As promised, we recorded all of the day’s presentations and we’ve published them on TechNet:

Keynote Address by Scott Charney, Corporate VP, Microsoft Trustworthy Computing

Threat Modeling at EMC and Microsoft by Danny Dhillon of EMC and Adam Shostack of the Microsoft SDL team (of course)

Mitigations Unplugged by Matt Miller, Microsoft Security Science team

Concurrency Attacks on Web Applications by Scott Stender and Alex Vidergar of iSEC Partners

Fuzzed Enough? When it’s OK to Put the Shears Down by Jason Shirk, Dave Weinstein and Lars Opstad, Microsoft Security Science team

Real World Code Review – Using the Right Tools in the Right Place at the Right Time by Vinnie Liu of Stach & Liu

In addition to the presentations, we also recorded some short interviews (about 10 minutes long) with each of the speakers. If you’re just looking for a quick summary of a particular talk, these interviews are the place to start:

Threat Modeling at EMC, Danny Dhillon

Threat Modeling at Microsoft, Adam Shostack

Mitigations Unplugged, Matt Miller

Concurrency Attacks on Web Applications, Scott Stender and Alex Vidergar

Fuzzed Enough? Jason Shirk and Dave Weinstein

Real World Code Review, Vinnie Liu

I hope at least 96% of online readers will be able to directly apply this material to their products, just like the show attendees. Please post back and let us know, either way. And let us know what you’d like to see for next year. We have big plans to build on our success and make SDL Sessions 2.0 even bigger and better than the first.

THOMAS is a powerful brain circuit that releases the neurochemical oxytocin when we are trusted and induces a desire to reciprocate the trust we have been shown–even with strangers. The key to a con is not that you trust the conman, but that he shows he trusts you. Conmen ply their trade by appearing fragile or needing help, by seeming vulnerable. Because of THOMAS, the human brain makes us feel good when we help others–this is the basis for attachment to family and friends and cooperation with strangers

So my question: if real-life cons can easily scam people by appearing to depend on them, how does this affect the scams we see on the Net? Clearly some online cons rely on this method — the Nigerian bank scam being a prime example. It seems like social engineering scams particularly rely on this method — but not all scams. And of course many other vulnerabilities just seem to rely on people’s habits to just click links willy-nilly online, which is an impersonal event. If the net were a more personal place, we might see many more of those kinds of scams.

News on the Bombay attacks is breaking fast on Twitter with hundreds of people using the site to update others with first-hand accounts of the carnage.

The website has a stream of comments on the attacks which is being updated by the second, often by eye-witnesses and people in the city. Although the chatter cannot be verified immediately and often reflects the chaos on the streets, it is becoming the fastest source of information for those seeking unfiltered news from the scene.

But we simply have to be smarter than this:

In the past hour, people using Twitter reported that bombings and attacks were continuing, but none of these could be confirmed. Others gave details on different locations in which hostages were being held.

And this morning, Twitter users said that Indian authorities was asking users to stop updating the site for security reasons.

One person wrote: "Police reckon tweeters giving away strategic info to terrorists via Twitter".

Another link:

I can't stress enough: people can and will use these devices and apps in a terrorist attack, so it is imperative that officials start telling us what kind of information would be relevant from Twitter, Flickr, etc. (and, BTW, what shouldn't be spread: one Twitter user in Mumbai tweeted me that people were sending the exact location of people still in the hotels, and could tip off the terrorists) and that they begin to monitor these networks in disasters, terrorist attacks, etc.

This fear is exactly backwards. During a terrorist attack -- during any crisis situation, actually -- the one thing people can do is exchange information. It helps people, calms people, and actually reduces the thing the terrorists are trying to achieve: terror. Yes, there are specific movie-plot scenarios where certain public pronouncements might help the terrorists, but those are rare. I would much rather err on the side of more information, more openness, and more communication.

• Low-tech is very effective. Movie-plot threats -- terrorists with crop dusters, terrorists with biological agents, terrorists targeting our water supplies -- might be what people worry about, but a bunch of trained (we don't really know yet what sort of training they had, but it's clear that they had some) men with guns and grenades is all they needed.

• At the same time, the attacks were surprisingly ineffective. I can't find exact numbers, but it seems there were about 18 terrorists. The latest toll is 195 dead, 235 wounded. That's 11 dead, 13 wounded, per terrorist. As horrible as the reality is, that's much less than you might have thought if you imagined the movie in your head. Reality is different from the movies.

• Even so, terrorism is rare. If a bunch of men with guns and grenades is all they really need, then why isn't this sort of terrorism more common? Why not in the U.S., where it's easy to get hold of weapons? It's because terrorism is very, very rare.

• Specific countermeasures don't help against these attacks. None of the high-priced countermeasures that defend against specific tactics and specific targets made, or would have made, any difference: photo ID checks, confiscating liquids at airports, fingerprinting foreigners at the border, bag screening on public transportation, anything. Evenmetal detectors and threat warnings didn't do any good:

  "If I look at what we had, which all of us complained about, it could not have stopped what took place," he told CNN. "It's ironic that we did have such a warning, and we did have some measures."

  He said people were told to park away from the entrance and had to go through a metal detector. But he said the attackers came through a back entrance.

  "They knew what they were doing, and they did not go through the front. All of our arrangements are in the front," he said.

If there's any lesson in these attacks, it's not to focus too much on the specifics of the attacks. Of course, that's not the way we're programmed to think. We respond to stories and not analysis. I don't mean to be sympathetic; this tendency is human and these deaths are really tragic. But eighteen armed people intent on killing lots of innocents will be able to do just that, and last-line-of-defense countermeasures won't be able to stop them. Intelligence, investigation, and emergency response. We have to find and stop the terrorists before they attack, and deal with the aftermath of the attacks we don't stop. There really is no other way, and I hope that we don't let the tragedy lead us into unwise decisions about how to deal with terrorism.