… what’s the fun in having an Internet if you can’t, well, “net” on it?

Sometimes – and I hope this doesn’t come as too much of a surprise to my readers – sometimes, there are bad people, and they do bad things with computers.  These bad things are often about stopping the good things that computers are supposed to be doing* from happening properly.  This is generally considered not to be what you want to happen**.

For this reason, when we architect and design systems, we often try to enforce isolation between components.  I’ve had a couple of very interesting discussions over the past week about how to isolate various processes from each other, using different types of isolation, so I thought it might be interesting to go through some of the different types of isolation that we see out there.  For the record, I’m not an expert on all different types of system, so I’m going to talk some history****, and then I’m going to concentrate on Linux*****, because that’s what I know best.

In the beginning

In the beginning, computers didn’t talk to one another.  It was relatively difficult, therefore, for the bad people to do their bad things unless they physically had access to the computers themselves, and even if they did the bad things, the repercussions weren’t very widespread because there was no easy way for them to spread to other computers.  This was good.

Much of the conversation below will focus on how individual computers act as hosts for a variety of different processes, so I’m going to refer to individual computers as “hosts” for the purposes of this post.  Isolation at this level – host isolation – is still arguably the strongest type available to us.  We typically talk about “air-gapping”, where there is literally an air gap – no physical network connection – between one host and another, but we also mean no wireless connection either.  You might think that this is irrelevant in the modern networking world, but there are classes of usage where it is still very useful, the most obvious being for Certificate Authorities, where the root certificate is so rarely accessed – and so sensitive – that there is good reason not to connect the host on which it is stored to be connected to any other computer, and to use other means, such as smart-cards, a printer, or good old pen and paper to transfer information from it.

And then…

And then came networks.  These allow hosts to talk to each other.  In fact, by dint of the Internet, pretty much any host can talk to any other host, given a gateway or two.  So along came network isolation to try to stop tha.  Network isolation is basically trying to re-apply host isolation, after people messed it up by allowing hosts to talk to each other******.

Later, some smart alec came up with the idea of allowing multiple processes to be on the same host at the same time.  The OS and kernel were trusted to keep these separate, but sometimes that wasn’t enough, so then virtualisation came along, to try to convince these different processes that they weren’t actually executing alongside anything else, but had their own environment to do their old thing.  Sadly, the bad processes realised this wasn’t always true and found ways to get around this, so hardware virtualisation came along, where the actual chips running the hosts were recruited to try to convince the bad processes that they were all alone in the world.  This should work, only a) people don’t always program the chips – or the software running on them – properly, and b) people decided that despite wanting to let these processes run as if they were on separate hosts, they also wanted them to be able to talk to processes which really were on other hosts.  This meant that networking isolation needed to be applied not just at the host level, but at the virtual host level, as well******.

A step backwards?

Now, in a move which may seem retrograde, it occurred to some people that although hardware virtualisation seemed like a great plan, it was also somewhat of a pain to administer, and introduced inefficiencies that they didn’t like: e.g. using up lots of RAM and lots of compute cycles.  These were often the same people who were of the opinion that processes ought to be able to talk to each other – what’s the fun in having an Internet if you can’t, well, “net” on it?  Now we, as security folks, realise how foolish this sounds – allowing processes to talk to each other just encourages the bad people, right? – but they won the day, and containers came along. Containers allow lots of processes to be run on a host in a lightweight way, and rely on kernel controls – mainly namespaces – to ensure isolation********.  In fact, there’s more you can do: you can use techniques like system call trapping to intercept the things that processes are attempting and stop them if they look like the sort of things they shouldn’t be attempting*********.

And, of course, you can write frameworks at the application layer to try to control what the different components of an application system can do – that’s basically the highest layer, and you’re just layering applications on applications at this point.

Systems thinking

So here’s where I get to the chance to mention one of my favourite topics: systems.  As I’ve said before, by “system” here I don’t mean an individual computer (hence my definition of host, above), but a set of components that work together.  The thing about isolation is that it works best when applied to a system.

Let me explain.  A system, at least as I’d define it for the purposes of this post, is a set of components that work together but don’t have knowledge of external pieces.  Most important, they don’t have knowledge of different layers below them.  Systems may impose isolation on applications at higher layers, because they provide abstractions which allow higher systems to be able to ignore them, but by virtue of that, systems aren’t – or shouldn’t be – aware of the layers below them.

