Monthly Archives: July 2011

seeking evidence

Posted on by

Conventional wisdom says:

  1. Security through obscurity doesn’t work.  You may hide your needle in a haystack, but it’s likely to come back and stick into you (or someone who will sue you) when you least want it to.  Much better to lock your needle in a safe.
  2. You shouldn’t roll your own controls: whether crypto, or software, or architectures, or procedures.  The wisdom of the crowd is great, and the vendor can afford better security expertise than your own project can, because the vendor can amortise the cost over a much broader base than you can ever manage.

And yet, when I want to protect an asset against a fairly run-of-the-mill set of threats, it’s very far from clear to me whether that asset will  be safer if I protect it with COTS products or if I build my own, perhaps quirky and not necessarily wonderful, product.

audit in the 21st century

Posted on by

One of the big annoyances in my working life is the procedure for claiming expenses.  Our University seems eager to retain processes which would have made sense in the first half of the 20th century, which involve a large – and increasing – volume of paper.

One of the problems with this is that as a method of holding people to account, it’s very poor.  The big items of expenditure are conference registration fees, airfares, and hotel bills.  In many cases, the receipt for each of these reaches me by email.  The process of claiming the money involves printing out those emails (PDFs, whatever), and stapling them to a claim form.  If the cost is in foreign currency, I also (bizarrely) have to nominate  an exchange rate, and print out a page from somewhere like www.xe.com to prove that that rate existed at some nearby point in time.

Of course, any of those evidences could trivially be falsified. Continue reading →

cloud failure modalities

Posted on by

There’s a tale of woe getting some airtime on the interwebs from an angst-ridden New York undergraduate (reading between the lines) who has somehow had an entire, quite substantial, google account deleted. The post’s contention is (or includes) the idea that deleting such a profile is tantamount to deleting one’s life, I think. The facts of the case are murky – I’d link to some Google+ discussions, but I can’t find a way to do that – but regardless of this particular young person’s predicament, the story highlights some bigger questions about trusting cloud services. Continue reading →

Privacy in the social world – the Google+ way

Posted on by

In the online social world, the current buzz is the launch of Google+, by Google of course. Given the popularity of Facebook, and twitter, it is not difficult to see that Google+ has to have something significantly unique about its offering to be a real challenge to the main social networks. So, first, a little background to what I think Google+ is. Well, it is a social network with the characteristics of Facebook i.e. you can add friends, photos etc. In addition, it has the characteristics of twitter – you can post messages, only longer than 160 characters, and you can follow ( and be followed by) people.

Facebook has faced criticisms  with regards to privacy issues. But how is Google+ attempting to address that? Well, users can put friends in ‘circles’. These circles are more of partitions rather access groups. Default circles include ‘family’, ‘acquaintances’, and ‘friends’. You can share posts, pictures etc with only selected circles.

From my personal experience in the last few days that I have played with Google+, it seems straight forward enough to drag and drop friends into different circles and create new circles if necessary. If it works according to how I understand it is supposed to work, then I think many of the facebook privacy issues will be addressed. This, of course, is ignoring that Google+ is integrated with Gmail and Google search uses Gmail and Google+ data for its own competitive advantage.

What doesn’t surprise me, though, is that in the 26 days that Google+ has been operational the majority of the 18+ million users who have adopted (well, mostly likely just trying it out) it are tech users. Of course there may be a number of reasons for this but in my view, I think that tech users understand issues around privacy and have some ideas of how they can achieve privacy in their various social interactions (please note how I loosely use the term ‘privacy’ in this article). When a product that promises and attempts to address privacy concerns, tech users are likely to adopt it early on and experiment with it.

But if my assumption here is correct, how long will it take for the almost 1 billion facebook users to realise and jump ship? Oh, wrong question. Are facebook users actually concerned about their privacy? If they are, will they know when a better product comes on the market (not that Google+ is that product)? And most importantly, will they jump ship once that product all privacy campaigners are yearning for? In attempting to answer these questions, let’s ignore the effect of externalities. I would argue that since facebook users DO NOT understand or care about privacy (I would like to see a study that nullifies this claim), a robust and privacy enhanced social networking tool is unlikely to take off, at least among the general population.

local news

Posted on by

I’m delighted to say that Professor Sadie Creese will be joining the Department of Computer Science – hopefully in October, but perhaps later – to become Professor of Cyber Security and bring leadership to our activity in that area.

