Steps are now being taken, rather faster since Dan Kaminsky came up with a really effective DNS poisoning attack, to secure DNS by using DNSSEC.

The basic idea of DNSSEC is that when you get an answer from the DNS it will be signed by someone you trust. At some point the “trust anchor” for the system will be “.” the DNS root, but for the moment there’s just a handful of “trust anchors” one level down from that. One such anchor is the “.se” country code domain for Sweden. Additionally, Brazil (.br), Puerto Rico (.pr), and Bulgaria (.bg) have signed their zones, but that’s about it for today.

So, wishing to get some experience with the brave new world of DNSSEC, I decided that Sweden was the “in” place to be, and to purchase “cloudba.se” and roll out my first DNSSEC signed domain.

The purchase wasn’t as easy as it might have been — when you buy a domain, Sweden insists that people provide their identity numbers (albeit they have absolutely no way of checking if you’re telling the truth) — or if a company they want a VAT or registration number (which are checkable, albeit I suspect they didn’t bother). I also found that they don’t like spaces in the VAT number — which held things up for a while!

However, eventually they sent me a PGP signed email to tell me I was now the proud owner of “cloudba.se”. Unfortunately, this email wasn’t in RFC3156 PGP/MIME format (or any other format that my usually pretty capable email client understood).

The email was signed with key 0xF440EE9B which was reassuring because the .se registry gives the fingerprint for this key on their website here. Rather less reassuringly footnote (*) next to the fingerprint says “.SE signature for outgoing e-mail. (**) June 1 through August 31.” (the (**) is for a second level of footnote, which is absent — and of course it is now September).

They also enable you to fetch the key through a link on this page to their “PGP nyckel-ID” at http://subkeys.pgp.net.

Unfortunately, fetching the key shows that the signature on the email is invalid.

Since the email seems to have originated in the Windows world, but was signed on a Linux box (giving it a mixture of 0D 0A and 0A line endings), then pushed through a three year old copy of MIME-tools I suppose the failure isn’t too surprising. But strictly the invalid signature means that I shouldn’t trust the email’s contents at all — because the contents have definitely been tampered with since the signature was applied.

Since the point of the email was to get me to login for the first time to the registry website and set my password to control the domain, this is a little unfortunate.

Even if the signature had been correct, then should I trust the PGP key?

Well it is pointed to from the registry website which is a Good Thing. However, they do themselves no favours by referencing a version on the public key servers. I checked who had signed the key (which is an alternative way of trusting its provenance — since the email had arrived to a non-DNSSEC secured domain). Turned out there was no-one I knew, and of 4 individual signatures, 2 were from expired keys. The other signature was the IIS root key — which sounds promising. That has 8 signatures, once again not people I know — but only 1 from a non-expired key, so perhaps I can get to know some of the other 7?

Of course, anyone can sign a key on a public key server, so perhaps it makes sense for .se to suggest that people fetch a key with as many signatures as possible — there’s more chance of it being signed by someone they know. Anyway, I have now added my own signature, using an email address at my nice shiny new domain. However, it is possible that I may not have increased the level of trust

The name reveals some of its creepy appeal: Spykee = Spy Camera. I suppose the nanny you're trying to make sure isn't shaking your baby might be freaked out when it suddenly starts emitting Star Wars music, or such like. Made by Meccano under the Erector brand, its control software is Mac and Windows compatible.

I, for one, welcome our new Spykee overlords--on 15-Oct-2008 when it starts to ship generally.

Silicon Valley project finally gets underway: It's a still a pilot, small, with no promised outcome. And after all this time, a switch of partners, and new parameters, they've still mounted just 20 of 28 access points.

Take a difference I've noticed between financial services and government. I have encountered situations where a financial services customer may say "what if we just forget about using all those standards and make all these messages simpler", as they have optimization hard-wired as a goal. A government customer is (in my experience) more likely to focus on standards support for interoperability, and also to support directives that certain standards are used (e.g. XACML, let's say).

If the vendor was to build their product based solely on either customers needs, they would assume, as you say, that "the client just doesn't get it". It would be either "These government people are crazy, the people back at the bank told us those standards were not important", or else "these financial services people are crazy, we show them all the complex support for standards we have and they do not seem to care at all, they just want us to strip all that out".
In that case, the trick would be to build something down the middle, with the standards support and the optimization. But, just focusing on one sector is bad.

Today, allow me to update you on FAIR and the movement towards a formal, open standard.  There’s a couple of cool things going on in our little risk-world.

