<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title><![CDATA[[SecurityRatty] tag: perform]]></title>
    <link>http://securityratty.com/tag/perform</link>
    <description></description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 07:00:31 +0000</pubDate>
    <generator>iRatty Engine</generator>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Skein and SHA-3 News]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/cc81d2d4853466933826ebdeeef07d52</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/cc81d2d4853466933826ebdeeef07d52</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[There are two bugs in the Skein code. They are subtle and esoteric, but they're there. We have revised both the reference and optimized code -- and provided new test vectors -- on the Skein website ....]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are two bugs in the Skein code.  They are subtle and esoteric, but they're there.  We have revised both the reference and optimized code -- and provided new test vectors -- on the <a href="http://www.schneier.com/skein.html">Skein website</a>.  A <a href="http://www.schneier.com/skein.pdf">revision of the paper</a> -- Version 1.1 -- has new IVs, new test vectors, and also fixes a few typos in the paper.</p>

<blockquote>Errata: Version 1.1 of the paper, reference, and optimized code corrects an error in which the length of the configuration string was passed in as the size of the internal block (256 bits for Skein-256, 512 for Skein-512, and 1024 for Skein-1024), instead of a constant 256 bits for all three sizes.  This error has no cryptographic significance, but affected the test vectors and the initialization values.  The revised code also fixes a bug in the MAC mode key processing.  This bug does not affect the NIST submission in any way.</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/hash/sha-3/index.html">NIST has received</a> 64 submissions.  (<a href="http://www.cio.com/article/461164/Amateurs_and_Pros_Vie_to_Build_New_Crypto_Standard">This article</a> interviews one of the submitters, who is fifteen.)  Of those, <a href="http://ehash.iaik.tugraz.at/wiki/The_SHA-3_Zoo">28 are public</a> and six have been broken.  NIST is going through the submissions right now, making sure they are complete and proper.  Their goal is to publish the accepted submissions by the end of the month, in advance of the <a href="http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/hash/timeline.html">Third Cryptographic Hash Workshop</a> to be held in Belgium right after <a href="https://www.cosic.esat.kuleuven.be/fse2009/index.shtml">FSE</a> in February.  They expect to quickly make a first cut of algorithms -- hopefully to about a dozen -- and then give the community about a year of cryptanalysis before making a second cut in 2010.</p>

<p>Lastly, <a href="http://www.darkreading.com/blog/archives/2008/11/bending_skein_c.html">this</a> is a really nice article on Skein.</p>

<blockquote>These submissions make some accommodation to the Core 2 processor. They operate in "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_endian" target="new">little-endian</a>" mode (a quirk of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86" target="new">Intel-like processors</a> that reads some bytes in reverse order). They also allow a large file to be broken into chunks to split the work across multiple processors.

<p>However, virtually all of the contest submissions share the performance problem mentioned above. The logic they use won't optimally fit within the constraints of a Intel Core 2 processor. Most will perform as bad or worse than the existing SHA-1 algorithm.</p>

<p>One exception to this is <a href="http://www.schneier.com/skein.html" target="new">Skein</a>, created by several well-known cryptographers and noted pundit <a href="http://www.schneier.com/" target="new">Bruce Schneier</a>. It was designed specifically to exploit all three of the Core 2 execution units and to run at a full 64-bits. This gives it roughly four to 10 times the logic density of competing submissions.</p>

<p>This is what I meant by the <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/" target="new">Matrix</a></i> quote above. They didn't bend the spoon; they bent the crypto algorithm. They moved the logic operations around in a way that wouldn't weaken the crypto, but would strengthen its speed on the Intel Core 2.</p>

<p>In their <a href="http://www.schneier.com/skein.pdf" target="new">paper</a> (PDF), the authors of Skein express surprise that a custom silicon <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application-specific_integrated_circuit" target="new">ASIC</a> implementation is not any faster than the software implementation. They shouldn't be surprised. Every time you can redefine a problem to run optimally in software, you will reach the same speeds you get with optimized ASIC hardware. The reason software has a reputation of being slow is because people don't redefine the original problem.</blockquote></p>

<p>That's exactly what we were trying to do.</p><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/schneier/fulltext?a=98JTN"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/schneier/fulltext?i=98JTN" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/schneier/fulltext?a=diffN"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/schneier/fulltext?i=diffN" border="0"></img></a>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:14:48 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/skein">skein</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/skein-1024">skein-1024</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/skein-512">skein-512</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/skein express surprise">skein express surprise</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/skein website">skein website</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/skein code">skein code</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/submissions share">submissions share</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/submissions">submissions</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/code">code</category>
      <source url="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/11/skein_and_sha-3.html">Skein and SHA-3 News</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[The Economics of Finding and Fixing Vulnerabilities in Distributed Systems ]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/8a34266a61546df04c75d0de7416a33d</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/8a34266a61546df04c75d0de7416a33d</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[The Economics of Finding and Fixing Vulnerabilities in Distributed Systems
Quality of Protection Keynote
Alexandria, VA
October 27. 2008

