<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
    <title>Hagai Bar-El on Security</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/</link>
    <description>A must read for the security professional</description>
    <language>en-us</language>           
    <generator>Nucleus CMS v3.64</generator>
    <copyright>&#169;</copyright>             
    <category>Weblog</category>
    <docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
    
    <item>
    <title>I was appointed CTO of Discretix Technologies</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=76</link>
    <description><![CDATA[On January 23rd, 2012, I was appointed as the CTO of Discretix Technologies Ltd. I have been involved with Discretix since its establishment, 11 years ago.]]></description>
    <category>Hagai's news</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=76</comments>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:33:00 +0100</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>OSMOSIS Online Event</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=74</link>
    <description><![CDATA[I will be speaking at the <a href="http://www.osmosisecurity.eu/events/osmosis-online-event-fp7-call-security-opportunities-and-project-ideas">OSMOSIS online event</a>, on October 4th, 2011, at 09:00 UTC.<br />
]]></description>
    <category>Hagai's news</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=74</comments>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 10:35:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Handling the Security Aspect of Smart Grid Product Purchasing</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=72</link>
    <description><![CDATA[Smart Grid security is one of the new emerging fields of security. Everybody knows that the new generation of electricity grids requires a new level of security against cyber-wars, cyber-terrorism, and all the rest. Yet, for the purchaser of Smart Grid solutions, it is not always obvious where to start and that to require. The topic is wide, complex, and not very well documented. I do not intend to write a compendium here, but I will share my perspective on how an integrator, or purchaser, may prefer to approach the problem of evaluating Smart Grid solutions from the security perspective.<br />
]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Engineering</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=72</comments>
    <pubDate>Sun, 31 Jul 2011 22:59:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>The Difference Between Content Protection and Cyber Security</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=69</link>
    <description><![CDATA[A few days ago I was presented with an interesting question: <I>What is the difference between Content Protection and Cyber Security?</I> These domains of Information Security are so different and unrelated, that the difference in their definition is more or less the entire definition of both. This question, however, was asked in the context of the factors that make each of these problems hard to solve. Both problems are hard ones, and seem to require more than the state of the art in security can provide; yet they are hard problems for completely different reasons.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Engineering</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=69</comments>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:11:44 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>CAcert as a certification alternative</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=67</link>
    <description><![CDATA[A few months ago, I wrote about the problem that emerges from having to rely on digital certificates that are issued by Certification Authorities of which we, the relying parties, are not the paying customers. As a result, we rely on the CA (Certification Authority) certification process, while there is no economic incentive for the CA to actually maintain a robust certification mechanism and to justify our trust.<br />
<br />
Unexpectedly, this post, titled &ldquo;<a href=http://www.hbarel.com/blog?itemid=36>The Inevitable Collapse of the Certificate Model</a>&rdquo;, quickly became the favorite post on my blog, pulling more views than all other individual posts.<br />
<br />
One alternative that was suggested is by <i>CAcert.org</i>, a community based certification organization. Here are my thoughts on the ability of such a mechanism to solve the certification problem.<br />
]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: IT Security</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=67</comments>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:33:50 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Job: Information Security Architect in Israel</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=66</link>
    <description><![CDATA[There is an opening for an <i>Information Security Architect</i> position in Netanya, Israel.<br />
Please write me through the <a href=http://www.hbarel.com/contact.htm>Contact Form</a> or by e-mail if you would like to apply.]]></description>
    <category>General: Jobs</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=66</comments>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:24:53 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Understanding the Impact of the RSA SecurID Breach</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=62</link>
    <description><![CDATA[A few days ago, we were notified (e.g., <a href=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/03/emc-rsa-security-hacked.html>here</a> and <a href=http://technorati.com/technology/it/article/rsa-hackedtime-to-panic-for-corporate/>here</a>) that a hack into the network of RSA Security (the security division of EMC) has led to someone stealing something that is related to the SecurID token product.<br />
<br />
We cannot determine the real impact of this security breach until RSA Security tells us what exactly got stolen. I believe that this information will be made available, as a result of legal or public pressure, if for no other reason. Until this data becomes available, let us examine the two most probable options, and how we may respond to each.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: IT Security</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=62</comments>
    <pubDate>Sun, 20 Mar 2011 22:31:47 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Book: The Myths of Innovation, by Scott Berkun</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=60</link>
