Slashdot Mirror

Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton writes "A simple experiment shows that it's easy to find the IP addresses used by the UltraSurf anti-censorship program, and block traffic to all of those IP addresses, effectively stopping UltraSurf from working. But this is not a fault of UltraSurf; rather, it demonstrates that an anti-censorship software program can be successful even if it's relatively trivial to block it." Read on for Bennett's analysis.
UltraSurf is an enormously popular program used to circumvent Internet censorship in countries like China (as well as schools and workplaces in mostly-free countries like the US, with mixed success). When you run UltraSurf on your computer, it re-routes your outgoing Internet traffic to external IP addresses controlled by UltraSurf, so that it looks to observers (and network censors) as if you are connecting to UltraSurf's IP addresses, rather than a website like YouTube or Facebook that may be banned on your network.

UltraSurf uses a list of thousands of external IP addresses, to make it non-trivial for an adversary to locate all of their IP addresses and block them all. However, using a few steps that would be obvious to many programmers facing the same problem, I did find a way to detect all the IP addresses that UltraSurf connects to, and block all of them so that UltraSurf stopped working. It would not be hard for a government censor operating the filter in a country like China to do the same thing. But this does not mean that UltraSurf's network is likely to collapse any day now; on the contrary, it means that it and similar programs are likely to flourish for years to come, since the censors obviously have other priorities.

Some background information first. Most Internet censorship circumvention tools fall into one of two categories (whose names I have just invented for the purpose of this article):
(1) Self-bootstrapping. If a program is self-bootstrapping, then in a censored country you simply run a copy of the program and it will establish a connection to an IP address outside the country, one of many in a large "cloud" of IP addresses controlled by the software program's publisher. Thereafter, your Internet usage is routed through that connection in order to evade your country's filter. UltraSurf and Tor fall into this category.
(2) Non-self-bootstrapping. To use one of these programs from a censored country, first you have to get a friend in a non-censored country to install the software on their computer (or their webserver, if they have one). Then they give this location (normally in the form of a URL) to their friend in the censored country, and their friend types that URL into their browser to circumvent their country's filtering. Psiphon is the best-known program in this group.

In 2006 I wrote that even though the first category of programs was more convenient to use (not requiring you to rely on a friend in an uncensored country), any program in that category could be blocked by an adversary willing to make only a modest amount of effort: Install the program, see what IP addresses it connects to, block those, see if the program connects to any other backup IP addresses, block those, and so on, until the program runs out of IP addresses to use. There are a few simple countermeasures that designers of a program could take, but they can also be defeated easily.

(For example, if the program randomly chooses an IP address from a large internally stored list, then you just have to run the program over and over until you've found most of the IP address chosen by its random algorithm. A cleverly written program could try to evade this as follows: Pick a set of IP addresses at random from the list, and then "lock in" to that set of IP addresses, so that future runs of the program on that PC will always connect to those IP addresses, ignoring the other ones in the list. This makes it a little bit harder for the censor to pry out all of the IP addresses in the program's internal list. But then you, as the censor, can either (a) run the program repeatedly, but find where the program stores its "locked set" and erase that between each run, so that on future runs the program will keep selecting a different IP address set, or (b) if you can't figure out where the program is storing its "locked set" between each run, then just install the program repeatedly on different machines.)

One way or another, if the program knows what IP addresses to connect to when it bootstraps itself, the attacker can trick the program into revealing all of them. The attacker doesn't even need to reverse-engineer the software to see the set of instructions that it's executing internally; they only need to be able to see the IP addresses that the program is connecting to.

Much later, I was able to reduce this to practice in an experiment on my own machine, using a Perl script, the built-in Windows "netstat" tool to list connections from locally running programs to outside IP addresses, and the "ipseccmd" tool to add new firewall rules blocking those IP addresses. After the script was left running overnight, it had collected and blocked all the IP addresses that UltraSurf apparently used, and on future runs, UltraSurf would display an error message saying that it couldn't find any IPs to connect to.

(Interestingly, netstat also showed that UltraSurf frequently opened connections to www.google.com over SSL -- that is, accessing URLs that would begin with "https://www.google.com/" -- so that traffic between the program and the Google website would be encrypted, and the contents would be invisible to censors in China. When I saw it was doing that, I added an exception to the script so that the Google IP addresses would not be blocked. Perhaps it was submitting search terms to Google in order to find pages that give the location of the latest UltraSurf connection points, or perhaps it was checking a GMail account created by UltraReach that stores messages containing more IP addresses; I didn't reverse-engineer UltraSurf to find out. But even if this was UltraSurf's clever means of obtaining new IP addresses, the system still runs up against the same problem: Any IPs that can be connected to by the UltraSurf client, can also be ascertained by the attacker who watches UltraSurf to see where it connects to, and then blocks those IPs as well.)

Naturally I had mixed feelings about pointing this out publicly, since I agree with UltraReach's goal of providing unfiltered access to users in China and other censored countries. But this idea is sufficiently obvious, that I don't think anything is lost by demonstrating it. There may be programmers interested in creating even more programs to help users in censored countries, and it would be counterproductive for those programmers to believe that existing programs like UltraSurf "magically" evade the censors by using some complex algorithm to hide the IP addresses that they connect to. In fact, the program doesn't conceal the IP addresses that it connects to (how could it?), and it would be straightforward to design and build a new program that did roughly the same thing. We should give UltraReach credit for the right things: they made a tool that provides unfiltered access to millions of people, they made the tool small and easy to use, and they arranged with their partners to subsidize the unfiltered Internet connections at no expense to those end users (although see some caveats, which have been pointed out the Hal Roberts at the Berkman Center, about the price of this "free" access). But the one thing UltraReach did not do is find a way to get around the problem of an attacker installing the problem to see what IP addresses it connects to. That's not a criticism of UltraReach; this is presumably an impossible problem to solve.

(Side note about counter- and counter-counter-measures: If UltraReach does think that censoring countries might try harder to block UltraSurf at some point in the future, they should start releasing different versions of the product every month that use different sets of IP addresses. Release one version for September 2009 that uses one set of IP addresses, then another version in October 2009 that uses another set, and so on. Then if the censors decide in December 2009 to start seriously trying to block all UltraSurf IP addresses, they'll be able to find and block all the IP addresses used by the Dec09 version, just by installing a copy of the program and observing it. But, users who downloaded previous months' versions of the program will be able to continue using their copies. If the Chinese censors wanted to find and block the IP addresses used by preivous months' copies of UltraSurf, they would have to either (a) figure out how to distinguish UltraSurf traffic from other Internet traffic, not an easy thing since UltraSurf uses encrypted traffic on port 443, the same port used for encrypted Web traffic, or (b) obtain copies of the program that users had downloaded in previous months, which is no longer as trivial as simply observing the current version of the program. The more often UltraReach swaps out a new version of UltraSurf that connects to a new set of IP addresses, the harder it will be for the Chinese censors to find all the sets of IPs used by previously released versions. However, once the Chinese censors start trying seriously to block UltraSurf, even though the trick just described will allow previous downloaders of the program to continue surfing freely, all new users who download the program after that point, can be easily blocked -- because the Chinese censors can just watch how often a new version of UltraSurf is made available for download, and block the IPs used by that copy.)

But I think the fact that the Chinese have not done this reveals something usually overlooked about the nature of the anti-censorship arms race. The situation is frequently cast as a battle between the evil geniuses who run the government filters and the good geniuses who write the software to get around the filters, while the grateful citizens of the censored country are the beneficiaries. But if the government censors haven't even done some simple experiments like this in order to block UltraSurf, they must not think it's a high priority to stop the program from working. This in turn suggests that the number of people using UltraSurf in a country like China, while large in absolute numbers, don't constitute a large enough proportion of the population to worry the government. Presumably either the ideas leaking in through an unfiltered Internet are not reaching a large enough proportion of the population, or the ideas are not expected to take hold in enough people's minds to reach a tipping point that causes a problem for the ruling party.

