Oh how I smile; media, weather, chuckle :)

http://www.futureexploration.net/fom08/

Tee hee

Top 5 Abused/Misused/Miscontrued Terms in Information Security

Paradigm Shift
Game Theory
l337 5p34k
* is dead
Security ROI

http://techbuddha.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/top-5-abusedmisusedmiscontrued-terms-in-information-security/

Simple... TED changed me!

Top ten TED talks highlights since June 06', 50 million talks viewed/listened to.

So true

Verizon report says it all...

I'll let Richard from TaoSecurity sum it up:
http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/2008/06/verizon-business-report-speaks-volumes.html

P0wned

MCP(Management Control Plane)
CP(Control Plane)
DP(Data Plane)

...should all be separate or as near as, especially in Tier1/2/3 ISP, INEX etc...

however why not try...with a global botnet to BGP announce your local SRC address for all DNS root servers sequentially while including BGP malformed/exploits with decreasing TTLs from the hopcount down to the first layer 3 hop. Lather. Rinse . Repeat. (including multipathed repsonses)

Hmmmm.....

Where does IT fit?

http://xkcd.com/435/

Nanobioinfotechnology

Nothing to see here yet, move along. Just thinking out loud about convergence.

How do you teach a child that fire is hot?

How do you teach management and the 'old guard' of IT about router root kits?

How do you teach Mom and Pop about 'drive-by pharming'? (mine excluded :)

How do you teach kiddies that 'bad people' exist and 'bad things' should not be looked at on the internet without prematurely shattering their innocence or attempting to remove their access to the internet?

Well. You don't. Manage to the edge and offer a managed service. Remove default permit.

Information Technology and Security

Architecture by any other name

Physics and space-time compression in cyberspace? What is the cost model, fundamental units and atomic entities in IT and are they static? Would buildings or other structures look or be designed differently if they were intended to run software that inherently changed their function and application, or if they had to resist sentient attackers and unforeseen loads? Viva la revolution!

Architecture definition from the Oxford English Dictionary in OSX.

architecture |ˈärkiˌtek ch ər|
noun
1 the art or practice of designing and constructing buildings.
• the style in which a building is designed or constructed, esp. with regard to a specific period, place, or culture : Victorian architecture.
2 the complex or carefully designed structure of something : the chemical architecture of the human brain.
• the conceptual structure and logical organization of a computer or computer-based system : a client/server architecture

It isn't great practice to argue by analogy, but when the terminology inherent in a concept, system or discipline heavily borrows and indeed fragments an existing well defined discipline, it is hard not to use the fundamentals of the original discipline as a starting point. This post will focus on the relationship between information technology architecture and traditional architecture (though may be applied to biotech and nanotech in the future once the ubiquity of IT is also reached in these fields).

When the grey goo starts spreading it will be too late to fire the "architect".

Two things to remember throughout this post a) the fact that traditional architects must be licensed in most countries and are held accountable and responsible for what they produce and how and b) materials science does not accelerate at the pace that information technology does.

Rather than re-invent the wheel let's look at the traditional field of the roles of architects and structural engineers: http://www.helium.com/items/1028268-senior-school-heard-terms

"1 - Architects are generally responsible for design of buildings used primarily for everyday use by people. Structural engineers are responsible for design of a wide range of structures, such as bridges and power plants, for which an architect is not usually involved.

2 - Architects are responsible for design of the building shape, layout and appearance. Structural engineers are responsible for design of the building elements (foundations, columns, beams) that support all other building elements.

3 - In general, the results of architecture are visible when the building is completed. In general, the results of engineering for buildings are not visible after construction.

4 - When the owner hires an architect, the architect manages the overall design process. For buildings, structural engineers most often works for the architect. In general, the architect defines parameters (criteria) that the structural engineer must use for design of the structural elements.

5 - The structural engineer uses relatively complex mathematics and computer software for design. The architect uses graphical techniques primarily, along with basic math. "

From: http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/enterprise
"Having IT, business analysts, and subject matter experts involved is important and necessary, but none of those three groups understands information and knowledge at a sufficiently deep level to offer truly creative and innovative alternatives that make information and knowledge systems work across the whole enterprise."

And a comment from Trilochan Chhaya in response to a related post http://archnet.org/forum/view.jsp?message_id=201 :

"Information and Technology.........
Knowledge and Architecture.........
Information and Technology have existed for ages,and have challenged the Creativity of the Humans all the time.

Fortunately, it needs a creative thought to change Information to Knowledge and Technology to Architecture."

Let me get back to this one as I ran out of time. But if you are in any way IT inclined, you probably know where I am going already... and as an aside,

Combine "internet 0", with nanotech/nanofabrication... yes there is indeed "Plenty of Room at the Bottom"

Time to return to Wing Chun chop foooey

"Man, I see in Fight Club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived.
I see all this potential, and I see it squandered.
God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars.
Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need.
We're the middle children of history, man.
No purpose or place.
We have no Great War.
No Great Depression.
Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives.
We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars.
But we won't.
And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off."

Wonderful... the science of happiness

I inherited my love of radio from my Dad.



I find myself switching on ABC Radio National everyday before any other station. On Saturday the 17th May 2008 I stumbled upon this gem. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2008/2243006.htm

"The pursuit of happiness is a global obsession. But can science investigate its slippery, subjective nature? What are the metrics—self report, brain activity, or the good deeds we do? Five world leaders in the field join Natasha Mitchell in conversation—neuroscientist Richard Davidson, Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard, Buddhist scholar B. Alan Wallace, psychologist Daniel Gilbert and philosopher David Chalmers."

Considering I missed the end of the segment, the concept of podcasting reinforces itself in the spreading of enlightenment via information and ideas. A segue perhaps to this:

"To create a social business which reduces all suffering by facilitating the access to and dissemination of enlightened information and ideas."

Note: It's coming.

Secur_it_y?

http://xkcd.com/424/

Something else is missing... need a pointer

Was thinking today... since school and university have come and gone(from my perspective), and family are in a different hemisphere; why is it so difficult to find or stumble across a mentor in this industry or even in this life? Is it just when you are younger that you feel like there are people around and above you who know what's going on, or have a plan? Once one becomes more self aware do we see everyone stumbling along together? One wonders what structure or guidance we as a society will need or will cling to to ensure cohesion, or what will emerge in the place of organised religions in the West?

Where are the few who espouse 'enlightened self-interest' and 'non-zero sum games' for the world? Why is it not immediately obvious in our leaders and politicians? What is broken and how can we fix it? ( I tend to start these days with http://www.ted.com/ or the http://www.worldchanging.com/book/ )

Unfortunately Information Technology is extremely lacking in individuals who can offer wisdom and guidance, presumably being such a young discipline/art itself?

Life is difficult to figure out in this generation of mass media with a constant bombardment of encoded information which mainly focuses on mass materialism and consumption. Is it any reason that graffiti and street art has tried to fill the gap left by the press, advertising and the media at large.

Everything has sped up. Most people are disembodied from themselves and society. What could you prescribe? Diet, exercise, preventative mental health, meditation, different types of education, emotional intelligence...etc?

