On Tuesday, I spoke at the Seattle Privacy/TechnoActivism 3rd Monday meeting, and shared some initial results from the Seattle Privacy Threat Model project.
Overall, I’m happy to say that the effort has been a success, and opens up a set of possibilities.
- Every participant learned about threats they hadn’t previously considered. This is surprising in and of itself: there are few better-educated sets of people than those willing to commit hours of their weekends to threat modeling privacy.
- We have a new way to contextualize the decisions we might make, evidence that we can generate these in a reasonable amount of time, and an example of that form.
- We learned about how long it would take (a few hours to generate a good list of threats, a few hours per category to understand defenses and tradeoffs), and how to accelerate that. (We spent a while getting really deep into threat scenarios in a way that didn’t help with the all-up models.)
- We saw how deeply and complexly mobile phones and apps play into privacy.
- We got to some surprising results about privacy in your commute.
More at the Seattle Privacy Coalition blog, “Threat Modeling the Privacy of Seattle Residents,” including slides, whitepaper and spreadsheets full of data.
As a member of the BlackHat Review Board, I would love to see more work on Human Factors presented there. The 2018 call for papers is open and closes April 9th. Over the past few years, I think we’ve developed an interesting track with good material year over year.
I wrote a short blog post on what we look for.
The BlackHat CFP calls for work which has not been published elsewhere. We prefer fully original work, but will consider a new talk that explains work you’ve done for the BlackHat audience. Oftentimes, Blackhat does not count as “Publication” in the view of academic program committees, and so you can present something at BlackHat that you plan to publish later. (You should of course check with the other venue, and disclose that you’re doing so to BlackHat.)
If you’re considering submitting, I encourage you to read all three recommendations posts at https://usa-briefings-cfp.blackhat.com/
There’s a fundraising campaign to “Keep the Bombe on the Bletchley Park Estate.”
The Bombe was a massive intellectual and engineering achievement at the British codebreaking center at Bletchley Park during the second world war. The Bombes were all disassembled after the war, and the plans destroyed, making the reconstruction of the Bombe at Bletchley a second impressive achievement.
My photo is from the exhibit on the reconstruction.
[Update: The final article is available at “That Was Close! Reward Reporting of Cybersecurity ‘Near Misses’,” at the Colorado Technology Law Journal.]
Last week at Art into Science, I presented “That was Close! Doing Science with Near Misses” (Slides as web page, or download the pptx.)
The core idea is that we should borrow from aviation to learn from near misses, and learn to protect ourselves and our systems better. The longer form is in the draft “That Was Close! Reward Reporting of Cybersecurity ‘Near Misses’”
Voluntary Reporting of Cybersecurity “Near Misses”
The talk was super-well received and I’m grateful to Sounil Yu and the participants in the philosphy track, who juggled the schedule so we could collaborate and brainstorm. If you’d like to help, by far the most helpful way would be to tell us about a near miss you’ve experienced using our form, and give us feedback on the form. Since Thursday, I’ve added a space for that feedback, and made a few other suggested adjustments which were easy to implement.
If you’ve had a chance to think about definitions for either near misses or accidents, I’d love to hear about those, in comments, in your blog (trackbacks should work), or whatever works for you. If you were at Art Into Science, there’s a #near-miss channel on the conference Slack, and I’ll be cleaning up the notes.
Image from the EHS Database, who have a set of near miss safety posters.