<?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: types]]></title>
    <link>http://securityratty.com/tag/types</link>
    <description></description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
    <generator>iRatty Engine</generator>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[What You Don't Know CAN Hurt You!]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/709743a7aaf5211f98869f5271a8a582</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/709743a7aaf5211f98869f5271a8a582</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Here's a quick quiz for all of you security professionals out there

1. What's a 'SAN
2. What's a 'LUN' on a Fiberchannel SAN
3. What are the differences between iSCSI, NAS and Fiberchannel SANs
4....]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here's a quick quiz for all of you security professionals out there:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1. What's a 'SAN'?<br>
  2. What's a 'LUN' on a Fiberchannel SAN?<br>
  3. What are the differences between iSCSI, NAS and Fiberchannel SANs?<br>
  4. How does data de-duplication work?<br>
  5. What are the different types of 'stores' supported by Microsoft Exchange?</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/fiberchannel san">fiberchannel san</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/san">san</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/quick quiz">quick quiz</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/microsoft exchange">microsoft exchange</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/data de-duplication">data de-duplication</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/security professionals">security professionals</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/fiberchannel sans">fiberchannel sans</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/nas">nas</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/types">types</category>
      <source url="http://www.rsa.com/blog/blog_entry.aspx?id=1395">What You Don't Know CAN Hurt You!</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Localizing Cybercrime - Cultural Diversity on Demand Part Two]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/6fa5c311a11504a21120c6a907e03041</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/6fa5c311a11504a21120c6a907e03041</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[It's where you advertise your services, and how you position yourself that speak for your intentions, of course, &quot;between the lines&quot;. There's a common misunderstanding that in order for a malware...]]></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/SSv52TmaA2I/AAAAAAAACec/W3ErlbR-fSo/s1600-h/translation_service_cybercrime.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wICHhTiQmrA/SSv52TmaA2I/AAAAAAAACec/W3ErlbR-fSo/s200/translation_service_cybercrime.JPG" /></a> It's where you advertise your services, and how you position yourself that speak for your intentions, of course, "between the lines". There's a common misunderstanding that in order for a malware campaigner or scammer to launch a localized attack speaking the native language of their potential victims, they need to speak the local language. This misconception is largely based on the fact that a huge number of people remain unaware on how core strategic business practices have been in operation across the cybercrime underground for the last couple of years.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/02/localizing-cybercrime-cultural.html">Outsourcing the localization process</a> (translation services for spam/phishing/malware campaigns) has been happening for a while, courtsy of DIY servics ensuring complete anonymity of their customers. Interestingly, the translators may in fact be unaware that the advertising channels the service is using is directly attracting everyone from the bottom to the top of the cybercriminal food chain as a customer. Sometimes, it's services like this that open a new market segment covering an untapped opportunity, with this particular service already pointing out that it's charging cheaper than their competitors.<br />
<br />
"<i>We offer our services in translation. We are only competent translators profile higher education. Service is working with all types of texts. Languages available at this time of Russian, English, German. Average translation of the text takes up to 10 hours (usually much faster) through the full automation of the order and payment. <b>Just want to note that we do not keep any logs on IP and does not require registration</b>. In addition you can remove your order from the database after his execution. In addition to running more than 1000 translations already, we can use all the lessons learned to be more effective in our services. Prices vary depending on the complexity of the topic covered.</i><br />
<br />
<i><b>Prices and deadlines:  </b><br />
* Standard - the deadline is not more than 24 hours. Prices depend on the direction and guidance from the 'Order'.&nbsp;</i><br />
<i>* Term - work on your translation begins precedence. The price of the 50% more than the standard translation. Prices also depend on the direction and guidance from the 'Order'. <br />
<br />
The cost of the transfer depends on the amount of work. The workload is measured in symbols. In calculating the characters are shown letters and numbers. Punctuation do not count. Minimum order 100 characters.</i>"<br />
<br />