If you would like to be a mentor please send a S.A.E. to PO BOX 564 :)

I probably need my own personal technical version of one of these guys: J Krishnamurti, Anthony DeMello, Eckhart Tolle, Matthieu Ricard... or maybe an aggregate avatar of all of them that follows you online or is a 3d hologram buddy in real life ;)


Note: The image above is of the 3d holographic shark who assists the kid in one of Discovery's 2057 programs. An episode that happens to focus on a city wide virus that gets in to everything including digital signage. Not on my shift I tells ya!

How much is enough?

Is IT Security/Technology Risk Management a discipline or an art, is it subjective or objective? ( Is information technology deterministic or just overly complex? )

Are IT systems and frameworks closed systems? What comparable frameworks or systems (through which value transits) must defend against sentient attackers who attempt to subvert, control or disable services?

Can organisations quantify the value of information in motion or at rest within their managed footprint? Can they independently verify/audit the flows and data objects present? Somehow the bad guys have a better appreciation for CPU, disk and BW and SERVICE than we have!

Does it come down to simple economics? How to incentivise and penalise?

Surely 'Critical Infrastructure' should be held to extremely high standards by an independent body of technical auditors?

Does it really come back to accountability? Do we/they/us/them need to get burned badly (which the miscreants don't want either!) before we are enlightened...

Can the little guys afford the head count of the big boys? (big boys who actually sometimes have *less* of a clue about their systems than the little guys in the first place!). Is it possible that sink-holing traffic centrally in the cloud will give us the visibility/control we have hoped for? Thin offices perhaps staffed with 'thin' people :)

For me it comes back to a simple paradigm. You can't manage what you can't measure. We need to return to atomic units via reductionist thought. This is what I hope shall come with cloud and utility computing. Can you or the cloud provider "afford" NON-integral CPU, DISK, FLOWS, BW, KILOWATTS... runaway code.. such that it now becomes a billing issue? Once IT shops in enterprises start properly implementing "charge-back" rather than a flat rate service we may see some changes.... this coupled with a metric/cost applicable to shared infrastructure such as network fabrics, DNS, NTP, control planes etc...

How can we secure a service when we can't even charge for a service?

Billing 2.0, Utility 2.0, Employment 2.0

"Toffler-esque", wondering about IT churn?

An interesting look at employee churn, and very apt in the IT arena, methinks:

"Employees – especially the most talented ones – are not “dating around” and moving from place to place in search of the Perfect Company at which they can grow old and retire at. They’ve already aced the first four rungs of Maslow’s hierarchy and are in search of self-actualization: the instinctual need of humans to make the most of their abilities and to strive to be the best they can."

http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Up-or-Out-Solving-the-IT-Turnover-Crisis.aspx

Thanks Wade. All we have to worry about now is the predictions of Malthus.

Phrase of the day...

Reading away in some offical blueprint documents for a client ..... came across the phrase "opportunistic use of automation"... tee hee.

Definition of opportunistic from my Mac's 'Dictionary and Thesaurus':

opportunistic |ˌäpərt(y)oōˈnistik|
adjective

exploiting chances offered by immediate circumstances without reference to a general plan or moral principle : the change was cynical and opportiunistic.

Internet Infrastructure Report from Arbor

Nearly forgot to read/listen to this this year. Sound ain't great, would have expected more from the guys, however the content is worth a listen or the report a read.

PDF below:
http://www.arbornetworks.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1034&Itemid=525

Screwing with perception.. quality

So basically time stops and challenges peoples perception of reality. Wonderful really.

Microsoft end to end rebuttle, trust me

From: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/endtoendtrust/default.mspx
http://tinyurl.com/53psbo "Establishing_End_to_End_Trust.pdf"
The word transitive is not used once though hinted at. Let me preface the below rant with the fact that I don't have the answer(s). As pointed out in the article on Page 7: "As noted below, there are historic, economic, social, and political forces that suggest a well-constructed regime is better than none at all, especially in light of the challenges we face on the Internet and the desire of people to be more secure in their daily lives"... and "We must create an environment where reasonable and effective trust decisions can be made." Agreed.

However: ( Christ their lingo could do with some updating and accuracy though... read on... !)

Apparently sloppy code, the pace of technology, a bloated, incestuous, self-serving IT industry lacking in basic engineering discipline (around tolerances and expected usage) coupled with complexity, default permit, cost of massive parallel attacks, jurisdictional immunity.. yadda, yadda has *nothing* to do with our current predicament.... it's *all* about end-to-end trust... hmm subjective or objective guys? I'm hoping end-to-end includes dependencies relating from transitive trust...

Apparently though "Experience shows that most cybercriminal schemes are successful because people, machines, software, and data are not well authenticated and this fact, combined with the lack of auditing and traceability, means that criminals will neither be deterred at the outset nor held accountable after the fact. Thus the answer must lie in better authentication that allows a fundamentally more trustworthy Internet and audit that introduces real accountability"

Page 4 "But staying the current course will not be sufficient; the real issue is that the current strategy does not address effectively the most important issue: a globally connected, anonymous, untraceable Internet with rich targets is a magnet for criminal activity—criminal activity that is undeterred due to a lack of accountability.".... hmmmm yeah but what about http://geer.tinho.net/ieee.geer.0606.pdf

Geer:"Everything about digital security
has time constants that are three or-
ders of magnitude different from the
time constants of physical security:
break into my computer in 500 mil-
liseconds but into my house in 5 to
10 minutes."

Geer:"Human-scale time and rate con-
stants underlie the law enforcement
model of security. The crime happens
and the wheels of detection, analysis,
pursuit, apprehension, jurisprudence,
and, perhaps, penal servitude then,
paraphrasing Longfellow, “grind
slowly, yet they grind exceeding
fine.” In other words, law enforce-
ment generally has all the time in
the world, and its opponent, the
criminal, thus must commit the
perfect crime to cleanly profit from
that crime."

Geer:"If the physics of digital space and
digital time mean we ally ourselves
with the intelligence world view
and not the law enforcement world
view, we have to ask ourselves two
things: is the price of digital sur-
veillance a bearable price for the
benefit of digital safety? And, if so,
what is the unit of digital surveil-
lance? What do we watch—people
or bits?"

Back to Microsoft:Establishing_End_to_End_Trust:..

Page 8: Mis-use of the word hacker "external hackers with access to their systems, in large part because a hacker ".. will they ever learn or at least work harder for a little respect? Apparently "device-to-device authentication" will foil the "hackers"... and scripting attacks facilitates "thus making anyone an “expert” hacker; and the amount of data that can be stolen is limited only by bandwidth. "(Page 10)

Page 8: "robust management tools" are predicated on trusted management tools and one would hope them to be robust to begin with :)

Page 8: "depending on the threat level" , define threat and what metric is employed to address the level?

Page 8: "flooding and probing attacks"... is probing an attack?

Page 8: "Autonomous defense would be possible if, for example, packets likely to be malicious (because they are reliably identified as coming from a dangerous source) could be dropped shortly after entering the network or at a computer’s interface to the network." erm, a self-defending network by virtue of a firewall?

