Skein is our submission (myself and seven others: Niels Ferguson, Stefan Lucks, Doug Whiting, Mihir Bellare, Tadayoshi Kohno, Jon Callas, and Jesse Walker). Here's the paper:

Executive Summary

Skein is a new family of cryptographic hash functions. Its design combines speed, security, simplicity, and a great deal of flexibility in a modular package that is easy to analyze.

Skein is fast. Skein-512 -- our primary proposal -- hashes data at 6.1 clock cycles per byte on a 64-bit CPU. This means that on a 3.1 GHz x64 Core 2 Duo CPU, Skein hashes data at 500 MBytes/second per core -- almost twice as fast as SHA-512 and three times faster than SHA-256. An optional hash-tree mode speeds up parallelizable implementations even more. Skein is fast for short messages, too; Skein-512 hashes short messages in about 1000 clock cycles.

Skein is secure. Its conservative design is based on the Threefish block cipher. Our current best attack on Threefish-512 is on 25 of 72 rounds, for a safety factor of 2.9. For comparison, at a similar stage in the standardization process, the AES encryption algorithm had an attack on 6 of 10 rounds, for a safety factor of only 1.7. Additionally, Skein has a number of provably secure properties, greatly increasing confidence in the algorithm.

Skein is simple. Using only three primitive operations, the Skein compression function can be easily understood and remembered. The rest of the algorithm is a straightforward iteration of this function.

Skein is flexible. Skein is defined for three different internal state sizes -- 256 bits, 512 bits, and 1024 bits -- and any output size. This allows Skein to be a drop-in replacement for the entire SHA family of hash functions. A completely optional and extendable argument system makes Skein an efficient tool to use for a very large number of functions: a PRNG, a stream cipher, a key derivation function, authentication without the overhead of HMAC, and a personalization capability. All these features can be implemented with very low overhead. Together with the Threefish large-block cipher at Skein core, this design provides a full set of symmetric cryptographic primitives suitable for most modern applications.

Skein is efficient on a variety of platforms, both hardware and software. Skein-512 can be implemented in about 200 bytes of state. Small devices, such as 8-bit smart cards, can implement Skein-256 using about 100 bytes of memory. Larger devices can implement the larger versions of Skein to achieve faster speeds.

Skein was designed by a team of highly experienced cryptographic experts from academia and industry, with expertise in cryptography, security analysis, software, chip design, and implementation of real-world cryptographic systems. This breadth of knowledge allowed them to create a balanced design that works well in all environments.

Here's source code, text vectors, and the like for Skein. Watch the Skein website for any updates -- new code, new results, new implementations, the proofs.

NIST's deadline is Friday. It seems as if everyone -- including many amateurs -- is working on a hash function, and I predict that NIST will receive at least 80 submissions. (Compare this to the 21 submissions NIST received -- five were rejected as not being complete -- for the AES competition in 1998.) I expect people to start posting their submissions over the weekend. (Ron Rivest already presented MD6 at Crypto in August.) Probably the best place to watch for new hash functions is here; I'll try to keep a listing of the submissions myself.

The selection process will take around four years. I've previously called this sort of thing a cryptographic demolition derby -- last one left standing wins -- but that's only half true. Certainly all the groups will spend the next couple of years trying to cryptanalyze each other, but in the end there will be a bunch of unbroken algorithms; NIST will select one based on performance and features.

NIST has stated that the goal of this process is not to choose the best standard but to choose a good standard. I think that's smart of them; in this process, "best" is the enemy of "good." My advice is this: immediately sort them based on performance and features. Ask the cryptographic community to focus its attention on the top dozen, rather than spread its attention across all 80 -- although I also expect that most of the amateur submissions will be rejected by NIST for not being "complete and proper." Otherwise, people will break the easy ones and the better ones will go unanalyzed.

