It's not just terrorism; it's any rare risk in the news. The big fear in Canada right now, following a particularly gruesome incident, is random decapitations on intercity buses. In the US, fears of school shootings are much greater than the actual risks. In the UK, it's child predators. And people all over the world mistakenly fear flying more than driving. But the very definition of news is something that hardly ever happens. If an incident is in the news, we shouldn't worry about it. It's when something is so common that its no longer news - car crashes, domestic violence - that we should worry. But that's not the way people think.

Psychologically, this makes sense. We are a species of storytellers. We have good imaginations and we respond more emotionally to stories than to data. We also judge the probability of something by how easy it is to imagine, so stories that are in the news feel more probable - and ominous - than stories that are not. As a result, we overreact to the rare risks we hear stories about, and fear specific plots more than general threats.

The problem with building security around specific targets and tactics is that its only effective if we happen to guess the plot correctly. If we spend billions defending the Underground and terrorists bomb a school instead, we've wasted our money. If we focus on the World Cup and terrorists attack Wimbledon, we've wasted our money.

It's this fetish-like focus on tactics that results in the security follies at airports. We ban guns and knives, and terrorists use box-cutters. We take away box-cutters and corkscrews, so they put explosives in their shoes. We screen shoes, so they use liquids. We take away liquids, and they're going to do something else. Or they'll ignore airplanes entirely and attack a school, church, theatre, stadium, shopping mall, airport terminal outside the security area, or any of the other places where people pack together tightly.

These are stupid games, so let's stop playing. Some high-profile targets deserve special attention and some tactics are worse than others. Airplanes are particularly important targets because they are national symbols and because a small bomb can kill everyone aboard. Seats of government are also symbolic, and therefore attractive, targets. But targets and tactics are interchangeable.

The following three things are true about terrorism. One, the number of potential terrorist targets is infinite. Two, the odds of the terrorists going after any one target is zero. And three, the cost to the terrorist of switching targets is zero.

We need to defend against the broad threat of terrorism, not against specific movie plots. Security is most effective when it doesn't require us to guess. We need to focus resources on intelligence and investigation: identifying terrorists, cutting off their funding and stopping them regardless of what their plans are. We need to focus resources on emergency response: lessening the impact of a terrorist attack, regardless of what it is. And we need to face the geopolitical consequences of our foreign policy.

In 2006, UK police arrested the liquid bombers not through diligent airport security, but through intelligence and investigation. It didn't matter what the bombers' target was. It didn't matter what their tactic was. They would have been arrested regardless. That's smart security. Now we confiscate liquids at airports, just in case another group happens to attack the exact same target in exactly the same way. That's just illogical.

This essay originally appeared in The Guardian. Nothing I haven't already said elsewhere.

Imagine you're in charge of infiltrating sleeper agents into the United States. The year is 1983, and the proliferation of identity databases is making it increasingly difficult to create fake credentials. Ten years ago, someone could have just shown up in the country and gotten a driver's license, Social Security card and bank account -- possibly using the identity of someone roughly the same age who died as a young child -- but it's getting harder. And you know that trend will only continue. So you decide to grow your own identities.

Call it "identity farming." You invent a handful of infants. You apply for Social Security numbers for them. Eventually, you open bank accounts for them, file tax returns for them, register them to vote, and apply for credit cards in their name. And now, 25 years later, you have a handful of identities ready and waiting for some real people to step into them.

There are some complications, of course. Maybe you need people to sign their name as parents -- or, at least, mothers. Maybe you need to doctors to fill out birth certificates. Maybe you need to fill out paperwork certifying that you're home-schooling these children. You'll certainly want to exercise their financial identity: depositing money into their bank accounts and withdrawing it from ATMs, using their credit cards and paying the bills, and so on. And you'll need to establish some sort of addresses for them, even if it is just a mail drop.

You won't be able to get driver's licenses or photo IDs on their name. That isn't critical, though; in the U.S., more than 20 million adult citizens don't have photo IDs. But other than that, I can't think of any reason why identity farming wouldn't work.

Here's the real question: Do you actually have to show up for any part of your life?