Gunnar Peterson
Managing Principal, Arctec Group
Blog:...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>The Economics of Finding and Fixing Vulnerabilities in Distributed Systems&#0160;</div><div><a href="http://qop-workshop.org/Program.htm">Quality of Protection Keynote</a></div><div>Alexandria, VA</div><div>October 27. 2008</div><br /><div>Gunnar Peterson</div><div>Managing Principal, Arctec Group</div><div>Blog: http://1raindrop.typepad.com</div><br /><div>When Andy Ozment asked me over the summer to do this talk at QoP, I knew back in August that the topic I wanted to address was security and economics. So to that end I would like to start by thanking all of our friends on Wall Street and here in Washington DC for providing such a rich tapestry of recent events that I can speak to.</div><br /><div>Like many people in this industry, my focus on security was fundamentally altered by Dan Geer&#39;s speech &quot;Risk Management is Where the Money Is&quot;[1], there are not many people who can call a ten year shot in the technology business, but Dan Geer did. The talk revolutionized the security industry. Since that speech, the security market, the vendors, consultants, and everyone else has realized that security is really about risk management.</div><br /><div>Of course, saying that you are managing risk and actually managing risk are two different things. Warren Buffett started off his 2007 shareholder letter [2] talking about financial institutions&#39; ability to deal with the subprime mess in the housing market saying, &quot;You don&#39;t know who is swimming naked until the tide goes out.&quot; In our world, we don&#39;t know whose systems are running naked, with no controls, until they are attacked. Of course, by then it is too late.</div><br /><div>So the security industry understands enough about risk management that the language of risk has permeated almost every product, presentation, and security project for the last ten years. However, a friend of mine who works at a bank recently attended a workshop on security metrics, and came away with the following observation - &quot;All these people are talking about risk, but they don&#39;t have any assets.&quot; You can&#39;t do risk management if you don&#39;t know your assets.</div><br /><div>Risk management requires that you know your assets, that on some level you understand the vulnerabilities surrounding your assets, the threats against those, and efficacy of the countermeasures you would like to use to separate the threat from the asset. But it starts with assets. Unfortunately, in the digital world these turn out to be devilishly hard to identify and value.</div><br /><div>Recent events have taught us again, that in the financial world, Warren Buffett has few peers as a risk manager. I would like to take the first two parts of this talk looking at his career as a way to understand risk management and what we can infer for our digital assets.</div><br /><div>Warren Buffett&#39;s evolution as an investor can be broken up into two parts. He began his career very much influenced by Ben Graham, who sought to buy &quot;cheap stocks&quot;, comparing the price of the stock to value of the company&#39;s assets, and placing many, diversified bets on companies whose share price was below the total assets. Note that the businesses may have been of unremarkable quality, but when the price was right Graham would buy in, wait for it to rise and then sell. This was the dawn of value investing.</div><br /><div>Buffett&#39;s later career departed from Graham&#39;s strict, statistical measures, where he sought to buy into companies that were selling at a fair price, but were also high quality businesses. We will examine high quality in Part 2 of this talk, but first we go to Part 1 which is asset value.</div><br /><div>Why does a talk on finding and fixing vulnerabilities start with valuing assets? The reason is that vulnerabilities are everywhere, we are literally marinating in them. Interesting vulnerabilities are attached to high value assets. In a world that quite literally presents us with too much information, we need screens to sift out what is worth paying attention to. &#0160;You can run your vulnerability assessment tool of choice on your system, and come back with hundreds or thousands of vulnerabilities, but which ones should you pay attention to and act on? The first part of answering this question is asset value.</div><br /><div>When Warren Buffett was 19 years old studying at the University of Nebraska, he read Ben Graham&#39;s book &quot;The Intelligent Investor&quot;, Buffett said he thought it was the best book on investing he has ever read and still feels that way today. In the Intelligent Investor Graham lays out the framework of value investing. Specifically, Graham talks about three concepts - Mr. Market, a stock is a piece of a business, and Margin of Safety.</div><br /><div>Mr. Market is a fictional, teaching device invented by Graham. You imagine that you have a somewhat manic depressive business partner called Mr. Market. Every day, Mr. Market comes into the office and offers you quotes on companies, some days he is in a good mood and the prices are high, other days he is gloomy and prices are low. The market is a quote machine, for quoting prices, not a value assessment machine. Your job is to wait for the right price, and you are free to take as many passes and be as patient as you would like, Mr. Market will just show up the next day and throw out a new price.&#0160;</div><br /><div>Graham used Mr. Market to teach us the separation between a price of a stock, and the value of a company. The second big concept from Intelligent Investor is that buying a stock is buying a small piece of the underlying business. You are not buying a roulette chip, or a number that fluctuates in the newspaper every day, rather you are buying a piece of the company&#39;s existing and future cash flow. What the stock market says General Electric is worth yesterday, today or tomorrow is separate from GE&#39;s actual ability to generate cash flow.</div><br /><div>The last big concept in &quot;The Intelligent Investor&quot; and the one seemingly most applicable to information security is the Margin of Safety. Graham&#39;s margin of safety involved calculating the intrinsic value of a business and then buying stock where the market cap of a company is less than its intrinsic value. So if a company has $100 million in assets and a market capitalization of $75 million, then an investor would get a 25% margin of safety. Ideally, Graham wanted to buy stocks that were selling for one half of their book value, i.e. with a 50% margin of safety. Graham said that buying stocks without a margin of safety, above their book value, speculation, not investing.</div><br /><div>So price is readily available, but how do we calculate intrinsic value so that we can ascertain the margin of safety? Graham used quantitative statistical measures, relying heavily on the company&#39;s book value, like its hard assets. What would it take for a competitor to reproduce the company&#39;s assets - its factories, distribution system, and so on. The difference between the book value of the assets and market cap is the margin of safety.</div><br /><div>What can we learn in information security from this quantitative approach? Where price and value are readily ascertainable we should build countermeasures and eliminate on vulnerabilities that give our assets a wide margin of safety. Since budgets are not unlimited we should prefer vulnerabilities that are cheap to find, cheap to fix.</div><br /><div>First to the asset question, information security budgets like all IT budgets are crufty, they are not a reflection of today&#39;s top issues and priorities so much as an accumulating snowball of decisions, legacy contracts, and solution attempts to yesteryear&#39;s problems. Today the normal Information Security budget is just a legacy artifact from bygone years when the network was the purported greatest vulnerability. If you were around in 1995, you remember the great gnashing of gears as the enterprises opened up their networks, connected their back ends to the Web and began to transact business in the giant virtual space.</div><br /><div>The security people huffed and puffed that it was dangerous but there was simply too much money to be made, so businesses went ahead. The security people would not go down without a fight and insisted on countermeasures. They got two - the network firewall and SSL. The firewall was used to separate the average Fortune 500s network of hundreds of thousands of machines, employees, consultants, and partners from the web at large. SSL was used to protect the network channel between the web server and the client browser. so the network firewall separated the network segments, and SSL in effect encrypted the last mile of many million complex transactions and computations.</div><br /><div>In 1995, this seemed like a good security architecture. When we built out these security architectures, the eCommerce market was derided as a toy. Amazon famously lost money for years - losing a little on every transaction but making it up in volume. When the market is nascent, a quaint security architecture offers cost effective protection. But what about 2008? Those cute little eCommerce buggers have grown they even make profits now - market caps measured in the tens of billions, accumulating large cash hordes, no debt, and the largest ones are in better financial shape than the financial services players that kicked sand in their face in the dotcom era.&#0160;</div><br /><div>And its not just eCommerce, the &quot;real&quot; economy Fortune 500 types are all connected as well. Directly and indirectly the Web is seeping into all businesses. Major changes from when the security architecture of the web was built out. But has the security architecture changed to reflect these new business realities? Not a bit of it!</div><br /><div>We can use the book value of the IT budget investments and the book value of the Information Security investments to see what kind of Margins of Safety Information Security groups are engineering.</div><br /><div>Let&#39;s look at some market data, Gary McGraw reviewed the numbers [2] in software security for 2007, breaking down software security sectors like tools and services. Here is a summary of his findings on software security tools:</div><br /><div>&quot;One of the most important developments in the software security market can be seen in the tools space which, combined, almost doubled to $150-180 million. Top of list are two major acquisitions that closed in 2007: Watchfire&#39;s purchase by IBM (somewhere in the range of $120-150 million on 2006 revenue of $26 million) and SPI Dynamics&#39;s purchase by HP (for around $100 million on 2006 revenue of $21.2 million).</div><br /><div>...</div><br /><div>The black box space was flat in 2007, with IBM/Watchfire checking in at $24.1 million and HP/SPI Dynamics earning $22.3 million. Smaller companies in the space, including Cenzic, Codenomicon, WhiteHat and the like had combined revenues around $12.5 million (a growth of 25%, though Cenzic grew 16% and WhiteHat 52%). Most of the growth &quot;hiccup&quot; in the black box market can be attributed to the serious challenges posed by any acquisition. So far 2008 looks to be back on track from a growth perspective in the black box testing space. The global reach that IBM and HP offer are already making a big difference.</div><br /><br /><div>On a more positive note, static analysis tools for code review grew at a healthy clip in 2007 into a $91.9 million dollar market. Fortify was up 83% to $29.2 million. Klocwork grew over 60% to $26 million. Coverity grew over 50% to $27.2 million. Ounce Labs tripled their revenue to $9.5 million.&quot;</div><br /><div>These are very nice growth numbers, what company doesn&#39;t want 83% growth? However, the let&#39;s look at the total picture and compare the software security countermeasures against other security mechanisms. Gary McGraw&#39;s estimate shows the software security space coming in at $150 Million total, yet we see a company like Checkpoint that won the network security war in 1995 with earnings of around $900 Million! One single network security vendor is 6 times bigger than the entire software security space, in what alternate universe does this make sense?</div><br /><div>This is where we begin to see that decisions in the People&#39;s Republic of Information Security have no real risk management thinking, they truly are swimming naked and hoping the tide doesn&#39;t go out.</div><br /><div>Let&#39;s look at network assets. Obviously Cisco is the biggest, they earned $39.5 Billion last year. Pretty stellar. So spending $900 Million (Checkpoint) to defined $39.5 Billion seems like a pretty good deal.</div><br /><div>Except, let&#39;s compare software security spending - last year Microsoft earned $60 Billion, SAP $16 billion, and Oracle $22 Billion. So that is about $98 Billion in just three vendors and you are going to &quot;defend&quot; that with allocating $150 Million worth of software security tools?</div><br /><div>On the network side we are buying $900 million of security countermeasures (Checkpoint firewalls) to protect $39.5 billion worth of Cisco gear, about 2.3% of the network investment goes to security.</div><br /><div>On the software side, we are buying $150 million of security countermeasures (like static analysis and black box scanners) to protect $98 billion of software (you know the stuff that runs the whole business), roughly coming to about 0.2% of the software budget goes to security.</div><br /><div>This is very disturbing. From a prioritization standpoint The People&#39;s Republic of Information Security is misaligned by an order of magnitude at least. Next time you read about a data breach, or see an auditor&#39;s report with thousands of findings you won&#39;t have to wonder how it happened. It happened because Information Security doesn&#39;t have its eye on the ball, it invests in network security not because those controls have greater efficacy (the whole point of networks is they are dumb), no, they invest in network firewalls because they bought a bunch in 1995, some more in 1998, and heck they just kept buying them, the Checkpoint rep kept showing up and taking CISOs out to play golf, contracts got renewed, and poof - there goes the security budget.</div><br /><div>Consider that software security tools could grow 50% a year for five years and still be half of where Checkpoint is today.</div><br /><div>The optimistic way of looking at all this data is that there is major room for growth for software security, if you take network security as a target for a mature industry and assume that 2.3% is a reasonable margin of safety, then the software security space should evolve to around 2% of the software space meaning that it should evolve into a $2 billion space around fifteen times larger than it is today. Unprotected assets will either be protected or will cease to be assets, VCs get your check books ready.</div><br /><div>My friend Brian Chess has a nice way of looking at this he says 2007 was the turning point - &quot;the first year there was a bigger market for products that help you get code right than there was for products that help you demonstrate a problem exists.&quot;</div><br /><div>Now I am not suggesting that Information Security budgets have to be aligned with IT budget one for one, but I do think that looking at the overall IT budget is the starting point. If Information Security has a more cost effective security mechanism they should deploy it, but the starting point should be aligned to the business. Businesses spend most of their money on software, and there are very good reasons - competitive advantage, increased revenues and lower costs. Information Security spends most of its money on network security, and there is no good reason why, except that it was a seemingly good idea in 1995. You really don&#39;t have to go beyond the book value of IT investment as a whole versus Information Security to see a stunning disparity. Information Security&#39;s job is to deliver a Margin of Safety to the business, but they are not.&#0160;</div><br /><div>To deliver a real Margin of Safety to the business, I propose the following based on a defense in depth mindset. Break the IT budget into the following categories:</div><br /><div>- Network: all the resources invested in Cisco, network admins, etc.</div><div>- Host: all the resources invested in Unix, Windows, sys admins, etc.</div><div>- Applications: all the resources invested in developers, CRM, ERP, etc.</div><div>- Data: all the resources invested in databases, DBAs, etc.</div><br /><div>Tally up each layer. If you are like most business you will probably find that you spend most on Applications, then Data, then Host, then Network.</div><br /><div>Then do the same exercise for the Information Security budget:</div><br /><div>- Network: all the resources invested in network firewalls, firewall admins, etc.</div><div>- Host: all the resources invested in Vulnerability management, patching, etc.</div><div>- Applications: all the resources invested in static analysis, black box scanning etc.</div><div>- Data: all the resources invested in database encryption, database monitoring, etc.</div><br /><div>Again, tally each up layer. If you are like most business you will find that you spend most on Network, then Host, then Applications, then Data. Congratulations, Information Security, you are diametrically opposed to the business!</div><br /><div>Its not just about alignment for alignment&#39;s sake, its about applying controls as a way to have a Margin of Safety properly placed so that when not if there is a failure on a higher value asset you are relatively better positioned to deal with it.&#0160;</div><br /><div>The pure statistical approach can only take us so far. Buffett said he would be a lot poorer if all he did was listen to Ben Graham. Book value is great to see the diametric opposition mentioned above, but it doesn&#39;t really tell us much about the efficacy of the security mechanisms.</div><br /><div>What we do get out of this statistical approach is a screen. The asset value screen filters out subjective opinion and narrows the field for where we need to dig in to do the high value, time consuming analytical work.</div><br /><div>The second part of Warren Buffett&#39;s career and the second part of this talk leave behind pure statistical measures. In Warren Buffett&#39;s case he was joined by a guy named Charlie Munger who talked him out of the pure Ben Graham approach. Charlie Munger has a saying - &quot;a great business at a fair price beats a fair business at a great price.