Entries Tagged "crime"

Page 37 of 37

Security Risks of Frequent-Shopper Cards

This is from Richard M. Smith:

Tukwila, Washington firefighter, Philip Scott Lyons found out the hard way that supermarket loyalty cards come with a huge price. Lyons was arrested last August and charged with attempted arson. Police alleged at the time that Lyons tried to set fire to his own house while his wife and children were inside. According to the KOMO-TV and the Seattle Times, a major piece of evidence used against Lyons in his arrest was the record of his supermarket purchases that he made with his Safeway Club Card. Police investigators had discovered that his Club Card was used to buy fire starters of the same type used in the arson attempt.

For Lyons, the story did have a happy ending. All charges were dropped against him in January 2005 because another person stepped forward saying he set the fire and not Lyons. Lyons is now back at work after more than 5 months of being on administrative leave from his firefighter job.

The moral of this story is that even the most innocent database can be used against a person in a criminal investigation turning their lives completely upside down.

Safeway needs to be more up-front with customers about the potential downsides of shopper cards. They should also provide the details of their role in the arrest or Mr. Lyons and other criminal cases in which the company provided Club Card purchase information to police investigators.

Here is how Safeway currently describes their Club Card program in the Club Card application:

We respect your privacy. Safeway does not sell or lease personally identifying information (i.e., your name, address, telephone number, and bank and credit card account numbers) to non-affiliated companies or entities. We do record information regarding the purchases made with your Safeway Club Card to help us provide you with special offers and other information. Safeway also may use this information to provide you with personally tailored coupons, offers or other information that may be provided to Safeway by other companies. If you do not wish to receive personally tailored coupons, offers or other information, please check the box below. Must be at least 18 years of age.

Links:

Firefighter Arrested For Attempted Arson

Fireman attempted to set fire to house, charges say

Tukwila Firefighter Cleared Of Arson Charges

Posted on February 18, 2005 at 8:00 AMView Comments

Smart Water

No, really. It’s liquid with a unique identifier that is linked to a particular owner.

Forensic Coding combined with microdot technology.

SmartWater has been designed to protect household property and motor vehicles. Each bottle of SmartWater solution contains a unique forensic code, which is assigned to a household or vehicle.

An additional feature of SmartWater Instant is the inclusion tiny micro-dot particles which enable Police to quickly identify the true owner of the property.

The idea is for me to paint this stuff on my valuables as proof of ownership. I think a better idea would be for me to paint it on your valuables, and then call the police.

Posted on February 10, 2005 at 9:20 AMView Comments

British Pub Hours and Crime

The Economist website (only subscribers can read the article) has an article dated January 6 that illustrates nicely the interplay between security trade-offs and economic agendas.

In the 1990s, local councils were scratching around for ideas about to how to revive Britain’s inner cities. Part of the problem was that the cities were dead after their few remaining high-street shops had shut in the evening. Bringing night-life back, it was felt, would bring back young people, and the cheerful social and economic activity they would attract would revive depressed urban areas. The “24-hour city” thus became the motto of every forward-thinking local authority.

For councils to fulfil their plans, Britain’s antiquated drinking laws needed to be liberalised. That has been happening, in stages. The liberalisation culminates in 24-hour drinking licences….

This has worked: “As an urban redevelopment policy, the liberalisation has been tremendously successful. Cities which once relied on a few desultory pubs for entertainment now have centres thumping with activity from early evening all through the night.”

On the other hand, the change comes with a cost. “That is probably why, when crime as a whole has fallen since the late 1990s, violent crime has gone up; and it is certainly why the police have joined the doctors in opposing the 24-hour licences.”

This is all perfectly reasonable. All security is a trade-off, and a community should be able to trade off the economic benefits of a revitalized urban center with the economic costs of an increased police force. Maybe they can issue 24-hour licenses to only a few pubs. Or maybe they can issue 22-hour licenses, or licenses for some other number of hours. Certainly there is a solution that balances the two issues.

But the organization that has to pay the security costs for the program (the police) is not the same as the organization that reaps the benefits (the local governments).

Over the past hundred years, central government’s thirst for power has weakened the local authorities. As a result, policing, which should be a local issue, is largely paid for by central government. So councils, who are largely responsible for licensing, do not pay for the negative consequences of liberalisation.

The result is that the local councils don’t care about the police costs, and consequently make bad security trade-offs.

Posted on January 12, 2005 at 9:01 AMView Comments

Terrorists and Border ID Systems

This Washington Times article titled “Border Patrol hails new ID system” could have just as accurately been titled “No terrorists caught by new ID system.”

Border Patrol agents assigned to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) identified and arrested 23,502 persons with criminal records nationwide through a new biometric integrated fingerprint system during a three-month period beginning in September, CBP officials said yesterday.

Terrorism justifies the security expense, and it ends up being used for something else.

