Re: Wiretap Act Does Not Cover Message 'in Storage' For Short Period (was Re: BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 2/27/03)
At 02:30 PM 3/5/2003 -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: From: Somebody Technically, since their signal speed is slower than light, even transmission lines act as storage devices. Wire tapping is now legal. The crucial difference, from a law enforcement perspective, is how hard it is to get the requisite court order. A stored message order is relatively easy; a wiretap order is very hard. Note that this distinction is primarily statutory, not (as far as I know) constitutional. Furthermore, it's apparently not illegal for a non-governmental actor to retrieve stored information which they have access to, although it might be illegal for them to wiretap a communication even if they had access to the physical medium over which it travels. I disagree with Somebody's claim; I don't think that claim would go anywhere in court, since a transmission clearly falls under the category of wire communication, and it's clear that transmission lines are the very entities the wiretap act has always been intended to protect, so Congress' intent is quite clear, regardless of any argument about storage. - Tim
Re: Palladium: technical limits and implications
At 07:30 PM 8/12/2002 +0100, Adam Back wrote: (Tim Dierks: read the earlier posts about ring -1 to find the answer to your question about feasibility in the case of Palladium; in the case of TCPA your conclusions are right I think). The addition of an additional security ring with a secured, protected memory space does not, in my opinion, change the fact that such a ring cannot accurately determine that a particular request is consistant with any definable security policy. I do not think it is technologically feasible for ring -1 to determine, upon receiving a request, that the request was generated by trusted software operating in accordance with the intent of whomever signed it. Specifically, let's presume that a Palladium-enabled application is being used for DRM; a secure trusted application is asking its secure key manager to decrypt a content encryption key so it can access properly licensed code. The OS is valid signed and the application is valid signed. How can ring -1 distinguish a valid request from one which has been forged by rogue code which used a bug in the OS or any other trusted entity (the application, drivers, etc.)? I think it's reasonable to presume that desktop operating systems which are under the control of end-users cannot be protected against privilege escalation attacks. All it takes is one sound card with a bug in a particular version of the driver to allow any attacker to go out and buy that card install that driver and use the combination to execute code or access data beyond his privileges. In the presence of successful privilege escalation attacks, an attacker can get access to any information which can be exposed to any privilige level he can escalate to. The attacker may not be able to access raw keys other information directly managed by the TOR or the key manager, but those keys aren't really interesting anyway: all the interesting content transactions will live in regular applications at lower security levels. The only way I can see to prevent this is for the OS to never transfer control to any software which isn't signed, trusted and intact. The problem with this is that it's economically infeasible: it implies the death of small developers and open source, and that's a higher price than the market is willing to bear. - Tim PS - I'm looking for a job in or near New York City. See my resume at http://www.dierks.org/tim/resume.html
Re: trade-offs of secure programming with Palladium (Re: Palladium: technical limits and implications)
At 09:07 PM 8/12/2002 +0100, Adam Back wrote: At some level there has to be a trade-off between what you put in trusted agent space and what becomes application code. If you put the whole application in trusted agent space, while then all it's application logic is fully protected, the danger will be that you have added too much code to reasonably audit, so people will be able to gain access to that trusted agent via buffer overflow. I agree; I think the system as you describe it could work and would be secure, if correctly executed. However, I think it is infeasible to generally implement commercially viable software, especially in the consumer market, that will be secure under this model. Either the functionality will be too restricted to be accepted by the market, or there will be a set of software flaws that allow the system to be penetrated. The challenge is to put all of the functionality which has access to content inside of a secure perimeter, while keeping the perimeter secure from any data leakage or privilege escalation. The perimeter must be very secure and well-understood from a security standpoint; for example, it seems implausible to me that any substantial portion of the Win32 API could be used from within the perimeter; thus, all user interface aspects of the application must be run through a complete security analysis with the presumption that everything outside of the perimeter is compromised and cannot be trusted. This includes all APIs data. I think we all know how difficult it is, even for security professionals, to produce correct systems that enforce any non-trivial set of security permissions. This is true even when the items to be protected and the software functionality are very simple and straightforward (such as key management systems). I think it entirely implausible that software developed by multimedia software engineers, managing large quantities of data in a multi-operation, multi-vendor environment, will be able to deliver a secure environment. This is even more true when the attacker (the consumer) has control over the hardware software environment. If a security bug is found patched, the end user has no direct incentive to upgrade their installation; in fact, the most concerning end users (e.g., pirates) have every incentive to seek out and maintain installations with security faults. While a content or transaction server could refuse to conduct transactions with a user who has not upgraded their software, such a requirement can only increase the friction of commerce, a price that vendors consumers might be quite unwilling to pay. I'm sure that the whole system is secure in theory, but I believe that it cannot be securely implemented in practice and that the implied constraints on use usability will be unpalatable to consumers and vendors. - Tim PS - I'm looking for a job in or near New York City. See my resume at http://www.dierks.org/tim/resume.html