Again, I made this all up. I have no evidence that anyone is actually doing this. It's not something a criminal organization is likely to do; twenty-five years is too distant a payoff horizon. The same logic holds true for terrorist organizations; it's not worth it. It might have been worth it to the KGB -- although perhaps harder to justify after the Soviet Union broke up in 1991 -- and might be an attractive option to existing intelligence adversaries like China.

Immortals could also use this trick to self-perpetuate themselves, inventing their own children and gradually assuming their identity, then killing their parents off. They could even show up for their own driver's license photos, wearing a beard as the father and blue spiked hair as the son. I’m told this is a common idea in Highlander fan fiction.

The point isn't to create another movie plot threat, but to point out the central role that data has taken on in our lives. Previously, I've said that we all have a data shadow that follows us around, and that more and more institutions interact with our data shadows instead of with us. We only intersect with our data shadows once in a while -- when we apply for a driver's license or passport, for example -- and those interactions are authenticated by older, less-secure interactions. The rest of the world assumes that our photo IDs glue us to our data shadows, ignoring the rather flimsy connection between us and our plastic cards. (And, no, REAL-ID won't help.)

It seems to me that our data shadows are becoming increasingly distinct from us, almost with a life of their own. What's important now is our shadows; we're secondary. And as our society relies more and more on these shadows, we might even become unnecessary.

Our data shadows can live a perfectly normal life without us.

---

Bruce Schneier is Chief Security Technology Officer of BT, and author of Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World.

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.

This new remote WiFi attack is particularly timely as a new indictment of 11 for ID theft of over 100 Million credit cards (watch video to see Veracode’s CEO) was handed down this week.  Guess how they got in?  They used War Driving to get on insecure internal WiFi networks and then used the internal access to install sniffing software.  The attackers were mostly from foriegn countries and the companies attacked in the US.  So at some point someone must have been in the country to physically scan the networks. 

David Maynor’s WarShipping trick solves this “need to be there” problem  to do wireless attacks.  Why travel and risk being physically apprehended when you can just mail a package with a WiFi and WAN enabled device and just hack remotely? 

We will have to see how insecure these businesses that need to be PCI compliant are now that this massive WiFi attack has been made public.  I find it takes a widely publicized attack of your organization or a close peer to actually get many security problems fixed.  I bet some retailer’s IT departments started scambling after this was made public.

Attackers like to keep updating their methods just ahead of compliance requirements.  Sometimes I think that becoming compliant is protecting yourself from last year’s attack due to the lag time between attacks becoming prevelant, compliance standards changing, and then organizations making security updates to meet complaince.

With application security we may already be a little behind.  PCI requirement 6.6 kicked in June 2008 and requires organizations handling credit card data to audit their applications for the vulnerability classes outlined in OWASP Top Ten 2004 (yes, note the lag time).  I fear a 100 Million ID theft scale compromise is still looming using application security attacks.

This new remote WiFi attack is particularly timely as a new indictment of 11 for ID theft of over 100 Million credit cards (watch video to see Veracode’s CEO) was handed down this week. Guess how they got in? They used War Driving to get on insecure internal WiFi networks and then used the internal access to install sniffing software. The attackers were mostly from foriegn countries and the companies attacked in the US. So at some point someone must have been in the country to physically scan the networks.

David Maynor’s WarShipping trick solves this “need to be there” problem to do wireless attacks. Why travel and risk being physically apprehended when you can just mail a package with a WiFi and WAN enabled device and just hack remotely?

We will have to see how insecure these businesses that need to be PCI compliant are now that this massive WiFi attack has been made public. I find it takes a widely publicized attack of your organization or a close peer to actually get many security problems fixed. I bet some retailer’s IT departments started scambling after this was made public.

Attackers like to keep updating their methods just ahead of compliance requirements. Sometimes I think that becoming compliant is protecting yourself from last year’s attack due to the lag time between attacks becoming prevelant, compliance standards changing, and then organizations making security updates to meet complaince.

With application security we may already be a little behind. PCI requirement 6.6 kicked in June 2008 and requires organizations handling credit card data to audit their applications for the vulnerability classes outlined in OWASP Top Ten 2004 (yes, note the lag time). I fear a 100 Million ID theft scale compromise is still looming using application security attacks.