First, The Open Group Security Forum continues to move towards a formal adoption of FAIR.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN “WE” - YOU GOT A STANDARDS BODY IN YOUR POCKET OR SOMETHING?

Our meeting in Chicago a few weeks ago was great, but also slightly disturbing for me. I got pronoun-confusion syndrome.   I’m used to using the “we” pronoun to refer to RMI, or Jack and myself as we vet the models.  So without even thinking I would said “we have been looking at how loss occurs, and may want to change the model some” and The Open Group Members freaked out (rightfully so).  Adrian Seccombe gently reminded me that the “we” was now the Security Forum, and that “we” didn’t go changing things at will without vetting against each other.  Man I love this stuff.  I get to run our thoughts and ideas past some great folks now - you know, those smart people who tend to have really complex problems and are trying hard to solve them.

Formal Adoption:  Soon, Very Soon Now

Formal Adoption basically means we’ve made this document, everyone is close to saying that they generally like it, and once that finally happens then “bam”, we’re ready to move onward and upward with better things (see Cookbooks, below).  We’ve got a couple of changes to the current document that have been requested that aren’t a big deal.  For example, one request is that we make some statement about general applicability of FAIR to risk domains outside of the IT realm.   But once additions like that and others are done, this long process should be complete.

New Document Moving Towards Public Release:

We’ve got a basic document that should be public in the next few weeks on “What Makes a Good Risk Assessment Methodology” - written by yours truly and Jack.  It’s a very high-level document, and serves two purposes:

• For novices it helps parse out what is important in any undertaking to understand corporate risk (the repeated discussions on the ISO 27001 mailing list make me think it would be a place ripe for such a document).
• For those who “know” risk, it helps to re-establish some fundamental principles like the use of scales (ratio, please), the implications of dealing in probabilities, what attributes like consistency and defensibility mean, how “risk” should be reported to the business (something you know, meaningful) and so on.

When this doc is deemed ready for public consumption I’ll be sure to post on this blog here.

COOKBOOKS, EUROPEAN AGENCIES, AND, IRON CHEF “RISK” - WHOSE CUISINE WILL REIGN SUPREME?

One interesting thing that came up in the Chicago meeting was that ENISA (The European Network and Information Security Agency) developed a very nice document that reviewed something like 18 different risk assessment methodologies against their Criteria for Goodness.  FAIR was one of the ones they reviewed, and we (the royal “we” used there to include all us FAIR-Folk) did awfully well.  Things of interest:

1. They based their work on the current introduction paper which is not at all a step-by-step guide towards an organizational risk assessment (what ENISA really wanted) and we did pretty well.  Well enough that if we had developed a paper along the lines of NIST 800-30 or OCTAVE for the use of FAIR in a formal process, we could have done really, really well.  Like won-the-bake-off kind of well.
2. FAIR is actually not at all incongruous to many of the risk assessment methodologies offered, and in fact compliments many of them by letting those methodologies develop real, structured probabilities.  Think OCTAVE, where they basically say “math is (probabilities are) hard, so if you want to do them for reals, good luck!  But here’s a nonsensical way to do things if you want to believe in magic-fairy risk“.  FAIR fits right in there by stomping on the magic-fairy risk with the jack-boots of rationality.  FAIR similarly helps other risk standards that might lack structured probability development.

So The Open Group Security Forum decided that though we could create a new document and totally p0wn any future ENISA bake-off, there wasn’t much demand for the development of that documentation by the membership  - a point which was made quite apparent at the beginning of the discussion when one large European company CISO asked “What’s ENISA?”  Relevancy is everything, I suppose.

But that second item up there - the one about helping rather than competing with other “risk assessment methodologies” - really struck a chord.  So “we” (The Security Forum) are going to develop some “Cookbooks” that basically are high-level documents that say “If you want to use FAIR with (OCTAVE/COSO/CoBIT/Whatever) here’s how it fits, makes it better, and improves your life.  I’m pretty excited about these, and our first document looks like it’s going to be COSO integration.

THE OPEN GROUP SECURITY FORUM - THEY’RE A TRUSTING BUNCH (WITH QUALIFICATION, OF COURSE)

Finally, many people have asked me “Why work with The Open Group?”  There are many reasons, to be sure, but I will give you one example.  Members of the Security Forum there are not only great at vetting the model and getting consensus on risk and risk factors - but they’re quick to start applying.  So in Chicago, I thought I’d be talking about FAIR and the standard and fighting groupthink.  Nope.  Not at all.  In fact, the forum members spent more time suddenly discussing use of FAIR in a new Trust Model they’re developing.  So all of the sudden, I’m part of a new and exciting project to develop a Trust Model - how cool is that?  While formal adoption of the Trust Model will be necessarily long and deliberate - the collaboration and development is happening much faster than I can keep up with.  But if you all will allow me, it will help me get my head around it all by blogging about it later this week.  So be prepared to read about me dealing in “Trust” a little bit.

