Coming to you in Japanese

We are now multi-lingual.

I have an exciting announcement, which is that starting this week, some of the articles on this blog will also be in Japanese.  My very talented Red Hat colleague Yuki Kubota showed an interest in translating some which she thought might be of interest to Japanese readers, and I jumped at the chance.  I’m very thrilled and humbled.

We’re still ironing out the process, but hopefully (if you already read Japanese), you’ll be able to read the following articles.

We’ll try to add the tag “Japanese” to each of these, as well.

So, a huge thank you to Yuki: we’d love comments – in English or Japanese!

Timely risk or risky times?

Being aware of “the long game”.

On Friday, 29th November 2019, Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones were killed in a terrorist attack.  A number of members of the public (some with with improvised weapons) and of the emergency services acted with great heroism.  I wanted to mention the mention the names of the victims and to praise those involved in stopping him before mentioning the name of the attacker: Usman Khan.  The victims, the attacker were taking part in an offender rehabilitation conference to help offenders released from prison to reintegrate into society: Khan had been convicted to 16 years in prison for terrorist offences.

There’s an important formula that everyone involved in risk – and given that IT security is all about mitigating risk, that’s anyone involved in security – should know. It’s usually expressed thus:

Risk = likelihood x impact

Sometimes likelihood is sometimes expressed as “probability”, impact as “consequence” or “loss”, and I’ve seen some other variants as well, but the version above is generally sufficient for most purposes.

Using the formula

How should you use the formula? Well, it’s most useful for comparing risks and deciding how to mitigate them. Humans are terrible at calculating risk, and any tools that help them[1] is good.  In order to use this formula correctly, you want to compare risks over the same time period.  You could say that almost any eventuality may come to pass over the lifetime of the universe, but comparing the risk of losing broadband access to the risk of your lead developer quitting for another company between the Big Bang and the eventual heat death of the universe is probably not going to give you much actionable information.

Let’s look at the two variables that we need to have in order to calculate risk.  We’ll start with the impact, because I want to devote most of this article to the other part: likelihood.

Impact is what the damage will be if the risk happens.  In a business context, you want to look at the risk of your order system being brought down for a week by malicious attackers.  You might calculate that you would lose £15,000 in orders.  On top of that, there might be a loss of reputation which you might calculate at £30,000.  Fixing the problem might add £10,000.  Add these together, and the impact is £55,000.

What’s the likelihood?  Well, remember that we need to consider a particular time period.  What you choose will depend on what you’re interested in, but a classic use is for budgeting, and so the length of time considered is often a year.  “What is the likelihood of my order system being brought down for a week by malicious attackers over the next twelve months?” is the question you want to ask.  If you decide that it’s 0.005 (or 0.5%), then your risk is calculated thus:

Risk = 0.005 x 55,000

Risk = 275

The units don’t really matter, because what you want to do is compare risks.  If the risk of your order system being brought down through hardware failure is higher (say 500), then you should probably balance the amount of resources you assign to mitigate these risks accordingly.

Time, reputation, trust and risk

What I’m interested in is a set of rather more complicated risks, however: those associated with human behaviour.  I’m very interested in trust, and one of the interesting things about trust is how we decide to trust people.  One way is by their reputation: if someone keeps behaving well over a long period, then we tend to trust them more – or if badly, then to trust them less[2].  If we trust someone more, our calculation of risk is likely to be strongly based on that trust, as our view of the likelihood of a behaviour at odds with the reputation that person holds will be informed by that.

This makes sense: in the absence of perfect information about humans, their motivations and intentions, our view of risk must be based on something, and reputation is actually a fairly good measure for that.  We might say that the likelihood of a customer defaulting on payment terms reduces year by year as we start to think of them as a “trusted customer”.  As the likelihood reduces, we may decide to increase the amount we lend to them – and thereby the impact of defaulting – to keep the risk about the same, year on year.