It's not that the Chinese censors don't care about controlling the Internet and the effect that it has on their citizens' thinking. The Chinese have reported fielded a droid army of about 50,000 cubicle drones to help fight Internet propaganda battles, such as drowning out anti-government posts on public forums. Why would they spend such enormous efforts to generate forum posts, but not make the effort to find and block all UltraSurf IP addresses? Because the battlefront is about defaults. If the user tries to access a site and it's blocked, then only a tiny proportion will make a significant effort to circumvent the block. (The exception would be when an extremely popular site like YouTube is blocked; operators of Web proxy sites report that during these periods, they get so much traffic from Chinese users trying to view YouTube videos, that the servers often crash.) Similarly, if users see that 90% of the posts on a given forum are on one side of the issue, then they're more likely to think that's the majority viewpoint (whether they agree with it or not). Hence the usefulness of the army of 50,000 to invade forum threads. Defaults matter; would Internet Explorer have ever displaced Netscape's browser (kids, ask your parents) if it hadn't been the default browser in all versions of Windows?

So the moral for any would-be designers of new anti-Internet-censorship tools, is not to worry too much about whether there's a theoretical way (or even a practical way) that the censors could shut the tool down. UltraSurf became enormously popular without solving that problem, and perhaps another tool could as well.

Kelson writes "After years of trying to figure out what to do with it, AOL is officially discontinuing the Netscape browser. In the four and a half years after they dismantled the development team and spun off the Mozilla Foundation as a lost cause, only to see Firefox take off, AOL has tried twice to reinvent Netscape. There was the chimera-like Netscape 8, which used both Mozilla's and IE's rendering engines, and just months ago they released Netscape 9, trying to ride the social networking wave. AOL will release security fixes through February 1, 2008, after which the browser will officially be dead. For the "nostalgic," they suggest using Firefox and installing a Netscape theme."

Randall Bennett writes "RSS 0.91's DTD has been restored to it's rightful location on my.netscape.com, but it'll only stay there till July 1st, 2007. Then, Netscape will remove the DTD, which is loaded four million times each day. Devs, start your caching engines."

An anonymous reader writes "In the standard definition of RSS 0.91, there are a couple of lines referring to 'DOCTYPE' and referencing a 'dtd' spec hosted on Netscape's website. According to an article on DeviceForge.com quite a few RSS feeds around the web probably stopped working properly over the past few weeks because Netscape recently stopped hosting the critical rss-0.91.dtd file. Probably someone over at netscape.com simply thought he was cleaning up some insignificant cruft." Some explanation has been offered by a Netscape employee.

Dotnaught writes "AOL has re-launched its Netscape.com portal as a place where user participation is balanced by moderator control. The renovated site will feature community-driven news and user-submitted video, guided by editors called anchors. "The hive mind sometimes doesn't do a thorough job," says Jason Calacanis, CEO of Weblogs, Inc., a blog network acquired last year by AOL."

Juha-Matti Laurio writes "After years of official separation, Mozilla is just now shaking off some of the last vestiges of its parental association with Netscape. From the article: 'Mozilla's Usenet public newsgroups have been moved from netscape.public.mozilla.* to just mozilla.*. The renaming officially ends Mozilla's public Netscape news legacy after more than 8 years of active use. Most of the approximately 63 different newsgroups that began with the old moniker have now been officially abandoned.' Related: Earlier this week Netscape Communications released version 8.1 of its Netscape Browser."

Juha-Matti Laurio writes "Plans are afoot to remove support for SSL version 2.0 in Mozilla Firefox, reports MozillaZine portal. Mozilla Foundation is eager to disable support for SSL 2.0 and have all Firefox installations use only the newer and more secure SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 protocols." From the post: "Netscape Communications Corporation introduced SSL 2.0 with the launch of Netscape Navigator 1.0 in 1994. Netscape Navigator 2.0 included support for SSL 3.0 when it was released in 1996. The specification for TLS 1.0, essentially a standardized version of SSL 3.0 with some differences, was published in 1999."

Simon P. Chappell writes "I don't know about you, but I hardly bother with browser bookmarks any more. I used to have so many bookmarks, back in the early days of Netscape's 4 series, that I would have to regularly trim and edit my bookmark file to prevent my browser from crashing on startup -- that's a lot of bookmarks, folks! Now, I go to my favourite web search engine, enter a couple of appropriate search terms and voila, there's my page! Search engines are so ubiquitous that we rarely give much thought to the technology that powers them. Lucene in Action by Otis Gospodnetic and Erik Hatcher , both committers on the Lucene project, goes behind the HTML and takes you on a guided tour of Lucene, one of a generation of powerful Free and Open-Source search engines now available." Read on for the rest of Chappell's review. Lucene in Action author Gospodnetic and Hatcher pages 421 (7 pages of index) publisher Manning rating 9 reviewer Simon P. Chappell ISBN 1932394281 summary Solid introduction to Lucene Who's it for? Lucene is a library and framework, rather than a complete application. It truly is an engine, around which you are expected to build and extend your own application. Like Lucene, the book is targeted at those who are looking for a tool to build their own search facility application rather than just "download and go." The book does include a number of case studies of Lucene usage (including at least one download and go search engine) but those are included to show how to use and adapt Lucene to fit differing environments rather than as ends in themselves. The Structure The book is sensibly divided into two parts. The first part looks at "Core Lucene" functionality, while the second part addresses "Applied Lucene".

Part one has six chapters, covering the central components and inner workings of Lucene. It's here that the book starts with a tutorial introduction, familiarising the reader with the concepts of Lucene as a search engine around which you wrap your own code. The other five chapters move steadily through good search engine fare, with indexing getting the whole of chapter two to itself The discussion of how to retrieve text from the documents being indexed is mentioned here but postponed until chapter seven, where it is dealt with exhaustively. Chapter three covers searching, and especially how Lucene ranks documents.

Chapter four examines analysis. In it's chapter introduction, the book explains that "Analysis, in Lucene, is the process of converting field text into it's most fundamental indexed representation, terms." This process is performed by an analyser, which tokenises text according to it's own built in rules; each analyser will have a different emphasis, some want only dictionary words, others might explicitly include acronyms and sometimes you'll want an analyser that will block stop words (those words in languages that are part of the structure, but that add nothing to the information being conveyed by the text; classic examples of stop words in English include "a", "and" and "the").

Chapter five looks at advanced search techniques; everything from sorting search results, searching on multiple fields to filtering searches. Many free or open source software tools are extensible, and Lucene is no exception. Chapter six addresses creating and using custom components within Lucene, everything from custom sort methods to custom filters.

Part two, the final four chapters, cover Applied Lucene. It is dedicated to practical uses of Lucene and answers the question "So, what can I do with a search engine?" Chapter seven covers ways and means to parse common, non-plain text document formats. The primary formats covered are RTF, XML, PDF, HTML and Microsoft Word. The ability to parse and index these file formats will cover the search engine needs of the majority of Lucene users. Chapter eight looks at a number of Lucene tools and extensions that are available; many of them being free and open source software. Chapter nine covers ports of Lucene. While for many users, Lucene being a Java library is not a problem, some users want its functionality in environments that do not have Java. The chapter looks at ports written in C++, C#, Perl and Python. Lastly, chapter ten takes a thorough look at seven Lucene case studies. Perhaps the "star" case study is the one about Nutch, a download and go search engine written by Doug Cutting , the original author of Lucene.

There are three appendices. The first offers installation advice for Lucene; a useful addition that those newer to working with Java libraries will surely appreciate. The second appendix has a very well explained description of the Lucene index format. This is the kind of information that can be hard to find, so it is welcome in a book of this sort. The last appendix contains a number of categorised resource references. The number and breadth of the resources provided could provide quite an incredible education in information retrieval theory if the reader was inclined to read them all. What's to Like? There are several things to like about this book. Let's start with the fact that the authors are part of the core development team of Lucene. This gives them both credibility and an excellent understanding of the internal workings of Lucene. Co-author Erik Hatcher is a fantastic writer, having previously been a co-author of the only Ant book worth bothering with, Manning's Java Development with Ant . (Full disclosure: I do know Erik personally.)

