Essays: 2004 Archives
I am regularly asked what average Internet users can do to ensure their security.My first answer is usually,"Nothing--you're screwed."
But that's not true,and the reality is more complicated.You're screwed if you do nothing to protect yourself,but there are many things you can do to increase your security on the Internet.
Two years ago,I published a list of PC security recommendations.
Last month,Google released a beta version of its desktop search software: Google Desktop Search.Install it on your Windows machine,and it creates a searchable index of your data files,including word processing files,spreadsheets,presentations,e-mail messages,cached Web pages and chat sessions.It's a great idea.Windows' searching capability has always been mediocre,and Google fixes the problem nicely.
In the aftermath of the American presidential election on 2 November 2004,electronic voting machines are again in the news.Computerised machines lost votes,subtracted votes,and doubled some votes too.And because many of these machines have no paper audit trails,a large number of votes will never be counted.
While it is unlikely that deliberate voting-machine fraud changed the result of this presidential election,the internet is buzzing with rumours and allegations in a number of different jurisdictions and races.
Why is it so hard to run an honest election?
Four years after the Florida debacle of 2000 and two years after Congress passed the Help America Vote Act,voting problems are again in the news: confusing ballots,malfunctioning voting machines,problems over who's registered and who isn't.All this brings up a basic question: Why is it so hard to run an election?
A fundamental requirement for a democratic election is a secret ballot,and that's the first reason.Computers regularly handle multimillion-dollar financial transactions,but much of their security comes from the ability to audit the transactions after the fact and correct problems that arise.
An update to this essay was published in ENISA Quarterly in January 2007.
Information insecurity is costing us billions.We pay for it in theft: information theft,financial theft.We pay for it in productivity loss,both when networks stop working and in the dozens of minor security inconveniences we all have to endure.We pay for it when we have to buy security products and services to reduce those other two losses.
Much of the political rhetoric surrounding the US presidential election centers around the relative security posturings of President George W.Bush and Senator John Kerry,with each side loudly proclaiming that his opponent will do irrevocable harm to national security.
Terrorism is a serious issue facing our nation in the early 21st century,and the contrasting views of these candidates is important.But this debate obscures another security risk,one much more central to the US: the increasing centralisation of American political power in the hands of the executive branch of the government.
Over 200 years ago,the framers of the US Constitution established an ingenious security device against tyrannical government: they divided government power among three different bodies.
The World Series is no stranger to security.Fans try to sneak into the ballpark without tickets or with counterfeit tickets.Often foods and alcohol are prohibited from being brought into the ballpark,to enforce the monopoly of the high-priced concessions.
Violence is always a risk: both small fights and larger-scale riots that result from fans from both teams being in such close proximity -- like the one that almost happened during the sixth game of the American League Championship Series.
Since the terrorist attacks of 2001,the Bush administration -- specifically,the Department of Homeland Security -- has wanted the world to agree on a standard for machine-readable passports.Countries whose citizens currently do not have visa requirements to enter the United States will have to issue passports that conform to the standard or risk losing their nonvisa status.
These future passports,currently being tested,will include an embedded computer chip.This chip will allow the passport to contain much more information than a simple machine-readable character font,and will allow passport officials to quickly and easily read that information.
The Baltimore housing department has a new tool to find homeowners who have been building rooftop decks without a permit: aerial mapping.Baltimore bought aerial photographs of the entire city and used software to correlate the images with databases of address information and permit records.Inspectors have just begun knocking on doors of residents who built decks without permission.
On the face of it,this is nothing new.
Considerable confusion exists between the different concepts of secrecy and security,which often causes bad security and surprising political arguments.Secrecy usually contributes only to a false sense of security.
In June 2004,the U.S.Department of Homeland Security urged regulators to keep network outage information secret.
How would we know?An essay by one of the world's busiest security experts.
As I read the litany of terror threat warnings that the government has issued in the past three years,the thing that jumps out at me is how vague they are.The careful wording implies everything without actually saying anything.We hear "terrorists might try to bomb buses and rail lines in major U.S.
The Data Encryption Standard,or DES,was a mid-'70s brainchild of the National Bureau of Standards: the first modern,public,freely available encryption algorithm.For over two decades,DES was the workhorse of commercial cryptography.
Over the decades,DES has been used to protect everything from databases in mainframe computers,to the communications links between ATMs and banks,to data transmissions between police cars and police stations.Whoever you are,I can guarantee that many times in your life,the security of your data was protected by DES.
U.S.Security Blocks Free Exchange of Ideas
Cryptography is the science of secret codes,and it is a primary Internet security tool to fight hackers,cyber crime,and cyber terrorism.CRYPTO is the world's premier cryptography conference.It's held every August in Santa Barbara.
New Haven police have a new law enforcement tool: a license-plate scanner.Similar to a radar gun,it reads the license plates of moving or parked cars and links with remote police databases,immediately providing information about the car and owner.Right now the police check if there are any taxes owed on the car,if the car or license plate is stolen,and if the car is unregistered or uninsured.A car that comes up positive is towed.
