SECURITY – rule 11 reader: Recent Episodes
SECURITY – rule 11 reader
I have written elsewhere about the danger of AI assistants leading to mediocrity. Humans tend to rely on authority figures rather strongly (see Obedience to Authority by Stanley Milgram as one example), and we often treat “the computer” as an authority figure.
The problem is, of course, Large Language Models—and AI of all kinds—are mostly pattern-matching machines or Chinese Rooms. A pattern-matching machine can be pretty effective at many interesting things, but it will always be, in essence, a summary of “what a lot of people think.” If you choose the right people to summarize, you might get close to the truth. Finding the right people to summarize, however, is beyond the powers of a pattern-matching machine.
Just because many “experts” say the same thing does not mean the thing is true, valid, or useful.
AI assistants can make people more productive, at least in terms of sheer output. Someone using an AI assistant will write more words per minute than someone who is not. Someone using an AI assistant will write more code daily than someone who is not.
But is it just more, or is it better?
Measuring the mediocratic effect of using AI systems, even as an assistant, is difficult. We have the example of drivers using a GPS, never really learning how to get anyplace (and probably losing all larger sense of geography), but these things are hard to measure.
However, a recent research paper on programming and security has shown at least one place where this effect can be measured. Noting that most kinds of social research are problematic (they are hard to replicate, it’s hard to infer valid results accurately, etc.), this one seems well set up and executed, so I’m inclined to put at least some trust in the results.
The researchers asked programmers worldwide to write software to perform six different tasks. They constructed a control group that did not use AI assistants and a test group that did.
The result? In almost every case, participants using the AI assistant wrote much less secure code, including mistakes in building encryption functions, creating a sandbox, allowing SQL injection attacks, local pointers, and integer overflows. Participants made about the same number of mistakes in randomness—a problem not many programmers have taken the time to study—and fewer mistakes in buffer overflows.
It is possible, of course, for companies to create programming-specific AI assistants that might resolve these problems. Domain-specific AI assistants will always be more accurate and useful than general-purpose assistants.
Relying on AI assistants improves productivity but also seems to create mediocre results. In many cases, mediocre results will be “good enough.”
But what about when “good enough” isn’t … good enough?
Humans are creatures of habit. We do what we practice. If you want to become a better coder, you need to practice coding—and remember that practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect.
The Internet of Things is still “out there”—operators and individuals are deploying millions of Internet connected devices every year. IoT, however, poses some serious security challenges. Devices can be taken over as botnets for DDoS attacks, attackers can take over appliances, etc. While previous security attempts have all focused on increasing password security and keeping things updated, Kathleen Nichols is working on a new solution—defined trust transport in limited domains.
Join us for this episode of the Hedge with Kathleen to talk about the problems of trusted transport, the work she’s putting in to finding solutions, and potential use cases beyond IoT.
https://media.blubrry.com/hedge/content.blubrry.com/hedge/hedge-178.mp3download
You can find Kathleen at Pollere, LLC, and her slides on DeftT here.
My monthly post is up over at Packet Pushers—
Machine learning systems “learn” from existing data pools and user interactions and are given “guardrails” by the system’s designers. Let’s look at some possible attack vectors and failure modes of these systems, specifically how training data, interaction with users, and the choice of guardrails might interact with security and privacy.
I’m teaching a three-hour webinar on infrastructure privacy this coming Friday. From the description—
Privacy is important to every IT professional, including network engineers—but there is very little training oriented towards anyone other than privacy professionals. This training aims to provide a high-level overview of privacy and how privacy impacts network engineers. Information technology professionals are often perceived as “experts” on “all things IT,” and hence are bound to face questions about the importance of privacy, and how individual users can protect their privacy in more public settings.
There is a recording for anyone who registers.
Register here.
Encrypt everything! Now! We don’t often do well with absolutes like this in the engineering world–we tend to focus on “get it down,” and not to think very much about the side effects or unintended consequences. What are the unintended consequences of encrypting all traffic all the time? Geoff Huston joins Tom Ammon and Russ White to discuss the problems with going dark.
https://media.blubrry.com/hedge/content.blubrry.com/hedge/hedge-161.mp3download
DDoS attacks continue to be a persistent threat to organizations of all sizes and in all markets. Roland Dobbins joins Tom Ammon and Russ White to discuss current trends in DDoS attacks, including the increasing scope and scale, as well as the shifting methods used by attackers.
https://media.blubrry.com/hedge/content.blubrry.com/hedge/hedge-158.mp3download
Tom, Eyvonne, and Russ hang out at the hedge on this episode. The topics of discussion include our perception of security—does the way IT professionals treat security and privacy helpful for those who aren't involved in the IT world? Do we discourage users from taking security seriously by making it so complex and hard to use? Our second topic is whether multicloud is being oversold for the average network operator.