    <description><![CDATA[I have just finished reading <i>The Myths of Innovation</i> by Scott Berkun. This 248-pages book describes how the work on innovation, and innovation in general, deviate from how we often perceive it, and from how it is presented by the media. It essentially carries the message that innovation is not some &ldquo;magic&rdquo; happening, but rather it is a lot of hard work, often carried out by many people.]]></description>
    <category>Endorsement: Sources</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=60</comments>
    <pubDate>Sat, 5 Mar 2011 18:35:59 +0100</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>The Future of Content Protection on Open Platforms, Such as Android</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=55</link>
    <description><![CDATA[The emergence of the Android Operating System for mobile devices is said to have put the content protection industry in trouble. This is probably true. However, for sake of accuracy, it has not introduced wholly new problems as it worsened existing ones, in an overall situation that was never easy to start with. Let us see what open Operating Systems such as Android have changed, and how the content protection industry may go about to overcome these new-old difficulties.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Engineering</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=55</comments>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:02:35 +0100</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Tips for Submitting Proposals to EU FP7 and Others</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=50</link>
    <description><![CDATA[Among the work I do is the evaluation of research proposals for the <i>Framework Program 7</i> (FP7) of the European Commission. I review research proposals that are submitted in response to calls that are related to information security. Truthfully, this work is among the more interesting of projects I am involved with.<br />
<br />
On account of this occupation of mine, for a few years already, I consider myself authoritative to bring up the following tips to whoever intends to submit a research proposal for European, or other, funding.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Policies</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=50</comments>
    <pubDate>Mon, 7 Feb 2011 14:34:29 +0100</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Cyber-war Risk Exaggerated?</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=48</link>
    <description><![CDATA[A ZDNet article, <a href=http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security/2011/01/17/cyber-war-risk-is-exaggerated-says-oecd-study-40091451/>Cyber-war risk is exaggerated, says OECD study</a>, points to what seems as a thorough study that concluded with the stated result. I never read this study, but from the article one can point one point in which it is probably right and one point in which it is probably wrong.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Policies</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=48</comments>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:43:00 +0100</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Car Automation. Me? Worried?</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=46</link>
    <description><![CDATA[Cars will soon be (almost) fully automated. News on experiments with cars that drive by themselves, in different scenarios and situations, make it seem obvious that soon enough the role of the driver is to be similar to that of a pilot in a passenger jet. Many people feel some itch of discomfort with this thought; the itch of &ldquo;we are not there yet&rdquo;. Let us see if and why we &ldquo;are not there&rdquo; yet, and what we can do about it.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Engineering</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=46</comments>
    <pubDate>Sat, 8 Jan 2011 12:55:45 +0100</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>The Effect of Wikileaks</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=44</link>
    <description><![CDATA[Wikileaks did evil. It published stuff that should not have been published. Julian Assange acted carelessly, I think. Still, the impact of Wikileaks is not what we usually think it is. The security of citizens was not affected by Wikileaks, but by the leak itself, and the publicity given to those leaks, in itself, may bring citizen security to a higher standard in the long run. The problem with Wikileaks is that it created a new market for leaked documents; a market which may increase the appeal of low-risk data theft.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: IT Security</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=44</comments>
    <pubDate>Sat, 18 Dec 2010 19:32:49 +0100</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Overcoming Distrust in CAs Using External Quality Enforcement</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=42</link>
    <description><![CDATA[A few weeks ago, I <a href=http://www.hbarel.com/blog?itemid=36>wrote</a> about the inherent limitations of the certification model. This model cannot be expected to provide a solution to the binding of entities to public keys, primarily because Certification Authorities (CAs) have no financial incentive in performing thorough investigation on who they issue certificates to; and often on the contrary.<br />
<br />
There is probably more than one solution to this problem. Let us examine one of them: <i>External quality enforcement</i>]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: IT Security</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=42</comments>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:17:25 +0100</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Recommended Podcast: Security Now</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=41</link>
    <description><![CDATA[There are many IT security podcasts out there; too many, perhaps. Certainly too many to listen to. The challenge is to decide on which ones to follow on a regular basis. I became aware of a good candidate a couple of years ago, and since it retained its qualities (listed below) over time, I figured it is worth mentioning.<br />
<br />
This podcast is called: <i>&ldquo;Security Now&rdquo;</i> and it is featured by <i>Steve Gibson</i> and <i>Leo Laporte</i>. Leo is a good host. He manages the show and its topics well, all in a healthy, joyful, spirit. Steve is a well-known security expert, and the creator of <i>SpinRite</i> &mdash; a disk maintenance and recovery tool.]]></description>