&quot; Where Graham was focused on price and margin of safety, Munger wants a fair price but also a high quality business. This lead to Warren Buffett&#39;s company Berkshire Hathaway investing in companies like Coca Cola, Wells Fargo, and American Express, where the prices were far from dirt cheap (as Graham would have wanted), but the long term returns were outstanding.</div><br /><div>In our world of Information Security, we start by aligning our priorities with the business using the thumbnail defense in depth approach, but then we would like to invest in high quality, effective controls.</div><br /><div>To get at the notion of control quality and effectiveness, I am going to start part 2 of this talk with a brief history of software. The first web software was just static HTML, but web software really got interesting when developers started creating dynamic websites using CGI an PERL.</div><br /><div>Once websites were hooked up to company databases and were not just serving static content, the security people realized they needed a security architecture, and they sprung into action. What they came up was was model that divided the world into &quot;good stuff&quot; which was comprised of all their networks, systems, and data; and then there was everything else the &quot;bad stuff&quot; on the Internet. So job one of the early days Internet security architecture was to separate all your good stuff (i.e. your network) for the bad stuff (the Internet). To do this the security people used a sophisticated tool called Visio to draw a flaming brick wall on the network diagram, and this flaming brick wall was supposed to keep the good stuff and the bad stuff separate.</div><br /><div>The security people also realized that the data and session tokens that they served up from their Web server would have to traverse the &quot;bad&quot; neighborhood called the Internet, so they added one more security mechanism to secure the last mile of the transaction - SSL between the browser and the Web server.</div><br /><div>And this was the state of the art security architecture used circa 1995 to protect the earliest dynamic web applications.</div><br /><div>What happened next was that the dotcom boom started to happen and businesses realized they could make some real money on the Web, the web apps started to get more sophisticated, more personalization, richer session experiences and so on. This led the Java people to create JSP and the Microsoft people to create ASP, and of course the PERL people to create even greasier PERL scripts, all of this in the effort to pooling resources and sessions on the Web server. The security people defended this new application programming model with network firewall and SSL.</div><br /><div>Around 1998, developers began building out more distributed N tier or 3 tier applications that separated the business logic layer, the presentation layer and the data access layer. Among other things, your web application could seamlessly integrate data from multiple back ends systems. Let&#39;s say you have pricing data in Oracle, order data in SAP, and customer data in a Mainframe. You write separate data access objects, apply business logic in the middle tier and then you tie it all together in a friendly user interface. At this point the web applications are beginning to integrate across departments and geographic boundaries, huge critical chunks of the business are now connected to the web. How did the security people defend this part of the business? They applied the same 1995 security architecture - network firewall and SSL.</div><br /><div>Around 1999-2000 timeframe businesses relied on web applications for major parts of the revenue, and the apps were built in different technologies like Java and Microsoft technologies, but the customer didn&#39;t care (still doesn&#39;t), the customer wanted (and still wants) data access and functionality. So to integrate the disparate technologies, SOAP and XML were deployed so that Microsoft could talk to Java and so Websphere could talk to Weblogic and so on. And, oh yes, SOAP and XML were used to connect B2B networks so partners in a supply chain and business process can exchange data and interoperate. &#0160;SOAP and XML present a fundamentally new programming model based on a message document style integration, where XML is used to mesh together data and functionality across platforms. SOAP and XML have no security model by default for authentication, authorization, and confidentiality. How did the security people deal with this? They kept the security architecture the same as they had in 1995 - network firewalls and SSL.</div><br /><div>The software world did not stop innovating in 2000 of course, in the last few years we have seen Web services and XML form the basis of baroque and powerful SOAs and simple REST applications. We have seen Web 2.0 come on the scene, and entirely new networked applications built on top of that.</div><br /><div>What we have not seen, is a single meaningful change in security architecture in 13 years. Developers have evolved, businesses have increasingly bet their entire business models on the web and they have increased security budgets. But what has the security architecture as its deployed in the field got to show for all of this? More firewalls and more SSL connections.</div><br /><div>Since Information Security has proven incapable of evolving, it is time to learn from a discipline that has mastered innovation - software development, and yes, I will step back in case the lightning bolts hits.</div><br /><div>What does software development focus on these days? Well, let&#39;s look at Service Oriented Architecture (SOA), all hype aside I look at SOA as a set of technologies that delivers three things:</div><br /><div>Virtualization: we want Beijing, Bangalore and Boston to communicate.</div><br /><div>Interoperability: we want our .Net stuff to talk to our java stuff.</div><br /><div>Reusability: how many order/claim/pricing/customer systems does one company need?</div><br /><div>To build out their SOA, developers separated the application interface from its implementation. So you can host the interface in a variety of locations, but its separate from the application logic and data.</div><br /><div>This is also a useful trick for putting services like SOAP through the firewall. SOAP was designed as a firewall friendly protocol. When SOAP first came out, Bruce Schneier said calling SOAP a firewall friendly protocol is like having a skull friendly bullet. Which is a great line and explains why his books fly off the shelves, it does not explain, why security people think an architecture designed in 1995 is the one we should be using today. Maybe the problem is not that the developers figured out how to go through the firewall to get the data their customers want, maybe the problem is that the firewall is the sum total of the security architecture, and it never adapted.</div><br /><div>A big part of this problem is that we have left Newton&#39;s world behind and entered Einstein&#39;s universe. Mainframes are Newton’s world, we have THE computer, THE price, THE record and so on.</div><br /><div>As Pat Helland explained [4,5], Mainframes are Newron&#39;s world, but Distributed computing is Einstein’s world. More specifically in the Einstein world of distributed computing - &quot;Computers don’t make decisions, computers try &#0160;to make decisions.&quot; Our computers don&#39;t really make a decision, they say you can buy this book from Amazon at this price, we have it in stock and will deliver on such and such a date. But the warehouse runs out, the pallet gets dropped in the warehouse, your boo is crushed, and the package is stolen off your front step. The computer confirmed your transaction, but the real world intervened.</div><br /><div>So we don&#39;t have iron clad decisions, instead its all about Memories (last time I checked your book was in stock), Guesses (we should be able to ship on this date) and Apologies (sorry the forklift ran over your book)</div><br /><div>Translating this into security, security mechanisms don’t make policy-based decisions, security mechanisms try to make policy-based decisions</div><br /><div>Some examples of memories, guesses and apologies in security</div><br /><div>Memories</div><div>Security Policies - for example Triple A policy</div><div>Triple A policies can memorize a map of subjects, objects, and roles. They can even replicate these memories and play them back at runtime to try to make policy enforcement decisions.</div><br /><div>Guesses</div><div>Security Policy Enforcement Decision</div><div>Unfortunately, while the policy enforcement decisions can be based on memorized logic, the decision itself is still a guess, even in the case of Triple A. Any guesses why? Because, the authentication process itself is a guess. It happens to be a guess that you then bind to a principal so it looks very official once you bind your guess to a Kerberos ticket or SAML assertion, but it still a guess.</div><br /><div>Apologies</div><div>Giant Global Bank is sorry your account was compromised!</div><div>And this leads to lots and lots of apologies by companies with poor access control models.</div><br /><div>Some additional examples of information security memories, guesses and apologies.</div><br /><div>Example Memories - Triple A Security Policies, Audit logs, User account information , Authorization Logic - concrete mapping Subject, Resource, Condition, Action</div><br /><div>Example Guesses - Security Policy Enforcement Decision Points, Authentication Logic, Monitoring, detection, fraud response</div><br /><div>Example Apologies - Identity Management tools - provisioning, deprovisioning, Reimburse customer for fraud losses, Compensating Transaction - Giant Global Bank is still sorry your account was compromised!</div><br /><div>The point of this is that security memories, guesses and apologies utilize different processes, different people, and different capabilities to be effective.</div><br /><div>What trends can we identify to lead us toward better qualitative analysis based on the best practices of virtualization, interoperability and reusability.</div><br /><div>Virtualization</div><div>Finding Vulnerabilities in a Virtualized World is a problem because applications are more configured than coded. Runtime behavior and structure not apparent due to weak typing and inversion of control.</div><br /><div>Result - finding bugs becomes harder. Action - use screens to target finding time and resources</div><br /><div>Fixing Vulnerabilities in a Virtualized World is a problem because how do I locate the controls when interfaces run in Beijing, Bangalore and Boston?</div><br /><div>Result - synchronization and/or replication of security policy is problematic. Action - decentralized policy enforcement points and policy decision points. &#0160;</div><br /><div>Interoperability</div><div>Finding interoperable vulnerabilities</div><div>XSS - Javascript is an equal opportunity offender - interoperability for developers and attackers alike.</div><br /><div>Fixing interoperable vulnerabilities</div><div>App servers, ESBs, and services are the attacker’s red carpet to your enterprise, right into your book of business. Interoperable access control can be leveraged across the enterprise.</div><br /><div>Use XML signature for authentication and integrity&#0160;</div><br /><div>&lt;SOAP:Envelope&gt;</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">	</span>&lt;SOAP:Header&gt;</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">		</span>&lt;WSSE:Security&gt;</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">			</span>&lt;ds:Signature&gt;</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">				</span>&lt;ds:Reference URI=‘#body’&gt;</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">		</span>&lt;/WSSE:Security&gt;</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">	</span>&lt;/SOAP:Header&gt;</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">	</span>&lt;SOAP:Body wsu:Id=‘body’&gt;</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">		</span>…</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">	</span>&lt;/SOAP:Body&gt;</div><div>&lt;SOAP:Envelope&gt;</div><br /><div>Use XML encryption to protect sensitive data, don&#39;t pass sensitive data in the clear</div><br /><div>&lt;?xml version=&#39;1.0&#39; encoding=&#39;UTF-8&#39;?&gt;</div><div>&lt;soapenv:Envelope xmlns:soapenv=&quot;http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/&quot;&gt;</div><br /><div>&lt;soapenv:Body&gt;&lt;ns1:echo xmlns:ns1=&quot;http://sample01.samples.rampart.apache.org&quot;&gt;</div><br /><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">	</span>&lt;param0&gt;My Credit Card Number&lt;/param0&gt;</div><div>&lt;/ns1:echo&gt;</div><div>&lt;/soapenv:Body&gt;</div><div>&lt;/soapenv:Envelope&gt;</div><br /><div>Encrypt the data</div><br /><div>&#0160;&lt;wsse:Security xmlns:wsse=&quot;http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-secext-1.0.xsd&quot; soapenv:mustUnderstand=&quot;1&quot;&gt;…</div><div>&#0160;&#0160; &#0160; &#0160; &#0160; &#0160; &#0160;&lt;xenc:EncryptedKey Id=&quot;EncKeyId-3020592&quot;&gt;</div><div>&#0160;&#0160; &#0160; &#0160; &#0160; &#0160; &#0160; &#0160; &lt;xenc:EncryptionMethod Algorithm=&quot;http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#rsa-1_5&quot; /&gt;</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">		</span> &lt;xenc:CipherValue&gt;</div><div>XNQ0a4legiie5mWFxO6CQkk2hhldYNnKroObue/LXS/VYtvaTgMbCujhGExDi+vlkU//Qc2/T6mx0WVTmBMT3z8rogha8jD+nS9Zr2Bc3CwoTh2lh8wL3D0DEu91iwJT9JByLGXvt7v9lyuxK0ooDOYEClsH974CPmTs3tBC+GQ=</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">		</span>&lt;/xenc:CipherValue&gt; &#0160; &#0160; &#0160; &#0160; &#0160; &#0160; &#0160;&#0160;</div><div>&lt;/xenc:CipherData&gt;</div><br /><div>To ensure that these controls are applied use automated tools like static analysis to scan for security mechanism use and coverage.</div><br /><div>In terms of reusability findings and fixes consider two bug findings</div><br /><div>Session management bug: session state is passed around to every component, service and user. Makes for many high priority findings in audit report, also the fix is required on virtually every program</div><br /><div>Data validation bug: Data access object (DAO) has a SQL injection hole. One major high priority finding in report. DAO used by many business logic classes, one fix location serves many classes&#0160;</div><br /><div>To bring these factors together, I generally use a scorecard index [6], so you can measure such things as transport security, message security, threat protection and so on. The hard work in developing the index is developing a useful scale. A scale for XML tokens could use the following</div><br /><div>0: no token</div><div>1: hashed token</div><div>2: hashed and signed token</div><div>3: hashed and signed token from standard authoritative source</div><br /><div>An example scale for XML validation could use:</div><br /><div>0: no validation</div><div>1: schema validation</div><div>2: schema validation against hardened schema</div><div>3: schema validation against standard, hardened schema</div><br /><div>These indexed scales are used to show maturity across the factors in the scorecard. The first part of the talk described value, the value assessment is used to focus time and effort on high value assets. The value assessment can be determined quantitatively. There is hard analytical work to qualitatively determine the scorecard, index, and scales, the quantitative value assessment is used to screen out high value targets for these endeavors. The scoring index is used to track progress and improve quality over time. In the best case scenario, automated tools are used to perform the checks described in the index, and once security is automated just like software developers we may see security innovation make progress in years not decades.</div><br /><div>Thank you for your time.</div><br /><div>1 &quot;Risk Management is where the Money Is&quot; by Dan Geer,&#0160;<a href="http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.06.html">http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.06.html</a></div><br /><div>2 Berkshire Hathaway 2007 Shareholder Letter by Warren Buffett, <a href="http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2007ltr.pdf">http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2007ltr.pdf</a></div><br /><div>3 &quot;Software [In]security: Software Security Demand Rising, by Gary McGraw</div><div><a href="http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1237978">http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1237978</a></div><br /><div>4 &quot;SOA and Newton&#39;s Universe&quot; by Pat Helland, <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/pathelland/archive/2007/05/20/soa-and-newton-s-universe.aspx">http://blogs.msdn.com/pathelland/archive/2007/05/20/soa-and-newton-s-universe.aspx</a></div><br /><div>5 &quot;Memories, Guesses and Apologies&quot; by Pat Helland, <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/pathelland/archive/2007/05/15/memories-guesses-and-apologies.aspx">http://blogs.msdn.com/pathelland/archive/2007/05/15/memories-guesses-and-apologies.aspx</a></div><br /><div>6 &quot;Web Servicres Security Checklist&quot; by Gunnar Peterson, <a href="http://arctecgroup.net/pdf/WebServicesSecurityChecklist.pdf">http://arctecgroup.net/pdf/WebServicesSecurityChecklist.pdf</a></div>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:47:55 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/information security">information security</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/information">information</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/information security spends">information security spends</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/safety information security">safety information security</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/versus information security">versus information security</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/information security budgets">information security budgets</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/information security budget">information security budget</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/software security">software security</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/software security space">software security space</category>
      <source url="http://1raindrop.typepad.com/1_raindrop/2008/11/the-economics-of-finding-and-fixing-vulnerabilities-in-distributed-systems-.html">The Economics of Finding and Fixing Vulnerabilities in Distributed Systems </source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[OAuth for Secure Mashups]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/f0ebee1b88f03cd2b1ad9ff61f4608ac</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/f0ebee1b88f03cd2b1ad9ff61f4608ac</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Posted by Eric Sachs, Senior Product Manager, Google Security