The final three posts in my series on privacy for infrastructure engineers is up over at Packet Pushers. While privacy might not seem like a big deal to infrastructure folks, it really is an issue we should all be considering and addressing—if for no other reason than privacy and security are closely related topics. The primary "thing" you're trying to secure when you think about networking is data—or rather, various forms of privacy.
While this talk is titled privacy for providers, it really applies to just about every network operator. This is meant to open a conversation on the topic, rather than providing definitive answers. I start by looking at some of the kinds of information network operators work with, and whether this information can or should be considered "private." In the second part of the talk, I work through some of the various ways network operators might want to consider when handling private information.
The US Federal Communications Commission recently asked for comments on securing Internet routing. While I worked on the responses offered by various organizations, I also put in my own response as an individual, which I've included below.
My second post on privacy for network engineers is up over at Packet Pushers—
Given the arguments from the first article in this series, if privacy should be and is essential—what does the average network engineer do with this information? How does privacy impact network design and operations? To answer this question, we need to look at two other questions.
I've kicked off a series over at Packet Pushers on the ; the first installment is up now.
Our community has been talking about BGP security for over 20 years. While MANRS and the RPKI have made some headway in securing BGP, the process of deciding on a method to provide at least the information providers need to make more rational decisions about the validity of individual routes is still ongoing. Geoff Huston joins Alvaro, Russ, and Tom to discuss how we got here and whether we will learn from our mistakes.
Off-topic post for today …
In the battle between marketing and security, marketing always wins. This topic came to mind after reading an article on using email aliases to control your email—
For example, if you sign up for a lot of email newsletters, consider doing so with an alias. That way, you can quickly filter the incoming messages sent to that alias—these are probably low-priority, so you can have your provider automatically apply specific labels, mark them as read, or delete them immediately.
While reading a research paper on address spoofing from 2019, I ran into this on NAT (really PAT) failures—
In the first failure mode, the NAT simply forwards the packets with the spoofed source address (the victim) intact … In the second failure mode, the NAT rewrites the source address to the NAT’s publicly routable address, and forwards the packet to the amplifier. When the server replies, the NAT system does the inverse translation of the source address, expecting to deliver the packet to an internal system. However, because the mapping is between two routable addresses external to the NAT, the packet is routed by the NAT towards the victim.
Fear sells. Fear of missing out, fear of being an imposter, fear of crime, fear of injury, fear of sickness … we can all think of times when people we know (or worse, a people in the throes of madness of crowds) have made really bad decisions because they were afraid of something. Bruce Schneier has documented this a number of times. For instance: “it’s smart politics to exaggerate terrorist threats” and “fear makes people deferential, docile, and distrustful, and both politicians and marketers have learned to take advantage of this.”
Intentionally poisoning BGP routes in the Default-Free Zone (DFZ) would always be a bad thing, right? Actually, this is a fairly common method to steer traffic flows away from and through specific autonomous systems. How does this work, how common is it, and who does this? Jared Smith joins us on this episode of the Hedge to discuss the technique, and his research into how frequently it is used.
One of the big movements in the networking world is disaggregation—splitting the control plane and other applications that make the network "go" from the hardware and the network operating system. This is, in fact, one of the movements I've been arguing in favor of for many years—and I'm not about to change my perspective on the topic.
When I was in the military we were constantly drilled about the problem of Essential Elements of Friendly Information, or EEFIs. What are EEFis? If an adversary can cast a wide net of surveillance, they can often find multiple clues about what you are planning to do, or who is making which decisions. For instance, if several people married to military members all make plans to be without their spouses for a long period of time, the adversary can be certain a unit is about to be deployed. If the unit of each member can be determined, then the strength, positioning, and other facts about what action you are taking can be guessed.
Why are networks so insecure?
One reason is we don't take network security seriously. We just don't think of the network as a serious target of attack. Or we think of security as a problem "over there," something that exists in the application realm, that needs to be solved by application developers. Or we think the consequences of a network security breach as "well, they can DDoS us, and then we can figure out how to move load around, so if we build with resilience (enough redundancy) we're already taking care of our security issues." Or we put our trust in the firewall, which sits there like some magic box solving all our problems.
