Telegram: No Longer Just Mailing It In
May 29, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Allegedly about 900 million people “use” Telegram. More are going to learn about the platform as the company comes under more European Union scrutiny, kicks the tires for next-generation obfuscation technology, and become a best friend of Microsoft… for now. “Telegram Gets an In-App Copilot Bot” reports:
Microsoft has added an official Copilot bot within the messaging app Telegram, which lets users search, ask questions, and converse with the AI chatbot. Copilot for Telegram is currently in beta but is free for Telegram users on mobile or desktop. People can chat with Copilot for Telegram like a regular conversation on the messaging app. Copilot for Telegram is an official Microsoft bot (make sure it’s the one with the checkmark and the username @CopilotOfficialBot).
You can “try it now.” Just navigate to Microsoft “Copilot for Telegram.” At this location, you can:
Meet your new everyday AI companion: Copilot, powered by GPT, now on Telegram. Engage in seamless conversations, access information, and enjoy a smarter chat experience, all within Telegram.
A dinobaby lecturer explains the Telegram APIs and its bot function for automating certain operations within the Telegram platform. Some in the class are looking at TikTok, scrolling Instagram, or reading about a breakthrough in counting large numbers of objects using a unique numerical recipe. But Telegram? WhatsApp and Signal are where the action is, right? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. You are into security and now Telegram. Keep your focus, please.
Next week, I will deliver a talk about Telegram and some related information about obfuscated messaging at the TechnoSecurity & Digital Forensics Conference. I no longer do too many lectures because I am an 80 year old dinobaby, and I hate flying and standing around talking to people 50 years younger than I. However, my team’s research into end-to-end encrypted messaging yielded some interesting findings. At the 2024 US National Cyber Crime Conference about 260 investigators listened to my 75 minute talk, and a number of them said, “We did not know that.” I will also do a Telegram-centric lecture at another US government event in September. But in this short post, I want to cover what the “deal” with Microsoft suggests.
Let’s get to it.
Telegram operates out of Dubai. The distributed team of engineers has been adding features and functions to what began as a messaging app in Russia. The “legend” of Telegram is an interesting story, but I remain skeptical about the company, its links with a certain country, and the direction in which the firm is headed. If you are not familiar with the service, it has morphed into a platform with numerous interesting capabilities. For some actors, Telegram can and has replaced the Dark Web with Telegram’s services. Note: Messages on Telegram are not encrypted by default as they are on some other E2EE messaging applications. Examples include contraband, “personal” services, and streaming video to thousands of people. Some Telegram users pay to get “special” programs. (Please, use your imagination.)
Why is Telegram undergoing this shift from humble messaging app to a platform? Our research suggests that there are three reasons. I want to point out that Pavel Durov does not have a public profile on the scale of a luminary like Elon Musk or Sam AI-Man, but he is out an about. He conducted an “exclusive” and possibly red-herring discussion with Tucker Carlson in April 2024. After the interview, Mr. Pavlov took direct action to block certain message flows from Ukraine into Russia. That may be one reason: Telegram is actively steering information about Ukraine’s view of Mr. Putin’s special operation. Yep, freedom.
Are there others? Let me highlight three:
- Mr. Pavlov and his brother who allegedly is like a person with two PhDs see an opportunity to make money. The Pavlovs, however, are not hurting for cash.
- American messaging apps have been fat and lazy. Mr. Pavlov is an innovator, and he wants to make darned sure that he rungs rings around Signal, WhatsApp, and a number of other outfits. Ego? My team thinks that is part of Mr. Pavlov’s motivation.
- Telegram is expanding because it may not be an independent, free-wheeling outfit. Several on my team think that Mr. Pavlov answers to a higher authority. Is that authority aligned with the US? Probably not.
Now the Microsoft deal?
Several questions may get you synapses in gear:
- Where are the data flowing through Telegram located / stored geographically? The service can regenerate some useful information for a user with a new device.
- Why tout freedom and free speech in April 2024 and several weeks later apply restrictions on data flow? Does this suggest a capability to monitor by user, by content type, and by other metadata?
- Why is Telegram exploring additional network enhancements? My team thinks that Mr. Pavlov has some innovations in obfuscation planned. If the company does implement certain technologies freely disclosed in US patents, what will that mean for analysts and investigators?
