|
1
|
- Ed Lazowska
- IT & Public Policy
- Autumn 2004
|
|
2
|
- Status regarding “traditional” vulnerabilities
- Some “grand challenges”
- IT and counterterrorism
- Some legal and regulatory issues
- Security in open vs. closed systems
- Does it make sense to hunt for security holes?
- An economic perspective
- President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee on Cybersecurity
|
|
3
|
- General observations
- Vulnerabilities are growing faster than our ability/willingness to
respond
- Achieving/maintaining security is expensive, so people “use” as little
as they think they can get away with
- Overall security is only as strong as the weakest link
- The best is the enemy of the good
- Constant action and reaction
- Commercial and face-saving concerns of victims constitute a barrier to
reporting
|
|
4
|
- Management
- We are doing far worse than best practices make possible
- We must change market incentives – for example, by becoming able to
quantify security, and by shifting liability
|
|
5
|
- Operational considerations
- To promote accountability, frequent and unannounced penetration testing
(“red-teaming”) is essential
- Mis-configuration is a leading cause of vulnerabilities; configuration
tools are “miserably inadequate” today
- Organizations must have actionable fallback plans for when a
cyberattack occurs
|
|
6
|
- Design and architectural considerations
- “Human error” is usually scapegoating – the problem usually is
management, or operational, or design
- Current authentication methods are lame
- The “defensive perimeter” approach, while not totally useless, falls
way short – there must be mutual suspicion within the perimeter
|
|
7
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
10
|
- Observations
- IT is in the control loop of every other element of the nation’s
critical infrastructure
- IT can be a target
- IT can also be a weapon: can be
exploited to launch or exacerbate an attack, or to interfere with a
response
- IT has an additional key role in counter-terrorism (e.g., datamining)
and in response to terrorism (communication)
|
|
11
|
- Recommended short-term actions
- Enhance the communication and computing capabilities of emergency
responders
- Promote the use of current best practices in information and network
security
|
|
12
|
- Recommended research investments
- Information and network security
- Authentication, intrusion detection, containment, recovery, bug
prevention/detection/repair
- C3I (Command, Control, Communication, and Intelligence) systems
- Interoperability, capacity, decision support, location-aware systems,
sensornets
- Information fusion and datamining
- Privacy and confidentiality
- Human and organizational factors
|
|
13
|
- Information sharing
- Freedom of Information Act – companies reluctant to disclose
CIIP-related information with the government
- Antitrust law – companies reluctant to share CIIP-related information
with competitors
|
|
14
|
- Liability
- May need civil as well as criminal liability, to allow victims to
recover losses from parties guilty of negligence or misconduct
- May need tort law as well as contract law – is there a legal duty on
the part of a company to secure its CII?
- Standards, best practices, and audits:
improve security, and provide a defense
- Current patchwork of regulations must be regularized
|
|
15
|
- The big picture
- Collective risks => collective actions
- “The crisis management mentality in the aftermath of 9/11 has pushed
aside issues of privacy and civil liberties”
- Confused and confusing messages from government are a real problem – “a
clear and consistent message from the government to the private sector
will go a long way toward building the trust that is necessary to
protect the nation’s CII”
|
|
16
|
- It cuts both ways!
- When a researcher publishes a new abstract vulnerability, an attacker
can devise a concrete attack much more easily if source is available
- However, time-to-market for a defense may be shorter for OSS
- But OSS makes it possible to identify new code, which is where the bug
density will be highest
- But each individual tester has preferences, so there is something to
“many eyeballs” at least in terms of variation in focus
|
|
17
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
19
|
- Asymmetry of security
- Suppose Windows has 1M bugs, each with MBTF of 1B hrs
- Suppose Paddy works for the IRA, trying to hack the British Army’s
Windows systems
- Suppose Brian is the British Army assurance guy in charge of blocking
Paddy
- Paddy has a day job – so he can only test 1000 hrs/yr
- Brian has full Windows source code, dozens of Ph.D.s at his disposal,
etc. – 10M hrs/yr of testing
|
|
20
|
- After a year, Paddy finds 1 bug, Brian patches 100K
- But the chance Brian has patched Paddy’s bug is only 10%
|
|
21
|
- Assignment of liability is crucial
- Survey of fraud against automatic teller machines
- US: if a customer disputes a
transaction, the bank must prove the customer was mistaken
- Britain, Norway, the Netherlands:
burden of proof lies with the customer
- Clear differences in bank behavior in these two situations!
|
|
22
|
- Alignment of financial incentives also is crucial
- Hal Varian: A consumer might pay
$100 for anti-virus software to keep her system clean, but is unlikely
to pay even $1 to prevent her system from being used to attack
Amazon.com!
|
|
23
|
- Subcommittee on Cyber Security
- Presentation of Draft Findings and Recommendations
- F. Thomson Leighton, Chair
- November 19, 2004
- Grand Hyatt Washington at Washington Center
- Washington, D.C.
|
|
24
|
- IT is at the heart of society; IT runs critical infrastructures: electric power grid, financial
systems, air traffic control, food distribution, defense networks, etc.
- The use of IT (and the faith in it) has had enormous positive impact on
productivity, with tremendous remaining potential (e.g., see PITAC
Health Care report).
|
|
25
|
- Ubiquitous interconnection is central to what makes IT important to
society.
- But ubiquitous interconnection is also a primary source of widespread
vulnerability.
|
|
26
|
- The number of new vulnerabilities discovered in software is growing at
140% per year, and is now in excess of 4000 per year (CERT).
- The average time between disclosure of a vulnerability and release of an
associated exploit has dropped to 5.8 days (Symantec).