The risk here is what is sometimes called “playing the long game”.  Humans sometimes manipulate their reputation, or build up a reputation, in order to perform an action once they have gained trust.  Online sellers my make lots of “good” sales in order to get a 5 star rating over time, only to wait and then make a set of “bad” sales, where they don’t ship goods at all, and then just pocket the money.  Or, they may make many small sales in order to build up a good reputation, and then use that reputation to make one big sale which they have no intention of fulfilling.  Online selling sites are wise to some of these tricks, and have algorithms to try to protect buyers (in fact, the same behaviour can be used by sellers in some cases), but these are not perfect.

I’d like to come back to the London Bridge attack.  In this case, it seems likely that the attacker bided his time over many years, behaving well, and raising his “reputation” among those who knew him – the prison staff, parole board, rehabilitation conference organisers, etc. – so that he had the opportunity to perform one major action at odds with that reputation.  The heroism of those around him stopped him being as successful as he may have hoped, but still at the cost of two innocent lives and several serious injuries.

There is no easy way to deal with such issues.  We need reputation, and we need to allow people to show that they have changed and can be integrated into society, but when we make risk calculations based on reputation in any sphere, we should take care to consider whether actors are playing a long game, and what the possible ramifications would be if they were to act at odds with that reputation.

I noted above that humans are bad at calculating risk, and to follow our example of the non-defaulting customer, one mistake might be to increase the credit we give to that customer beyond the balance of the increase of reputation: actually accepting higher risk than we would have done previously, because we consider them trustworthy.  If we do this, we’ve ceased to use the risk formula, and have started to act irrationally.  Don’t do that.


1 – OK, then: “us”.

2 – I’m writing this in the lead up to a UK General Election, and it occurs to me that we actually don’t apply this to most of our politicians.

コンフィデンシャルコンピューティング ー新しいHTTPSとは?


この記事は を翻訳したものです。



Trusted Execution Environment (TEE)などのハードウェアを使って、使用中のデータやアルゴリズムを保護します。コンフィデンシャルコンピューティングは、ホストシステムや攻撃されやすい環境のデータを保護するのです。

TEE とEnarx Project(Nathaniel McCallumと共同創立しているプロジェクトです、参考: Enarx for everyone (a quest) and Enarx goes multi-platform )に付いては何度かブログに投稿しています。





二番目の疑問については、誰も(もしくは他の技術)完全に安全だと偽装できないということです。私たちがすべきなのはthreat model を考慮し、この場合ではTEEが特定の要件に対して十分なセキュリティを提供できるかどうか決定する、ということです。



1 ハードウェアの稼働性:

2 業界の受け入れ状態:

Linux FoundationのConfidential Computing Consortium (CCC)の体制は、どれくらい業界がコンフィデンシャルコンピューティングの共通使用モデルを見つけようとしているか、オープンソースプロジェクトにこのような技術採用を勧めているか、の別のよい例ですね。

その一つがRed Hatが始めたEnarxはCCCのプロジェクトです。

3 オープンソース:




このようにCCCはオープンな開発モデルをであるLinux Foundationに属しているのであり、TEEに関するソフトウェアプロジェクトにCCCに参加するよう、またオープンソースにするように推進しているのです。




2019年12月3日 Mike Bursell


Confidential computing – the new HTTPS?

Security by default hasn’t arrived yet.

Over the past few years, it’s become difficult to find a website which is just “http://…”.  This is because the industry has finally realised that security on the web is “a thing”, and also because it has become easy for both servers and clients to set up and use HTTPS connections.  A similar shift may be on its way in computing across cloud, edge, IoT, blockchain, AI/ML and beyond.  We’ve know for a long time that we should encrypt data at rest (in storage) and in transit (on the network), but encrypting it in use (while processing) has been difficult and expensive.  Confidential computing – providing this type of protection for data and algorithms in use, using hardware capabilities such as Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) – protects data on hosted system or vulnerable environments.