While identity is not directly a networking technology, it is closely adjacent to networking, and a critical part of the Internet's architecture. In this episode of the History of Networking, Pamela Dingle joins Donald Sharpe and Russ White to discuss the humble beginnings of modern identity systems, including NDS and Streettalk.
Tyler McDaniel joins Eyvonne, Tom, and Russ to discuss a study on BGP peerlocking, which is designed to prevent route leaks in the global Internet. From the study abstract:
BGP route leaks frequently precipitate serious disruptions to interdomain routing. These incidents have plagued the Internet for decades while deployment and usability issues cripple efforts to mitigate the problem. Peerlock, introduced in 2016, addresses route leaks with a new approach. Peerlock enables filtering agreements between transit providers to protect their own networks without the need for broad cooperation or a trust infrastructure.
I've been chasing BGP security since before the publication of the soBGP drafts, way back in the early 2000's (that's almost 20 years for those who are math challenged). The most recent news largely centers on the RPKI, which is used to ensure the AS originating an advertisements is authorized to do so (or rather "owns" the resource or prefix). If you are not "up" on what the RPKI does, or how it works, you might find this old blog post useful—its actually the tenth post in a ten post series on the topic of BGP security.
Security has taken on an aura of mystery to many network engineers—why can't we approach security in the way we do many other topics, rationally? It turns out we can. Dan Blum joins Tom Ammon and Russ White to discuss the concepts and techniques behind rational cybersecurity.
Let's play the analogy game. The Internet of Things (IoT) is probably going end up being like ... a box of chocolates, because you never do know what you are going to get? a big bowl of spaghetti with a serious lack of meatballs? Whatever it is, the IoT should have network folks worried about security. There is, of course, the problem of IoT devices being attached to random places on the network, exfiltrating personal data back to a cloud server you don't know anything about. Some of these devices might be rogue, of course, such as Raspberry Pi attached to some random place in the network. Others might be more conventional, such as those new exercise machines the company just brought into the gym that's sending personal information in the clear to an outside service.
So, software is eating the world—and you thought this was going to make things simpler, right? If you haven't found the tradeoffs, you haven't looked hard enough. I should trademark that or something! :-) While a lot of folks are thinking about code quality and supply chain are common concerns, there are a lot of little "side trails" organizations do not tend to think about. One such was recently covered in a paper on underhanded code, which is code designed to pass a standard review which be used to harm the system later on.
The RPKI, for those who do not know, ties the origin AS to a prefix using a certificate (the Route Origin Authorization, or ROA) signed by a third party. The third party, in this case, is validating that the AS in the ROA is authorized to advertise the destination prefix in the ROA—if ROA’s were self-signed, the security would be no better than simply advertising the prefix in BGP. Who should be able to sign these ROAs? The assigning authority makes the most sense—the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), since they (should) know which company owns which set of AS numbers and prefixes.
The general idea makes sense—you should not accept routes from “just anyone,” as they might be advertising the route for any number of reasons. An operator could advertise routes to source spam or phishing emails, or some government agency might advertise a route to redirect traffic, or block access to some web site. But … if you haven’t found the tradeoffs, you haven’t looked hard enough. Security, in particular, is replete with tradeoffs.
In old presentations on network security (watch this space; I’m working on a new security course for Ignition in the next six months or so), I would use a pair of chocolate chip cookies as an illustration for network security. In the old days, I’d opine, network security was like a cookie that was baked to be crunchy on the outside and gooey on the inside. Now-a-days, however, I’d say network security needs to be more like a store-bought cookie—crunchy all the way through. I always used this illustration to make a point about defense-in-depth. You cannot assume the thin crunchy security layer at the edge of your network—generally in the form of stateful packet filters and the like (okay, firewalls, but let’s leave the appliance world behind for a moment)—is what you really need.
Can you really trust what a routing protocol tells you about how to reach a given destination? Ivan Pepelnjak joins Nick Russo and Russ White to provide a longer version of the tempting one-word answer: no! Join us as we discuss a wide range of issues including third-party next-hops, BGP communities, and the RPKI.
The security of the global routing table is foundational to the security of the overall Internet as an ecosystem—if routing cannot be trusted, then everything that relies on routing is suspect, as well. Mutually Agreed Norms for Routing Security (MANRS) is a project of the Internet Society designed to draw network operators of all kinds into thinking about, and doing something about, the security of the global routing table by using common-sense filtering and observation. Andrei Robachevsky joins Russ White and Tom Ammon to talk about MANRS.