A simple description of the layers – and it doesn’t always hold, partly because networks are tricky things, and partly because there are various ways to assemble the stack – may look like this.

Application (top layer)
System trapping
Hardware virtualisation
Host (bottom layer)

As I intimated above, this is a (gross) simplification, but the point holds that the basic rule is that you can enforce isolation upwards in the layers of the stack, but you can’t enforce it downwards.  Lower layer isolation is therefore generally stronger than higher layer isolation.   This shouldn’t come as a huge surprise to anyone who’s used to considering network stacks – the principle is the same – but it’s helpful to lay out and explain the principles from time to time, and the implications for when you’re designing and architecting.

Because if you are considering trust models and are defining trust domains, you need to be very, very careful about defining whether – and how – these domains spread across the layer boundaries.  If you miss a boundary out when considering trust domains, you’ve almost certainly messed up, and need to start again.  Trust domains are important in this sort of conversation because the boundaries between trust domains are typically where you want to be able to enforce and police isolation.

The conversations I’ve had recently basically ran into problems because what people really wanted to do was apply lower layer isolation from layers above which had no knowledge of the bottom layers, and no way to reach into the control plane for those layers.  We had to remodel, and I think that we came up with some sensible approaches.  It was as I was discussing these approaches that it occurred to me that it would have been a whole lot easier to discuss them if we’d started out with a discussion of layers: hence this blog post.  I hope it’s useful.


*although they may well not be, because, as I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned before on this blog, the people trying to make the computers do the good things quite often get it wrong.

**unless you’re one of the bad people. But I’m pretty sure they don’t read this blog, so we’re OK***.

***if you are a bad person, and you read this blog,  would you please mind pretending, just for now, that you’re a good person?  Thank you.  It’ll help us all sleep much better in our beds.

****which I’m absolutely going to present in an order that suits me, and generally neglect to check properly.  Tough.

*****s/Linux/GNU Linux/g; Natch.

******for some reason, this seemed like a good idea at the time.

*******for those of you who are paying attention, we’ve got to techniques like VXLAN and SR-IOV.

********kernel purists will try to convince you that there’s no mention of containers in the Linux kernel, and that they “don’t really exist” as a concept.  Try downloading the kernel source and doing a search for “container” if you want some ammunition to counter such arguments.

*********this is how SELinux works, for instance.

Thinking like a (systems) architect

“…I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.” – Mr Justice Stewart.

My very first post on this blog, some six months ago*, was entitled “Systems security – why it matters“, and it turns out that posts where I talk** about architecture are popular, so I thought I’d go a bit further into what I think being an architect is about.  First of all, I’d like to reference two books which helped me come to some sort of understanding about the art of being an architect.  I read them a long time ago****, but I still dip into them from time to time.  I’m going to link to the publisher’s***** website, rather than to any particular bookseller:

What’s interesting about them is that they both have multiple points of view expressed in them: some contradictory – even within each book.  And this rather reflects the fact that I believe that being a systems architect is an art, or a discipline.  Different practitioners will have different views about it.  You can talk about Computer Science being a hard science, and there are parts of it which are, but much of software engineering (lower case intentional) goes beyond that.  The same, I think, is even more true for systems architecture: you may be able to grok what it is once you know it, but it’s very difficult to point to something – even a set of principles – and say, “that is systems architecture”.  Sometimes, the easiest way to define something is by defining what it’s not: search for “I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”******

Let me, however, try to give some examples of the sort of things you should expect to see when someone (or a group of people) is doing good systems architecture:

  • pictures: if you can’t show the different components of a system in a picture, I don’t believe that you can fully describe what each does, or how they interact.  If you can’t separate them out, you don’t have a properly described system, so you have no architecture.  I know that I’m heavily visually oriented, but for me this feels like a sine qua non********.
  • a data description: if you don’t know what data is in your system, you don’t know what it does.
  • an entity description: components, users, printers, whatever: you need to know what’s doing what so that you can describe what the what is that’s being done to it, and what for*********.
  • an awareness of time: this may sound like a weird one, but all systems (of any use) process data through time.  If you don’t think about what will change, you won’t understand what will do the changing, and you won’t be able to consider what might go wrong if things get changed in ways you don’t expect, or by components that shouldn’t be doing the changing in the first place.
  • some thinking on failure modes: I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: “things will go wrong.”  You can’t be expected to imagine all the things that might go wrong, but you have a responsibility to consider what might happen to different components and data – and therefore to the operation of the system of the whole – if********** they fall over.

