Hash functions are the most commonly used cryptographic primitive, and the most poorly understood. You can think of them as fingerprint functions: They take an arbitrary long data stream and return a fixed length, and effectively unique, string. The security comes from the fact that while it's easy to generate the fingerprint from a file, it's infeasible to go the other way and generate a file given a fingerprint.

Originally created to make digital signatures more efficient, hashes are now used to secure the very fundamentals of our information infrastructure: in password logins, secure web connections, encryption key management, virus and malware scanning, and almost every cryptographic protocol in current use. Without cryptographic hash functions, the internet would simply not work. At the same time, there isn't a good theory of hash functions. Unlike encryption algorithms, there are no secret keys involved; this makes it harder to mathematically define exactly what hash functions are.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, is holding a competition to replace the SHA family of hash functions. "SHA" stands for "Secure Hash Algorithm." It was developed by the NSA in 1993 to replace the commercial MD4 and MD5 algorithms, and has been updated several times since then. All the SHA algorithms are very similar, and have been increasingly under attack, so NIST wants to replace them.

The competition is important because, unlike other technological standards, committee design — balancing the interests of diverse constituents — isn't conducive to good security. Security is best when it's designed by expert teams and then subjected to public review. And cryptography is best when it's chosen by competition.

In 1997, NIST held a competition for a block cipher to replace DES. Fifteen candidates and three-and-a-half years later, Rijndael became the new Advanced Encryption Standard — AES. NIST is doing the same thing for what it's calling SHA-3 (not, for some unexplained reason, the Advanced Hash Standard or AHS).

The deadline was October 31, and NIST received 64 submissions. This isn't surprising — I predicted 80 — as most of the 15 AES submitters were professors, whose students at the time have become professors themselves, with their own students. (If NIST does a stream cipher competition in another ten years, they should expect about 256 submissions.) These submissions came from academia, from industry, and from hobbyists. CIO magazine recently interviewed one of the submitters, who is 15. Twenty-eight submissions have been made public by the submitters, and six of those have been broken.

NIST is going through all the submissions right now, making sure they are complete and proper. Their goal is to publish all accepted submissions by the end of November, in advance of the First Hash Function Candidate Conference, to be held in Belgium right after the Fast Software Encryption workshop in February.

The group expects to quickly make a first cut of algorithms — hopefully to about a dozen — and give the community a year of cryptanalysis before making a second cut in 2010. After another year of cryptanalysis, NIST will choose a winner in 2011. Expect a final standard by 2012.

My advice for software developers is to let the process run its course. While it's tempting to use the new cool algorithms in your designs, it's far too soon to trust any of them. This process is likely to result in all sorts of new research results in hash function security, and some real cryptanalytic surprises. Give the community a few years to figure out which ones are good and which aren't.

I've previously called this sort of thing a cryptographic demolition derby: The last one left standing wins. But that's only partially true. Certainly all the groups will spend the next few years trying to cryptanalyze each other, but in the end there will be a bunch of unbroken algorithms. NIST will select one based on performance and features.

NIST has stated that the goal of this process is not to choose the best standard but to choose a good standard. I think that's smart; in this process, the best is the enemy of the good. While there's no rush to choose a new standard — the SHA-2 algorithms will remain secure for the foreseeable future — we don't want to analyze the candidates forever.

Personally, I was part of a group of eight cryptographers that submitted Skein to the competition. A decade ago, writing Twofish and participating in the AES process was the most fun I had ever had in cryptography. These next few years promise to be even more fun.

---

Bruce Schneier is chief security technology officer of BT. His new book is Schneier on Security.

The best security program is at the business with the happiest customers.

There's a fine line between happy customers and playing piano in a bordello.

Sees a lot
Can tell the king he has no clothes
Can tell the king he really is ugly
Does not get killed by the king
Nice to have around but…how much security improvement comes from this ?

Changes happened faster that he was able to move
Did not read the signs
Good intentions went unfulfilled
A brutal way to ending a promising career
Sad to have around but…how much security improvement comes from this ?

Obviously these models of CISOs are not solving our information security problems. Instead Dr. Garigue points us to Charlemagne as a better model

King of the Franks and Holy Roman Emperor; conqueror of the Lombards and Saxons (742-814) - reunited much of Europe after the Dark Ages.

He set up other schools, opening them to peasant boys as well as nobles. Charlemagne never stopped studying. He brought an English monk, Alcuin, and other scholars to his court - encouraging the development of a standard script.

