Schneier on Security

Clive Robinson • January 27, 2019 4:10 AM

@ Faustus,

Submissions are welcome.

Altruism

With regards “education”, as far as I am aware politicians interfering in education usually produces worse results…

Put simply “bad/poor education” leads to “bad/poor citizens”. Various “experiments” have been run over the years, and “early social learning with strong role models from both sexes” generaly produces the best outcomes.

One concluded that every dollar spent on such education saved around two thousand dollars down the line. Personally I think their claim of a 2000:1 ratio was actually a little on the light side and it’s more likely to be five-ten times that when you include other factors such as “sinkhole non-careers” in the likes of the millitary and simillar “makework jobs” in administration and guard labour roles.

As we know most political interference in education is “cosy saving” or more correctly diverting resources to those who are shall we say not very deserving because of their existing wealth, that enables them to lobby for more at the expense of the other 99% of society.

If US MSM press can be believed the US has many vacant job positions yet very high rates of unemployment or employment in below living standard zero hour contract work. If this is true then there has to be a reason for it, which I’ve yet to read an honest appraisal of from a US house level politician…

Who lets be honest squawk their “Be hard on Crime” mantra policies endlessly… but they appear to have done nothing socially productive, only enriched a few in the now privatised prisons business, where they are used as what is in reality slave labour…

Oh a friend pointed out the other day that as it takes atleast a billion dollars to become US President these days, with a sensible rate of return over four years you’ld need to be pulling in over a million a day every day including Sundays and holidays to come out ahead… Throw in those other hands of Senators and Congressman and their helpers and that’s one heck of a pile of cash to think about, especially when you consider it’s been said Nixon’s war chest was only 30million…

Clive Robinson • January 27, 2019 10:44 AM

@ Robert’s…, Faustus,

Artificial intelligence is no replacement for intelligence, my friend, as an intellect without a compassionate heart is nothing more than a vehicle without steering.

You have given two assumptions and a description there,

1, “Artificial intelligence is no replacement for intelligence”

2, “an intellect without a compassionate heart is nothing”

What you call a “compassionate heart” is actually nothing more than a state of “mind”. That might or might not have been arived at by a set of rules for living we chose to call “morals” (which can and do become codified rules of existance via legislation.

So far there is no difference between a lump of fat mixture and neurons in a skull and a bunch of computer chips in a protective case. The former runs on fays and sugars, the latter on electricity. As far as we can tell neurons like electronic logic circuits both run on electricity in one form or another.

The main difference appears to be that neurons are sufficiently multi-valued to be assumed to work in an analog fashion whilst most logic gates tend to be bi-valued or binary in nature.

However there is another difference that although blindingly obvious when pointed out often gets ignored. Human beings have “physical agency” and can independently partialy interact with the environment they are in. Computer chip based systems very rarely have any physical agency, which based on the number of SNAFUs we humans make is probably just as well 😉

But what is “mind” some talk about it being the sum of our histories or if you prefer “existance”. Few computers stay on more than hours so their quite limited inexperience due to lack of physical agency is even less when you consider down time into the equation. Thus for most collections of chips, circuits and semi-mechanical recording devices their life experience would be less than that of a one year old child in a highly restricted environment.

Further humans apparently have the inate ability to learn, most computer programs don’t even get close.. Part of this might be that we realy don’t yet realy have a clue how humans learn or don’t under varying conditions.

For instance a database stores large amounts of data in various ways that alow it not just to be searched but be also be used to infer some further level of information. But the database learns nothing, it can not form it’s own queries based on anything it holds within. It is plainly and simply a fast version of the old “drop card” process which children have made with roledex cards, sticks and a “drop frame” used to select the cards wirh certain features recorded on them.

Back in the 1980’s I was involved with work on what became a commercial product called HULK (Helps Uncover Latent Knowledge). Put simply it was a simple statistical rules testing front end to a database. But again it had no ability to come up with the rules to test.

Today we have “soft AI systems” that appear to be better clinicians than doctors. But “lift the lid” and all you find is an extensive list of lists process, it looks clever, but it’s not. An untrained human could “follow the list” and arive at the same diagnosis. That is as a program it has no idea of how to find anomalies in data and compile them into useful lists of questions.