It's basically what you would expect: Appoint a national cyber security advisor, invest in math and science education, establish standards for critical infrastructure, spend money on enforcement, establish national standards for securing personal data and data-breach disclosure, and work with industry and academia to develop a bunch of needed technologies.

I could comment on the plan, but with security the devil is always in the details -- and, of course, at this point there are few details. But since he brought up the topic -- McCain supposedly is "working on the issues" as well -- I have three pieces of policy advice for the next president, whoever he is. They're too detailed for campaign speeches or even position papers, but they're essential for improving information security in our society. Actually, they apply to national security in general. And they're things only government can do.

One, use your immense buying power to improve the security of commercial products and services. One property of technological products is that most of the cost is in the development of the product rather than the production. Think software: The first copy costs millions, but the second copy is free.

You have to secure your own government networks, military and civilian. You have to buy computers for all your government employees. Consolidate those contracts, and start putting explicit security requirements into the RFPs. You have the buying power to get your vendors to make serious security improvements in the products and services they sell to the government, and then we all benefit because they'll include those improvements in the same products and services they sell to the rest of us. We're all safer if information technology is more secure, even though the bad guys can use it, too.

Two, legislate results and not methodologies. There are a lot of areas in security where you need to pass laws, where the security externalities are such that the market fails to provide adequate security. For example, software companies who sell insecure products are exploiting an externality just as much as chemical plants that dump waste into the river. But a bad law is worse than no law. A law requiring companies to secure personal data is good; a law specifying what technologies they should use to do so is not. Mandating software liabilities for software failures is good, detailing how is not. Legislate for the results you want and implement the appropriate penalties; let the market figure out how -- that's what markets are good at.

Three, broadly invest in research. Basic research is risky; it doesn't always pay off. That's why companies have stopped funding it. Bell Labs is gone because nobody could afford it after the AT&T breakup, but the root cause was a desire for higher efficiency and short-term profitability -- not unreasonable in an unregulated business. Government research can be used to balance that by funding long-term research.

Spread those research dollars wide. Lately, most research money has been redirected through DARPA to near-term military-related projects; that's not good. Keep the earmark-happy Congress from dictating (.pdf) how the money is spent. Let the NSF, NIH and other funding agencies decide how to spend the money and don't try to micromanage. Give the national laboratories lots of freedom, too. Yes, some research will sound silly to a layman. But you can't predict what will be useful for what, and if funding is really peer-reviewed, the average results will be much better. Compared to corporate tax breaks and other subsidies, this is chump change.

If our research capability is to remain vibrant, we need more science and math students with decent elementary and high school preparation. The declining interest is partly from the perception that scientists don't get rich like lawyers and dentists and stockbrokers, but also because science isn't valued in a country full of creationists. One way the president can help is by trusting scientific advisers and not overruling them for political reasons.

Oh, and get rid of those post-9/11 restrictions on student visas that are causing (.pdf) so many top students to do their graduate work in Canada, Europe and Asia instead of in the United States. Those restrictions will hurt us (.pdf) immensely in the long run.

Those are the three big ones; the rest is in the details. And it's the details that matter. There are lots of serious issues that you're going to have to tackle: data privacy, data sharing, data mining, government eavesdropping, government databases, use of Social Security numbers as identifiers, and so on. It's not enough to get the broad policy goals right. You can have good intentions and enact a good law, and have the whole thing completely gutted by two sentences sneaked in during rulemaking by some lobbyist.

Security is both subtle and complex, and -- unfortunately -- it doesn't readily lend itself to normal legislative processes. You're used to finding consensus, but security by consensus rarely works. On the internet, security standards are much worse when they're developed by a consensus body, and much better when someone just does them. This doesn't always work -- a lot of crap security has come from companies that have "just done it" -- but nothing but mediocre standards come from consensus bodies. The point is that you won't get good security without pissing someone off: The information broker industry, the voting machine industry, the telcos. The normal legislative process makes it hard to get security right, which is why I don't have much optimism about what you can get done.

And if you're going to appoint a cyber security czar, you have to give him actual budgetary authority -- otherwise he won't be able to get anything done, either.

---

Bruce Schneier is chief security technology officer of BT, and author of Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World.