Prof. Creese studied for her DPhil in Oxford, with Bill Roscoe as supervisor.  She then worked at QinetiQ before moving to Warwick University.  Coming with her will be Professor Michael Goldsmith and about eight other research staff.  The objective of this move is to create a large centre of expertise in Oxford, able to take an internationally-leading role in research around cyber security, information assurance, and related fields.  This is of course a major step forward in the vision I have been touting for some time (my ‘world domination plan’ as Ivan put it), and has every prospect of making Oxford an even more attractive partner for funders and other projects.  We will be looking for ways to enhance cross-disciplinary working in order that we can make genuine steps forward in this area.

 

disk erasure

Posted on by

A recent pointer to Peter Guttman’s new book on security engineering (looks good, by the way) reminds me that Guttman’s name is associated with the woeful tale of disk erasure norms.

The argument goes this way: ‘normal’ file erases (from your windows shell, say) merely change pointers in tables, and do not remove any data from the disk.  A fairly unsophisticated process will recover your ‘deleted’ files.  Wiser people ensure that the file is deleted from the media itself – by writing zeros over the sectors on the disk that formerly contained the file.  Guttman’s argument was that because of minor variations in disk head alignment with the platters, this is insufficient to ensure the complete removal of the residual magnetic field from the former data.  There is a possibility that, with the right equipment, someone could recover the formerly-present files.  So he has an algorithm involving, I think, 35 passes, writing various patterns, calculated to destroy any remaining underlying data.

Now, the problem appears/appeared real enough: various government standards have, for decades now, ruled that magnetic media which has held classified material cannot be declassified but must be destroyed  before leaving secure custody.  Whether anyone has ever managed to recover a non-trivial amount of data from a once-zeroed disk is much less clear: as far as I know, there’s not a lot in the open literature to suggest it’s possible, and none of the companies specializing in data recovery will offer it as a service.  Furthermore, since Guttman did his original work, disk design has evolved (and the ‘size’ of the bits on the disk become so small that any residual effect is going to be truly minimal), and disk manufacturers have built a ‘secure erase’ into their controllers for quite a few years now.  Even better, the new generation of self-encrypting drives can be rendered harmless by the deletion of just one key (don’t do this by accident!).

Yet, the perception persists that the simple solutions are insufficient. Let us leave aside Government security standards and think simply of commercial risk.  Multi-pass erasure is downright time-consuming.  You can buy a disk-shredding service –  but this attracts quite a fee.  So it is not uncommon simply to archive used disks in a warehouse somewhere (with or without a single zeroing pass, I suppose).  How long you would keep those disks for is unclear: until their data ceases to be valuable, I suppose.  But without a detailed inventory of their contents, that cannot easily be determined.  So perhaps you have to keep them forever.

My simple question is: which attracts the lower risk (and/or the lower total predicated cost)? (a) Zeroing a disk and putting it in a skip, or (b) Warehousing it until the end of the lifetime of the data it holds?  You can postulate whatever adversary model you wish.  The answer is not obvious to me.  And if we can’t make a simple determination about risk in this case (because, frankly, the parameters are all lost in the noise), what possible chance do we have of using risk calculations to make decisions in the design of more complex systems?

Webinos versus Meego

Posted on by

One of the systems security projects we’re working on in Oxford is webinos – a secure, cross-device web application environment.   Webinos will provide a set of standard APIs so that developers who want to use particular device capabilities – such as location services, or media playback – don’t need to customise their mobile web app to work on every platform.  This should help prevent the fragmentation of the web application market and is an opportunity to introduce a common security model for access control to device APIs.  Webinos is aimed at mobile phones, cars, smart TVs and PCs, and will probably be implemented initially as a heavy-weight web browser plugin on Android and other platforms.

By a staggering coincidence, the Meego project has a similar idea and a similarly broad ranges of devices it intends to work on.  However, Meego is aimed at native applications, and is built around the Qt framework.  Meego is also a complete platform rather than a browser plugin, containing a Linux kernel.  Meego requires that all applications are signed, and can enforce mandatory access controls through the SMACK Linux Security Module.

In terms of security, these two projects have some important differences.  Meego can take advantage of all kinds of interesting trusted infrastructure concepts, including Trusted Execution Environments and Trusted Platform Modules, as it can instrument the operating system to support hardware security features.  Meego can claim complete control of the whole platform, and mediate all attempts to run applications, checking that only those with trusted certificates are allowed (whitelisting).  Webinos has neither of these luxuries.  It can’t insist on a certain operating system (in fact, we would rather it didn’t) and can only control access to web applications, not other user-space programs.  This greatly limits the number of security guarantees we can make, as our root of trust is the webinos software itself rather than an operating system kernel or tamper-proof hardware.