Yes we do have AI systems that can formulate questions, but lets be honest in many cases we can not explain how the rules the AI builds are derived. Thus we have no idea if we can trust them or not. Or more importantly they are just learning to amplify differences in data that humans have effectively “preselected”.

So no mater how apparently clever an AI gets, it is in effect usless to us unless we can understand the mechanism behind the choices.

Clive Robinson • January 28, 2019 6:24 AM

@ Thoth,

What could go wrong if ARM et. al. together with GCHQ and 5Eyes were to implement “Digital Security by Design” in hardware ?

A lot, but a couple of things to note first,

The UK Gov ill advisably let ARM be sold to SoftBank in the Far East. Where it has subsequently sold off at a very low price a significant part of ARM to in effect become under the influance of the Chinese Gov,

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/06/softbank_offloads_51_per_cent_of_arm_china_for_a_bargain_7752m/

What the continued relationship will be with regards “chip internals” is yet to be seen, but China is certainly interested in getting further “ins” into SoftBank via various routes. Which perhaps is not surprising as Softbank has significant holdings not just in the UK but US, Indonesian, India, China and South Korea as well as it’s home market Japan.

Thus there must be a quite serious Five-Eye concern that any additions to ARM cores are going to end up in China one way or another… So good or bad for individuals privacy it’s a concern, which I’m not sure can be resolved (it could also be a Trojan horse operation but…).

Personally I don’t like the idea of any Government Intelligence or Signals Intelligence agency getting involved with commercial organisations, standards bodies etc. The issue with NIST and the Dual Eliptic Curve Digital RNG should be a warning to all,

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2014/04/nist-removes-cryptography-algorithm-random-number-generator-recommendations

However the only tech talked about was the Cambridge Computer Labs tagged memory. Which whilst it might limit some attacks is not of necessity going to fix the likes of RowHammer.

The tagging is an inline addition to but not implicit to the actuall storage cell arrays in memory. Thus it only comes into effect when the computer makes an explicit read or write to a given memory location. That is you can change the energy held in memory cells and the tagging will not detect the actuall changing. So as with simple parity where one bit change would produce an error on read but two bit changes would not, there is a window of opportunity for attacks that can “reach around” any inline security between the memory cells and the CPU.

Thus the need for a way to protect memory cell arrays in a way that an attacker can not predict or see. One way could be by encryption with a random key and data hashing. Overly simplistically you hash an entire block of data for a cell array append the hash then encrypt it via a key that can not be read by an attacker prior to being stored in the cell array. Whilst in theory there could be a probability of a “lucky guess” by an attacker it would be very small, potentially to small to be a realisable attack.

What is realy needed is some way to build the cell array checking as part of the cell such that it detects it’s energy levels being changed and throws an immediate interrupt etc.

Clive Robinson • January 28, 2019 8:39 AM

@ Bruce and the usual suspects,

Attempts to test security updates for BGP run into problems,

https://www.zdnet.com/article/internet-experiment-goes-wrong-takes-down-a-bunch-of-linux-routers/

OK it went wrong twice, but to be honest how else is much needed security going to get put in place other than by causing pain to those who’s negligence has and will continue to cause pain to others.

Ubuntu Core in a striped down form is to be availabe for IoT device development and deployment. Importantly it has an update mechanism that will be supported for a decade,

https://www.zdnet.com/article/ubuntu-core-doubles-down-on-internet-of-things/

Hopefully this will take off and form a trend, thus those realy bad IoT devices Japan has passed legislation to route out will brcomr very much a thing of the past.

Clive Robinson • January 28, 2019 5:03 PM

@ roberts robot double,

I see your quote, and I raise you with a rejoinder from Terry Prattchet,

The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and…. put things in it.

And there is the old favourit from whom I’m not sure originated it, but it is alleged to be Tim Minchin,

If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out.

Which I guess is a variation on,

The problem with an open mind is things drift in as they wish, some stay to become old friends, but the important ones have drifted away when you need them the mm…

Or the one I say when people make comment about my trove of oddities,

The problem with usless information, is of course, my mind thinks it’s more precious than the rarest of jems, thus hords it jealously like the most misserable of misers.

Clive Robinson • January 29, 2019 3:25 PM

@ Thoth,

Smells like snake oil ?

