Tuesday, June 30, 2015

CyberUL is a dumb idea

Peiter “mudge” Zatko is leaving Google, asked by the White House to create a sort of a cyber “Underwriter Laboratories” (UL) for the government. UL is the organization that certifies electrical devices, so that they don’t short out and zap you to death. But here’s the thing: a CyberUL is a dumb idea. It’s the Vogon approach to the problem. It imagines that security comes from a moral weakness that could be solved by getting “serious” about the problem.

It’s not the hacking problem

According to data-breach reports, 95% of all attacks are simple things, like phishing, SQL injection, and bad passwords – nothing related to software quality. The other 5% is because victims are using old, unpatched software. When exploits are used, it’s overwhelmingly for software that has remained unpatched for a year.

In other words, CyberUL addresses less than 0.1% of real-world attacks.

It’s not the same quality problem

UL is about accidental failures in electronics. CyberUL would be about intentional attacks against software. These are unrelated issues. Stopping accidental failures is a solved problem in many fields. Stopping attacks is something nobody has solved in any field.

In other words, the UL model of accidents is totally unrelated to the cyber problem of attacks.

Security is a tradeoff

Security experts ignore the costs of fixing security. They assume that it due to moral weakness, and that getting tough is all that’s needed.

That’s not true. Improving security comes at great cost, in terms of price, functionality, or usability. Insecurity happens not because people are weak, but because the tradeoffs aren’t worth it. That’s why you have an iPhone, which can get hacked, instead of a 1980s era feature-phone that can do little more than make phone calls – you find the added risk worth the tradeoffs.

The premise of a CyberUL is that people are wrong, that more tradeoffs must be imposed against their will in order to improve cybersecurity, such as increasing the price, removing features, or making products hard to use.

Rules have a cost

Government already has the “Common Criteria” rules. They are all for obviously good things, like masking a password with **** when users type it in. But here’s the thing: while the actual criteria are easy and straightforward, it’s buried in layers of bureaucracy. It costs at least $1 million to get a product certified with Common Criteria.

OPM invested millions in dealing with similar bureaucratic regulations. It’s not that they had no security – it’s that their security people spent all their time with bureaucracy. They ignored basic problems like SQLi, phishing, bad passwords, and patches because compliance consumed all their budget and time.

Do you even government?

People believe that wise CyberUL administrators will define what’s right based on their own expertise. This is nonsense – rules will be designed according to whoever spends the most on lobbyists. It’s same thing that happens in every industry.

As soon as the White House starts a CyberUL, Oracle, Microsoft, and Cisco will show up offering to help. Whatever rules are created will be those that favor those three companies at the expensive of smaller companies.

Government doesn’t follow the rules, anyways

Government agencies don’t follow the rules anyway. There are so many impossibly onerous rules in government anyway that complaining and getting an exception is the norm. That’s why, for example, the Navy just gave Microsoft $20 million to continue to support WinXP – a 15 year old operating-system – which is otherwise against the rules.


Conclusion

A CyberUL is an absurd idea, being unrelated to the problem it purports to solve. The only reason people take it seriously is that they are secretly fascist at heart. They aren’t interested in solving the problem of cybersecurity, because that’s hard. Instead, they want to tell other people what to do, because that’s easy.

SQLi, phishing, bad passwords, and lack of patches are the Four Horseman of the cybersecurity apocalypse, not software quality. Unless you are addressing those four things, then you are doing essentially nothing to solve the problem.

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

How would you use Lua scripting in a DNS server?

I'm currently putting Lua into a DNS server, and I'm trying to figure out how people would use it.

A typical application would be load-balancing. How I would do this is to create a background Lua thread that frequently (many times a second) queried an external resource to discover current server utilitzation, then rewrote the RRset for that server to put the least utilized server first. This would technically change the zone, but wouldn't be handled as such (i.e. wouldn't trigger serial number changes, wouldn't trigger notification of slave zones).

Such a thread could be used for zone backends. Right now, DNS servers support complex backends like SQL servers and LDAP servers. Instead of making the server code complex, this could easily be done with a Lua thread, that regularly scans an SQL/LDAP server for changes and updates the zone in memory with the changes.

Both these examples are updating static information. One possible alternative is to execute a Lua script on each and every DNS query, such as adding a resource record to a zone that would look like this:

*.foo.example.com. TXT $LUA:my_script

Every query would cause the script to be executed. There are some issues with this, of course, but for a lot of typical uses, such limitations wouldn't matter. For example, there's complex thread synchronization issues, but I could simply force any use of this feature to go into single threaded mode -- whatever narrow use you'd have for this feature could probably accept the performance hit.

