So I was very interested when I heard that Opus Interactive, a customer of ours, had “joined the VMware vCloud initiative as a VMware Service Provider”. I talked to Eric Hulbert, CTO of Opus Interactive, to get some details directly from the source.

Eric shared our own caution about making “cloud-ready” announcements. There have simply been too many companies talking about cloud solutions that lack any substance – usually based on definitions of cloud computing that are hazy or just too broad. The backlash against the cloud hype is often quite justified. But in Opus’ case, there are real components that if they don’t add up to a “full” cloud computing solution just yet, are well on their way – and enabled by VMware’s program for service providers (VSPP).

Opus Interactive is serious about virtualization, which is an indispensable tool in their stated goal of creating a high-density micro-data center with the smallest footprint possible. They are 100% wind-powered and have already virtualized much of their data center, reducing the amount of hardware necessary to run the business and driving down costs to produce even more competitive advantage in a crowded marketplace.

VSPP for vCloud provides a rental model of VMware licenses – e.g., for Enterprise ESX or VDI. VMware Service Providers report on their customers’ virtual machines (vm) and pay only for what is actually used. This model lets Opus Interactive quickly spin up a vm to get a new customer up and running in about an hour and stay very cost competitive at the same time; Opus offers their vClustr entry-level virtual server for only $99.

Cost-effective, rapidly scalable computing “on-demand” based on shared resources, managed by “expert” third-parties, enabled by virtualization technology and pay-per-use vm licenses. Cloud computing? Instead of thinking about a single definition of cloud computing, perhaps it’s more relevant as the market matures to think about a continuum of cloud computing. And by that definition, Opus Interactive is providing cloud services, enabled by VMware’s VSP program. Next on the schedule, automated provisioning and perhaps in the future, API’s that make it even easier for application developers to test and deploy apps on Opus Interactive’s cloud platform – which, by the way, uses EM7 for its core management solution.

Unfortunately, there's not really anything to his response. It's obvious he doesn't want to admit that they've been checking ID's all this time to no purpose whatsoever, so he just emits vague generalities like a frightened squid filling the water with ink. Yes, some of the stunts in article are silly (who cares if people fly with Hezbollah T-shirts?) so that gives him an opportunity to minimize the real issues.

Watch-lists and identity checks are important and effective security measures. We identify dozens of terrorist-related individuals a week and stop No-Flys regularly with our watch-list process.

It is simply impossible that the TSA catches dozens of terrorists every week. If it were true, the administration would be trumpeting this all over the press -- it would be an amazing success story in their war on terrorism. But note that Hawley doesn't exactly say that; he calls them "terrorist-related individuals." Which means exactly what? People so dangerous they can't be allowed to fly for any reason, yet so innocent they can't be arrested -- even under the provisions of the Patriot Act.

And if Secretary Chertoff is telling the truth when he says that there are only 2,500 people on the no-fly list and fewer than 16,000 people on the selectee list -- they're the ones that get extra screening -- and that most of them live outside the U.S., then it is statistically impossible that the TSA identifies "dozens" of these people every week. The math just doesn't make sense.

And I also don't believe this:

Behavior detection works and we have 2,000 trained officers at airports today. They alert us to people who may pose a threat but who may also have items that could elude other layers of physical security.

It does work, but I don't see the TSA doing it properly. (Fly El Al if you want to see it done properly.) But what I think Hawley is doing is engaging in a little bit of psychological manipulation. Like sky marshals, the real benefit of behavior detection isn't whether or not you do it but whether or not the bad guys believe you're doing it. If they think you are doing behavior detection at security checkpoints, or have sky marshals on every airplane, then you don't actually have to do it. It's the threat that's the deterrent, not the actual security system.

This doesn't impress me, either:

Items carried on the person, be they a 'beer belly' or concealed objects in very private areas, are why we are buying over 100 whole body imagers in upcoming months and will deploy more over time. In the meantime, we use hand-held devices that detect hydrogen peroxide and other explosives compounds as well as targeted pat-downs that require private screening.

Optional security measures don't work, because the bad guys will opt not to use them. It's like those air-puff machines at some airports now. They're probably great at detecting explosive residue off clothing, but every time I have seen the machines in operation, the passengers have the option whether to go through the lane with them or another lane. What possible good is that?

The closest thing to a real response from Hawley is that the terrorists might get caught stealing credit cards.

Using stolen credit cards and false documents as a way to get around watch-lists makes the point that forcing terrorists to use increasingly risky tactics has its own security value.

He's right about that. And, truth be told, that was my sloppiest answer during the original intervied. Thinking about it afterwards, it's far more likely is that someone with a clean record and a legal credit card will buy the various plane tickets.

This is new:

Boarding pass scanners and encryption are being tested in eight airports now and more will be coming.