Page 8: "Even the intractable insider threat could be more successfully addressed because better audit tools would make it easier to identify suspicious access patterns for employees in a timely manner." ok so this is anomaly detection now via trust?

Page 8: "The authentication of identity, device (and its state), software, and data could be used to generate trust measurements that could also be used to reduce risk to the ecosystem." don't get me started although 'trusting the state' is a good concept, trust measurements spins me out considering 'trust' is somewhat boolean or a nominal measurement :)

Page 8: Apparently "one of the reasons that large enterprises manage risk relatively well is that they have dedicated IT staff implementing risk management programs." hmmmmm.... so throw some people at the issue and get the job done 'relatively' well :)

Page 8: Here comes the NAP pitch "Yet there is no chief information officer for the public, and no mechanism for protecting the broader Internet by taking best practices from enterprises, such as Network Access Protection, and applying those practices to the public." What about FIRST, NSP-SEC, Arbor, Internet Motion Sensor, Network Telescopes and ISPs in general? Ummm... NIST? SANS? Sorry guys Net Neutraliy vs extreme ISP Hostility with NAP?.. the oul' internet would break methinks... erm... we don't all conform on the endpoints ladies and gents, good luck on that one... the internet is a superorganism that is evolving its immune system. Surveillance and telemetry is the first step.

Page 8: We can fix it all "With better authentication and audit, dynamic trust decisions could be made (based upon, for example, the state of a machine) and Internet service providers could use network access controls to limit the activities of “untrustworthy” machines until they were updated."

So Internet wide NAC/NAP is the answer, don't let the "bad guys" or "bad nodes" on in the first place and kick em' off if they're bad(tm)

Page 9: Hmm, "Second, absent the ability to identify and prove the source of misconduct, there can be no effective deterrent—no effective law enforcement response to cybercrime and no meaningful political response to address international issues relating to cyberabuse." true.

Page 10: "Because all software operates in an environment defined by hardware, it is critical to root trust in hardware." hmmmmmm "If machines did a machine-to-machine-based authentication rooted in TPM keys before allowing a network connection, then one could arguably exclude unapproved machines from accessing network resources. Using new cryptographic techniques, this can be done in privacy-compliant ways." hmmmm cold boot?

Page 14 states: "As the firewall continues to diminish in importance, it is important to focus on protecting data as opposed to simply protecting the machines that store such data." Not sure I'd use this phrase rather that the focus from all sides is moving up the stack, but by no means obviating the need for firewalling.

Page 15: "standardizing audit data formats and tools".. erm syslog? http://www.loganalysis.org/sections/standards/index.html

Page 15: "one can call or send mail to millions of victims, but the time and cost makes this infeasible. " ye think? yeah SPAM is really on the decline, NOT! Micrsofts Penny Black project made sense though... http://research.microsoft.com/research/sv/PennyBlack/

Ok at this point I give up or this will get too long..... the whole section on F.Audit Page 14/15 is purile and so far behind the times it's scary... they need to look outside of their Microsoft shaped box in Redmond.

No mention of the network.

As Ranum states on http://www.beastorbuddha.com/ "The Internet applications stack depends heavily on ARP and DNS and those protocols depend on a tamper-free network. It’s just silly to think your end-point can secure itself if the network fabric is untrustworthy! If the network is untrustworthy, it’s “game over, man!” as Private Hudson would say."

At the end of the piece a question is posed "can we maintain a globally connected, anonymous, untraceable Internet and be dependent on devices that run arbitrary code of unknown provenance?"... Apparently if the answer is no, then " we need to create a more authenticated and audited Internet environment"... DOH!

"it is important to address all of the complicated social, political, economic, and technical issues raised to ensure we end up with the Internet we want, one which empowers individuals and businesses, and at the same time protects the social values we cherish. " Agreed but which *we* is that? And do we want backwards compatibility?

Counterpoint to the generational divide...

So my Mum sends me this email. She was only introduced to the Internet in 2000.

"I suspected something was running in the background. And fssm32.exe was quoting 92-95 under CPU usage. I googled "fssm32.exe and CPU usage" and found this:

http://www.geekstogo.com/forum/fssm32-exe-taking-all-CPU-resolved-t5718.html

which was exactly my problem. I had had an error message from F-Secure saying it
couldn't connect to update. I updated it manually, after a few tries, and ran a
scan.

It told me I had two trojan keyloggers, and listed them in the TIF but said it
couldn't delete. But they didn't show up under my identity. I found them under
the Admin identity, and deleted them. But of course when I rebooted and ran a
scan, they were back, only this time in a .dbx of the administrator. The
Phishing Email folder. So I deleted both .dbx (me and the admin, who are the
same person) cos I knew new folders would be recreated in Outlook. Then I ran
"Window Washer" with "bleach" (which means it overwrites files three times) and
included 'free space', as well as TIF and the rest ... Then rebooted and ran
F-Secure again.

When F-Secure said I was clean, I confirmed it with two online scans --
TrendMicro and Panda. The sluggishness has disappeared. And CPU for fssm32.exe
is now saying 02 or 03 when I have only Outlook open. I'm *assuming* for now
that if there were any files still in registry, that F-Secure should be telling
me. Maybe I shouldn't assume.

On the F-Secure info page about the type of trojan, it said I'd better change
all my passwords when I was sure I was clean.

I have "HijackThis" but am nervous of using it without guidance.

The problem *seems* to be related to Windows Automatic Updates. I'm set to
Automatic, but when I checked last night, it downloaded 9 Updates, which was a
shock. No idea at all how that happened. I'm still set to Automatic Updates."

Noice huh?

Sentence of the day, even if I do say...

To a colleague today about IT security and information assurance.

"theory" looking for visionary leadership in a world gone sour with an inverted pyramidal house of cards being built on yet smaller physical footrprints with sedimentary protocols forming ingrained foundations whereupon we dance with virtualisation in expanded cyberspace with even less capacity for visibility and management, let alone surveillance and optimsation. L2/L3/L2 -> Ethernet/IP-MPLS/VPLS... ESX/VSwitch/Windows = layers of complexity, layers of code, and yet fully fledged OS's pushed further away from the networking stack... abstracted in to inner space.....

Great talk by Richard A. Clarke at Source Boston 2008

As Ranum et al have been banging on about for ages, Richard has actually been in the belly of the beast! (I think I'm gonna go read Richard's book, a "fictitious" account of state sponsored cyber-terrorism.)

Click To Play

Gmoon, Gsky, Gmars

http://www.google.com/sky/

http://www.google.com/moon/

http://www.google.com/mars/

Safety for kids and a trip to Mars?

Kids:

I have been looking for something like this for a while to point parents towards to help them with some direction around their children's online activities.

It's a scary topic when you delve deeply in to tech, how to protect the kids. Personally I think parents should key log kids machines, but what about outside the home?



http://www.google.com/intl/en/landing/familysafety/



Mars:

Virgin and Google team up to go to Mars.


http://www.google.com/virgle/index.html

ipv6 trix

More notes for myself for future reading, mesh, mobility and stuff...