It certainly smells of “asumptionville”…

I’m going to have to go through the paper again more slowly but it just feels like there are way to many assumptions in there.

The biggie as with PUF’s is that you can keep the secret in the chip… Well a number of PUF implementations got cute with “Efficiency” and found out the hard way that “side channels” have a habit of follow a power law of efficiency, unless you take specific care.. Which is the whole point about me warning about “Security-v-Efficiency”.

But this whole “uncloneable” idea has always been a bit suspect in my thinking. The point is if you design a chip with “PUF Function” blocks, those blocks can be fairly easily replaced with other circuit blocks on a chip, that are little more than pre-programmable registers. At the end of the day from outside the chip you can not tell between a PUF and a memory block programed to look like a PUF….

In short,

What man can create, man can emulate…

And if you have no way of seeing inside the chip then you have no way of telling what you have on the test bench…

Clive Robinson • January 30, 2019 11:20 AM

@ Cassie,

For me, $The_Usual_Suspects are all a good number of clicks in the right direction.

Does that mean we go “all the way to eleven” 😉

Clive Robinson • January 31, 2019 4:08 AM

@ Cassie,

I am deeply impressed by the well-founded knowledge that is sometimes seemingly casually thrown around.

Well hold onto your socks as some one once sang “You ain’t seen nuffing yet, no no no baby, you ain’t seen nuffing yet”.

You mentioned “customised Marshall” amps, well the first ones all were in effect as they were hand built. The “Lord of Loud” James Charles Marshall OBE, was not even a guitarist, he started out as a singer and due to “labour shortages” of the time also became a drummer, and built his first amplifier so he could be heard above his drumming. His idol became the American drummer of considerable fame Gene Krupa (that will get you full points in a “Pub Quiz” 😉 My father who was a contemporary of Jim Marshall also was a fan of jazz and Gene Krupa with the result I inherited some now very rare 78s of Gene in action with his jazz band.

Jim was born in Acton and associated with West London for many years, he became very proficient as a drummer and started teaching. This enabled him to set up his first tiny shop in the Uxbridge Road Hanwell[1] selling “drum kit” and later guitars for the up and comming music scene. Pete Townsend was chatting to him one day about the need for a guitar amp, as all the amps then around were not realy suitable (lack of amplification and most important distortion as it turned out). Anyway after about half a year of trying to “make it loud” Jim realised that the only way was to accept the distortion and in effect overdrive the hell out of the finals, that became known as the “Marshall fuzz”. There are various stories about who finally gave the amp the blessing but the story I like the best came from Rick Parfitt, but Ritchie Blackmore said it wasn’t him that blew it up…

Any way back in my dim and distant past I’d been to Jim’s shop to get hold of some valves, not for amps but to use as finals in an AM pirate rig. In the process I met Jim who quickly established I had all the musical ability of a squashed frog, and finally got me talking about what I was realy using them for. Anyway he asked me if I wanted a job, and I said I was still at college, so he said give me a call when you are looking for a job. Any way long story short he moved production up to Milton Keynes which was a “new town” what felt like half way up the country. Being the kind man he was, Jim put me in touch with another company more local to where I was and I was offered a job by them simply because Jim had phoned the boss…

But Jim also had a wry sense of humour, after the film Spinal Tap came out Jim had his leg pulled by a few of his more famous customers. So he decided to make an Amp that “Went all the way to twenty”.

[1] For those that live in West London and want to see the shop it was number 76 but you had better be quick it’s about to get demolished,

https://feelingealing.co.uk/2018/03/17/ealing-council-set-to-approve-59-flat-development-in-hanwell-town-centre-beside-lidl/

Clive Robinson • January 31, 2019 11:32 AM

@ James Evans,

Any changes that improve the security of any system ordinary citizens use to protect their privacy in this day and age is to be welcomed.

But as with any journy each step hopefully takes you closer to your destination.

The problem is of cause whilst the SigInt agencies wish to be covert and generally have in the past ignored some of the things that people do like gambling. Which people in other countries are much more free to do some other nations take a different view, or atleast their law enforcment agencies do.

It’s not been unknown for both the FBI and the NY DA to swat-team people in their homes over not even illegal activities, just to put preasure on them to illegaly “co-operate” with them.