I also came across this tidbit online — the government has granted themselves the right to take any traveler’s laptops away on international flights, even if they have no reason for suspicion. Apparently this has been in place a while but they’re finally publicizing it.

Federal agents may take a traveler’s laptop computer or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed.

Also, officials may share copies of the laptop’s contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Read the full article here.

First, let me disclose something - my frantic efforts with the Paint allow me to proudly proclaim: I am a certified, trusted "Good Guy":

Good guys, let me tell you, do not need any controls placed on them; they are "trusted." Don't you have to trust somebody? Why not trust a sysadmin, for example?

So, what about controls? Ah, glad that you asked! "Controls" are for the bad guys; they are in place to prevent the bad guys from doing "an unspeakable evil" (tm) :-) on you. On the other hand, good guys are doing "the right thing" every time - why monitor them? It goes without saying that nobody ever moves between these groups, especially, not from "good guys" to "bad guys."

As I am rambling about this, many of my security-minded readers are wondering "what is Anton up to? Isn't it kind of OBVIOUS that controls are for everybody?" Controls know no good/bad! For example, a network control, say a NIPS, will block malicious web access due to a typo in a URL (by - gasp! - a good guy) or due to determined malicious hacking.

I think a few of my readers have watched one too many "Batman" movies and have acquired the dark side of the "IT hero" mentality." How about getting an "IT employee" mentality? If your boss is an idiot (and Terry's managers definitely seem pretty far gone in that direction...), than your "heroic duty" is to let them impale themselves on a sword of their idiocy, not to commit crimes (even if cybercrimes) to prevent that idiocy. Really, go find another job if you do not like the environment; good admins are needed in many places. For example, if your boss insists on posting all VPN passwords for all users publicly out of his sheer and unfathomable stupidity, it is your duty to tell him that it is "a very bad idea" - and not to change all passwords and not let him see it. "Doing you job" despite your boss and despite the law just doesn't work...

In other words, I want a banker making policy decisions at a bank, not a sysadmin. If a banker makes a wrong decision, his will suffer. If he is an idiot, he will most likely make the wrong decision. However, it is NOT the admin's decision to make - he does not "own" the business.  BTW, the fact that it is a city, not a bank, and it is taxpayer funded, does not change it.

Am I "anti-admin" for saying that admins should not run the business?  Am I "anti-admin" for saying controls (at least logging/auditing) on administrator activities are needed?  You call it "anti-admin", I call it common sense!!  Pray tell me, what makes admins float above accountability, control and  IT governance?

Please also read what Randy Smith said about this issue; a lot of good thoughts that I agree with.

Now I would like to respond to specific comments from my readers:

"What rankles your readers is how blithely you imply this problem has a simple or effective solution. It doesn't, all the processes or tools you advocate can do is speed up the time it takes to detect the lock-out, but not actually prevent it - i.e. they are ineffective at tackling the primary problem."

That is correct; the rogue admin problem has NO simple solution. You might prevent some (few, really) things, you might log some of them and then figure what happened, but there is no simple solution (it goes without saying that "just trust them" is NOT a solution...)

"We all know companies run without sane risk management all the time and are rarely held accountable in America. What makes you think anyone is "screwed"?"

Well, this is a good point; maybe I let my idealistic side take over. But, come on, just the fact that bad IT governance is somewhat common, doesn't make it right!

"Now ask yourself who is "screwed" by one person at a small company having all access and no accountability on a network. That's how I run my home network. Big deal."

Nobody is. I addressed it here. The risk is acceptable for smaller environments, usually. I don't have an overseeing body set up to control my home passwords :-)

"You seem to forget that sometimes the management just has to trust somebody. "

Addressed above.

"Chuvakin, you're a tool. Given the recent idiocy of the releasing of the VPN names and codes, it obviously shows that any sort of detest that Childs had against his superiors at the city were justified."

The fact that his bosses are idiots (which seems fairly well established!) does not make him right!

Bad boss + admin out of control =/= right :-)

"This is not a private organization. His superiors don't own the company and are NOT entitled to the data. We are, the taxpayers. And as a California taxpayer I fully support someone with the paranoia and technical skill of Terry Childs over a group of bureaucrats who release secure information to the public."

