I'm not complaining about the fact that I can't see what I'm typing. I understand and laud that feature, because I don't want someone looking over my shoulder at the password I'm typing, and this even applies when I'm at home. I love my children, but I certainly don't want them knowing the password to my bank account!

No, what I'm bothered by is how a typical password text box behaves on a form that may incur multiple post-backs before it's finally submitted. If you use the built in ASP.NET TextBox control, it purposely does not repopulate the password text, which means if you press a button on the form that performs a post-back, or if you have a multi-page form that posts back on every step, that password disappears, and the user typically has to re-enter it. You could solve this with liberal use of ASP.NET Ajax UpdatePanels, but that adds its own complexities. I wanted a simpler solution.

So I did a little research to see what others had discovered about this problem, and I ended up deriving my own custom control from TextBox to make a much more user-friendly (and developer-friendly) TextBox control. I called it PasswordTextBox, and it acts just like a TextBox in password mode, but it retains the password while still giving the user the same level of protection the standard TextBox supplies.

My PasswordTextBox operates very simply: it stores the password in control state, and renders a series of fixed characters (with the same length as the actual password) into the text box so that it "looks" like the user's password has been rendered. Since control state is part of view state, and since view state is stored in a hidden field on the form, I encrypt the password before putting it into control state.

The result is quite nice - the user can post your form back as many times as she needs to, perhaps moving back and forth across wizard steps or tabs, and when she finally presses the "Finish" button (or whatever you call the last step of your input form), your code will be able to read the password by simply accessing the Text property on the PasswordTextBox. The user will believe that her password is sitting there on the form while she's working, as the same number of obfuscated characters will show up in the field as she typed in originally (what she doesn't know is that those characters aren't her real password anymore, but what she doesn't know won't hurt her!)

Note that to keep this simple, I used DPAPI to encrypt the password, which suited my purposes. But if you have a web farm, that won't work well at all if you don't know which machine the user's going to post back to, so you'll want to replace that with something more robust. I could see looking up the <machineKey> for entropy, as that tends to be sync'd already across the farm, but I've not yet spent the cycles to go down that road, since unfortunately all of the code for generating keys based on that config section are off limits in ASP.NET (most of the useful stuff is marked internal). I don't think it'd be that hard to do though.

Anyway, without further ado, here's the code, which you'll see is quite simple. I'd love feedback, especially if you see any glaring problems with the idea or the implementation!

public class PasswordTextBox : TextBox
{
    // unlikely that a string of these would be used for a password
    const char PasswordPlaceholderChar = '}';

    string password; // stored encrypted in control state

    protected override void OnInit(EventArgs e)
    {
        base.OnInit(e);
        Page.RegisterRequiresControlState(this);
    }

    protected override object SaveControlState()
    {
        byte[] encryptedPassword = ProtectPassword(password);

        object baseControlState = base.SaveControlState();
        if (null == baseControlState)
            return encryptedPassword;
        else return new Pair(baseControlState, encryptedPassword);
    }

    protected override void LoadControlState(object savedState)
    {
        byte[] encryptedPassword;

        Pair pair = savedState as Pair;
        if (null != pair)
        {
            base.LoadControlState(pair.First);
            encryptedPassword = pair.Second as byte[];
        }
        else encryptedPassword = savedState as byte[];

        password = UnprotectPassword(encryptedPassword);
    }

    /// <summary>
    /// This control always uses TextMode=Password
    /// </summary>
    public override TextBoxMode TextMode
    {
        get
        {
            return TextBoxMode.Password;
        }
        set { }
    }

    /// <summary>
    /// TextBox doesn't render value attribute for TextMode=Password
    /// So we add code that renders a placeholder text instead
    /// </summary>
    /// <param name="writer"></param>
    protected override void AddAttributesToRender(HtmlTextWriter writer)
    {
        base.AddAttributesToRender(writer);

        string text = Text;
        if (text.Length > 0)
            writer.AddAttribute(HtmlTextWriterAttribute.Value,
                GetPlaceholderPassword(text));
    }

    /// <summary>
    /// TextBox doesn't save the "Text" viewstate in
    /// TextMode=Password and we don't want our behavior to break
    /// if ViewState is turned off so we store the password in
    /// Control State, encrypted with MachineKey
    /// </summary>
    public override string Text
    {
        get
        {
            return password ?? string.Empty;
        }
        set
        {
            // this prevents us overwriting the actual
            // password with a placeholder
            if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(password) &&
                value.Equals(GetPlaceholderPassword(password)))
                return;

            password = value;
        }
    }

    private string GetPlaceholderPassword(string realPassword)
    {
        int length = 12;
        if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(realPassword))
            length = realPassword.Length;

        StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
        sb.Append(PasswordPlaceholderChar, length);

        return sb.ToString();
    }

    public byte[] ProtectPassword(string password)
    {
        if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(password))
            return null;
        byte[] cleartext = Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(password);
        return ProtectedData.Protect(cleartext, null,
            DataProtectionScope.LocalMachine);
    }

    public string UnprotectPassword(byte[] ciphertext)
    {
        if (null == ciphertext)
            return null;
        byte[] cleartext = ProtectedData.Unprotect(ciphertext, null,
            DataProtectionScope.LocalMachine);
        return Encoding.UTF8.GetString(cleartext);
    }
}

Rob Enderle recently attended an EMC conference where, among the speakers, he heard from Uri Rivner regarding the growing sophistication–and mass-production capabilities—of the online fraud industry. In his excellent piece in Dark Reading on the subject entitled “How RSA/EMC Scared Me Half to Death”, Rob admitted to being more than a little scared by what he heard. And among his fears is that, in these tight economic times, companies will not make the investments needed to ensure that they and their customers are secure against these increasingly robust threats...

On 13 August, jcorey asked about how to deal with those who firmly believe that the only answer to any security problem is to inspect everything at the edge. This is an important question, and I wanted to give Joe an answer. (You might have to scroll down when you click the previous link, it seems that linking to individual comments is broken.)

Today, 15 October, I wrote a little thesis as an answer to his question. I’m calling it out in a separate post because I want to make sure those of you with aggregators that don’t update when posts receive new comments still have a chance to reply with your thoughts. I’ll also repost it here:

jcorey-- You've nailed the biggest obstacle to deploying something like direct connect. Many security professionals have been taught that there simply is, and never will be, a process or technology that allows you to trust anything that originates from outside your corpnet. These professionals cling to this belief, and have been the cause that allowed the whole “detection” market to bloom.

Let me be clear: this total lack of trustworthiness is no longer absolutely true. Of course there will be times when unknown machines will be used by known and unknown people to access your information. But what about one particular subset -- known humans, with known portable computers -- can't we do something better than treat them as toxic invaders?

Indeed we can. And that's what I'm proposing with direct connect. The technology -- managed, of course, with the right processes -- exists so that you can extend the trust to known computers even though you don't trust the network they're connected to. This is because you have mechanisms that:

1. Allow you to configure the machine according to your requirements (domain join, group policy)

2. Dictate computer and user authentication requirements (IPsec policies, smart cards)

3. Limit what the users of these machines can do (UAC, non-admin, Forefront Client Security, Windows Firewall, even software restriction policies)

4. Validate the health of machines initiating incoming connections and remediate if necessary (NAP, System Center Configuration Manager)

5. Limit the threat of attacks against stolen computers (domain logon, smart cards, BitLocker with TPM)

With the robust authentication, validation, configuration, and control mechanisms available to you, I simply don't see that there's any need to fall back to “detection” now. Detection technologies were -- and remain -- necessary for the times when we have no clue about the health of client computers and when we had no way to gauge the intent of the users. But it is truly reflective of a head-in-the-sand mentality to assume that this is a complete description of what's capable today.

You know, someone once asked me what it takes to be a security professional. I answered that there are two primary elements: become a networking/packet wonk, and be willing to change your opinions when the right evidence comes along. Indeed, I suspect that many security folk have forgotten the need to keep their wonikness updated, which in turn makes them resist new ideas regardless of the strength of the evidence. I'm not very proud of what I just wrote, because I loathe generalities, but I'm not sure what else to think here. Sigh.

Joe’s question is important and strikes at the foundation of what it means to be a security professional today. I’m eager to continue this conversation, because it’s reflective of what I sense to be a radical shift in our jobs—we are, or should be, no longer the wolf-crying propeller-head who sits in the basement and twiddles with the firewall. Instead, our job should be defined as one who’s charged with protecting the organization’s information from attack, while maximizing its utility to authorized users, according to the principles of least privilege. Your thoughts?

The report was written by a committee whose members include William Perry, a professor at Stanford University; Charles Vest, the former president of MIT; W. Earl Boebert, a retired senior scientist at Sandia National Laboratories; Cynthia Dwork of Microsoft Research; R. Gil Kerlikowske, Seattle's police chief; and Daryl Pregibon, a research scientist at Google.

