"consumers hate tokens."

"Everyone wants to be the single federation platform for everyone else."

"Federation will never work. It won’t work because the single most important consumer Web applications in the world are scared of it. Banks hate the concept because it becomes a weakest link in the chain problem."

"Tokens don’t actually solve most security problems, like man-in-the-middle, phishing, and keystroke-logging malware."

"Oh yes, and finally, consumers are going to have to carry around 13 of them just to make sure they can log into whatever they need to log into since no one will federate."

"Global federation is nowhere near a solid concept in the consumer space, despite what the vendors will try to sell you."

"This is a long term problem. If you work on it and make any progress against it, you'll find yourself much smarter at the far end, than you were at the near end.

When I was in Norway about 5 years ago, I was there very close to the summer solstice. I was wandering around town at 2 o'clock in the morning and there was plenty of light out. You come to a sign that says New Minsk about 60 km and it points south.

And I ask the lady "what country is this?"

She scratched her head for a bit, and said "well I think its Norway"

I said "well who plows the roads?"

"well Norway does, but he have to pay them."

There is a triple boundary in this town that I was in between Norway, Finland and Russia.

But what I did there, was, I had a card about wallet size, I stuck it into a machine, I punched in four digits, and it gave me about 2,000 krone, whatever the hell that is.

Now there are a lot of participants in that transaction. When I put a card into that machine, punch in a pin, and it gurgles for awhile, and finally gives me, a fairly large amount of money. There are a lot of participants in that transaction. The bank that owned the machine that gave me the money, it gave some money away -- that bank wants it back. The pin is necessary to convince my own bank that I'm me. But I don't want my pin to be broadcast all over the world. My bank in the us, it hasn't really given out or taken in any money, really. But there is a lot of credits involved here. Somebody needs to charge somebody else for having more money available. Even though there was actually no cash transfer.

And the problem that I have in mind is
- who are all the participants in an ATM transaction?
- what do those participants need to satisfy their problems?
- how is that in fact done?

In a general way, does the atm system actually work in some reasonable sense? To which the answer is by the way: yes. The atm system damn well works. With extremely high reliability and accuracy. It surprises me. Its quite a bit different than voting machines.

The "Oyster card" used on the London Tube was at issue in the Dutch case, and a similar fare card used on the Boston "T" was the center of the U.S. case. The Dutch court got it right, and the American court, in Boston, got it wrong from the start -- despite facing an open-and-shut case of First Amendment prior restraint.

The U.S. court has since seen the error of its ways -- but the damage is done. The MIT security researchers who were prepared to discuss their Boston findings at the DefCon security conference were prevented from giving their talk.

The ethics of full disclosure are intimately familiar to those of us in the computer-security field. Before full disclosure became the norm, researchers would quietly disclose vulnerabilities to the vendors -- who would routinely ignore them. Sometimes vendors would even threaten researchers with legal action if they disclosed the vulnerabilities.

Later on, researchers started disclosing the existence of a vulnerability but not the details. Vendors responded by denying the security holes' existence, or calling them just theoretical. It wasn't until full disclosure became the norm that vendors began consistently fixing vulnerabilities quickly. Now that vendors routinely patch vulnerabilities, researchers generally give them advance notice to allow them to patch their systems before the vulnerability is published. But even with this "responsible disclosure" protocol, it's the threat of disclosure that motivates them to patch their systems. Full disclosure is the mechanism (.pdf) by which computer security improves.

Outside of computer security, secrecy is much more the norm. Some security communities, like locksmiths, behave much like medieval guilds, divulging the secrets of their profession only to those within it. These communities hate open research, and have responded with surprising vitriol to researchers who have found serious vulnerabilities in bicycle locks, combination safes (.pdf), master-key systems and many other security devices.

Researchers have received a similar reaction from other communities more used to secrecy than openness. Researchers -- sometimes young students -- who discovered and published flaws in copyright-protection schemes, voting-machine security and now wireless access cards have all suffered recriminations and sometimes lawsuits for not keeping the vulnerabilities secret. When Christopher Soghoian created a website allowing people to print fake airline boarding passes, he got several unpleasant visits from the FBI.

This preference for secrecy comes from confusing a vulnerability with information about that vulnerability. Using secrecy as a security measure is fundamentally fragile. It assumes that the bad guys don't do their own security research. It assumes that no one else will find the same vulnerability. It assumes that information won't leak out even if the research results are suppressed. These assumptions are all incorrect.

