Category: Links

Categories
Links

US Looking to Expand CALEA?

From the New York Time we find that American officials are campaigning for updates to CALEA, a surveillance bill that was passed in 1994. The officials claim updates are needed because

some telecommunications companies in recent years have begun new services and made system upgrades that caused technical problems for surveillance.

…

Albert Gidari Jr., a lawyer who represents telecommunications firms, said corporations were likely to object to increased government intervention in the design or launch of services. Such a change, he said, could have major repercussions for industry innovation, costs and competitiveness.

“The government’s answer is ‘don’t deploy the new services — wait until the government catches up,’ ” Mr. Gidari said. “But that’s not how it works. Too many services develop too quickly, and there are just too many players in this now.”

In essence, it appears that the US government is advocating for updates to their laws that are similar to provisions in Canada’s lawful access legislation. The tabled Canadian legislation includes provisions that preclude interception capabilities from degrading over time (Section 8), mandate that interception capabilities continue to meet government requirements as telecommunications services providers upgrade their services (Section 9), and require new software and product offerings to be compliant with interception demands (Section 11). It would seem that, without these provisos, CALEA is showing its age: ISPs are deploying services that ‘break’ existing wiretap capabilities and that it takes some time to restore those capabilities. ISPs innovate, and then surveillance catches up.

Of course, it’s useful to remember that none of the details surrounding the FBI’s problems in maintaining wiretaps is really made clear in the article. The sources that the reporter draws upon are primarily from law enforcement agencies and, as we have seen in Canada and in prior US legislative gambits, such agencies are prone to overstating problems and understating their complicity in generating/maintaining them. It’s also unclear just how ‘impaired’ investigations actually were. In essence, a full accounting of the alleged problems is needed, and the accounting ought to be public. If the American public is going to shell out more money for surveillance, and potentially endanger next-generation telecommunications services’ innovative potentials, then the government has to come totally clean about their allegations so that a rational and empirically-grounded debate can occur.

Categories
Links Writing

Surprise: American Equipment Spies on Iranians

Steve Stecklow, for Reuters, has an special report discussing how Chinese vendor ZTE was able to resell American network infrastructure and surveillance products to the Iranian government. The equipment sold is significant;

Mahmoud Tadjallimehr, a former telecommunications project manager in Iran who has worked for major European and Chinese equipment makers, said the ZTE system supplied to TCI was “country-wide” and was “far more capable of monitoring citizens than I have ever seen in other equipment” sold by other companies to Iran. He said its capabilities included being able “to locate users, intercept their voice, text messaging … emails, chat conversations or web access.”

The ZTE-TCI documents also disclose a backdoor way Iran apparently obtains U.S. technology despite a longtime American ban on non-humanitarian sales to Iran – by purchasing them through a Chinese company.

ZTE’s 907-page “Packing List,” dated July 24, 2011, includes hardware and software products from some of America’s best-known tech companies, including Microsoft Corp, Hewlett-Packard Co, Oracle Corp, Cisco Systems Inc, Dell Inc, Juniper Networks Inc and Symantec Corp.

ZTE has partnerships with some of the U.S. firms. In interviews, all of the companies said they had no knowledge of the TCI deal. Several – including HP, Dell, Cisco and Juniper – said in statements they were launching internal investigations after learning about the contract from Reuters.

The sale of Western networking and surveillance equipment/software to the Iranian government isn’t new. In the past, corporate agents for major networking firms explained to me the means by which Iran is successfully importing the equipment; while firms cannot positively know that this is going on, it’s typically because of an intentional willingness to ignore what they strongly suspect is happening. Regardless, the actual sale of this specific equipment – while significant – isn’t the story that Western citizens can do a lot to change at this point.

Really, we should be asking: do we, as citizens of Western nations, believe that manufacturing of these kinds of equipment is permissible? While some degree of surveillance capacity is arguably needed for lawful purposes within a democracy it is theoretically possible to design devices such that they have limited intercept and analysis capability out of the box. In essence, we could demand that certain degrees of friction are baked into the surveillance equipment that is developed, and actively work to prevent companies from producing highly scaleable and multifunctional surveillance equipment and software. Going forward, this could prevent the next sale of significant surveillance equipment to Iran on grounds that the West simply doesn’t have any for (legal) sale.