Properly evaluating this statement requires a law degree. Thus, no comment. Bureaucrats suck, but rogue admins are not a solution to that. Really!

"The guy was doing his job and doing it incredibly well, and keeping it out of the hands of those who, given their most recent choices, would bring potential disaster to the city."

He was NOT, unless crime is part of his job :-) Also, see comments on "IT heroes" above. If your boss is an idiot AND you don't like it, quit.

"Anton Chuvakin seems to think that all admins should be kept underneath management's boot at all times. [...]  Managers can't and don't understand what we do, and thus eventually come to the conclusion that we can't be trusted with our own knowledge. [...] Perhaps it's human nature to fear what you don't know or understand -- and that's why management can develop a fear of their own employees."

You say 'fear of employees', I say "insider risk management." You say "trust employees", I say "trust but [be able to] verify (=log)"

"his blog leads the casual reader to infer that their businesses are in danger of being hijacked by disgruntled Sys Admins and that isn’t the case." (from here)

Eh, not all businesses, but some businesses - definitely (hmm, see Terry Childs story or other published insider attack cases, all the way back to Omega Engineering case and maybe all the way back to ancient history)

"I despise people like Terry Childs, but despise Chicken Little’s like Anton Chuvakin even more." (from here)

You say  I am 'chicken little', I say "if your boss ignores insider risk management, he is stupid and deserves his business to fail."  I also add "if you think admins are 'above the law', you have a good chance of 'turning rogue' yourself AND then ending in jail."

Finally, this and my other posts about the case are inspired by on the media reporting; I possess no "insider knowledge" on this case  whatsoever.

Possibly related posts:

• "On Doomsaying (Terry Childs case)"
• "So ... Am I? Maybe I Am!"

The details of the vulnerability aren't important, but basically it's a form of DNS cache poisoning. The DNS system is what translates domain names people understand, like www.schneier.com, to IP addresses computers understand: 204.11.246.1. There is a whole family of vulnerabilities where the DNS system on your computer is fooled into thinking that the IP address for www.badsite.com is really the IP address for www.goodsite.com -- there's no way for you to tell the difference -- and that allows the criminals at www.badsite.com to trick you into doing all sorts of things, like giving up your bank account details. Kaminsky discovered a particularly nasty variant of this cache-poisoning attack.

Here's the way the timeline was supposed to work: Kaminsky discovered the vulnerability about six months ago, and quietly worked with vendors to patch it. (There's a fairly straightforward fix, although the implementation nuances are complicated.) Of course, this meant describing the vulnerability to them; why would companies like Microsoft and Cisco believe him otherwise? On July 8, he held a press conference to announce the vulnerability -- but not the details -- and reveal that a patch was available from a long list of vendors. We would all have a month to patch, and Kaminsky would release details of the vulnerability at the BlackHat conference early next month.

Of course, the details leaked. How isn't important; it could have leaked a zillion different ways. Too many people knew about it for it to remain secret. Others who knew the general idea were too smart not to speculate on the details. I'm kind of amazed the details remained secret for this long; undoubtedly it had leaked into the underground community before the public leak two days ago. So now everyone who back-burnered the problem is rushing to patch, while the hacker community is racing to produce working exploits.

What's the moral here? It's easy to condemn Kaminsky: If he had shut up about the problem, we wouldn't be in this mess. But that's just wrong. Kaminsky found the vulnerability by accident. There's no reason to believe he was the first one to find it, and it's ridiculous to believe he would be the last. Don't shoot the messenger. The problem is with the DNS protocol; it's insecure.

The real lesson is that the patch treadmill doesn't work, and it hasn't for years. This cycle of finding security holes and rushing to patch them before the bad guys exploit those vulnerabilities is expensive, inefficient and incomplete. We need to design security into our systems right from the beginning. We need assurance. We need security engineers involved in system design. This process won't prevent every vulnerability, but it's much more secure -- and cheaper -- than the patch treadmill we're all on now.

What a security engineer brings to the problem is a particular mindset. He thinks about systems from a security perspective. It's not that he discovers all possible attacks before the bad guys do; it's more that he anticipates potential types of attacks, and defends against them even if he doesn't know their details. I see this all the time in good cryptographic designs. It's over-engineering based on intuition, but if the security engineer has good intuition, it generally works.