The structure of the book is well thought out and each chapter does seem to move your understanding forward when combined with what you learned from the proceeding ones. The division into core and applied Lucene is also helpful. While you'd hope that this was the case, it often isn't; hence I note it as a positive.

I especially appreciate that this book does not fill up page after page with API documentation. The authors appear to have grasped that if you have Internet access to download the software, you might just be able to access the documentation online; rather, they concentrate on the way to use the software. What a concept!

As a part of Manning's "in Action" series, the book has excellent layout and has obviously been thoroughly edited by both technical evaluators and copyeditors. This might seem to be a small thing to some, but a well-edited book stands out clearly from the crowd. What's to consider? If you are looking for a book on using and configuring a download and go style of search engine, this book would be less suitable. While the case study on Nutch is of good length, it would be too short to useful as a configuration guide. Conclusion I enjoyed reading this book. If you have any text searching needs, this book will be more than sufficient equipment to guide you to successful completion. Even, if you are just looking to download a pre-written search engine, then this book will provide a good background to the nature of information retrieval in general and text indexing and searching specifically.

You can purchase Lucene in Action from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Mr. Christmas Lights writes "CNet is reporting that Netscape Navigator Version 8 has been released. The 8.0 Beta debuted back in March, with the final version being based on Firefox 1.03, and includes Trust Rating, a feature which identifies sites as safe or unsafe. Netscape 8.0 also includes a toggle which allows switching between Mozilla and Microsoft's rendering engines as needed. The Main Netscape 8 page has more info, and the 'Download Now' page is already serving up the new browser."

Mr. Christmas Lights writes "CNet is reporting that Netscape Navigator Version 8 has been released. The 8.0 Beta debuted back in March, with the final version being based on Firefox 1.03, and includes Trust Rating, a feature which identifies sites as safe or unsafe. Netscape 8.0 also includes a toggle which allows switching between Mozilla and Microsoft's rendering engines as needed. The Main Netscape 8 page has more info, and the 'Download Now' page is already serving up the new browser."

Mr. Christmas Lights writes "CNet is reporting that Netscape Navigator Version 8 has been released. The 8.0 Beta debuted back in March, with the final version being based on Firefox 1.03, and includes Trust Rating, a feature which identifies sites as safe or unsafe. Netscape 8.0 also includes a toggle which allows switching between Mozilla and Microsoft's rendering engines as needed. The Main Netscape 8 page has more info, and the 'Download Now' page is already serving up the new browser."

pigmelon writes "According to BetaNews, 'America Online's Netscape team has opened its doors to the public, releasing the first beta of the revived Netscape Web browser. (screenshot) Based upon Firefox, Netscape version 8 focuses on security and user privacy, and supports rendering with both Mozilla's Gecko and Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser engines.' Before downloading the beta, remember that it uses Firefox 1.0, which contains some vulnerabilities."

An anonymous reader writes "Mozillazine.org writes, "AOL has released a new prototype of Netscape Browser. This new version is almost identical to the first prototype but it's based on Mozilla Firefox 1.0 rather than 0.9.3. The browser does not contain the proposed new design concept or any new features, though there are some performance improvements. As before, only registered testers can download the prototype from community.netscape.com/nscpbrowser. MozillaZine ran an in-depth preview of the first prototype.""

An anonymous reader writes "Netscape has released their new prototype browser for Windows based on Firefox 0.9.3. The prototype's development was outsourced to Mercurial Communications and includes several Netscape specific extensions. The biggest difference from Firefox, however, is the ability to switch to the Internet Explorer rendering engine from within the browser using an IE ActiveX control. The browser is currently available for a limited download."

An anonymous reader writes "Netscape has released their new prototype browser for Windows based on Firefox 0.9.3. The prototype's development was outsourced to Mercurial Communications and includes several Netscape specific extensions. The biggest difference from Firefox, however, is the ability to switch to the Internet Explorer rendering engine from within the browser using an IE ActiveX control. The browser is currently available for a limited download."

An anonymous reader writes "Today marks ten years since the first public beta of Netscape Navigator was released. Both CNet News.com and MozillaZine have full coverage, with the former revealing that AOL is planning to release a new version Netscape in the New Year (thankfully separate from the IE-based version of AOL's browser). Even the Netscape portal (which never mentions the Netscape browser) is celebrating the anniversary. A lot of water has passed under the bridge in the last decade (especially since AOL bought Netscape) and the baton has now passed onto the Netscape alumni-filled Mozilla Foundation, but it's still worth remembering that Netscape changed the world not once (by making the first really good browser), but twice (by being the first major commercial program to go open source)."

An anonymous reader writes "Today marks ten years since the first public beta of Netscape Navigator was released. Both CNet News.com and MozillaZine have full coverage, with the former revealing that AOL is planning to release a new version Netscape in the New Year (thankfully separate from the IE-based version of AOL's browser). Even the Netscape portal (which never mentions the Netscape browser) is celebrating the anniversary. A lot of water has passed under the bridge in the last decade (especially since AOL bought Netscape) and the baton has now passed onto the Netscape alumni-filled Mozilla Foundation, but it's still worth remembering that Netscape changed the world not once (by making the first really good browser), but twice (by being the first major commercial program to go open source)."

jfruhlinger writes "According to News.com.com.com, America Online is preparing to release a free AOL-branded browser that is 'based on Microsoft's Internet Explorer technology.' The browser will be available to users who don't have AOL as their ISP. I admit that I find this development baffling -- not only does AOL already own a browser, but why on earth would a non-AOL user want to use an AOL-branded version of IE?"

KrisWithAK writes "According to a press release, Red Hat is acquiring parts of the Netscape Enterprise Suite including the directory server and certificate management system. I am definitely looking forward to more open source competition with OpenLDAP!"

Sivar writes "Ars Technica reports that not only has the Gecko engine been ported to Konqueror, but the developers were able to finish the port in only four days during the week-long Akademy conference. With this port, Konqueror users now have a choice between two mature, powerful rendering engines."

scottfi writes "America Online has just released Netscape 7.2. Based on Mozilla 1.7, this latest version features better popup blocking, vCard support, an improved junk mail algorithm, better standards support, performance enhancements and several hundred other bug fixes. It also includes patches for recent security vulnerabilities. It is a little over a year since AOL shut down the Netscape browser division, laid off or reassigned the remaining engineers and withdrew from the day to day running of mozilla.org. At the time, they said that new versions of Netscape were unlikely. Earlier this year, they changed their minds and announced Netscape 7.2. More details about Netscape 7.2 are available at Netscape Browser Central, together with download links."

Following up a story from May, linux2004 writes "for those who thought Netscape was dead after firing all their staff and spinning Mozilla off into a non-profit foundation, then think again. It was announced a while back that Netscape would continue releases of their browser suite and now the release date has been confirmed as August 3rd as a free download or by buying a CD. I don't think it'll take the attention away from Firefox but will be a decent upgrade for those using Netscape 7.1. The 7.2 release will be based on Mozilla 1.7 and will probably have the usual Netscape additions."

Following up a story from May, linux2004 writes "for those who thought Netscape was dead after firing all their staff and spinning Mozilla off into a non-profit foundation, then think again. It was announced a while back that Netscape would continue releases of their browser suite and now the release date has been confirmed as August 3rd as a free download or by buying a CD. I don't think it'll take the attention away from Firefox but will be a decent upgrade for those using Netscape 7.1. The 7.2 release will be based on Mozilla 1.7 and will probably have the usual Netscape additions."

Quantum Jim writes "In a move which out-does Netscape's one-version number skip and Winamp's two-numbers skip, Sun has announced that the upcoming Java2 release will be marketed as version 5.0, skipping three-and-a-half numbers. Can version 6.022E23 be far behind? Thanks to David Flanagan for the heads-up."

An anonymous reader writes "MozillaZine is reporting that the first public beta of Nvu has been released. "What's that?", I hear you cry. Well, Nvu (pronounced 'N-View', short for 'New View') is a new open source WYSIWYG Web page creator/editor with FTP facilities that produces standards-compliant code. It is based on Mozilla Composer and is being developed by ex-Netscape employee Daniel Glazman's new company, Disruptive Innovations, under licence for Lindows.com. All the code for Nvu will be released back into the wild under the MPL/LGPL/GPL tri-licence. More information is available in the Nvu FAQ. Users of LindowsOS, other Linux distributions and Windows 98 and later can download Nvu 0.1 now." TheWanderingHermit writes points out that the feature list includes "(finally!) the ability to include and edit forms."