- Why a tie up with Microsoft? Whose idea was this? Who benefits from the metadata? What happens if Telegram has some clever ideas about smart software and the Telegram bot function?
Net net: Not too many people in Europe’s regulatory entities have paid much attention to Telegram. The entities of interest have been bigger fish. Now Telegram is growing faster than a Chernobyl boar stuffed on radioactive mushrooms. The EU is recalibrating for Telegram at this time. In the US, the “I did not know” reaction provides some insight into general knowledge about Telegram’s more interesting functions. Think pay-to-view streaming video about certain controversial subjects. Free storage and data transfer is provided by Telegram, a company which does not embrace the Netflix approach to entertainment. Telegram is, as I explain in my lectures, interesting, very interesting.
Stephen E Arnold, May 29, 2024
Google Dings MSFT: Marketing Motivated by Opportunism
May 21, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
While not as exciting as Jake Paul versus Mike Tyson, but the dust up is interesting. The developments leading up to this report about Google criticizing Microsoft’s security methods have a bit of history:
- Microsoft embraced OpenAI, Mistral, and other smart software because regulators are in meetings about regulating
- Google learned that after tire kicking, Apple found OpenAI (Microsoft’s pal) more suitable to the now innovation challenged iPhone. Google became a wallflower, a cute one, but a wallflower nevertheless
- Google faces trouble on three fronts: [a] Its own management of technology and its human resources; [b] threats to its online advertising and brokering business; and [c] challenges in cost control. (Employees get fired, and CFOs leave for a reason.)
Google is not a marketing outfit nor is it one that automatically evokes images associated with trust, data privacy, and people sensitivity. Google seized an opportunity to improve Web search. When forced to monetize, the company found inspiration in the online advertising “pay to play” ideas of Yahoo (Overture and GoTo). There was a legal dust up and Google paid up for that Eureka! moment. Then Google rode the demand for matching ads to queries. After 25 years, Google remains dependent on its semi-automated ad business. Now that business must be supplemented with enterprise cloud revenue.
Two white collar victims of legal witch hunts discuss “trust”. Good enough, MSFT Copilot.
How does the company market while the Red Alert klaxon blares into the cubicles, Google Meet sessions, and the Foosball game areas.?
The information in “Google Attacks Microsoft Cyber Failures in Effort to Steal Customers.” I wonder if Foundem and the French taxation authority might find the Google bandying about the word “steal”? I don’t know the answer to this question. The title indicates that Microsoft’s security woes, recently publicized by the US government, provide a marketing opportunity.
The article reports Google’s grand idea this way:
Government agencies that switch 500 or more users to Google Workspace Enterprise Plus for three years will get one year free and be eligible for a “significant discount” for the rest of the contract, said Andy Wen, the senior director of product management for Workspace. The Alphabet Inc. division is offering 18 months free to corporate customers that sign a three-year contract, a hefty discount after that and incident response services from Google’s Mandiant security business. All customers will receive free consulting services to help them make the switch.
The idea that Google is marketing is an interesting one. Like Telegram, Google has not been a long-time advocate of Madison Avenue advertising, marketing, and salesmanship. I was once retained by a US government agency to make a phone call to one of my “interaction points” at Google so that the director of the agency could ask a question about the quite pricey row of yellow Google Search Appliances. I made the call and obtained the required information. I also got paid. That’s some marketing in my opinion. An old person from rural Kentucky intermediating between a senior government official and a manager in one of Google’s mind boggling puzzle palace.
I want to point out that Google’s assertions about security may be overstated. One recent example is the Register’s report “Google Cloud Shows It Can Break Things for Lots of Customers – Not Just One at a Time.” Is this a security issue? My hunch is that whenever something breaks, security becomes an issue. Why? Rushed fixes may introduce additional vulnerabilities on top of the “good enough” engineering approach implemented by many high-flying, boastful, high-technology outfits. The Register says:
In the week after its astounding deletion of Australian pension fund UniSuper’s entire account, you might think Google Cloud would be on its very best behavior. Nope.
So what? When one operates at Google scale, the “what” is little more than users of 33 Google Cloud services were needful of some of that YouTube TV Zen moment stuff.