He set up money standards to encourage commerce, tried to build a Rhine-Danube canal, and urged better farming methods. He especially worked to spread education and Christianity in every class of people.

He relied on Counts, Margraves and Missi Domini to help him.

Margraves - Guard the frontier districts of the empire. Margraves retained, within their own jurisdictions, the authority of dukes in the feudal arm of the empire.

Missi Domini - Messengers of the King.

This is the way forward! Find software security champions in the architecture and development groups,help them understand the real security issues. They will find solutions you have not thought of. Same for DBAs, same for business analysts even. Its all about beating the bushes, education, and decentralizing security services. Specifically, he points out this important mandate for IT security

Knowledge of risky things is of strategic value

How to know today tomorrow’s unknown ?
How to structure information security processes in an organization so as to identify and address the NEXT categories of risks ?

To me this is our mandate and measure of effectiveness. Empower our customers, educate, and create business value. If I am a CISO  I don't want 20 people reporting to me who do firewall ruleset changes. I want one champion in 20 different groups - development teams, architects, DBAs, business analysts.

A concrete example, infosec can continue to go along with the herd and follow the "what everyone else is doing architecture" meanwhile developers are connecting every single thing in your business to the Web. I have been doing integration and new technology projects for a long time, and let me tell you - Change does not always create happy customers in the short run. But the chart below shows that information security is maybe more concerned with not causing waves rather than adapting.

The best security program is at the business with sustainable competitive advantage.

Abstract. Describes a decade of experience threat modeling products and services at Microsoft. Describes the current threat modeling methodology used in the Security Development Lifecycle. The methodology is a practical approach, usable by non-experts, centered on data ow diagrams and a threat enumeration technique of 'STRIDE per element.' The paper covers some lessons learned which are likely applicable to other security analysis techniques. The paper closes with some possible questions for academic research.

The report was written by a committee whose members include William Perry, a professor at Stanford University; Charles Vest, the former president of MIT; W. Earl Boebert, a retired senior scientist at Sandia National Laboratories; Cynthia Dwork of Microsoft Research; R. Gil Kerlikowske, Seattle's police chief; and Daryl Pregibon, a research scientist at Google.

They admit that far more Americans live their lives online, using everything from VoIP phones to Facebook to RFID tags in automobiles, than a decade ago, and the databases created by those activities are tempting targets for federal agencies. And they draw a distinction between subject-based data mining (starting with one individual and looking for connections) compared with pattern-based data mining (looking for anomalous activities that could show illegal activities).

But the authors conclude the type of data mining that government bureaucrats would like to do--perhaps inspired by watching too many episodes of the Fox series 24--can't work. "If it were possible to automatically find the digital tracks of terrorists and automatically monitor only the communications of terrorists, public policy choices in this domain would be much simpler. But it is not possible to do so."

A summary of the recommendations:

• U.S. government agencies should be required to follow a systematic process to evaluate the effectiveness, lawfulness, and consistency with U.S. values of every information-based program, whether classified or unclassified, for detecting and countering terrorists before it can be deployed, and periodically thereafter.

• Periodically after a program has been operationally deployed, and in particular before a program enters a new phase in its life cycle, policy makers should (carefully review) the program before allowing it to continue operations or to proceed to the next phase.

• To protect the privacy of innocent people, the research and development of any information-based counterterrorism program should be conducted with synthetic population data... At all stages of a phased deployment, data about individuals should be rigorously subjected to the full safeguards of the framework.

• Any information-based counterterrorism program of the U.S. government should be subjected to robust, independent oversight of the operations of that program, a part of which would entail a practice of using the same data mining technologies to "mine the miners and track the trackers."

• Counterterrorism programs should provide meaningful redress to any individuals inappropriately harmed by their operation.

• The U.S. government should periodically review the nation's laws, policies, and procedures that protect individuals' private information for relevance and effectiveness in light of changing technologies and circumstances. In particular, Congress should re-examine existing law to consider how privacy should be protected in the context of information-based programs (e.g., data mining) for counterterrorism.

Here are more news articles on the report. I explained why data mining wouldn't find terrorists back in 2005.

Over the past decade exploitation techniques have been developed and refined to the point that very little expertise has been needed to successfully exploit software vulnerabilities.  These refinements have lowered the bar for attackers and drastically increased the probability that an attack will be successful.  This has led to the need for mitigation techniques that can prevent or otherwise reduce the reliability of a given exploitation technique.  In relation to one another, we can think about exploitation techniques as attempting to drive the probability of successful exploitation to 100%, whereas mitigation techniques attempt to drive the same probability to zero.  While probability gives us a nice measure for the effectiveness of a mitigation technique, it doesn't give us immediate insight into the specific problems being solved by mitigations or the techniques that are being used to solve those problems.