I'm particularly curious how is a contractor(translator) going to react to a situation when a large scale malware campaign speaking several different languages tell a fake story that the contractor might have recently translated for them. With the employer positioning itself as a fully legitimate company, whereas its customers requesting localized version of texts for the spam/phishing/malware campaigns are the "usual suspects", the contractors would continue allowing cybercriminals the opportunity to build more authenticity within their campaigns.<br />
<br />
<b>Related posts:</b><br />
<a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/01/e-crime-and-socioeconomic-factors.html">E-crime and Socioeconomic Factors</a><br />
<a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2007/10/mpack-and-icepack-localized-to-chinese.html">MPack and IcePack Localized to Chinese</a><br />
<a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/05/icepack-exploitation-kit-localized-to.html">The Icepack Exploitation Kit Localized to French</a><br />
<a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/05/firepack-exploitation-kit-localized-to.html">The FirePack Exploitation Kit Localized to Chinese</a><br />
<a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2007/09/localizing-open-source-malware.html">Localizing Open Source Malware</a><br />
<a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/04/localized-fake-security-software.html">Localized Fake Security Software</a><br />
<a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/03/localized-bankers-malware-campaign.html">A Localized Bankers Malware Campaign</a><br />
<a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2007/11/lonely-polinas-secret.html">Lonely Polina's Secret</a> (Localized malware campaign)<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=jtrxN"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=jtrxN" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=MlKUN"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=MlKUN" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=x6kTn"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=x6kTn" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=NtZ5n"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=NtZ5n" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=11AEN"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=11AEN" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=KL4TN"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=KL4TN" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=BB2Un"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=BB2Un" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia/~4/465119206" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 05:55:21 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/translation">translation</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/standard translation">standard translation</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/average translation">average translation</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/translation services">translation services</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/malware campaign">malware campaign</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/bankers malware campaign">bankers malware campaign</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/prices">prices</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/services">services</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/prices vary">prices vary</category>
      <source url="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia/~3/465119206/localizing-cybercrime-cultural.html">Localizing Cybercrime - Cultural Diversity on Demand Part Two</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[Blogging from DeepSec 2008 in Vienna]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/295cd975846e9f76da4909bf958b0713</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/295cd975846e9f76da4909bf958b0713</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[I am already back stateside from DeepSec and I am now flying to CSI 35th in DC; finally I had time to prepare my DeepSec blog post
First, I enjoyed DeepSec conference and I am grateful for the...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am already back stateside from <a href="https://deepsec.net/schedule/">DeepSec</a> and I am now flying to <a href="http://www.csiannual.com">CSI 35th</a> in DC; finally I had time to prepare my <a href="https://deepsec.net/schedule/">DeepSec</a> blog post.</p>  <p>First, I enjoyed <a href="https://deepsec.net/schedule/">DeepSec</a> conference and I am grateful for the invitation to speak there. I love European conferences – and not only for having <em>infinitely</em> (with that being an <em>under</em>-statement of the year) superior coffee during breaks :-)&#160; In particular, I liked the audience for my presentation (slides will be posted here soon) and I think the audience liked my material and myself too :-)</p>  <p>What also impressed me a lot was Ivan Ristic speech, which was the second day keynote. He started by simply stating that ‘security industry has failed’ and that ‘a desktop is lost.’ His proof was in typical numbers like “75% of corporate systems are infected with at least 1 malware piece per system”, “1 million of malware types” and “25,000 unique malware samples a day seen.”&#160; However, he then broadened the subject and talked about how not only “a trusted desktop” is gone, but the entire world of “trust everything [on a system], all the time” is gone (his ideas were similar to what I planned to present in <a href="http://chuvakin.