: doesn't merely force us to make up names where no name is called for; also imposes strong limits on our handling of an important class of documents — ones that arrive from the outside world. A newly-arrived email message (for example) can't stand on its own as a separate document — can't show up alongside other files in searches, sit by itself on the desktop, be opened or printed independently; it has no name, so it must be buried on arrival inside some existing file (the mail file) that does have a name. The same holds for incoming photos and faxes, Web bookmarks, scanned images...

32. You shouldn't have to put files in directories. The directories should reach out and take them. If a file belongs in six directories, all six should reach out and grab it automatically, simultaneously.

33. A file should be allowed to have no name, one name or many names. Many files should be allowed to share one name. A file should be allowed to be in no directory, one directory, or many directories. Many files should be allowed to share one directory. Of these eight possibilities, only three are legal and the other five are banned — for no good reason.

53. Your car, your school, your company and yourself are all one-track vehicles moving forward through time, and they will each leave a stream-shaped cyberbody (like an aircraft's contrail) behind them as they go. These vapor-trails of crystallized experience will represent our first concrete answer to a hard question: what is a company, a university, any sort of ongoing organization or institution, if its staff and customers and owners can all change, its buildings be bulldozed, its site relocated — what's left? What is it? The answer: a lifestream in cyberspace."

Conclusion(gp):

The Saltzer and Schroeder principles of Open Design and Economy of Mechanism hold up well in the face of modern computing realities, and to a certain extent Fail Safe Defaults does as well; however if we information security people are to be effective we need to re-think the other principles.

Last word: Gelernter:

We'll know the system is working when a butterfly wanders into the in-box and (a few wingbeats later) flutters out — and in that brief interval the system has transcribed the creature's appearance and analyzed its way of moving, and the real butterfly leaves a shadow-butterfly behind. Some time soon afterward you'll be examining some tedious electronic document and a cyber-butterfly will appear at the bottom left corner of your screen (maybe a Hamearis lucina) and pause there, briefly hiding the text (and showing its neatly-folded rusty-chocolate wings like Victorian paisley, with orange eyespots) — and moments later will have crossed the screen and be gone.

Education: SOHO Network Security

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 04:06:47 +0000

Business network and Internet security are closely related to the overall state of SOHO and personal networks. Much of the chaos permeating cyberspace is caused by failures to secure these systems, to practice minimal due diligence. It's usually not the intent of the SOHO owner or personal computer user to do insecure things, however. Rather, it's their lack of understanding about information security, and information technology in general, that leads to poor system management. Cert.org has a tool that is a great tool to educate the uninitiated.

Hong Kong, China Web domains cited as "most dangerous"

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:00:00 +0000

Hong Kong and China are the "most dangerous" places to surf the Web based on country domain, according to McAfee's annual assessment of the riskiest and safest places in cyberspace.

Best Security Tools: Virus Total file analyzer

Mon, 26 May 2008 10:22:07 +0000

Have you ever had one of those moments when you suspect a file of malicious intent? Maybe a file appears on an end-user device or server, you have no idea what it is, your AV software ignores it, but you have a gut feeling that something isn't quite right? Or maybe you have a user who wants to install a program you've never heard of, and you just want to check it to see if anyone out in cyberspace thinks it might be a bad idea. Well, I found a free online tool that will help.

DARPA Wants Matrix-style Virtual World for Cybergeddon

Sun, 11 May 2008 08:15:00 +0000

The US military's famed scientific wingnut farm, DARPA*, has released full details of its planned "National Cyber Range" - a mighty network which could be configured to simulate the cyberspace battlefields of the future. This would allow America's fighting nerds to train for the net conflicts of tomorrow, mounting attacks on simulated enemies..

Confidential information sent to PinPay.net and SoftCard.biz is exposed

Thu, 08 May 2008 09:26:03 +0000

Technorati Tag: Security Breach

Date Reported:
4/29/08

Organization:
ACAP Security Inc.

Contractor/Consultant/Branch:
PinPay
SoftCard

Victims:
Merchants, Agents and customers

Number Affected:
Unknown

Types of Data:
Name, mailing address, phone number, email address, date of birth, city of birth, sex, and one or more of the following (chosen from drop-down):

Passport
Voting ID card
PAN card
Driving License card
Government issued ID card
Social Security Card
Military ID card
Consular ID card
Postal ID card
Government Employee ID Card
Credit Card
Debit Card

Breach Description:
ACAP Security and affiliated sites are actively marketing a "secure payment system that allows Internet-based businesses to accept secure PIN-debit card payments and transactions at their online store." The PinPay and SoftCard sign-up pages and account access pages are not adequately secured with encryption, potentially exposing extremely sensitive personal information.

Reference URL:
Merchant 911 Blog

Report Credit:
Tom Mahoney, the Founder and Director of Merchant 911

Response:
From the online source cited above and my own cursory investigation:

Back in January, I had short email dialog with a Kip Long, who claimed to be one of the principles of a company called Softcard out of Huntington Beach, CA. They are not to be confused with SoftCard Systems in Athens, GA. As far as I know, SoftCard Systems is a legitimate company with a legitimate product.