Google v6 Tech Talks
http://tinyurl.com/2afeqc

What the US is missing by ignoring v6
http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/03/12/11NF-ipv6_2.html

Dan Geer at SOURCE in Boston

Cybersecurity in a New Digital Age

http://sourceboston2008.blip.tv/file/759111/

Anchored in time and tech, need new flows

Information Technology is fluid. IT is a capability whos ultimate goal stays the same, i.e. that of managing information. Unfortunately its operating environment, rules and players constantly change. Essentially what is being dealt with is a 'sliding window' of services constantly being built, tweaked and evolved on a platform of aging non-modular equipment and code.

Sliding windows suffer from extreme lag when they are consistently anchored by non-modular, non-extensible technology *and* people. We find ourselves constrained generally by the long tail of the process, thus consuming inordinate amounts of time and resources which could be better allocated and more productive elsewhere.

One of the foremost problems facing our society today from a technological perspective is not power consumption, general acceptance, awareness or learning, it's actually that of being trapped in the past, the near past. We are not so much trapped per se, but beholden to the constraints imposed upon us by the previous architects, engineers, management and chosen technologies. One must ask oneself, why be so short sighted? Did they really have a choice? Did they not factor the costs to maintain and deal with change? How does one manage change in an environment where the priorities seem to change daily and technology evolves almost independently while we wait for the darwinian champion of the 'most adaptable' to succeed.

Once more we should look to nature to see what the criteria for success are in an ever changing environment. Perhaps with this technological challenge we will be more aware of the interconnectedness and influence we exert in the evolution of cyberspace. What is it that we can manage? What is it that we can measure? Either the code needs to start taking care of itself or we need to embrace more fully an old engineering paradigm of loosely coupled replaceable sub-components. I would enjoy seeing both more! Don't get me wrong we will always need specialists and specialist systems, just built more-so from re-deployable units or resources. I am not advocating a monoculture, but a viewpoint or perspective on how we build considering the future caretakers of our digital creations from the outset.

At this point let me ask you a direct question dear reader; how many projects or times has legacy code, legacy infrastructure or tightly coupled systems thrown a virtual spanner in the works?

Virtualisation itself has started to offer some of the desired benefits alluded to above in relation to extensiblity and modularity, but many in management or leadership roles cannot tell you why or how virtualisation will and can benefit us, just that everyone else is doing it and it saves on the power bill.

Until we have our grey goo, a version of true utility computing whereupon perhaps we can 'pour' more computing in or on, or have any node re-purpose itself on the fly as another role, we will continue to build ourselves in to cul-de-sac's of wasteful practices. How much time and resources are spent trying to manage, measure or repair (while excessively consuming energy) the wrongs of the near past in our IT footprints.

We waste fossil fuels needlessly all the time within IT, but we also waste human capital trying to clean up after an unconscious breed of Information Technology 'professionals' who haven't seen the obvious staring them right in the face... survival of the most adaptable! Corporate memory just like public memory is short lived, however techs just like civil servants see the politics at play and the players only trying to further themselves. There is a new breed coming, an undercurrent of massively distributed techs with instant communication and new paradigms slowing trying to strip away the ineffectual practices of old. If you are the equivalent of a paper(email) shuffler in the office, adding no value, watch out I tells ya'... the language and sands are shifting and buzzwords just don't cut it any more!

My path, your path?

It exists inside. The gateless gate. It is already there. There is no path. It begins and ends within. There is no formal path. Some need training. Some need challenges. Some need to allow themselves to see further only to see closer. Whether lay or not is not the issue. Practice is all around. Formality can assist, can speed the path. It however is a pathless path, a gateless gate. We have already stepped through. The point at which one embarks on the journey is when they have both left and arrived. You get what I'm saying? YOU are awake already, once you question and ask if you are awake! The next step is only the depth, path and continuing effort or style. Sometimes thinking too much is destructive. Sometimes not thinking at all is destructive. To find the middle way is to have walked the edge and reached many extremes. Extremes cannot be found in comfortable places. The most uncomfortable places are in the mind, not in a geographical space, place or time.

My 0.02 brain cycles worth... my subjectivity is built from "our" objectivity and your subjectivity ;)

Simplicity

What is it that defines us?
What is the most important thing to us in our short existence?
What is the thing we should cherish most in our lives?
What do we have from birth to death and has the power to colour our lives for better or for worse?

Easy.... our minds, our consciousness...

So why do we neglect something so deeply important to our quality of life and base existence?

Surely we need to engage in some form of mind training or develop more tools to address and deal with our perception of reality?

Cmon' guys, why allow a crazy world to passively pollute our minds unnecessarily, why not focus a little bit on awareness and mindfulness. Start by observing yourself. Then take the time to quietly observe others without judging. Remove yourself from your preconceptions and look with clearer neutral eyes. Perceive from a neutral standpoint and quieten your monkey mind for a moment.

A good, easily digested, palatable first step in this modern age are talks online by people like Mattheau Ricard http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=matthieu+ricard+happiness&search_type= and Anthony De Mello.
http://goldfusion.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/tony-de-mello-videos-online/

3 IS the magic number - Mobile, Mesh, Multicast

Real time feedback loops to help the world.

a) have a read of this, link from Wade(bit long but worth it):
http://www.cityofsound.com/blog/2008/02/the-street-as-p.html

b) watch this from a Multimedia perspective to round out the concepts
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/epic

c) as I'm reading Arthur C Clarke's "The Light of Other Days" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_of_Other_Days

it hammers the point home. Transparency. The multitude of data already out there. Our re-interpretation thereof. Intent. Information management and the integrity thereof. Interdependence demonstrated. Wake up. Welcome to the future. See the MESH. Feel the quantum foam ;)

More xkcd.com and yes am still alive and kicking

Spiritual IT Security.

Some duality, some overlap, some scientific methodologies.

Monitor and surveil both your IT and personal "outputs" i.e. what you or the network or system generates and redistributes in to the interconnectedness; be it social, personal or techincal.

*Then*, and only then, base your controls, processes, methodologies and frameworks or risk assessments upon empirical evidence.

No wonder it's so hard to listen to a system or network, when we don't even listen to ourselves.

Monitor the outputs. Control the inputs. Refine the processes.

Tell it like it is boys

Spotlight: Cyber Terrorism Roundtable with Sami Saydjari, Marcus Ranum, Dean Turner and hosted by Nicole Greco. Discussion on cyber warfare, cyber terrorism, cyber defense with interviews by Mikko Hypponen and Andrew Colarik. Key issues on Estonia, China, Russia. Aired in November 2007.

And here is a snippet from one of Gunnar Peterson's posts I heartily agree with:

"If you want to make a bunch of acquisitions, outsource a ton of work, send a bunch of projects overseas, have multiple reorgs, connect up a ton of historically siloed systems, hook everything to the web and THEN GO ON A QUEST FOR CERTAINTY - well good luck to ya, mate. I think your time is better spent finding ways to lower your risk of permanent loss than trying (pretending) to achieve some semblance of certainty in that environment." From http://1raindrop.typepad.com/1_raindrop/2007/11/dhandho-infosec.html

Note on Virtualisation and RANT

Virtualisation lowers certain overheads and increases flexibility and modularity.