Kaminsky's vulnerability is a perfect example of this. Years ago, cryptographer Daniel J. Bernstein looked at DNS security and decided that Source Port Randomization was a smart design choice. That's exactly the work-around being rolled out now following Kaminsky's discovery. Bernstein didn't discover Kaminsky's attack; instead, he saw a general class of attacks and realized that this enhancement could protect against them. Consequently, the DNS program he wrote in 2000, djbdns, doesn't need to be patched; it's already immune to Kaminsky's attack.

That's what a good design looks like. It's not just secure against known attacks; it's also secure against unknown attacks. We need more of this, not just on the internet but in voting machines, ID cards, transportation payment cards ... everywhere. Stop assuming that systems are secure unless demonstrated insecure; start assuming that systems are insecure unless designed securely.

---

Bruce Schneier is chief security technology officer of BT, and author of Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World.

With all this talk and reporting about security concerns, lets change the channel for a moment and assess the potential security benefits of Cloud Computing.

In my view, there are some strong technical security arguments in favour of Cloud Computing - assuming we can find ways to manage the risks.

With this new paradigm come challenges and opportunities.  The challenges are getting plenty of attention - I’m regularly afforded the opportunity to comment on them, plus obviously I cover them on this blog.  However, lets not lose sight of the potential upside.

In this post, I walk through seven technical security benefits.  Some are immediate, others may arise over time and have conditions attached (some unstated for the sake of brevity).  However, I’m including the longer-range benefits now to raise awareness.  Some of the outcomes listed are available today without the Cloud, but they are either complex and slow to implement (and thus less likely to happen) or prohibitive for capital cost reasons.  I don’t claim this is a definitive list - it reflects where my thinking is today.

Some benefits depend on the Cloud service used and therefore do not apply across the board.  For example; I see no solid forensic benefits with SaaS.  Also, for space reasons, I’m purposely not including the ‘flip side’ to these benefits, however if you read this blog regularly you should recognise some.

On a sidenote, I believe the Cloud offers Small and Medium Businesses major potential security benefits.  Frequently SMBs struggle with limited or non-existent in-house INFOSEC resources and budgets.  The caveat is that the Cloud market is still very new - security offerings are somewhat foggy - making selection tricky.  Clearly, not all Cloud providers will offer the same security.

Seven Technical Security Benefits of the Cloud

1. Centralised Data

• Reduced Data Leakage: this is the benefit I hear most from Cloud providers - and in my view they are right.  How many laptops do we need to lose before we get this?  How many backup tapes?  The data “landmines” of today could be greatly reduced by the Cloud as thin client technology becomes prevalent.  Small, temporary caches on handheld devices or Netbook computers pose less risk than transporting data buckets in the form of laptops.  Ask the CISO of any large company if all laptops have company ‘mandated’ controls consistently applied; e.g. full disk encryption.  You’ll see the answer by looking at the whites of their eyes.  Despite best efforts around asset management and endpoint security we continue to see embarrassing and disturbing misses.  And what about SMBs?  How many use encryption for sensitive data, or even have a data classification policy in place?
• Monitoring benefits: central storage is easier to control and monitor.  The flipside is the nightmare scenario of comprehensive data theft.  However, I would rather spend my time as a security professional figuring out smart ways to protect and monitor access to data stored in one place (with the benefit of situational advantage) than trying to figure out all the places where the company data resides across a myriad of thick clients!  You can get the benefits of Thin Clients today but Cloud Storage provides a way to centralise the data faster and potentially cheaper.  The logistical challenge today is getting Terabytes of data to the Cloud in the first place.