In the case of government surveillance inefficiency and lack of scaleability are advantageous insofar as they hinder governmental surveillance capabilities. Limited equipment would add time and resources to surveillance-driven operations, and thus demand a greater general intent to conduct surveillance than when authorities have access to easy-to-use, advanced and scalable, surveillance systems.

Legal frameworks are insufficient to protect citizens’ rights and privacy, as has been demonstrated time and time again by governmental extensions or exploitations of legal frameworks. We need a normatively informed limitation of surveillance equipment that is included in the equipment at the vendor-level. Anything less will only legitimize, rather than truly work towards stopping, the spread of surveillance equipment that is used to monitor citizens across the globe.

Categories
Links Writing

Huawei Blocked on National Security Grounds

We recently learned that the Australian government had blocked Huawei from tendering contracts for Australia’s National Broadband Network. The government defended their position, stating that:

As such, and as a strategic and significant government investment, we have a responsibility to do our utmost to protect its integrity and that of the information carried on it.

Of note, internally Huawei had been a preferred choice but the company was ostensibly blocked for political/security, rather than economic, reasons. This decision isn’t terribly surprising given that American, Australian, and United Kingdom national intelligence and security agencies have all come out against using Huawei equipment in key government-used networks. The rationale is that, even were a forensic code audit possible (and likely wouldn’t be, on grounds that we’re talking millions of lines of code) it wouldn’t be possible to perform such an audit on each and every update. In effect, knowing that a product is secure now isn’t a guarantee that the product will remain secure tomorrow after receiving a routine service update. The concern is that Huawei could, as a Chinese company, be compelled by the Chinese government to include such a vulnerability in an update. Many in the security community suspect that such vulnerabilities have already been seeded.

Does this mean that security is necessarily the real reason for the ‘national security card’ being played in Australia? No, of course not. It’s equally possible that calling national security:

  • let’s the government work with a company that it already has ties with and wants to support;
  • is the result of the government being enticed – either domestically or from foreign sources – to prefer a non-Huawei alternative;
  • permits purchases of a non-Huawei equipment from vendors that are preferred for political reasons; perhaps buying Chinese goods just wouldn’t be seen as a popular move for the government of the day.

Moreover, simply because Australia isn’t tendering contracts from Huawei doesn’t suggest that whatever equipment is purchased will be any more secure. In theory, were Cisco equipment used to power the National Broadband Network then the American government could similarly compel Cisco to add vulnerabilities into routers.

In part, what this comes down to is who do you trust to spy on you? If you see the Americans as more friendly and/or less likely to involve themselves closely in your matters of state, then perhaps American companies are preferred over your economic and geographical next-door neighbours.

I should note, just in closing, that Huawei has contracts with most (though not quite all) of Canada’s largest mobile and wireline Internet companies. Having spoken with high-level governmental officials about security concerns surrounding Huawei’s equipment there seems to be a total lack of concern: just because GCHQ, NSA, and ASIO have publicly raised concerns about the company’s equipment doesn’t seem to raise any alarm bells or worries with our highest government officials.

Categories
Links Writing

The Problems With Smartphone Password Managers

In today’s era of hyperbolic security warnings one of the easiest things that people can do to ‘protect’ themselves online is select super hard passwords to crack, stuff them in a centralized password manager, and then only have to remember a single password to access the rest in the manager. I’ve used a password manager for some time and there are real security benefits: specifically, if a single service that I’ve registered with is hacked then my entire online life isn’t compromised, just that one service.

Password manager companies recognize the first concern that most people have surrounding their services: how do the managers protect the sensitive information they’re entrusted with? The standard response from vendors tends to reference ‘strong security models and usage of cryptography. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is now quite apparent that the standard responses really can’t be trusted.

In a recent paper (.pdf), researchers interrogated the security status of password managers. What they found is, quite frankly, shocking and shameful. They also demonstrate the incredible need for third-party vetting of stated security capabilities.