Virtualisation does not address SECURITY until whole system images are checksum'ed and rotated in a defensive time-based security method/model, including the abstraction layer and hardware playing a key role in defenses as well.

I have mused over this before here http://bsdosx.blogspot.com/2006/11/machine-and-service-integrity.html

As Theo De Raadt mentions over at http://kerneltrap.org/OpenBSD/Virtualization_Security;

"x86 virtualization is about basically placing another nearly full kernel, full of new bugs, on top of a nasty x86 architecture which barely has correct page protection. Then running your operating system on the other side of this brand new pile of shit. You are absolutely deluded, if not stupid, if you think that a worldwide collection of software engineers who can't write operating systems or applications without security holes, can then turn around and suddenly write virtualization layers without security holes."

On a side note, I'd like to repeat the below, courtesy of me;
"Everything will be a server, client and fast cache. The P2P model will win. It's the only thing that can. More "zeroconf" is needed. There seems to be no margins for error, tolerances or defensive programming anymore. What gives someone the right to call themselves a software "engineer" anyway?"

I'll post shortly on my new idea regarding regulation of business IT and an IT TAX to force enumeration, visibility and accountability.

Some time soon, I'll get back to IT security. Currently I am working in other areas and departments and re-learning about the human side and realities in which we all operate. The disconnect is massive. The cowboys operating in IT Security are very disheartening to me. The idiots and "old-guard" on both sides of the fence worry me. So many people have no clue of the complexity, and will never grok it. We need to simplify and innovate.

We need to regulate our "industry" somewhat without stifling innovation. Perhaps the Universities should take some of the blame in turning out ignorant coders who don't understand networking or security.... perhaps, perhaps not..... it remains to be seen. I can only talk from experience, and my experience in Uni taught me nothing; other than I hated coding and ignored my networking lecturer. I got a degree in Computer Science, I crammed before all exams, some days not even knowing what exam was on that day until I asked my colleagues. All Comp Sci did was pique my curiosity, I might as well have stayed in the Uni bar *all* the time. This might just be my personal version of "learning" at Uni (I like to call it regurgitation), but 99% of my tech was learned on the job ;)

How did I become so bitter and twisted? Am I really? Surely I am an optimist at heart?

Once we see the COMPLEXITY we harken after SIMPLICITY in all matters in life.

Damn straight... but sorta' bendy

From Drazen comes this snippet of a quote from Computerworld interviewing the legendary Frank Abagnale of 'Catch me if you can?' fame:

"Computerworld Staff: Is there anything we can do to make illicit computer-related activity a less attractive pursuit for young people?

Frank Abagnale: There are about four reasons why we have crime to begin with. One of them is, of course, that we live in an extremely unethical society. We live in a society that doesn't teach ethics at home, a society that doesn't teach ethics in school because the teacher would be accused of teaching morality. We live in a society where you can't find a four-year college course on ethics. I have three sons who went through graduate school; only the one who went to law school had a course even offered on ethics. So today you have a lot of young people who have no character, no ethics and they find no problem in defrauding somebody or stealing from somebody or cheating somebody. Until we change that, crime is just going to get easier, faster, more global, harder to detect.

Computerworld Staff: Any thoughts on how we can bring that change about?

Frank Abagnale: I think you need to bring character and ethics back into schools, and you certainly need to bring it back into colleges and universities as part of a curriculum. Only about half of Fortune 500 companies even have a code of ethics or code of conduct. The ones that do have one publish it every five years on an inside page of their annual report to appease their shareholders. So, obviously, there's no big effort out there to bring about that change. Rutgers just finished a five-year study that found that 56% of MBA students cheated.

There are really no con men anymore like there were in my day, because you really don't have to associate with anyone. You don't have to be well dressed and well groomed and well spoken. Everything's done on a computer; there are no witnesses. So even if you know who's doing it, you probably don't have the ability to go capture them. Chances are you have no idea what they look like; they can sit in their pajamas and commit all these crimes."

There seems no mandatory or enforceable cost anymore for performing an act that is detrimental to the health of the net or its component systems. Our super-organism(internet) is being eaten from the inside out while we don't realise nor appreciate the symbiotic relationship we have created between man and machines.

Who is held accountable and how, when we can't even agree upon nor incentivise actions to help protect our immediate and more fragile internetwork, the green planet we call home. I had a few ideas here: Some cud, but I still wonder about the fact that there are too many humans, just ask Mr. Malthus!

Process begets process...

"Time was when we could just re-cable the server ourself, and not have to pay some idiot $100 to move the thing", was heard across the room today in a large clients office, and oh did it ring true... however as organisations mature -> processes place a framework around work carried out and services are measured via uptime and other SLA's....no more adhocracy, only at the wiki level!

Measure.. hmmmmm.. that's a funny word in IT isn't it... 'MEASURE','MEASURE'...M-E-A-S-U-R-E

# measurement: the act or process of assigning numbers to phenomena according to a rule; "the measurements were carefully done"; "his mental ...
# standard: a basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated; "the schools comply with federal standards"; "they set the measure for all subsequent work"
# how much there is of something that you can quantify
# any maneuver made as part of progress toward a goal; "the situation called for strong measures"; "the police took steps to reduce crime"
# bill: a statute in draft before it becomes law; "they held a public hearing on the bill"
# determine the measurements of something or somebody, take measurements of; "Measure the length of the wall"
# meter: (prosody) the accent in a metrical foot of verse
# quantify: express as a number or measure or quantity; "Can you quantify your results?"
# have certain dimensions; "This table surfaces measures 20inches by 36 inches"
# musical notation for a repeating pattern of musical beats; "the orchestra omitted the last twelve bars of the song"
# measuring stick: measuring instrument having a sequence of marks at regular intervals; used as a reference in making measurements
# place a value on; judge the worth of something; "I will have the family jewels appraised by a professional"

So I text myself sometimes when particular thoughts cross my mind;

"First you need visibility/surveillance, and then accountability of packets, flows and data objects, then comes valuation of said data objects, services and supporting infrastructure... now we can have meaningful conversations about risk and IT security"

Hmmmmm... sampling, measuring, identifying.... what's your IT footprint? What's the last IT related report you looked at, what did it measure and what did it really say about your organisational IT footprint?

Some fun...

Was surfing here, http://xkcd.com/ and added it to my RSS feeds http://syndicated.livejournal.com/xkcd_rss/profile ;) Actually came from the FUNSEC mailing list but my mate Wade had sent me one of the comics before.

'Meta' or 'Metta' security....

Basically I'll let Mr. Bejtlich summarise from his 'Three Wise Men' of security, practically all there needs to be currently known about the state of play in and around the IT Security Industry and IT Security Risk areas. On the shoulders of giants and all that!

http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/search?q=three+wise+men

Dan and Marcus are definetly on my list, though I haven't really read this Ross Anderson guy, however Richard himself is on my list, along with Rob Thomas from Team Cymru.

