Saturday, September 16, 2017

The Warrant Cases are Pyrrhic Victories

The essential question in Trusted Computing has always been "Trusted FROM WHOM?" and the answer right now is from the Government.


Trusted Computing is Complex

So a while back I had two friends who I hung out with all the time and because we knew almost no women after we worked a full day at the Fort we would go back to their house and try to code an MP3 decoder or work on smart card security (free porn!) or any number of random things.

One of my friends, Brandon Baker, went off to Microsoft and ended up building the Hyper-V kernel and worked on this little thing called Palladium, which then got renamed the Next Generation Trusted Computing Base and because of various political pressures relating to creating an entirely new security structure based on hardware PKI was then buried.

But it didn't die - it has been slowly gaining strength and being re-incarnated in various forms, and one of those forms is Azure Confidential Computing.

People have a hard time grasping Palladium because without all the pieces, it is always broken and makes no sense, and most of those pieces are in poorly documented hardware. But the basic idea is: What if Microsoft Windows could run a GPG program that it could not introspect or change in any way, such that your GPG secret key was truly secret, even from the OS, even if a kernel rootkit was installed?

Of course, the initial concept for Palladium was mostly oriented towards DRM, in the sense of having a media player that could remotely authenticate itself to a website and a secured keyboard/screen/speaker such that you couldn't steal the media. This generated little interest in the marketplace and the costs for implementation were enormous, hence the failure to launch.


"Winning" on warrants. The very definition of Pyrrhic Victories.

Law Subsumed by Strategy

There's a sect among the Law Enforcement, national security, and legal community that looks upon Microsoft and Google's court cases on extra-territorial warrant responses as an impingement of the natural rights of the US Nation State.

It's no surprise that the legal arguments are disjointed from both sides. Effectively the US position is that the government should be able to collect whatever data it wants from Google or Microsoft, because the data is accessible from the US, and because they want it. And Google and Microsoft have stored that data on overseas servers for many reasons but also because their customers, both international and domestic think the US State no longer has that natural right, that it is as primitive as Prima Nocte. And in addition their employees think the US has failed to go to bat on these issues for Google/Microsoft/etc in China and the EU.  This isn't necessarily true, but it is true that the USG has treated the populations that make up the technology elites as if their opinions are not relevant to the discussion.

Law is not a Trump Card

The problem with making the US Government the primary foe in every technology company's threat model is they can very quickly adapt to new laws by building systems which they cannot introspect, which is what Azure Confidential Computation is. But that's just the beginning. Half their teams come from the NSA and CIA technology arms. They know how to cause huge amounts of pain to our system while staying within regulations and laws, and they have buy in from the very tops of their organizations.

This was all preventable. If we'd had decent people in the executive team killing the Apple lawsuit last year, and finding some way to come to an agreement and end the crypto war, we could have prevented Going Dark from being a primary goal of all of the biggest companies (I.E. even at Financials). We needed to be able to negotiate with them in good faith to maintain a balance of "The Golden Age of Metadata" with what they and their customers wanted.

We didn't have anyone who could do that. As in so many pieces of the cyber-government space, we may have missed our window to prevent the next string in the international order from unraveling.

Thursday, September 7, 2017

Opaque cyber deterrence efforts

From

Pakistan's Nuclear Policy: A Minimum Credible Deterrence

By Zafar Khan
Figuring out what cyber operations can and can't deter is most similar to figuring out what percentage of your advertising budget you are wasting. That is: you know 90% of your cyber deterrence isn't working, you just don't know which 90%.

That said, so much more of cyber deterrence is based around private companies than we are used to working with in international relations. Kaspersky may or may not have been used for ongoing Russian operations, and the deterrent effect of banning them from the US market will have a long reach. This mix is complicated and multi-faceted. Some of the hackers that ran China's APT1 effort now work for US Anti-Virus companies.

Modern thinkers around deterrence policy often look at only declared overt deterrence, of the type North Korea is currently using. But covert deterrence is equally powerful and useful and much more applicable to offensive cyber operations where there is no like-for-like comparison between targets or operational capability.

But cyber does have deterrent effects - knowing that someone can out your covert operatives by analyzing the OPM and Delta Airline databases can deter a nation-state from operating in certain ways.

The question is whether non-nation-state actors also have opaque cyber deterrence abilities and how to model these effects as part of a larger national security strategy - for example, via Google's Project Zero. And it's possible that the majority of cyber deterrence will at least pretend to be non-nation-state efforts, such as ShadowBrokers.