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-hitb-2008-conference.html">my HITB 2008 presentation</a> about “the 0wned world”)</p>  <p>I also like how he positioned all those “security user prompts” (in Vista and even before) as a proof that security technologies have failed and now we have to rely on the user to make security decisions (which will obviously fail as well since users are now fully conditioned to “see a chunk of technical mumbo-jumbo, then click OK”)</p>  <p>It was also interesting how he connected a lot of security failures to his “#1 reason: all programs run with all privileges of the user that runs them.”&#160; In fact, he illustrated it by reminding the audience that “everybody runs untrusted code every day today [web browser + Javascript, etc] while nobody did this 30 years ago.”&#160; He also beat up blackisting as an approach to security (but then again, everybody does it today :-)) - what was interesting that he opined that “we will spend the next 10 years proving that whitelisting will fail just as we spent previous 10 years proving that blacklisting fail.” His main point was that global “onslaught” of whitelisting and code signing will kill all sorts of useful things AND provide little security. </p>  <p>He then called for everybody to think about solving the hard, possibly non-sexy problems. This is the part where I could have used more details :-)</p>  <p>So, a fun speech (even though my telling of it is a bit jumbled… check out his slides whenever they are posted) – and a fun conference overall. Worth a 12 hour flight :-)</p>  <div class="blogger-post-footer">About me: http://www.chuvakin.org</div><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/AntonChuvakinPersonalBlog?a=82qhN"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/AntonChuvakinPersonalBlog?i=82qhN" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/AntonChuvakinPersonalBlog?a=zSLaN"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/AntonChuvakinPersonalBlog?i=zSLaN" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/AntonChuvakinPersonalBlog?a=UnExN"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/AntonChuvakinPersonalBlog?i=UnExN" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntonChuvakinPersonalBlog/~4/455651650" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/security">security</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/security decisions">security decisions</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/deepsec">deepsec</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/security industry">security industry</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/security user prompts">security user prompts</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/security technologies">security technologies</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/user">user</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/deepsec conference">deepsec conference</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/security failures">security failures</category>
      <source url="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntonChuvakinPersonalBlog/~3/455651650/blogging-from-deepsec-2008-in-vienna.html">Blogging from DeepSec 2008 in Vienna</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Hosting meets the cloud]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/5ce6d3370e235e215b980a588e616472</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/5ce6d3370e235e215b980a588e616472</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Im out at The 451 Group Client Conference in Boston, lovely Boston. Its been over ten years since I lived here, but somehow Boston always has a feel of home
After meetings and calls, I was finally...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I’m out at <a href="http://clientconference.the451group.com/na/2008/" target="_blank">The 451 Group Client Conference</a> in Boston, lovely Boston. It’s been over ten years since I lived here, but somehow Boston always has a feel of home.</p>
<p>After meetings and calls, I was finally able to slip into a conference session – just in time to catch uber-smart analysts Rachel Chalmers (<a href="http://the451group.com/" target="_blank">The 451 Group</a>) and Dan Golding (<a href="http://tier1research.com/" target="_blank">Tier1 Research</a>) engage in a lively and not-so-mock debate on “<a href="http://clientconference.the451group.com/na/2008/agenda.html" target="_blank">Hosting Meets the Cloud</a>”.</p>
<p><a href="http://blog.sciencelogic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/clip-image0021.jpg"><img style="border-top-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin: 5px; border-right-width: 0px" src="http://blog.sciencelogic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/clip-image002-thumb.jpg" border="0" alt="clip_image002" width="240" height="157" align="left" /></a>Now this doesn’t cover the entire debate – and part II is coming tomorrow. But what it does cover is the most interesting questions (to me) and paraphrase the points made by the analysts. I thought they both had very interesting points and more similarities than differences in the end; the real difference is how they thought about the issues and through what lens – for Rachel it was the enterprise and for Dan it was managed hosting providers.<em> (</em><a href="http://images.inmagine.com/img/inspirestock/ispc037/ispc037046.jpg" target="_blank"><em>image from inmagine</em></a><em>)</em></p>
