My talk at Black Hat this year was “Elevation of Privilege, the Easy Way to Get Started Threat Modeling.” I covered the game, why it works and where games work. The link will take you to the PPTX deck.
- Breath mints
Ariel Waissbein has been building security games for a while now. He was They were kind enough to send a copy of his their “Exploit” game after I released Elevation of Privilege. [Update: I had confused Ariel Futoransky and Ariel Waissbein, because Waissbein wrote the blog post. Sorry!] At Defcon, he and his colleagues will be running a more capture-the-flag sort of game, titled “Hide and seek the backdoor:”
For starters, a backdoor is said to be a piece of code intentionally added to a program to grant remote control of the program — or the host that runs it – to its author, that at the same time remains difficult to detect by anybody else.
But this last aspect of the definition actually limits its usefulness, as it implies that the validity of the backdoor’s existence is contingent upon the victim’s failure to detect it. It does not provide any clue at all into how to create or detect a backdoor successfully.
A few years ago, the CoreTex team did an internal experiment at Core and designed the Backdoor Hiding Game, which mimics the old game Dictionary. In this new game, the game master provides a description of the functionalities of a program, together with the setting where it runs, and the players must then develop programs that fulfill these functionalities and have a backdoor. The game master then mixes all these programs with one that he developed and has no backdoors, and gives these to the players. Then, the players must audit all the programs and pick the benign one.
First, I think this is great, and I look forward to seeing it. I do have some questions. What elements of the game can we evaluate and how? A general question we can ask is “Is the game for fun or to advance the state of the art?” (Both are ok and sometimes it’s unclear until knowledge emerges from the chaos of experimentation.) His blog states “We discovered many new hiding techniques,” which is awesome. Games that are fun and advance the state of the art are very hard to create. It’s a seriously cool achievement.
My next question is, how close is the game to the reality of secure software development? How can we transfer knowledge from one to the other? The rules seem to drive backdoors into most code (assuming they all work, (n-1)/n). That’s unlike reality, with a much higher incidence of backdoors than exist in the wild. I’m assuming that the code will all be custom, and thus short enough to create and audit in a game, which also leads to a higher concentration of backdoors per line of code. That different concentration will reward different techniques from those that could scale to a million lines of code.
More generally, do we know how to evaluate hiding techniques? Do hackers playing a game create the same sort of backdoors as disgruntled employees or industrial spies? Because of this contest and the Underhanded C Contests, we have two corpuses of backdoored code. However, I’m not aware of any corpus of deployed backdoor code which we could compare.
So anyway, I look forward to seeing this game at Defcon, and in the future, more serious games for information security.
In “Engineers Are People, Too” Adam Shostack will address an often invisible link in the chain between research on usable security and privacy and delivering that usability: the engineer. All too often, engineers are assumed to have infinite time and skills for usability testing and iteration. They have time to read papers, adapt research ideas to the specifics of their product, and still ship cool new features. This talk will bring together lessons from enabling Microsoft’s thousands of engineers to threat modeling effectively, share some new approaches to engineering security usability, and propose new directions for research.
A fair number of people have asked for the slides, and they’re here: Engineers Are People Too.
I’m a big fan of the book “Back of the Napkin” which is all about using pictures to help with problem solving. Yesterday, I was introduced to a related concept “visual notetaking” where you use images to support other notes you are taking during a meeting. I’m at a two day workshop and we have a professional notetaker who is using this. It really makes the notes much more powerful and useful then just text. Imagine having notes with visual cues to (including but not limited to network diagrams) help you remember what happened. I’m sitting here looking at the posters, the notetaker made in real time with our discussions and it’s amazing how much more useful they are.
[Posting this here to help get the word out – Chris ]
Mini MetriCon 4.5 will be a one-day event, Monday, March 1, 2010, in San Francisco, California. Through the cooperation of RSA, the workshop will be held at the University of San Francisco, within walking distance of the Moscone Center, the location of the RSA Conference, to be held during the same week. Mini MetriCon attendees are eligible for free RSA exhibit passes.
Like its predecessors, Mini Metricon 4.5 is an informal workshop designed to facilitate exchange of new ideas as well as practical experience in using metrics to drive better security, compliance, and risk management. The day will be divided between open/moderated exchange and short presentations. Participants are expected to come prepared to actively interact as either presenters or active listeners (or both).
Place: University of San Francisco (walking distance to the Moscone Center)
Time: 8:30am to 4:30pm
Participation: by invitation.
Attendance: Limited to 80 people
Additional details, including links to past workshops, presentations, and digests, as well as a calendar with important dates and instructions for submitters is available at securitymetrics.org
RSA 2010 Call for Speaking Proposals. You know you want to.
The organizers of the 9th Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium invite you to participate in PETS 2009, to be held at the University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA, on Aug 5-7, 2009.
PETS features leading research in a broad array of topics, with sessions
on network privacy, database privacy, anonymous communication, privacy
policies, and privacy offline. (The PETS 2009 program is here.)
Like last year, we also present the HotPETs workshop, which showcases hot new research in the field.
We will also be presenting the Award for Outstanding Research in Privacy
Enhancing Technologies to researchers who have made an outstanding
contribution to the theory, design, implementation, or deployment of
privacy enhancing technology.
Stipends deadline: July 2
Hotel group rate deadline: July 5
Earlybird registration deadline: July 9
Symposium: August 5-7
Venue and registration information, as well as the program, can be found
at the PETS 2009 website.
We hope to see you in Seattle!
– The PETS 2009 organizers
As I get ready to go to South Africa, I’m thinking a lot about presentations. I’ll be delivering a keynote and a technical/managerial talk at the ITWeb Security Summit. The keynote will be on ‘The Crisis in Information Security’ and the technical talk on Microsoft’s Security Development Lifecycle.
As I think about how to deliver each of these talks, I think about what people will want from each. From a keynote, there should be a broad perspective, aiming to influence the agenda and conversation for the day, the conference and beyond. For a technical talk, I’m starting from “why should we care” and sharing experiences in enough depth that the audience gets practical lessons they can apply to their own work.
Part of being a great presenter is watching others present, and seeing what works for them and what doesn’t. And part of it is watching yourself (painful as that is). Another part is listening to the masters. And in that vein, Garr Reynolds has a great post “Making presentations in the TED style:”
TED has earned a lot of attention over the years for many reasons, including the nature and quality of its short-form conference presentations. All presenters lucky enough to be asked to speak at TED are given 18-minute slots maximum (some are for even less time such as 3- and 6-minute slots). Some who present at TED are not used to speaking on a large stage, or are at least not used to speaking on their topic with strict time restraints. TED does not make a big deal publicly out of the TED Commandments, but many TED presenters have referenced the speaking guidelines in their talks and in their blogs over the years (e.g., Ben Saunders).
Ironically, he closes with:
Bill Gates vs. Bill Gates
Again, you do not have to use slides at TED (or TEDx, etc.), but if you do use slides, think of using them more in the style of Bill Gates the TEDster rather than Bill Gates the bullet point guy from the past. As Bill has shown, everyone can get better at presenting on stage.
I’ll be doing some of both. As both Reynolds and Bill understand, there are better and worse styles. Different styles work well for different people. There’s also a time and a place for each good style of presentation. Understanding yourself, your audience and goals are essential to doing any presentation well.
Of course, style only matters if you’re a professional entertainer, or have something interesting to say. I try hard to be in the latter category.
If you’re in Johannesburg, come see both talks. I’m looking forward to meeting new people, and would love to hear your feedback on either talk, either on the content or the style.