Technically, deterrence often means the ability to rapidly respond and neutralize offensive cyber tools. Modern technology such as endpoint monitoring, or country-wide network filtering, can provide an effective deterrence effort when provided with input from SIGINT or HUMINT sources that effectively neutralizes potential offensive efforts by our adversaries.

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

The Cyber Coup

Twitter posts are now official government statements - and this introduces interesting follow-on systemic weaknesses to cyber warfare. Do you think we can defend the Twitter infrastructure against a Nation-State? Or even an interested non-nation state player? Is that now the NSA's problem?

Because if not, the payload looks something like this:





UNGGE and Tallinn 2.0 Revisited

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/23/un-cyberwarfare-negotiations-collapsed-in-june-it-emerges

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3024405 (Paper from Mike Schmitt and Liis Vihul on this)

So I want to bring us back to social insects and point out that basically everything we know always turns out to be wrong, but in a weird way. For example, I was taught growing up via whatever biology classes and nature shows I watched, that the bees have a queen, and the queen lays all the eggs and the workers do her bidding via chemical cues or whatever because they are so closely related to her.

But what turns out to be true is a thousand times more complex, because workers can also lay eggs, and often choose to as a strategy. And that means that the simple model in my head of how a nest works is all off-kilter - tons of energy in the nest has to be dedicated to maintaining order. That brings us to their paper:

This right here is where Mike Schmitt and Liis Vihul go wrong... 

Ok, so the paper is very much a last stand defense for the Tallinn process and the rest of the work that Mike and crew have put into stretching the Barney costume of normal international law over the mastodon that is the cyber domain. Look, I've met Mike Schmitt and he has an IQ of something like 250, but he's dead wrong on this whole thing and it's getting painfully obvious to the whole community.

The place he goes most awry is in the paragraph highlighted above: He thinks states have territory and that territory extends into cyberspace, which it just doesn't. I get the that the implications of that are complicated and quite scary, but he runs straight off a philosophical cliff when he says that any "physical change" including replacing hard drives is going to trespass sovereignty. The real world has the FBI conducting operations all over the world because we don't know where something is once it hits the Tor network, and frankly we don't care. We are going to ./ and let the courts sort them out.

Everyone reading this blog could build scenario after scenario that challenges his arguments around the applicability of various aspects of international law in cyberspace based on his initial fallacy, but until we gather a group of people around and have some sort of intervention ceremony with him it's going to be impossible for him to internalize it.

I don't think he can read Tallinn 2.0 and notice that his bevy of "Experts" have created a document that reads EXACTLY LIKE THE TALMUD, with everyone agreeing on some things, disagreeing on some other things, and making exactly zero sense the whole time when applied to modern cyber operations. This is the kind of thinking that lets them draw nonsensical derivations about there being some sort of physical-component line you could draw between "violates sovereignty" and "PERFECTLY OK" as if Stuxnet never happened.

The authors also warn of any further operations saying that if they get caught:

"This could lead to further “Westphalianization” of the internet, as well as increased data localization, which runs counter to the long-term U.S. policy objective of the free flow of information." 

I'm pretty sure that's already happened. Did we write this paper in a time machine, perhaps?


Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Strategic Plateaus in the Cyber domain

One thing I think that surprises many people who don't play video games is how similar the strategies for them all are. It's as if Chess and Checkers and Go all had the same basic gameplay.

In most online shooters, you have characters with a high "skill ceiling" that require precise aim and maneuvering, and others which have the ability to soak up damage or cause area effects or heal their friends, which generally require more positioning and strategy understanding.

And as new characters are introduced to a game, or existing characters are tweaked, you change the strategies that works the best overall.



In Overwatch, the most popular game among hackers right now, you have "Dive Comp" and "Deathball Comp". These represent "Fast, deadly characters and chaotic rampage" vs "Healthy armored characters and slow advance". If you're going with the right team composition and strategy you can overcome even very serious disadvantages with your "mechanics" (shooting skill, reaction times, etc.) . I.E. your team gains an asymmetric advantage until the other teams copy you and catch up.

Which technique works best is generally called "The current meta" and trickles down from the pro-players to the very lowest ranks of Overwatch (where nobody should honestly care, but they still really do). New meta shifts in Overwatch, despite the continual changes introduced by every patch, are extremely rare, perhaps once a year! The game designers say this is because people are bad at finding and testing new strategies, essentially. It is a rare skill. You almost have to be pretty good at any new strategy to know if it even really works. I call this a strategic plateau, because it LOOKS like the meta is still one way, but it's really another way, yet to be discovered until someone gets good  enough at some new way of operating.