<p><strong><em>Question: What is a cloud and why?</em></strong></p>
<p><strong>Dan:</strong> Shared infrastructure leveraged/run by third parties for the benefit of enterprises, developers, etc. This is not a new idea – just recently “rebranded.” Given all the discussion and disagreement over this now, what will the cloud end up looking like?</p>
<p><strong>Rachel:</strong> The cloud is “IT infrastructure as a service” down to the level of a server operating system. Take the example of <a href="http://www.cmswatch.com/Trends/1418-Cloud-computing---Ellison-rants,-others-reap?source=RSS" target="_blank">Amazon web services</a> – in this case it’s not just the infrastructure but also the internal processes built around service delivery, e.g., provisioning, that are being exposed as a commodity to external customers.</p>
<p><strong><em>Dan’s Question for Rachel: In your opinion, how much is the <a href="http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/devt/74F46C52ACB5316CCC2574F9007B3A37" target="_blank">cloud a fad versus CIOs</a> really trying to solve a problem?</em></strong></p>
<p><strong>Rachel:</strong> For the practical, roll-up-your-sleeves types of CIOs – those coming up from the engineering ranks – that I talk to, the cloud is real, as opposed to SOA and middleware.</p>
<p><strong><em>What about “internal” cloud computing – built and maintained by an enterprise versus a third-party provider?</em></strong></p>
<p><strong>Dan:</strong> Cloud computing is done by providers for customers. Certainly there are <a href="http://www.mashget.com/2008/11/02/salesforcecom-extends-cloud-computing-service/" target="_blank">enterprises that have made internal computing investments</a>, e.g., for publishing, large-scale phone systems, etc - but they were stupid ideas made by companies that have too much money. A better question here is does it make any sense for an enterprise to create their own cloud? While an enterprise can play at it, they can’t do it cost-effectively, not in a way that a third party provider can do it.</p>
<p><strong>Rachel:</strong> Many CIOs have “managed-hoster” envy – for things like chargeback and billing that hosters understand a do better. Of course there has been a rise in automation and virtualization tools in the enterprise which may not be as efficient and built for scalability as a hoster can achieve, but what is important is that they are customized/specialized for that business.</p>
<p><strong>Dan:</strong> Can you give a specific example of optimization to make it worthwhile for enterprises to do it themselves?</p>
<p><strong>Rachel:</strong> One example is sovereignty. The privacy laws around financial and healthcare information are not the same everywhere. Clouds and their geographically-dispersed data centers don’t necessarily have “national” borders. This is definitely a concern for the CIO that has to <a href="http://www.intomobile.com/2008/11/10/security-are-you-comfortable-sharing-your-information-with-%E2%80%98the-cloud%E2%80%99.html" target="_blank">comply with regulations in their industry around privacy protection</a>, for instance. Another example is security. Dow Chemical does a lot of work via joint ventures and has a need to provide but lock down desktops given to contractors as corporate workspaces. For their level of security, they need to “own” their computing resources.</p>
<p><strong>Dan:</strong> But why can’t someone like <a href="http://sungard.com/" target="_blank">SunGard</a> provide that as they do for many other large companies?</p>
<p><strong>Rachel:</strong> It comes down to a question of trust.</p>
<p><strong><em>Do people trust their hosting providers?</em></strong></p>
<p><strong>Dan</strong>: Yes. Whether it’s for a content delivery network or collocation, hosting the customers of hosting providers are some of the largest companies in the world in industries like energy and financial services. Give me a case when there was a major security issue with a hosting company. In fact, managed hosting providers usually provide better security than enterprises are capable of.</p>
<p><strong><em>And a question provided by an attendee from EMC: A few years ago, this would have been <a href="http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2008/10/24/computing-in-a-grid-or-a-cloud/" target="_blank">a grid discussion. How is the cloud different</a>?</em></strong></p>
<p><strong>Rachel</strong>: Grid computing ended up being applicable only for niches – which I predicted. The real opportunity for everyone else with the cloud only comes up when you combine the kinds of automation tools (originally developed for grid computing) with x86 virtualization.</p>
<p><strong>Dan</strong>: I agree. Grid was a niche play. There were very few orgs that needed it and that the economics worked for. There were very few enterprises for whom it made sense to build their own for. The cloud is shared/leveraged versus grid computing. It economically makes sense in a way grid never did.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:38:27 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/cloud">cloud</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/internal cloud">internal cloud</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/grid">grid</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/grid discussion">grid discussion</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/rachel">rachel</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/dan">dan</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/security">security</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/enterprise">enterprise</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/versus grid">versus grid</category>