1. Great paper that complements the whole "SIEM is dead?" saga - "Most enterprises are looking for a product that will solve all of their problems in some sort of off-the-shelf miracle, and when they find out that the currently available tools can't do it, they either postpone their deployment or put them on the back burner. "
2. "The Mess: looking for someone to blame?" is an awesome piece on Internet security and its architecture - and so is Gunnar's follow-up ("If a tree falls in someone else's silo...")
3. Mike call to "Rise up against Mediocrity."  - "Dilbert makes the risk of the lowest common denominator approach abundantly clear."; in other words, you say 'best practices', I say 'mediocrity!' Mike also remind us, in vain, to do "Security FIRST!" (and compliance second)
4. A great piece from Burton: "On Response" - I think the world needs another 10-20 million reminders that PREVENTION FAILS. This is definitely a good one for those still in the "we'll just block the threat world" - "we will not win a continuing war of escalation" and "using response can be more cost effective than installing the latest and greatest preventative tool"
5. More on metrics, including the highly-awaited ISO27004.
6. Pretty dumb paper by a person confused by why PCI DSS exists (the guy needs to read this). PCI doesn't "fall short," it helps people who will otherwise not do anything and their systems will "power" those botnets of the future...
7. While we are on this subject: a really good coverage of PCI 1.2. changes, released Oct 1st. More PCI fun here. And more here ("PCI Compliance - dispelling some common myths"). And, more PCI myths. And more good ideas on PCI from Mike R. Sorry, can't stop thinking about PCI :-)  - also this is good.
8. Adrian on behavioral monitoring; mostly in DAM, but also elsewhere in security.
9. "Premature Chasm-Crossing"  - a must-read for all security vendors and especially their marketing (and  their easily-excitable PR teams...) - "Shouldn't vendors be spending more time fighting the problems that security managers are facing today, right this minute?" (Mike R also comments on that). A related - and  just as interesting point is made here: "Security is not a solution"
10. More on compliance and security checklists, good and bad: "I think this is a dangerous trend unless the "checklist" is all inclusive." (how can a checklist include ALL? :-))
11. "SANS Top 7 New IR/Forensic Trends In 2008"
12. Read "The three approaches to computer security!"  Why? Come on, it is from Joanna! :-)
13. A fun discussion about a hot new technology: network IDS. Is IDS absolutely indispensable to ALL companies? No. Can it be incredibly useful? You bet. End of discussion.
14. On an unrelated note, are lasers the future of warfare? Some say no.
15. Finally, some security humor from Gartner (!): "Get Rich Quick With Network Security"

Enjoy!

Previous security reading.

In the case of phishing, it is relatively clear. The developers believe the PKI book. The PKI people believe in the efficacy of digital signatures to prove stuff. The cryptographers believe in the perfection of mathematics, and the security world believes in the completeness of their own learning. They are all wrong, but only at the large level of generalisations, not at the detailed level of particular claims. Any one of the claims, in isolation can be shown to be true. But, generalising these brittle claims to be solid building blocks is a completely different question. Few of the claims are strong enough to partake in a general model without severe support; the general model of secure browsing is the best evidence of how it is secure in name only.

How then is it built? By accident or by design, a series of claims meet together in a holy ring of righteous architecture. Each of the proponents claim loudly that their part is strong, but the ring has no strength. Eventually, one of the claims in the links is broken. For phishing, the browsers never did have the potential to show authenticity; not only did they not have the security strength to do it (c.f., Skype v. CSRF), they didn't even do it in practice (recall the lost padlock?), and their recent efforts to show authenticity (c.f. colour debate) reveal how far they are from understanding even the goal, let alone the implementation. Once that link was broken, and money was made, all the others revealed their weaknesses, as crooks systematically worked to breach the lot.

If we look at the wider financial collapse, now underscored by the nationalisation of the worlds biggest financiers of mortgages ($ 5.3 trillion.... or is it $ 5.4 ?), we see the same pattern. The bankers believed in their product. The originators believed in their origination, the securitizers believed in their free market and accurate price, and the holders believed in the assets. The CDO, the subprime, the other 100 special names, each was a contract. Each was clear in and of itself. But, when placed end-to-end, in a line, with a bunch of other agreements, the claims that were good in isolation were not strong enough to participate in the super-claim made of the overall edifice.
The financial system was built like a bridge; each piece rested on the previous one. And then, the clever architects bent the bridge around ... and around again, until the first piece met the last. The elegant keystone of finance was to finally lift up the first one to rest on the last.