And yet, the cyber domain is even more choppy than any computer game could ever be. Things change at a tremendous rate, and people generally look at the "Cyber Meta" as a static thing! Either we are in the "Botnet Meta" or the "Worm Meta". We either do "Client side attacks" or we do "SQLi attacks". So many people think the cyber meta is what the West Coast's VC funded machine tells them it is at RSA or in Wired Magazine!

Getting this right is a big bet - some might point to recent events by saying it is a bet of global importance. Investment in a high end "Man on the Side" technology stack can run you into the billions. You'd better hope the meta doesn't change until your investment pays off. And what are the strategic differences between TAO-style organizations and the Russian/Chinese way? It's possible to LOSE if you don't understand and adapt to the current up-to-date Meta of the domain you are in, no matter what your other advantages are.

Grugq has a whole talk on this, but everyone is going to divide it differently in their head and be really crazy about it, the way people are when I use Torbjorn on attack. Also, why isn't "Kaspersky" in my spreadsheet yet! :) Also: Do you have a similar spreadsheet? IF SO SHARE.

No matter how you define the "Deathball" or "Dive Comp" of the cyber domain you also need to analyze in depth how modern changes in the landscape effect them and make them stronger and weaker. "Bitcoin and Wikileaks as a service" may have replaced "Russian Intel" as a threat against giant teams of operators, for example. Endpoint defenses and malware analysis and correlation may have advanced to the point where Remote Worms have become much stronger in the meta.

But the real fun is in thinking up new comps to run - before QUANTUMINSERT was done, someone had to imagine it fully fledged in their heads. Before the Russians could run a destructive worm from a tiny contractor team that hit up an accounting firm, someone already had a certainty in their mind that knew it would work. And so that's the real question I'm asking everyone here. What's the next meta? What does your dark shadow tell you?



Monday, August 7, 2017

DDIRSA posts about VEP

Former DDIRNSA (who just retired) posted this today, and it accurately reflects his feelings on the VEP debate, I assume.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/no-us-government-should-not-disclose-all-vulnerabilities-its-possession

There's nothing in there that would surprise someone who regularly reads this blog though - essentially he does not hold any water with the argument that we should be giving up all our vulnerabilities to vendors.

Likewise, he appears to be miffed that people are blaming WannaCry/NotPetya on the NSA, as you might expect.

Oh, also I want to mention the things he didn't say would be good compromises, which tend to be offered as "halfway points" from people who have never been in this business. He didn't say "Let's only keep 0day for a few months" or "Let's only keep certain kinds of 0day - the not important ones". All those ideas are terrible, and get offered again and again by various policy arms as if they are going to magically get better over time.


Saturday, August 5, 2017

The Killswitch story feels like bullshit

If you haven't watched the INFILTRATE keynote from Stephen Watt here then you need to do that, especially if you are a lawyer who specializes in cyber law. INFILTRATE is where you hear about issues that effect the community in the future, and you should register now! :)


But let me float my and others initial feeling when MalwareTech got arrested: The "killswitch" story was clearly bullshit. What I think happened is that MalwareTech had something to do with Wannacry, and he knew about the killswitch, and when Wannacry started getting huge and causing massive amounts of damage (say, to the NHS of his own country) he freaked out and "found the killswitch". This is why he was so upset to be outed by the media.

Being afraid to take the limelight is not a typical "White Hat" behavior, to say the least.

That said, we need to acknowledge the strategic impact law enforcement operations as a whole have on national security cyber capabilities, and how the lighter and friendlier approach of many European nations avoids the issues we are having here in the States.

Pretty much every infosec professional (yes, even the ones in the IC!) knows people who have been indicted for computer crimes now. And in most of those cases, the prosecution has (as in the video above) operated in what is essentially an unfair, merciless way, even for very minor crimes. This has massive strategic implications when you consider that the US Secret Service and FBI often compete with Mandiant for the handling of computer intrusions, and the people making the decisions about which information to share with Law Enforcement have an extremely negative opinion of it.

In other words: Law Enforcement needs to treat hacker cases as if they are the LAPD prosecuting a famous actor in LA. Or at least, that's the smartest thing to do strategically, and something the US does a lot worse than many of our allies.