Schneier on Security

Clive Robinson • April 25, 2022 5:11 AM

@ SpaceLifeForm, ALL,

Re : Fires in Russia

Remember a careless thought or match can burn a country down.

Historically the Rus, are centered on the far west of Russia and the East of what are Belarus and the Ukraine.

Much to Putin’s annoyance the Ukrainians have shown that “Mother Russia” has a history of killing her children, that is avoidable.

Belarusian’s nearly escaped Putin’s sadistic and psycopathic intent to salve his narcissism.

However the notion of the Rus without Russia has taken hold and is spreading.

Remember an idle thought, and a carelessly tossed match or cigarette end, can liberate more than just flames.

Clive Robinson • April 25, 2022 6:33 AM

@ Winter,

Re : Moscow, aka, Russia, claiming…

Is what Putin has been dowing for the past decade or so with faux-histories of past glories that can be relived…

Historians have mainly said nothing about Putin’s nonsense, and some have chearfully followed along or worse joined in as the silver crosses their palms one way or another.

The truth appears to be that for probably a thousand years a very small group of aristocracy and religious leaders in effect “the first estate” have held the Rus and many many other peoples in serfdom via brutish behaviour, that is still seen in the Russian Military.

Such oppression can only continue as long as there is no better example to highlight what is bad.

Belarus and now the Ukraine have showed their is a better way, thus the oppression they are now receiving.

But the “old guard” is failing in many ways, and steadily increasing numbers are fighting their way out from under them one way or another.

Perhaps we should be asking if Russia and surounding areas is going to become the new “Middle East” with all that entails?

But do not forget things a little closer to home France and Spain supported by Germany looking the other way, have not been kindly towards those living in the Catalan, something I know many European Citizans see with considerable concern…

There appears to be a War-on-Democracy from within being fought by those who have supprisingly to many gained power. The UK’s current aledged leader being just one example.

It’s becoming clear to many that democratic leaders they are not and in some cases not even fit to be in charge of a cat-house.

Asking “How did we sleep walk into this mess?” is a fair question, but “How do we get out?” is a more pertinent one currently. Because last century the two global wars and hundreds of proxie wars did not rid us of “The pox that plagues us”, in fact it appears to have strengthaned it.

Clive Robinson • April 25, 2022 4:43 PM

@ Winter,

Trump will build his own Social Media Empire.

Do you know that little English ditty,

“London Bridge is falling down”?

Just thinking of changing a word or three 😉

Clive Robinson • April 25, 2022 7:05 PM

@ ffej, Winter,

Re : China Web3 threat.

I’m still mulling the document over.

However I can already see one part is somewhat doomed from the get go as,described in the article,

“But by using blockchain technology to broadcast all vehicle data within a certain radius, cars could achieve “instantaneous synchronicity.”“

This is as described a “stateful process for mobile objects” and I realy can not see why the block chain would realy be of any use to it (other than as a replacment for DNS or LDAP style DBs used for “static data” records).

Just yesterday I posted on the problem with “state” and “motion” and why it contains all sorts of unresolved issues,

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2022/04/java-cryptography-implementation-mistake-allows-digital-signature-forgeries.html/#comment-403849

I’ll do some more thinking on it, but as @Winter notes NFT’s are in effect certified recipts… You do not need the block-chain to do that.

In fact it would be quicker, easier and more efficient with a public repository of PubKey signed transaction chains.

Also unlike “block-chain” such signed transaction chains would better fit in wirh current legal and financial systems.

Most of the block-chain issues like “rug-pulls” and similar are only possible because block-chain dors not work with established legal and financial systems.

The only real reason I can currently see for China’s wishy-washy block-chain proposals is “authoritarian control” over the world financial and then legal systems. In effect it’s a “Sovereignty Snatch” to build a virtual globe spaning “Ming Empire” of oppressed and submissive fiefdoms, to pay tribute into the center.

Clive Robinson • April 27, 2022 7:44 AM

@ SpaceLifeForm,

Re : Digitas openus…

I’m guessing that it is a right hand Harry Pottering along with a thumb slide down the left and then right across the bottom.

Call it an “ergonomic guess”.

The shape of the finger oil smudges suggest the thumb usage.

Clive Robinson • April 27, 2022 9:32 AM

@ JonKnowsNothing, ALL,

The overall problem is that legally, they don’t know how to Tell The Time either.

Nor does anyone else…

For what many see as the,

“Fundemental measure from which all others are taken.”

It’s more than “a bit of a problem” it’s a whole heap of uncertainty piling up on other uncertainties…

Because the thing to understand is time is relative to all points in space be they moving with respect to each other or not, and that makes things just a tads difficult if more than two points in space are involved…

As I noted the other day, take a surface and draw on it a circle and place four equispaced points A,B,C,D, on it. Then have a moving object V that emits a constant frequency tone. As frequency is the reciprocal of time if changes in frequency are seen at the observing points then has time changed if the observed frequency changes?