More information about MANRS can be found on the project web site, including how to join and how to support global routing security.
I’s fnny, bt yu cn prbbly rd ths evn thgh evry wrd s mssng t lst ne lttr. This is because every effective language—or rather every communication system—carried enough information to reconstruct the original meaning even when bits are dropped. Over-the-wire protocols, like TCP, are no different—the protocol must carry enough information about the conversation (flow data) and the data being carried (metadata) to understand when something is wrong and error out or ask for a retransmission. These things, however, are a form of data exhaust; much like you can infer the tone, direction, and sometimes even the content of conversation just by watching the expressions, actions, and occasional word spoken by one of the participants, you can sometimes infer a lot about a conversation between two applications by looking at the amount and timing of data crossing the wire.
In this episode of the Hedge, Stephane Bortzmeyer joins Alvaro Retana and Russ White to discuss draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis, which "describes the privacy issues associated with the use of the DNS by Internet users." Not many network engineers think about the privacy implications of DNS, a important part of the infrastructure we all rely on to make the Internet work.
No, not that kind. :-)
BGP security is a vexed topic—people have been working in this area for over twenty years with some effect, but we continuously find new problems to address. Today I am looking at a paper called BGP Communities: Can of Worms, which analyses some of the security problems caused by current BGP community usage in the ‘net. The point I want to think about here, though, is not the problem discussed in the paper, but rather some of the larger problems facing security in routing.
Security often lives in one of two states. It’s either something “I” take care of, because my organization is so small there isn’t anyone else taking care of it. Or it’s something those folks sitting over there in the corner take care of because the organization is, in fact, large enough to have a separate security team. In both cases, however, security is something that is done to networks, or something thought about kind-of off on its own in relation to networks.
I’ve been trying to think of ways to challenge this way of thinking for many years—a long time ago, in a universe far away, I created and gave a presentation on network security at Cisco Live (raise your hand if you’re old enough to have seen this presentation!).
Brian Trammell joins Alvaro Retana and Russ White to discuss his IETF draft Optional Security Is Not An Option, and why optional security is very difficult to deploy in practice. Brian blogs at http://trammell.ch and also writes at APNIC.
If you haven’t found the trade-offs, you haven’t looked hard enough.
A perfect illustration is the research paper under review, Securing Linux with a Faster and Scalable Iptables. Before diving into the paper, however, some background might be good. Consider the situation where you want to filter traffic being transmitted to and by a virtual workload of some kind, as shown below.
To move a packet from the user space into the kernel, the packet itself must be copied into some form of memory that processes on “both sides of the divide” can read, then the entire state of the process (memory, stack, program execution point, etc.) must be pushed into a local memory space (stack), and control transferred to the kernel. This all takes time and power, of course.
One of the recurring myths of IPv6 is its very large address space somehow confers a higher degree of security. The theory goes something like this: there is so much more of the IPv6 address space to test in order to find out what is connected to the network, it would take too long to scan the entire space looking for devices. The first problem with this myth is it simply is not true—it is quite possible to scan the entire IPv6 address space rather quickly, probing enough addresses to perform a tree-based search to find attached devices. The second problem is this assumes the only modes of attack available in IPv4 will directly carry across to IPv6. But every protocol has its own set of tradeoffs, and therefore its own set of attack surfaces.
There is a rising tide of security breaches. There is an even faster rising tide of hysteria over the ostensible reason for these breaches, namely the deficient state of our information infrastructure. Yet the world is doing remarkably well overall, and has not suffered any of the oft-threatened giant digital catastrophes. Andrew Odlyzko joins Tom Ammon and I to talk about cyber insecurity.
Fastnetmon began life as an open source DDoS detection tool, but has grown in scope over time. By connecting Fastnetmon to open source BGP implementations, operators can take action when a denial of service event is detected, triggering black holes and changing route preferences. Pavel Odintsov joins us to talk about this interesting and useful open source project.
Backscatter is often used to detect various kinds of attacks, but how does it work? The paper under review today, Who Knocks at the IPv6 Door, explains backscatter usage in IPv4, and examines how effectively this technique might be used to detect scanning of IPv6 addresses, as well. Scanning the IPv6 address space is much more difficult because there are 2128 addresses rather than 232. The paper under review here is one of the first attempts to understand backscatter in the IPv6 address space, which can lead to a better understanding of the ways in which IPv6 scanners are optimizing their search through the larger address space, and also to begin understanding how backscatter can be used in IPv6 for many of the same purposes as it is in IPv4.