Slashback tonight brings you updates and corrections from recent and ongoing stories, including (this time around) non-silver silver paste, the return of the Orkut, Mike Rowe and his not-so-epic battle with Microsoft (one last time, I hope), the future of Zip for Microsoft Windows, and more. Read on below for the details.

Funny name, well-executed idea. YourMother writes "After almost 4 days of being offline, the social network Orkut is back online. The Orkut development team has been working nonstop since bringing it down on Sunday afternoon and quite a few new security features have been implemented to protect users information. Within the first 48 hours it was up, it gained almost 100,000 users, growing many times faster than other social networks like Friendster or Tribe. Did Google hit the social network bulls-eye?"

glinden points to a story with some more information about those security holes. "From the article, 'Sources close to Google suggest widespread XSS (cross-site scripting) hacks forced the closure of the service. It isn't clear how much personal data or communication was disclosed.'"

Playmate. Playmate, playmate playmate. An anonymous reader writes "A week after an appeals court ruling revived a Playboy Enterprises Inc. trademark infringement lawsuit against Netscape Communications Inc., the companies have reached a settlement in the case (See a ZDNet report) The terms of the settlement have not been disclosed. This puts an end to a closely watched case in the search engine advertising field. Several other lawsuits over misuse of trademarks in search engine ads are still in place. Google e.g. is embroiled in a lawsuit with Luis Vuitton regarding keyword-based ads in France and asked for a California court's ruling to back its trademark policy for AdWords after facing the threat of a lawsuit from American Blind & Wallpaper Factory Inc."

You have to admire such brave nomenclature. Michiel Frackers writes "Thanks for the link to my site, I got 3 gigabyte of traffic in a few hours! If I would have known, I would have written something in English. I have added an update about the Strangeberry product and its relation to Tivo at the URL you linked to.

I also included a link to my private blog (as www.frackers.com is more about my work in media & technology). Hopefully this clarifies some things for your readers, I did not intend to make this some kind of quest or game at all: it's just that I promised Arthur and his colleagues not to disclose what they are exactly doing, as you will understand."

And Anonymous joe writes with this link to an intriguing bit of Strangeberry speculation at the Register.

Nokia to port Python to Mobiles, not Perl An anonymous reader writes "Nokia was mistaken. In fact, El Reg reports that Python, not Perl, is the preferred language for scripting on its smartphone platforms. The availability of a Python implementation for mobile phones is part of a broader plan, including a JVM-based BASIC interpreter."

However, the Register article linked says that Perl is being considered, it's just that Python is being looked at as the primary language.

I wouldn't trust their pearls, either. Blade Leader writes "OCZ has issued a recall of OCZ Ultra 2 thermal paste after the Overclockers.com article on their lack of silver content. They blame the lack on their supplier, and claim they will be pursuing legal action."

A piece of history (or at least a piece of somethin' ...) Artemis writes "Searching along E-Bay and MikeRoweSoft.com I noticed that Mike Rowe has decided to sell the Microsoft Cease-and-Desist Letters and WIPO book he received on E-Bay. He is selling the WIPO book with the 25-page letter received from Microsoft's lawyers on January 14/2004.This inch-thick book contains copies of web pages, registrations, trade marks, other WIPO cases, emails between me and Microsoft's lawyers and much more. There are 27 annexes filled with information. This package also comes with the 25-page complaint transmittal coversheet that was sent with the inch-thick book."

What's wrong with gunzip, tar? whitefox writes "CNet News is reporting that PKWare & WinZip have settled their differences and will maintain Zip file compatibility for the foreseeable future with each supporting the other's security extensions. In addition, PKWare will include its SecureZip in the code it licenses to other software makers. This is good news in deed for users and developers alike!"

Guppy06 writes "I'm too lazy to change my homepage in Netscape 7 to something else, and that's where I discovered an ad leading towards what appears to be a trial run of a new Netscape-branded ISP. While this isn't as momentous as, say, Netscape bundled with AOL would be, they seem to be aiming at Juno and NetZero with their price of $9.95/month ($1.00/month to participate in the trial run ending in February). This may just end up being a fizzle, or it could be part of a two-pronged attack on MSN by AOL."

Adios077 (Ada Shimar) writes "Ok, so I was reluctant when I first picked up and started reading O'Reilly's JavaScript & DHTML Cookbook. After all, I'm fairly proficient in JavaScript already (yes, get in line to hire me!), and if I needed some cool DHTML scripts, I could just visit a good site like Dynamic Drive. However, the book managed to both surprise and impress me, a great combination to have in a book." Find out why by reading the rest of Shimar's review, below. JavaScript and DHTML Cookbook author Danny Goodman pages 576 publisher O'Reilly & Associates rating 8.5 reviewer Ada Shimar ISBN 0596004672 summary A surprisingly useful JavaScript book, even for people skilled with the language already.

I'll begin my review by making a bold statement -- if you've read and like O'Reilly's Definitive Guides on JavaScript and DHTML, you'll adore this book. I use the word adore very deliberately here, because in my opinion JavaScript & DHTML Cookbook is much easier to love than the gigantic and sometimes monotonous Definitive Guide series. Why, you ask? Let's see -- the book is compact (some 500 pages), concise, and filled with the essence of JavaScript and DHTML as far as what you can create using the language/ technology.

JavaScript & DHTML Cookbook is broken up into 15 chapters, each containing a series of recipes. The chapters are:

1. Strings
2. Numbers and Dates
3. Arrays and Objects
4. Variables, Functions, and Flow Control
5. Browser Feature Detection
6. Managing Browser Windows
7. Managing Multiple Frames
8. Dynamic Forms
9. Managing Events
10. Page Navigation Techniques
11. Managing Style Sheets
12. Visual Effects for Stationary Content
13. Positioning HTML Elements
14. Creating Dynamic Content
15. Dynamic Content Applications

These chapters are used mainly to facilitate the look up of a particular recipe, as each recipe exists and is explained independent of one another. This is consistent with the style of most Cookbooks, and it seems to work well here as well.

If you're a complete novice, you may be wondering at this point the distinction between JavaScript and DHTML. The book doesn't make a conscious effort to differentiate between the two when discussing recipes, and for a good reason. DHTML is basically JavaScript, though the latter draws in your page's HTML and often CSS as well to create something more encompassing.

Ok, on to what's important now -- the recipes themselves. I was expecting a series of flashy, long and tacky JavaScripts you can find in the source of every other site on the web these days, padded with some nonsense accolade like "the web cannot survive without them." Such scripts are mostly counterproductive, and do little to educate a JavaScript learner, let alone a master like myself (hur hur). To my delight, things were the complete opposite. The recipes in JavaScript & DHTML Cookbook are extremely practical, well thought out, and even educational. Discussions like Calculating the Number of Days Between Two Dates, Simulating a Hash Table for Fast Array Lookup, and Transforming XML Data into HTML Tables not only are very useful to the cut-and-paster, they teach even seasoned JavaScripters a thing or two about the language.

The only minor compliant I have with this book is the length of some of the script examples -- they span a little too long to follow effortlessly. The longest script I can recall in the book runs about 5 pages in length. Fortunately, such recipes are few and far in between, and 95 percent of the recipes are extremely short in length and packed with useful information and techniques. For the long scripts, it's easy to see that they exist out of necessity to create and show a fully functional script rather than just to pad pages.

In summary, I walk away from reading JavaScript & DHTML Cookbook with many new tricks up my sleeve, something I had not expected at all. Some good resources online that compliment the reading would be DevEdge's JavaScript Reference and JavaScriptKit's JavaScript tutorials."