- The percent of PCs infected per month has grown from 1% in 1996 to over
10% in 2003 (ICSA Labs).
- The rate at which new hosts are “zombied” rose from 2,000 per day to
30,000 per day during the first 6 months of 2004 (Symantec).
|
|
27
|
- 92% of organizations experienced “virus disasters” in 2003 (ICSA Labs).
- 83% of financial institutions experienced compromised systems in 2003,
more than double the rate in 2002 (Deloitte).
- Hostile (worm) traffic originated from 40% of networks controlled by
Fortune 100 companies in 1H04, despite the fact that these companies
have taken a variety of protective measures (Symantec).
|
|
28
|
- 17% of 100 companies surveyed reported being the target of cyber
extortion (CMU-Information Week)
- The number of unique phishing attacks is doubling every month with 2000
different attacks perpetrated against millions of users in July alone
(Anti-Phishing Working Group).
- 1% of US households fell victim to phishing attacks in early 2004, at a
cost of over $400M in direct monetary losses (Consumers Union).
|
|
29
|
- Funding of Basic Research
- Basic research is needed to move us from a model of “plugging holes in
the dike” in response to each new vulnerability to a model where the
system as a whole is secure against large classes of current and future
threats.
- Basic research is the responsibility of the Federal Government.
|
|
30
|
- Development and Technology Transfer
- Effective development needs supporting mechanisms such as testbeds and
metrics.
- The Federal Government has a critical role to play in the development
of metrics, testbeds, and best practices.
- Market Adoption of Products and Best Practices by Government and
Industry
- Very important but not the primary focus of this report.
|
|
31
|
- Cyber security R&D takes place in a number of agencies.
- Primary focus of the Subcommittee has been on NSF, DARPA, and DHS.
- Also of note: NIST, NSA, and
ARDA.
- Others: ODDR&E, DOE, FAA, NASA, NIJ, and the uniformed services.
|
|
32
|
- Only substantial program to focus on basic research for the civilian
sector.
- Much of NSF’s cyber security activity takes place within its Cyber Trust
Program.
- Construes “cyber security” very broadly
- FY 2004: $64 million total; $31
million for research grants (which includes $5M from DARPA)
- Funded about 8% of proposals (6% of requested dollars); about 25%
worthy of funding
- Other activities include scholarship support and initiatives that
involve other NSF programs.
|
|
33
|
- Military focus: Some emphasis on networking systems that find targets
and systems that kill targets.
- Short/middle-term time horizon:
Departure from historical support of longer-term research.
- Programs are increasingly classified, thereby excluding most academic
institutions. Also a departure
from historical support of university researchers.
- Assumes other agencies, especially NSF, will fund basic research—DARPA’s
(new) mission is to incorporate pre-existing technology into products
for the military.
|
|
34
|
- Focus on cooperative efforts, infrastructure such as metrics and
testbeds, and technology transfer.
Some efforts to improve Government adoption of new products.
- FY 2004 budget (and FY 2005 as well) is $18 million for cyber security;
about $1.5 million directed to basic research. Most funding for short-term
activities.
- WMD is primary priority. Assumes
NSF and industry are responsible for basic research.
|
|
35
|
- Focus on standards, metrics, guidelines, testing, security checklists,
and research.
- Research program is primarily near-term.
- Cyber security budget is approximately $15 million in FY 2004 (which
includes $5 million in reimbursements from other agencies).
|
|
36
|
- NSA
- Focus on high-end threats.
- Almost all cyber security research is directed towards the military and
intelligence communities.
- ARDA
- Focus on high-risk, high-payoff sponsored research.
- Almost all research is directed towards the intelligence community.
|
|
37
|
- The information infrastructure of the United States, on which we depend
both directly and for control of our physical infrastructure, is
vulnerable to terrorist and criminal attacks. The private sector has a
key role to play in securing the nation’s IT infrastructure, by
deploying good security products and adopting good security
practices. But the Federal
government also has a key role to play in providing the intellectual
capital and evaluation infrastructure that enables these good security
products and practices. The
committee finds that the U.S. government is largely failing in its
responsibilities in this regard.
|
|
38
|
- Finding: The Federal R&D
budget provides severely insufficient funding for civilian basic
research in cyber security.
- Recommendation: The overall funding for civilian basic research in cyber
security should be substantially increased, i.e., by an amount of at
least $90 M annually. Further
increases may be necessary depending on the Nation’s cyber security
posture in the future.
|
|
39
|
- Some specific topics in need of greater attention:
- Computer Authentication Methodologies
- Securing Fundamental Protocols
- Secure Software Engineering
- End-to-end System Security
- Monitoring and Detection
- Mitigation and Recovery Methodologies
- Cyberforensics and Technology to Enable Prosecution of Criminals
- Modeling and Testbeds for New Technologies
- Metrics, Benchmarks, and Best Practices
- Societal and Governance Issues
|
|
40
|
- Finding: The cyber security basic
research community is too small, considering the importance of the work
it undertakes, and fails to adequately engage the range of intellectual
talent needed for genuine progress.
- Recommendation: The Federal government should aggressively seek to
strengthen and enlarge the cyber security basic research community by
supporting mechanisms aimed at recruiting and retaining current and
future academic researchers in research universities.
|
|
41
|
- Finding: Technology transfer
efforts in the cyber security area are critical to the successful
incorporation of Federal government-sponsored research into best
practices and products.
- Recommendation: The Federal government should sustain and strengthen its
support for technology transfer activities in cyber security.
|
|
42
|
- Finding: The present Federal
cyber security R&D effort lacks adequate coordination and coherence.
- Recommendation: An entity within
the National Science and Technology Council should provide greater
coordination and monitoring of federal R&D efforts in cyber
security.
|