I’ve written several times about TEEs and, of course, the Enarx project of which I’m a co-founder with Nathaniel McCallum (see Enarx for everyone (a quest) and Enarx goes multi-platform for examples).  Enarx uses TEEs, and provides a platform- and language-independent deployment platform to allow you safely to deploy sensitive applications or components (such as micro-services) onto hosts that you don’t trust.  Enarx is, of course, completely open source (we’re using the Apache 2.0 licence, for those with an interest).  Being able to run workloads on hosts that you don’t trust is the promise of confidential computing, which extends normal practice for sensitive data at rest and in transit to data in use:

  • storage: you encrypt your data at rest because you don’t fully trust the underlying storage infrastructure;
  • networking: you encrypt your data in transit because you don’t fully trust the underlying network infrastructure;
  • compute: you encrypt your data in use because you don’t fully trust the underlying compute infrastructure.

I’ve got a lot to say about trust, and the word “fully” in the statements above is important (I actually added it on re-reading what I’d written).  In each case, you have to trust the underlying infrastructure to some degree, whether it’s to deliver your packets or store your blocks, for instance.  In the case of the compute infrastructure, you’re going to have to trust the CPU and associate firmware, just because you can’t really do computing without trusting them (there are techniques such as homomorphic encryption which are beginning to offer some opportunities here, but they’re limited, and the technology still immature).

Questions sometimes come up about whether you should fully trust CPUs, given some of the security problems that have been found with them and also whether they are fully secure against physical attacks on the host in which they reside.

The answer to both questions is “no”, but this is the best technology we currently have available at scale and at a price point to make it generally deployable.  To address the second question, nobody is pretending that this (or any other technology) is fully secure: what we need to do is consider our threat model and decide whether TEEs (in this case) provide sufficient security for our specific requirements.  In terms of the first question, the model that Enarx adopts is to allow decisions to be made at deployment time as to whether you trust a particular set of CPU.  So, for example, of vendor Q’s generation R chips are found to contain a vulnerability, it will be easy to say “refuse to deploy my workloads to R-type CPUs from Q, but continue to deploy to S-type, T-type and U-type chips from Q and any CPUs from vendors P, M and N.”

5 security tips from Santa

Have you been naughty or nice this year?

If you’re reading this in 2019, it’s less than a month to Christmas (as celebrated according to the Western Christian calendar), or Christmas has just passed.  Let’s assume that it’s the former, and that, like all children and IT professionals, it’s time to write your letter to Santa/St Nick/Father Christmas.  Don’t forget, those who have been good get nice presents, and those who don’t get coal.  Coal is not a clean-burning fuel these days, and with climate change well and truly upon us[1], you don’t want to be going for the latter option.

Think back to all of the good security practices you’ve adopted over the past 11 or so months.  And then think back to all the bad security practices you’ve adopted when you should have been doing the right thing.  Oh, dear.  It’s not looking good for you, is it?

Here’s the good news, though: unless you’re reading this very, very close to Christmas itself[2], then there’s time to make amends.  Here’s a list of useful security tips and practices that Santa follows, and which are therefore bound to put you on his “good” side.

Use a password manager

Santa is very careful with his passwords.  Here’s a little secret: from time to time, rather than have his elves handcraft every little present, he sources his gifts from other parties.  I’m not suggesting that he pays market rates (he’s ordering in bulk, and he has a very, very good credit rating), but he uses lots of different suppliers, and he’s aware that not all of them take security as seriously as he does.  He doesn’t want all of his account logins to be leaked if one of his suppliers is hacked, so he uses separate passwords for each account.  Now, Santa, being Santa, could remember all of these details if he wanted to, and even generate passwords that meet all the relevant complexity requirements for each site, but he uses an open source password manager for safety, and for succession planning[3].

Manage personal information properly

You may work for a large company, organisation or government, and you may think that you have lots of customers and associated data, but consider Santa.  He manages, or has managed, names, dates of birth, addresses, hobby, shoe sizes, colour preferences and other personal data for literally every person on Earth.  That’s an awful lot of sensitive data, and it needs to be protected.  When people grow too old for presents from Santa[4], he needs to delete their data securely.  Santa may well have been the archetypal GDPR Data Controller, and he needs to be very careful who and what can access the data that he holds.  Of course, he encrypts all the data, and is very careful about key management.  He’s also very aware of the dangers associated with Cold Boot Attacks (given the average temperature around his relevance), so he ensures that data is properly wiped before shutdown.