We in the computer security industry are guilty of over-hyping and under-delivering.Again and again,we tell customers that they need to buy this or that product in order to be secure.Again and again,customers buy the products and are still not secure.
Firewalls didn't keep out network attackers,and ignored the fact that the notion of "perimeter" is severely flawed.
It was a historic moment when,last month,the National Institute of Standards and Technology proposed withdrawing the Data Encryption Standard as an encryption standard.
DES has been the most popular encryption algorithm for 25 years.Developed at IBM,it was chosen by the National Bureau of Standards (now NIST) as the government-standard encryption algorithm in 1976.Since then,it has become an international encryption standard and has been used in thousands of applications,despite concerns about its short key length.
Want to learn how to create and sustain psychosis on a national scale?Look carefully at the public statements made by the Department of Homeland Security.
Here are a few random examples: "Weapons of mass destruction,including those containing chemical,biological or radiological agents or materials,cannot be discounted." "At least one of these attacks could be executed by the end of the summer 2003." "These credible sources suggest the possibility of attacks against the homeland around the holiday season and beyond."
The DHS's threat warnings have been vague,indeterminate,and unspecific.The threat index goes from yellow to orange and back again,although no one is entirely sure what either level means.
If you're watching the Olympic games on television,you've already seen the unprecedented security surrounding the 2004 Games.You're seen shots of guards and soldiers,and gunboats and frogmen patrolling the harbors.
But there's a lot more security behind the scenes.Olympic press materials state that there is a system of 1250 infrared and high-resolution surveillance cameras mounted on concrete poles.
Intended as a counterterrorism tool,it doesn't work and tramples on travelers' rights
Imagine a list of suspected terrorists so dangerous that we can't ever let them fly,yet so innocent that we can't arrest them - even under the draconian provisions of the Patriot Act.
This is the federal government's "no-fly" list.First circulated in the weeks after 9/11 as a counterterrorism tool,its details are shrouded in secrecy.
But,because the list is filled with inaccuracies and ambiguities,thousands of innocent,law-abiding Americans have been subjected to lengthy interrogations and invasive searches every time they fly,and sometimes forbidden to board airplanes.
If you fly out of Logan Airport and don't want to take off your shoes for the security screeners and get your bags opened up,pay attention.The US government is testing its "Trusted Traveler" program,and Logan is the fourth test airport.Currently,only American Airlines frequent fliers are eligible,but if all goes well the program will be opened up to more people and more airports.
Participants provide their name,address,phone number,and birth date,a set of fingerprints,and a retinal scan.
At the Crypto 2004 conference in Santa Barbara,Calif.,this week,researchers announced several weaknesses in common hash functions.These results,while mathematically significant,aren't cause for alarm.But even so,it's probably time for the cryptography community to get together and create a new hash standard.
One-way hash functions are a cryptographic construct used in many applications.
Last Tuesday's bomb scare contains valuable security lessons,both good and bad,about how to achieve security in these dangerous times.
Ninety minutes after taking off from Sydney Airport,a flight attendant on a United Airlines flight bound for Los Angeles found an airsickness bag -- presumably unused -- in a lavatory with the letters "BOB" written on it.
The flight attendant decided that the letters stood for "Bomb On Board" and immediately alerted the captain,who decided the risk was serious enough to turn the plane around and land back in Sydney.
Even a moment's reflection is enough to realise that this is an extreme over-reaction to a non-existent threat.
Want to help fight terrorism?Want to be able to stop and detain suspicious characters?Or do you just want to ride your horse on ten miles of trails normally closed to the public?Then you might want to join the George Bush Intercontinental (IAH) Airport Rangers program.
后,美国Department of Homeland Security's awarding of its largest contract,for a system to fingerprint and to keep tabs on foreign visitors in the United States,it makes sense to evaluate our country's response to terrorism.Are we getting good value for all the money that we're spending?
US-VISIT is a government program to help identify the 23 million foreigners who visit the United States every year.
Voting seems like the perfect application for technology,but actually applying it is harder than it first appears.To ensure that voters can vote honestly,they need anonymity,which requires a secret ballot.Through the centuries,different civilizations have done their best with the available technologies.Stones and pottery shards dropped in Greek vases led to paper ballots dropped in sealed boxes.
Many discussions of voting systems and their relative integrity have been primarily technical,focusing on the difficulty of attacks and defenses.This is only half of the equation: it's not enough to know how much it might cost to rig an election by attacking voting systems;we also need to know how much it would be worth to do so.Our illustrative example uses the most recent available U.S.data,but is otherwise is not intended to be specific to any particular political party.
It's been said that all business-to-business sales are motivated by either fear or greed.Traditionally,security products and services have been a fear sell: fear of burglars,murders,kidnappers,and -- more recently -- hackers.Despite repeated attempts by the computer security industry to position itself as a greed sell -- "better Internet security will make your company more profitable because you can better manage your risks" -- fear remains the primary motivator for the purchase of network security products and services.
