For one thing, the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Internet, Courts and IP will be losing its control over IP Law, which will be handled at the full House level in the future:

According to a committee aide who spoke with Ars on background, the decision was driven by simple numbers: as interest in IP issues has grown in recent years, so has the SCIIP. Handling them at the full committee level allows all the members to get their fingers in the pie. The swap also recognizes the complexity of legislation affecting IP, and avoids the need to get half the Judiciary Committee caught up with the subcommittee’s discussions.

Instead the Subcommittee will reign over anti-trust issues–some fear that this will be a victory for content holders, while other experts argue the fears are unfounded.

What other changes are in the works, and who will play the largest role in determining the future of technology law? Well, if you have some ideas, you can nominate yourself or other people for Ars Technica’s “People to Watch” list.

Last week I participated in a “press tour” talking to press and analysts about the evolution of the SDL. Most of our past discussions with press and analysts have centered on folks who follow security, but this time we also spoke with publications and analysts who write for software development organizations.  I was struck by the extent to which the folks who focus on development have been grappling with many of the issues about developing secure software that we’ve focused on here at Microsoft.

Security beat reporters, whom we have been working with for years, have been exposed to a regular stream of news on the latest bugs, worms and viruses, and Microsoft’s ability to react quickly to customers affected by those attacks with patches has been the industry story for many years.  Last week, I had an opportunity to get out and tell the other side of the story – what we are doing proactively as a major software vendor and platform provider to help eliminate vulnerabilities during the development process.  Based on feedback from reporters and analysts who know this space, our work to take Microsoft’s SDL best practices and share them externally has clearly been a need in the industry for a long time. 

The specific occasion that motivated me to spend a week in conference rooms, airplanes and hotel rooms was today’s announcement of new initiatives in sharing aspects of the SDL with the development community.  These initiatives don’t make secure development a “cut and dried” process, but I believe they will take things one step further toward enabling developers to build more secure software.  I’d encourage you to look at our announcements.  I’m really excited that we’re taking these new steps to share more of our secure development practices and tools with developers who need them.

As always, we’d welcome your feedback about these new programs and what we should do next.

1. Our brilliant field engineer Dimitri McKay talks about the eternal topic of converting Windows event logs to syslog. Yes, Eric, we ALL know it is ugly, but that is the only way that actually works well across all systems ...
2. More on Windows and syslog: "Syslog ... 20 Years Later."  BTW, this is really not about syslog, but about Vista/2k8 finally getting an ability to natively centralize the event logs via event subscriptions ("It's only about twenty years behind schedule, if you're counting.")
3. Two fun pieces on correlation: 1 and 2. What often kills "a log correlation project"? "Whoever had worked on it had not had much time available to learn the way to properly configure the software" (from this)  and "correlation only really works when backed up by real data about what is the biggest problem in your environment, and how that problem manifests itself in the event logs." (from this) None of this is new, but a useful reminder nonetheless
4. Fun LogLogic podcast is here. The topic of this high-level discussion (CEO) is related to operational use for logs. I did one with them too; on logs and virtualization (will be up soon)
5. A couple of good posts on logging from Nemertes Research: "Sharpening Stones and Walking on Coals",  "Search or Destroy"
6. Reminder about a few useful Windows Vista and 2k8 events: 4802 (screensaver engaged) and 4803 (screensaver dismissed)
7. One person is wondering about the usefulness of logging after "experiencing" Linux auditd logging (kernel audit): "Logs are like a warm blanket; verbose logging means you can know what's happening on your systems if you keep up with the logs.  At the same time, logs become a burden very very easily, and they are easy to ignore." This post is a must read for us logging afficionados; producing too much log data is a sure way to make people hate you...
8. This also follows the same theme: people doubting the god-like power of logs :-) "So for an administrator to not care about logs was a shock." But would I argue that "log management is NOT a pain?" Now, would I? :-)
9. A classic about logging for application developers: "Building Secure Applications: Consistent Logging."  I am noticing a lot more discussions about logging in a developer community, e.g. see this and this (the latter, BTW, contains a lot of info on "why log" for developers). Overall, "getting logging right" is important (and will get more important in the future) and people need something NOW and cannot wait for the standards.  BTW, I am planning a mini-crusade on how to train application developers to include useful logging in their applications...
10. Finally, the "Is SIEM dead?" theme is continued in this fun post "Life after SIEM. Situational Awareness is next." Indeed, context is key for logs. BTW, if somebody mentions that I have "vendor bias", I will kick your ass! :-)

Enjoy!