The abstract for the paper is below but you should really just go read the whole paper (.pdf). It’s worth your time and if you’re not a math person you can largely skim over the hard math: the authors have provided a convenient series of tables and special notes that indicate the core deficiencies in various managers’ security stance. Don’t use a password manager that is clearly incompetently designed and, perhaps in the future, you will be more skeptical of the claims companies make around security.

Abstract:

In this paper we will analyze applications designed to facilitate storing and management of passwords on mobile platforms, such as Apple iOS and BlackBerry. We will specifically focus our attention on the security of data at rest. We will show that many password keeper apps fail to provide claimed level of protection

Access the paper (.pdf)

The Problems With Smartphone Password Managers

Categories
Links

A Pedophile Survivor on Bill C-30

Anne Rector gives voice to many who were systematically abused as children and who, often as a result of the abuse, are now ardent protectors of basic privacy rights. From her piece:

While I’m fairly openly about many things, my privacy has been savagely breached quite enough in this life. I should be able to preserve the tatters of personal privacy that remain, as I wish.

But this Conservative crime bill targets my privacy’s safeguards, and it’s inappropriate of politicians to use ‘pedophiles’ to strip me of them.

Just try claiming that I support child pornographers… and I’ll impart what fierce really is.

Go read the piece. It’s short. It does a good job identifying just how hurtful and harmful the Canadian Government’s equivalency of privacy advocates and child pornographers is for those who have suffered at the hands of child abusers.

Categories
Links

Fallout from Comodo and DigiNotar Hacks Continues

The hacking of major certificate authorities, Comodo and DigiNotar, has been somewhat addressed by certificate blacklists and revocations. Despite these measures, however, the fallout of the hacks continues. As picked up by PC Magazine,

This week Kaspersky has discovered malicious droppers – programs that install malware – bearing stolen VeriSign certificates originally issued to a Swiss company called Conpavi AG.

…

One of the droppers carries a 32-bit driver containing a malicious DLL, which gets injected into your Internet browser process. A malicious 64-bit dropper injects the DLL directly.

From there, the DLL reroutes all your search queries in Google, Yahoo!, and Bing, to a pay-per-click search engine called Search 123. Search 123 makes money off people who search and click on their results.

As a colleague of mine commented, this is just another nail in X.509’s coffin. Let’s just hope that not too many innocents are buried along with it.

Categories
Links

Google Chrome Addons Fingerprinting

Krzysztof Kotowicz has recently published the first part of a Chrome hacking series. In what went up mid-March, he provides the proof of concept code to ID the addons that users have installed. (The live demo – avoid if you’re particularly privacy conscious – is here.) There are various advantages to knowing what, specifically, browser users are running:

  • It contributes to developing unique browser fingerprints, letting advertisers track you passively (i.e. without cookies);
  • It enables an attacker to try and compromise the browser through vulnerabilities in third-party addons;
  • It lets websites deny you access to the site if you’re using certain extensions (e.g. a site dependent on web-based ad revenue might refuse to show you any content if you happen to be running adblock or Ghostery)

Means of uniquely identifying browsers have come and gone before, and this will continue into the future. That said, as more and more of people’s computer experiences occur through their browsers an ever-increasing effort will be placed on compromising the primary experience vector. It will be interesting to see if Google – and the other major browser vendors – decide to see this means of identifying customer-selected elements of the browser as a possible attack vector and consequently move to limit addon-directed surveillance.

Categories
Links Writing

On Hiring Hackers

Kevin McArthur has a response to firms who are demanding highly credentialed security staff: stop it!

Much of his argument surrounds problems with the credentialing process. He focuses on the fact that the time spent achieving an undergrad, MA, and set of professional certifications leaves prospective hires woefully out-of-date and unprepared to address existing security threats.

I recognize the argument but think that it’s somewhat of a strawman: there is nothing in a credentialing process forcing individuals to solely focus on building and achieving their credentials. Indeed, many of the larger companies that I’m familiar with hire hackers as employees and then offer them opportunities to pursue credentials on their own time, on the company dime, over the course of their employment. Many take advantage of this opportunity. This serves two purposes: adds ‘book smarts’ to a repertoire of critical thinking habits and makes the company ‘stickier’ to the employee because of the educational benefits of working for the company.