My reaction is that these giant outfits which are making clear that single points of failure are the norm in today’s online environment may not do the “fail over” or “graceful recovery” processes with the elegance of Mikhail Baryshnikov’s tuning point solo move. Google is obviously still struggling with the after effects of Microsoft’s OpenAI announcement and the flops like the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Show in Paris and the “smart software” producing images orthogonal to historical fact.
Online advertising expertise may not correlate with marketing finesse.
Stephen E Arnold, May 21, 2024
Germany Has Had It with Some Microsoft Products
May 20, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Can Schleswig-Holstein succeed where Munich and Lower Saxony failed? Those two German states tried switching their official IT systems from Microsoft to open source software but were forced to reverse course. Emboldened by Microsoft’s shove to adopt Windows 11 and Office 365, informed by its neighbors’ defeats, and armed with three years of planning, Germany’s northernmost state is forging ahead. The Register frames the initiative as an epic battle in, “Open Source Versus Microsoft: The New Rebellion Begins.”
With cries of “Digital Sovereignty,” Schleswig-Holstein shakes its fist at its corporate overlord. Beginning with the aptly named LibreOffice suite, these IT warriors plan to replace Microsoft products top to bottom with open source alternatives. Writer Rupert Goodwins notes open source software has improved since Munich and Lower Saxony were forced to retreat, but will that be enough? He considers:
“Microsoft has a lot of cards to play here. Schleswig-Holstein will have to maintain compatibility with Windows within its own borders, with the German federation, with Europe, and the rest of the world. If a change to Windows happens to break that compatibility, guess who picks up the pain and the bills. Microsoft wouldn’t dream of doing that deliberately, no matter how high the stakes, yet these things happen. Freedom to innovate, don’t you know. If in five years the transition is a success, the benefits to the state, the people, and open source will be immeasurable. As well as bringing data protection back to those charged with providing it, it will give European laws new teeth. It will increase expertise, funding, and opportunities for open source. Schleswig-Holstein itself will become a new hub of technical excellence in an area that intensely interests the rest of the world, in public and private organizations. Microsoft cannot afford to let this happen. Schleswig-Holstein cannot back down, now it’s made it a battle for independence.”
See the write-up for more warfare language as well as Goodwins’ likening of user agreements to the classic suzerain-vassal relationship. Will Schleswig-Holstein emerge victorious, or will mighty Microsoft prevail? Governments depend on Microsoft. The US is now putting pressure on the Softies to do something more than making Windows 11 more annoying and creating a Six Flags Over Cyber Crime with their security methods. Will anything change? Nah.
Cynthia Murrell, May 22, 2024
Researchers Reveal Vulnerabilities Across Pinyin Keyboard Apps
May 9, 2024
Conventional keyboards were designed for languages based on the Roman alphabet. Fortunately, apps exist to adapt them to script-based languages like Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. Unfortunately, such tools can pave the way for bad actors to capture sensitive information. Researchers at the Citizen Lab have found vulnerabilities in many pinyin keyboard apps, which romanize Chinese languages. Gee, how could those have gotten there? The post, “The Not-So-Silent Type,” presents their results. Writers Jeffrey Knockel, Mona Wang, and Zoë Reichert summarize the key findings:
- “We analyzed the security of cloud-based pinyin keyboard apps from nine vendors — Baidu, Honor, Huawei, iFlytek, OPPO, Samsung, Tencent, Vivo, and Xiaomi — and examined their transmission of users’ keystrokes for vulnerabilities.
- Our analysis revealed critical vulnerabilities in keyboard apps from eight out of the nine vendors in which we could exploit that vulnerability to completely reveal the contents of users’ keystrokes in transit. Most of the vulnerable apps can be exploited by an entirely passive network eavesdropper.
- Combining the vulnerabilities discovered in this and our previous report analyzing Sogou’s keyboard apps, we estimate that up to one billion users are affected by these vulnerabilities. Given the scope of these vulnerabilities, the sensitivity of what users type on their devices, the ease with which these vulnerabilities may have been discovered, and that the Five Eyes have previously exploited similar vulnerabilities in Chinese apps for surveillance, it is possible that such users’ keystrokes may have also been under mass surveillance.
- We reported these vulnerabilities to all nine vendors. Most vendors responded, took the issue seriously, and fixed the reported vulnerabilities, although some keyboard apps remain vulnerable.”