You will discern a certain amount of enthusiasm for blocking, and for a “something must be done” approach. However, in coming to their conclusions, they do not, in my view, seem to have listened too hard to the evidence, or sought out expertise elsewhere in the world…

Google/YouTube told them that 10 hours of video was posted every minute, and the amount is increasing. In the oral evidence session an MP helpfully suggested: “That video content is tagged. You do not need to look at every single minute of video content. Surely you could have people who would look at the video content which is tagged with labels which suggest it could be inappropriate.” Of course “happy_slapping.wmv” or “fluffy_bunnies.avi” must always contain exactly what it says on the tin (not!) but unaccountably Google said it was a “fair suggestion”, so perhaps my cynicism is misplaced.

However, back to blocking.

I submitted some evidence of my own, which the committee summarised, reasonably accurately:

Dr Richard Clayton, a researcher in the Security Group of the Computer Laboratory at Cambridge University and author of several academic papers on methods for blocking access to Internet content, pointed out that there was no single blocking method which was both inexpensive and discerning enough to block access to only one part of a large website (such as FaceBook). In his view, the fatal flaw of all network-level blocking schemes was the ease with which they could be overcome, either by encrypting content or by the use of proxy services hosted outside the UK.

The committee’s conclusion, having read this was:

At a time of rapid technological change, it is difficult to judge whether blocking access to Internet content at network level by Internet service providers is likely to become ineffective in the near future. However, this is not a reason for not doing so while it is still effective for the overwhelming majority of users.

which I suppose logically means that the committee thinks that blocking should now be discarded as a policy option — but somehow I think that isn’t their intended meaning.

The Committee should perhaps have a look at this Australian report, which found that ISP level content filtering (and in Australia the politicians want to use ISP level filtering to provide a child-friendly Internet) did work (up to a point) at Tier 3 (the smallest) ISPs. The up-to-a-point is that unlike previous tests the systems didn’t completely wreck the browsing experience by slowing it down. However, the systems blocked only 85-98% of illegal material and similar percentages of material suitable for adults but not for younger children. Interestingly some products were better at different categories.

Getting that many sites wrong is really quite significant, so it’s difficult to see this as a ringing endorsement for blocking the web. Additionally, the Australian report found that the blocking was useless on “non-web” protocols (such as peer-to-peer) and their report specifically didn’t consider cost, or ease of circumvention — so it’s not just UK politicians not wanting to consider evidence on that topic!

Finally, I should note that the Culture Media and Sport Committee has also ignored some rather more recent academic work. The MPs have put into their report that they were horrified to discover that child sexual abuse images took 24 hours to remove in the UK. What (should they ever learn of it) will they make of the recent discovery by Tyler Moore and myself that shows that if the website is hosted abroad then a month is more to be expected?

I would guess that every one of you reading this blog have a stock portfolio with 5 to 10 individual stocks or mutual funds. There are more than 5,000 publicly listed companies to choose from, and another 5,000 mutual funds. But, out of 10,000 possible companies you chose 10 to invest in. Why? Why did you reject the other 9,990 companies? Obviously there are more than 10 good companies to invest in. Other investors chose to invest their money in the other 9,990 companies…why not you?

I suppose the difference must be that many investors aren’t actively involved in their investments (maybe entrepreneurs are more so, since they have to know a certain investment space quite well)…

It sounds to me a lot like the editorial selection process for book manuscripts, articles, and so forth — editors receive a ton of submissions and they have to be choosy. Sometimes they don’t pick winners; sometimes they pick losers. More importantly, each has a personal style, opinions, preferences, and they are trying to appeal to a certain audience. It’s interesting to think that VCs are similar but makes sense–the end question of “What will be successful” really depends on the consumer base and industry, and VCs are just people who probably know and prefer to interact with a certain type of consumer base or audience.

Next, I suppose, is confiscating liquids at pools.

We've collectively lost our minds.

This story has a happy ending, though. A day after The New York Post published this story, Yankee Stadium reversed its ban. Now, if only the Post had that same affect on airport security.