Well our own ears tell us the pitch or frequency of a tone emitted from a moving object changes. Imagine the object V moving from point A sirctly through the center to point C opposit it. It’s not hard to work out that one point sees the frequency decrease proportionaly to the speed of the object V whilst the other sees it rise proportionately. But what of points B and D, they see the pitch rise and fall but not as a constant. The pitch changes faster at either points A or C and slowest as it goes through the center directly between points B and D.

If you plot out different paths and the resulting frequency changes you quickly find that the changes have nothing to do with the position of V at any one point in time, only it’s vector of direction and velocity.

Which makes life interesting when you realise nearly every location identifing system we have is based on relative time measurments of moving objects…

Clive Robinson • April 27, 2022 5:15 PM

@ Winter,

Einstein solved with his theory of General Relativity.

No he did not solve it. The “Einstein field equations”(EFE) are effectivrly a statistical description of the distribution of matter within the geometry of spacetime. As such the EFE effectively described the how and the why of observations, they do not of necessity give predictive solutions (mostly they do not).

It’s one of the reasons we still use Newton’s formulars for describing the motions of the planets and other celestial bodies. That is under certain linearising assumptions, velocities that are way below C, and very weak gravity the EFE reduce down to Newton’s law of gravitation. In essence by the process of further simplification you squash the spacetime to having only small deviations from “flat spacetime”, leading to the EFE effectively being linearized. Hence alowing further simplifying assumptions such as “symmetry” that in a few special cases such as Gravity Waves can sometimes give Exact solutions. But you then need to ask the obvious question “Under all those simplifications what is realy left of the EFE? And “What use are they in the general case?”.

That is trying to use Einstien’s work leads almost every time into something that blows up in your face. Mostly for practical work it gets used to describe a correction factor from a synthetic refrence. See how Global Positioning Satellite Systems”(GPSS) work.

In telecommunications systems the trick is to define a sythetic refrence point and have things so local to it the difference between linear and not is kept to small to matter (remember for very small X sin(X) ~= X and cos(X) ~= 1). You then “hand-off” from one small locality to the next, and just accept the very small errors caused by the boundry crossing as being “linear”. Usually by making the moving object change it’s time refrence to match the new locality it crosses into.

Btw, it is also a problem when only two points in space are involved.

Yes but we can solve the two body problem and a subset of three body problems after that things get very very problematic what ever you use. For instance try to come up with an equation for just four items of equal mass in the same circular orbit that start equidistant you will find that things just won’t work out. Yet nature manages to have rocks and dust maintain orbital disks for comparitively very long periods of time.

One solution is by the use of DFT’s at even the 15th harmonic you can calculate a very sharp corner case to box it in 😉

Clive Robinson • April 28, 2022 5:23 PM

@ vas pup, ALL,

With regards,

“You’ve made a choice, and you know how much it cost you. There is always a price.”

Whilst there is always a price, it is effectively a zero-sum game, often the real cost is hidden from you quite deliberately.

Otherwise a rational actor would chose to not have any of the choices on offer, so effect change. Which is a problem, because there are those who firmly believe that not only can change not be allowed, it must most definately be prohibited at all costs, including but not limited to the lives of the innocent.

Certain people were not being whimsical when talking about the blood of patriots and tyrants alike. As always the so called “collateral damage” whilst not on the order, allways comes with the “butcher’s bill”.

Clive Robinson • April 29, 2022 5:50 AM

@ Winter, SpaceLifeForm, ALL,

Re : Inside Risks An Integrated Approach to Safety and Security Based on Systems Theory quote.

The implication of that quote is “one or the other” style reasoning and that is realy not the case.

I see them as one and the same, my fundemental viewpoint being

“There is no such thing as an accident they are all predictable events by the laws of nature. All that is lacking is sufficient information in sufficient time to take corrective action.”

For years I’ve pointed out two things of note in this respect,

1, The French language has one word for both “Sécurité”.
2, They are both subsets of the more general Quality Process.

That is there is no real distinction between them they are just points on a spectrum. That is there are ranges involved,

A, Benevolent to Malicious.
B, Unintentional to intentional.

And we realy should think accordingly, as the old joke has it,

“The only difference between an outsider and an insider attacking, is the latter has a little more patience to get alowed in”.

The notions expressed in points A and B are “touchy feely feal good nonsense” made by post event observers, and have no place in the design and construction of technical systems.

How often have I pointed out that,

1, Technology has no agency it possesses no inate intelligence, emotion, or ethics.
2, Technology has no more understanding of good or bad than your finger.
3, It does as commanded by a Directing Mind that has agency and some inate intelligence, as for emotion or ethics that is open to question.
4, It is the observer who decides if the commanded use by the Directing Mind is good or bad, as the observer often has the social functions of emotion and ethics.
5, Emotion and ethics are the processes of societies functioning and they obviously change as society changes.