See the article for all the details. It describes the study’s methodology, gives specific findings for each of those app vendors, and discusses the ramifications of the findings. Some readers may want to skip to the very detailed Summary of Recommendations. It offers suggestions to fellow researchers, international standards bodies, developers, app store operators, device manufacturers, and, finally, keyboard users.
The interdisciplinary Citizen Lab is based at the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy, University of Toronto. Its researchers study the intersection of information and communication technologies, human rights, and global security.
Cynthia Murrell, May 9, 2024
Google Stomps into the Threat Intelligence Sector: AI and More
May 7, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Before commenting on Google’s threat services news. I want to remind you of the link to the list of Google initiatives which did not survive. You can find the list at Killed by Google. I want to mention this resource because Google’s product innovation and management methods are interesting to say the least. Operating in Code Red or Yellow Alert or whatever the Google crisis buzzword is, generating sustainable revenue beyond online advertising has proven to be a bit of a challenge. Google is more comfortable using such methods as [a] buying and trying to scale it, [b] imitating another firm’s innovation, and [c] dumping big money into secret projects in the hopes that what comes out will not result in the firm’s getting its “glass” kicked to the curb.
Google makes a big entrance at the RSA Conference. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Have you considerate purchasing Google’s threat intelligence service?
With that as background, Google has introduced an “unmatched” cyber security service. The information was described at the RSA security conference and in a quite Googley blog post “Introducing Google Threat Intelligence: Actionable threat intelligence at Google Scale.” Please, note the operative word “scale.” If the service does not make money, Google will “not put wood behind” the effort. People won’t work on the project, and it will be left to dangle in the wind or just shot like Cricket, a now famous example of animal husbandry. (Google’s Cricket was the Google Appliance. Remember that? Take over the enterprise search market. Nope. Bang, hasta la vista.)
Google’s new service aims squarely at the comparatively well-established and now maturing cyber security market. I have to check to see who owns what. Venture firms and others with money have been buying promising cyber security firms. Google owned a piece of Recorded Future. Now Recorded Future is owned by a third party outfit called Insight. Darktrace has been or will be purchased by Thoma Bravo. Consolidation is underway. Thus, it makes sense to Google to enter the threat intelligence market, using its Mandiant unit as a springboard, one of those home diving boards, not the cliff in Acapulco diving platform.
The write up says:
we are announcing Google Threat Intelligence, a new offering that combines the unmatched depth of our Mandiant frontline expertise, the global reach of the VirusTotal community, and the breadth of visibility only Google can deliver, based on billions of signals across devices and emails. Google Threat Intelligence includes Gemini in Threat Intelligence, our AI-powered agent that provides conversational search across our vast repository of threat intelligence, enabling customers to gain insights and protect themselves from threats faster than ever before.
Google to its credit did not trot out the “quantum supremacy” lingo, but the marketers did assert that the service offers “unmatched visibility in threats.” I like the “unmatched.” Not supreme, just unmatched. The graphic below illustrates the elements of the unmatchedness:
Credit to the Google 2024
But where is artificial intelligence in the diagram? Don’t worry. The blog explains that Gemini (Google’s AI “system”) delivers
AI-driven operationalization
But the foundation of the new service is Gemini, which does not appear in the diagram. That does not matter, the Code Red crowd explains:
Gemini 1.5 Pro offers the world’s longest context window, with support for up to 1 million tokens. It can dramatically simplify the technical and labor-intensive process of reverse engineering malware — one of the most advanced malware-analysis techniques available to cybersecurity professionals. In fact, it was able to process the entire decompiled code of the malware file for WannaCry in a single pass, taking 34 seconds to deliver its analysis and identify the kill switch. We also offer a Gemini-driven entity extraction tool to automate data fusion and enrichment. It can automatically crawl the web for relevant open source intelligence (OSINT), and classify online industry threat reporting. It then converts this information to knowledge collections, with corresponding hunting and response packs pulled from motivations, targets, tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), actors, toolkits, and Indicators of Compromise (IoCs). Google Threat Intelligence can distill more than a decade of threat reports to produce comprehensive, custom summaries in seconds.
I like the “indicators of compromise.”