A year ago, a number of large and small websites announced a new open standard called OAuth . This standard is designed to provide a...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<span class="byline-author">Posted by Eric Sachs, Senior Product Manager, Google Security</span><br /><br />A year ago, a number of large and small websites announced a new open standard called <a href="http://oauth.net/" id="hz33" title="OAuth">OAuth</a>. This standard is designed to provide a secure and privacy-preserving technique for enabling specific private data on one site to be accessed by another site.  One popular reason for that type of cross-site access is data portability in areas such as personal health records (such as Google Health or Microsoft Healthvault), as well as social networks (such as OpenSocial enabled sites). I originally became involved in this space in the summer of 2005, when Google started developing a feature called <a href="http://code.google.com/apis/accounts/docs/AuthSub.html" id="e3yh" title="AuthSub">AuthSub</a>, which was one of the pre-cursors of OAuth. That was a proprietary protocol, but one that has been used by hundreds of websites to provide add-on services to Google Account users by getting permission from users to access data in their Google Accounts.  In fact, that was the key feature that a few of us used to start the Google Health portability effort back when it was only a prototype project with a few dedicated Googlers.  <div id="zq.s" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><br /></div>  <div id="zq.s1" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> However, with the development of a common Internet standard in OAuth, we see much greater potential for data portability and secure mash-ups. Today we <a href="http://igoogledeveloper.blogspot.com/2008/11/sign-in-to-myspace-aol-mail-and-google.html">announced</a> that the gadget platform now supports OAuth, and the interoperability of this standard was demonstrated by new iGoogle gadgets that AOL and MySpace both built to enable users to see their respective AOL or MySpace mailboxes (and other information) while on iGoogle. However, to ensure the user's privacy, this only works after the user has authorized AOL or MySpace to make their data available to the gadget running on iGoogle.  We also previously <a href="http://googledataapis.blogspot.com/2008/10/whats-that-google-data-gadgets.html" id="w6.8" title="announced">announced</a> that third-party developers can build their own iGoogle gadgets that access the OAuth-enabled APIs for Google applications such as Calendar, Picasa, and Docs. In fact, since both the gadget platform and OAuth technology are open standards, we are working to help other companies who run services similar to iGoogle to enhance them with support for these standards. Once that is in place, these new OAuth-powered gadgets that are available on iGoogle will also work on those other sites, including many of the gadgets that Google offers for its own applications. This provides a platform for some interesting mash-ups.  For example, a third-party developer could create a single gadget that uses OAuth to access both Google OAuth-enabled APIs (such as a Gmail user's <a href="http://code.google.com/apis/contacts/" id="v05v" title="address book">address book</a>) and <a href="http://developer.myspace.com/community/myspace/dataavailability.aspx" id="lewp" title="MySpace OAuth enabled APIs">MySpace OAuth-enabled APIs</a> (such as a user's friend list) and display a mashup of the combination.  </div>  <div id="d23k" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><br /></div>  <div id="ivuk" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> While the combination of OAuth with gadgets is an exciting new use of the technology, most of the use of OAuth is between websites, such as to enable a user of Google Health to allow a clinical trial matching site to access his or her health profile.  I previously mentioned that one privacy control provided by OAuth is that it defines a standard way for users to authorize one website to make their data accessible to another website. In addition, OAuth provides a way to do this without the first site needing to reveal the identity of the user -- it simply provides a different opaque security token to each additional website the user wants to share his or her data with.  It would allow a mutual fund, for example, to provide an iGoogle gadget to their customers that would run on iGoogle and show the user the value of his or her mutual fund, but without giving Google any unique information about the user, such as a social security number or account number.  In the future, maybe we will even see industries like banks use standards such as OAuth to allow their customers to authorize utility companies to perform direct debit from the user's bank account without that person having to actually share his or her bank account number with the utility vendor. </div>  <div id="pvsw" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><br /></div>  <div id="odub" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> The OAuth community is continuing to enhance this standard and is very interested in having more companies engaged with its development. The <a href="http://oauth.net/" id="q6e4" title="OAuth">OAuth.net</a> website has more details about the current standard, and I maintain a <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/oauthgoog/" id="uw8z" title="website">website</a> with advanced information about Google's use of OAuth, including work on integrating OAuth with desktop apps, and integrating with federation standards such as OpenID and SAML.  If you're interested in engaging with the OAuth community, please get in touch with us. </div><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/GoogleOnlineSecurityBlog?a=LcHtN"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/GoogleOnlineSecurityBlog?i=LcHtN" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/GoogleOnlineSecurityBlog?a=7jAKn"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/GoogleOnlineSecurityBlog?i=7jAKn" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/GoogleOnlineSecurityBlog/~4/458667878" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/oauth">oauth</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/oauth community">oauth community</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/google">google</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/google accounts">google accounts</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/oauth technology">oauth technology</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/google security">google security</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/account">account</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/bank account">bank account</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/gadget">gadget</category>
      <source url="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/GoogleOnlineSecurityBlog/~3/458667878/oauth-for-secure-mashups.html">OAuth for Secure Mashups</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[OAuth for Secure Mashups]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/dce22eb7ff2c1aceec169c6236231696</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/dce22eb7ff2c1aceec169c6236231696</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Posted by Eric Sachs, Senior Product Manager, Google Security