There are, of course, some very useful tools and methodologies (the use of UML views is a great example) which can help you with all of these.  But you don’t need to be an expert in all of them – or even any one of them – to be a good systems architect.

One last thing I’d add, though, and I’m going to call it the “bus and amnesiac dictum”***********:

  • In six months’ time, you’ll have forgotten the details or been hit by a bus: document it.  All of it.

You know it makes sense.

*this note is for nothing other than to catch those people who go straight to this section, hoping for a summary of the main article.  You know who you are, and you’re busted.

**well, write, I guess, but it feels like I’m chatting at people, so that’s how I think of it***

***yes, I’m going out of my way to make the notes even less info-filled than usual.  Deal with it.

****seven years is a long time, right?

*****almost “of course”, though I believe they’re getting out of the paper book publishing biz, sadly.

******this is a famous comment from a case called from the U.S. called “Jacobellis v. Ohio” which I’m absolutely not going to quote in full here, because although it might generate quite a lot of traffic, it’s not the sort of traffic I want on this blog*******.

*******I did some searching found the word: it’s apophasis.  I love that word.  Discovered it during some study once, forgot it.  Glad to have re-found it.

********I know: Greek and Latin in one post.  Sehr gut, ja?

********.*I realise that this is a complete mess of a sentence.  But it does have a charm to it, yes?  And you know what it means, you really do.

**********when.  I meant “when”.

***********more Latin.

The simple things, sometimes…

I (re-)learned an important lesson this week: if you’re an attacker, start at the front door.

This week I’ve had an interesting conversation with an organisation with which I’m involved*.  My involvement is as a volunteer, and has nothing to do with my day job – in other words, I have nothing to do with the organisation’s security.  However, I got an email from them telling me that in order to perform a particular action, I should now fill in an online form, which would then record the information that they needed.

So this week’s blog entry will be about entering information on an online form.  One of the simplest tasks that you might want to design – and secure – for any website.  I wish I could say that it’s going to be a happy tale.

I had look at this form, and then I looked at the URL they’d given me.  It wasn’t a fully qualified URL, in that it had no protocol component, so I copied and pasted it into a browser to find out what would happen. I had a hope that it might automatically redirect to an https-served page.  It didn’t.  It was an http-served page.

Well, not necessarily so bad, except that … it wanted some personal information.  Ah.

So, I cheated: I changed the http:// … to an https:// and tried again**.  And got an error.  The certificate was invalid.  So even if they changed the URL, it wasn’t going to help.

So what did I do?  I got in touch with my contact at the organisation, advising them that there was a possibility that they might be in breach of their obligations under Data Protection legislation.

I got a phone call a little later.  Not from a technical person – though there was a techie in the background.  They said that they’d spoken with the IT and security departments, and that there wasn’t a problem.  I disagreed, and tried to explain.

The first argument was whether there was any confidential information being entered.  They said that there was no linkage between the information being entered and the confidential information held in a separate system (I’m assuming database). So I stepped back, and asked about the first piece of information requested on the form: my name.  I tried a question: “Could the fact that I’m a member of this organisation be considered confidential in any situation?”

“Yes, it could.”

So, that’s one issue out of the way.

But it turns out that the information is stored encrypted on the organisation’s systems.  “Great,” I said, “but while it’s in transit, while it’s being transmitted to those systems, then somebody could read it.”

And this is where communication stopped.  I tried to explain that unless the information from the form is transmitted over https, then people could read it.  I tried to explain that if I sent it over my phone, then people at my mobile provider could read it.  I tried a simple example: I tried to explain that if I transmitted it from a laptop in a Starbucks, then people who run the Starbucks systems – or even possibly other Starbucks customers – could see it.  But I couldn’t get through.

In the end, I gave up.  It turns out that I can avoid using the form if I want to.  And the organisation is of the firm opinion that it’s not at risk: that all the data that is collected is safe.  It was quite clear that I wasn’t going to have an opportunity to argue this with their IT or security people: although I did try to explain that this is an area in which I have some expertise, they’re not going to let any Tom, Dick or Harry*** bother their IT people****.