You can purchase JavaScript and DHTML Cookbook from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

mattOzan writes "Marc Andreessen told Reuters today that browser innovation ended five years ago (which would put us at about Navigator 4.5 beta -- what was so innovative about that? The "What's Related" button? Beatnik integration?) "Navigation is an embarrassment. Using bookmarks and back and forth buttons -- we had about eighteen different things we had in mind for the browser." Well, pass me the NDA and tell me what they were!"

mattOzan writes "Marc Andreessen told Reuters today that browser innovation ended five years ago (which would put us at about Navigator 4.5 beta -- what was so innovative about that? The "What's Related" button? Beatnik integration?) "Navigation is an embarrassment. Using bookmarks and back and forth buttons -- we had about eighteen different things we had in mind for the browser." Well, pass me the NDA and tell me what they were!"

Phil writes "Netscape has just released the eagerly-awaited Netscape 7.1 (previously known by its codename, 'Buffy') for Windows, Mac OS and Linux. The new version is based on Mozilla 1.4, which is due out later today. Netscape 7.1 features many improvements over 7.02 including even better CSS support, spam filters, find-as-you-type, automatic image resizing, more customization via about:config, Web development tools, Palm synchronization and more. Plus, for the first time, ChatZilla (Mozilla's IRC client) is included in the full install. More information can be found at Netscape Browser Central and in this MozillaZine article. The release is available from Netscape's download page, via FTP or on CD."

Phil writes "Netscape has just released the eagerly-awaited Netscape 7.1 (previously known by its codename, 'Buffy') for Windows, Mac OS and Linux. The new version is based on Mozilla 1.4, which is due out later today. Netscape 7.1 features many improvements over 7.02 including even better CSS support, spam filters, find-as-you-type, automatic image resizing, more customization via about:config, Web development tools, Palm synchronization and more. Plus, for the first time, ChatZilla (Mozilla's IRC client) is included in the full install. More information can be found at Netscape Browser Central and in this MozillaZine article. The release is available from Netscape's download page, via FTP or on CD."

Phil writes "Netscape has just released the eagerly-awaited Netscape 7.1 (previously known by its codename, 'Buffy') for Windows, Mac OS and Linux. The new version is based on Mozilla 1.4, which is due out later today. Netscape 7.1 features many improvements over 7.02 including even better CSS support, spam filters, find-as-you-type, automatic image resizing, more customization via about:config, Web development tools, Palm synchronization and more. Plus, for the first time, ChatZilla (Mozilla's IRC client) is included in the full install. More information can be found at Netscape Browser Central and in this MozillaZine article. The release is available from Netscape's download page, via FTP or on CD."

Phil writes "Netscape has just released the eagerly-awaited Netscape 7.1 (previously known by its codename, 'Buffy') for Windows, Mac OS and Linux. The new version is based on Mozilla 1.4, which is due out later today. Netscape 7.1 features many improvements over 7.02 including even better CSS support, spam filters, find-as-you-type, automatic image resizing, more customization via about:config, Web development tools, Palm synchronization and more. Plus, for the first time, ChatZilla (Mozilla's IRC client) is included in the full install. More information can be found at Netscape Browser Central and in this MozillaZine article. The release is available from Netscape's download page, via FTP or on CD."

Phil writes "Netscape has just released the eagerly-awaited Netscape 7.1 (previously known by its codename, 'Buffy') for Windows, Mac OS and Linux. The new version is based on Mozilla 1.4, which is due out later today. Netscape 7.1 features many improvements over 7.02 including even better CSS support, spam filters, find-as-you-type, automatic image resizing, more customization via about:config, Web development tools, Palm synchronization and more. Plus, for the first time, ChatZilla (Mozilla's IRC client) is included in the full install. More information can be found at Netscape Browser Central and in this MozillaZine article. The release is available from Netscape's download page, via FTP or on CD."

newkid asks: "Our company needs to upgrade its standard browser, a difficult decision when we factor security, compatibility and the logistics of actually doing it. For compatibility, Internet Explorer is required by internal applications like IBM Tivoli Storage Manager, so we have to keep it. On the security front, expert bulletins keep ranting every week about the latest gaping holes in IE but nobody really seems concerned: for example, many on-line banking services only work in IE, and they don't check for patches. Meanwhile, users do not care, as a large portion of the traffic still comes from IE 5.5, a version discontinued by Microsoft. As for logistics,the software distribution technology and the cost of patching both make the project much larger than we can undertake this year. Our two options are: roll-out IE without patching, or roll-out IE and Netscape, but lock IE so it can only surf on intranet sites, and update NS with rsync or Ant. What is your company doing? What is your strategy? How serious are the security threats? What are the documented security breach caused by IE? We need a reality check."

elijahao writes "In case part one of the interview with Mike Davidson of ESPN was interesting, the second part has been posted today."

elijahao writes "In case part one of the interview with Mike Davidson of ESPN was interesting, the second part has been posted today."

Paul Kocher, president of Cryptography Research, Inc. and one of the architects of SSL 3.0, said, "The questions were great -- definitely one of the most fun interviews I've ever done." His answers score high on the 'informative' scale, too. Thanks to everyone who submitted such fine questions, and thanks to Paul for putting some real time and effort into his answers.

1) Serious Threats?
by Prizm

While studying cryptanalysis, I've been learning about a number of interesting attacks such as timing attacks and differential power attacks (your specialty, if I recall). While these attacks certainly seem to help cryptanalysis of various ciphers, how practical are they in terms of real security? That is to say, what are the chances that these methods are actively being used by attackers?

Paul:

It depends on the target. If the system you are trying to protect isn't worth an attacker's effort, or if there are easier ways to break in, the chances are small. On the other hand, if you are protecting extremely desirable data (money, data that will affect stock prices, Star Trek episodes, government secrets, etc.) you have to assume that smart people are going to attack your security. We spend a lot of time helping credit card companies and other smart card users build testing programs -- their products need to operate in high-risk environments where DPA, timing analysis, and other sophisticated attacks are a real problem.

2) Worst implementation?
by burgburgburg

In your consulting capacity (and without naming names), have you ever run across a companies security implementation that was so bad, so insecure, so open to exploitation that you felt an overwhelming compulsion to shut down the servers, lock the doors and call in a security SWAT team? That you actually felt like going out and shorting the companies stock? That you had to hold back from whomping someone upside the head? That you inquired about having the head of security investigated to make sure he wasn't a black hat hacker/competitor's security spy/foreign agent? How bad was the worst implementation you've ever seen?

Paul:

To save typing, can I make a list of the systems that don't make me uncomfortable?

A smart, creative, experienced, determined attacker can find flaws in just about any standard commercial product. Our security evaluations find catastrophic problems more than half the time, even though evaluation projects generally have very limited budgets.

The most common situation is where the systems' security objectives could theoretically be met if the designers, implementers, and testers never made any errors. For example, in a quest for slightly better performance, operating systems put lots of complexity into the kernel and give device drivers free reign over the system. This approach would be great if engineers were infallible, but it's a recipe for trouble if all you have are human beings.

What I find most frustrating isn't bad software -- it's situations where we tell a company about a serious problem, but they decide to ignore it because we're under an NDA and therefore the problem won't hurt sales. If your company is knowingly advertising an insecure or untrustworthy product as secure, try to do something about it. Intentionally misleading customers is illegal, immoral, and a gigantic liability risk. (Keywords: Enron, asbestos, cigarettes.)

It's also frustrating that users keep buying products from companies that make misleading or unsupported claims about their security. If users won't pay extra for security, companies are going to keep selling insecure products (and our market will remain relatively small :-).

As for the worst security, I nominate the following password checking code:

  gets(userEntry);
     if (memcmp(userEntry, correctPassword, strlen(userEntry)) != 0)
         return (BAD_PASSWORD);

ROT13 SPOILER: Na rzcgl cnffjbeq jvyy cnff guvf purpx orpnhfr gur pbqr hfrf gur yratgu bs gur hfre ragel, abg gur yratgu bs gur pbeerpg cnffjbeq. Bgure cbgragvny ceboyrzf (ohssre biresybjf, rgp.) ner yrsg nf na rkrepvfr sbe gur ernqre. [Funzryrff cyht: Vs lbh rawbl ceboyrzf yvxr guvf, unir fgebat frphevgl rkcrevrapr, pbzzhavpngr jryy, naq jnag n wbo ng n sha (naq cebsvgnoyr) pbzcnal, ivfvg uggc://jjj.pelcgbtencul.pbz/pbzcnal/pnerref.ugzy.]

