I have cell service with AT&T wireless. One feature of the service is network time updates. It fortunately includes a confirmation. It’s great when you land in a new city. It hasn’t been so great last night or today. Last night, at 23.20, I got an update telling me that the new time was 21.15. Just now, I got one telling me that it’s 10.15 (It’s actually 10.30.)
There are a whole bunch of security protocols which rely on having roughly correct time. I hope none of them are implemented with a reliance on the PCS network.
September 19th is National Talk Like a Pirate Day
“Dude, anyone got the new Metallica?”
Samablog points to the new nickel design which will have either a buffalo or a depiction of the pacific coast on the back. The buffalo refers to the Louisiana Purchase, while the pacific coast refers to Lewis and Clark’s expedition .
Despite his careers as a lawyer, diplomat, Secretary of State, and President of the United States, Jefferson considered three achievements to be his enduring legacy:
- The Declaration of Independence,
- The Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, and
- The University of Virginia
That’s what he asked be engraved on his tombstone. The ideas in each of those are in many ways, still revolutionary. In a much more religious age, Jefferson wrote “we hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights…” (emphasis added). He wrote “their creator,” rather than “God,” in a document where every phrase was argued over. What would he have thought about gazing at the words “In God we Trust?” on the currency of a country he did so much to shape?
I blame the Hamiltonians.
Over at BoingBoing, Cory points to a USA Today story at NewsIsFree about more screening. There seem to be four components:
There’s a brilliant post over at Orcinus about the 9/11 commission, whose (outstanding) report I’m just getting around to reading.
Really, if the Kerry campaign is serious about persuading the American public that Bush is a serious liability when it comes to securing the nation from the terrorist threat, this should be Exhibit A: Bush fought the formation of the 9/11 commission for a year, and continued to fight its work throughout.
This isn’t about politics as it seems to be practiced today, with a storm of invective and attacks. It’s about an honest look at what went wrong, and preventing it from happening again. That’s a process that requires openness and honesty, not blind trust, and not requests for such.
During the fights over cryptography laws in the 90s, we spent a great deal of time on the claim from high-ranking government officials, “If you knew what we knew, you’d agree with us.” This claim was put to rest by a dozen generals, admirals, ambassadors, and former spies who served on the National Research Council’s report Cryptography’s Role in Securing the Information Society. That report plainly stated that while details of operations needed to remain secret, the arguments themselves had all been discussed openly. In much the same way, those details that have come out have argued strongly against secrecy. Condoleezza Rice’s description of the (then classified) “Bin Ladin determined to strike in US” Presidential Daily Brief as “purely historical” is exhibit A.
Ian Grigg has some very interesting comments on Verisign’s certificate business and what it means for privacy, over at Financial Cryptography
The New York Times reports:
he Central Intelligence Agency has fewer experienced case officers assigned to its headquarters unit dealing with Osama bin Laden than it did at the time of the attacks, despite repeated pleas from the unit’s leaders for reinforcements, a senior C.I.A. officer with extensive counterterrorism experience has told Congress.
A senior official disputes this:
A senior intelligence official who asked not to be identified strenuously disputed Mr. Scheuer’s criticism about the resources assigned to the war against Al Qaeda. “The assertions are off the mark,” the official said. “There are far more D.O. officers working against the Al Qaeda target both at C.I.A. headquarters and overseas than there were before Sept. 11,” the official said, using the abbreviation for the Directorate of Operations, the C.I.A.’s clandestine arm. “Our knowledge of and substantive expertise on Al Qaeda has increased enormously since 9/11. The overall size of the counterterrorism center has more than doubled, and its analytic capabilities have increased dramatically.”
But are the claims really incompatible? One official refers to the Bin Laden unit, the other to Al Qaeda and counter-terrorism. It seems to me that all the claims may be true.
Bin Laden may be effectively isolated. His communications need to go through chains of couriers, and thats slow and difficult. So focusing on more active players may make some sense.
Then there’s the question of what you do if you find him. If you kill him, you risk making him a martyr. If you capture him, do you bring him to trial? Recall that he’s already been indicted over the first set of World Trade Center attacks.
(Ecto seems to be losing parts of posts on me. Feh!)
The Mozilla folks have awarded their first bug bounty payments for 14 security issues. Time to upgrade!
Microsoft has released a critical advisory (or, less-technical version) regarding a problem with the way JPEG files are parsed. Microsoft has released patches for their applications, and also a tool to scan for vulnerable apps.
I’m not sure what to think about the tool. On the one hand, good for them! Helping customers secure their systems by finding problems is a good, even if some people don’t think so. On the other hand, Microsoft could have sent a note to all their MSDN (Developer Network) customers about the problem. So why the effort for a tool? A tool, I think, is in line with what John Pescatore was suggesting, which is customer pressure on vendors to release more secure code.
Microsoft has something of a head start on this, having trained their entire staff. Is this the start of an “Unbreakable” campaign from Microsoft, or perhaps something more subtle? Either way, nicely done.
[Update: Fixed OIS link. Thanks, Max!]
Apple has released an updated Security Advisory, to fix two problems introduced in the previous rev. Not a big deal, unless you happened to be trying to deal with their ftpd. As we’ve pointed out (PDF) in the past, security updates are a race between attacks and defense, and there are trade-offs you can make.
I’m still trying to find out what’s in Apple Remote Desktop security update, to make a good decision about if I should install it.