zlacker

>>feross+(OP)
Just the other day I suggested using a yubikey, and someone linked me to the Titan sidechannel where researchers demonstrated that, with persistent access, and a dozen hours of work, they could break the guarantees of a Titan chip[0]. They said "an attacker will just steal it". The researchers, on the other hand, stressed how very fundamentally difficult this was to pull off due to very limited attack surface.

This is the sort of absolutism that is so pointless.

At the same time, what's equally frustrating to me is defense without a threat model. "We'll randomize this value so it's harder to guess" without asking who's guessing, how often they can guess, how you'll randomize it, how you'll keep it a secret, etc. "Defense in depth" has become a nonsense term.

The use of memory unsafe languages for parsing untrusted input is just wild. I'm glad that I'm working in a time where I can build all of my parsers and attack surface in Rust and just think way, way less about this.

I'll also link this talk[1], for the millionth time. It's Rob Joyce, chief of the NSA's TAO, talking about how to make NSA's TAO's job harder.

[0] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/01/hacke...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDJb8WOJYdA

>>static+Di
I'll conclude with a philosophical note about software design: Assessing the security of software via the question "can we find any security flaws in it?" is like assessing the structure of a bridge by asking the question "has it collapsed yet?" -- it is the most important question, to be certain, but it also profoundly misses the point. Engineers design bridges with built-in safety margins in order to guard against unforeseen circumstances (unexpectedly high winds, corrosion causing joints to weaken, a traffic accident severing support cables, et cetera); secure software should likewise be designed to tolerate failures within individual components. Using a MAC to make sure that an attacker cannot exploit a bug (or a side channel) in encryption code is an example of this approach: If everything works as designed, this adds nothing to the security of the system; but in the real world where components fail, it can mean the difference between being compromised or not. The concept of "security in depth" is not new to network administators; but it's time for software engineers to start applying the same engineering principles within individual applications as well.

-cperciva, http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2009-06-24-encrypt-then-mac....

>>ignora+El
I've worked as a structural engineer (EIT) on bridges and buildings in Canada before getting bored and moving back into software.

There are major differences in designing bridges and in crafting code. So many, in fact it is difficult to even know where to start. But with that proviso, I think the concept of safety versus the concept of security is one that so many people conflate. We design bridges to be safe against the elements. Sure, there are 1000 year storms but we know what we're designing for and it is fundamentally an economic activity. We design these things to fail at some regularity because to do otherwise would require an over-investment of resources.

Security isn't like safety because the attack scales up with the value of compromising the target. For example, when someone starts a new social network and hashes passwords the strength of their algorithm may be just fine, but once they have millions of users it may become worthwhile for attackers to invest in rainbow tables or other means to thwart their salted hash.

Security is an arms race. That's why we're having so much trouble securing these systems. A flood doesn't care how strong your bridge is, or where it is most vulnerable.

>>3pt141+AQ
Aside: The distinction between safety and security I know:

- safety is "the system cannot harm the environment"

- security is the inverse: "the environment cannot harm the system"

To me, your distinction has to do with the particular attacker model - both sides are security (under these definitions).

>>Beldin+1f1
I wonder how this distinction plays out in languages that use the same word for safety and security, e.g. German and Portuguese.

>>jl6+wj1
You would use "protection" (Schutz) to make this distinction. Also German verbs can have many suffixes, which often help with the direction of an action and thereby changing the meaning (e.g. sichern, absichern, besichern, versichern).

>>allend+Zm1
suffixes -> prefixes