Several observations:
- Will this service be another Google Appliance-type play for the enterprise market? It is too soon to tell, but with the pressure mounting from regulators, staff management issues, competitors, and savvy marketers in Redmond “indicators” of success will be known in the next six to 12 months
- Is this a business or just another item on a punch list? The answer to the question may be provided by what the established players in the threat intelligence market do and what actions Amazon and Microsoft take. Is a new round of big money acquisitions going to begin?
- Will enterprise customers “just buy Google”? Chief security officers have demonstrated that buying multiple security systems is a “safe” approach to a job which is difficult: Protecting their employers from deeply flawed software and years of ignoring online security.
Net net: In a maturing market, three factors may signal how the big, new Google service will develop. These are [a] price, [b] perceived efficacy, and [c] avoidance of a major issue like the SolarWinds’ matter. I am rooting for Googzilla, but I still wonder why Google shifted from Recorded Future to acquisitions and me-too methods. Oh, well. I am a dinobaby and cannot be expected to understand.
Stephen E Arnold, May 7, 2024
Microsoft Security Messaging: Which Is What?
May 6, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
I am a dinobaby. I am easily confused. I read two “real” news items and came away confused. The first story is “Microsoft Overhaul Treats Security As Top Priority after a Series of Failures.” The subtitle is interesting too because it links “security” to monetary compensation. That’s an incentive, but why isn’t security just part of work at an alleged monopoly’s products and services? I surmise the answer is, “Because security costs money, a lot of money.” That article asserts:
After a scathing report from the US Cyber Safety Review Board recently concluded that “Microsoft’s security culture was inadequate and requires an overhaul,” it’s doing just that by outlining a set of security principles and goals that are tied to compensation packages for Microsoft’s senior leadership team.
Okay. But security emerges from basic engineering decisions; for instance, does a developer spend time figuring out and resolving security when dependencies are unknown or documented only by a grousing user in a comment posted on a technical forum? Or, does the developer include a new feature and moves on to the next task, assuming that someone else or an automated process will make sure everything works without opening the door to the curious bad actor? I think that Microsoft assumes it deploys secure systems and that its customers have the responsibility to ensure their systems’ security.
The cyber racoons found the secure picnic basket was easily opened. The well-fed, previously content humans seem dismayed that their goodies were stolen. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Definitely good enough.
The write up adds that Microsoft has three security principles and six security pillars. I won’t list these because the words chosen strike me like those produced by a lawyer, an MBA, and a large language model. Remember. I am a dinobaby. Six plus three is nine things. Some car executive said a long time ago, “Two objectives is no objective.” I would add nine generalizations are not a culture of security. Nine is like Microsoft Word features. No one can keep track of them because most users use Word to produce Words. The other stuff is usually confusing, in the way, or presented in a way that finding a specific feature is an exercise in frustration. Is Word secure? Sure, just download some nifty documents from a frisky Telegram group or the Dark Web.
The write up concludes with a weird statement. Let me quote it:
I reported last month that inside Microsoft there is concern that the recent security attacks could seriously undermine trust in the company. “Ultimately, Microsoft runs on trust and this trust must be earned and maintained,” says Bell. “As a global provider of software, infrastructure and cloud services, we feel a deep responsibility to do our part to keep the world safe and secure. Our promise is to continually improve and adapt to the evolving needs of cybersecurity. This is job #1 for us.”
First, there is the notion of trust. Perhaps Edge’s persistence and advertising in the start menu, SolarWinds, and the legions of Chinese and Russian bad actors undermine whatever trust exists. Most users are clueless about security issues baked into certain systems. They assume; they don’t trust. Cyber security professionals buy third party security solutions like shopping at a grocery store. Big companies’ senior executive don’t understand why the problem exists. Lawyers and accountants understand many things. Digital security is often not a core competency. “Let the cloud handle it,” sounds pretty good when the fourth IT manager or the third security officer quit this year.
Now the second write up. “Microsoft’s Responsible AI Chief Worries about the Open Web.” First, recall that Microsoft owns GitHub, a very convenient source for individuals looking to perform interesting tasks. Some are good tasks like snagging a script to perform a specific function for a church’s database. Other software does interesting things in order to help a user shore up security. Rapid 7 metasploit-framework is an interesting example. Almost anyone can find quite a bit of useful software on GitHub. When I lectured in a central European country’s main technical university, the students were familiar with GitHub. Oh, boy, were they.
