There’s an interesting article in the CBC, where journalists took a set of flights, swabbed surfaces, and worked with a microbiologist to culture their samples.
What they found will shock you!
Well, airplanes are filthy. Not really shocking. What was surprising to me was that the dirtiest of the surfaces they tested was the headrest. (They did not test the armrests.) Also, the seat pocket is a nice incubator and rarely cleaned. Not all that surprising, but I hadn’t considered it.
I’m pleased to be able to share work that Shostack & Associates and the Cyentia Institute have been doing for the Global Cyber Alliance. In doing this, we created some new threat models for email, and some new statistical analysis of
It shows the 1,046 domains that have successfully activated strong protection with GCA’s DMARC tools will save an estimated $19 million to $66 million dollars from limiting BEC for the year of 2018 alone. These organizations will continue to reap that reward every year in which they maintain the deployment of DMARC. Additional savings will be realized as long as DMARC is deployed.
Their press release from this morning is at here and the report download is here.
Then he explained the name was important for inspiring the necessary fear. You see, no one would surrender to the Dread Pirate Westley.
The DREAD approach was created early in the security pushes at Microsoft as a way to prioritize issues. It’s not a very good way, you see no one would surrender to the Bug Bar Pirate, Roberts. And so the approach keeps going, despite its many problems.
There are many properties one might want in a bug ranking system for internally found bugs. They include:
DREAD certainly meets the first of these, and perhaps the second two. And it was an early attempt at a multi-factor rating of bugs. But there are many problems which DREAD brings that newer approaches deal with.
The most problematic aspect of DREAD is that there’s little consistency, especially in the middle. What counts as a 6 damage versus 7, or 6 versus 7 exploitability? Without calibration, different raters will not be consistent. Each of the scores can be mis-estimated, and there’s a tendency to underestimate things like discoverability of bugs in your own product.
The second problem is that you set an arbitrary bar for fixes, for example, everything above a 6.5 gets fixed. That makes the distinction between a 6 and a 7 sometimes matters a lot. The score does not relate to what needs to get fixed when found externally.
This illustrates why Discoverability is an odd things to bring into the risk equation. You may have a discoverability of “1” on Monday, and 10 on Tuesday. (“Thanks, Full-Disclosure!”) So something could have a 5.5 DREAD score because of low discoverability but require a critical update. Suddenly the DREAD score of the issue is mutable. So it’s hard to use DREAD on an externally discovered bug, or one delivered via a bug bounty. So now you have two bug-ranking systems, and what do you do when they disagree? This happened to Microsoft repeatedly, and led to the switch to a bug bar approach.
Affected users is also odd: does an RCE in Flight Simulator matter less than one in Word? Perhaps in the grand scheme of things, but I hope the Flight Simulator team is fixing their RCEs.
Stepping beyond the problems internal to DREAD to DREAD within a software organization, it only measures half of what you need to measure. You need to measure both the security severity and the fix cost. Otherwise, you run the risk of finding something with a DREAD of 10, but it’s a key feature (Office Macros), and so it escalates, and you don’t fix it. There are other issues which are easy to fix (S3 bucket permissions), and so it doesn’t matter if you thought discoverability was low. This is shared by other systems, but the focus on a crisp line in DREAD, everything above a 6.5 gets fixed, exacerbates the issue.
For all these reasons, with regards to DREAD? Fully skeptical, and I have been for over a decade. If you want to fix these things, the thing to do is not create confusion by saying “DREAD can also be a 1-3 system!”, but to version and revise DREAD, for example, by releasing DREAD 2. I’m exploring a similar approach with DFDs.
I’m hopeful that this post can serve as a collection of reasons to not use DREAD v1, or properties that a new system should have. What’d I miss?
Today is John Harrison’s 352nd birthday, and Google has a doodle to celebrate. Harrison was rescued from historical obscurity by Dava Sobel’s excellent book Longitude, which documented Harrison’s struggle to first build and then demonstrate the superiority of his clocks to the mathematical and astronomical solutions heralded by leading scientists of the day. Their methods were complex, tedious and hard to execute from the deck of a ship.
To celebrate, I’d like to share this photo I took at the Royal Museums Greenwich in 2017:
(A Full size version is on Flickr.)
As the placard says, “First produced in 1768, this worksheet gave navigators an easy process for calculating their longitude using new instruments and the Nautical Almanac. Each naval ship’s master was required to train with qualified teachers in London or Portsmouth in order to gain a certificate of navigational competence.” (Emphasis added.)
a fresh look at a 3700-year-old clay tablet suggests that Babylonian mathematicians not only developed the first trig table, beating the Greeks to the punch by more than 1000 years, but that they also figured out an entirely new way to look at the subject. However, other experts on the clay tablet, known as Plimpton 322 (P322), say the new work is speculative at best. (“This ancient Babylonian tablet may contain the first evidence of trigonometry.”)