There’s no real end to this story, other than to say that sometimes it’s the small stuff we need to worry about.  The issues that, as security professionals, we feel are cut and dried, are sometimes the places where there’s still lots of work to be done.  I wish it weren’t the case, because frankly, I’d like to spend my time educating people on the really tricky things, and explaining complex concepts around cryptographic protocols, trust domains and identity, but I (re-)learned an important lesson this week: if you’re an attacker, start at the front door.  It’s probably not even closed: let alone locked.

*I’m not going to identify the organisation: it wouldn’t be fair or appropriate.  Suffice to say that they should know about this sort of issue.

**I know: all the skillz!

***Or “J. Random User”.  Insert your preferred non-specific identifier here.

****I have some sympathy with this point of view: you don’t want to have all of their time taken up by random “experts”.  The problem is when there really _are_ problems.  And the people calling them maybe do know their thing.

“Zero-trust”: my love/hate relationship

… “explicit-trust networks” really is a much better way of describing what’s going on here.

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post called “What is trust?”, about how we need to be more precise about what we mean when we talk about trust in IT security.  I’m sure it’s case of confirmation bias*, but since then I’ve been noticing more and more references to “zero-trust networks”.  This both gladdens and annoys me, a set of conflicting emotions almost guaranteed to produce a new blog post.

Let’s start with the good things about the term.  “Zero-trust networks” are an attempt to describe an architectural approach which address the disappearance of macro-perimeters within the network.  In other words, people have realised that putting up a firewall or two between one network and another doesn’t have a huge amount of effect when traffic flows across an organisation – or between different organisations – are very complex and don’t just follow one or two easily defined – and easily defended – routes.  This problem is exacerbated when the routes are not only multiple – but also virtual.  I’m aware that all network traffic is virtual, of course, but in the old days**, even if you had multiple routing rules, ingress and egress of traffic all took place through a single physical box, which meant that this was a good place to put controls***.

These days (mythical as they were) have gone.  Not only do we have SDN (Software-Defined Networking) moving packets around via different routes willy-nilly, but networks are overwhelmingly porous.  Think about your “internal network”, and tell me that you don’t have desktops, laptops and mobile phones connected to it which have multiple links to other networks which don’t go through your corporate firewall.  Even if they don’t******, when they leave your network and go home for the night, those laptops and mobile phones – and those USB drives that were connected to the desktop machines – are free to roam the hinterlands of the Internet******* and connect to pretty much any system they want.

And it’s not just end-point devices, but components of the infrastructure which are much more likely to have – and need – multiple connections to different other components, some of which may be on your network, and some of which may not.  To confuse matters yet further, consider the “Rise of the Cloud”, which means that some of these components may start on “your” network, but may migrate – possibly in real time – to a completely different network.  The rise of micro-services (see my recent post describing the basics of containers) further exacerbates the problem, as placement of components seems to become irrelevant, so you have an ever-growing (and, if you’re not careful, exponentially-growing) number of flows around the various components which comprise your application infrastructure.

What the idea of “zero-trust networks” says about this – and rightly – is that a classical, perimeter-based firewall approach becomes pretty much irrelevant in this context.  There are so many flows, in so many directions, between so many components, which are so fluid, that there’s no way that you can place firewalls between all of them.  Instead, it says, each component should be responsible for controlling the data that flows in and out of itself, and should that it has no trust for any other component with which it may be communicating.

I have no problem with the starting point for this – which is as far as some vendors and architects take it: all users should always be authenticated to any system, and auhorised before they access any service provided by that system. In fact, I’m even more in favour of extending this principle to components on the network: it absolutely makes sense that a component should control access its services with API controls.  This way, we can build distributed systems made of micro-services or similar components which can be managed in ways which protect the data and services that they provide.

And there’s where the problem arises.  Two words: “be managed”.

In order to make this work, there needs to be one or more policy-dictating components (let’s call them policy engines) from which other components can derive their policy for enforcing controls.  The client components must have a level of trust in these policy engines so that they can decide what level of trust they should have in the other components with which they communicate.

This exposes a concomitant issue: these components are not, in fact, in charge of making the decisions about who they trust – which is how “zero-trust networks” are often defined.  They may be in charge of enforcing these decisions, but not the policy with regards to the enforcement.  It’s like a series of military camps: sentries may control who enters and exits (enforcement), but those sentries apply orders that they’ve been given (policies) in order to make those decisions.