Ignoring for a moment that "eight airports" nonsense -- unless you do it at every airport, the bad guys will choose the airport where you don't do it to launch their attack -- this is an excellent idea. The reason my attack works, the reason I can get through TSA checkpoints with a fake boarding pass, is that the TSA never confirms that the information on the boarding pass matches a legitimate reservation. If all TSA checkpoints had boarding pass scanners that connected to the airlines' computers, this attack would not work. (Interestingly enough, I noticed exactly this system at the Dublin airport earlier this month.)

Stopping the ‘James Bond’ terrorist is truly a team effort and I whole-heartedly agree that the best way to stop those attacks is with intelligence and law enforcement working together.

This isn't about "Stopping the 'James Bond' terrorist," it's about stopping terrorism. And if all this focus on airports, even assuming it starts working, shifts the terrorists to other targets, we haven't gotten a whole lot of security for our money.

FYI: I did a long interview with Kip Hawley last year. If you haven't read it, I strongly recommend you do. I pressed him on these and many other points, and didn't get very good answers then, either.

I used to react to this with "Are you stupid?! PCI being prescriptive is the best thing since sliced cake :-) Finally, there is some specific guidance for people to follow and be more secure!" BTW, in many cases end users who have to comply with PCI DSS still think it is "too fuzzy" and "not specific enough" (e.g. see "MUST-DO Logging for PCI"); and they basically ask for  "a compliance TODO list." (also see this and especially this on compliance checklists)

But every time it happens, I can't stop but think - why do people even utter such utter heresy? :-) And you know what?  I think I got it!

When people say "PCI is too prescriptive," they actually mean that it engenders "checklist mentality" and leads to following the letter of the mandate blindly, without thinking about WHY it was put in place (to protect cardholder data, share risk/responsibility, etc). For example, it says "use a firewall" and so they deploy a shiny firewall with a simple "ALLOW ALL<->ALL" rule (an obvious exaggeration - but you get the point!) Or they have a firewall with a default password unchanged... In addition, the proponents of "PCI is too prescriptive" tend to think that fuzzier guidance (and, especially, prescribing the desired end state AND not the tools to be installed) will lead to people actually thinking about the best way to do it.

So the choices are:

1. Mandate the tools (e.g. "must use a firewall") - and risk "checklist mentality", resulting in BOTH insecurity and "false sense" of security.
2. Mandate the results (e.g. "must be secure") -  and risk people saying "eh, but I dunno how" - and then not acting at all, again leading to insecurity.

Take your poison now?! Isn't compliance fun? What is the practical solution to this? I personally would take the pill #1 over pill #2 (and that is why I like PCI that much), but with some pause to think, for sure.  I think organizations with less mature security programs will benefit at least a bit from #1, while those with more mature programs might "enjoy" #2 more...

BTW, this post was originally called "Isn't Compliance Fun?!"  I had a few fierce debates with some friends and all of them  piled on me to convince me that "compliance is boring, while security is fun!" The above does illustrate that there are worthy and exciting intellectual challenges in the domain of regulatory compliance. It is not [only] a domain of minimalists (who just "want the auditor to go away") and mediocrity, as some think. What makes security fun - the people aspect, the ever-changing threat landscape, cool technology, high uncertainty, even risk - also apply to compliance ...

So, need a cool marketing slogan BUT hate "making compliance easy"?  Go for "Making Compliance Fun!" :-)

All posts on PCI - some are fun:-)

OnAir has so far tested their calling/texting-only service on two aircraft--one operated by Air France, one by TAP Portugal--even though RyanAir announced plans that its planes would started being unwired with the service by late 2007. Still no word on that fleet progress.

Qantas will apparently launch cached Web browsing and limited Web email (probably through a proxy) along with instant messaging, with full Internet service coming "later in 2009." This is clearly due to a lack of satellite coverage that was just remediated a few weeks ago (see below). The first plane with limited service, a new A380, should be in flight 20-October-2008.

The Morning Herald seems to overstate the importance and scope of a complaint filed by the union representing American Airlines' flight attendants. The detailed coverage in the U.S. had more to do with the potential for issues, and likely attendants lack of interest in policing yet another media on the plane. Filtering doesn't work, the attendants probably already know, and this may just be a negotiating point with the airline.

On why Qantas is waiting until late 2009? This requires unwinding how OnAir gets its signal.

Aeromobile and OnAir both rely on Inmarsat satellites for their service. Both companies had several years ago staked their futures on the fourth-generation network Inmarsat was to inaugurate with three satellites that would use beamforming to allow precise delivery of nearly 500 Kbps per receiver, with hundreds or thousands of regions being able to be targeted from a single satellite. Inmarsat's third-gen network--don't confuse this with 3G cellular ground-based networks--can deliver about 64 Kbps per channel.