Kensuke Fukuda and John Heidemann. 2018. Who Knocks at the IPv6 Door?: Detecting IPv6 Scanning. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018 (IMC '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 231-237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3278532.3278553
When a recursive resolver receives a query from a host, it will first consult any local cache to discover if it has the information required to resolve the query. If it does not, it will begin with the rightmost section of the domain name, the Top Level Domain (TLD), moving left through each section of the Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN), in order to find an IP address to return to the host, as shown in the diagram below.
This is pretty simple at its most basic level, of course—virtually every network engineer in the world understands this process (and if you don’t, you should enroll in my How the Internet Really Works webinar the next time it is offered!). The question almost no-one ever asks, however, is: what, precisely, is the recursive server sending to the root, TLD, and authoritative servers?
A long time ago, I worked in a secure facility. I won’t disclose the facility; I’m certain it no longer exists, and the people who designed the system I’m about to describe are probably long retired. Soon after being transferred into this organization, someone noted I needed to be trained on how to change the cipher door locks. We gathered up a ladder, placed the ladder just outside the door to the secure facility, popped open one of the tiles on the drop ceiling, and opened a small metal box with a standard, low security key. Inside this box was a jumper board that set the combination for the secure door. First lesson of security: there is (almost) always a back door.
I was reminded of this while reading a paper recently published about a backdoor attack on certificate authorities. There are, according to the paper, around 130 commercial Certificate Authorities (CAs). Each of these CAs issue widely trusted certificates used for everything from TLS to secure web browsing sessions to RPKI certificates used to validate route origination information. When you encounter these certificates, you assume at least two things: the private key in the public/private key pair has not been compromised, and the person who claims to own the key is really the person you are talking to. The first of these two can come under attack through data breaches. The second is the topic of the paper in question.
How do CAs validate the person asking for a certificate actually is who they claim to be? Do they work for the organization they are obtaining a certificate for? Are they the “right person” within that organization to ask for a certificate? Shy of having a personal relationship with the person who initiates the certificate request, how can the CA validate who this person is and if they are authorized to make this request?
Privacy problems are an area of wide concern for individual users of the Internet—but what about network operators? In this issue of The Internet Protocol Journal, Geoff Huston has an article up about privacy in DNS, and the various attempts to make DNS private on the part of the IETF—the result can be summarized with this long, but entertaining, quote:
The Internet is largely dominated, and indeed driven, by surveillance, and pervasive monitoring is a feature of this network, not a bug. Indeed, perhaps the only debate left today is one over the respective merits and risks of surveillance undertaken by private actors and surveillance by state-sponsored actors. … We have come a very long way from this lofty moral stance on personal privacy into a somewhat tawdry and corrupted digital world, where “do no evil!” has become “don’t get caught!”
Before diving into a full-blown look at the many problems with DNS security, it is worth considering what kinds of information can leak through the DNS system. Let’s ignore the recent discovery that DNS queries can be used to exfiltrate data; instead, let’s look at more mundane data leakage from DNS queries.
Outro Music: Danger Storm Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
Every so often, while browsing the web, you run into a web page that asks if you would like to allow the site to push notifications to your browser. Apparently, according to the paper under review, about 12% of the people who receive this notification allow notifications. What, precisely, is this doing, and what are…
Because the speed of DNS is so important to the performance of any connection on the ‘net, a lot of thought goes into making DNS servers fast, including optimized software that can respond to queries in milliseconds, and connecting DNS servers to the ‘net through high bandwidth links. To set the stage for massive DDoS…
The little green lock—now being deprecated by some browsers—provides some level of comfort for many users when entering personal information on a web site. You probably know the little green lock means the traffic between the host and the site is encrypted, but you might not stop to ask the fundamental question of all cryptography:…
The security of the global Default Free Zone DFZ) has been a topic of much debate and concern for the last twenty years (or more). Two recent papers have brought this issue to the surface once again—it is worth looking at what these two papers add to the mix of what is known, and what…
When you think of a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack, you probably think about an attack which overflows the bandwidth available on a single link; or overflowing the number of half open TCP sessions a device can have open at once, preventing the device from accepting more sessions. In all cases, a DoS or…