      <source url="http://blog.sciencelogic.com/hosting-meets-the-cloud/11/2008">Hosting meets the cloud</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[How to Use Network Behavior Analysis Tools]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/26e9bc6e02f94f7eb363244359c1bcb0</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/26e9bc6e02f94f7eb363244359c1bcb0</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[What's happening on the enterprise network-or more to the point, what's occurring on the network that should not be-is a major concern of security executives. If someone is trying to hack in, or a...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[What's happening on the enterprise network-or more to the point, what's occurring on the network that should not be-is a major concern of security executives. If someone is trying to hack in, or a virus or worm is spreading, or a denial-of-service attack is underway, there might be evidence of these types of activities before they become a major problem.]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/network">network</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/enterprise network-or">enterprise network-or</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/major concern">major concern</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/major">major</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/security executives">security executives</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/be-is">be-is</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/types">types</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/attack">attack</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/activities">activities</category>
      <source url="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/111008-how-to-use-network-behavior.html?fsrc=rss-security">How to Use Network Behavior Analysis Tools</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[US Government Detects Attacks on Obama and McCain Computers]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/6097824d379ae9660e32fe10fd040b20</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/6097824d379ae9660e32fe10fd040b20</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Now that the presidential race is over Newsweek is reporting that the US Government, through the FBI and Secret Service, notified the Obama and McCain campaigns that their computers had been...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now that the presidential race is over <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581">Newsweek is reporting</a> that the US Government, through the FBI and Secret Service, notified the Obama and McCain campaigns that their computers had been compromised and sensitive documents copied. </p>
<blockquote><p>&#8230;the FBI and the Secret Service came to the campaign with an ominous warning: &#8220;You have a problem way bigger than what you understand,&#8221; an agent told Obama&#8217;s team. &#8220;You have been compromised, and a serious amount of files have been loaded off your system.&#8221; The following day, Obama campaign chief David Plouffe heard from White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, to the same effect: &#8220;You have a real problem &#8230; and you have to deal with it.&#8221; The Feds told Obama&#8217;s aides in late August that the McCain campaign&#8217;s computer system had been similarly compromised.</p></blockquote>
<p>This information demonstrates that the US government has a sophisticated intrusion detection capability.  This is likely part of the <a href="http://www.spamdailynews.com/publish/ATT_tech_outs_NSA_spy_room.asp">NSA internet surveillance system</a> that was made public by an AT&#038;T technician in 2006.  </p>
<p><center><img alt="" src="http://www.spamdailynews.com/uploads/intercept-diagram-1.gif" class="photonoborder" width="432" height="233" /></center></p>
<p>It is likely that the system has a set of watch IP ranges that are sensitive from a national security perspective.  The campaigns&#8217; computers were probably on this list. The traffic between foreign IP addresses and these watch IPs is then scrutinized for espionage.  The pattern of activity flagged would be Microsoft Office documents and PDFs being retrieved or other intruder signs such as an encrypted tunnel with a foreign endpoint.</p>
<p>This shows that the US Government has the capability to detect some types foreign attacks although they probably have to be selective of the IP ranges they monitor.  It&#8217;s nice to know that if the White House computers were leaking documents to China or Russia that there is some detection capability, but the fact that this is done at the Internet backbone level means any IP could be targeted and it might not just be to look for foreign intrusions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:18:05 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/computers">computers</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/intrusion detection capability">intrusion detection capability</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/detection capability">detection capability</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/foreign">foreign</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/foreign intrusions">foreign intrusions</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/sensitive">sensitive</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/sensitive documents">sensitive documents</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/documents">documents</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/white house computers">white house computers</category>