A year ago, a number of large and small websites announced a new open standard called OAuth . This standard is designed to provide a...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<span class="byline-author">Posted by Eric Sachs, Senior Product Manager, Google Security</span><br /><br />A year ago, a number of large and small websites announced a new open standard called <a href="http://oauth.net/" id="hz33" title="OAuth">OAuth</a>. This standard is designed to provide a secure and privacy-preserving technique for enabling specific private data on one site to be accessed by another site.  One popular reason for that type of cross-site access is data portability in areas such as personal health records (such as Google Health or Microsoft Healthvault), as well as social networks (such as OpenSocial enabled sites). I originally became involved in this space in the summer of 2005, when Google started developing a feature called <a href="http://code.google.com/apis/accounts/docs/AuthSub.html" id="e3yh" title="AuthSub">AuthSub</a>, which was one of the pre-cursors of OAuth. That was a proprietary protocol, but one that has been used by hundreds of websites to provide add-on services to Google Account users by getting permission from users to access data in their Google Accounts.  In fact, that was the key feature that a few of us used to start the Google Health portability effort back when it was only a prototype project with a few dedicated Googlers.  <div id="zq.s" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><br /></div>  <div id="zq.s1" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> However, with the development of a common Internet standard in OAuth, we see much greater potential for data portability and secure mash-ups. Today we <a href="http://igoogledeveloper.blogspot.com/2008/11/sign-in-to-myspace-aol-mail-and-google.html">announced</a> that the gadget platform now supports OAuth, and the interoperability of this standard was demonstrated by new iGoogle gadgets that AOL and MySpace both built to enable users to see their respective AOL or MySpace mailboxes (and other information) while on iGoogle. However, to ensure the user's privacy, this only works after the user has authorized AOL or MySpace to make their data available to the gadget running on iGoogle.  We also previously <a href="http://googledataapis.blogspot.com/2008/10/whats-that-google-data-gadgets.html" id="w6.8" title="announced">announced</a> that third-party developers can build their own iGoogle gadgets that access the OAuth-enabled APIs for Google applications such as Calendar, Picasa, and Docs. In fact, since both the gadget platform and OAuth technology are open standards, we are working to help other companies who run services similar to iGoogle to enhance them with support for these standards. Once that is in place, these new OAuth-powered gadgets that are available on iGoogle will also work on those other sites, including many of the gadgets that Google offers for its own applications. This provides a platform for some interesting mash-ups.  For example, a third-party developer could create a single gadget that uses OAuth to access both Google OAuth-enabled APIs (such as a Gmail user's <a href="http://code.google.com/apis/contacts/" id="v05v" title="address book">address book</a>) and <a href="http://developer.myspace.com/community/myspace/dataavailability.aspx" id="lewp" title="MySpace OAuth enabled APIs">MySpace OAuth-enabled APIs</a> (such as a user's friend list) and display a mashup of the combination.  </div>  <div id="d23k" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><br /></div>  <div id="ivuk" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> While the combination of OAuth with gadgets is an exciting new use of the technology, most of the use of OAuth is between websites, such as to enable a user of Google Health to allow a clinical trial matching site to access his or her health profile.  I previously mentioned that one privacy control provided by OAuth is that it defines a standard way for users to authorize one website to make their data accessible to another website. In addition, OAuth provides a way to do this without the first site needing to reveal the identity of the user -- it simply provides a different opaque security token to each additional website the user wants to share his or her data with.  It would allow a mutual fund, for example, to provide an iGoogle gadget to their customers that would run on iGoogle and show the user the value of his or her mutual fund, but without giving Google any unique information about the user, such as a social security number or account number.  In the future, maybe we will even see industries like banks use standards such as OAuth to allow their customers to authorize utility companies to perform direct debit from the user's bank account without that person having to actually share his or her bank account number with the utility vendor. </div>  <div id="pvsw" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><br /></div>  <div id="odub" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"> The OAuth community is continuing to enhance this standard and is very interested in having more companies engaged with its development. The <a href="http://oauth.net/" id="q6e4" title="OAuth">OAuth.net</a> website has more details about the current standard, and I maintain a <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/oauthgoog/" id="uw8z" title="website">website</a> with advanced information about Google's use of OAuth, including work on integrating OAuth with desktop apps, and integrating with federation standards such as OpenID and SAML.  If you're interested in engaging with the OAuth community, please get in touch with us. </div><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/GoogleOnlineSecurityBlog?a=RbYKY1QI"><img src="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/GoogleOnlineSecurityBlog?d=41" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/GoogleOnlineSecurityBlog?a=livMlZFo"><img src="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/GoogleOnlineSecurityBlog?i=livMlZFo" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/GoogleOnlineSecurityBlog/~4/bEpTg1dntxU" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/oauth">oauth</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/oauth community">oauth community</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/google">google</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/google accounts">google accounts</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/oauth technology">oauth technology</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/google security">google security</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/account">account</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/bank account">bank account</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/gadget">gadget</category>
      <source url="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/GoogleOnlineSecurityBlog/~3/bEpTg1dntxU/oauth-for-secure-mashups.html">OAuth for Secure Mashups</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Schneier for TSA Administrator]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/5e368a8d3abaf29420cf0da59287f1d2</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/5e368a8d3abaf29420cf0da59287f1d2</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[It's been suggested . For the record, I don't want the job. Since the election, the newspapers and Internet have been flooded with unsolicited advice for President-elect Barack Obama. I'll go ahead...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It's been <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,453093,00.html">suggested</a>. For the record, I don't want the job.</p>