They admit that far more Americans live their lives online, using everything from VoIP phones to Facebook to RFID tags in automobiles, than a decade ago, and the databases created by those activities are tempting targets for federal agencies. And they draw a distinction between subject-based data mining (starting with one individual and looking for connections) compared with pattern-based data mining (looking for anomalous activities that could show illegal activities).

But the authors conclude the type of data mining that government bureaucrats would like to do--perhaps inspired by watching too many episodes of the Fox series 24--can't work. "If it were possible to automatically find the digital tracks of terrorists and automatically monitor only the communications of terrorists, public policy choices in this domain would be much simpler. But it is not possible to do so."

A summary of the recommendations:

• U.S. government agencies should be required to follow a systematic process to evaluate the effectiveness, lawfulness, and consistency with U.S. values of every information-based program, whether classified or unclassified, for detecting and countering terrorists before it can be deployed, and periodically thereafter.

• Periodically after a program has been operationally deployed, and in particular before a program enters a new phase in its life cycle, policy makers should (carefully review) the program before allowing it to continue operations or to proceed to the next phase.

• To protect the privacy of innocent people, the research and development of any information-based counterterrorism program should be conducted with synthetic population data... At all stages of a phased deployment, data about individuals should be rigorously subjected to the full safeguards of the framework.

• Any information-based counterterrorism program of the U.S. government should be subjected to robust, independent oversight of the operations of that program, a part of which would entail a practice of using the same data mining technologies to "mine the miners and track the trackers."

• Counterterrorism programs should provide meaningful redress to any individuals inappropriately harmed by their operation.

• The U.S. government should periodically review the nation's laws, policies, and procedures that protect individuals' private information for relevance and effectiveness in light of changing technologies and circumstances. In particular, Congress should re-examine existing law to consider how privacy should be protected in the context of information-based programs (e.g., data mining) for counterterrorism.

Here are more news articles on the report. I explained why data mining wouldn't find terrorists back in 2005.

Dan described the Managed Hosting and colocation sector as “on fire” The sector is humming – incredible growth, outstanding execution, blowing away expectations. I must say, looking back 5 years ago after the tech bubble collapse, I can’t believe how strong the sector bounced back from those very difficult times.

His presentation was focused on a future, and a longer view for the industry. The HTS conference is packed this year with the largest attendance of Datacenter owners, Managed hosting and colocation companies ever to attend this conference.

• Demand steady or increasing in all markets, driven largely by capex constraints and greater awareness and choices.
• Supply is growing more slowly in the past 18 months as the credit crunch has hurt the ability of providers to expand ( it is very hard to get mortgages, loans only on new datacenter projects). Expansion build-out of existing shells is occurring, but very little on spec.
• Demand Growth of 15% in 2008. (Steady and increasing in the out years) However after supply growth peaked at 7.5% in 2007 supply growth now has slowed to 5%
• Dan believes that supply growth will pick back up again in 2011

Conclusions – supply is tight, demand is high and growing…this very good news for the industry.

• Some other trends:
  • The green initiatives are more than just a trend as datacenter owners who don’t figure out how to maximize power efficiency will be painted as villains.
  • Internet traffic and services consumption are linked as Internet traffic growth has been doubling every year (2005-2007)
  • Prediction: 2011 -2012 - internet traffic will get an exaflood – it is coming with a new breed of applications (set to boxes HD Video, games, etc.) that will drive new traffic patterns. Growth driven by consumer broadband + applications (HD video) applications, which in turn will drive demand for Managed Hosting / Colocation Services…

Managed Hosting Services Highlights

• Incredibly fast growth 30%+
• $10 Billion worldwide revenue by end of 2008
• We’ll keep growth pace until at least 2011
• Good news, Dan believes that fears about slowdown in growth are wildly overblown.

Why is managed hosting growing so fast?

• Demographic shifts – new breed of IT employees that embrace outsourcing
• Growth in internet applications (SaaS) The acceptance and growth of browser based applications has been enormous!
• Ambiguity between web hosting and managed hosting has turned positive

Dan’s Key success factors managed hosting and services

• High margin services – and not too many – it is so tempting in our day to day business when a customer comes along and wants to come and give us money for a unique on-off service… at this point the answer has to be no – or do it through a partner.
• High level of support delivery is critical – don’t cut pay in support people or outsource support to save a nickel… what you are selling is support. Keep doing this well or you will head into a bad place… just as examples in retail like Home Depot and others who have struggled with customer service challenges – the whole business starts to slide into the toilet… High levels of support delivers a strong word of mouth buying cycle

Final thoughts, the industry is healthy and will continue to thrive. Customers are looking for the one stop shop, one company that is a trusted advisor to the customer. As customers place more eggs in the Managed Service bucket, the industry will need to tighten-up those SLA’s. Today some parts of the industry have been getting away with loose SLA’s… as customers get more sophisticated and have more on the line, they will become more demanding and require robust multi-component SLAs and back-it –up.