In this second write up I learned that Microsoft has released a 39 page “report” which looks a lot like a PowerPoint presentation created by a blue-chip consulting firm. You can download the document at this link, at least you could as of May 6, 2024. “Security” appears 78 times in the document. There are “security reviews.” There is “cybersecurity development” and a reference to something called “Our Aether Security Engineering Guidance.” There is “red teaming” for biosecurity and cybersecurity. There is security in Azure AI. There are security reviews. There is the use of Copilot for security. There is something called PyRIT which “enables security professionals and machine learning engineers to proactively find risks in their generative applications.” There is partnering with MITRE for security guidance. And there are four footnotes to the document about security.
What strikes me is that security is definitely a popular concept in the document. But the principles and pillars apparently require AI context. As I worked through the PowerPoint, I formed the opinion that a committee worked with a small group of wordsmiths and crafted a rather elaborate word salad about going all in with Microsoft AI. Then the group added “security” the way my mother would chop up a red pepper and put it in a salad for color.
I want to offer several observations:
- Both documents suggest to me that Microsoft is now pushing “security” as Job One, a slogan used by the Ford Motor Co. (How are those Fords fairing in the reliability ratings?) Saying words and doing are two different things.
- The rhetoric of the two documents remind me of Gertrude’s statement, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” (Hamlet? Remember?)
- The US government, most large organizations, and many individuals “assume” that Microsoft has taken security seriously for decades. The jargon-and-blather PowerPoint make clear that Microsoft is trying to find a nice way to say, “We are saying we will do better already. Just listen, people.”
Net net: Bandying about the word trust or the word security puts everyone on notice that Microsoft knows it has a security problem. But the key point is that bad actors know it, exploit the security issues, and believe that Microsoft software and services will be a reliable source of opportunity of mischief. Ransomware? Absolutely. Exposed data? You bet your life. Free hacking tools? Let’s go. Does Microsoft have a security problem? The word form is incorrect. Does Microsoft have security problems? You know the answer. Aether.
Stephen E Arnold, May 6, 2024
Microsoft: Security Debt and a Cooked Goose
May 3, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Microsoft has a deputy security officer. Who is it? For reasons of security, I don’t know. What I do know is that our test VPNs no longer work. That’s a good way to enforce reduced security: Just break Windows 11. (Oh, the pushed messages work just fine.)
Is Microsoft’s security goose cooked? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Keep following your security recipe.
I read “At Microsoft, Years of Security Debt Come Crashing Down.” The idea is that technical debt has little hidden chambers, in this case, security debt. The write up says:
…negligence, misguided investments and hubris have left the enterprise giant on its back foot.
How has Microsoft responded? Great financial report and this type of news:
… in early April, the federal Cyber Safety Review Board released a long-anticipated report which showed the company failed to prevent a massive 2023 hack of its Microsoft Exchange Online environment. The hack by a People’s Republic of China-linked espionage actor led to the theft of 60,000 State Department emails and gained access to other high-profile officials.
Bad? Not as bad as this reminder that there are some concerning issues
What is interesting is that big outfits, government agencies, and start ups just use Windows. It’s ubiquitous, relatively cheap, and good enough. Apple’s software is fine, but it is different. Linux has its fans, but it is work. Therefore, hello Windows and Microsoft.
The article states:
Just weeks ago, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency issued an emergency directive, which orders federal civilian agencies to mitigate vulnerabilities in their networks, analyze the content of stolen emails, reset credentials and take additional steps to secure Microsoft Azure accounts.
The problem is that Microsoft has been successful in becoming for many government and commercial entities the only game in town. This warrants several observations:
- The Microsoft software ecosystem may be impossible to secure due to its size and complexity
- Government entities from America to Zimbabwe find the software “good enough”
- Security — despite the chit chat — is expensive and often given cursory attention by system architects, programmers, and clients.
The hope is that smart software will identify, mitigate, and choke off the cyber threats. At cyber security conferences, I wonder if the attendees are paying attention to Emily Dickinson (the sporty nun of Amherst), who wrote:
Hope is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul
And sings the tune without the words
And never stops at all.
My thought is that more than hope may be necessary. Hope in AI is the cute security trick of the day. Instead of a happy bird, we may end up with a cooked goose.