Under the rubric of enabling education opportunities for staff you can get security talent that is very good and also happens to be well educated. It’s a false dichotomy to suggest that you can have either ‘book smarts’ or ‘real world smarts’: there are lots of people with both. They don’t tend to be right out of university or high school, but they are out there.

What’s more important, and what I think the real focus of the article is meant to be, is that relying on credentials instead of work accomplished is the wrong way of evaluating prospective security staff hires. On that point, we entirely agree.

Categories
Links Writing

A Populist Critique of “Ladyphones”

Casey Johnston, over at Ars Technica, has a two-pager complaining about how tech companies design and market so-called “Ladyphones.” It’s a quick read that picks up on earlier critiques about how certain colours, and reduced technical capabilities, are associated with derogatory gender perceptions.

That said, there are at least two elements of her piece that fall short to my mind: her analysis of the BlackBerry Pearl and of the LG Windows Phone.

Johnston argues that the BlackBerry Pearl was a device marketed for women, and emphasizes the device’s high costs and pink colouration in the UK as an example of trying to extract more money from a female demographic than would be extracted from a male demographic. She also cites the Pearl’s bizarre keyboard format and limited technical specifications to further reinforce her thesis that manufactures sell second-rate products to the female market.

As someone who owned an original Pearl 8100 I don’t know how fair her critique of RIM’s product is. Pearls were RIM’s attempt to get into the consumer market generally, with the position that a full-sized keyboard was intimidating and offsetting to male and female consumers alike. Moreover, the sizes of RIM’s other smartphones at the time – designed pre-iPhone, let’s not forget! – were offsetting to most regular, non-business, consumers.

The Pearl tried to find a balance between size, consumer market expectations, and traditional BlackBerry functionality. It was also comparatively cheaper than most other smartphones at the time (and, I would note, cheaper than the popular Motorola RAZER phones), though RIM and its carrier partners haven’t necessarily reduced the costs of the phone appropriately in all regional markets. Original colours lacked pink entirely: you could buy them in black or red. New colouring – and targeting – towards particular market segments is arguably more the result of an expanded smartphone market than anything else.

I would note than Johnston is far more generous towards RIM’s marketing and branding departments than, well, any other journalist that I’ve previously read. Her assumption that RIM was so forward thinking as to brand a consumer device ‘Pearl’ to target women is massively overestimating RIM’s (traditionally very, very, very, very poor) marketing and branding departments. Finally, the technical specs of RIM’s devices are criticized from all corners, regardless of the colour or class of device (i.e. Pearl, Curve, Torch, Bold, etc), and regardless of whether the device is targeted at professional, prosumer, or consumer markets.

The other issue with the article is her analysis of the LG Windows Phone. What she’s dead right on: LG ‘partnered’ with Jill Sander to inflate the device’s cost and try to make it appeal to a certain market segment. Yep, that’s attempting to sell a device to consumers interested in or intrigued by Sander’s line of products. Where Johnston is wrong, however, is in her effort to equate low-speced Windows Phones with high cost phones.

Unlike Android and iPhone, Microsoft’s mobile phones almost universally have poor technical specifications compared to the competition. That said, Microsoft has tweaked their devices such that the specifications really don’t matter: you get excellent performance in spite of the device using older tech. As such, I don’t really think that the technical critique rings terribly true – women aren’t expected to purchase crappy Windows phones any differently then men are – though I certainly agree around the ‘branding’ of the LG device to unnecessarily inflate costs and attract a dominantly female market.

Anyways: go read the piece and develop your own opinion. Despite my two bones to pick with her evidence I think that the thesis holds and is well supported. She’s created a piece that’s short and critical, if not as deep or as powerful a critique as I’d have liked. Hopefully we see more tech sites – and mainstream news sources! – similarly take companies to task for their attempts to sell second-rate, unnecessarily gendered, products to women.

Categories
Links

Gorgeous Windows 8 UI Concept

The Verge has a terrific piece on a concept user interface for Windows 8. It’s really, really worth taking a look at: if Windows looked that good (and, *ahem*, wasn’t a pain in the ass to run over the long-haul) then I think an awful lot of people could be visually convinced to switch from OS X to Windows.