The paper, “Plimpton 322 is Babylonian exact sexagesimal trigonometry” is short and open access, and also contains this gem:
If this interpretation is correct, then P322 replaces Hipparchus’ ‘table of chords’ as the world’s oldest trigonometric table — but it is additionally unique because of its exact nature, which would make it the world’s only completely accurate trigonometric table. These insights expose an entirely new level of sophistication for OB mathematics.
There’s a new paper from Mark Thompson and Hassan Takabi of the University of North Texas. The title captures the question:
Effectiveness Of Using Card Games To Teach Threat Modeling For Secure Web Application Developments
Gamification of classroom assignments and online tools has grown significantly in recent years. There have been a number of card games designed for teaching various cybersecurity concepts. However, effectiveness of these card games is unknown for the most part and there is no study on evaluating their effectiveness. In this paper, we evaluate effectiveness of one such game, namely the OWASP Cornucopia card game which is designed to assist software development teams identify security requirements in Agile, conventional and formal development
processes. We performed an experiment where sections of graduate students and undergraduate students in a security related course at our university were split into two groups, one of which played the Cornucopia card game, and one of which did not. Quizzes were administered both before and after the activity, and a survey was taken to measure student attitudes toward the exercise. The results show that while students found the activity useful and would like to see this activity and more similar exercises integrated into the classroom, the game was not easy to understand. We need to spend enough time to familiarize the students with the game and prepare them for the exercises using the game to get the best results.
I’m very glad to see games like Cornucopia evaluated. If we’re going to push the use of Cornucopia (or Elevation of Privilege) for teaching, then we ought to be thinking about how well they work in comparison to other techniques. We have anecdotes, but to improve, we must test and measure.
Recently, some of my friends were talking about a report by Bay Dynamics, “How Boards of Directors Really Feel About Cyber Security Reports.” In that report, we see things like:
More than three in five board members say they are both significantly or very “satisfied” (64%) and “inspired”(65%) after the typical presentation by IT and security executives about the company’s cyber risk, yet the majority (85%) of board members
believe that IT and security executives need to improve the way they report to the board.”
Only one-third of IT and security executives believe the board comprehends the cyber security information provided to them (versus) 70% of board members surveyed report that they understand everything they’re being told by IT and security executives in their presentations
Some of this is may be poor survey design or reporting: it’s hard to survey someone to see if they don’t understand, and the questions aren’t listed in the survey.
But that may be taking the easy way out. Perhaps what we’re being told is consistent. Security leaders don’t think the boards are getting the nuance, while the boards are getting the big picture just fine. Perhaps boards really do want better reporting, and, having nothing useful to suggest, consider themselves “satisfied.”
They ask for numbers, but not because they really want numbers. I’ve come to believe that the reason they ask for numbers is that they lack a feel for the risks of cyber. They understand risks in things like product launches or moving manufacturing to China, or making the wrong hire for VP of social media. They are hopeful that in asking for numbers, they’ll learn useful things about the state of what they’re governing.
So what do boards want in security reporting? They want concrete, understandable and actionable reports. They want to know if they have the right hands on the rudder, and if those hands are reasonably resourced. (Boards also know that no one who reports to them is every really satisfied with their budget.)
(Lastly, the graphic? Overly complex, not actionable, lacks explicit recommendations or requests. It’s what boards don’t want.)
There’s a fascinating article on PropertyCasualty360 “
As Cyber Coverage Soars, Opportunity Clicks” (thanks to Jake Kouns and Chris Walsh for the pointer). I don’t have a huge amount to add, but wanted to draw attention to some excerpts that drew my attention:
Parisi observes that pricing has also become more consistent over the past 12 months. “The delta of the pricing on an individual risk has gotten smaller. We used to see pricing differences that would range anywhere from 50-100 percent among competing carriers in prior years,” he says.
I’m not quite sure how that pricing claim lines up with this:
“The guys that have been in the business the longest—for example, Ace, Beazley, Hiscox and AIG—their books are now so large that they handle several claims a week,” says Mark Greisiger, president of NetDiligence. Their claims-handling history presumably means these veteran players can now apply a lot of data intelligence to their risk selection and pricing.
but the claim that there’s several breaches a week impacting individual insurers gives us a way to put a lower-bound on breaches that are occurring. It’s somewhat dependent on what you mean by several, but generally, I put “several” above “a couple”, which means 3 breaches per week, or 150 per insurer per year, which is 600 between Ace, Beazley, Hiscox and AIG.
Then there’s this:
Despite a competitive market and significant capacity, underwriting appetite for high-risk classes varies widely. For instance, schools have significant PII exposure and are frequent targets of attacks, such as the October 2012 “ProjectWestWind” action by “hacktivist” group Anonymous to release personal records from more than 100 top universities.
So schools can be hard risks to place. While some U.S. carriers—such as Ace, Chartis and CNA—report being a market for this business class, Kiln currently has no appetite for educational institutions, with Randles citing factors such as schools’ lack of technology controls across multiple campuses, lack of IT budgets and extensive population of users who regularly access data.
