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

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

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

Mitigations Unplugged by Matt Miller, Microsoft Security Science team

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

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

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

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

Threat Modeling at EMC, Danny Dhillon

Threat Modeling at Microsoft, Adam Shostack

Mitigations Unplugged, Matt Miller

Concurrency Attacks on Web Applications, Scott Stender and Alex Vidergar

Fuzzed Enough? Jason Shirk and Dave Weinstein

Real World Code Review, Vinnie Liu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When I park my car in the garage, I lock it. Why? Well, although I would hate for someone to steal my snow shovel and hockey sticks, my car is much more valuable to me. Security is about managing risk, specifically protecting valuable assets like my car. I have a higher level of protection on my car than on my garage. In dollar terms, the contents of my garage are orders of magnitude less valuable than my car. I could spend a lot of money fortifying my garage, and that would add some security to my car while it is parked there, but it is not a cost-effective investment. First, my car is the asset of value, and second the garage - no matter how well protected it is - doesn't move. 

Car manufacturers know this, insurance companies know this, consumers know this. Even media publishers know, yet in the common enterprise, programmers and architects seem to roam in ignorance. Your average download of a Michael Bolton song carries a far higher level of security than valuable user data, like passwords, social security numbers, and credit card details. Why do we keep protecting critical data with point-to-point security solutions (like SSL) that protect the transmission channel, but leave the valuable assets being transported wide open everywhere else? This is a critical question that needs to be answered in order to successfully add an effective layer of security to an SOA.

“We’ve updated! On November 14, 2008, LinkedIn published revised versions of our Privacy Policy and our User Agreement. Using LinkedIn means you consent to these policies, so please take a few minutes to read and understand them.”

However, if you log out and back, the notice will be gone– so if you weren’t looking too closely, you might not even realize you’ve just consented.

Rebecca Herold at Realtime IT Compliance looked into this and found that the FTC doesn’t much like this kind of implicit privacy changes. Instead, companies should be getting explicit consent, also called “Affirmative express consent,” says the FTC:

As the FTC has made clear in its enforcement and outreach efforts, a company must keep any promises that it makes with respect to how it will handle or protect consumer data, even if it decides to change its policies at a later date. Therefore, before a company can use data in a manner materially different from promises the company made when it collected the data, it should obtain affirmative express consent from affected consumers.

This would imply that if LinkedIn is updating its privacy policy with such a minimal notice, it may not have changed in any way “materially different” from before. But if it is different, they might face a bit of trouble.