    <category>Endorsement: Sources</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=41</comments>
    <pubDate>Fri, 5 Nov 2010 12:50:46 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Preventing the Evil Maid Attack on FDE</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=37</link>
    <description><![CDATA[The attack referred to as the &rdquo;Evil Maid Attack&rdquo;, or the &ldquo;Cleaning Maid Attack&rdquo; against full disk encryption (FDE), is considered as one of the serious attacks concerning people who travel with laptops full of confidential information. This attack involves an attacker, who can obtain physical access to an FDE-protected laptop. The attacker boots the laptop from a second drive, and modifies the boot-sector so that subsequent boot-ups, e.g., by the owner, will cause the execution of malicious code that will capture the passphrase and/or key that is used to boot the system. Then, the attacker should get the laptop again to collect his loot. This attack was discussed everywhere, including in the <a href=http://blog.pgp.com/index.php/2009/10/evil-maid-attack/>PGP Blog</a>, <a href=http://lwn.net/Articles/359145/>LWN.net</a>, <a href=http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/evil-maid-usb-stick-attack-keylogs-truecrypt-passphrases/4662>ZDNet</a>, and the blog of <a href=http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/10/evil_maid_attac.html>Bruce Schneier</a>.<br />
<br />
Some people claimed that there are no feasible countermeasures against this attack, other than making sure your laptop is never left alone for too long. A while ago, I traveled to a place where laptops were not allowed; I had to leave it at the hotel every day for two weeks. This made me devise a practical solution which can be dubbed as: <b>be the cleaning maid yourself</b>.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: IT Security</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=37</comments>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:33:27 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>The Inevitable Collapse of the Certificate Model</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=36</link>
    <description><![CDATA[Many had high expectations from the SSL/TLS certificate model. At least on paper it sounded promising and worthwhile. Keys are used to protect traffic; for this to be effective, keys shall be bound to business entities; for the binding to be trustworthy by the public, binding will be signed by Certification Authorities (CAs), which the public will recognize as authoritative. Once the trusted CA signs the binding between a business entity (represented by a domain name) and a key &mdash; every user can tell he is communicating securely with the correct entity.<br />
<br />
In practice, it got all messed up. It is difficult to form authorization hierarchies on the global Internet, this is one thing. However, the model failed also due to the economics behind it.<br />
]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: IT Security</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=36</comments>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:17 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Understanding the security risk of SaaS</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=34</link>
    <description><![CDATA[Software as a Service (SaaS) is one of the hot trends in Information Technologies. &ldquo;SaaS&rdquo; is the name given to the concept of having applications run on the infrastructure of the service provider, rendering service to the customer over the net.<br><br>The SaaS architecture promises lower cost of ownership, better scalability, and ease of maintenance. There are other advantages, and a few limitations as well. One of the key concerns regarding SaaS is about security. Corporate security officers claim that a security risk arises with the storage of corporate data off-site. This is probably true, but to be able to assess the risk accurately, the stakeholder needs to properly understand what the risk is exactly, and where most of this risk comes from. Following is my take on this.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: IT Security</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=34</comments>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Automobile hack: we should have known better</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=33</link>
    <description><![CDATA[No one in the automotive security industry could miss the recently published news article titled &ldquo;Beware of Hackers Controlling Your Automobile&rdquo;, published <a href=http://www.physorg.com/news193400764.html>here</a>, and a similar essay titled &ldquo;Car hackers can kill brakes, engine, and more&rdquo;, which can be found <a href=http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/051410-car-hackers-can-kill-brakes.html>here</a>. In short, it describes how researchers succeeded in taking over a running car, messing up with its brakes, lights, data systems, and what not.<br><br>As alerting and serious as this is, it should not come by as a surprise.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Engineering</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=33</comments>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>InZero provides some security</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=32</link>
    <description><![CDATA[I was just made aware of InZero, a new physical device that you connect to your PC, and your browsing becomes secure. I find it amazing that some people treat it as among the most revolutionary of security solutions.<br><br>I think the InZero device is cool. I think it protects against <i>some</i> attack vectors, at some usability costs. It may even make a worthwhile trade-off for some people. But to consider the protection granted by this device as something that is revolutionary, or to claim that it is &ldquo;giving hackers, criminals, and spies the middle finger&rdquo; is an exaggeration, even when it comes from marketing guys.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: IT Security</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=32</comments>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>A business model based on people making bad security trade-offs</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=31</link>