Measure and mitigate risk

Santa knows all about risk.  He has complex systems for ordering, fulfilment, travel planning, logistics and delivery that are the envy of most of the world.  He understands what impact failure in any particular part of the supply chain can have on his customers: mainly children and IT professionals.  He quantifies risk, recalculating on a regular basis to ensure that he is up to date with possible vulnerabilities, and ready with mitigations.

Patch frequently, but carefully

Santa absolutely cannot afford for his systems to go down, particularly around his most busy period.  He has established processes to ensure that the concerns of security are balanced with the needs of the business[5].  He knows that sometimes, business continuity must take priority, and that on other occasions, the impact of a security breach would be so major that patches just have to be applied.  He tells people what he wants, and listens to their views, taking them into account where he can. In other words, he embraces open management, delegating decisions, where possible, to the sets of people who are best positioned to make the call, and only intervenes when asked for an executive decision, or when exceptions arise.  Santa is a very enlightened manager.

Embrace diversity

One of the useful benefits of running a global operation is that Santa values diversity.  Old or young (at heart), male, female or gender-neutral, neuro-typical or neuro-diverse, of whatever culture, sexuality, race, ability, creed or nose-colour, Santa takes into account his stakeholders and their views on what might go wrong.  What a fantastic set of viewpoints Santa has available to him.  And, for an Aging White Guy, he’s surprisingly hip to the opportunities for security practices that a wide and diverse set of opinions and experiences can bring[6].


Here’s my advice.  Be like Santa, and adopt at least some of his security practices yourself.  You’ll have a much better opportunity of getting onto his good side, and that’s going to go down well not just with Santa, but also your employer, who is just certain to give you a nice bonus, right?  And if not, well, it’s not too late to write that letter directly to Santa himself.

1 – if you have a problem with this statement, then either you need to find another blog, or you’re reading this in the far future, where all our climate problems have been solved. I hope.

2 – or you dwell in one of those cultures where Santa visits quite early in December.

3 – a high-flying goose in the face can do terrible damage to a fast-moving reindeer, and if the sleigh were to crash, what then…?

4 – not me!

5 – Santa doesn’t refer to it as a “business”, but he’s happy for us to call it that so that we can model our own experience on his.  He’s nice like that.

6 – though Santa would never use the phrase “hip to the opportunities”.  He’s way too cool for that.

Of projects, products and (security) community

Not all open source is created (and maintained) equal.

Open source is a  good thing.  Open source is a particularly good thing for security.  I’ve written about this before (notably in Disbelieving the many eyes hypothesis and The commonwealth of Open Source), and I’m going to keep writing about it.  In this article, however, I want to talk a little more about a feature of open source which is arguably both a possible disadvantage and a benefit: the difference between a project and a product.  I’ll come down firmly on one side (spoiler alert: for organisations, it’s “product”), but I’d like to start with a little disclaimer.  I am employed by Red Hat, and we are a company which makes money from supporting open source.  I believe this is a good thing, and I approve of the model that we use, but I wanted to flag any potential bias early in the article.

The main reason that open source is good for security is that you can see what’s going on when there’s a problem, and you have a chance to fix it.  Or, more realistically, unless you’re a security professional with particular expertise in the open source project in which the problem arises, somebody else has a chance to fix it. We hope that there are sufficient security folks with the required expertise to fix security problems and vulnerabilities in software projects about which we care.

It’s a little more complex than that, however.  As an organisation, there are two main ways to consume open source:

  • as a project: you take the code, choose which version to use, compile it yourself, test it and then manage it.
  • as a product: a vendor takes the project, choose which version to package, compiles it, tests it, and then sells support for the package, typically including docs, patching and updates.