The problem isn't the researchers; it's the products themselves. Companies will only design security as good as what their customers know to ask for. Full disclosure helps customers evaluate the security of the products they buy, and educates them in how to ask for better security. The Dutch court got it exactly right when it wrote: "Damage to NXP is not the result of the publication of the article but of the production and sale of a chip that appears to have shortcomings."

In a world of forced secrecy, vendors make inflated claims about their products, vulnerabilities don't get fixed, and customers are no wiser. Security research is stifled, and security technology doesn't improve. The only beneficiaries are the bad guys.

If you'll forgive the analogy, the ethics of full disclosure parallel the ethics of not paying kidnapping ransoms. We all know why we don't pay kidnappers: It encourages more kidnappings. Yet in every kidnapping case, there's someone -- a spouse, a parent, an employer -- with a good reason why, in this one case, we should make an exception.

The reason we want researchers to publish vulnerabilities is because that's how security improves. But in every case there's someone -- the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority, the locksmiths, an election machine manufacturer -- who argues that, in this one case, we should make an exception.

We shouldn't. The benefits of responsibly publishing attacks greatly outweigh the potential harm. Disclosure encourages companies to build security properly rather than relying on shoddy design and secrecy, and discourages them from promising security based on their ability to threaten researchers. It's how we learn about security, and how we improve future security.

This essay previously appeared on Wired.com.

EDITED TO ADD (8/26): Matt Blaze has a good essay on the topic.

Hackers getting a free T pass may be the least of our worries — local hackers-turned-security experts suggest RFID keycards, wireless networks and medical devices implanted in the body are also vulnerable to hacks.

At last week’s Defcon hacker convention in Las Vegas, a team of researchers showed it was possible to get information such as Social Security numbers and medical diagnoses, and change the settings on an implantable defibrillator by impersonating the computer it communicates with wirelessly. By doing so, a hacker could send a fatal shock to a patient’s heart, said William Maisel of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

It is almost like things haven’t changed since the 90’s when the L0pht worked to change the mindset of security:

1. Don’t trust vendor claims around security
2. Attacks aren’t “theoretical”
3. Security by obscurity is no security

The L0pht worked as an independent security research think tank.  For us it was non-profit side job researching and publishing vulnerabilities in software and hardware.  We did it for our love of technology and published what we found out because purchasers and users of the vulnerable systems deserve to know.

It’s 10 years later and the situation hasn’t improved much.  Mudge talks about the vulnerabilities the L0pht found in highway transponder systems that are still in systems being fielded today.  But more important than the vulnerabilities themselves is the nature of how these vulnerabilities are coming to light.  They are being found by hobbyists, students, and IT people working in their spare time.  How can something as important as the security of public fare collection systems and medical equipment not have a standard process for security acceptance testing? 

As we become more reliant on digital systems, with some even keeping us alive, it is high time for security testing to move beyond student papers and part time IT work.  Security testing needs to become a formal part of the process of purchasing and fielding digital systems.  Our lives are starting to depend on it.

The "Oyster card" used on the London Tube was at issue in the Dutch case, and a similar fare card used on the Boston "T" was the center of the U.S. case. The Dutch court got it right, and the American court, in Boston, got it wrong from the start -- despite facing an open-and-shut case of First Amendment prior restraint.

The U.S. court has since seen the error of its ways -- but the damage is done. The MIT security researchers who were prepared to discuss their Boston findings at the DefCon security conference were prevented from giving their talk.

The ethics of full disclosure are intimately familiar to those of us in the computer-security field. Before full disclosure became the norm, researchers would quietly disclose vulnerabilities to the vendors -- who would routinely ignore them. Sometimes vendors would even threaten researchers with legal action if they disclosed the vulnerabilities.

Later on, researchers started disclosing the existence of a vulnerability but not the details. Vendors responded by denying the security holes' existence, or calling them just theoretical. It wasn't until full disclosure became the norm that vendors began consistently fixing vulnerabilities quickly. Now that vendors routinely patch vulnerabilities, researchers generally give them advance notice to allow them to patch their systems before the vulnerability is published. But even with this "responsible disclosure" protocol, it's the threat of disclosure that motivates them to patch their systems. Full disclosure is the mechanism (.pdf) by which computer security improves.

Outside of computer security, secrecy is much more the norm. Some security communities, like locksmiths, behave much like medieval guilds, divulging the secrets of their profession only to those within it. These communities hate open research, and have responded with surprising vitriol to researchers who have found serious vulnerabilities in bicycle locks, combination safes (.pdf), master-key systems and many other security devices.