      <source url="http://www.veracode.com/blog/2008/11/us-government-detects-attacks-on-obama-and-mccain-computers/">US Government Detects Attacks on Obama and McCain Computers</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[A Diverse Portfolio of Fake Security Software - Part Eleven]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/dd23ca162e5039b0778690b29b0acf4a</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/dd23ca162e5039b0778690b29b0acf4a</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[The following portfolio of fake security software appear to have been integrated within traffic redirection doorways during the weekend, consequently redirecting hundreds of thousands of users...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="text-align: left;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wICHhTiQmrA/SQcoWrAwDhI/AAAAAAAACYM/hL4k2i537X4/s1600-h/rogue_centralized_hosting.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wICHhTiQmrA/SQcoWrAwDhI/AAAAAAAACYM/c5tjrvleLEY/s200-R/rogue_centralized_hosting.png" /></a>The following portfolio of fake security software appear to have been integrated within traffic redirection doorways during the weekend, consequently redirecting hundreds of thousands of users acquired from blackhat hat SEO, malvertising, email spam and SQL injections, to non-existent security vendors and their non-existent security products. Here's an excerpt from one of the templates that they're using :<br />
<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><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/SQco6eUW1XI/AAAAAAAACYc/USB3godWxaY/s1600-h/rogue_october_2008_3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wICHhTiQmrA/SQco6eUW1XI/AAAAAAAACYc/Kc-DfO7qUVY/s200-R/rogue_october_2008_3.png" /></a>"<i>Since its first establishement in 2001, Antivirus V.I.P consistently maintained its position as one of the world's leading companies in antivirus research and product development. Antivirus V.I.P is known mostly for Antivirus V.I.P, its powerful mix of Anti-Malware, Anti-Virus, Anti-Trojan, Anti-Backdoor, Anti-Worm and Anti-PornoDial in one program. Antivirus V.I.P scans and removes trojans and other malware, which can be placed on a computer without the owner's knowledge.<br />
<br />
Antivirus V.I.P is a powerful and easy-to-use Trojan horses, Viruses and all types of Malware removal software, which detects and eliminates more than 100'000 Trojan Horses and Spywares. It also detects viruses, trojans, worms, spyware, malicious ActiveX controls and Java applets. The latest version of Antivirus V.I.P features outstanding detection abilities, together with high performance. Antivirus V.I.P creates best anti-virus, anti-trojan and anti-spyware security solutions that protect computer users from ever-increasing cyber threats and all the dangers of the new century.</i>"<br />
<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/SQcrQbexmhI/AAAAAAAACYs/x_K6qt2NuU4/s1600-h/vip_antivirus_october_2008.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wICHhTiQmrA/SQcrQbexmhI/AAAAAAAACYs/D87XRsXKMtM/s200-R/vip_antivirus_october_2008.png" /></a>And the domains and their associated IPs :<br />
<br />
<b>antivirus-freescan .com</b> (208.72.169.100)<br />
<b>defendyourpc .com</b><br />
<b>mycupupdate .com</b><br />
<b>secureupdatecenter .com</b><br />
<b>secureupdateserver .com</b><br />
<b>webscannertools .com</b><br />
<b>secureyourpayments .com</b><br />
<b>protection-overview .com</b><br />
<br />
<b>save-my-pc-now .com</b> (84.243.196.136; 89.149.227.196; 89.149.227.232)<br />
<b>antivirus-pcscan .com</b><br />
<b>hiqualityscan .com</b><br />
<b>active-scanner .com</b><br />
<b>perfectscanner .com</b><br />
<br />
<b>livesecurityinfo .com</b> (216.240.134.208)<br />
<b>protection-freescan .com</b><br />
<b>antvirushelp .com</b><br />
<b>prosecurity-audit .com</b><br />
<br />
<b>scan-my-pc .com</b> (89.149.251.56)<br />
<b>securedclickhere .com</b><br />
<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/SQc6IW2xBkI/AAAAAAAACY0/R15FrjONQCE/s1600-h/rogue_october_2008_2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wICHhTiQmrA/SQc6IW2xBkI/AAAAAAAACY0/tr0RIbAL8VU/s200-R/rogue_october_2008_2.png" /></a><b>premiumlivescan .com</b> (78.159.118.217; 89.149.253.215; 216.240.134.211)<br />
<b>quick-live-scan .com</b><br />
<br />
<b>ekerberos .com</b> (77.244.220.134; 119.47.81.140; 218.106.90.227)<br />
<b>virtualpcguard .com</b> (67.55.81.200)<br />
<b>antivirus-vip .com</b> (216.32.76.87)<br />
<br />
As I've pointed numerous times in the past, on the majority of occasions the "campaigners" aren't fully taking advantage of the evasive features that their traffic management kits empower them with.<br />
<br />
<b>Related posts:</b><br />
<a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/10/diverse-portfolio-of-fake-security_22.html">A Diverse Portfolio of Fake Security Software - Part Ten</a><br />
<a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/10/diverse-portfolio-of-fake-security_16.html">A Diverse Portfolio of Fake Security Software - Part Nine</a><br />
