Please vote for the social security blogger awards!

Alan Shimmy has the nominations for the 2014 Social Security bloggers award!

New School has been nominated for most entertaining, while Emergent Chaos has been nominated for best representing the security industry and the hall of fame.

Now, I have no idea what it means that Emergent Chaos would represent the security industry. I’m hopeful that it’s intended as a complement.

What’s Copyright, Doc?

I blogged yesterday about all the new works that have entered the public domain as their copyright expired in the United States. If you missed it, that’s because exactly nothing entered the public domain yesterday.

Read more — but only commentary, because there’s no newly free work — at “What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014?

It’s near-impossible to see how our insanely long copyright terms, or their never-ending extensions encourage Dr. Seuss, Ayn Rand, Jack Kerouac or Ian Fleming to keep producing new work. Those authors have been richly rewarded for their work. But it’s easy to see how keeping those works under copyright reduces creative re-use of our collective cultural heritage.

What to do for randomness today?

In light of recent news, such as “FreeBSD washing Intel-chip randomness” and “alleged NSA-RSA scheming,” what advice should we give engineers who want to use randomness in their designs?


My advice for software engineers building things used to be to rely on the OS to get it right. That defers the problem to a small number of smart people. Is that still the right advice, despite recent news? The right advice is pretty clearly not that a normal software engineer building in Ruby on Rails or asp.net should go and roll their own. It also cannot be that they spend days wading through debates. Experts ought to be providing guidance on what to do.

Is the right thing to hash together the OS and something else? If so, precisely what something else?

What Price Privacy, Paying For Apps edition

There’s a new study on what people would pay for privacy in apps. As reported by Techflash:

A study by two University of Colorado Boulder economists, Scott Savage and Donald Waldman, found the average user would pay varying amounts for different kinds of privacy: $4.05 to conceal contact lists, $2.28 to keep their browser history private, $2.12 to eliminate advertising on apps, $1.19 to conceal personal locations, $1.75 to conceal the phone’s ID number and $3.58 to conceal the contents of text messages.

Those numbers seem small, but they’re in the context of app pricing, which is generally a few bucks. If those numbers combine linearly, people being willing to pay up to $10 more for a private version is a very high valuation. (Of course, the numbers will combine in ways that are not strictly rational. Consumers satisfice.

A quick skim of the article leads me to think that they didn’t estimate app maker benefit from these privacy changes. How much does a consumer contact list go for? (And how does that compare to the fines for improperly revealing it?) How much does an app maker make per person whose eyeballs they sell to show ads?

A Mini-Review of “The Practice of Network Security Monitoring”

NSM book coverRecently the kind folks at No Starch Press sent me a review copy of Rich Bejtlich’s newest book The Practice of Network Security Monitoring and I can’t recommend it enough. It is well worth reading from a theory perspective, but where it really shines is digging into the nuts and bolts of building an NSM program from the ground up. He has essentially built a full end to end tutorial on a broad variety of tools (especially Open Source ones) that will help with every aspect of the program, from collection to analysis to reporting.

As someone who used to own security monitoring and incident response for various organizations, the book was a great refresher on the why and wherefores of building an NSM program and it was really interesting to see how much the tools have evolved over the last 10 years or so since I was in the trenches with the bits and bytes. This is a great resource though regardless of your level of experience and will be a great reference work for years to come. Go read it…

What will the archaeologists think?

Over at the BBC, we read that the “home of Anakin Skywalker threatened by dune,” with awesome pictures:

So my question is, what will archaeologists think in 1,000 years when they dig this up? How many careers will be wasted trying to link the bizarre architecture to some real culture? How many anthropologists will be confused by the strange objects they find?

I hope someone has at least left them a note.

Which and That

Can we just agree that “which” and “that” are pretty much interchangable? If you’re relying on a modern audience to be able to perceive the difference in meaning between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses, you’ve pretty much already lost.

Which, as they say, makes a mockery of that rule.

Alternately, “That, as they say, makes a mockery of that rule.”

Alternately, “That, as they say, makes a mockery of which rule.”

I think we may be taking this too far.

Small thoughts on Doug Engelbart

I just re-read “A few words on Doug Engelbart.” If you’ve been reading the news lately, you’re probably seen a headline like “Douglas C. Engelbart, Inventor of the Computer Mouse, Dies at 88,” or seen him referred to as the fellow who gave the “mother of all demos.” But as Bret Victor points out, to focus on the mouse (or “The Demo”) is to miss the point. The mouse was, in a very important way, a spin-off from his real work.

The work that Engelbart cared about was how to augment human cognition. By finding the right problem, at the right time, Engelbart found himself in a position where the spin-offs from his research agenda were, of themselves, tremendously important. (The formulation of “the right problem, at the right time” comes from Hamming’s talk, “You and Your Research“, which is well worth reading. It’s also clear from the Augmentation paper that Engelbart had a staged approach in which he could build towards his final goal, aligning with Hamming’s “right way.”)

So when you hear people talking about the inventor of the mouse, you might give some thought to the question of what you can do to conceptualize your work so that you get important results and impact.

To make that more concrete, in my own case, the way I’m approaching information security is to ask “why do things go wrong so often?” This forces me to think about the ways and frequency that they go wrong, and what we can do about them. It also led me into thinking about how we can make security thinking more accessible, resulting in some games and our NEAT advice on better warnings.