For instance a few years ago a software developer had his house swatted by the NY DA who made it clear he would do it again and again untill either he got the software developers “illegal co-operartion” or he found some way to lock up the developers family to get the “illegal co-operation”. The developer after being told by several lawyers that,

1) What the NY DA was demanding was illegal.
2) They were not going to help him fight the NY DA.
3) Have a big bill for the above.

He realised just how corupt the NY DA and his department was, as were most of the rest of the legal profession. That is “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutly” with the NY DA being absolutly corrupt and the rest of the legal profession being at the very least either in fear of the NY DA or corrupt…

He then kind of turned the tables on the NY DA infrobt of a judge. However the judge just accepted that the NY DA could draw up a contract forcing illegal activities…

With such mentalities in law enforcment and the judiciary, what can an individual do?

More importantly as these people don’t care for legalities is the DoJ/FBI -v- Apple of any surprise? Or how about the FBI paying a US University a million dollars or more to have Tor and other privacy systems anonymity systems broken?

I’m very sure orhers can add to this list.

Thus the question arises of “sufficient security”, I’ve stated with my reasoning why I do not believe that any of the current “secure messaging apps” are infact secure. I’ve even drawn stick from people over it, but the point is as our host @Bruce and others have pointed out your security is only as strong as the weakest link in the entire system. More importantly I’ve told people not only what needs to be fixed but how to mitigate the current and future systems that can not be fixed. And again as our host @Bruce points out in the general case security attacks only get better with time.

Thus there is a race between well funded and well motivated law enforcment entities who are more than happy to commit crimes including almost daily perjury. And on the other software developers who taken on average are not very good at making secure software for just about anything.

Thus to be honest the odds are not in the software developers favour. Which has a knock on effect to those ordinary citizens who quite rightfully want to maintain their privacy from others.

Sadly I’ve also been thinking ahead and I can see that Tor has a long way to go, and I’m not even sure it will be alowed to finish the journy. If you look at UK and Australian legislation where neither country has a constitution or bill of rights it’s fairly clear that they have no intention of alowing people “electronic privacy”. This is a problem because we know that various parts of the Five-Eyes have spyed on each others citizens so that politicians can stand up in their political houses “We do not spy on our citizens” knowing full well another Five-Eye nation does it for them… Thus the question arises, with demands for “better value for money” being pushed at SigInt agencies to get them to open up to law enforcment, and the known deceitful behaviour, how long before the UK is spying on Aus citicens for Aus and the other way around, with “Parallel Construction” being used to cover up purjury by the LEO’s just to up their conviction rate?

Thus my viewpoint is there are a lot more things to be done and less and less time to do them in, and ordinary citizens can not aford to wait because every step in the race effectively sees them falling behind the LEO’s.

But this problem is getting significantly worse from another direction the W3C. They are pushing HTML extensions in HTML5 that are so privacy unfriendly that they can only have been dreamed up by the PPI harvesters like Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc.

Thus in the race the citizens are also being actively nobbled by bot just the W3C but nearly all web sites that insist on cookies and javascript, and will in time insist on more and more of the undesirable extentions to HTML not just in HTML5 but what ever follows.

But also web browsers are not exactly independent of this, try turning anti-privacy features off and the average person can not do it. Google has just stopped anti-add plugins, as many academic papers will tell you adds are the biggest privacy threat there is.

Ask yourself the question “How long before LEO’s use adds to put malware on ordinary citizens devices?” if of course they are not already doing it…

This is the enviornment we have to think about, not tommorow but today or even yesterday. As @Thoth will tell you both he and I have been thinking and we have more steps to add to the journy.

But one lesson to remember was the FBI can and does take over web sites and sends their malware down to all users, not just those using Tor, thus I’m honestly asking myself if there is going to be any privacy soon? Look at it this way, go back and review what law the FBI/DoJ tried to use against Apple, how long before they try using the same law against little web sites? The fact that the FBI pulled out the way they did was to avoid Apple winning and,setting what the FBI would regards as “negative” case law on that old legislation. Which is a fairly clear indicator that they fully intend to use it again…

We may now already be beyond the point where any network privacy/anonymity system can actually give us that privacy…