<a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/10/diverse-portfolio-of-fake-security.html">A Diverse Portfolio of Fake Security Software - Part Eight</a><br />
<a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/09/diverse-portfolio-of-fake-security_30.html">A Diverse Portfolio of Fake Security Software - Part Seven</a><br />
<a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/09/diverse-portfolio-of-fake-security_24.html">A Diverse Portfolio of Fake Security Software - Part Six</a><br />
<a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/09/diverse-portfolio-of-fake-security.html">A  Diverse Portfolio of Fake Security Software - Part Five</a> <br />
<a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/08/diverse-portfolio-of-fake-security_25.html">A  Diverse Portfolio of Fake Security Software - Part Four</a><br />
<a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/08/diverse-portfolio-of-fake-security_20.html">A  Diverse Portfolio of Fake Security Software - Part Three</a><b> </b><br />
<a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/08/diverse-portfolio-of-fake-security.html">A  Diverse Portfolio of Fake Security Software - Part Two</a><br />
<a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2007/12/diverse-portfolio-of-fake-security.html">Diverse  Portfolio of Fake Security Software</a><b></b><div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=wa1iM"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=wa1iM" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=7kRgM"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=7kRgM" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=pNtTm"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=pNtTm" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=MB9bm"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=MB9bm" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=0C8cM"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=0C8cM" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=G9HBM"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=G9HBM" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=xx2jm"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=xx2jm" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia/~4/434922712" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:15:59 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/fake security software">fake security software</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/portfolio">portfolio</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/diverse portfolio">diverse portfolio</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/antivirus">antivirus</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/antivirus-vip">antivirus-vip</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/antivirus research">antivirus research</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/protect computer users">protect computer users</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/easy-to-use trojan horses">easy-to-use trojan horses</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/malware">malware</category>
      <source url="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia/~3/434922712/diverse-portfolio-of-fake-security_28.html">A Diverse Portfolio of Fake Security Software - Part Eleven</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Money Mules Syndicate Actively Recruiting Since 2002]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/a33470c5ef01ff61333511853f9e63cc</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/a33470c5ef01ff61333511853f9e63cc</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[Money mules have already been an inseparable part of the underground ecosystem. And while others try to hide their activities by outsourcing their hosting needs to botnet masters partitioning their...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wICHhTiQmrA/SQcPr1E8aJI/AAAAAAAACYE/NAdxaAzEnw8/s1600-h/money_mules_syndicate_U.S_U.K.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wICHhTiQmrA/SQcPr1E8aJI/AAAAAAAACYE/6noTDuaSIow/s320-R/money_mules_syndicate_U.S_U.K.bmp" /></a>Money mules have already been an inseparable part of the underground ecosystem. And while others try to hide their activities by <a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/07/money-mule-recruiters-use-asproxs-fast.html">outsourcing their hosting needs to botnet masters partitioning their botnets</a>, the experienced ones apply a decent level of OPSEC (operational security) by establishing a trust based model based on recommendations in order to even consider letting you register for their services. Their geographical location not only reflects the average time it would take to take action against their activities and expose yet another extensive network of fraudulent operations, but also, has the potential to increase or decrease the commissions that the mules take based on the risk factor of getting caught.<br />
<br />
There are several different types of money mules, those serving themselves, and those offering their services to others, in this particular case, we have a money mules syndicate that's been operating since 2002, and is only serving the high profile customers. What happens when such a money mule syndicate (naturally) starts vertically integrating by offering value-added services like credit card balance checking and date of birth lookups? Profits apparently increase, since the syndicate is actively recruiting and is currently looking for 20 to 30 mules -- their current staff is said to be approximately 100 people -- to cash out anything from bank account logins, Paypal accounts, to stolen credit card data. Here's a translated description of the service :<br />