We write to express our firm belief that research on security vulnerabilities, and the sensible publication of the results of the research, are critical for scientific advancement, public safety and a robust market for secure technologies. Generally speaking, the norm in our field is that researchers take reasonable steps to protect the individuals using the systems studied. We understand that the student researchers took such steps with regard to their research, notably by planning not to present a critical element of a flaw they found. They did this so that their audience would be unable to exploit the security flaws they uncovered. . . .

The restraining order at issue in this case also fosters a dangerous information imbalance. In this case, for example, it allows the vendors of the technology and the MBTA to claim greater efficacy and security than their products warrant, then use the law to silence those who would reveal the technologies’ flaws. In this case, the law gives the public a false sense of security, achieved through law, not technical effectiveness. Preventing researchers from discussing a technology’s vulnerabilities does not make them go away - in fact, it may exacerbate them as more people and institutions use and come to rely upon the illusory protection. Yet the commercial purveyors of such technologies often do not want truthful discussions of their products’ flaws, and will likely withhold the prior approval or deny researchers access for testing if the law supports that effort. . . .

Yet at the same time that researchers need to act responsibly, vendors should not be granted complete control of the publication of such information, as it appears MBTA sought here. As noted above, vendors and users of such technologies often have an incentive to hide the flaws in the system rather than come clean with the public and take the steps necessary to remedy them. Thus, while researchers often refrain from publishing the technical details necessary to exploit the flaw, a legal ban on discussion of security flaws, such as that contained in the temporary restraining order, is especially troubling.

It will be interesting to see what arguments the MBTA uses to keep the students from speaking on a topic where all the important vulnerability information seems to have already disclosed. Sure the students haven’t presented a cookbook exploit tool but they have also stated they have no intention of doing so.

Perhaps the court will investigate what the MBTA’s and their technology vendors response has been to the MiFare card vulnerabilities that were disclosed responsibly. If there has been no vigorous response to responsibly disclosed vulnerabilities of many months ago how can they say with a straight face that are truly responding to new security information and just need more time.

We write to express our firm belief that research on security vulnerabilities, and the sensible publication of the results of the research, are critical for scientific advancement, public safety and a robust market for secure technologies. Generally speaking, the norm in our field is that researchers take reasonable steps to protect the individuals using the systems studied. We understand that the student researchers took such steps with regard to their research, notably by planning not to present a critical element of a flaw they found. They did this so that their audience would be unable to exploit the security flaws they uncovered. . . .

The restraining order at issue in this case also fosters a dangerous information imbalance. In this case, for example, it allows the vendors of the technology and the MBTA to claim greater efficacy and security than their products warrant, then use the law to silence those who would reveal the technologies’ flaws. In this case, the law gives the public a false sense of security, achieved through law, not technical effectiveness. Preventing researchers from discussing a technology’s vulnerabilities does not make them go away - in fact, it may exacerbate them as more people and institutions use and come to rely upon the illusory protection. Yet the commercial purveyors of such technologies often do not want truthful discussions of their products’ flaws, and will likely withhold the prior approval or deny researchers access for testing if the law supports that effort. . . .

Yet at the same time that researchers need to act responsibly, vendors should not be granted complete control of the publication of such information, as it appears MBTA sought here. As noted above, vendors and users of such technologies often have an incentive to hide the flaws in the system rather than come clean with the public and take the steps necessary to remedy them. Thus, while researchers often refrain from publishing the technical details necessary to exploit the flaw, a legal ban on discussion of security flaws, such as that contained in the temporary restraining order, is especially troubling.