3) Internet broken?
by bpfinn

The Internet was primarily designed for use by researchers who were collaborating on similar projects, and so security was not part of the design. Would you advocate designing and building another Internet where security was a major design goal? Or can we tweak the current Internet to reduce that amount of maliciousness that goes on now?

Paul:

I don't think the core Internet is the problem. While some protocols need upgrading, the Internet does a great job of providing untrusted, unreliable communications. Trying to impose security policies in the network layer would destroy the spontaneity and openness that make the Internet great. In other words, we need to find ways to cope with the fact that the Internet is always going to be dangerous.

The place where I see the real need for improved security is in the protocols, applications, and devices that use the Internet. For example, Moore's Law has made processing power so cheap that there is no reason why web pages aren't all encrypted. Similarly, IPSEC, VPN tunnels, and e-mail encryption should be used much more widely.

Of course, large networks are always going to have unpredictable complex security risks. As a result, if you are dealing with critical systems, they should be as disconnected as possible.

4) Dive Right In
by Accidental Hack

What does a newbie do? Having been put in a position where I'm partly responsible for server security, and having been put in that position without the proper background (and the responsibility is here to stay), how do I get my head straight on the core issues and make sure I'm not leaving the doors open for anyone to do whatever they want? Reading books/articles doesn't seem to be enough, but if that's the best place to begin, any recommendations?

Paul:

You are really asking two questions: how to learn about security, and what to do if you are put in situations where you don't know what to do.

For people wanting to learn about security or cryptography, I'm a big supporter of hands-on experience. When you hear about a security bug, go see what actually went wrong. Implement DES, AES, RSA, and your own big-number library. Set up a couple of poorly-configured Linux boxes and break into them. Install a sniffer and sniff your own network traffic. Observe and modify software programs. Learn C/C++. Study known bugs in open-source crypto code and hunt for new ones. If you have the budget at work, hire a security expert and ask lots of questions. Whatever you do, be careful to follow the laws (even if you disagree with them) and act ethically.

The question of what to do if you are put in a situation beyond your skill level ultimately depends on the risks involved. With ordinary servers (corporate e-mail and the like), occasional problems may not be that catastrophic if you have good backups.

On the other hand, if the chances or consequences of failure are severe, you can't just "give it a try" any more than I should try open heart surgery or piloting a 747. For example, if you are dealing with critical infrastructure, likely fraud targets, pay TV networks (or anything involving piracy), or large customer databases, get help. Even if you are experienced, you need to have someone check your work. When you do hire someone, make sure they will answer questions, educate you, and provide good documentation. Avoid mad scientists, people who have never done serious engineering, and anyone who views security audits as threatening or insulting.

5) Quantum Computing and Cryptography
by Nova Express

Will the advent of quantum computing render even current, state-of-the-art cryptography obsolete? Is there any way that cryptography can overcome the challenge presented by quantum computing? And how long will it be, if ever, until quantum computer's can break current, state-of-the-art cryptography?

Paul:

Quantum computing is possibly the coolest discovery in theoretical computer science in the last few decades because it completely changes the rules of computation.

As a practical matter, however, it's not a significant security risk compared to the other things we have to worry about. I think it's highly unlikely that quantum computers will overtake regular computers in the next 50 years at (for example) breaking RSA. The reason for my skepticism is that the challenges involved in building a useful quantum computer are staggering. For example, decoherence becomes a much greater problem as the computer gets larger, yet quantum computers have to be huge because they don't operate sequentially. (Imagine hardware design with no flip flops -- just combinatorial logic.) While error-correction techniques have been proposed, these further increase the complexity of the circuit.

If someone did find a way to build arbitrarily large quantum computers, it would be the end of most existing public key cryptographic schemes. Symmetric cryptography, however, would still work, though key lengths would need to be doubled to get the same level of security.

Note: Quantum computing is different from quantum cryptography. The latter is a method for preventing eavesdropping, typically using polarized photons and entanglement. While quantum cryptography is feasible to implement and is also neat research, I don't see any practical use for it because it requires that parties exchange photons directly. As a result, it won't work over packet switched networks. Furthermore, existing algorithms like AES can do all the same things, and much more. As a result, the only scenario I can see where quantum cryptography would be relevant would be unbelievably weird discovery that completely demolished cryptography, such as someone showing that P=NP.

6) SSL and Forward Security
by Effugas

Paul,

First of all, thank you for agreeing to be interviewed here. It's greatly appreciated.

I'm curious if you wouldn't mind elaborating a bit on the catastrophic failure of the SSL security architecture given the compromise of an RSA private key. An attacker can literally sniff all traffic for a year, break in once to steal the key, then continue to passively decrypt not only all of last year's traffic but all of next year's too. And if he'd like to partake in more active attacks -- session hijacking, malicious data insertion, etc. -- that's fine too.

In short, why? After so much work was done to come up with a secure per-session master secret, what caused the asymmetric component to be left so vulnerable? Yes, PGP's just as vulnerable to this failure mode, but PGP doesn't have the advantage of a live socket to the other host.

More importantly, what can be done for those nervous about this shortcoming in an otherwise laudable architecture? I looked at the DSA modes, but nothing seems to accelerate them (which kills its viability for the sites who would need it most). Ephemeral RSA seemed interesting, but according to Rescola's documentation it only supports a maximum of 512 bits for the per-session asymmetric key -- insufficient. If Verisign would sign a newly generated key each day, that'd work -- but then, you'd probably need to sign over part of your company to afford the service. Would it even be possible for them to sign one long term key, tied to a single fully qualified domain name, that could then sign any number of ephemeral or near-ephemeral short term keys within the timeframe allotted in the long term cert?

Thanks again for any insight on the matter you may be able to provide!

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research

Paul:

I specifically designed the ephemeral Diffie-Hellman with DSA option in SSL 3.0 to provide perfect forward secrecy (PFS). While it used to be true that DSA's performance was a concern, it shouldn't be a problem anymore.

[*] If you want to avoid DSA, you can also do a normal RSA handshake then immediately renegotiate with an uncertified ephemeral Diffie-Hellman handshake. (SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 allow either party to request a renegotiation at any time, with the renegotiation process protected underneath the first handshake.) As your question mentions, short-lived certificates would work if a suitable CA provided them.

Making PFS mandatory wasn't feasible in SSL 3.0 because of performance requirements, the need to maintain compatibility with legacy RSA certificates, and licensing issues. (Back in 1996, RSA was patented and most companies only had limited RSA toolkit licenses, not patent licenses.)

Overall, I'm delighted so see how many ways SSL 3.0 is being used and that it's become the most widely deployed cryptographic protocol in the world. While there are reasons to debate design choices I made, I don't know that the protocol's handling of PFS is one of them. Although some implementations have had bugs and guidelines had to be added to address error-analysis attacks, the overall protocol has held up well.

[*] In 1996 (when the SSL 3.0 spec came out), computers were only 4% of their current speed. (Moore's Law predicts 4.67 speed doublings in 7 years.) Today, any modern CPU should give well beyond 200 2048-bit DSA verifies/second. Averaging 10 handshakes/second (5% load) = 864K connections daily per CPU. Unless you are running one of the largest web sites (or have your server misconfigured to disable session resumption), this isn't likely to be a problem. For really high-volume servers, SSL accelerators are affordable and very fast. In general, it's rare these days to find a situation where the speed of standard cryptographic operations is actually a problem.

7) trust in open p2p communities
by smd4985

as a software engineer building open source p2p applications (gnutella), we are faced with a huge problem: how do we establish trust in a open environment where any application that speaks the protocol can participate? we've thought of various cryptographic systems to establish trust, but they have several fatal flaws - they require some sort of centralization (a no-no in a p2p environment), they lock out 'untrusted' vendors, etc.

what can we do to maintain an open environment and establish trust between peers?