Thus, the banks themselves invested their capital in their own product.

Back to CEP and EPTS, there are folks who appear to believe they may define “CEP” by the current use cases from self-described CEP vendors. Frankly speaking, I am puzzled by the bottom-up approach.

The bottom-up approach is a bit like saying “We have a lot of prototype rockets being built, so let’s define the future of space travel based on the prototypes!”

It really makes little sense, at least to me, to attempt to define CEP based on what the current generation products (self-described CEP products) are capable of doing.   

From my persective, it would be more beneficial to customers to define the types of complex events (and situations) businesses need to detect in real-time and match the technologies and solution architectures to detect those events, in real-time, with high confidence.

A lot of this “top down thinking” has been already done.

IT businesses need to detect operational threats and problems, and be able to pinpoint, with very high accuracy, where the problem is in a complex network, for example.  This problem remains mostly unsolved with a very low signal-to-noise ratio.

Also, most businesses would like to detect fraud and other criminal activity on their network before the activities adversely impacts their business.   This problem remains unsolved for most companies.

Scientific researchers seek models of weather, epidemiology, and so much more; and they need event processing solutions to obtain situational knowledge into current events and predict future ones.  We know how difficult predicting the weather can be!

Folks on the ground need to model urban traffic as events and design better event-driven traffic models and solutions.

The list of important event processing challenges we face go on and on.  

While I see some merit in the bottom-up approach, it is better for users to define what are practical “complex event” related problems and then look for the solutions, vs. define the solution and then look for the problem.

From a strategic perspective,  self-fulfilling CEP use case studies are interesting, but they hould not limit the vision, definition, and future of processing complex events; and be careful of use case fallacies.

The various components (sub functions) of security organization should align with the business objectives of the IT and the whole organization. There needs to be a cohesive security strategy in order to align the various comoponents. One good way of understanding the business objective is why is the business parting with money for deploying a specific security component. Why is business giving me money for Compliance? Why is business giving me money to implement IDP? Constitutive questions such as these will help you to understand the fundamental concerns for the business and based on these we can come up with a strategy suitably aligned with the business.

One good example is the area of compliance. Attempting to make each every units of your business complaint with certain standards/legal regulations and so on would be a tall order. First define the scope, draw a circle around the units that need to be compliant, then come up with a strategy to make it compliant by formulating your objective - derived from the business objective of why the business gave you money.

Any security implementation effort should have a well defined focus (scope), business objective and strategy to bind the various components cohesively that aligns with the ultimate business objective. By this business will view security organization with dignity else security organization will end up being a spoke in the wheel of business.

In the past, I was involved in discussion about the ROI of information security and security is insurance and so on. After eating the forbidden apple from the tree of paradise, I realize security has neither ROI nor akin to insurance. Information security is way of doing business with due care. Security is way of enhancing the trust of a business among customers and thus enhancing the identity (or brand image of the company). Few years down the line people won't even question why you do security, it will become a part of  your background conversation. Nobody questions why we buy hybrid vehicles anymore right?

If components of security function is not cohesively aligned with business objective it is spoke in the wheel of business else it is a brand enhancer of business.

Next, insert appropriate morbid jokes <here> for "IDS is dead", "NAC is dead", "GRC is dead", everybody is dead... WTF? Are we at the cemetery or what? Is "dead" dead? Yeah, but it came back as a zombie :-) So, "dead" is a "living dead" "dead" now. Ha*3.