Here, then, is what I don’t like about “zero-trust networks” in a few nutshells:

  1. although components may start from a position of little trust in other components, that moves to a position of known trust rather than maintaining a level of “zero-trust”
  2. components do not decide what other components to trust – they enforce policies that they have been given
  3. components absolutely do have to trust some other components – the policy engines – or there’s no way to bootstrap the system, nor to enforce policies.

I know it’s not so snappy, but “explicit-trust networks” really is a much better way of describing what’s going on here.  What I do prefer about this description is it’s a great starting point to think about trust domains.  I love trust domains, because they allow you to talk about how to describe shared policy between various components, and that’s what you really want to do in the sort of architecture that’s I’ve talked about above.  Trust domains allow you to talk about issues such as how placement of components is often not irrelevant, about how you bootstrap your distributed systems, about how components are not, in the end, responsible for making decisions about how much they trust other components, or what they trust those other components to do.

So, it looks like I’m going to have to sit down soon and actually write about trust domains.  I’ll keep you posted.


*one of my favourite cognitive failures

**the mythical days that my children believe in, where people have bouffant hairdos, the Internet could fit on a single Winchester disk, and Linux Torvalds still lived in Finland.

***of course, there was no such perfect time – all I should need to say to convince you is one word: “Joshua”****

****yes, this is another filmic***** reference.

*****why, oh why doesn’t my spell-checker recognise this word?

******or you think they don’t – they do.

*******and the “Dark Web”: ooooOOOOoooo.

Is blockchain a security topic?

… we need to understand how systems and the business work together …

Blockchains are big news at the moment.  There are conferences, start-ups, exhibitions, open source projects – all we need now are hipster-run blockchain-themed cafés*.  If you’re looking for an initial overview, you could do worse than the Wikipedia entry – that’s not the aim of this post.

Before we go much further, one useful thing to know about many blockchains projects is that they aren’t.  Blockchains, that is.  They are, more accurately, distributed ledgers****.  For now, however, let’s roll in blockchain and distributed ledger technologies and assume we’re talking about the same thing: it’ll make it easier for now, and in most cases, the difference is immaterial for our discussions.

I’m not planning to go into the basics here, but we should briefly talk about the main link with crypto and blockchains, and that’s the blocks themselves. In order to build a block, a set of transactions to put into a blockchain, and then to link it into the blockchain, cryptographic hashes are used.   This is the most obvious relationship that the various blockchains have with cryptography.

There’s another, equally important one, however, which is about identity*****.  Now, for many blockchain-based crypto-currencies, a major part of the point of using them at all is that identity isn’t, at one level, important.  There are many actors in a crypto-currency who may be passing each other vanishingly small or eye-wateringly big amounts of money, and they don’t need to know who each other is in order to make transactions.  To be more clear, the uniqueness of each actor absolutely is important – I want to be sure that I’m sending money to the entity who has just rendered me a service – but being able to tie that unique identity to a particular person IRL****** is not required.  To use the technical term, such a system is pseudonymous.  Now, if pseudonymity is a key part of the system, then protecting that property is likely to be important to its users.  Crypto-currencies do this with various degrees of success.  The lesson here is that you should do some serious reading and research if you’re planning to use a crypto-currency, and this property matters to you.

On the other hand, there are many blockchain/distributed ledger technologies where pseudonymity is not a required property, and may actually be unwanted.  These are the types of system in which I am most generally interested from a professional point of view.

In particular, I’m interested in permissioned blockchains.  Permissionless (or non-permissioned) blockchains are those where you don’t need permission from anyone in order to participate.  You can see why pseudonimity and permissionless blockchains can fit well today: most (all?) crypto-currencies are permissionless.  Permissioned blockchains are a different kettle of fish, however, and they’re the ones at which many businesses are looking at the moment.  In these cases, you know the people or entities who are going to be participating – or, if you don’t know now, you’ll want to check on them and their identity before they join your blockchain (or distributed ledger).  And here’s why blockchains are interesting in business********.  It’s not just that identity is interesting, though it is, because how you marry a particular entity to an identity and make sure that this binding is not spoofable over the lifetime of the system is difficult, difficult, lemon difficult******** – but there’s more to it than that.