Understanding the problems that are solved by mitigations is what provided the motivation for the presentation I will be giving at BlueHat.  Many of the materials in this presentation were taken from my work with Leviathan Security Group and have been repurposed to focus on taking attendees on a journey through the technical evolution of the mitigation techniques developed by Microsoft.  This evolution is illustrated in terms of the problems each mitigation technique is attempting to solve, the methods used to solve them, and how well each mitigation has stood the test of time thus far.  The journey itself starts first with /GS and ends with a glimpse of the mitigation techniques we might expect to see in the future. 

We chatted about the growth of the show and how much that growth reflects the industry itself. Since the bust earlier in the decade both Interop Las Vegas and New York shows have grown year over year – not just in attendees and exhibitors but in topics covered in the conference tracks. As any of us who are in the space know, it’s a rapidly changing market and Interop strives not just to cover the latest trends but also to get ahead of them while still making sure that they are relevant.

The show’s mission overall has expanded beyond “just” networking to cover performance and new trends like virtualization, cloud computing and SAAS that all affect network performance. It is a mirror for the demands on the network (and network admins) and the convergence we see going on that make managing the network so complex today.

Responding to criticisms about the lack of interoperability at the show, Lenny says, “Our special sauce is interoperability.” And in fact the expanded mission of the show ensures that there are more interoperability issues to deal with and he invites the community to comment and share feedback on this core mission.

Last, we talked about InteropNet. We’ve loved our participation in it this year for a variety of reasons – from the opportunity to work with other cool vendors in an intensive and real-life/real-time environment to the true sense of camaraderie and “getting it done” that everyone shares on the InteropNet team to the wonderful atmosphere of hard work AND hard play that you have to experience to believe.

We talked with Lenny about how he measures InteropNet “success” and the answer was illuminating. They’ve got high expectations at Interop; they expect the network to just work, so the focus is actually not on uptime and SLAs – that’s a given. “Nothing less than perfection works here.” (Let me tell you, after my horrible experience with the super slow and inaccessible network at the VMworld conference, that is definitely not always the case. Maybe InteropNet should sell its services…hmmmm…) Rather, it’s about being able to showcase technologies and strategies for networking and interoperability – or as we’re interpreting that, basically “walking the walk – which in the end is what InteropNet is all about.

See the full video here.

ATC is an excellent working example of complex event processing.   Radar and GPS provide the basic sensory information to accurately track and trace the position of each aircraft in the area of responsibility (AOR) of a particular control tower/zone.     Naturally,  sensory information is preprocessed and formatted in such a way that the data can be processed upstream by multiple real-time applications.

Before we look at complex ATC scenarios, such as “potential collision” or “aircraft off approach vector” we must trace and trace individual objects, aircraft-objects, accurately with very high confidence.    In addition to tracking aircraft-objects, there is a database of information about the aircraft (ideally), such as make, model, age, range, passengers and other properties about the aircraft-object.      In addition, there is a state-model for each aircraft, for example the aircraft might be “on the ground”, “approaching the runway”, “cleared for takeoff”, “cruising altitude”, “approaching runway”, “final decent” etc.  

Tracking and tracing individual aircraft is what is generally referred to as “object refinement” in our CEP/EP reference architecture.   The reason we call this function “object refinement” is that system engineers are focused on optimizing the situational knowledge about individual objects.     Sometimes we refer to this function as “track and trace” because that is what we are doing to  each object in the model.  In Marc Adler’s recent shoplifting scenario, Marc was interested in tracking and tracing people in a store using imaging processing techniques to estimate their behavioral patterns.  In the same way, before we can process for scenarios such as “potential shoplifter” or “suspicious criminal gang activity” we must be able to accurately process (track and trace) individual object, such as people or merchandise.

Back to aircraft and ATC, the “complex event processing” begins when we are looking about object-object relationships, in this model, aircraft-to-aircraft, but this is an overly simplistic model, as we have not yet added (to our model) ground features (towers, buildings, power lines), weather (storm cells, wind) and other flying objects (known migratory bird paths, swarms of insects) to our simple model.  

Complex event processing occurs when we are processing multiple objects in our model looking for threats in real-time.     Practically speaking, all ATC applications are CEP applications.  This means that vendors and integrators who build ATC applications are also CEP vendors.   