It will be interesting to see what arguments the MBTA uses to keep the students from speaking on a topic where all the important vulnerability information seems to have already disclosed. Sure the students haven’t presented a cookbook exploit tool but they have also stated they have no intention of doing so.

Perhaps the court will investigate what the MBTA’s and their technology vendors response has been to the MiFare card vulnerabilities that were disclosed responsibly. If there has been no vigorous response to responsibly disclosed vulnerabilities of many months ago how can they say with a straight face that are truly responding to new security information and just need more time.

Today, allow me to update you on FAIR and the movement towards a formal, open standard.  There’s a couple of cool things going on in our little risk-world.

First, The Open Group Security Forum continues to move towards a formal adoption of FAIR.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN “WE” - YOU GOT A STANDARDS BODY IN YOUR POCKET OR SOMETHING?

Our meeting in Chicago a few weeks ago was great, but also slightly disturbing for me. I got pronoun-confusion syndrome.   I’m used to using the “we” pronoun to refer to RMI, or Jack and myself as we vet the models.  So without even thinking I would said “we have been looking at how loss occurs, and may want to change the model some” and The Open Group Members freaked out (rightfully so).  Adrian Seccombe gently reminded me that the “we” was now the Security Forum, and that “we” didn’t go changing things at will without vetting against each other.  Man I love this stuff.  I get to run our thoughts and ideas past some great folks now - you know, those smart people who tend to have really complex problems and are trying hard to solve them.

Formal Adoption:  Soon, Very Soon Now

Formal Adoption basically means we’ve made this document, everyone is close to saying that they generally like it, and once that finally happens then “bam”, we’re ready to move onward and upward with better things (see Cookbooks, below).  We’ve got a couple of changes to the current document that have been requested that aren’t a big deal.  For example, one request is that we make some statement about general applicability of FAIR to risk domains outside of the IT realm.   But once additions like that and others are done, this long process should be complete.

New Document Moving Towards Public Release:

We’ve got a basic document that should be public in the next few weeks on “What Makes a Good Risk Assessment Methodology” - written by yours truly and Jack.  It’s a very high-level document, and serves two purposes:

• For novices it helps parse out what is important in any undertaking to understand corporate risk (the repeated discussions on the ISO 27001 mailing list make me think it would be a place ripe for such a document).
• For those who “know” risk, it helps to re-establish some fundamental principles like the use of scales (ratio, please), the implications of dealing in probabilities, what attributes like consistency and defensibility mean, how “risk” should be reported to the business (something you know, meaningful) and so on.

When this doc is deemed ready for public consumption I’ll be sure to post on this blog here.

COOKBOOKS, EUROPEAN AGENCIES, AND, IRON CHEF “RISK” - WHOSE CUISINE WILL REIGN SUPREME?

One interesting thing that came up in the Chicago meeting was that ENISA (The European Network and Information Security Agency) developed a very nice document that reviewed something like 18 different risk assessment methodologies against their Criteria for Goodness.  FAIR was one of the ones they reviewed, and we (the royal “we” used there to include all us FAIR-Folk) did awfully well.  Things of interest:

1. They based their work on the current introduction paper which is not at all a step-by-step guide towards an organizational risk assessment (what ENISA really wanted) and we did pretty well.  Well enough that if we had developed a paper along the lines of NIST 800-30 or OCTAVE for the use of FAIR in a formal process, we could have done really, really well.  Like won-the-bake-off kind of well.
2. FAIR is actually not at all incongruous to many of the risk assessment methodologies offered, and in fact compliments many of them by letting those methodologies develop real, structured probabilities.  Think OCTAVE, where they basically say “math is (probabilities are) hard, so if you want to do them for reals, good luck!  But here’s a nonsensical way to do things if you want to believe in magic-fairy risk“.  FAIR fits right in there by stomping on the magic-fairy risk with the jack-boots of rationality.  FAIR similarly helps other risk standards that might lack structured probability development.

So The Open Group Security Forum decided that though we could create a new document and totally p0wn any future ENISA bake-off, there wasn’t much demand for the development of that documentation by the membership  - a point which was made quite apparent at the beginning of the discussion when one large European company CISO asked “What’s ENISA?”  Relevancy is everything, I suppose.