What’s really interesting is that if you’re thinking about moving to a permissioned blockchain or distributed ledger with permissioned actors, then you’re going to have to spend some time thinking about trust.  You’re unlikely to be using a proof-of-work system for making blocks – there’s little point in a permissioned system – so who decides what comprises as “valid” block, that the rest of the system should agree on?  Well, you can rotate around some (or all) of the entities, or you can have a random choice, or you can elect a small number of über-trusted entities.  Combinations of these schemes may also work.  If these entities all exist within one trust domain, which you control, then fine, but what if they’re distributors, or customers, or partners, or other banks, or manufacturers, or semi-autonomous drones, or vehicles in a commercial fleet?  You really need to ensure that the trust relationships that you’re encoding into your implementation/deployment truly reflect the legal and IRL trust relationships that you have with the entities which are being represented in your system.

And the problem is that once you’ve deployed that system, it’s likely to be very difficult to backtrack, adjust or reset the trust relationships that you’ve designed in.  And if you don’t think about the questions I noted above about long-term bindings of identity, you’re going to be in some serious problems when, for instance:

  • an entity is spoofed;
  • an entity goes bankrupt;
  • an entity is acquired by another entity (buy-outs, acquisitions, mergers, etc.);
  • an entity moves into a different jurisdiction;
  • legislation or regulation changes.

These are all issues that are well catered for within existing legal frameworks (with the possible exception of the first), but which are more difficult to manage within the sorts of systems with which we are generally concerned in this blog.

Please don’t confuse the issues noted above with the questions around how to map legal agreements to the so-called “smart contracts” in blockchain/distributed ledger systems.  That’s another thorny (and, to be honest, not unconnected issue), but this one goes right to the heart of what a system is, and it’s the reason that people need to think very hard about what they’re really trying to achieve when they adopt our latest buzz-word technology.  Yet again, we need to understand how systems and the business work together, and be honest about the fit.


*if you come across one of these, please let me know.  Put a picture in a comment or something.**

**even better – start one yourself. Make sure I get an invitation to the opening***.

***and free everything.

****there have been onlines spats about this.  I’m not joining in.

*****there are others, but I’ll save those for another day.

******IRL == “In Real Life”.  I’m so old-skool.

*******for me.  If you’ve got this far into the article, I’m hoping there’s an evens chance that the same will go for you, too.

********I’ll leave this as an exercise for the reader.  Watch it, though, and the TV series on which it’s based.  Unless you don’t like swearing, in which case don’t watch either.

“What is trust?”

I trust my brother and my sister with my life.

Academic discussions about trust abound*.  Particularly in the political and philosophical spheres, the issue of how people trust in institutions, and when and where they don’t, is an important topic of discussion, particularly in the current political climate.  Trust is also a concept which is very important within security, however, and not always well-defined or understood.  It’s central,to my understanding of what security means, and how I discuss it, so I’m going to spend this post trying to explain what I mean by “trust”.

Here’s my definition of trust, and three corollaries.

  • “Trust is the assurance that one entity holds that another will perform particular actions according to a specific expectation.”
  • My first corollary**: “Trust is always contextual.”
  • My second corollary:” One of the contexts for trust is always time”.
  • My third corollary: “Trust relationships are not symmetrical.”

Why do we need this set of definitions?  Surely we all know what trust is?

The problem is that whilst humans are very good at establishing trust with other humans (and sometimes betraying it), we tend to do so in a very intuitive – and therefore imprecise – way.  “I trust my brother” is all very well as a statement, and may well be true, but such a statement is always made contextually, and that context is usually implicit.  Let me provide an example.

I trust my brother and my sister with my life.  This is literally true for me, and you’ll notice that I’ve already contextualised the statement already: “with my life”.  Let’s be a little more precise.  My brother is a doctor, and my sister a trained scuba diving professional.  I would trust my brother to provide me with emergency medical aid, and I would trust my sister to service my diving gear****.  But I wouldn’t trust my brother to service my diving gear, nor my sister to provide me with emergency medical aid.  In fact, I need to be even more explicit, because there are times which I would trust my sister in the context of emergency medical aid: I’m sure she’d be more than capable of performing CPR, for example.  On the other hand, my brother is a paediatrician, not a surgeon, so I’d not be very confident about allowing him to perform an appendectomy on me.