    <description><![CDATA[From time to time I am exposed to a new service, sometimes security-related, that promises something new. More often than not, the new security service is novel, but only because either no one really needs it, or because it does not form a good balance between security and other needs. The cases of the latter category are far more interesting.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: IT Security</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=31</comments>
    <pubDate>Wed, 2 Sep 2009 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Companies collect data on us --- so what?</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=30</link>
    <description><![CDATA[It is very common among security people to take privacy issues seriously. When we hear that a particular service collects personal data on us, we get extremely anxious. We will not use services that collect personal data that are not necessary to render the service. Sometimes we will forgo using a useful service, just because it requires that we feed in personal data, or because we do not like the wording of the privacy policy, of its lack of...<br><br>To us, security people, having a company collect personal information on our shopping habits, surfing habits, reading habits, or eating habits, is just wrong. Technologists like <i>Cory Doctorow</i> call to treat personal data like weapons-grade plutonium, because data that is collected never vanishes. Others, like <i>Bruce Schneier</i>, write essays on why the average (that is, non-criminal) citizen should not agree to being watched, although he did nothing wrong. All is true, and having governments collect too much data on individuals <i>is</i> risky. Such data, if available, is likely to be abused at some point in time, a point which is probably closer than it appears.<br><br>It is easy to explain why one would not like the government to have too much data on himself. I would like to discuss another type of data: the commercial data that privately held companies such as Amazon, Google (on Google apps users), and Facebook, collect. Why should I care about having my personal data on-line?]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Policies</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=30</comments>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>On the Purpose of Security Standards</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=29</link>
    <description><![CDATA[An interesting <a href=http://information-security-resources.com/2009/04/01/payment-card-industry-swallows-its-own-tail/>article</a> was published in <i>Information Security Resources</i>, titled: <b>&ldquo;Payment Card Industry Swallows Its Own Tail&rdquo;</b>.<br><br>The author seems to claim that PCI DSS may not survive for long, because the various stakeholders are too busy blaming each other for security breaches instead of trying to make the ecosystem more secure. Also, organizations that are PCI DSS compliant still suffer from security breaches, what seems to indicate that the standard is ineffective.<br><br>There are two questions that need to be asked:]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Policies</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=29</comments>
    <pubDate>Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Right, the kernel can access your encrypted volume keys. So what?</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=28</link>
    <description><![CDATA[On January 15th, TechWorld published an article called <a href=http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=109547>Encryption programs open to kernel hack</a>. Essentially, it warns that the key to encrypted volumes, that is, to volumes of software-encrypted virtual drives, is delivered by the encryption application to the kernel of the operating system, and thus may be captured by a malicious kernel.<br><blockquote>&ldquo;According to a paper [...] such OTFE (on-the-fly-encryption) programs typically pass the password and file path information in the clear to a device driver through a Windows programming function called 'DevicelOControl'.&rdquo;</blockquote><br>And they consider it as a threat:<br><blockquote>&ldquo;Dubbed, the Mount IOCTL (input output control) Attack by Roellgen, an attacker would need to substitute a modified version of the DevicelOControl function that is part of the kernel with one able to log I/O control codes in order to find the one used by an encryption driver. Once found, the plaintext passphrase used to encrypt and decrypt a mounted volume would be vulnerable.&rdquo;</blockquote><br>Such &ldquo;findings&rdquo; occur often when the <i>security model</i> of a security system is ignored.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Engineering</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=28</comments>
    <pubDate>Fri, 6 Mar 2009 10:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>My new patent on secure boot using embedded flash</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=27</link>
    <description><![CDATA[Yesterday, I got a US patent application granted by the Patent and Trademark Office. The patent bears the title "SYSTEM, DEVICE, AND METHOD OF SELECTIVELY ALLOWING A HOST PROCESSOR TO ACCESS HOST-EXECUTABLE CODE". Essentially, this patent discloses a technology that allows to boot a computing platform into a <i>trusted state</i> using a cryptography-enabled code storage device, without the need for a cryptography-enabled host processor. In other words, the technology allows to securely boot a platform that has a security module that is coupled with the storage medium (e.g., embedded Flash memory) that stores the software, instead of a security module that is coupled with the host processor.]]></description>
    <category>Hagai's news</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=27</comments>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Twitter Terrorists -- Come On...</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=26</link>
    <description><![CDATA[I could not miss <a href=http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/10/terrorist-cell.html>this one<a> in <i>Wired.com</i>.<br><br><blockquote>Then the presentation launches into an even-more theoretical discussion of how militants might pair some of these mobile applications with Twitter, to magnify their impact. After all, &ldquo;Twitter was recently used as a countersurveillance, command and control, and movement tool by activists at the Republican National Convention,&rdquo; the report notes. &ldquo;The activists would Tweet each other and their Twitter pages to add information on what was happening with Law Enforcement near real time.&rdquo;</blockquote><br><br>It seems as people are making an effort to ring the bell on just about anything.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Policies</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=26</comments>