Mr. Long was rather aggressively, but not very successfully, trying to impress me with their product - from what I can make of it, a virtual PIN based card.

The company uses PinPay - to process transactions and both companies are a part of ACAP Security, Inc..

I reviewed their site for possible inclusion in our website’s resource pages, but promptly rejected them.

their insecure sign-up form - was requesting “Identity Card Numbers” and issue dates.
[Evan] The sign-up forms at SoftCard.biz and PinPay.net are not secure. Neither are their respected login pages.

“Identity cards” are selectable from a drop down menu and include such ID information as Passport, Driver’s license, SSN, and Credit Card.

The form also requires a full name and DOB.

I tried using the HTTPS URL but it appears that they do not have a security certificate tied to their site.

The fact that Mr. Long used a hotmail address to pitch the company made me wonder too, given that at Merchant911 we try to instill in our members that a free email address from a customer is a fraud alert.

If a company official can’t use his company’s domain for email, I’m not going to talk to him.

I called their attention to the insecure web form in January. They still have the form up there, happily collecting this information with an insecure form.
[Evan] I also sent emails and heard nothing in return.

I have to wonder how much information has already been sniffed or otherwise compromised. You probably don’t want to fill out this form.
[Evan] My advice would be to NOT fill out the form and NOT conduct business with a company that has not demonstrated a willingness to secure your information.

Commentary:
Tom informed me about this vulnerability (and potentially a breach for anyone that signed-up/in) a couple of weeks ago. I've been a little busy lately, but was finally able to check it out. Let me recap what I found.

First, let's go to www.softcard.biz. This is the site that Tom originally pointed out to me.

The flash home page forwards visitors to a static index (indexaa.html) page. The first paragraph on the page informs visitors about PinPay.

"The PINPAY SoftCard is a wise way to carry and transfer money. It gives you the ability to purchase products at participating stores throughout the world (as well as at online shopping malls), with the security of a PIN that travels the internet via private encrypted tunnels. It also allows you the ability to load money to your card, pay bills, transfer money to merchants, transfer money between cards, and withdraw cash from your card at the store."

See where the page says, "Register for your FREE card HERE!!"? This is a link to the sign-up page that Tom was referring to.

No "https" in the URL. Tom was right on that. The sign-up form asks for a personal information ranging from name and address to identity card information (even information for a "Second Identity Card").

The "Select Identity Card" drop down menu displays the choices for the prospective customer, including Passport, Voting ID card, PAN card, Drivers License card, Government issued ID card, Social Security card, Military ID card, Consular ID card, Postal ID card, Government Employee ID Card, Credit Card and Debit Card

SoftCard (or PinPay or ACAP Security) are asking for some very sensitive personal information! First, this is quite a bit more information than they need to approve a person for a "PINPAY SoftCard". Second, no encryption?! Third, who is ACAP/SoftCard/PinPay and what will they do to secure my information once they have it supposing it wasn't intercepted on the way to them?

Let's dig a little (public) information about ACAP Security. According to Entreprenuer.com, ACAP launched "Personal Private Network" (ppn) technology, commercially available under the trade name ppnPRO, which is described as a "highly secure, and highly private" personal private network. ppnPRO uses "Government approved AES encryption, with strong personalized 256-bit encryption keys, and encrypting all information- network addresses, applications and ports, as well as the confidential data content". Sounds impressive, but it also sounds like the company should know a thing or two about securing web site transactions with encryption.

I want to discuss the risk of sending confidential private information over a public network such as the internet without encryption, in particular. This is not a new topic, but I will take some time to demonstrate the risk.

In order for my information to be compromised, someone (or something) will need to capture the traffic. In order for someone to capture my traffic, they will need to tap into the communication somewhere between me (my computer) and the destination (the web server). My information doesn't travel directly from my computer to the server. There are intermediaries (routers, switches, firewalls, etc.) that have to get (or forward) my information from my computer to the server.

As you can see depicted in the graphic above, there are at least 16 routers (or hops) between this example source and www.softcard.biz. The final few hops are not reported due to filtering. So where could my traffic be captured? At the very least:

Between my computer and my router (or firewall)
Between my firewall and the ISP hand-off
Between all the traversed devices within my ISP's network
Between all the traversed devices through the internet
Between all the traversed devices within the destination ISP's network
Between all the traversed devices within the destination organization's network and the server itself.

Anyone in the communication path can use a simple protocol analyzer like Wireshark and capture the sensitive information:

txtfname=Billy&txtmname=J&txtlname=Madison&txtaddress=123+Main+Street&txtcity=Anywhere&
txtstate=MA&txtzip=87451&txtcountry=United+States&mob_phone=NONE&txtphone=18006218200&
txtemail=billymadison@honky.com&txtdob=04%2F20%2F1988&txtbirthcity=Boston&
txtbirthcountry=United+States&txtgender=M&identity1=Social+Security+Card&txtcardno1=123-45-6789&
txtissuedate1=04%2F20%2F1988&identity2=Driving+License+card&txtcardno2=M-1234567890&
txtissuedate2=04%2F20%2F2006&submit=Accept+Card+Agreement-Submit

This is a very simplistic demonstration about why it is important to encrypt sensitive information. If the communication had been encrypted, none of the data would have been visible without access to the private key.