Researchers have received a similar reaction from other communities more used to secrecy than openness. Researchers -- sometimes young students -- who discovered and published flaws in copyright-protection schemes, voting-machine security and now wireless access cards have all suffered recriminations and sometimes lawsuits for not keeping the vulnerabilities secret. When Christopher Soghoian created a website allowing people to print fake airline boarding passes, he got several unpleasant visits from the FBI.

This preference for secrecy comes from confusing a vulnerability with information about that vulnerability. Using secrecy as a security measure is fundamentally fragile. It assumes that the bad guys don't do their own security research. It assumes that no one else will find the same vulnerability. It assumes that information won't leak out even if the research results are suppressed. These assumptions are all incorrect.

The problem isn't the researchers; it's the products themselves. Companies will only design security as good as what their customers know to ask for. Full disclosure helps customers evaluate the security of the products they buy, and educates them in how to ask for better security. The Dutch court got it exactly right when it wrote: "Damage to NXP is not the result of the publication of the article but of the production and sale of a chip that appears to have shortcomings."

In a world of forced secrecy, vendors make inflated claims about their products, vulnerabilities don't get fixed, and customers are no wiser. Security research is stifled, and security technology doesn't improve. The only beneficiaries are the bad guys.

If you'll forgive the analogy, the ethics of full disclosure parallel the ethics of not paying kidnapping ransoms. We all know why we don't pay kidnappers: It encourages more kidnappings. Yet in every kidnapping case, there's someone -- a spouse, a parent, an employer -- with a good reason why, in this one case, we should make an exception.

The reason we want researchers to publish vulnerabilities is because that's how security improves. But in every case there's someone -- the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority, the locksmiths, an election machine manufacturer -- who argues that, in this one case, we should make an exception.

We shouldn't. The benefits of responsibly publishing attacks greatly outweigh the potential harm. Disclosure encourages companies to build security properly rather than relying on shoddy design and secrecy, and discourages them from promising security based on their ability to threaten researchers. It's how we learn about security, and how we improve future security.

---

Bruce Schneier is Chief Security Technology Officer of BT Global Services and author of Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World. You can read more of his writings on his website.

The lawsuit claimed that the students’ planned presentation would violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) by enabling others to defraud the MBTA of transit fares. A different federal judge, meeting in a special Saturday session, ordered the trio not to disclose for ten days any information that could be used by others to get free subway rides.

“The judge today correctly found that it was unlikely that the CFAA would apply to security researchers giving an academic talk,” said EFF Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. “A presentation at a security conference is not some sort of computer intrusion. It’s protected speech and vital to the free flow of information about computer security vulnerabilities. Silencing researchers does not improve security — the vulnerability was there before the students discovered it and would remain in place regardless of whether the students publicly discussed it or not.”

This sets a good precedent for future cases, and perhaps next time a similar situation arises, a judge will not be so quick to issue a gag order. It’s not a happy ending yet though, as the original lawsuit is still in effect.

As Chris Wysopal pointed out last week, the MBTA’s ire is misdirected. Rather than suing the vendor who sold them the defective system, they sued and attempted to silence the students who discovered the weakness. This is 2008, not 1988 — did they honestly think a gag order would prevent the information from reaching the general public? The DEFCON presentation was already available on the Intertubes prior to the injunction being issued, and the MBTA attorneys included a copy of the confidential whitepaper with their filing, thereby making it public.

I guess you wouldn’t expect that a transit authority would have paid any attention to theCiscogate fiasco from a few years ago. That presentation never got out either, did it? All that taxpayer money the MBTA spent on ridiculous lawsuits and restraining orders could have been put toward fixing the security flaws. What a concept.

I was just reminded of this randomly just by reading this list of new tools released at the Defcon this year. Sounds like a busy conference, with a lot of hackers who love what they do. Good stuff.

It has become more like a global fair than what most people think of conferences; even the badge is highly unique. I say this because there are so many things to do at DEFCON, other than going to talks, that you could spend your whole weekend looking at the “World’s Largest Boar!” so to speak. One of the CTF (Capture the Flag) contest winners this year actually exclaimed that he only made it to 2 talks in 12 years! I am also one of those individuals who barely get a chance to go to talks and now that the speaker pool is so diverse it’s hard to find all of the “stuff” they release.

Read the list and full article here