Editorial Note: CEP/EP has been around for a long time and was not recently invented in the past decade as some “inventors” would like for us to believe. 

As you can imagine, there is considerable “complex event processing” that goes on “behind the scenes” to provide air traffic controllers and pilots situational knowledge into the “friendly skies”.   As you might further imagine, the situation is more complex when the skies are “not so friendly”, for example, in air combat situations.   

Processing myriad objects is not the end of the processing “chain”.  For example, decisions are being made constantly about potential damage, alternative airports, and more.    In our reference model, we refer to this, generally speaking, as “impact assessment” because we must take an estimated detected complex event, for example “aircraft collision,” and estimate potential damage based on numerous factors such as, the amount of jet fuel in the aircrafts and the location of the aircrafts (over a large city or rural area, near a hospital and emergency services).   Regardless of the scenario, an impact assessment is normally required before optimal decisions can be made.

This is true, by the way, for our shoplifting example (the impact is different if a piece of gum is stolen versus a $1,000,000 diamond necklace or weapons-grade nuclear material) and other scenarios and models.  Static data (information about objects) is required for accurate decision processing.  

Impact assessment is not the end of the “knowledge chain”.    Decisions are constantly being made that effect resources.  For example, suggestion an alternative route for an aircraft is a resource management decision.    Turning on and off radar or switching to alternative tracking devices is a resource management function.  In our CEP/EP reference model (based on the JDL data fusion model), we call this “resource management”.   This function includes contacting emergency services and directing them to a potential crash location or sending out a message to instruct all aircraft to stay off a certain radio frequency.  Resource management is critical.

Our simple ATC model today is by no means complete, it just scratches the surface.  In fact, I have a very close friend, Mark Secrist, who is a former Marine fighter pilot and currently a senior captain for American Airlines.   I have asked Mark to read this post and help me further refine this crude “laymans” ATC model (Thanks Mark!).

I agree with Mark that SOR is important and very interesting; but in his reply he seems to be confusing CEP with “complex EAI” or a “complex messaging” application.  For example, Mark says,

“It’s not uncommon for a single SOR system to connect to 10 or more markets and multiple asset classes.  Not only is this a confluence of events, it’s a stunningly complicated environment in which to create a complex, real-time model in which to apply “simple” routing decisions. On this basis alone, SOR needs CEP.”

Connecting to many market feeds with multiple asset classes might be complicated, but “complicated connections” are an EAI  (adaptation layer) function, not a core CEP function.   In fact, TIBCO Software has been doing this type of low latency back-office order routing for many years, and TIBCO historically calls this “messaging.”  Adding some rules to high speed, low latency messaging does not make it a “CEP” application.

Mark goes on to set up a counter argument to ILOG’s Changhai Ke, comments with,

“SOR operates by analyzing the confluence of events from market data feeds, order flows from OMS systems, and executions, aggregating and analyzing those events in real time, and adjust routing decisions on the fly.”

This is the well travelled argument the “new stream processing vendors in capital markets” have been saying, still unconvincingly, for the last few years.  Basically their perspective is that if you have a lot of ”feeds” and a core requirement for “speed” - “feeds and speed” - you are doing “complex event processing.” 

Mark Palmer forcefully stated his opinon that the folks who do not agree with him do not “understand” modern day SOR.    However,  a strong counter argument can be made that the “newcomers” to capital markets like StreamBase do not understand that “feeds and speeds” with order routing is little more than moderan day EAI.   This is a basic message routing capability and it has been around for a long time.  After all, Wall Street operated quite well before the term CEP was coined!  TIBCO technology was providing Wall Street back office, low latency, smart order routing a decade ago, and they called this technology “messaging”.  

So, I remain unconvinced, at least by Mark’s passionate counter post, that SOR is CEP.   SOR, as Mark and other have described it, is a low latency messaging technology.  Message routing rules have exisited in this technology space for decades.

I agree with Mark completely that low latency EAI (like SOR has been described) can be quite complex, from a “feeds and speeds” perspective.   However,  I remain skeptical that “feeds and speeds” is much more than  modern day messaging and message routing.

In closing, in the network and security management world we have been dealing with “myriad feeds and speeds” for as long as I can remember, but admitted not like capital markets.    Taking myriad feeds, running rules against the feeds and then routing the messages/events for further processing, regardless of the complexity of the feeds and the data, is actually more of a messaging/ESB technology than a CEP technology. 

I remain completely open minded to any convincing counter arguments.