We could go deeper into the server application and SQL, but I think that this is enough.

A Quote from the ACAP Security CEO:
“The right of privacy is a fundamental and very important right of American society. A right our Nation’s founders fought the American Revolution to obtain and a right many brave American soldiers have fought and continue to fight and die to preserve. As this Nation continues to advance into cyberspace, we have expanded the right of privacy to include the right to electronic privacy. The elements of cyber-crime and cyber-vulnerabilities have begun to seriously erode and destroy this important right of electronic privacy.”

Past Breaches:
Unknown

Belgium accuses China of cyberattacks

Wed, 07 May 2008 20:00:00 +0000

It's not just the U.S. and U.K. who are crying foul over China's behavior in cyberspace - now the government of tiny Belgium has accused hackers from the country of targeting its systems.

Dual-Use Technologies and the Equities Issue

Tue, 06 May 2008 01:17:24 +0000

On April 27, 2007, Estonia was attacked in cyberspace. Following a diplomatic incident with Russia about the relocation of a Soviet World War II memorial, the networks of many Estonian organizations, including the Estonian parliament, banks, ministries, newspapers and broadcasters, were attacked and -- in many cases -- shut down. Estonia was quick to blame Russia, which was equally quick to deny any involvement.

It was hyped as the first cyberwar: Russia attacking Estonia in cyberspace. But nearly a year later, evidence that the Russian government was involved in the denial-of-service attacks still hasn't emerged. Though Russian hackers were indisputably the major instigators of the attack, the only individuals positively identified have been young ethnic Russians living inside Estonia, who were pissed off over the statue incident.

You know you've got a problem when you can't tell a hostile attack by another nation from bored kids with an axe to grind.

Separating cyberwar, cyberterrorism and cybercrime isn't easy; these days you need a scorecard to tell the difference. It's not just that it’s hard to trace people in cyberspace, it's that military and civilian attacks -- and defenses -- look the same.

The traditional term for technology the military shares with civilians is "dual use." Unlike hand grenades and tanks and missile targeting systems, dual-use technologies have both military and civilian applications. Dual-use technologies used to be exceptions; even things you'd expect to be dual use, like radar systems and toilets, were designed differently for the military. But today, almost all information technology is dual use. We both use the same operating systems, the same networking protocols, the same applications, and even the same security software.

And attack technologies are the same. The recent spurt of targeted hacks against U.S. military networks, commonly attributed to China, exploit the same vulnerabilities and use the same techniques as criminal attacks against corporate networks. Internet worms make the jump to physically-separate classified military networks in less than 24 hours, even if those networks are physically separate. The Navy Cyber Defense Operations Command uses the same tools against the same threats as any large corporation.

Because attackers and defenders use the same IT technology, there is a fundamental tension between cyberattack and cyberdefense. The National Security Agency has referred to this as the "equities issue," and it can be summarized as follows: When a military discovers a vulnerability in a dual-use technology, they can do one of two things. They can alert the manufacturer and fix the vulnerability, thereby protecting both the good guys and the bad guys. Or they can keep quiet about the vulnerability and not tell anyone, thereby leaving the good guys insecure but also leaving the bad guys insecure.

The equities issue has long been hotly debated inside the NSA. Basically, the NSA has two roles: eavesdrop on their stuff, and protect our stuff. When both sides use the same stuff, the agency has to decide whether to exploit vulnerabilities to eavesdrop on their stuff or close the same vulnerabilities to protect our stuff.

In the 1980s and before, the tendency of the NSA was to keep vulnerabilities to themselves. In the 1990s, the tide shifted, and the NSA was starting to open up and help us all improve our security defense. But after the attacks of 9/11, the NSA shifted back to the attack: vulnerabilities were to be hoarded in secret. Slowly, things in the U.S. are shifting back again.

So now we're seeing the NSA help secure Windows Vista and releasing their own version of Linux. The DHS, meanwhile, is funding a project to secure popular open source software packages, and across the Atlantic the UK’s GCHQ is finding bugs in PGPDisk and reporting them back to the company. (NSA is rumored to be doing the same thing with BitLocker.)

I'm in favor of this trend, because my security improves for free. Whenever the NSA finds a security problem and gets the vendor to fix it, our security gets better. It's a side-benefit of dual-use technologies.

But I want governments to do more. I want them to use their buying power to improve my security. I want them to offer countrywide contracts for software, both security and non-security, that have explicit security requirements. If these contracts are big enough, companies will work to modify their products to meet those requirements. And again, we all benefit from the security improvements.

The only example of this model I know about is a U.S. government-wide procurement competition for full-disk encryption, but this can certainly be done with firewalls, intrusion detection systems, databases, networking hardware, even operating systems.

When it comes to IT technologies, the equities issue should be a no-brainer. The good uses of our common hardware, software, operating systems, network protocols, and everything else vastly outweigh the bad uses. It's time that the government used its immense knowledge and experience, as well as its buying power, to improve cybersecurity for all of us.

This essay originally appeared on Wired.com.