But that second item up there - the one about helping rather than competing with other “risk assessment methodologies” - really struck a chord.  So “we” (The Security Forum) are going to develop some “Cookbooks” that basically are high-level documents that say “If you want to use FAIR with (OCTAVE/COSO/CoBIT/Whatever) here’s how it fits, makes it better, and improves your life.  I’m pretty excited about these, and our first document looks like it’s going to be COSO integration.

THE OPEN GROUP SECURITY FORUM - THEY’RE A TRUSTING BUNCH (WITH QUALIFICATION, OF COURSE)

Finally, many people have asked me “Why work with The Open Group?”  There are many reasons, to be sure, but I will give you one example.  Members of the Security Forum there are not only great at vetting the model and getting consensus on risk and risk factors - but they’re quick to start applying.  So in Chicago, I thought I’d be talking about FAIR and the standard and fighting groupthink.  Nope.  Not at all.  In fact, the forum members spent more time suddenly discussing use of FAIR in a new Trust Model they’re developing.  So all of the sudden, I’m part of a new and exciting project to develop a Trust Model - how cool is that?  While formal adoption of the Trust Model will be necessarily long and deliberate - the collaboration and development is happening much faster than I can keep up with.  But if you all will allow me, it will help me get my head around it all by blogging about it later this week.  So be prepared to read about me dealing in “Trust” a little bit.

“I have quite a few other concerns the with EPTS Member Agreement.   Basically, the agreement needs to be written with an eye toward a more flexible, open and inclusive process that puts the future of the EPTS square into the hands of the event processing community, not a small group of well intended folks who represent a small part of the overall event processing community and worldview.”

Opher’s reply was to just dismiss these comments, a bit surprising since I served the CEP/EP community on the EPTS steering committee; worked quite hard as a matter of fact, for a number of years.   Opher’s appreciation for the years of work is to just off-handly dismiss my comments.

Then in On faithfull representation and other comments and On Top Down and Bottom Up Opher does the same thing, he simply dismisses my comments, defensively, adding humor, sarcasm and fallacy.

I am sorry Opher is so defensive of his narrow society; however I will not yield, because I do not need to resort to sarcasm, fallacy and ad hominums; the facts obviously support my view.  For proof that Opher has a narrow view of event processing, go no further than look at the companies he hand-picked for his EPTS Steering Committee; most startups (or with startup products) in the event processing space, working on common messages to distinguish themselves in a market with much more mature players excluded - classic “not invented here,” isn’t it?

Opher’s claims the EPTS view on event processing is quite general, but the  majority of vendors on the EPTS Steering Committee members are selling similar platforms, a very narrow segment of the CEP/EP space.    Opher claims that he agrees that other domains (like sensor fusion) are significant to CEP/EP, but he simply dismisses my advice to create a true, general EPTS, inclusive of the prior-art and science of CEP/EP (before the marketing folks took over).  He insists on having the EPTS “reinvent the wheel” and develop their own vocabulary, as if event processing did not exist prior to one book on CEP.

Opher’s fun-to-read blog counterpoints to my concerns are evolving to a mixture of ad hominums and sarcasm, sometime wrapped in a defensive tone.   I think we can do better and we must be more inclusive of the other prior-art.  I say we, because I am also a founding member of the EPTS, althought I suspect Opher will banish my name from the membership for trying to diminish the “not invented here” attitude that seems to dominate the EPTS since inception.

The truth of the matter is that the EPTS has a relatively narrow view of event processing, evident by the makeup of the steering committee and the focus of their discussions.    It is not a technical society about event processing, per se; it is a marketing society with a narrowly focused membership that discounts most of the prior-art in the event processing space, it is really, an Event Processing Marketing Society (EPMS) for a narrow group of niche players.

The event processing domain is much, much larger.   The art-and-science of event processing is deep and mature, much more mature (and inclusive) than what we see in the EPTS. 

I think Opher (and the EPTS committee) should take these comments seriously and not discount them with sarcasm and subtle ad hominum replies.