Now, unfortunately, Inmarsat was three years late on launching its trans-Pacific bird. While the company claims 85 percent coverage of the earth and 98 percent coverage of population, there's a big gap over the Pacific that also prevents them from having good overlap between the U.S. and Japan/China/Korea, as well as the southern Pacific, covering Australia. Since the biggest market for long-haul flights would likely be Australia, Japan, and China, traveling trans-Pacific or trans-hemispheric routes, that gap is rather large.

Aeromobile opted to build out a service, deployed only by Emirates airline as far as I can tell, that uses the 3G service since it was available, and most necessary equipment is already installed on most over-water planes. OnAir was waiting for 4G, which has necessitated a long wait, but allowed them to launch in Europe with a seemingly next-generation service. Given that OnAir is controlled by an airline-owned integration firm, SITA, and by Airbus, they're not going anywhere.

Inmarsat finally lofted its third satellite on Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan on 19-August-2008, and the launch and separation was reported as successful. Previously, the company has needed up to a year to verify and deploy its 4G satellites. (You can read extremely close coverage of the launch at a Web site devoted to space enthusiasm.)

However, the dirty little secret about Inmarsat's BGAN is that it costs a fortune to heft bandwidth across it. Thus, in-flight broadband over BGAN, if it's ever available, is going to be changed on an extremely high per-MB rate. None of the providers want to say this. This is in contrast to Row 44 (and, once, Connexion by Boeing), which relies on leased Ku-band transponders where they can fix costs and they require high volumes to keep per-bit costs efffectively low.

OnAir's launch of calling on Air France's service involves paying a few euros per minute for calls, which might help you understand what data costs could ultimately run.

In any case, if you do pentests, think about all the RECENT cases where you break in to a major corporation through:

• a Solaris system with Internet-exposed telnet with a guessable password OR a telnet vulnerability (circa 1994!)
• an exposed VPN appliance with a manufacturer's administrator password
• a router with default "enable" password
• or, something else entirely - but something that rivals the above example in its unparalleled, unbelievable, abysmal, deep idiocy.

Indeed, many of my pentesting friends still report plenty of such cases (one was also featured in the presentation mentioned above). Whenever I hear about it from a pentester, I always ask:

Do you think "somebody bad" had already passed through the hole you just discovered?

Maybe an hour ago, a day ago - or a year ago?!

I cannot see how the answer can be "no."

Even though pentesters usually don't focus on forensics (no time for this), it is not uncommon to notice "your predecessor's" intrusion traces while you break through systems, "plant flags", change screen backgrounds [for the admins to notice that you've been there...], etc.

Let's think what this situation really means? Here are the choices I see:

1. Nobody discovered the hole - a law of large  numbers (aka "dumb luck") have "shielded" the company from an incident. Yes, Virginia, dumb luck IS a security strategy for some companies... AND it works for them.
2. It was discovered, but not used/abused by the attacker - maybe he was busy hacking other systems, or saved this for later and never came back due to his ADD. Congratulation, you win! The immense power of dumb luck wrapped you in a protective "security" blanket ... again :-)
3. It was discovered; the attacker went in, looked around and compromised a few others systems, but found nothing of interest (no low hanging fruits)  - and he was not a bot herder. Again, you win. Next time you are in Vegas, bet on "00."
4. It was discovered; the attacker went in and deployed a bot on "your" system - given how many botnets are there, this situation is clearly acceptable to many organizations. In this case, dumb luck strategy, apparently, still work: so they use your box to spam and phish somebody else ... big deal!
5. It was discovered; the attacker went in and stole all your credit card information (it is now for sale) - even in this case, the user of "the dumb luck strategy" still "wins" (in some perverse sense)! Unless and until the stolen information IS tracked back to you OR a friendly neighborhood PCI auditor come and jams a broomstick up your ..., you can still continue to be stupid at your leisure and ignore basic security practices.
6. It was discovered; the attacker went in and stole your CEO's Inbox, including the email related to his affair (it is now on CNN) - now, in this case, you lose AND it is time to stop being stupid! Welcome to the "0wned world." Time to launch (relaunch?) your security program and get serious.

What does this teach us about RISK? The lesson here is important:

• For a security professional, an Internet-exposed system with "root/root" is an obvious HUGE risk!
• For your boss's boss's boss, it is NOT!

This is exactly why I think that the most critical problem in security today is METRICS. Metrics that a) work AND mean something to decision makers and b) can be clearly communicated to said decision makers [BTW, a) and b) are two separate problems.] Metrics that cover not only threats and vulnerabilities we face, but also the effectiveness of security countermeasures we deploy. Metrics you can act on - and ones your boss (and his boss) will act on. Metrics that lead to correct decisions about which risks to accept, which to  mitigate (all while knowing with what efficiency such mitigation occurs) and which to transfer.

Until that time, the dreaded "C-word" (compliance) will trump "the other C-word" (common sense) as a driver for security ... and we will continue to live in the "0wned world."

Possibly related posts:

• Risk vs Risk