The specific use for this would be, of course, to setup a DNS communication channel. Captive portals forward DNS, but redirect other TCP/UDP packet. Sending messages back and forth through DNS would allow you to do things like tunnel Twitter messages through even without "real" Internet access. As well know, people in the past have written entire VPNs through DNS this way, with custom DNS stacks.

These are my ideas. Maybe you could post some other ideas. I'm looking for either a problem you want solved (without necessarily dictating the precise solution), or a nifty way of integrating Lua (without necessarily any specific problem in mind).






Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Because dossiers

Here's the thing about computers -- even your laptop can support "big-data" applications. There are only 300-million people in the united states. At  1-kilobyte per person, that's still only 300-gigabytes -- which fits on my laptop hard-drive.

Building dossiers is becoming a thing in the hacking underground. Every time they break into a retail chain, hospital, insurance company, or government agency, they correlate everything back to the same dossier, based on such things as social security numbers, credit card numbers, email addresses, and even IP addresses. Beyond hacked secrets, public sources of information are likewise scanned in order to add to the dossier. Tools such as Maltego make it surprisingly easy to combine your own private information with public sources in order to build such dossiers.

When even the small hacking groups are focused on this effort, you can bet the big guys like China and Russia are even more interested in this.

This is one explanation behind the OPM hack. The hackers may have had something specific in mind, such as getting the personal information from SF86 forms where those seeking clearance are forced to disclose their various addictions and perversions. It may be used to blackmail people -- while the government knows their secrets, their friends won't.

Or it may have been as simple as the fact that the OPM was an easy target, and had useful information for building dossiers -- without any particular designs on what to do with the information.

I point this out because Occam's Razor. People are postulating complex scenarios for what the hackers wanted with the information. I think the more likely answer is simply because it was there, it wasn't hard to get, and it's something you ought to get now in case you need it for somebody's dossier later.

Should I panic because Lastpass was hacked?

Maybe, maybe not. Lastpass uses 100000 iterations in its PBKDF2 algorithm. If you chose a long, non-dictionary password, nobody can crack it. Conversely, if you haven't, then yes, you need to change it.

I benchmarked this on my computer using "oclHashcat". It's not an exact match with the Lastpass algorithm, but it's close enough to show the performance.


As you can see, my machine is getting 2577 (two and a half thousand) random password guesses per second. This may sound like a lot, but it's not not, because cracking passwords is exponentially difficult.

Consider normal hashes, not the stronger ones used by Lastpass. My desktop can crack 1 billion of those per second.  Consider that a password can be built from UPPER and lower case letters, numbers, and punctuation marks -- or about 64 variations per character.

In this case, a 5 letter password has 1 billion combinations, so a fast computer can guess it in a second. Adding one letter, with it's 64 different possibilities, makes this 64 times harder, meaning it'll take a minute. Another letter (7), and it becomes an hour. Another letter (to 8), and it becomes several days. Another letter (9), and it becomes a year. Another letter (10), and it becomes 64 years. Another letter (11), and it's thousands of years, and another letter (12) and its millions of years.

Lastpass re-hashes the password 100,000 times, which slows this down dramatically. What I could've hashed in an hour now takes a decade. On the other hand, consider an adversary like the NSA or a hacker with a botnet that controls 100,000 computers, that would speed things back up to the normal rate. But even with 100,000 computers, the NSA won't be able to brute-force a 12 letter password.

Unfortunately, brute-force isn't the only option. Hackers may instead use a dictionary attack, where they use word lists and common password choices (like GoBroncos!), and then mutate them with common patterns, like adding numbers on to the end. This speeds things up dramatically, making it easy to crack even 12 letter passwords in minutes.

In between the two are Markov chains, which is sort of like brute-forcing, but which follows the logic humans use to construct passwords. If a password letter is lower-case, it's overwhelmingly likely that the next letter will also be lower case, for example.

The upshot is that your 12 character password is a lot weaker than you assume. Your passwords not only have to be long, but also fairly random and not based much on dictionary words, and random in ways that Markov chains can't easily guess.

NSA leaker Edward Snowden recent suggested that a strong password would look like "MargaretThatcheris110%SEXY". he's been criticized for this, but actually, it indeed pretty strong. Yes, there are lots dictionary and Markov weakness, but they are compensated for by length. All else being equal, longer is better. Indeed, whatever password you have now, simply adding "xxxxxxxxxxx" onto the end of it it likely to make it unbreakable, and it's extremely easy for you to remember. A password like "MaThis110%SX" is a 12 character password such that even the NSA is unlikely to be able to break it if it were your Lastpass password -- Snowden's longer form doens't make it worse. (Note, some people claim this Snowden example isn't so secure, but they are wrong).

The downside of password complexity is that you have to both remember the password and type it in frequently. There's really no getting around this -- but that's tools like Lastpass or 1Password are for. They allow you to choose one strong pasword once, then have the system use secure random passwords for all the websites you visit. I don't use such services, I just get use to typing long strings very fast (and write down passwords), but it's a solution used by many others.