On another note, to save you signing (or reading about signing up) for tonnes of bullshit, please find below a great 'Point:CounterPoint' from Bruce Schneier and Marcus Ranum. DRM/Copyright.. nah...

Erm, hopefully without getting in trouble and making others spend 5 minutes signing up to read the below, here it is in all it's glory.

Bruce Schneier

Point: To the average home user, security is an intractable problem. Microsoft has made great strides improving the security of its operating system out of the box, but there is still a dizzying array of rules, options and choices users have to make. How should they configure their antivirus program? What sort of backup regime should they employ? What are the best settings for their wireless network? And so on.

How is it possible that we in the computer industry have foisted on people a product that is so difficult to use securely, it requires so many add-ons? It's even worse than that. We have sold the average computer user a bill of goods. In our race for an ever-increasing market, we have convinced every person that he needs a computer. We have provided application after application--IM, peer-to-peer file sharing, eBay, Facebook--to make computers useful and enjoyable to the home user. At the same time, we've made them so difficult to maintain that only a trained sysadmin can.

And we wonder why home users have such problems with their buggy systems, why they can't seem to do the simplest administrative tasks, and why their computers aren't secure. They're not secure because home users don't know how to secure them.

At work, I have an IT department I can call if I have a problem. They filter my Net connection so I don't see spam, and most attacks are blocked before they get to my computer. They tell me which updates to install. And they're available to help me recover if something happens to my system. Home users have none of this support.

This problem isn't going to go away as computers get smarter and users get savvier. Next-generation computers will be vulnerable to different attacks, and next-generation attack tools will fool users in different ways.

This isn't simply an academic problem; it's a public health problem. In the hyperconnected world of the Internet, everyone's security depends in part on everyone else's. As long as there are insecure computers out there, hackers will use them to eavesdrop on network traffic, send spam and attack other computers. We are more secure if those home computers attached to the Internet via DSL or cable modems are protected against attack. The only question is, what's the best way to get there?

I wonder about those who say "educate the users." Have they tried? It's unrealistic to expect home users to be responsible for their security. They don't have the expertise, and aren't going to learn. And it's not just user actions we need to watch; computers are insecure out of the box.

The only way to solve this problem is to force the ISPs to become IT departments. There's no reason they can't provide home users with the same level of support my IT department provides me, or a "clean pipe" service to the home. Yes, it will cost more, and require changes in the law to make this mandatory. But what's the alternative?

In 1991, Walter S. Mossberg debuted his Personal Technology column in The Wall Street Journal with the words, "Personal computers are just too hard to use, and it isn't your fault." Sixteen years later, it's doubly true when it comes to computer security.

If we want home users to be secure, we need to design computers and networks that are secure out of the box, without any work by the end users. There isn't any other way.


Marcus Ranum

CounterPoint: I'm sure that many of the things Bruce points out about computers at some point or another applied to automobiles or any other technologically interesting and complex device. There was a time, in the early days of the automobile, when any idiot could go 75 miles per hour with no requirement for training, safety equipment or sobriety. As Bruce says, eventually that kind of thing becomes a public health issue and then society begins to enforce constraints. Question is, do society's constraints make a difference, or does time cure these ills?

When I was growing up, there was just one kid in my entire high school who had a computer. Today, it seems every kid 8 and older is a Windows sysadmin. And some of them are better at it than you might expect. That's because they grew up doing it, and the human brain appears to be able to integrate amazingly complex tasks as "normal" as long as we're introduced to them early enough. Bruce, I think the problem is not with all the home users--I think it's with the adult home users.

I see the generational distinction most clearly with my parents. My father still writes using an old Underwood typewriter. My mom has adopted a computer, but she's exactly the kind of user you're worried about--she clicks "OK" on anything, and seems to be trying to collect spyware. Thinking about it, most of the generation before mine is pretty uncomfortable with computers, and I was one of the early experimental kids who grew up networking on the ARPANET and BITNET. Does that have something to do with the fact that I have always had a good grasp of the concepts of transitive trust and distributed systems? I think it does; I think the analytic parts of our brains, if given a task early on, are able to make sense out of all kinds of insanely complicated things.

"Educate the user" is an old mantra in security, and its uselessness is one place where Bruce and I agree. I think, though, that building simpler systems is not the answer. The answer is to let the current user population die off! It's going to happen, anyhow.

Forcing ISPs to support home users, or re-engineering computers to be simple enough for us old coots to understand, completely misses the point. At the point where enough customers want simple-to-use Internet terminals, a market will develop. Arguably, it already has--witness the evolution of handheld PDAs and centralized "no spam" managed free email services. The complexity of the Internet and software administration is getting absorbed into the IT infrastructure of Google, Yahoo and MySpace.

I'm not demanding that Detroit make cars that are simple enough for me to repair; I choose to buy vehicles that are usually reliable, and I outsource the repair work to the mechanic up the street. Perhaps what we're doing is shifting complexity around in our lives: I never learned how to fix a transmission, but I can still scratch-bake a firewall with a custom filtering reverse Web proxy in a weekend. I've seen home users who can't manage a Windows XP upgrade, but who can successfully instrument-land a jet fighter.

Bruce, when you and I are old coots sitting on the porch, you'll be amazed to see the current generation of kids nimbly navigating their way through software and system configurations that completely blow our minds. Relax; it's just what progress looks like from our side of the hill. Will the future be more secure? It'll be just as insecure as it possibly can, while still continuing to function. Just like it is today.

Non-separability and thoughts in the ether

I've been banging on about this for ages:

http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/2007/09/microsofts-anemone-project.html

"Reclaiming Network-wide Visibility Using Ubiquitous Endsystem Monitors."

5 years from now!

Stuff to think about:

- PCI DSS(Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards) QSA (Qualified Security Assessor)
- NetFlow/IPFIX (Crannog/NetScout/Arbor) as networking/security is increasingly about context/relationships/visibility.
- Normalization/baselining tools a la PeakFlow, SourceFireRNA
- Visualisation and Modelling (Opnet)
- IDS/Rootkit detectors for virtualised environments.(Watch this space... BluePill/F-Secure )
- Security Metrics(emerging/huge future as currently un-quantifiable!) and audit via Skybox / Algosec
- Digital Signage, MCAST/P2P distribution JOOST style.
- Infrastructure/solutions to facilitate SoaS(Software-as-a-Service) e.g. Salesforce/Joomla/Atlassian(Confluence)/GoogleApps/Zimbra/Zoho, virtual offices whereby nodes act as client/cache/server and don't backup locally but more to Web Services akin to AWS(Amazon Web Services),S3,EC2. Managing a virtual customer's DNS and aggregating management of their services has potential?
- Mobile and mobility gateways, 3G(HSDPAv2) vs WiMAx back-haul for project offices/satellite sites and SME/SOHO
- Location based services and GIS(Geographic Information Systems)
- Identity Management via OpenID/Cardspace(InfoCard) hosted services.
- Thin clients (Neoware)
- Fixed Mobile Convergence(Still a while off!) Engin / MyNetPhone / SIP/IAX/Asterisk

Web 2.0+ has as many solutions as problems, a new middleware-tier('internet-service-bus' if you will!). Businesses will increasingly want more audit/control and lower operational overheads and greater security via thin-client computing utilizing the browser as the platform of choice, also generating secure local host based flows for compliance and reporting. Thin clients and infinitely scalable distributed computing/storage is on the way. If you don't run the data-centre processing/storage nor have the power, you'll want to control the gateways/reporting/auditing/caching and own/re-sell/manage as much of the local infrastructure/bus and back-haul as possible!