The problem is that many security risks are not borne by the organization making the purchasing decision.
Criminals follow money.Today,more and more money is on the Internet: millions of people manage their bank,PayPal,or other accounts-and even their stock portfolios-online.It's a tempting target-if criminals can access one of these accounts,they can steal a lot of money.
And almost all these accounts are protected only by passwords.
As the U.S.Supreme Court decides three legal challenges to the Bush administration's legal maneuverings against terrorism,it is important to keep in mind how critical these cases are to our nation's security.Security is multifaceted;there are many threats from many different directions.It includes the security of people against terrorism,and also the security of people against tyrannical government.
The security of your computer and network depends on two things: what you do to secure your computer and network,and what everyone else does to secure their computers and networks.It's not enough for you to maintain a secure network.If other people don't maintain their security,we're all more vulnerable to attack.When many unsecure computers are connected to the Internet,worms spread faster and more extensively,distributed denial-of-service attacks are easier to launch,and spammers have more platforms from which to send e-mail.
As technological monitoring grows more prevalent,court supervision is crucial
Years ago,surveillance meant trench-coated detectives following people down streets.
Today's detectives are more likely to be sitting in front of a computer,and the surveillance is electronic.It's cheaper,easier and safer.But it's also much more prone to abuse.
National security is a hot political topic right now,as both presidential candidates are asking us to decide which one of them is better fit to secure the country.
Many large and expensive government programs--the CAPPS II airline profiling system,the US-VISIT program that fingerprints foreigners entering our country,and the various data-mining programs in research and development--take as a given the need for more security.
At the end of 2005,when many provisions of the controversial Patriot Act expire,we will again be asked to sacrifice certain liberties for security,as many legislators seek to make those provisions permanent.
As a security professional,I see a vital component missing from the debate.
Posturing,pontifications,and partisan politics aside,the one clear generalization that emerges from the 9/11 hearings is that information--timely,accurate,and free-flowing--is critical in our nation's fight against terrorism.Our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies need this information to better defend our nation,and our citizens need this information to better debate massive financial expenditures for anti-terrorist measures,changes in law that aid law enforcement and diminish civil liberties,and the upcoming Presidential election
The problem is that the current administration has consistently used terrorism information for political gain.Again and again,the Bush administration has exaggerated the terrorist threat for political purposes.They're embarked on a re-election strategy that involves a scared electorate voting for the party that is perceived to be better able to protect them.
This essay also appeared,in a slightly different form,inThe Mercury News.
As a security technologist,I regularly encounter people who say the United States should adopt a national ID card.How could such a program not make us more secure,they ask?
The suggestion,when it's made by a thoughtful civic-minded person like Nicholas Kristof (Star-Tribune,March 18),often takes on a tone that is regretful and ambivalent: Yes,indeed,the card would be a minor invasion of our privacy,and undoubtedly it would add to the growing list of interruptions and delays we encounter every day;but we live in dangerous times,we live in a new world ....
Every day,some 82,000 foreign visitors set foot in the US with a visa,and since early this year,most of them have been fingerprinted and photographed in the name of security.But despite the money spent,the inconveniences suffered,and the international ill will caused,these new measures,like most instituted in the wake of September 11,are mostly ineffectual.
Terrorist attacks are very rare.So rare,in fact,that the odds of being the victim of one in an industrialized country are almost nonexistent.
In recent years there has been an increased use of identification checks as a security measure.Airlines always demand photo IDs,and hotels increasingly do so.They're often required for admittance into government buildings,and sometimes even hospitals.Everywhere,it seems,someone is checking IDs.The ostensible reason is that ID checks make us all safer,but that's just not so.
Last week the Supreme Court let stand the Justice Department's right to secretly arrest noncitizen residents.
Combined with the government's power to designate foreign prisoners of war as "enemy combatants" in order to ignore international treaties regulating their incarceration,and their power to indefinitely detain U.S.citizens without charge or access to an attorney,the United States is looking more and more like a police state.
Since the Sept.11 attacks,the Justice Department has asked for,and largely received,additional powers that allow it to perform an unprecedented amount of surveillance of American citizens and visitors.
Imagine that you're going on vacation to some exotic country.
You get your visa,plan your trip and take a long flight.How would you feel if,at the border,you were photographed and fingerprinted?How would you feel if your biometrics stayed in that country's computers for years?
The fact that U.S.intelligence agencies can't tell terrorists from children on passenger jets does little to inspire confidence.
Security can fail in two different ways.It can fail to work in the presence of an attack: a burglar alarm that a burglar successfully defeats.But security can also fail to work correctly when there's no attack: a burglar alarm that goes off even if no one is there.
Citing "very credible" intelligence regarding terrorism threats,U.S.
Photo of Bruce 188滚球网站Schneier by Per Ervland.
188滚球网站Schneier on Security is a personal website.Opinions expressed are not necessarily those ofIBM Resilient.