Sunday, June 14, 2015

How to code: lesson 27

I was reading some code on the Internet today and came across this:


The thing to notice is the hang & symbols in front of the variables, instead of just making things line up. It's a stylistic quirk of the author of this code. It's a good lesson on what not to do.

There is only one important style rule and it is this: make your code look like everyone else's. The question isn't whether it's good or bad, only that it's unusual. Yes, this quick is relatively insignificant, but I point it out is that you should not be tempted, even on the smallest of things.

You see this with the evolution of programmers. In the beginning, their code is quirky as hell. Over time, as they they are exposed to more and more source by others, they start to see how these quirks are irritating, and stop doing them in their own code. The style becomes blander and blander -- but at the same time, the greatness of their construction of the code starts to shine.

When you start writing great code, you'll eventually have to break this rule and do something big and strange. For example, I do this with my "state-machine parsers". It's a programming pattern unfamiliar to most programmers, yet I have to do it because the scalability and performance are huge. Save your quirks for the big things -- exorcise them in the small things.

By the way, I meant this as the only important style rule. It really is. A lot of companies spend a great deal of time, and politically gnashing of teeth among developers, in order to draft style guidelines. This is garbage -- it truly does not matter where you put braces, for example. Experienced coders have to be accustomed to reading various styles anyway. Here's what you should do. Start a program asking anybody who is interested to come in after work in order to draft a new set of style guidelines. Fire everyone who shows up -- they are political animals who are likely deadweight anyway. Then just pick a style guideline at random, like the Linux kernel style doc or the WebKit style. Or, pick no style at all -- your project is going to pull in a lot of open-source with varying styles anyway, so it's pointless trying to make it conform.

BTW, when I invested all my money in a startup consisting of a team of programmers, when my entire life's saving depending on quality code being produced, I imposed this guideline on the team: stop with the nonsense, make it look normal. Each programmer had different styles, but yet the code produced was high quality anyway. It really can work.

How we really know the Sunday Times story is bogus

Stories sourced entirely from "anonymous senior government officials" are propaganda, not journalism. The identities of the sources are hidden not to protect them from speaking out against the government, since they are in fact delivering exactly the message the government wants to get out. Instead, their identities are kept secret so that their message cannot be challenged.

It's not just me claiming this. Every journalistic organization criticizes the practice. Every set of journalistic ethics guidelines calls this unethical.

Yet, somehow it keeps happening. The latest example is the The Sunday Times, Britains largest newspaper, reporting government officials critical of Snowden. We know the story is bogus, because it quotes solely government official spouting the party line. Moreover, even if that weren't the case, it's obvious propaganda, arguing one side of the story, and not even attempting to get the other point of view from Russia, China, or Snowden himself. Snowden is often quoted in newspapers, he can't be that hard to get a hold of. Not contacting Snowden for his side is also a violation of journalistic ethics.

I point this out because there are lots of good criticisms of the story, for example, pointing out that the correct term is "MI6 officers" not "agents", and no knowledgeable government expert would make that error. But a detailed analysis of that piece isn't needed. The pure fact that it tramples all over journalistic ethics is proof enough that the story is bogus.

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Intel has 4 processor lines

Just a quick note: Intel has four different processor lines -- or four different "microarchitectures". All Intel processors support the x86 instruction set externally, but have very different microarchitectures internally.


To start with is their mainstream processor in desktops, notebooks, servers, and supercomputers. This accounts for the bulk of their business, and what we think of as an "Intel processor". The latest version of this microarchitecture is "Broadwell". Previous versions have been Haswell, Ivy Bridge, Sandy Bridge. It's sold as the Xeon, Core i7/i5/i3, Pentium, Celeron, etc.

Then there is the low power processor to compete against ARM in cellphone devices known as the "Atom". There are have been two radically different versions of this processor. The older version of the microarchitecture from 2008 was known as "Bonnel", and it kinda sucked (dual-issue, but in-order). The newer version of the microarchitecture, "Silvermont", is out-of-order, and is much better. Atom processors are just as power efficient as ARM processors. Indeed, many phones use them without people really being aware of the difference. I point this out because there is a widespread misconception that ARM processors are more power efficient than Intel processors. Note that all these processors are 64-bit internally, though some are sold as 32-bit processors with the 64-bit feature disabled.

Then there is the ultra low power processor for markets where even cellphone processors are too large. Intel sells the "Quark" processor for this. It's actually just a 486 processor from the early 1990s running at 400 MHz. It's sometimes called a "Pentium-class" processor, but it's really just been updated with some Pentium instructions like CMOV so that it can run the latest Linux kernel. It's actually pretty worthless -- at this stage in technology, RISC really was better, and ARM equivalents will perform faster using less power. Also, Silvermont processors clocked down to the same 400 MHz use much the same low power -- although they are much bigger chips. These processors are of course only 32-bit, whereas all the other processors are 64-bit.