This raises an interesting question.  If I am the developer of a system such as webinos, can I provide security to users – who may entrust my system with private and valuable data – without having full control of the complete software stack?  Is the inclusion of a hardened operating system necessary for me to create a secure application?  Is it reasonable for me to offload this concern to the user and the user’s system administrator (who are likely to be the same person?)

While it seems impractical for developers to ship an entire operating system environment with every application they create, isn’t this exactly what is happening with the rise of virtualization?

 

email retention

Posted on by

Someone in the group suggested a blog post on email retention.  It’s a good topic, because it tracks the co-evolution of technology and process.

The Evolution

Back in the day, storage was expensive – relative to the cost of sending an email, anyway.   To save space, people would routinely delete emails when they were no longer relevant.

Then storage got cheap, and even though attachments got bigger and bigger, storing email ceased to be a big deal.  By the late 1990s, one of my colleagues put it to me that the time you might spend deciding whether or not to delete something already cost more than the cost of storing it forever.  I have an archive copy of every email I’ve sent or received – in professional or personal capacities – since about 1996 (even most or all of the spam).

Happily, one other technology helped with making email retention worthwhile: indexing.  This, too, is predicated on having enough storage to store the index, and having enough CPU power to build the index.  All of this we now have.

However, a third force enters the fray: lawyers started discovering the value of emails as evidence (even if it’s rubbish as evidence, needing massive amounts of corroboration if it is not to be forged trivially). And many people – including some senior civil servants, it seems – failed to spot this in time, and were very indiscreet in their subsequently- subpoenaed communications.

As a result, another kind of lawyers – corporate lawyers – issued edicts which first required, and then forced, employees of certain companies to delete any email more than six months old.  That way, they cannot be ‘discovered’ in an adverse legal case, because they have already been erased.

Never mind that many people’s entire working lives are mediated by email today: the email is an accurate and (if permitted) complete record of decisions taken and the process by which that happened.  Never mind that emails have effectively replaced the hardbound notebooks that many engineers and scientists would use to retain their every thought and discussion (though in many places good lab practice retains such notebooks).  Never mind that although it is creaking under the present strain of ‘spam’ and ‘nearly spam’ (the stuff that I didn’t want, but was sent by coworkers, not random strangers), we simply haven’t got anything better.

The state-of-the art

So now, in those companies, there is no email stored for more than six months, yes?  Well, no.  Of course not.  There are lots of emails which are just too valuable to delete.  And so people extract them from the mail system and store them elsewhere.  Or forward them to private email accounts.  There are, and always will be, many ways to defeat the corporate mail reaper.  The difference is that the copies are not filed systematically, are not subject to easy search by the organisation, and will probably not be disclosed to regulators or in other legal discovery processes.  This is the state-of-the art in every such organisation I’ve encountered (names omitted to protect the … innocent?).

Sooner or later, a quick-witted external lawyer is going to guess that this kind of informal archiving might help their case, and is going to manage to dig deeper into the adversary’s filestores and processes.  When they find some morsels of beef secreted in unlikely places, there will be a rush of corporate panic.

The solution

It’s easy to spot the problem.  It’s much harder to know what to do about it.  Threatening the employees isn’t very productive – especially if the ‘security’ rule is at odds with the goal of getting their work done.  Making it a sacking offence, say, to save an email outside the corporate mail  system is just going to make people more creative about what they save, and how they save it.  Unchecked retention, on the other hand, will certainly leave the organisation ‘remembering’ things it would much rather it had ‘forgotten’.

At least it would be better if the ‘punishment’ matched the crime: restricting the retention of email places the control in the wrong place.   It would be much better to reserve the stiff penalties for those engaged in libel, corporate espionage, anticompetitive behaviour, and the rest.  Undoubtedly, that would remain a corporate risk, and a place where prevention seems better than cure: the cost to the organisation may be disproportionately greater than any cost that can be imposed upon the individual.  But surely it’s the place to look, because in the other direction lies madness.

Spectacular Fail!

Posted on by

Step 1.  Install “Windows XP Mode” using Microsoft Virtual PC on Microsoft Windows 7.

Step 2. Windows XP warns that there is no anti-virus program installed.  Use the supplied Internet Explorer 6 to try to download Microsoft Security Essentials.  Browsing to the page fails.   I happen to know that this is a manifestation of a browser incompatibility.

Step 3. Use the Bing search box on the default home page of Internet Explorer 6 to search for “Internet Explorer 9”.   You have to scroll down a long way before finding a real Microsoft link: who knows how much Malware the earlier links would serve up?!

Words fail me, really.