Paul:

There certainly are decentralized ways to establish trust (PGP's web of trust comes to mind), but you can't have trust and complete anonymity. The closest you'll be able to do is to evaluate participants based on their past actions and assertions. Before you can begin a design, you'll need to clearly define what you are trying to enable, what you are trying to prevent, and what automated rules can distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate actions.

(Note: While I presume that the question relates to legitimate P2P applications, piracy over P2P systems is driving copyright owners to seek legislative and legal relief. The fact that the Internet can be used to massively violate intellectual property rights doesn't make it moral to do so.)

8) How do you think?
by Charles Dodgeson

When I first read about some discovery of a weakness (for example, I know your name from your work on MD5), I am always struck by the thinking beyond the framework of the designer of the system and of the community to date. The same things strikes me about timing attacks and similar sorts of things. These are things that I wouldn't have thought of in a million years. Can you give any insight into how minds like yours work. And to what extent you think that this might be a trainable skill.

I normally hate the cliche of "thinking outside of the box", but here it is fully appropriate.

Paul:

Security work requires understanding systems at multiple levels. For example, differential power analysis involves transistor-level properties affecting logic units affecting microcode affecting CPUs affecting crypto algorithms affecting protocols affecting business requirements. For engineers who are used to working at only a single layer, security results often seem surprising. Broad experience is also important because the vast majority of security problems involve unintended interactions between areas designed by different people.

Two specific subjects that I think are often neglected are low-level programming and statistics. These are essential to understand how things actually work and to assess the likelihood that systems will fail. A skeptical mindset is also important. Try to assume things are bad until you are convinced otherwise.

Some specific questions that are helpful to ask include:

• What information and capabilities are available to attackers?
• What information and capabilities are available to attackers?
• What esoteric corner cases has nobody studied carefully?
• How would a lazy or inexperienced designer have designed the system?
• What states can each participant be in?
• Where is the most complexity in the security perimeter? (Complex parts are the most likely to fail.)
• What unwritten assumptions are being made, and are they correct?

If you aren't sure how to begin an evaluation, consider sketching out how you would have done the design. You can then compare your design against the target. The differences often reveal mistakes you made (a great way to learn) or identify problems with the target system.

9) Is the Technology ahead of us?
by Coz

Thanks for letting us ask you these questions.

Over the last couple of decades, cryptography has gone from being the domain of major governments, big business, and the odd hobbyist and researcher to being a massive public industry that anyone can (and does) participate in, with new algorithms published and new applications announced almost every week. Meanwhile, we learn of vulnerabilities in various implementations of cryptosystems much more frequently than we hear of people discovering fundamental flaws in the cryptosystems themselves.

Given these facts, do you think we need to change focus, turning to validating and "approving" implementations of cryptosystems (such as your own SSL 3.0) or should the emphasis of the "crypto community" continue to be innovation in fundamentals of cryptographic systems and new applications for them? How important is it to have someone verify that a cryptosystem is implemented well?

Paul:

Validation is by far the most critical unsolved problem in security.

I view security as probabilistic: there is always some chance of failure, and validation is the only way to reduce the odds of failure. For example, a well-tested piece of code is more secure than an identical piece of code that hasn't been tested.

Although innovation is great on the research side, real-world systems should use well-tested techniques wherever possible. For example, on the algorithm side, we use RSA, triple DES, AES, and SHA-1 at Cryptography Research unless we have to use something else. (This is rare.) We use these algorithms because they are well reviewed, making the risk of an unexpected cryptanalytic attack low. In contrast, catastrophic flaws in new schemes are very common.

When you move beyond the basic algorithms, validation unfortunately becomes extremely difficult for many reasons:

• The complexity of software is increasing exponentially, but the number of skilled security experts (and their intelligence and productivity) is staying roughly constant.
• Many designs are so poorly architected or implemented that they are infeasible to validate.
• Validation is much more difficult than writing new code (and it's less fun), so many people avoid it.
• Engineers are cranking out such vast quantities of code that testing can't possibly keep up.
• Existing validation tools are really quite poor.
• The cost of security testing can be hard to justify because most users won't pay extra for better security.
• There is no easy way for users to distinguish between well-tested products and those that aren't.
• Testing takes a long time, slowing down product launches.
• There is no easy way to standardize security evaluations because attackers don't limit themselves to standard attacks.
• Catching 90% of the flaws doesn't help if attackers are willing to look 10 times harder to find flaws.
• Developers don't have much incentive to make painful sacrifices for security because they aren't the ones who incur the risk.

Long-term, I expect security will become like the pharmaceutical and aviation industries. Regulations and liability would improve safety, but would also make product development hugely expensive. Regardless of whether this would be better or worse than the current state of affairs, it looks inevitable.

10) Re:fhnlsfdlkm&5nlkd%Bvbcvbc
by Anonymous Coward

0eefa Uv, V'z jbaqrevat vs lbh guvax gurer'f n shgher sbe EBG13. V'ir urneq vg'f cerggl frpher...

Lbh pna ernq guvf? Qnza!

Paul:

Holy cow! Juvyr lbh znl unir svtherq bhg zl fhcre-frperg EBG13 pvcure, abobql jvyy rire penpx *guvf* zrffntr orpnhfr V fjvgpurq gb bhe hygen-frperg cyna O: nccylvat n Pnrfre pvcure 13 gvzrf :-).

RadioheadKid writes "DevEdge has an interview with ESPN associate art director Mike Davidson. In the interview Davison talks about the decision to switch to a standards-based, non-table layout. The interview touches on the process he went through to make that decision and the rewards in both bandwidth savings and browser compatibility. An interesting read for those who have not switched to a standards-based, non-table layout. (hint, hint)"

RadioheadKid writes "DevEdge has an interview with ESPN associate art director Mike Davidson. In the interview Davison talks about the decision to switch to a standards-based, non-table layout. The interview touches on the process he went through to make that decision and the rewards in both bandwidth savings and browser compatibility. An interesting read for those who have not switched to a standards-based, non-table layout. (hint, hint)"

Paul Kocher is unquestionably one of the highest-profile computer and network security experts around. He's president of Cryptography Research, Inc. and one of the architects of SSL 3.0. The floor is now open. Please try not to ask questions that can be answered with a few minutes' worth of online research. We'll post Paul's answers to 10 of the highest-moderated questions soon after he gets them back to us. Update: 03/13 18:18 GMT by M : Let's try this one more time, this time with feeling.

An anonymous reader submits: "I use Microsoft's .NET Framework at my place of employment to create website applications for the general public. I have noticed a number of issues that can make web applications developed in .NET incompatible with Netscape and Mozilla." Read on below for his specific complaints; have you encountered the same incompatibilities, and can you suggest any workarounds?

"The most egregious issue I have run into is this bug in .NET framework, that can prevent posts (the facility for the web browser to send information to the server) in Netscape and Mozilla (all versions) because MS used Internet Explorer specific Javascript. Microsoft buried a mention of a hotfix addressing the bug shortly after the first Framework Service Pack. However, the latest Service Pack (SP2) came out several months later and it still does not contain the fix. The only way to obtain the hotfix is to contact Microsoft's paid support. ("In special cases, charges that are ordinarily incurred for support calls may be canceled if a Microsoft Support Professional determines that a specific update will resolve your problem" -- from the knowledgebase article). Keeping the patch as a hotfix that is not freely downloadable ensures that hosting providers will not have it installed.

A Unicode encoding issue in .NET can cause all fonts to display as squares instead of letters in Netscape 4. I am not saying that MS has to support NS4. I think the decision of whether or not to support Netscape 4 should be up to the developer, not Microsoft. MS describes a workaround in the knowledgebase article. (Anecdotally) all other web development environments I have seen allow proper code to work in Netscape without a workaround.