I agree that these gentlemen are top notch researchers, witnessed by the fact that the authors do not mention nor claim to be “complex event processing” anywhere in their paper!  This paper is not about CEP, nor does it claim to be about CEP, it is about stream processing and unifying SQL standards.

ABSTRACT: This paper describes a unification of two different SQL extensions for streams and its associated semantics. We use the data models from Oracle and StreamBase as our examples. Oracle uses a time-based execution model while StreamBase uses a tuple-based execution model. Time-based execution provides a way to model simultaneity while tuple-based execution provides a way to react to primitive events as soon as they are seen by the system.

Asmentioned on numerous occasions, stream processing is a very important area in CEP/EP.   It is important not to confuse the higher situational knowledge from object-object correlation and state management with the single-object event refinement that occurs in stream processsing.    Event stream processing is fundamentally different than complex event processing. 

Event stream processing performs operations on streaming event objects.   In almost all advanced CEP/EP applications is is necessary to perform robust track and trace operations on streaming event objects, like tracking the position of an airplane.    Tracking the position of an aircraft can be modelled very nicely with event stream processing.  Tracking individual event objects is a precuror to multiclass object situation refinement.

When we manage the state of all the aircraft in the skies over New York, you need more than a stream processing construct.  You need to manage the state of all the aircraft.  Paul Vincent of TIBCO Software being to address this important point in The Value of State…  

Again, we will be better equiped to solve complex distributed event processing problems if we do not confuse the notion of event stream processing and complex event processing.   These technologies are indeed complimentary, both very important, but they are not the same.

I applaud Oracle and StreamBase’s work toward a unified standard for SQL extensions for streams.

The following excellent discussion is reposted from Streaming SQL approaches insist in ignoring causality by PatternStorm.

The recent paper “Towards a Streaming SQL Standard” by Oracle and Streambase unifies and generalizes two different execution models of Streaming SQL: Oracle’s and StreamBase’s.

While it’s true that the generalization succeeds in overcoming the unability of both execution models of producing correct results for astonishing simple queries (showing evidence of the actual limitations of these two Streaming SQL languages) it is also true that the generalization is closer to being overly complex than natural and intuitive.

The root cause behind the actual limitations of these two Streaming SQL languages is that their execution models “hardcode” the way events can be related to each other: in the Oracle case events are partially ordered by timestamp, in the StreamBase case events are totally ordered by time of arrival. These design decisions (natural in a stream oriented lamguage) have strong implications on what queries can be answered correctly, particularly when these queries involve joins of derived streams.

The generalization, of course, mainly consists in providing a new operator that allows the user to establish custom ordering relationships among the events (the SPREAD operator), which is good news but takes us to the fundamental issue: event processing cannot be reduced to stream processing, that is, to the processing of events that are totally or partially ordered by a pre-defined relationship (as Oracle and StreamBase actual implementations do), on the contrary, no particular ordering can be assumed because the user needs to be able to order the events in different ways in order to solve different problems. This is what event processing is about and the paper provides evidence that Streaming SQL approaches have found the need to move towards that direction and are having trouble in their way.

For instance, one of the queries used in the paper as an example of a query that StreamBase cannot solve (but Oracle can) is the following: correlate the stream that contains the total number of cars on the road for each time interval with the stream that contains the total average speed of the cars on the road for each time interval in order to detect the situation where the avergae speed is below 45 and the total number of cars is two or more. This query can be very easily and more robustly solved if you order the events by causality rather than by time, that is, if you have each position report update the average speed stream and the total number of cars stream and then you causally relate each position report to the new average speed event and the new total number of cars event that it generates; then the query is just a matter of detecting all report speeds that are causally related both to an average speed event below 45 and a total number of cars event of two or more (notice that this approach is more robust than Oracle’s time-based one because it works without requiring derived streams to be synchronized with the report speed stream)

Conclusions:

• Event Processing is a generalization of Stream Processing (as the paper shows)
• Event Processing requires providing the ability to the user of creating custom relationships among events and then define patterns/queries using those custom relationships.
• Causality is more often than not a more robust and easier criteria to order events than time or order of arrival.
• Event Processing Languages should support causality.

Regards,
PatternStorm