    <pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2008 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Firewire threat to FDE</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=25</link>
    <description><![CDATA[Full-Disk Encryption (FDE) suffers class attacks lately.<br><br>As if the latest research (which showed that RAM contents can be recovered after power-down) was not enough, it seems as Firewire ports can form yet an easier attack vector into FDE-locked laptops.<br><br>From TechWorld: <a href=http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=11615>Windows hacked in seconds via Firewire</a><blockquote><i>The attack takes advantage of the fact that Firewire can directly read and write to a system's memory, adding extra speed to data transfer.</i></blockquote><br>The tool mentioned seems to only bypass the Win32 unlock screen, but given the free access to RAM, exploit code that digs out FDE keys is a matter of very little extra work.<br><br>This is nothing new. The concept was presented a couple of years ago, but I haven't seen most FDE enthusiasts disable their Firewire ports yet.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Engineering</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=25</comments>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>The TSA Does Not Get It Completely Wrong</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=24</link>
    <description><![CDATA[Many homeland security experts preach against the approach to airport security taken by the TSA. The TSA's mitigation efforts focus primarily on specific tactics that terrorists may use, rather than on more generalized, more effective, measures, such as intelligence. Airline security, according to the ones opposing the TSA's acts, shall be in effect long before the terrorist reaches the airport. All existing mechanisms, such as scanning shoes, banning liquids, etc., are a waste of time and money and punish only the innocent.<br><br>I generally agree, but I do so with mixed emotions.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Policies</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=24</comments>
    <pubDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>The iPhone Hack -- Security Done Wrong or Security Done Right?</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=22</link>
    <description><![CDATA[A while ago the iPhone was hacked so to make it usable on networks other than AT&amp;T's.<br><br>Since that moment, many opinions were sounded on how Apple could have done their security better and how the hack could have been eliminated. Moreover, some of the industries security experts went on to their desks to work out a stronger mechanism that can save the gigantic firm from such embarrassments in the future.<br><br>An obvious question comes up: couldn't Apple, with its $167 billion market cap, afford to pay some good security designers to protect its assets on the iPhone?]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Engineering</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=22</comments>
    <pubDate>Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>An Interview on Secure Content Distribution</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=23</link>
    <description><![CDATA[I was interviewed (by e-mail) for a project that preferred to remain undisclosed, on the future of secure content distribution. Enclosed are the (slightly modified) questions and answers.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Engineering</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=23</comments>
    <pubDate>Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Airport Security: Israel vs. the United States</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=21</link>
    <description><![CDATA[Last July, an interesting post appeared in Bruce Schneier's blog. It's called: <a href=http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/07/airport_securit_7.html>Airport Security: Israel vs. the United States</a>. It discusses the difference between airport security in Israel and in the U.S. The post quotes evidence showing that the airport security in Israel is based more on interrogation and less on mechanical scanning. Mr. Schneier commented:<BLOCKQUOTE>Regularly I hear people talking about Israeli airport security, and asking why we can't do the same in the U.S. The short answer is: scale. Israel has 11 million airline passengers a year; there are close to 700 million in the U.S. Israel has seven airports; the U.S. has over 400 &ldquo;primary&rdquo; airports &mdash; and who knows how many others. Things that can work there just don't scale to the U.S.</BLOCKQUOTE><br><br>I do not generally buy this.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Policies</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=21</comments>
    <pubDate>Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Last Major Label Plans to Ditch DRM Restrictions</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=20</link>
    <description><![CDATA[No one who follows on DRM news could have missed this: <a href=http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/01/drm-free-future.html>Report: RIP DRM, as Last Major Label Plans to Ditch Restrictions</a>:<br><BLOCKQUOTE>In a move certain to rock the distribution of digital music, Sony BMG is in the midst of finalizing plans to begin offering at least part of its downloadable music catalog DRM-free, according to BusinessWeek.com. This makes Sony BMG the last of the Big Four record labels to cave on digital rights management schemes designed to restrict the distribution of music via peer-to-peer networks.</BLOCKQUOTE><br>I was asked more than once: <i>What can prevail, if DRM cannot?</i>]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Policies</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=20</comments>
    <pubDate>Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Making Standardization Committees Build More Secure Products</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=19</link>