During the three-month period this year, the agents identified and detained 84 homicide suspects, 37 kidnapping suspects, 151 sexual assault suspects, 212 robbery suspects, 1,238 suspects for assaults of other types, and 2,630 suspects implicated in dangerous narcotics-related charges.

Posted on January 7, 2005 at 7:58 AMView Comments

Computer Security and Liability

Information insecurity is costing us billions. We pay for it in theft: information theft, financial theft. We pay for it in productivity loss, both when networks stop working and in the dozens of minor security inconveniences we all have to endure. We pay for it when we have to buy security products and services to reduce those other two losses. We pay for security, year after year.

The problem is that all the money we spend isn’t fixing the problem. We’re paying, but we still end up with insecurities.

The problem is insecure software. It’s bad design, poorly implemented features, inadequate testing and security vulnerabilities from software bugs. The money we spend on security is to deal with the effects of insecure software.

And that’s the problem. We’re not paying to improve the security of the underlying software. We’re paying to deal with the problem rather than to fix it.

The only way to fix this problem is for vendors to fix their software, and they won’t do it until it’s in their financial best interests to do so.

Today, the costs of insecure software aren’t borne by the vendors that produce the software. In economics, this is known as an externality, the cost of a decision that’s borne by people other than those making the decision.

There are no real consequences to the vendors for having bad security or low-quality software. Even worse, the marketplace often rewards low quality. More precisely, it rewards additional features and timely release dates, even if they come at the expense of quality.

If we expect software vendors to reduce features, lengthen development cycles and invest in secure software development processes, it needs to be in their financial best interests to do so. If we expect corporations to spend significant resources on their own network security — especially the security of their customers — it also needs to be in their financial best interests.

Liability law is a way to make it in those organizations’ best interests. Raising the risk of liability raises the costs of doing it wrong and therefore increases the amount of money a CEO is willing to spend to do it right. Security is risk management; liability fiddles with the risk equation.

Basically, we have to tweak the risk equation so the CEO cares about actually fixing the problem, and putting pressure on his balance sheet is the best way to do that.

Clearly, this isn’t all or nothing. There are many parties involved in a typical software attack. There’s the company that sold the software with the vulnerability in the first place. There’s the person who wrote the attack tool. There’s the attacker himself, who used the tool to break into a network. There’s the owner of the network, who was entrusted with defending that network. One hundred percent of the liability shouldn’t fall on the shoulders of the software vendor, just as 100% shouldn’t fall on the attacker or the network owner. But today, 100% of the cost falls directly on the network owner, and that just has to stop.

We will always pay for security. If software vendors have liability costs, they’ll pass those on to us. It might not be cheaper than what we’re paying today. But as long as we’re going to pay, we might as well pay to fix the problem. Forcing the software vendor to pay to fix the problem and then pass those costs on to us means that the problem might actually get fixed.

Liability changes everything. Currently, there is no reason for a software company not to offer feature after feature after feature. Liability forces software companies to think twice before changing something. Liability forces companies to protect the data they’re entrusted with. Liability means that those in the best position to fix the problem are actually responsible for the problem.

Information security isn’t a technological problem. It’s an economics problem. And the way to improve information technology is to fix the economics problem. Do that, and everything else will follow.

This essay originally appeared in Computerworld.

An interesting rebuttal of this piece is here.

Posted on November 3, 2004 at 3:00 PMView Comments

Computer Security and Liability

Information insecurity is costing us billions. We pay for it in theft: information theft, financial theft. We pay for it in productivity loss, both when networks stop working and in the dozens of minor security inconveniences we all have to endure. We pay for it when we have to buy security products and services to reduce those other two losses. We pay for security, year after year.

The problem is that all the money we spend isn’t fixing the problem. We’re paying, but we still end up with insecurities.

The problem is insecure software. It’s bad design, poorly implemented features, inadequate testing and security vulnerabilities from software bugs. The money we spend on security is to deal with the effects of insecure software.

And that’s the problem. We’re not paying to improve the security of the underlying software. We’re paying to deal with the problem rather than to fix it.

The only way to fix this problem is for vendors to fix their software, and they won’t do it until it’s in their financial best interests to do so.

Today, the costs of insecure software aren’t borne by the vendors that produce the software. In economics, this is known as an externality, the cost of a decision that’s borne by people other than those making the decision.

There are no real consequences to the vendors for having bad security or low-quality software. Even worse, the marketplace often rewards low quality. More precisely, it rewards additional features and timely release dates, even if they come at the expense of quality.

If we expect software vendors to reduce features, lengthen development cycles and invest in secure software development processes, it needs to be in their financial best interests to do so. If we expect corporations to spend significant resources on their own network security — especially the security of their customers — it also needs to be in their financial best interests.

Liability law is a way to make it in those organizations’ best interests. Raising the risk of liability raises the costs of doing it wrong and therefore increases the amount of money a CEO is willing to spend to do it right. Security is risk management; liability fiddles with the risk equation.