<blockquote>Since the election, the newspapers and Internet have been flooded with unsolicited advice for President-elect Barack Obama. I'll go ahead and add mine.

<p>[...]</p>

<p>And by "revamp," I mean "start over." Most security experts agree that the rigmarole we go through at the airport is mere security theater, designed not to make us safer, but to make us feel safer by making it increasingly inconvenient to fly. TSA's approach to security is too reactionary -- too set on preventing attacks and attempted attacks that have already happened. And please, whatever you do, resist the temptation to let TSA workers unionize. Security from terror attacks should be a federal jobs program. You need the authority to fire underperforming screeners quickly and effortlessly. Three game-changing possibilities to head up TSA: security guru Bruce Schneier, Cato Institute security and technology scholar Jim Harper, or Ohio State University's John Mueller.</blockquote></p>

<p>Although I'd be happy to see either Jim or John with it.</p>

<p>I don't want it because it's too narrow.  I think the right thing for the government to do is to give the TSA a lot less money.  I'd rather they defend against the broad threat of terrorism than focus on the narrow threat of airplane terrorism, and I'd rather they defend against the myriad of threats that face our society than focus on the singular threat of terrorism.  But the head of the TSA can't have those opinions; he has to take the money he's given and perform the specific function he's assigned to perform.  Not very much fun, really.</p>

<p>But I'd be happy to advise whoever Obama choses to head the TSA.</p>

<p>The job of the nation's CTO would be more interesting, but I don't think I <a href="http://weblog.infoworld.com/robertxcringely/archives/2008/11/the_once_and_fu.html">want</a> <a href="http://blogs.computerworld.com/obama_cto">it</a>, either.  (Have you seen the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us/politics/13apply.html">screening process</a>?)</p><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/schneier/fulltext?a=lxRoN"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/schneier/fulltext?i=lxRoN" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/schneier/fulltext?a=doEjN"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/schneier/fulltext?i=doEjN" border="0"></img></a>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:46:24 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/tsa">tsa</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/security">security</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/mere security theater">mere security theater</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/cato institute security">cato institute security</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/tsa workers">tsa workers</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/security experts agree">security experts agree</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/attacks">attacks</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/terror attacks">terror attacks</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/terrorism">terrorism</category>
      <source url="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/11/schneier_for_ts.html">Schneier for TSA Administrator</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Keeping America Safe from Terrorism by Monitoring Distillery Webcams]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/97364c3b71b32b3988fc75fe4bcaf94a</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/97364c3b71b32b3988fc75fe4bcaf94a</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Really : We had an email recently from an observer &quot;curious as to why the webcam that was inside the shop/bar is no longer there, or at least, functional&quot;. The email was from the Defense Threat...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.bruichladdich.com/wmd_story.htm">Really</a>:</p>

<blockquote>We had an email recently from an observer "curious as to why the webcam that was inside the shop/bar is no longer there, or at least, functional". The email was from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency in the United States.