Regulatory and compliance requirements will always have a perceivable effect, especially in the financial services sector.. but with breach disclosure laws on the way in Oz the security -> landscape/consulting/auditing/accountability/visibility aspects of networks/services are not going to allow organizations to keep their heads in the sand for much longer.

IT Security; hobby, hindrance or hegemony?

Shake it up Wednesday

Props to Wade from an old email...

Security bingo from funsec

http://www.crypto.com/bingo/pr

Monitoring and visibility, old'y but a...

From :http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0107.html#5

"Without monitoring, you're vulnerable until your security is perfect. If you monitor first, you're immediately more secure."

"Monitoring should be the first step in any network security plan. It's something that a network administrator can do today to provide immediate value. Policy analysis and vulnerability assessments take time, and don't actually improve a network's security until they're acted upon."

"It's specious logic for a CIO to decide to wait until his network is stable, he understands his security, and all his patches are up to date. It'll never happen. Monitoring's best value is when a network is in flux -- as all large networks always are -- due to internal and external factors."

From the ensuing comments:

"However if you insist on war as the metaphor, here are two thoughts along those lines. First, the war, if that is what it is, is surely a guerrilla war. The entities being attacked are large, visible, slow-moving and part of the power structure. They have much greater resources than the attackers, but no effective way to apply them. The attackers and few, dispersed, hidden and have few resources. But what they have is the free choice of when and where to attack.

To fight guerrillas it is necessary to a) identify them; i.e., distinguish them from civilians and b) control some resource that is essential to their survival. Given the Internet as it exists today, I don't see much hope of doing either of these. If the authorities decide to employ broadly targeted, draconian measures, they will find like the British in America and the Americans in Vietnam, that the collateral effects on innocent civilians are simply unacceptable.

My second thought about hacking as war is that the situation can be compared to that in many wars, but most especially the American Civil War. While some people were busy fighting and dying, war profiteers made fortunes selling rotten food, unserviceable uniforms and non-working weapons. With a market full of snake oil security, bug-ridden applications and vendors who are more interested in suing or prosecuting people who reveal security problems than fixing them, this seems like the kind of war we are in."

Nice segway to this post by Bejtlich re: Schneier and Cyberwar;
http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/2007/04/taking-fight-to-enemy-revisited.html

ROI or NPV?

If you understand the acronyms above, maybe have a trek over here : http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/000939.html

otherwise you may want to move quickly on :)

Time to think the unthinkable

So the problem as quoted many times before is, "how to demonstrate that
security practices are both working and effective?".

As in most production network and system footprints, the goal posts,
risks and processes are ever moving and changing. How do we measure
security and track a risk management program effectively without making
comparison to some baseline or standard configuration?

The answer is we don't. There isn't any and there never will be for
*your* IT footprint.

So, you ask, what can we measure when trying to prove the unprovable?

The answer lies in making a comparison to something, but to what? Other
organisations perhaps? Too tough it seems, as they don't have nor share
relevant data or reports for obvious reasons. Each IT footprint and
business is built on similar building blocks but is fundamentally
different as the "superorganism" morphs, grows and responds to different
traffic and needs constantly.

What is required is a clone. A sometimes inferior and sometimes superior
clone of the organism. A test subject if you will.

I am not talking about development systems or sub-models of the organism,
but a live fully functional version of the entire entity, which can
assume many states at a whim.

With todays focus on virtualisation and seemingly never ending
processing and storage, surely we could construct a clone of our
business residing all in memory on a single or distributed platform.
This is what we would perform change management upon and measure
against. Think of it, not as a "honey-net", but a "honey-org".

Yeah, yeah, needs X memory and won't be perfect, but better than nothing
and the "honey-org" could be constantly updated from the live management
systems.

With a form of total information awareness we could build a clone of our
systems, nodes and processes - exclusively in software, running on
lower spec hardware perhaps. Here, only time becomes the key factor.

Using something akin to enterprise management systems the information
and images could be gathered to build a clone of our organisation or
enterprise in as much detail as possible which would facilitate a form
of testing that would see us able to demonstrate what would, and does
happen, if certain policies or changes are not enforced.

Three, is the magic number. A production network, a clone network, and
whatever other development or model systems are required.

This would not address physical security in tandem with virtual
security, nor would it be able to fully simulate all users or business
processes, but it is what we are approaching with products like Cisco's new provisioning platforms, Opnet's modeler and risk management via Skybox. The ability to then generate traffic and incidents is also required. SmartBits, IMix, VA and fuzzing till your heart's content including session replay all in one go? Easy huh?

The main problem today is we don't know enough about our environments.
We need to know more. We need to build a fully virtual infrastructure to fully understand our real infrastructure. We may be still quite some
distance away, but in extrapolating the possible futures, this seems to
me to be the only way of demonstrating the "what if" scenarios!

Open up the virtual infrastructure to the net. Offer up your virtual
systems to the bad guys. Transparency is the key both for the bad guys
and the good guys if we really want to make progress. Perhaps.

In theory this is what we pretend to do with "Change Management" today, though the results are more often than not guessed at, divined from experience and faith and are totally subjective.

Yes it is time to slow down the rate of change, make a copy, offer it up
or strip bits away from our clone to see where and how the security
dollars are really being spent. Gimme' a clone, drop it in the lions
den, and I'll give you, at least in part your ROSI(Return on Security
Investment).

Zen and back again...

What follows are some "modern" haiku (interspersed with images *to come*) which are based partially on my notes over the past few months, and also, to a degree upon, some of my experiences in this wonderfully calm and quaint Rinzai Zen Temple outside of Kyoto.

Traditional or formal haiku should not only have a 5-7-5 syllable count, but should be composed during a pure moment of Zen which reflects and invokes an empathic experience in the reader. Also present should be a characteristic of, or reflection on, a season by virtue of an appropriate subject or action. Due to the pace and disconnectedness from nature of today's society I have dispensed with some of the more traditional aspects, in the hope of evoking in the reader a similar experience to mine. There are perhaps more messages than moments in the below, and of course some information technology!

Many distractions,
information overload.
Where is the wisdom?



Internal battles.
Elephant for dinner.
Morsel at a time.



Physical struggle,
gateway to inside, not out,
receiver go deep.



Faith in science,
No moral compass found here.
Perhaps in Zen?



Arrogant mind.
Our attachments and desires.
Wake up time.

So many "sheeple",
asleep at the wheel.
How to de-program?

Input and output,
constantly processing them.
Who does the work?

Watching the watcher.
One of us is a tool.
Wield with respect.