Basically, we have to tweak the risk equation so the CEO cares about actually fixing the problem, and putting pressure on his balance sheet is the best way to do that.

Clearly, this isn’t all or nothing. There are many parties involved in a typical software attack. There’s the company that sold the software with the vulnerability in the first place. There’s the person who wrote the attack tool. There’s the attacker himself, who used the tool to break into a network. There’s the owner of the network, who was entrusted with defending that network. One hundred percent of the liability shouldn’t fall on the shoulders of the software vendor, just as 100% shouldn’t fall on the attacker or the network owner. But today, 100% of the cost falls directly on the network owner, and that just has to stop.

We will always pay for security. If software vendors have liability costs, they’ll pass those on to us. It might not be cheaper than what we’re paying today. But as long as we’re going to pay, we might as well pay to fix the problem. Forcing the software vendor to pay to fix the problem and then pass those costs on to us means that the problem might actually get fixed.

Liability changes everything. Currently, there is no reason for a software company not to offer feature after feature after feature. Liability forces software companies to think twice before changing something. Liability forces companies to protect the data they’re entrusted with. Liability means that those in the best position to fix the problem are actually responsible for the problem.

Information security isn’t a technological problem. It’s an economics problem. And the way to improve information technology is to fix the economics problem. Do that, and everything else will follow.

This essay originally appeared in Computerworld.

An interesting rebuttal of this piece is here.

Posted on November 3, 2004 at 3:00 PMView Comments

Schneier: Microsoft still has work to do

Bruce Schneier is founder and chief technology officer of Mountain View, Calif.-based MSSP Counterpane Internet Security Inc. and author of Applied Cryptography, Secrets and Lies, and Beyond Fear. He also publishes Crypto-Gram, a free monthly newsletter, and writes op-ed pieces for various publications. Schneier spoke to SearchSecurity.com about the latest threats, Microsoft’s ongoing security struggles and other topics in a two-part interview that took place by e-mail and phone last month. In this installment, he talks about the “hype” of SP2 and explains why it’s “foolish” to use Internet Explorer.

What’s the biggest threat to information security at the moment?

Schneier: Crime. Criminals have discovered IT in a big way. We’re seeing a huge increase in identity theft and associated financial theft. We’re seeing a rise in credit card fraud. We’re seeing a rise in blackmail. Years ago, the people breaking into computers were mostly kids participating in the information-age equivalent of spray painting. Today there’s a profit motive, as those same hacked computers become launching pads for spam, phishing attacks and Trojans that steal passwords. Right now we’re seeing a crime wave against Internet consumers that has the potential to radically change the way people use their computers. When enough average users complain about having money stolen, the government is going to step in and do something. The results are unlikely to be pretty.

Which threats are overly hyped?

Schneier: Cyberterrorism. It’s not much of a threat. These attacks are very difficult to execute. The software systems controlling our nation’s infrastructure are filled with vulnerabilities, but they’re generally not the kinds of vulnerabilities that cause catastrophic disruptions. The systems are designed to limit the damage that occurs from errors and accidents. They have manual overrides. These systems have been proven to work; they’ve experienced disruptions caused by accident and natural disaster. We’ve been through blackouts, telephone switch failures and disruptions of air traffic control computers. The results might be annoying, and engineers might spend days or weeks scrambling, but it doesn’t spread terror. The effect on the general population has been minimal.

Microsoft has made much of the added security muscle in SP2. Has it measured up to the hype?

Schneier: SP2 is much more hype than substance. It’s got some cool things, but I was unimpressed overall. It’s a pity, though. They had an opportunity to do more, and I think they could have done more. But even so, this stuff is hard. I think the fact that SP2 was largely superficial speaks to how the poor security choices Microsoft made years ago are deeply embedded inside the operating system.

Is Microsoft taking security more seriously?

Schneier: Microsoft is certainly taking it more seriously than three years ago, when they ignored it completely. But they’re still not taking security seriously enough for me. They’ve made some superficial changes in the way they approach security, but they still treat it more like a PR problem than a technical problem. To me, the problem is economic. Microsoft — or any other software company — is not a charity, and we should not expect them to do something that hurts their bottom line. As long as we all are willing to buy insecure software, software companies don’t have much incentive to make their products secure. For years I have been advocating software liability as a way of changing that balance. If software companies could get sued for defective products, just as automobile manufacturers are, then they would spend much more money making their products secure.

After the Download.ject attack in June, voices advocating alternatives to Internet Explorer grew louder. Which browser do you use?

Schneier: I think it’s foolish to use Internet Explorer. It’s filled with security holes, and it’s too hard to configure it to have decent security. Basically, it seems to be written in the best interests of Microsoft and not in the best interests of the customer. I have used the Opera browser for years, and I am very happy with it. It’s much better designed, and I never have to worry about Explorer-based attacks.

By Bill Brenner, News Writer
4 Oct 2004 | SearchSecurity.com

Posted on October 8, 2004 at 4:45 PMView Comments

1 35 36 37

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.