Stephen E Arnold, May 3, 2024
Security Conflation: A Semantic Slippery Slope to Persistent Problems
May 2, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
My view is that secrets can be useful. When discussing who has what secret, I think it is important to understand who the players / actors are. When I explain how to perform a task to a contractor in the UK, my transfer of information is a secret; that is, I don’t want others to know the trick to solve a problem that can take others hours or day to resolve. The context is an individual knows something and transfers that specific information so that it does not become a TikTok video. Other secrets are used by bad actors. Some are used by government officials. Commercial enterprises — for example, pharmaceutical companies wrestling with an embarrassing finding from a clinical trial — have their secrets too. Blue-chip consulting firms are bursting with information which is unknown by all but a few individuals.
Good enough, MSFT Copilot. After “all,” you are the expert in security.
I read “Hacker Free-for-All Fights for Control of Home and Office Routers Everywhere.” I am less interested in the details of shoddy security and how it is exploited by individuals and organizations. What troubles me is the use of these words: “All” and “Everywhere.” Categorical affirmatives are problematic in a today’s datasphere. The write up conflates any entity working for a government entity with any bad actor intent on committing a crime as cut from the same cloth.
The write up makes two quite different types of behavior identical. The impact of such conflation, in my opinion, is to suggest:
- Government entities are criminal enterprises, using techniques and methods which are in violation of the “law”. I assume that the law is a moral or ethical instruction emitted by some source and known to be a universal truth. For the purposes of my comments, let’s assume the essay’s analysis is responding to some higher authority and anchored on that “universal” truth. (Remember the danger of all and everywhere.)
- Bad actors break laws just like governments and are, therefore, both are criminals. If true, these people and entities must be punished.
- Some higher authority — not identified in the write up — must step in and bring these evil doers to justice.
The problem is that there is a substantive difference among the conflated bad actors. Those engaged in enforcing laws or protecting a nation state are, one hopes, acting within that specific context; that is, the laws, rules, and conventions of that nation state. When one investigator or analyst seeks “secrets” from an adversary, the reason for the action is, in my opinion, easy to explain: The actor followed the rules spelled out by the context / nation state for which the actor works. If one doesn’t like how France runs its railroad, move to Saudi Arabia. In short, find a place to live where the behaviors of the nation state match up with one’s individual perceptions.
When a bad actor — for example a purveyor of child sexual abuse material on an encrypted messaging application operating in a distributed manner from a country in the Middle East — does his / her business, government entities want to shut down the operation. Substitute any criminal act you want, and the justification for obtaining information to neutralize the bad actor is at least understandable to the child’s mother.
The write up dances into the swamp of conflation in an effort to make clear that the system and methods of good and bad actors are the same. That’s the way life is in the datasphere.
The real issue, however, is not the actors who exploit the datasphere, in my view, the problems begins with:
- Shoddy, careless, or flawed security created and sold by commercial enterprises
- Lax, indifferent, and false economies of individuals and organizations when dealing with security their operating environment
- Failure of regulatory authorities to certify that specific software and hardware meet requirements for security.
How does the write up address fixing the conflation problem, the true root of security issues, and the fact that exploited flaws persist for years? I noted this passage:
The best way to keep routers free of this sort of malware is to ensure that their administrative access is protected by a strong password, meaning one that’s randomly generated and at least 11 characters long and ideally includes a mix of letters, numbers, or special characters. Remote access should be turned off unless the capability is truly needed and is configured by someone experienced. Firmware updates should be installed promptly. It’s also a good idea to regularly restart routers since most malware for the devices can’t survive a reboot. Once a device is no longer supported by the manufacturer, people who can afford to should replace it with a new one.
Right. Blame the individual user. But that individual is just one part of the “problem.” The damage done by conflation and by failing to focus on the root causes remains. Therefore, we live in a compromised environment. Muddled thinking makes life easier for bad actors and harder for those who are charged with enforcing rules and regulations. Okay, mom, change your password.
Stephen E Arnold, May 2, 2024
A High-Tech Best Friend and Campfire Lighter
May 1, 2024
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
A dog is allegedly man’s best friend. I have a French bulldog,
and I am not 100 percent sure that’s an accurate statement. But I have a way to get the pal I have wanted for years.