Let’s look at what we’ve addressed.  First, we dealt with my definition:

  • the entities are me and my siblings;
  • the actions ranged from performing an emergency appendectomy to servicing my scuba gear;
  • the expectation was actually fairly complex, even in this simple example: it turns out that trusting someone “with my life” can mean a variety of things from performing specific actions to remedy an emergency medical conditions to performing actions which, if neglected or incorrectly carried out, could cause death in the future.

We also addressed the first corollary:

  • the contexts included my having a cardiac arrest, requiring an appendectomy, and planning to go scuba diving.

Let’s add time – the second corollary:

  • my sister has not recently renewed her diving instructor training, so I might feel that I have less trust in her to service my diving gear than I might have done five years ago.

The third corollary is so obvious in human trust relationships that we often ignore it, but it’s very clear in our examples:

  • I’m neither a doctor nor a trained scuba diving instructor, so my brother and my sister trust me neither to provide emergency medical care nor to service their scuba gear.******

What does this mean to us in the world of IT security?  It means that we need to be a lot more precise about trust, because humans come to this arena with a great many assumptions.  When we talk about a “trusted platform”, what does that mean?  It must surely mean that the platform is trusted by an entity (the workload?) to perform particular actions (provide processing time and memory?) whilst meeting particular expectations (not inspecting program memory? maintaining the integrity of data?).  The context of what we mean for a “trusted platform” is likely to be very different between a mobile phone, a military installation and an IoT gateway.  And that trust may erode over time (are patches applied? is there a higher likelihood that an attacker my have compromised the platform a day, a month or a year after the workload was provisioned to it?).

We should also never simply say, following the third corollary, that “these entities trust each other”.  A web server and a browser may have established trust relationships, for example, but these are not symmetrical.  The browser has  probably established with sufficient assurance for the person operating it to give up credit card details that the web server represents the provider of particular products and services.  The web server has probably established that the browser currently has permission to access the account of the user operating it.

Of course, we don’t need to be so explicit every time we make such a statement.  We can explain these relationships in definitions of documents, but we must be careful to clarify what the entities, the expectations, the actions, the contexts and possible changes in context.  Without this, we risk making dangerous assumptions about how these entities operate and what breakdowns in trust mean and could entail.

*Which makes me thinks of rabbits.

**I’m hoping that we can all agree on these – otherwise we may need to agree on a corollary bypass.***

***I’m sorry.

****I’m a scuba diver, too.  At least in theory.*****

*****Bringing up children is expensive and time-consuming, it turns out.

******I am, however, a trained CFR, so I hope they’d trust me to perform CPR on them.

Systems security – why it matters

… to understand how things will work together, you have to consider them as a system…

“A system is a set of interacting or interdependent component parts forming a complex or intricate whole.  Every system is delineated by its spatial and temporal boundaries, surrounded and influenced by its environment, described by its structure and purpose and expressed in its functioning.” (Wikipedia: system)

I’ve been involved with various types of security over the years, from features within products to storage, network and other communications security, and including stand-alone application security, cryptographic protocol design and other weird and wonderful issues like why you shouldn’t lose too much weight on holiday.*  That’s a subject for another post.  But what I keep coming back to is systems security.

And that’s because you can design all the security into a particular component that you like, you take as much care in coding it as you like, you can ensure that you compile is safely, you can test it to within an inch of its life, and ensure that it is deployed where and how you like – but if it’s part of a system, and that system has other holes, than you might as well not bother.  We** often talk about “the weakest link in the chain” as a way of pointing out that if you have a single problem in a set of components, that’s what will break.  That’s too simplistic an analogy***, though, as different components interact in different ways with each other, dependent on a variety of factors.

In order to understand how things will work together, you have to consider them as a system, to define what their behaviour as a system will be, and to architect the system with an understanding of the risks, threats and likely attackers that it will have to deal with in its lifetime.

Much of the content this blog may discuss components, but I hope that I’ll manage to explain their place in systems, and how they work together.  Join me: I should be fun****.

*that’s a subject for another post – it’ll be fun

**by which I mean the nebulous “security community”

***don’t start me on analogies

****another disclaimer – I think that security is fun.  Not everybody agrees.  I’m presuming that the fact that you’ve made it this far means that you are at least open to the suggestion.