<p>When we replied that it was simply a short term technical problem, we asked why on earth they could be interested in the comings and goings of a small Distillery off the West Coast of Scotland. Were there secret manoeuvres taking place in Loch Indaal, or even a threat of terrorists infiltrating the mainland via Islay?</p>

<p>The answer we received was even more surreal. Evidently the mission of the DTRA is to safeguard the US and its allies from weapons of mass destruction -chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high explosives.   The department which contacted the Distillery deals with the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, going to sites to verify treaty compliance.  Funnily enough chemical weapon processes look very similar to the distilling process and as part of training there is a visit to a brewery for familiarization with reactors, batch processors and evaporators.  As they said, it just goes to show how "tweaks" to the process flow or equipment, can create something very pleasant (whisky) or deadly (chemical weapons).</p>

<p>As they say: "In the post-Cold War environment, a unified, consistent approach to deterring, reducing and countering weapons of mass destruction is essential to maintaining our national security. Under DTRA, Department of Defense resources, expertise and capabilities are combined to ensure the United States remains ready and able to address the present and future WMD threat. We perform four essential functions to accomplish our mission: combat support, technology development, threat control and threat reduction. These functions form the basis for how we are organized and our daily activities. Together, they enable us to reduce the physical and psychological terror of weapons of mass destruction, thereby enhancing the security of the world's citizens. At the dawn of the 21st century, no other task is as challenging or demanding".</blockquote></p><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/schneier/fulltext?a=pHqMM"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/schneier/fulltext?i=pHqMM" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/schneier/fulltext?a=KbK3M"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/schneier/fulltext?i=KbK3M" border="0"></img></a>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:15:49 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/chemical weapons convention">chemical weapons convention</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/chemical weapons">chemical weapons</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/weapons">weapons</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/threat">threat</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/future wmd threat">future wmd threat</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/mass destruction -chemical">mass destruction -chemical</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/mass destruction">mass destruction</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/distillery">distillery</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/threat control">threat control</category>
      <source url="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/10/keeping_america.html">Keeping America Safe from Terrorism by Monitoring Distillery Webcams</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Pseudo Email Marketing Tools Empowering Spammers]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/7568db3beb1fe59141f6ec74902d2ae7</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/7568db3beb1fe59141f6ec74902d2ae7</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Largely ignoring its real life applicability, a vendor of &quot;email marketing&quot; tools continues the development of a DIY spamming tools, whose features greatly evolved throughout the last couple of years....]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: left;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: left;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wICHhTiQmrA/SQj-qLXa7XI/AAAAAAAACZs/eVrvlQbC73Y/s1600-h/marketing_spamming_6.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wICHhTiQmrA/SQj-qLXa7XI/AAAAAAAACZs/ByNNe5khEhY/s200-R/marketing_spamming_6.gif" /></a>Largely ignoring its real life applicability, a vendor of "email marketing" tools continues the development of a DIY spamming tools, whose features greatly evolved throughout the last couple of years. Originally released in 2004, the vendor appears to have been actively improving the real-time metrics of the campaigns, next to building interactivity into the spamming process through the WYSIWYG editor.<br />
<br />
For better or worse, despite that these applications are empowering spammers and lowering down the entry barriers into spamming, the tools have gotten <a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/07/dissecting-managed-spamming-service.html">largely replaced</a> by the <a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/10/inside-managed-spam-service.html">increasing number</a> of <a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2007/10/managed-spamming-appliances-future-of.html">managed spamming services</a>, whose quality assurance features of bypassing spam filters act as a main differentiation factor. Here are some of this tool's features :<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wICHhTiQmrA/SQj3AWUp3WI/AAAAAAAACZE/IJaKNStG3tY/s1600-h/marketing_spamming_1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="151" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wICHhTiQmrA/SQj3AWUp3WI/AAAAAAAACZE/A906A5o9i1I/s200-R/marketing_spamming_1.gif" width="200" /></a><i>"- High speed distribution - 200,000 letters per hour.</i><br />
<i>- Contains an embedded SMTP server that allows you to send letters directly to the recipient's mailbox without using your provider's SMTP server.</i><br />
<i>-&nbsp; If you are accessing the Internet via modem, and distribution using the SMTP server, you do not fit - also allowed to send mail through any number of remote SMTP servers (relay), or via SMTP server provider.</i><br />
<i>- Support for SMTP authentication.</i><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: left;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wICHhTiQmrA/SQj_l02fWvI/AAAAAAAACZ8/V9kNzRzibCQ/s1600-h/marketing_spamming_2.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wICHhTiQmrA/SQj_l02fWvI/AAAAAAAACZ8/_uP9YfEEhEk/s200-R/marketing_spamming_2.gif" /></a><i>- Supports up to 500 concurrent streams to send to each mailing.</i><br />
<i>- Automatic caching DNS requests to speed up distribution and reducing the load on the DNS server.</i><br />
<i>- Ability to run multiple independent shots at the same time.</i><br />
<i>- Ability to suspend delivery and continue later with a point.</i><br />
<i>- All modes distribution - TO, CC, BCC and PersonalCopy. In the latter case, the program generates a personal letter to each recipient.</i><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: left;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wICHhTiQmrA/SQj_VDIUypI/AAAAAAAACZ0/-Zr9CYINTlY/s1600-h/marketing_spamming_3.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wICHhTiQmrA/SQj_VDIUypI/AAAAAAAACZ0/aJp3Ub3Uwfo/s200-R/marketing_spamming_3.gif" /></a><i>- Ability to specify the size of BCC package regimes TO, CC, and BCC.</i><br />
<i>- Ability to specify the TO: field for mailing regimes and CS BCC.</i><br />
<i>- Full emulation signature letters Outlook Express to increase cross-your-mails through spam filters.</i><br />
<i>- Support for distribution via a proxy server.</i><br />
<i>- Automatically detect the bad (non-existent) and not by E-Mail addresses directly in the process of distribution based on a flexible, user SMTP rules. Thanks SMTP rules achieved a very precise definition of bad addresses virtually no false positives.</i><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wICHhTiQmrA/SQj3jFAM6tI/AAAAAAAACZc/Rf_WZkjuJ84/s1600-h/marketing_spamming_7.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wICHhTiQmrA/SQj3jFAM6tI/AAAAAAAACZc/kujVnisjcjY/s200-R/marketing_spamming_7.gif" /></a><i>- Ability to create lists of addresses, depending on the specific responses of remote servers for SMTP commands.</i><br />
<i>- Organize automatically subscribe / unsubscribe to the mailing addresses.</i><br />
<i>- Perform any processing of existing lists.</i><br />
<i>- Develop a letter to the powerful WYSIWYG Html editor.</i><br />
<br />
<i>- Automatically apply to each recipient by name, as well as paste in a letter to a specific, personalized information through powerful Mail Merge templates.</i><br />
<div style="text-align: left;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wICHhTiQmrA/SQj3vx0a3PI/AAAAAAAACZk/dlmHlT-5hyw/s1600-h/marketing_spamming_8.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wICHhTiQmrA/SQj3vx0a3PI/AAAAAAAACZk/fRcQsC-6XlY/s200-R/marketing_spamming_8.gif" /></a><i>- Set the calendar to automatically launch shots at the right time.</i><br />
<i>- Quickly send out mail.</i>"<br />
<br />
With managed spam services' on-demand, risk forwarding and completely outsourced processes, they're not only going to replace such DIY tools, but also, <a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2007/11/managed-fast-flux-provider.html">position them as a dynamically</a> evolving <a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/10/managed-fast-flux-provider-part-two.html">cybercrime platforms</a>.<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=CqO0M"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=CqO0M" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=HbgzM"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=HbgzM" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=KVshm"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=KVshm" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=wJpMm"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=wJpMm" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=ON79M"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=ON79M" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=nKPXM"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=nKPXM" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=hPU3m"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=hPU3m" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia/~4/436383197" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:28:30 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/bad addresses">bad addresses</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/addresses">addresses</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/tools">tools</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/smtp server">smtp server</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/smtp server provider">smtp server provider</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/e-mail addresses directly">e-mail addresses directly</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/distribution">distribution</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/modes distribution">modes distribution</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/speed distribution">speed distribution</category>
      <source url="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia/~3/436383197/pseudo-email-marketing-tools-empowering.html">Pseudo Email Marketing Tools Empowering Spammers</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Ticketmaster/Paciolan XSS: Thanks, but I'll buy at the stadium]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/6f061166c9d2ed01f029ede10862d142</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/6f061166c9d2ed01f029ede10862d142</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[As if the extra Ticketmaster fees weren't enough, how about the prospect of your PII being stolen because they forgot to perform proper due diligence via a web application security assessment on...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[As if the extra Ticketmaster fees weren't enough, how about the prospect of your <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/PII" target="_blank">PII</a> being stolen because they forgot to perform proper due diligence via a web application security assessment on recent <a href="http://press.ticketmaster.com/Extranet/TMPRArticlePressReleases.aspx?id=5530" target="_blank">acquisition</a> <a href="http://paciolan.com/" target="_blank">Paciolan</a>?<br />Consider the following Google search <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site:ev12.evenue.net&start=10&sa=N">results</a>. The server referenced therein hosts an "integrated ticketing system that enables venues to manage their own tickets."<br />Rutgers, University of Washington, Army, Air Force, Navy, Baylor, Notre Dame, even the American Museum of Natural History; all sell their tickets online through the Ticketmaster/Paciolan offering.<br />And they're all vulnerable as a result.<br />I've made multiple attempts to notify these folks, and have been ignored, so time for a scolding as my Gran used to say.<br />It's been awhile since I've brought video to bear and while I've nothing against the Arkansas Razorbacks, I had to utilize someone's instance of this service to prove my point, so away we go.<br />By the way, I just love the Verisign Secured badge (it's not going to help here).<br />Here's the full URL:<br /><a href="http://ev12.evenue.net/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/SEGetEventList?groupCode=FB&linkID=arkansas&shopperContext=&caller=&appCode=&RSRC=TM&RDAT=FB08SPLASH" target="_blank">http://ev12.evenue.net/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/SEGetEventList?groupCode=FB&linkID=arkansas&shopperContext=&caller=&appCode=&RSRC=TM&RDAT=FB08SPLASH</a><br />The <span style="font-style:italic;">shopperContext</span> (how ironic) variable is the parameter with issues. Mind you, this holds true for any university or venue using this service.<br /><br />For your viewing pleasure, the <a href="http://holisticinfosec.org/video/paciolan/paciolan.html" target="_blank">video</a>.<br /><br />Yes, they take your credit card information, and conduct the ticket purchase transaction. If you've read my blog, you know by now the risks inherent to cross-site scripting vulnerabilities under circumstances like these. Verisign SSL certs are nice, but won't help the consumer if the web app is vulnerable.<br /><br />Thanks, but I'll buy my tickets at the stadium. ;-)<br /><br />Should Ticketmaster/Paciolan fix this issue, I'll update the post accordingly.<br /><br /><a href="http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://holisticinfosec.blogspot.com/2008/10/ticketmasterpaciolan-xss-thanks-but-ill.html&title=Ticketmaster/Paciolan%20XSS:%20Thanks,%20but%20I'll%20buy%20at%20the%20stadium " title="Ticketmaster/Paciolan XSS: Thanks, but I'll buy at the stadium ">del.icio.us</a> | <a href="http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&amp;url=http://holisticinfosec.blogspot.com/2008/10/ticketmasterpaciolan-xss-thanks-but-ill.html" title="Ticketmaster/Paciolan XSS: Thanks, but I'll buy at the stadium ">digg</a> | <a href="http://slashdot.org/submit.pl?url=http://holisticinfosec.blogspot.com/2008/10/ticketmasterpaciolan-xss-thanks-but-ill.html">Submit to Slashdot</a>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/tickets">tickets</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/tickets online">tickets online</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/verisign ssl certs">verisign ssl certs</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/verisign">verisign</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/credit card information">credit card information</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/ticket purchase transaction">ticket purchase transaction</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/extra ticketmaster fees">extra ticketmaster fees</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/recent acquisition paciolan">recent acquisition paciolan</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/natural history">natural history</category>
      <source url="http://holisticinfosec.blogspot.com/2008/10/ticketmasterpaciolan-xss-thanks-but-ill.html">Ticketmaster/Paciolan XSS: Thanks, but I'll buy at the stadium</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[ID Cards for Port Workers]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/7b89a23c7ef2b33e78ba95e3a665da45</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/7b89a23c7ef2b33e78ba95e3a665da45</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[While I am strongly opposed to a national ID, I have consistently said that giving strongly secured ID cards to groups like port workers is a good idea. It's happening in New England: The scannable...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I am <a href="http://www.schneier.com/testimony-realid.html">strongly opposed</a> to a national ID, I have consistently said that giving strongly secured ID cards to groups like port workers is a good idea.  <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/10/06/high_tech_id_cards_rolling_out_at_ports/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Massachusetts+news">It's happening</a> in New England:</p>