Ars Technica reports “You Can Now Buy a Flame-Throwing Robot Dog for Under $10,000” from Ohio-based maker Throwflame. See the article for footage of this contraption setting fire to what appears to be a forest. Terrific. Reporter Benj Edwards writes:
“Thermonator is a quadruped robot with an ARC flamethrower mounted to its back, fueled by gasoline or napalm. It features a one-hour battery, a 30-foot flame-throwing range, and Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity for remote control through a smartphone. It also includes a LIDAR sensor for mapping and obstacle avoidance, laser sighting, and first-person view (FPV) navigation through an onboard camera. The product appears to integrate a version of the Unitree Go2 robot quadruped that retails alone for $1,600 in its base configuration. The company lists possible applications of the new robot as ‘wildfire control and prevention,’ ‘agricultural management,’ ‘ecological conservation,’ ‘snow and ice removal,’ and ‘entertainment and SFX.’ But most of all, it sets things on fire in a variety of real-world scenarios.”
And what does my desired dog look like? The GenY Tibby asleep at work? Nope.
I hope my Thermonator includes an AI at the controls. Maybe that will be an add-on feature in 2025? Unitree, maker of the robot base mentioned above, once vowed to oppose the weaponization of their products (along with five other robotics firms.) Perhaps Throwflame won them over with assertions their device is not technically a weapon, since flamethrowers are not considered firearms by federal agencies. It is currently legal to own this mayhem machine in 48 states. Certain restrictions apply in Maryland and California. How many crazies can get their hands on a mere $9,420 plus tax for that kind of power? Even factoring in the cost of napalm (sold separately), probably quite a few.
Cynthia Murrell, May 1, 2024
From the Cyber Security Irony Department: We Market and We Suffer Breaches. Hire Us!
April 24, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Irony, according to You.com, means:
Irony is a rhetorical device used to express an intended meaning by using language that conveys the opposite meaning when taken literally. It involves a noticeable, often humorous, difference between what is said and the intended meaning. The term “irony” can be used to describe a situation in which something which was intended to have a particular outcome turns out to have been incorrect all along. Irony can take various forms, such as verbal irony, dramatic irony, and situational irony. The word “irony” comes from the Greek “eironeia,” meaning “feigned ignorance”
I am not sure I understand the definition, but let’s see if these two “communications” capture the smart software’s definition.
The first item is an email I received from the cyber security firm Palo Alto Networks. The name evokes the green swards of Stanford University, the wonky mall, and the softball games (co-ed, of course). Here’s the email solicitation I received on April 15, 2024:
The message is designed to ignite my enthusiasm because the program invites me to:
Join us to discover how you can harness next-generation, AI-powered security to:
- Solve for tomorrow’s security operations challenges today
- Enable cloud transformation and deployment
- Secure hybrid workforces consistently and at scale
- And much more.
I liked the much more. Most cyber outfits do road shows. Will I drive from outside Louisville, Kentucky, to Columbus, Ohio? I was thinking about it until I read:
“Major Palo Alto Security Flaw Is Being Exploited via Python Zero-Day Backdoor.”
Maybe it is another Palo Alto outfit. When I worked in Foster City (home of the original born-dead mall), I think there was a Palo Alto Pizza. But my memory is fuzzy and Plastic Fantastic Land does blend together. Let’s look at the write up:
For weeks now, unidentified threat actors have been leveraging a critical zero-day vulnerability in Palo Alto Networks’ PAN-OS software, running arbitrary code on vulnerable firewalls, with root privilege. Multiple security researchers have flagged the campaign, including Palo Alto Networks’ own Unit 42, noting a single threat actor group has been abusing a vulnerability called command injection, since at least March 26 2024.
Yep, seems to be the same outfit wanting me to “solve for tomorrow’s security operations challenges today.” The only issue is that the exploit was discovered a couple of weeks ago. If the write up is accurate, the exploit remains unfixed.,
Perhaps this is an example of irony? However, I think it is a better example of the over-the-top yip yap about smart software and the efficacy of cyber security systems. Yes, I know it is a zero day, but it is a zero day only to Palo Alto. The bad actors who found the problem and exploited already know the company has a security issue.
I mentioned in articles about some intelware that the developers do one thing, the software project manager does another, and the marketers output what amounts to hoo hah, baloney, and Marketing 101 hyperbole.
Yep, ironic.
Stephen E Arnold, April 24, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