Finally, think! Why were you thinking of buying a SIEM? 'Cause the big "G" in the sky said so? And while you are thinking, check these fun points out:

1. Does your SIEM require 17 beefy servers to operate? How many gallons of foreign oil have to go up in smoke to power that mammoth up? And you know what happened to mammoths, don't you?
2. If your "high-performance" SIEM appliance can only run 5 correlation rules at the same time, what "high" do they mean, really? Hold this thought....
3. Is five field engineers, two developers and CTO enough to install it? Who else needs to help? Ah, sorry, I missed the DBA :-)
4. Do you know when "If CustomVariable17 = Value5" condition matches? Will you still remember it in a year?
5. Can you tell "taxonomy" from "ontology"? You can now? Good for you. Are you more secure now? More efficient? Compliant?
6. How many shifts of security analysts do you have watching the shiny consoles 24/7? If zero, then why - oh - why those consoles are running in the first place? "If a tree falls..." - you know how this one ends. Correct! You get hit by the bough.
7. When was the last time you built a custom agent for parsing and normalizing, say, SAP logs? Did it work? What did you do after it didn't? Cried? And did it help? Then a burly vendor SE showed up, charged you $37,600 and left? Happy now?
8. Do you automatically correlate IDS/IPS alerts with vulnerability data ... for client-side attacks? Really? :-)
9. There are dozens of firewall, IDS/IPS, router, etc brands, each with its own log type. This is actually simple! But there are thousands upon thousands of applications in use today. Some have logs. All are different. Care to build rules for that? Now you finally know why SIEM vendors don't parse their own Java logs (no shit!)
10. Do you know what "threat x vulnerability x random()" equals to? Yup, it still equals random(). Automated prioritization, you say?
11. Do you know why some SIEM vendors are migrating to IT GRC now? So they can go and die there ... quietly.

All in all, I have to agree with Raffy to a large extent!  The world has evolved - and SIEM has not. It might not be dead (as old attacks and defenses never really die and large organization still build and man massive SOCs where SIEM is "a must"), but in this age of web application hacking, CSRF and XSS, phishing, PCI DSS, massive bot armies, client-side 0-days, stealth malware, etc, paying $x,000,000 for a pile of ugly Java code is insane ... As a result, SIEM has greatly diminished in importance and has become just one small thing you might do with logs and some other data. What made it so? Mostly implementation complexity - but a slew of other factors mentioned above as well.

So, consider this instead:

• Compliance? "Sorry, buddy, you need this for compliance, not that. "
• Want to simplify your incident response? Get log management and fly through all your logs, not crawl through some of them.
• Have a very real need to dig into your logs for troubleshooting or tracking that pesky user? Log management works.

Now, what if you have a latent and vague desire to "correlate something" and a million nice greenbacks to flush down the drain? OK, go get your SIEM toy for $780,000 + 20% maintenance/year ... a true bargain (price valid today only).

Finally, I would like to end this on an optimistic note. Do we need more intelligence to analyze the log data we have collected? Of course! Do we have a widest set of log use cases from today's security  to tomorrow's regulations? You bet. And, for you Raffy, I'd add "... we also have other data to analyze together with logs." So, can we "reinvent SIEM?" Yes, I think so! It just hasn't been done yet ... For now, just use log management.

I was reading Ellen Messmer's report today about the security incident over at Lending Tree. Yeah, I know another information breach by insiders case, BFD.  But I think there is something different about this one.  From what I am reading this is more a case of corporate espionage than the usual hackers for fraud and financial gain type of deal.  For a long time now we have been hearing from people like Bruce Schneier in this article talk about the front in security moving from dealing with script kiddies working for kicks to organized cybercriminal gangs that are in it for financial gain. Mostly the gain is about identity theft and gaining access to funds fraudulently.

In the Lending Tree case though there was not evidently a motive to use the ill begotten information for identity theft or fraud.  Rather they represented Glengary, Glen Ross leads.  That is the names, contacts and qualifications of people looking for mortgages.  A mortgage company would consider these leads more valuable than gold, more valuable even that gasoline!  So to my mind this is more a case of corporate espionage where a company that is competitive to Lending Tree infiltrated their networks through people, rather than technology to gain access to their corporate crown jewels. 

This sort of stealing your competitors information has been going on for decades, well before computers and cybercrime were around.  However, this is a great example of some things not going out of style.  Obtaining your competitors information is a great motive, computers are just the container where the information is kept.  Sort of like cracking a safe.  It is always easier getting into a safe if you are given the combination, than if you have to crack it yourself. 

Yet another front in the cybercrime war that security folks need to be on guard for!