...doctored photographs are the least of our worries. If you want to trick someone with a photograph, there are lots of easy ways to do it. You don't need Photoshop. You don't need sophisticated digital photo-manipulation. You don't need a computer. All you need to do is change the caption.

The photographs presented by Colin Powell at the United Nations in 2003 provide several examples. Photographs that were used to justify a war. And yet, the actual photographs are low-res, muddy aerial surveillance photographs of buildings and vehicles on the ground in Iraq. I'm not an aerial intelligence expert. I could be looking at anything. It is the labels, the captions, and the surrounding text that turn the images from one thing into another. Photographs presented by Colin Powell at the United Nations in 2003.

Powell was arguing that the Iraqis were doing something wrong, knew they were doing something wrong, and were trying to cover their tracks. Later, it was revealed that the captions were wrong. There was no evidence of chemical weapons and no evidence of concealment. Morris's mockery of the sweeping interpretations made in Powell's photographs.

There is a larger point. I don't know what these buildings were really used for. I don't know whether they were used for chemical weapons at one time, and then transformed into something relatively innocuous, in order to hide the reality of what was going on from weapons inspectors. But I do know that the yellow captions influence how we see the pictures. "Chemical Munitions Bunker" is different from "Empty Warehouse" which is different from "International House of Pancakes." The image remains the same but we see it differently.

Change the yellow labels, change the caption and you change the meaning of the photographs. You don't need Photoshop. That's the disturbing part. Captions do the heavy lifting as far as deception is concerned. The pictures merely provide the window-dressing. The unending series of errors engendered by falsely captioned photographs are rarely remarked on.

"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 Rail Tram and Bus Union (RTBU) said today it was planning a 24-hour strike by rail workers on July 17, the busiest day of the Catholic event. It is the day Pope Benedict XVI will make his way through the streets of Sydney during the afternoon peak. The NSW Government will take the matter to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) tomorrow. Mr Iemma said his Government would not cave in to the RTBU. "The Government will not be blackmailed into giving them what they want as a result of these industrial terror tactics," he said.

Vulnerabilities are software mistakes--mistakes in specification and design, but mostly mistakes in programming. Any large software package will have thousands of mistakes. These vulnerabilities lie dormant in our software systems, waiting to be discovered. Once discovered, they can be used to attack systems. This is the point of security patching: eliminating known vulnerabilities. But many systems don't get patched, so the Internet is filled with known, exploitable vulnerabilities.

New vulnerabilities are hot commodities. A hacker who discovers one can sell it on the black market, blackmail the vendor with disclosure, or simply publish it without regard to the consequences. Even if he does none of these, the mere fact the vulnerability is known by someone increases the risk to every user of that software. Given that, is it ethical to research new vulnerabilities?

Unequivocally, yes. Despite the risks, vulnerability research is enormously valuable. Security is a mindset, and looking for vulnerabilities nurtures that mindset. Deny practitioners this vital learning tool, and security suffers accordingly.

Security engineers see the world differently than other engineers. Instead of focusing on how systems work, they focus on how systems fail, how they can be made to fail, and how to prevent--or protect against--those failures. Most software vulnerabilities don't ever appear in normal operations, only when an attacker deliberately exploits them. So security engineers need to think like attackers.

People without the mindset sometimes think they can design security products, but they can't. And you see the results all over society--in snake-oil cryptography, software, Internet protocols, voting machines, and fare card and other payment systems. Many of these systems had someone in charge of "security" on their teams, but it wasn't someone who thought like an attacker.

This mindset is difficult to teach, and may be something you're born with or not. But in order to train people possessing the mindset, they need to search for and find security vulnerabilities--again and again and again. And this is true regardless of the domain. Good cryptographers discover vulnerabilities in others' algorithms and protocols. Good software security experts find vulnerabilities in others' code. Good airport security designers figure out new ways to subvert airport security. And so on.

This is so important that when someone shows me a security design by someone I don't know, my first question is, "What has the designer broken?" Anyone can design a security system that he cannot break. So when someone announces, "Here's my security system, and I can't break it," your first reaction should be, "Who are you?" If he's someone who has broken dozens of similar systems, his system is worth looking at. If he's never broken anything, the chance is zero that it will be any good.

Vulnerability research is vital because it trains our next generation of computer security experts. Yes, newly discovered vulnerabilities in software and airports put us at risk, but they also give us more realistic information about how good the security actually is. And yes, there are more and less responsible--and more and less legal--ways to handle a new vulnerability. But the bad guys are constantly searching for new vulnerabilities, and if we have any hope of securing our systems, we need the good guys to be at least as competent. To me, the question isn't whether it's ethical to do vulnerability research. If someone has the skill to analyze and provide better insights into the problem, the question is whether it is ethical for him not to do vulnerability research.

This was originally published in InfoSecurity Magazine, as part of a point-counterpoint with Marcus Ranum. You can read Marcus's half here.

In the seventh episode of The Silver Bullet Podcast, Gary interviews Cisco Chief Security Officer John Stewart. Gary and John discuss what CSOs do all day, how John got started in computer security, and the infamous Morris Worm from 1988 (which John was deeply involved in while a student at Syracuse). John and Gary also revisit Cisco-gate, talk about how John’s identity was stolen, and determine why John’s kids don’t have e-mail addresses.

• Executive Perspective: John Stewart on Vulnerability Disclosure
• Wikipedia: CSO
• Digital Island
• The What, Why, and How of the 1988 Internet Worm - a look at the history of the Morris Worm
• Cisco-gate
• Five Ways to Fight ID Theft - John talks about finding himself a victim of identity theft; see also: the motorcycle he was trying to buy when he found out
• John Stewart, but not the one Gary interviews (and not the one you’re thinking of)