Secure Passwords Sans Sales Pitch

I love my password manager. It enables me to use stronger passwords, unique passwords for every site, and even rotate passwords on select web services. You know, the sites that involve money. Because I can synch its data among all my computers and mobile devices, I am never without access. I believe this improves the security of my accounts, and as such, I am an advocate of this type of technology. I was encouraged when I saw the article Guard That Password in this Sunday’s New York Times. Educating users on the practical need for strong passwords in a mainstream publication is refreshing. Joe User should know how effective just a couple extra password characters can be for foiling attackers. On the downside, the article looks more like a vendor advertisement – in an attempt to reduce concerns over LastPass’s own security, the author seems to have missed describing the core values of a password manager. First a couple pieces of information that were missing from the article. One of its fundamental mistakes is that most merchants – along with the associated merchant web sites – don’t encrypt your password. On-line service providers don’t really want to store your password at all, they just want to verify your identity when you log in. To do this most sites keep what is called a ‘hash’ of your password – which is a one-way function that conceals your password in a garbled state. Each time you log in, your password is hashed again. If the new hash matches the original hash created when you signed up, you are logged in. This way your password can be matched without the threat of having the passwords reversed through the attacks described by Prof. Stross. Attackers still target these hashed values during data breaches, as they can still get figure out passwords by hashing common password values and seeing if they match any of the stolen hashes. In most cases you directly improve your password security by choosing longer passwords, thereby making them more difficult for an attacker to guess. All bets are off if the owner of a web site you visit does not secure your password. If the merchant stores unencrypted or un-hashed passwords – which is what Sony is being accused of – it requires no work for the attacker. You can’t force a web site owner to secure your password properly, and you can’t audit their security, so don’t trust them. The (generally unstated) concern is that people are bad at remembering passwords, so they use the same ones for eBay, Amazon, and banks. That means anyone who can decrypt or identify your password on a Sony site has a good chance to compromise your account on other (more lucrative) sites. Which brings us to my point for this post: using a password manager frees you from conventional problems, such as your memory. Your security is no longer dependent on how good your memory is. The commercial products all generate random strings with special characters for unguessable passwords. So why should we limit passwords to 10 characters? You no longer need to remember the passwords – the manager does this for you – so think 20 characters. Think 25 characters! And just as important, why limit yourself to one password when you should have a different password for every single site? This reduces the scope of damage if a site is hacked or when a merchant has crappy security. Finally, if you don’t trust the password manager to securely store your password in ‘the cloud’, you can always select a password manager that stores exclusively on your computer or mobile device. Password managers are one of the few times you can get both convenience and security at the same time, so take advantage! Share:

Read Post

FireStarter: Truth and (Dis)Information

We all have our own truth. Think about it: two people can see exactly the same thing, but remember totally different situations. Remember the last argument you had with your significant other. It happens all the time. You see the world through your own lens, and whatever you believe: that’s your truth. But when someone questions that truth, even the strongest of us may falter. That’s the secret of disinformation, which creates deception and distrust, and can subvert any collective. Two recent data points push me to believe we are seeing a well-orchestrated disinformation campaign against the folks Josh Corman calls chaotic actors. You see, these loosely affiliated collectives of cyber-vigilantes are causing significant damage within the halls of power. And it seems the powers that be are concerned. To be clear, I don’t know anything specific. I’m basically speculating based on the ton of information I consume about security, making a living matching patterns, and a lot of spy novels. When I see a very specific gauntlet laid down by someone within NATO, basically claiming that Anonymous will be infiltrated, it’s interesting. Then I see another story which seems kind of wacky. The Guardian reports that 1 in 4 so-called hackers are actually informants. Gosh, that seems like a lot. To the point of being unbelievable. But combining these two data points gets very interesting. You see, by definition these chaotic actors are geographically dispersed. They communicate via secure(ish) mechanisms that obscure true identities, for obvious reasons. They have some kind of vetting process for folks who want to join their groups. Aaron Barr of HBGary Federal can tell you a bit about what happens when you are caught as an unwanted interloper. But at some point, they have to trust each other in order to put their plans into action. But disinformation breeds distrust. So it makes sense that, lacking any direct means to take down these collectives, a disinformation campaign would be next. Basically NATO has specifically called out Anonymous. The FBI allegedly has thousands of informants at all levels of all the online syndicates. Then throw in the high-profile takedowns of a few botnets recently, the arrest of some Spanish guys allegedly involved with Anonymous, and the reality that the hacker of all hackers, Albert Gonzalez, was an informant – and maybe the story isn’t so unbelievable, is it? So basically the chaotic actors start wondering if the folks they’ve been working with can be trusted. Maybe they are informants. Maybe they’ve already been infiltrated. Maybe the traitor is you. You see, whether the informants actually exist is besides the point. I do believe there are active efforts to penetrate these groups, since a public execution is another aspect of a psychological campaign to breed distrust. But I figure these efforts aren’t going too well. If the informants existed, the powers that be wouldn’t talk, they’d act. No? Am I nuts? Been reading too much Ludlum? Let me know what you think… PS: My old colleague Brian Keefer (@chort0) tweeted some similar thinking on Friday. Unfortunately I was tied up with our CCSK training and couldn’t engage in that discussion. But I wanted to recognize Brian drawing a similar conclusion… Photo credit: “disinformation is king” originally uploaded by ramtops Share:

Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.