    <description><![CDATA[Lately I have been occupied once again with the specification of a security system as part of a standards committee. The identity of this standards body really does not matter. What does matter is that the process, just like its outcome, never improved.<br><br>There is a problem with security systems that are standardized by committees. Perhaps not every committee, but those committees that are democratic in nature. Democracy is good, all in all, but it doesn't serve the design of security products well; at least not when it comes to design done by many individuals with different agendas.<br><br>It is easy to see why.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Policies</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=19</comments>
    <pubDate>Thu, 8 Nov 2007 10:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>File Wiping and Disk-on-Key</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=18</link>
    <description><![CDATA[Most vendors selling security software that deals with removable devices or with flash storage mediums such as Disk-On-Key (DoK) provide the functionality of file <i>wiping</i> (often called <i>shredding</i>) from the removable medium. This feature allows the user to erase sensitive files that are no longer needed, in a way that (presumably) prevents them from ever being recovered; even if forensics gear is involved.<br><br>I find file wiping to be a useful function. Software that permanently destroys files is available on PCs since the early 80's and has always been handy. File encryption utilities also use file wiping to remove the original plaintext file after encrypting it.<br><br>The one concern I have is about the reliability of these tools when they run against particular files that are stored on flash memory, such as USB DoK or SD cards.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Engineering</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=18</comments>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Survey About DRM Acceptance</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=17</link>
    <description><![CDATA[About a month late I got to see this <a href="http://www.drmwatch.com/article.php/3692311">news item</a> about a survey that results in a conclusion that people are finally getting used to DRM.<br><br>Among other things, it says that:<blockquote>The overall messages from these studies are: higher-priced DRM-free downloads resonate with a percentage of consumers but not a very large one; ...</blockquote>and specifically that:<blockquote>... the EMR/Olswang study found that only 43% would prefer &ldquo;paying a little extra&rdquo; for DRM-free tracks; and the In-Stat study found that only 19% would be willing to pay 30% more for a DRM-free track, as opposed to 29% who would not (44% said that it depends on other factors).</blockquote><br><br>So, on the face of it, it seems as people start to not care much if their content is DRM-crippled; at least that's what the article implies. It also compares these statistics to those of a survey done years ago that presumably reflected more hostility towards DRM.<br><br>However, before I got the chance to be amazed enough at the outcome, I bumped into a seemingly unrelated observation of that same survey...]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Policies</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=17</comments>
    <pubDate>Fri, 7 Sep 2007 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Countermeasures That Can&apos;t Be Modeled</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=16</link>
    <description><![CDATA[A couple of nights ago I drove back from some family event and got pulled over by a cop. Okay, I agree that this for itself is not worth a blog post. The cop asked me to open the window, he looked at me, asked me where I come from and where I am going to, and sent me off my way, without even bothering to carry out the standard papers check. The entire event took no longer than two minutes.<br><br>What took more than two minutes was my discussion with my wife about whether or not this sort of &ldquo;examination&rdquo; is worth anything. She believes it is probably a waste of tax payers money, to stop people just to ask them how they're doing. I happen to think that not only that this is not a waste of money, but it's probably one of the most effective uses for this money; at least for the money that is devoted to security.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Policies</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=16</comments>
    <pubDate>Thu, 6 Sep 2007 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Rights Management Systems Versus &quot;Simple&quot; Data Encryption</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=15</link>
    <description><![CDATA[Here is a question that was raised in a discussion forum, along with my response to it. I figured it is interesting enough to post it here.<br><br> <FONT color=red> <b>Question:</b><br>Why not just deploy a Enterprise Right Management solution instead of using various encryption tools to prevent data leaks?</font><br><br> <b>Answer:</b><br>The &ldquo;encryption tools&rdquo; function according to simple, well understood, and more-or-less enforceable security models. Their assumptions are well understood and, most importantly, match the environments they run on. They solve a simple problem, and solve it effectively.<br><br>Rights management solutions have complex security models, and run in environments that do not always satisfy the assumptions. They aim at providing complex functionality, but they often (always?) fail to deliver due to their over-complexity and unrealistic assumptions.<br><br>If your security needs can be met by the simple functional model of the &ldquo;encryption tools&rdquo;, then you will prefer to enjoy the assurance and thereasonable robustness they provide, which is the most desirable feature after all.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Engineering</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=15</comments>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2007 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>DHS wants DNSSEC keys -- so what?</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=14</link>