<blockquote>The scannable card serves as proof that a background check has been performed and it contains features aimed at preventing misuse. In addition to a photograph, the card contains a smart chip that carries a copy of the holder's fingerprint. Port and delivery workers, cargo handlers, and other employees who must venture into sensitive or secure areas will be required to submit to a fingerprint scan before entering those locations. The scanning machine will automatically perform a match analysis with the fingerprint embedded in the smart chip.</blockquote>

<p>This is a great application for these cards.</p><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/schneier/fulltext?a=Dl3LM"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/schneier/fulltext?i=Dl3LM" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/schneier/fulltext?a=hOCgM"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/schneier/fulltext?i=hOCgM" border="0"></img></a>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/port">port</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/port workers">port workers</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/fingerprint">fingerprint</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/fingerprint scan">fingerprint scan</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/card">card</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/smart chip">smart chip</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/scannable card serves">scannable card serves</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/cards">cards</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/features aimed">features aimed</category>
      <source url="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/10/id_cards_for_po.html">ID Cards for Port Workers</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[FBI Announces They Operated and Closed the Dark Market Site]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/d41d35e862df52fd061da3218e9f9e38</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/d41d35e862df52fd061da3218e9f9e38</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Something rings strange to me in these reports of the Feds having operated a forum and marketplace site for hackers, Dark Market. The article in Wired claims the Feds were tracking hackers movements...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Something rings strange to me in <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/darkmarket-post.html">these reports</a> of the Feds having operated a forum and marketplace site for hackers, Dark Market. The article in Wired claims the Feds were tracking hacker&#8217;s movements and acquiring intelligence so they could perform a sting operation and catch the criminals. Then they closed the site and publicly announced their involvement with it:</p>
<blockquote><p>The FBI almost certainly closed DarkMarket in preparation for a global wave of arrests that will unfold in the next month or so. The site was likely shuttered to avoid an Agatha Christie scenario in which a diminishing pool of cybercrooks are free to speculate about why they&#8217;re disappearing one-by-one like the hapless dinner guests in <em>Ten Little Indians</em>.</p></blockquote>
<p>How on Earth does that make sense? If they close the market and announce their involvement, now they&#8217;ve given up their cover and surely all the hackers already know the FBI is on to them. They can simply move and restart their operations somewhere else.</p>
<p>Read the whole <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/darkmarket-post.html">Wired article </a>here.</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 07:00:31 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/site">site</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/market">market</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/dark market">dark market</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/fbi">fbi</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/marketplace site">marketplace site</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/hackers movements">hackers movements</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/hackers">hackers</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/hapless dinner guests">hapless dinner guests</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/agatha christie scenario">agatha christie scenario</category>
      <source url="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/itsecurity/~3/421823951/">FBI Announces They Operated and Closed the Dark Market Site</source>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