Lastly, I’ll add that an insurance company that wants to market itself could easily leap to the front of mind for their prospective customers the way Verizon did. Think back 5 years, to when Verizon launched their DBIR. Then, I wrote:
Sharing data gets your voice out there. Verizon has just catapulted themselves into position as a player who can shape security.
That’s because of their willingness to provide data. I was going to say give away, but they’re really not giving the data away. They’re trading it for respect and credibility. (“Can You Hear Me Now?“)
I look forward to seeing which of the big insurance companies, the folks who are handling “several claims a week”, is first to market with good analysis.
A little ways back, I was arguing [discussing cyberwar] with thegrugq, who said “[Cyberwar] by it’s very nature is defined by acts of espionage, where all sides are motivated to keep incidents secret.”
I don’t agree that all sides are obviously motivated to keep incidents secret, and I think that it’s worth asking, is there a strategic advantage to a policy of disclosure?
Before we get there, there’s a somewhat obvious objection that we should discuss, which is that the defender instantly revealing all the attacks they’ve detected is a great advantage for the attacker. So when I talk about disclosing attacks, I want to include some subtlety, where the defender is taking two steps to counter that advantage. The first step is to randomly select some portion of attacks (say, 20-50%) to keep secret, and second, randomly delay disclosure until sometime after cleanup.
With those two tactical considerations in place, a defender can gain several advantages by revealing attacks.
The first advantage is deterrence. If an defender regularly reveals attacks which have taken place, and reveals the attack tools, the domains, the IP addresses and the software installed, then the attacker’s cost of attacking that defender (compared to other defenders) is higher, because those tools will be compromised. That has a deterring effect.
The second advantage is credibility. In today’s debate about cyberwar, all information disclosed seems to come with an agenda. Everyone evaluating the information is forced to look not only at the information, but the motivation for revealing that information. Worse, they can question if the information not revealed is shaped differently from what is revealed. A defender who reveals information regularly and in accordance with a policy will gain credibility, and with it, the ability to better influence the debate.
There’s a third advantage, which is that of improving the information available to all defenders, but that only accrues to the revealer to the extent that others don’t free ride. Since I’m looking to the advantages that accrue to the defender, we can’t count it. However, to the extent that a government cares about the public good, this should weigh in their decision making process.
The United States, like many liberal democracies, has a long history of disclosing a good deal of information about our weaponry and strategies. The debates over nuclear weapons were public policy debates in which we knew how many weapons each side had, how big they were, etc. What’s more, the key thinking about deterrence and mutually assured destruction which informed US policy was all public. That approach helped us survive a 50 year cold war, with weapons of unimaginable destructive potential.
Simultaneously, secrecy around what’s happening pushes the public policy discussions towards looking like ‘he said, she said,’ rather than discussions with facts involved.
Advocates of keeping attacks in which they’ve been victimized a secret, keeping doctrines secret, or keeping strategic thinking secret need to move beyond the assumption that everything about cyberwar is secret, and start justifying the secrecy of anything beyond current operations.
[As thegruq doesn’t have a blog, I’ve posted his response “http://newschoolsecurity.com/2013/01/on-disclosure-of-intrusion-events-in-a-cyberwar/“]
There’s a fascinating set of claims in Foreign Affairs “The Fog of Cyberward“:
Our research shows that although warnings about cyberwarfare have become more severe, the actual magnitude and pace of attacks do not match popular perception. Only 20 of 124 active rivals — defined as the most conflict-prone pairs of states in the system — engaged in cyberconflict between 2001 and 2011. And there were only 95 total cyberattacks among these 20 rivals. The number of observed attacks pales in comparison to other ongoing threats: a state is 600 times more likely to be the target of a terrorist attack than a cyberattack. We used a severity score ranging from five, which is minimal damage, to one, where death occurs as a direct result from cyberwarfare. Of all 95 cyberattacks in our analysis, the highest score — that of Stuxnet and Flame — was only a three.
There’s also a pretty chart:
All of which distracts from what seems to me to be a fundamental methodological question, which is “what counts as an incident”, and how did the authors count those incidents? Did they use some database? Media queries? The article seems to imply that such things are trivial, and unworthy of distracting the reader. Perhaps that’s normal for Foreign Policy, but I don’t agree.
The question of what’s being measured is important for assessing if the argument is convincing. For example, it’s widely believed that the hacking of Lockheed Martin was done by China to steal military secrets. Is that a state on state attack which is included in their data? If Lockheed Martin counts as an incident, how about the hacking of RSA as a pre-cursor? There’s a second set of questions, which relates to the known unknowns, the things we know we don’t know about. As every security practitioner knows, we sweep a lot of incidents under the rug. That’s changing somewhat as state laws have forced organizations to report breaches that impact personal information. Those laws are influencing norms in the US and elsewhere, but I see no reason to believe that all incidents are being reported. If they’re not being reported, then they can’t be in the chart.
That brings us to a third question. If we treat the chart as a minimum bar, how far is it from the actual state of affairs? Again, we have no data.
I did search for underlying data, but Brandon Valeriano’s publications page doesn’t contain anything that looks relevant, and I was unable to find such a page for Ryan Maness.