    <description><![CDATA[The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wants to have the root master keys of DNSSEC. This will allow them to fake DNS responses at will. Read all about it at:<br><br> <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/03/dns_master_key_controversy/">Homeland Security grabs for net's master keys</a><br> <a href="http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/87655">Department of Homeland and Security wants master key for DNS</a><br><br> It caused quite a lot of fuss. I agree with the political feeling of discomfort, but I somehow cannot understand the threat that some people attribute to this. ]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Policies</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=14</comments>
    <pubDate>Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Is more security always better?</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=13</link>
    <description><![CDATA[This depends on who you ask. Some people think that the more secure a system is, the better; with no exceptions. This school of thought is often attributed to product vendors. This approach helps them believe (and thus convince) that their product is a great buy, regardless of the situation. This approach is also common among information security newbies who believe that an additional requirement or mechanism can only make you more resistant, not less, and thus is always worth adding. The fancier of these guys call it an additional &ldquo;layer&rdquo;, so they sound more confident.<br><br> I guess it can be told by my tone so far that I disagree. Making a system or a network more secure is sometimes <i>worthwhile</i> and sometimes it is not. ]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Policies</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=13</comments>
    <pubDate>Sat, 6 Jan 2007 10:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>PDAs in highly classified environments</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=12</link>
    <description><![CDATA[For a while IT security professionals are warning against the impacts of Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) on corporate security. A PDA can be lost or stolen and lead to undesired disclosure of the information that is on it. The emerging of micro-drives leads to these tiny devices having gigabytes of storage. Due to the high storage capacity of the PDA and the reduced file formats it uses (resulting in smaller files), a modern PDA can easily store the entire document repository of its owner. This document repository may contain masses of sensitive corporate information in a physical size that is way too easy to lose or to have stolen. This poses a real threat to organizations, as also pointed out by Bruce Schneier in an essay called &ldquo;<a href=http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/risks_of_losing.html>Risks of Losing Portable Devices</a>&rdquo;.<br><br> Information security officers are not unaware of the risk and attempt at finding solutions. The most immediate solution that comes to mind is password-protecting the PDA. Realizing that these mechanisms can be hacked, encryption is put to use, enciphering all or some of the PDA databases using a key that is entered by the user. This method carries notable inconvenience for the user, who is forced to enter a key each time he is looking for a phone number, an e-mail address, or a meeting time. It is clumsy, but it solves the problem. However, does it solve all problems?<br><br> No; at least not for everyone, to my opinion.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: IT Security</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=12</comments>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>The toughest part of designing secure products</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=11</link>
    <description><![CDATA[It is already obvious that security is hard to do right. <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_schneier>Bruce Schneier</a> has written a good essay called: <a href=http://www.schneier.com/essay-037.html>Why Cryptography Is Harder Than It Looks</a>. This essay refers to cryptography, but touches on the subject as a whole. It is still not always clear, however, where the hard-core of security analysis work is, and where <i>exactly</i> the difference from QA, and from other system engineering domains, lies.<br><br> I would like to take a shot at explaining the fundamental difference between assuring functionality and assuring security, and pinpoint the toughest part of security analysis.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Engineering</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=11</comments>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Is E-mail encryption really too complex?</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=10</link>
    <description><![CDATA[Every once in a while we read yet another article revealing the level to which e-mail encryption is uncommon. The last one I saw is <a href=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5227744>here</a>. Whenever the debate is raised about how come e-mail encryption is so seldom used, we hear the common opinion that e-mail encryption is just not easy enough for the commons; yet. It is not intuitive enough, it is not user-friendly, it is too intrusive to the typical work-flow, and so forth. Indeed, e-mail encryption for the masses is with us for more than a decade already, and other than a few geeks and a few privacy-savvy individuals, people just don't use it.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: IT Security</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=10</comments>
    <pubDate>Sun, 7 May 2006 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Evaluating Commercial Counter-Forensic Tools</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=9</link>
    <description><![CDATA[I have just enjoyed reading "<a href="http://www.dfrws.org/2005/proceedings/geiger_couterforensics.pdf">Evaluating Commercial Counter-Forensic Tools</a>" by Matthew Geiger from Carnegie Mellon University. The paper presents failures in commercially-available applications that offer covering the user's tracks. These applications perform removal of (presumably) all footprints left by browsing and file management activities, and so forth. To make a long story short: seven out of seven such applications failed, to this or that level, in fulfilling their claims.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: IT Security</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=9</comments>
    <pubDate>Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Anonymity -- great technology but hardly used</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=8</link>