Standards-compliant websites utilizing most web-development platforms usually work fine in Netscape and Mozilla, even if the developer did not to test or develop for Netscape and/or Mozilla. However, Microsoft's .NET Framework inserts code and encodings into web applications that categorically break these browsers."

jdclucidly asks: "I am a network administrator for a small non-profit (about 50 employees). I would like to roll Mozilla 1.2.1 out to all of our desktops. We don't have a single ghost image because the computers on site are too varied. Yes, I did my Googling. The source for the installer is just huge and mind boggling. Is there something like a Mozilla Administration Kit that will generate custom Mozilla installers? If not, would people on Slashdot be interested in starting a new project to make such a kit?" If you were going to deploy a "branded" version of Mozilla, company-wide, how would you do it, especially if you had to worry about a mixed OS environment?

"Here's what I want to do:

• Install everything but Quality Feedback Agent
• Set Mozilla as the default browser
• Disable 'Open Unrequested Windows' (kill pop-ups)
• Install Elveraldo's Crystal-Classic theme as default
• Set Google as the default search engine
• Set 'Georgia' as the default Serif font for Western and Unicode
• Enable HTTP Pipelining
• Enable FIPS internal cryptography
• Set toolbar to 'Pictures only'
• Set Home Page to my organization's intranet site
• Set start page to 'Blank page'
• Disable 'Hide the tab bar'
• Enable Middle-click for new tab
• Enable control+enter for new tab
• Default downloads to 'open a progress dialog'
• Disable Javascript and Plugins for Mail & News
• Enable quicklaunch
• Create an additional shortcut on the desktop and in quicklaunch that uses chrome/icons/mailnew.ico as it's source and points to 'mozilla.exe -mail'

As you can imagine, doing this on 50 computers (and making sure I got each of these) would be quite tedious. Are, there others out there that want to do the same thing. I checked the Mozilla newgroups. I checked the CCK Project page at Mozilla.org -- it appears to be pretty inactive. I checked out the Netscape 7 CCK, which is pretty robust but doesn't do everything I want and it's proprietary -- plus, I don't want all the NS7 proprietary crap on my network.

I installed Mozilla on my machine using the stub installer and had it save all of the .XPI components to a folder. I went in and extracted the .XPI's and examined them. It seems possible to do these things but not without learning XUL, JavaScript, XML and Mozilla.org's own stuffings -- not to mention setting up a Visual C++/Cygwin compiling farm for every next Mozilla release. Can I:

• Directly modify the defaults/prefs/all.js file to incorporate my preference defaults above and then recompress the .XPI?
• Add to the installer Crystal-Classic.jar somehow? Where are those changes made?
• Make the installer NOT allow the user to change any of this?
• Make the installer create the above mentioned shortcut?"

An anonymous reader writes "MozillaZine is currently featuring an article looking back at the last 12 months of the Mozilla project. It's amazing to see how far things have come in 2002. A year ago, there was no Mozilla 1.0, no Netscape 7, no Phoenix, no Chimera and no shipping AOL clients using Gecko (Mozilla's rendering engine). An interesting read."

Slashback tonight (is this number 200 already?) brings a few updates and amplifications on grid computing and AMD's plans vis a vis Intel. Also, it seems that some of the best features of Mozilla have finally infiltrated the world of Netscape. Read on the for the details.

And Campbell's puts glass marbles in their soup pictures. Roland Piquepaille writes "We saw several grid computing announcements in the last couple of days.Of course, Gateway stole the show. In 'Gateway makes store PCs work overtime,' you can read that 'Gateway's network of 8,000 PCs can deliver 14 teraflops.' This is plain wrong. You all know that this number of 14 teraflops is meaningless. It's just the addition of the peak speed of all the PCs -- never reached anyway on individual PCs. You need specialized software to work efficiently with a grid. And two companies are releasing new products to power grids. Avaki rolled out what it believes is the first Java-based data grid software for enterprise-class IT environments. Kontiki, for its part, on Monday released a grid server that brings its content delivery system into the server realm, whereas previously it was only available for PCs. Check this column for a summary, or this article for more details."

Why aren't those things called 'stick-up' ads, anyhow? Internet Ninja writes "Netscape today released version 7.01 of Netscape based on Mozilla 1.0.2. Back in is popup blocking which they got a lashing for in 7.0 as well as tabs as home pages just like Mozilla. Release notes here and there's a couple articles on Netscape devedge which may be of interest to developers."

And they will continue to have produced my Athlon, too. schnoz writes "And you thought AMD was quitting the PC chip market? Then check out this article on Business Week. Not only are they releasing new chips and plan to continue to do so, they're also still very active research wise, working on new transistor making techniques such as the double gate design as well as metal-rather-than-silicon design. Keep going at it AMD!!"

Slashback tonight (is this number 200 already?) brings a few updates and amplifications on grid computing and AMD's plans vis a vis Intel. Also, it seems that some of the best features of Mozilla have finally infiltrated the world of Netscape. Read on the for the details.

And Campbell's puts glass marbles in their soup pictures. Roland Piquepaille writes "We saw several grid computing announcements in the last couple of days.Of course, Gateway stole the show. In 'Gateway makes store PCs work overtime,' you can read that 'Gateway's network of 8,000 PCs can deliver 14 teraflops.' This is plain wrong. You all know that this number of 14 teraflops is meaningless. It's just the addition of the peak speed of all the PCs -- never reached anyway on individual PCs. You need specialized software to work efficiently with a grid. And two companies are releasing new products to power grids. Avaki rolled out what it believes is the first Java-based data grid software for enterprise-class IT environments. Kontiki, for its part, on Monday released a grid server that brings its content delivery system into the server realm, whereas previously it was only available for PCs. Check this column for a summary, or this article for more details."

Why aren't those things called 'stick-up' ads, anyhow? Internet Ninja writes "Netscape today released version 7.01 of Netscape based on Mozilla 1.0.2. Back in is popup blocking which they got a lashing for in 7.0 as well as tabs as home pages just like Mozilla. Release notes here and there's a couple articles on Netscape devedge which may be of interest to developers."

And they will continue to have produced my Athlon, too. schnoz writes "And you thought AMD was quitting the PC chip market? Then check out this article on Business Week. Not only are they releasing new chips and plan to continue to do so, they're also still very active research wise, working on new transistor making techniques such as the double gate design as well as metal-rather-than-silicon design. Keep going at it AMD!!"

Slashback tonight (is this number 200 already?) brings a few updates and amplifications on grid computing and AMD's plans vis a vis Intel. Also, it seems that some of the best features of Mozilla have finally infiltrated the world of Netscape. Read on the for the details.

And Campbell's puts glass marbles in their soup pictures. Roland Piquepaille writes "We saw several grid computing announcements in the last couple of days.Of course, Gateway stole the show. In 'Gateway makes store PCs work overtime,' you can read that 'Gateway's network of 8,000 PCs can deliver 14 teraflops.' This is plain wrong. You all know that this number of 14 teraflops is meaningless. It's just the addition of the peak speed of all the PCs -- never reached anyway on individual PCs. You need specialized software to work efficiently with a grid. And two companies are releasing new products to power grids. Avaki rolled out what it believes is the first Java-based data grid software for enterprise-class IT environments. Kontiki, for its part, on Monday released a grid server that brings its content delivery system into the server realm, whereas previously it was only available for PCs. Check this column for a summary, or this article for more details."

Why aren't those things called 'stick-up' ads, anyhow? Internet Ninja writes "Netscape today released version 7.01 of Netscape based on Mozilla 1.0.2. Back in is popup blocking which they got a lashing for in 7.0 as well as tabs as home pages just like Mozilla. Release notes here and there's a couple articles on Netscape devedge which may be of interest to developers."

And they will continue to have produced my Athlon, too. schnoz writes "And you thought AMD was quitting the PC chip market? Then check out this article on Business Week. Not only are they releasing new chips and plan to continue to do so, they're also still very active research wise, working on new transistor making techniques such as the double gate design as well as metal-rather-than-silicon design. Keep going at it AMD!!"

PizzaFace writes "After pushing free instant messaging to more than 100,000,000 users, AOL is now selling AIM-monitoring software to businesses that want to monitor and control the messaging of their employees. AIM Enterprise Gateway will reportedly sell for about $35/employee/year."

MrJones was one of many many users to submit that Netscape has released Navigator 7.0 unto the world. With their dwindling market share, it'll be interesting to see what affect this has on internet users. But here's hoping it makes a dent.