Essays in the Category "Business of Security"

Page 5 of 6

Make Businesses Pay in Credit Card Scam

  • Bruce Schneier
  • New York Daily News
  • June 23, 2005

The epidemic of personal data thefts and losses – most recently 40 million individuals by Visa and MasterCard – should concern us for two reasons: personal privacy and identity theft.

Real reform is required to solve these problems. We need to reduce the amount of personal information collected, limit how it can be used and resold, and require companies that mishandle our data to be liable for that mishandling. And, most importantly, we need to make financial institutions liable for fraudulent transactions.

Whether it is the books we take out of the library, the Web sites we visit, our medical information or the contents of our E-mails and text messages, most of us have personal data that we don’t want made public. Legislation that securely keeps this data out of the hands of criminals won’t affect the privacy invasions committed by reputable companies in the name of price discrimination, marketing or customer service…

Two-Factor Authentication: Too Little, Too Late

  • Bruce Schneier
  • Communications of the ACM
  • April 2005

Two-factor authentication isn’t our savior. It won’t defend against phishing. It’s not going to prevent identity theft. It’s not going to secure online accounts from fraudulent transactions. It solves the security problems we had 10 years ago, not the security problems we have today.

The problem with passwords is that it is too easy to lose control of them. People give their passwords to other people. People write them down, and other people read them. People send them in email, and that email is intercepted. People use them to log into remote servers, and their communications are eavesdropped on. Passwords are also easy to guess. And once any of that happens, the password no longer works as an authentication token because you can never be sure who is typing in that password…

Authentication and Expiration

  • Bruce Schneier
  • IEEE Security & Privacy
  • January/February 2005

View or Download in PDF Format

There’s a security problem with many Internet authentication systems that’s never talked about: there’s no way to terminate the authentication.

A couple of months ago, I bought something from an e-commerce site. At the checkout page, I wasn’t able to just type in my credit-card number and make my purchase. Instead, I had to choose a username and password. Usually I don’t like doing that, but in this case I wanted to be able to access my account at a later date. In fact, the password was useful because I needed to return an item I purchased…

Hacking the Business Climate for Network Security

  • Bruce Schneier
  • IEEE Computer
  • April 2004

Computer security is at a crossroads. It’s failing, regularly, and with increasingly serious results. CEOs are starting to notice. When they finally get fed up, they’ll demand improvements. (Either that or they’ll abandon the Internet, but I don’t believe that is a likely possibility.) And they’ll get the improvements they demand; corporate America can be an enormously powerful motivator once it gets going.

For this reason, I believe computer security will improve eventually. I don’t think the improvements will come in the short term, and I think that they will be met with considerable resistance. This is because the engine of improvement will be fueled by corporate boardrooms and not computer-science laboratories, and as such won’t have anything to do with technology. Real security improvement will only come through liability: holding software manufacturers accountable for the security and, more generally, the quality of their products. This is an enormous change, and one the computer industry is not going to accept without a fight…

Con: Trust, but verify, Microsoft's pledge

  • Bruce Schneier
  • CNET News.com
  • January 18, 2002

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates should be given credit for making security and privacy a top priority for his legions of engineers, but we’ll have to wait to see if his call represents a real change or just another marketing maneuver.

Microsoft has made so many empty claims about its security processes—and the security of its processes—that when I hear another one, I can’t help believing it’s more of the same flim-flam.

Anyone remember last November when Microsoft’s Jim Allchin, group vice president, said in a published interview that all buffer overflows were eliminated in Windows XP? Or that the new operating system installed in a minimalist way, with features turned off by default? Not only did the Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) vulnerability that was found last month exploit an unneeded feature that was enabled by default, but it also was a buffer overflow…

The Case for Outsourcing Security

  • Bruce Schneier
  • IEEE Computer
  • 2002

View or Download in PDF Format

Deciding to outsource network security is difficult. The stakes are high, so it’s no wonder that paralysis is a common reaction when contemplating whether to outsource or not:

  • The promised benefits of outsourced security are so attractive. The potential to significantly increase network security without hiring half a dozen people or spending a fortune is impossible to ignore.
  • The potential risks of outsourcing are considerable. Stories of managed security companies going out of business, and bad experiences with outsourcing other areas of IT, show that selecting the wrong outsourcer can be a costly mistake…

Insurance and the Computer Industry

  • Bruce Schneier
  • Communications of the ACM
  • March 2001

View or Download in PDF Format

In the future, the computer security industry will be run by the insurance industry. I don’t mean insurance companies will start selling firewalls, but rather the kind of firewall you use—along with the kind of authentication scheme you use, the kind of operating system you use, and the kind of network monitoring scheme you use—will be strongly influenced by the constraints of insurance.

Consider security and safety in the real world. Businesses don’t install alarms in their warehouses because it makes them safer; they do it because they get a break in their insurance rates. Hotels and office buildings don’t install sprinkler systems because they’re concerned about the welfare of their tenants, but because building codes and insurance policies demand it. These are all risk management decisions, and the risk-taker of last resort is the insurance industry…

The Insurance Takeover

  • Bruce Schneier
  • Information Security
  • February 2001

Eventually, the insurance industry will subsume the computer security industry. Not that insurance companies will start marketing security products, but rather that the kind of firewall you use—along with the kind of authentication scheme you use, the kind of operating system you use and the kind of network monitoring scheme you use—will be strongly influenced by the constraints of insurance.

Consider security, and safety, in the real world. Businesses don’t install building alarms because it makes them feel safer; they do it to get a reduction in their insurance rates. Building owners don’t install sprinkler systems out of affection for their tenants, but because building codes and insurance policies demand it. Deciding what kind of theft and fire prevention equipment to install are risk management decisions, and the risk taker of last resort is the insurance industry…

Risks of PKI: Electronic Commerce

  • Carl Ellison and Bruce Schneier
  • Communications of the ACM
  • February 2000

Open any popular article on public-key infrastructure (PKI) and you’re likely to read that a PKI is desperately needed for E-commerce to flourish. Don’t believe it. E-commerce is flourishing, PKI or no PKI. Web sites are happy to take your order if you don’t have a certificate and even if you don’t use a secure connection. Fortunately, you’re protected by credit-card rules.

The main risk in believing this popular falsehood stems from the cryptographic concept of “non-repudiation”.

Under old, symmetric-key cryptography, the analog to a digital signature was a message authentication code (MAC). If Bob received a message with a correct MAC, he could verify that it hadn’t changed since the MAC was computed. If only he and Alice knew the key needed to compute the MAC and if he didn’t compute it, Alice must have. This is fine for the interaction between them, but if the message was “Pay Bob $1,000,000.00, signed Alice” and Alice denied having sent it, Bob could not go to a judge and prove that Alice sent it. He could have computed the MAC himself…

A Plea for Simplicity

You can't secure what you don't understand.

  • Bruce Schneier
  • Information Security
  • November 19, 1999

Ask any 21 experts to predict the future, and they’re likely to point in 21 different directions. But whatever the future holds—IP everywhere, smart cards everywhere, video everywhere, Internet commerce everywhere, wireless everywhere, agents everywhere, AI everywhere, everything everywhere—the one thing you can be sure of is that it will be complex. For consumers, this is great. For security professionals, this is terrifying. The worst enemy of security is complexity. This has been true since the beginning of computers, and it’s likely to be true for the foreseeable future…

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.