A while ago the iPhone was hacked so to make it usable on networks other than AT&T’s.

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.

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?

Continue reading "The iPhone Hack -- Security Done Wrong or Security Done Right?"

Last July, an interesting post appeared in Bruce Schneier’s blog. It’s called: Airport Security: Israel vs. the United States. 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:

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 “primary” airports — and who knows how many others. Things that can work there just don’t scale to the U.S.

I do not generally buy this.

Continue reading "Airport Security: Israel vs. the United States"

No one who follows on DRM news could have missed this: Report: RIP DRM, as Last Major Label Plans to Ditch Restrictions:

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.

I was asked more than once: What can prevail, if DRM cannot?

Continue reading "Last Major Label Plans to Ditch DRM Restrictions"

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.

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.

It is easy to see why.

Continue reading "Making Standardization Committees Build More Secure Products"

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 wiping (often called shredding) 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.

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.

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.

Continue reading "File Wiping and Disk-on-Key"

About a month late I got to see this news item about a survey that results in a conclusion that people are finally getting used to DRM.

Among other things, it says that:

The overall messages from these studies are: higher-priced DRM-free downloads resonate with a percentage of consumers but not a very large one; …

and specifically that:

… the EMR/Olswang study found that only 43% would prefer “paying a little extra” 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).

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.

However, before I got the chance to be amazed enough at the outcome, I bumped into a seemingly unrelated observation of that same survey…

Continue reading "Survey About DRM Acceptance"

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.

What took more than two minutes was my discussion with my wife about whether or not this sort of “examination” 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

Continue reading "Countermeasures That Can't Be Modeled"

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.

Question:
Why not just deploy a Enterprise Right Management solution instead of using various encryption tools to prevent data leaks?

Answer:
The “encryption tools” 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.

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.

If your security needs can be met by the simple functional model of the “encryption tools”, then you will prefer to enjoy the assurance and thereasonable robustness they provide, which is the most desirable feature after all.

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:

Homeland Security grabs for net’s master keys
Department of Homeland and Security wants master key for DNS

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.

Continue reading "DHS wants DNSSEC keys -- so what?"

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 “layer”, so they sound more confident.

I guess it can be told by my tone so far that I disagree. Making a system or a network more secure is sometimes worthwhile and sometimes it is not.

Continue reading "Is more security always better?"