Bits in, bits out.
Quality information,
computer mind?

Symbiotic "we".
Both need constant attention,
unplug the machine.

All is nature,
what can we not control?
Begin with yourself.

Symmetry desired.
Where is the fun in that?
Let's remain human.

Dirty fingernails.
Ground is moist and warm.
Food from the womb.

Dappled sunlight,
much potential energy,
free-wheeling downhill.

Sooner or later,
worry grips the mind, draining.
How much is enough?

Half full, half empty.
Begin again. A new cup.
Paradigm shifting.

Summer decisions.
Experience of last year.
Life's moving goal posts.

Mind management,
herding cats, bees and mice,
welcome to the zoo.

Energy in thought,
our most prized possesions,
content and intent?

True nobility,
Improve upon former self,
ad-infinitum.

Criticise, gossip,
matter not when others speak,
self-judgement.

No unhappiness,
curious, energetic,
spirited, joyful.

All basic questions,
unanswered, never stupid.
Reluctant probing.

Form expectations,
plain as the nose on your face,
perceptions altered.

Too young, too old.
Deceive oneself, just do it.
Too rich, too poor.

Control your thoughts,
failure, no courage to try.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Future shock, peak oil,
adaptational breakdown.
Disease of change.

Ogburn culture lag.
Rate of human response,
obsolete people?

Premature future,
incompetent neurosis.
Avalanching change.

Death and permanence,
Suffocating complexity.
Impermanent rise.

Bleeding edge I.T.
Security, assurance,
nowhere to be found.

Always hurry forward,
Moulded mass education,
de-school society.

Early adopter,
enumerate the pitfalls.
Risk or reward?

Guaranteed future.
Where is the fun in that?
Step to the unknown.

Neural feedback loops,
"Thin slicing" situations,
partial involvement.

Avoid human ties,
flow through of people slowing down.
Nomadic children.

Kyoto and the art of human maintenance

Heading for some 'Rest and Realization' on Tuesday. Back soon.

Damn straight

Creativity expert Sir Ken Robinson challenges the way we're educating our children.

Dear Sirs..

Another bold question if I may. The topic is trust. The subjects are sheeple and computer systems. The framework is IT Security. The context is always changing. The goals are the same. Intent is irrelevant. Miscreants abound.

Excuse me arguing by analogy, but this online age verification system to access movie trailers, sums up many of the major issues and ignorances in IT Security.

This morning, the New York Times has a nice story on gateways to online movie trailers that contain adult content. Trailers online will be preceded by colored tags, just like the green one you see in theaters that indicates the preview is acceptable for anyone watching. A yellow tag indicates the trailer may include PG-13ish content and a red one indicates an R-rated trailer, as it does in theaters, though red tags are rarely used in theaters.

The trailers that appear on the studios' movie sites, the story said, also have time of day restrictions, ostensibly viewable only between 9 p.m and 4 a.m.

More here

http://blogs.csoonline.com/dirty_trailers_cheap_tricks


As the depth, pace and breadth of technology increases, no one can be expected to be an expert in all systems and subsystems they either use, interface with or build upon. Knowing what's going on 'under the hood' is becoming increasingly abstract and esoteric, especially to the standard consumer of computing resources. The issue is compounded by depth of code, system complexity, legacy systems, and third party drivers and modules, which are either knowingly or unknowingly part of a solution. Users require protection from both themselves and others while interfacing with systems or when having their information stored or utilised.

Unfortunately global systems span geo-political boundaries. Global systems which can be highjacked and used to attack more innocents.(Unfortunately systems will continue to be or will become vulnerable over time!) And I am talking about any node here; routers, switches, firewalls and traditional endpoints.

I am leaning towards the belief that more services should be available to end-users in their local cloud. Not necessarily mandated, but available - depending upon the environment. This is a highly complex and potentially volatile area, and arguments abound, however the question should be 'what's effective?'. DAMN -> fast, reliable and cheap. Though I like reliable!

How can you trust unmanaged systems and users? (also known as an information processing nodes!). See previous post.

How can you trust managed systems and users?

How can you trust infrastructure nodes?

Expect them all to fail. Expect them to be compromised. Expect to lose trust in them.

Now where does that leave us?

Let's look at the enforcement points on a simple systems trust model again... See previous post. (I like to think of the diagram as the equivalent of a Feynman diagram for IT Security, tee hee!)

So some stuff to think about. Here's a new acronym/phrase for you akin to SOA(Service Orientated Architecture).

SOV(Service Orientated Vulnerability) can be a compound or blended vulnerability.
SS(Service Surface) interface, network, user, back-end etc
IS(Interface Surface) subset of the above and takes in to account multiple new input vectors as the future interface will have more than one API/endpoint/processor per endpoint utilising new input devices and virtualisation.

Fun, fun, fun.

Every node will be a client.
Every node will be a server.
Every node will be a cache.

So now, do you trust the node, or introduce another trusted node to watch the node.

This could go on ad infinitum. At some point you hope there are enough checks and balances to watch the watchers.

Can we checksum people, anyone?





Schneier gets credit for leading me to the age verification system... http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/06/age_verificatio.html

Kinda fun, what resonates with you?

The future... perhaps...

What does IT Security and a HIV/STD test have in common?

Answers on a S.A.E. ( Self Addressed Email )

User awareness my ass

Symbiosis

If one doesn't separate the human from the endpoint system e.g. which is what client side security is really all about, then - and only then - will we make progress in the IT security battle. The human, peripherals and machine comprise the client side endpoint which needs to be protected in its entirety! Now let's think about Integrity, Availability and Confidentiality again.



Aside: Lines are being blurred between the conceptual client and server roles each day. Service orientated enterprise architectures are only a minor part of the puzzle... Let us never forget the users, administrators, operators and developers as part of the overall puzzle. (Or is it a mystery?)

Dorky is right!

IT Security needs more than this Open University style waffle.



I prefer the 'Look Around You' approach to learning ;)

A text from the ether

I got this message via text from a friend today:

"How many wasted thought cycles do we have each day, each month, each year, in a lifetime? How does fear rule our actions, control our thoughts, overrule our instincts, and dictate our emotions? Are we conditioned how to act and react? Are we bred to slave over data in the workplace? Have our minds been turned in to computers? Have our bodies been bred to consume? Are we drugged from childhood? Are we awake and if we were, how would we know?"

And here is a nice TED talk from Tenzin Bob Thurman (Uma Thurman's Dad!), who became a Tibetan monk at age 24, about a topic I would refer to as 'enlightened self-interest':

On my tech mind.

- Complexity Crunch
- Feedback Loops
- Change Management
- Reliability(Integrity)
- Loosely Coupled
- Mobile
- Everything is a client, everything is a server, everything is a cache
- Distributed content inventories
- Intelligent packets
- Metrics
- Quality of information

The Blue Packet

This is a great post from a site I like about the mobile Telco industry. It made me laugh out loud. Things that evoke an audible response from you are special, whether good or bad!

Link ( also in image ) : http://the.taoofmac.com/space/blog/2004/11/08