It’s why I also point out that,

“Technological systems can not be used to solve sociological issues”

It’s why the likes of Machine Learning and Soft-AI will mostly fail for the uses many ill-informed people want to put them to. But why do they want to do so? Is it due to their own inate inabilities or their desire to put in place a “fall guy” behind which they can hide their true intent?

But if you want just one take away to learn from, that I repeat from time to time with regards both Safety and Security systems,

“They are a Quality Process that should be in place before day zero of any project.”

Just acknowledging and acting on that one thing will start to improve things quite noticeably.

Clive Robinson • May 1, 2022 6:48 AM

@ SpaceLifeForm,

Here, though, in the context of fake EDRs, and fake warrants with a forged signature of a Judge, there must be a way to root that out.

Not sure a judges signiture is needed with an EDR.

If it is though it will only change the game slightly at best, because the “authorities” don’t want a secure system. As that would deprive them of at the very least some level of deniability which implies liability…

The essence of an authoritarian system is to acrew things like money, status, acolytes, and pseudo-legitimacy to get power. But power is not the end game. The end game is,

“Unbridled control over others”.

You see this in “The King Game” where the head of the hierarchy claims to be acting on the direction of a deity as the “God-Head”[1]. As their actions are divine they can not be questioned. So

“Total Control gives total coruption.”

Which means they have to have,

“No actual liability or responsability in the system.”

Just the sufficient illusion of it to act as a barricade to any investigator. You see this with all the “Thin Blue Line Brotherhood” nonsense.

Obviously such total coruption is desirable to others, not in the authoritarian hierarchy. The hierarchy obviously labels them as the modern form of heritic, of Terrorist or Criminal to demonise and make a distinction. In fact the only real distinction is being inside or outside of the necessary ring around the king.

So whilst,

Shamir Secret Sharing could help root out the Bad Apples.

Might stop “outsiders”, it won’t stop “insiders” as it is a technological solution of Security Trust being applied to a sociological issue of Human Trust.

Worse the hierarchy will fight anything that roots out “Bad Apples” because the whole purpose of the hierarchy once the turn has happened is to provide a haven for “bad apples”.

Thus what is actually needed is a command structure that can not be turned… I’m unaware of any such system existing, even though I am aware of actual attempts (look at PGP’s early history for a technological example via a “web of trust”, and later “reputational systems”).

The nearest I’m aware of on the sociological side are not actually experements. They are organisations with a single non party political aim and having or developing an overriding principle to “total openness” to never do anything in secret. So not just all is documented but all is documented in public.

We know that in the UK and the US there have been attempts by various Govenment IC and LE agencies and private well funded groups, to infultrate and change such organisations. Primarily so they could be discredited by “dirty tricks” campaigns. But where the open and non political principles held, such attacks usually failed. In fact they sometimes back fired drastical through the court system for the likes of defamation or worse. One eventual fall out in the UK was the comming to light of Met Police active policy on undercover agents forming illegitimate relationships and siring of children that created a significant scandle.

Whilst such organisations can endure their popularity is based on societal support, so as society changes their popularty thus fortunes wax and wane. One such organisation you can look up is the originally late 1950’s London based “Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament”(CND)[4]. Their semaphore ND in a circle symbol has become the de facto peace symbol around the globe.

[1] Divinity by God-Head is a form of absolute deniability. The King claims to be the humble servant of God’s direction. So in effect just like your index finger it is free of liability for what happens as it is therefor not the “directing mind” and has no responsability or liability[2]. But also… To question in any way the God-Heads actions is the act of heresy, thus an unplesant death or worse for those who do.

[2] Therefore they have absolutly no liability for their actions outside of a necessary trusted ring. So they can outside of that ring do what ever they please, as long as the ring is kept loyal. To reduce the number, risk and cost from the necessary ring, there is the rule of succession. This is where the God-Head “is in the blood” and can only be passed to a blood relative[3] hence the need for “An heir and a spare” preferably from a direct blood relative of the most powerfull of the necessary ring. Hence the reason heraldic symbols that make historic blood lines clear even to illiterate peasents, even if they are a compleate fabrication (one of the reasons some blood lines include Jesus…).

[3] To see two results of this, look up the roll of castration and emasculation in royal courts, and how eunuchs gained incredible political power. Sufficient that many willingly self emasculated. Secondly the results of the blood line “closed stud book breeding” that has given rise not just to so many “royal diseases” but as in the case of the Spanish Habsburg blood line and the disfiguring Habsburg Jaw. When, Charles V, arrived in Spain in 1516 to become ruler, he couldn’t fully close his mouth due to his Habsburg jaw. Apparently this gave rise to ribald comments from the subjects. However that jaw was a sign of a deeper malignancy from the inbreeding, that of increasing sterility from generation to generation, and the demise of the Habsburg blood line.

[4] I rather suspect CND’s popularity is going to grow again based on current events on the far Eastern boarders of europe. With the threats made by adjoining nation’s failing psychopath leaders to use nuclear weapons to stop what they see as dissent by those nations on the edge of Europe, but not yet under it’s protection.