2. Incident Response / Forensics

• Forensic readiness: with Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) providers, I can build a dedicated forensic server in the same Cloud as my company and place it offline, ready for use when needed.  I would only need pay for storage until an incident happens and I need to bring it online.  I don’t need to call someone to bring it online or install some kind of remote boot software - I just click a button in the Cloud Providers web interface.  If I have multiple incident responders, I can give them a copy of the VM so we can distribute the forensic workload based on the job at hand or as new sources of evidence arise and need analysis.  To fully realise this benefit, commercial forensic software vendors would need to move away from archaic, physical dongle based licensing schemes to a network licensing model.
• Decrease evidence acquisition time: if a server in the Cloud gets compromised (i.e. broken into), I can now clone that server at the click of a mouse and make the cloned disks instantly available to my Cloud Forensics server.  I didn’t need to “find” storage or have it “ready, waiting and unused” - its just there.
• Eliminate or reduce service downtime: Note that in the above scenario I didn’t have to go tell the COO that the system needs to be taken offline for hours whilst I dig around in the RAID Array hoping that my physical acqusition toolkit is compatible (and that the version of RAID firmware isn’t supported by my forensic software).  Abstracting the hardware removes a barrier to even doing forensics in some situations.
• Decrease evidence transfer time: In the same Cloud, bit fot bit copies are super fast - made faster by that replicated, distributed filesystem my Cloud provider engineered for me.  From a network traffic perspective, it may even be free to make the copy in the same Cloud.  Without the Cloud, I would have to a lot of time consuming and expensive provisioning of physical devices.  I only pay for the storage as long as I need the evidence.
• Eliminate forensic image verification time: Some Cloud Storage implementations expose a cryptographic checksum or hash.  For example, Amazon S3 generates an MD5 hash automagically when you store an object.  In theory you no longer need to generate time-consuming MD5 checksums using external tools - its already there.
• Decrease time to access protected documents: Immense CPU power opens some doors.  Did the suspect password protect a document that is relevant to the investigation?  You can now test a wider range of candidate passwords in less time to speed investigations.

3. Password assurance testing (aka cracking)

• Decrease password cracking time: if your organisation regularly tests password strength by running password crackers you can use Cloud Compute to decrease crack time and you only pay for what you use.  Ironically, your cracking costs go up as people choose better passwords ;-).
• Keep cracking activities to dedicated machines: if today you use a distributed password cracker to spread the load across non-production machines, you can now put those agents in dedicated Compute instances - and thus stop mixing sensitive credentials with other workloads.

4. Logging

• “Unlimited”, pay per drink storage: logging is often an afterthought, consequently insufficient disk space is allocated and logging is either non-existant or minimal.  Cloud Storage changes all this - no more ‘guessing’ how much storage you need for standard logs.
• Improve log indexing and search: with your logs in the Cloud you can leverage Cloud Compute to index those logs in real-time and get the benefit of instant search results. What is different here?  The Compute instances can be plumbed in and scale as needed based on the logging load - meaning a true real-time view.
• Getting compliant with Extended logging: most modern operating systems offer extended logging in the form of a C2 audit trail.  This is rarely enabled for fear of performance degradation and log size.  Now you can ‘opt-in’ easily - if you are willing to pay for the enhanced logging, you can do so.  Granular logging makes compliance and investigations easier.

5. Improve the state of security software (performance)

• Drive vendors to create more efficient security software: Billable CPU cycles get noticed.  More attention will be paid to inefficient processes; e.g. poorly tuned security agents.  Process accounting will make a comeback as customers target ‘expensive’ processes.  Security vendors that understand how to squeeze the most performance from their software will win.

6. Secure builds

• Pre-hardened, change control builds: this is primarily a benefit of virtualization based Cloud Computing.  Now you get a chance to start ’secure’ (by your own definition) - you create your Gold Image VM and clone away.  There are ways to do this today with bare-metal OS installs but frequently these require additional 3rd party tools, are time consuming to clone or add yet another agent to each endpoint.
• Reduce exposure through patching offline: Gold images can be kept up securely kept up to date.  Offline VMs can be conveniently patched “off” the network.
• Easier to test impact of security changes: this is a big one.  Spin up a copy of your production environment, implement a security change and test the impact at low cost, with minimal startup time.  This is a big deal and removes a major barrier to ‘doing’ security in production environments.

7. Security Testing

• Reduce cost of testing security: a SaaS provider only passes on a portion of their security testing costs.  By sharing the same application as a service, you don’t foot the expensive security code review and/or penetration test.  Even with Platform as a Service (PaaS) where your developers get to write code, there are potential cost economies of scale (particularly around use of code scanning tools that sweep source code for security weaknesses).

Your Thoughts?

What benefits do you see that I haven’t included in the above list?  Where do you agree/disagree and importantly, why?