Finally, there is graphics processor markets which Intel addresses with it's Xeon Phi product (not to be confused with normal Xeons). This competes against GPUs from nVidia and AMD/ATI. GPUs are designed to be massively parallel computers, designed originally for games, but which also work well for many supercomputer applications. Since they have been encroaching on Intel's supercomputer business, they've responded with a GPU-like chip. This chip puts 72 Silvermont Atom cores on a chip, where the cores have been tweaked to support 512-bit SIMD (i.e. eight 64-bit floating point calculations per instruction). This is the same 512-bit AVX that will be appearing in the next desktop/laptop/server processors. This means such floating point intensive software can be written on a desktop, then run on a much faster super computer. The current Xeon Phi is used in the Tianhe-2 supercomputer -- which has been the fastest supercomputer in the world for almost 2 years.


Intel has defeated all other processors over the last couple decades by making their single processor line address all markets. Competitors, namely ARM and nVidia/ATI have therefore optimized for targets Intel can't go. These additional processor lines are therefore in response to these threats.

The Atom line is going badly -- Intel essentially gives them away for free. They are technically an excellent product, beating most ARM processors in power efficiency and speed, but that doesn't matter, because in the mobile space, ARM compatibility is already more important than x86. Also, Intel doesn't have the supporting hardware infrastructure of other chips that ARM has. Intel thus gives mobile phone developers a lot of "development" money to build products -- which in the end means they are essentially giving away Atom processors.

On the flip side, Intel's mainstream server processors are still more power efficient than ARM (or Atom) processors. Those processors work better in cellphones by simply being slower, but once you speed up processor for massive computation, Intel's mainstream processors are still more power efficient. That's why you hear a lot of bluster about people building ARM servers, but when those systems are eventually shipped (such as HP's Moonshot), they come with Intel.







Monday, June 08, 2015

What's the state of iPhone PIN guessing

I think even some experts have gotten this wrong, so I want to ask everyone: what's the current state-of-the-art for trying to crack Apple PIN codes?

This is how I think it works currently (in iOS 8).

Tuesday, June 02, 2015

Uh, the only reform of domestic surveillance is dismantling it

A lot of smart people are cheering the reforms of domestic surveillance in the USA "FREEDOM" Act. Examples include  Timothy Lee, EFF, Julian Sanchez, and Amie Stepanovich. I don't understand why. Domestic surveillance is a violation of our rights. The only acceptable reform is getting rid of it. Anything less is the moral equivalent of forcing muggers to not wear ski masks -- it doesn't actually address the core problem (mugging, in this case).

Bulk collection still happens, and searches still happen. The only thing the act does is move ownership of the metadata databases from the NSA to the phone companies. In no way does the bill reform the idea that, on the pretext of terrorism, law enforcement can still rummage through the records, looking for everyone "two hops" away from a terrorist.

We all know the Patriot Act is used primarily to prosecute the War on Drugs rather than the War on Terror. I see nothing in FREEDOM act that reforms this. We all know the government cloaks its abuses under the secrecy of national security -- and while I see lots in the act that tries to make things more transparent, the act still allows such a cloak.

I see none of the reforms I'd want. For example, I want a law that requires the disclosure, to the public, of the total number of US phone records the government has grabbed every month, regardless of which law enforcement or intelligence agency grabbed them, regardless of which program or authority was used to grab them. After Snowden caught the government using wild justification for it's metadata program -- any law that doesn't target such all such collection regardless of justification will work to reign it in.

A vast array of other things need to be reformed regarding domestic surveillance, such as use of "Stingray" devices, the "third party doctrine" allowing the grabbing of business records even without terrorism as a justification, parallel construction, the border search exemption, license plate readers, and so on.

Bulk collection happens. our lives are increasingly electronic. We leave a long trail of "business records" behind us whatever we do. Consider Chris Roberts, "Sindragon", who joked about hacking a plane on Twitter and is now under investigation by the FBI. They can easily rummage through all those records. While they might not find him guilty of hacking, they may find he violated an obscure tax law or export law, and charge him with that sort of crime. That everything about our lives is being collected in bulk, allowing arbitrary searches by law enforcement, is still a cyber surveillance state, that the FREEDOM act comes nowhere close to touching.

The fact of the matter is that the NSA's bulk collection was the least of our problems. Indeed, the NSA's focus on foreign targets meant, in practice, it really wasn't used domestically. The FREEDOM act now opens up searches of metadata to all the other law enforcement agencies. Instead of skulking in secret occasionally searching metadata, the FBI, DEA, and ATF can now do so publicly, with the blessing of the law behind them.