<br />
<b>"<i>Who we are?</i></b><i><br />
</i><br />
<i>- First place at (cyber crime community) top list of trusted service providers for 2008</i><br />
<i>- We serve the big guys only since 2002</i><br />
<i>- We never scam, in business since 2002 without a single scam complaint</i><br />
<i>- We look for you, you don't look for us</i><br />
<i>- We offer outstanding working conditions and high commissions<b>&nbsp;</b></i><br />
<br />
<i><b>Who you should be?</b></i><br />
<i>- Dedicated person with experience in the field</i><br />
<i>- Have been in the business for at least 6 months</i><br />
<i>- Have been recommended by at least 1 person from (cybercrime community) and from (cybercrime community)</i><br />
<i>- You take 45% commission of the processed check, minimal amount is $3000</i><br />
<i>- You pay a membership fee</i><br />
<br />
<i>In the next two months we draw the command of 20-30 people who will most satisfy our requirements. For the selected team will be Paradise conditions:</i><br />
<br />
<i>- Instant payment (a few hours after delivered)  <br />
- Large numbers to drop service in the USA and the UK (30)  <br />
- Individual drop in the number of large islands  <br />
- 3-5 fresh weekly drop<br />
- Round-the-clock support</i>"  <br />
<br />
In case some of their customers get scammed -- appreciate the irony here as scammers compensate the scammers getting scammed by the scammer's outsourced personnel -- by some of their money mules, the service is offering compensation for the stolen goods/amount of money, clearly speaking for the revenues it is to prone to be generating. OPSEC (Operational Security) has been taking place across high-profile cybercrime communities during the last quarter, mostly in response to their increasing awareness that in the very same way they keep track of the major anti-fraud features implemented across their services of (ab)use, those implementing them could be monitoring them as well.<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=fGWOM"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=fGWOM" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=f3mhM"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=f3mhM" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=Wr9Sm"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=Wr9Sm" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=f0Zkm"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=f0Zkm" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=i6KYM"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=i6KYM" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=7W3IM"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=7W3IM" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?a=sc0Km"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia?i=sc0Km" border="0"></img></a>
</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia/~4/434724736" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 05:44:21 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/money mules">money mules</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/money">money</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/mules">mules</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/drop service">drop service</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/service">service</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/service providers">service providers</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/services">services</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/scam">scam</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/cybercrime community">cybercrime community</category>
      <source url="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/DanchoDanchevOnSecurityAndNewMedia/~3/434724736/money-mules-syndicate-actively.html">Money Mules Syndicate Actively Recruiting Since 2002</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Researchers find problems with RFID passport cards]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/9b77d2013d2d85781294b8025aa2f13e</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/9b77d2013d2d85781294b8025aa2f13e</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[RFID tags used in two new types of border-crossing documents in the U.S. are vulnerable to snooping and copying, a researcher said on...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[RFID tags used in two new types of border-crossing documents in the U.S. are vulnerable to snooping and copying, a researcher said on Thursday.]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/rfid tags">rfid tags</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/researcher">researcher</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/types">types</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/documents">documents</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/thursday">thursday</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/vulnerable">vulnerable</category>
      <source url="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/102408-researchers-find-problems-with-rfid.html?fsrc=rss-security">Researchers find problems with RFID passport cards</source>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