Now, there’s no denying that consuming a project “raw” gives you more options.  You can track the latest version, compiling and testing as you go, and you can take security patches more quickly than the product version may supply them, selecting those which seem most appropriate for your business and use cases.  On the whole, this seems like a good thing.  There are, however, downsides which are specific to security.  These include:

  1. some security fixes come with an embargo, to which only a small number of organisations (typically the vendors) have access.  Although you may get access to fixes at the same time as the wider ecosystem, you will need to check and test these (unless you blindly apply them – don’t do that), which will already have been performed by the vendors.
  2. the huge temptation to make changes to the code that don’t necessarily – or immediately – make it into the upstream project means that you are likely to be running a fork of the code.  Even if you do manage to get these upstream in time, during the period that you’re running the changes but they’re not upstream, you run a major risk that any security patches will not be immediately applicable to your version (this is, of course, true for non-security patches, but security patches are typically more urgent).  One option, of course, if you believe that your version is likely to consumed by others, is to make an official fork of project, and try to encourage a community to grow around that, but in the end, you will still have to decide whether to support the new version internally or externally.
  3. unless you ensure that all instances of the software are running the same version in your deployment, any back-porting of security fixes to older versions will require you to invest in security expertise equal or close to equal to that of the people who created the fix in the first place.  In this case, you are giving up the “commonwealth” benefit of open source, as you need to pay experts who duplicate the skills of the community.

What you are basically doing, by choosing to deploy a project rather than a product is taking the decision to do internal productisation of the project.  You lose not only the commonwealth benefit of security fixes, but also the significant economies of scale that are intrinsic to the vendor-supported product model.  There may also be economies of scope that you miss: many vendors will have multiple products that they support, and will be able to apply security expertise across those products in ways which may not be possible for an organisation whose core focus is not on product support.

These economies are reflected in another possible benefit to the commonwealth of using a vendor: the very fact that multiple customers are consuming their products mean that they have an incentive and a revenue stream to spend on security fixes and general features.  There are other types of fixes and improvements on which they may apply resources, but the relative scarcity of skilled security experts means that the principle of comparative advantage suggests that they should be in the best position to apply them for the benefit of the wider community[1].

What if a vendor you use to provide a productised version of an open source project goes bust, or decides to drop support for that product?  Well, this is a problem in the world of proprietary software as well, of course.  But in the case of proprietary software, there are three likely outcomes:

  • you now have no access to the software source, and therefore no way to make improvements;
  • you are provided access to the software source, but it is not available to the wider world, and therefore you are on your own;
  • everyone is provided with the software source, but no existing community exists to improve it, and it either dies or takes significant time for a community to build around it.

In the case of open source, however, if the vendor you have chosen goes out of business, there is always the option to use another vendor, encourage a new vendor to take it on, productise it yourself (and supply it to other organisations) or, if the worst comes to the worst, take the internal productisation route while you search for a scalable long-term solution.

In the modern open source world, we (the community) have got quite good at managing these options, as the growth of open source consortia[2] shows.  In a consortium, groups of organisations and individuals cluster around a software project or set of related projects to encourage community growth, alignment around feature and functionality additions, general security work and productisation for use cases which may as yet be ill-defined, all the while trying to exploit the economies of scale and scope outlined above.  An example of this would be the Linux Foundation’s Confidential Computing Consortium, to which the Enarx project aims to be contributed.

Choosing to consume open source software as a product instead of as a project involves some trade-offs, but from a security point of view at least, the economics for organisations are fairly clear: unless you are in position to employ ample security experts yourself, products are most likely to suit your needs.

1 – note: I’m not an economist, but I believe that this holds in this case.  Happy to have comments explaining why I’m wrong (if I am…).

2 – “consortiums” if you really must.

Humans and (being bad at) trust

Why “signing parties” were never a good idea.

I went to a party recently, and it reminded of quite how bad humans are at trust. It was a work “mixer”, and an attempt to get people who didn’t know each other well to chat and exchange some information. We were each given two cards to hang around our necks: one on which to write our own name, and the other on which we were supposed to collect the initials of those to whom we spoke (in their own hand). At the end of the event, the plan was to hand out rewards whose value was related to the number of initials collected. Pens/markers were provided.