    <description><![CDATA[It's hard not to appreciate the long way we did in studying anonymity and pseudonymity. We know a lot and can do a lot. Each time I read on a <i>zero-knowledge</i> scheme or on another <i>untraceable digital cash</i> I am amazed by the amount of knowledge that the security community has gained and by its arsenal of mechanisms that can buy us any sort of anonymity or pseudonymity we want to deploy. But do we? In spite of our having the ability to establish anonymous surfing, have untraceable digital cash tokens, and carry out anonymous payments, we don't really use these abilities, at large.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: IT Security</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=8</comments>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Today&apos;s Credit Card Fraud Prevention -- Throwing The Baby With The Bathwater?</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=6</link>
    <description><![CDATA[E-commerce and credit cards in particular are always considered to have succeeded in overcoming the big problem of fraud. All too often when a new security mechanism is presented to combat credit card fraud its opponents claim that fraud in credit card transactions is already mitigated to an adequate extent. This does not seem as a false claim as we don't see Visa, Mastercard, or American Express going bankrupt due to fraud. The fraud figures are not too bad either considering the fact that no state-of-the-art mechanism is deployed yet for the masses.<br />  <br />  However, trying to make an online purchase recently made me lose any respect I had for the so-called anti-fraud mechanisms that are used today.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Policies</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=6</comments>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Trojan-Horse Espionage in Israel -- A Tip of an Iceberg</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=5</link>
    <description><![CDATA[About one week ago, a serious commercial espionage system was discovered in Israel. For years, several large-scale companies in Israel enjoyed inside information about their competitors using private investigators who were using a Trojan horse application that was planted on victims' workstations. More details can be found in this <a href="http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=918528&amp;fid=942">Globes article</a>.<br />  <br />  Obviously, the topic made it to the national news primarily because it involved high-profile companies in Israel, companies that "everybody knows", and because it led to the arrest of several top executives. It's the first time such a large scale espionage act is discovered in Israel, and this is new, but the rest is not.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: IT Security</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=5</comments>
    <pubDate>Sat, 4 Jun 2005 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Watermarking for DRM? Maybe one day</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=3</link>
    <description><![CDATA[One of the biggest hurdles of DRM results is that content can somehow be leaked by a few skilled individuals and then find itself on the peer-to-peer networks again. The only way to mitigate this threat is by embedding a watermark on the plain content data that will be used either by the playback devices to recognize pirated content or for identifying the source of leaked content on the network.<br /> <br> That's nice, but for this we need a watermarking scheme that can be detected by a non-secret mechanism (called <i>Public Watermarking</i>) and for this mechanism to be such that makes it impossible, or at least very difficult, to peel the mark off. Unfortunately, these two requirements are known to be contradicting. The schemes being public implies that anyone can form an oracle that will tell him as soon as the mark was rendered useless. Once such an oracle is available there is a simple iterative process to be followed by which changes are introduced to and removed from the original content until the result is another piece of content that on one hard is not too different from the original and on the other hand does not contain a usable mark. <br><br />  This is not to say that watermarking for DRM is doomed to failure - this is just to say that a breakthrough is needed to make it happen.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: Security Engineering</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=3</comments>
    <pubDate>Sat, 14 May 2005 10:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Open Source Disk Encryption</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=2</link>
    <description><![CDATA[About two months ago I was delighted to see the new version of what I consider to be the first open source drive encryption program for Win32. It's name is <a href="http://www.truecrypt.com">TrueCrypt</a>, and it provides functionality that resembles that of DriveCrypt from <a href="http://www.securstar.com/">SecurStar</a>. Some basic features are still missing such as the option to use a key file or multiple phrases. However, TrueCrypt has two benefits that are very unique to disk encryption products under Win32: It is open source, and it is free. I therefore see it as an appealing alternative to DriveCrypt and to PGPDisk in some environments.<br /> <br /> One major issue about it that was not yet resolved is, of course, security. An in depth review of TrueCrypt was not yet published (to the best of my knowledge), and was never requested, but the products being open source makes one assume that if there is a deadly flaw to it, it will one day be found - hopefully by the good guys first.]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: IT Security</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=2</comments>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
</item><item>
    <title>Worms Using Search Engines</title>
    <link>http://www.hbarel.com/blog/index.php?itemid=7</link>
    <description><![CDATA[Check out this news item:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/virus/story/0,10801,99947,00.html?source=x10">Latest Mydoom shows hackers using search engines for attacks</a><br /> <br /> It's about Internet based worms making use of search engines to spread out. ]]></description>
    <category>Analysis: IT Security</category>
    <comments>xml-rss2.php?itemid=7</comments>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
</item>
  </channel>
</rss>