I gamed the system by standing by the entrance, giving out the cards, controlling the markers and ensuring that everybody signed card, hence ending up with easily the largest number of initials of anyone at the party. But that’s not the point. Somebody – a number of people, in fact – pointed out the similarities between this and “key signing parties”, and that got me thinking. For those of you not old enough – or not security-geeky enough – to have come across these, they were events which were popular in the late nineties and early parts of the first decade of the twenty-first century[1] where people would get together, typically at a tech show, and sign each other’s PGP keys. PGP keys are an interesting idea whereby you maintain a public-private key pair which you use to sign emails, assert your identity, etc., in the online world. In order for this to work, however, you need to establish that you are who you say you are, and in order for this to work, you need to convince someone of this fact.

There are two easy ways to do this:

  1. meet someone IRL[2], get them to validate your public key, and sign it with theirs;
  2. have someone who knows the person you met in step 1 agree that they can probably trust you, as the person in step 1 did, and they trust them.

This is a form of trust based on reputation, and it turns out that it is a terrible model for trust. Let’s talk about some of the reasons for it not working. There are four main ones:

  • context
  • decay
  • transitive trust
  • peer pressure.

Let’s evaluate these briefly.


I can’t emphasise this enough: trust is always, always contextual (see “What is trust?” for a quick primer). When people signed other people’s key-pairs, all they should really have been saying was “I believe that the identity of this person is as stated”, but signatures and encryption based on these keys was (and is) frequently misused to make statements about, or claim access to, capabilities that were not necessarily related to identity.

I lay some of the fault of this at the US alcohol consumption policy. Many (US) Americans use their driving licence/license as a form of authorisation: I am over this age, and am therefore entitled to purchase alcohol. It was designed to prove that their were authorised to drive, and nothing more than that, but you can now get a US driving licence to prove your age even if you can’t drive, and it can be used, for instance, as security identification for getting on aircraft at airportsThis is crazy, but partly explains why there is such a confusion between identification, authentication and authorisation.


Trust, as I’ve noted before in many articles, decays. Just because I trust you now (within a particular context) doesn’t mean that I should trust you in the future (in that or any other context). Mechanisms exist within the PGP framework to expire keys, but it was (I believe) typical for someone to resign a new set of keys just because they’d signed the previous set. If they were only being used for identity, then that’s probably OK – most people rarely change their identity, after all – but, as explained above, these key pairs were often used more widely.

Transitive trust

This is the whole “trusting someone because I trust you” problem. Again, if this were only about identity, then I’d be less worried, but given people’s lack of ability to specify context, and their equal inability to communicate that to others, the “fuzziness” of the trust relationships being expressed was only going to increase with the level of transitiveness, reducing the efficacy of the system as a whole.

Peer pressure

Honestly, this occurred to me due to my gaming of the system, as described in the second paragraph at the top of this article. I remember meeting people at events and agreeing to endorse their key-pairs basically because everybody else was doing it. I didn’t really know them, though (I hope) I had at least heard of them (“oh, you’re Denny’s friend, I think he mentioned you”), and I certainly shouldn’t have been signing their key-pairs. I am certain that I was not the only person to fall into this trap, and it’s a trap because humans are generally social animals[3], and they like to please others. There was ample opportunity for people to game the system much more cynically than I did at the party, and I’d be surprised if this didn’t happen from time to time.

Stepping back a bit

To be fair, it is possible to run a model like this properly. It’s possible to avoid all of these by insisting on proper contextual trust (with multiple keys for different contexts), by re-evaluating trust relationships on a regular basis, by being very careful about trusting people just due to their trusting someone else (or refusing to do so at all), and by refusing just to agree to trust someone because you’ve met them and they “seem nice”. But I’m not aware of anyone – anyone – who kept to these rules, and it’s why I gave up on this trust model over a decade ago. I suspect that I’m going to get some angry comments from people who assert that they used (and use) the system properly, and I’m sure that there are people out there who did and do: but as a widespread system, it was only going to work if the large majority of all users treated it correctly, and given human nature and failings, that never really happened.

I’m also not suggesting that we have many better models – but we really, really need to start looking for some, as this is important, and difficult stuff.

1 – I refuse to refer to these years the “aughts”.

2 – In Real Life – this used to be an actual distinction to online.

3 – even a large enough percentage of IT folks to make this a problem.