Security by obscurity and personality shards

Adam Rifkin on TechCrunch has an interesting article about Tumblr and how it is actually used.The thesis of the article is that Tumblr is used more openly and for more sensitive things than Facebook because the privacy model is so much easier to understand and implement. If you have five interests and corresponding social circles, just set up five pseudonymous Tumblrs. Each then becomes its own independent social space with minimal risk of cross contamination. While all of those Tumblrs are public and discoverable, in practice they are not easy to find and unlikely to be stumbled upon by undesired individuals. This is classic security by obscurity. By contrast, Facebook wants you to put everything in one place, then use various settings to try to ensure that only the desired subset of friends, friends of friends, or the general public have access to it. This ties to the case I have been making for a while that people want to be able to separate their various personality shards among their various social circles. Even with access controls, using the same account for all of them may be too much connection and the odds of accidentally releasing information to the wrong people is too likely. I would like to see something like Tumblr provide stronger abilities to restrict discoverability, but it represents an interesting and growing alternative model to Facebook.

Looks like Java is STILL vulnerable / broken

I did not post on the recent Java vulnerability because the fixes came out so quickly, however, it looks like I relaxed too soon.

Apparently there was a second vulnerability that did not get fixed. At this point, you should probably just disable Java in your browser. Gizmodo has a short article on how to do that for the various browsers.

Very few websites actually require Java any more. If you absolutely need to visit one of them, I suggest enabling Java on just one of your browsers and using that browser exclusively for visiting that trusted site with Java.

Nokia does a man in the middle attack on your secure mobile browsing

Gigaom reports on a major security issue at Nokia, first announced in the "Treasure Hunt" blog.

Their Asha and Lumia phones come with something they call the "Xpress Browser". To improve the browser experience, the web traffic is proxies and cached. That is a fairly common and accepted practice.

Where Nokia has stepped into questionable territory is when it does this for secure web traffic (URLs starting with HTTPS://). Ordinarily it is impossible to cache secure web pages because the encryption key is unique and used only for a single session, and is negotiated directly between the browser and the target website. If it was cached no one would be able to read the cached data.

Nokia is doing a "man in the middle attack" on the user's secure browser traffic. Nokia does this by having all web traffic sent to their proxy servers. The proxy then impersonate the intended website to the phone, and set up a new secure connection between the proxy and the real website.

Ordinarily this would generate security alerts because the proxy would not have the real website's cryptographic Certificate. Nokia gets around this by creating new certificates which are signed by a certificate authority they control and which is pre-installed and automatically trusted by the phone.

So, you try to go to Gmail. The proxy intercepts that connection, and gives you a fake Gmail certificate signed by the Nokia certificate authority. Your phone trusts that so everything goes smoothly. The proxy then securely connects to Gmail using the real certificate. Nokia can cache the data, and the user gets a faster experience.

All good right?

The fly in the ointment is that Nokia now has access to all of your secure browser traffic in the clear, including email, banking, etc.

They claim that they don't look at this information, and I think that is probably true. The problem is that you can't really rely on that. What if Nokia gets a subpoena? What about hackers? What about accidental storage or logging?

This is a significant breaking of the HTTPS security model without any warning to end users.

It looks like Syria is back.

It looks like Syria is back on the Internet again.I have not seen any indications of unusual atrocities the, so why the short outage?

Syria switches tactics and kills their Internet

Fast Company has a good article laying out the state of events regarding the Internet in Syria.

Here is the short version. Syria has changed tactics from keeping the Internet available but highly monitored and surveilled, to turning off apparently absolutely all Internet connectivity within the country. 

Syria was unique in its cyber response to their Arab Spring uprisings. Rather than lock down the Internet, they actually un-blocked some popular social media sites. They did this because of the incredible surveillance capabilities this makes possible. Business Week has a nice story on this aspect.

The change of face would seem to have a few possible reasons.

1) Dissident tactics like encryption are making the surveillance less effective.

2) The damage from dissident publishing is greater than the value of the intelligence.

3) The Syrian government is about to do something really nasty and they want to make it very hard to report about it.

We shall see. The fact that the Syrian government appears to have turned off even its own Internet access suggests that they are worried about any leaks through the wall, which makes reason 3 seem more probable.

A new "modest proposal" for the Internet

In the tradition of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is "The Dictator's Practical Guide to Internet Power Retention, Global Edition".

Under the pretext of being a guide on how to crack down on Internet dissent for dictators, it does a nice job of analyzing how the Internet is used by dissidents, and the techniques used by governments to crack down on those practices.

Thanks to boingboing for bringing this to my attention.

Automation and content blocking don't mix

YouTube's anti piracy filters automatically blocked the authorized video of First Lady Michelle Obama's convention speech as infringing.

Evidently the algorithm automatically looks for content that matches content from their commercial partners. Since all the networks were re-broadcasting the convention speech, it got flagged. This is not the first time this has happened.

Wired article on this here.

Facebook "Like" not protected speech in Virginia

Courthouse News Service reports that a virginia judge has ruled Facebook "Likes" are not protected speech.

The case was related to employees of the Hampton VA sheriff's office who "Liked" the current sheriff's opponent in the last election. After he was re-elected, he fired many of the people who had supported his opponent.

The judge ruled that posts on Facebook would have been protected, but not simple Likes.

Interesting study of message deletion censorship

This article from Threatpost discusses a study out of CMU of Chinese censorship of their home grown social networking websites.

Now that they are blocking most of the western social media sites entirely, the focus of censorship is internal. Obviously blocking the internal sites as well would defeat the purpose, so they are selectively deleting posts instead. This study looks at the rate at which posts with sensitive key words are removed from the services.

It clearly shows how censorship can be taken to the next level when the censor controls the websites as well as the network.

Turn off Google search history before the new privacy policy takes effect.

CNET has a good description of exactly how to do it.

Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights will be hard to enforce

While I am encouraged to see the recently announced Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, it is no reason to become complacent about your privacy.

First, the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights is a set of fairly general statements. It is unclear if or when we would see real enforcement.

Second, it will be very difficult to enforce this against non-US services, and it is almost impossible for a user to know if some or all of a website she is visiting is being provided by a non-US company.

Third, it is very difficult to tell if the policies are being violated. Unless the website uses the information directly and immediately it is very hard to tie the use of information back to the source of the information. If it is being silently collected, you really can't tell.

While such policies and statements of principle are a good thing, and one hopes that most major websites will get on board with them, if you actually want to ensure your privacy, you need to take matters into your own hands.

Block cookies, clear out old cookies, and hide your IP address with tools like Anonymizer Universal.

Google tricks iOS Safari into tracking you

Google and other online advertising companies like Vibrant Media, Media Innovation Group, and PointRoll, are using a flaw in Safari on iOS to track you despite your privacy settings.

iOS Safari is set by default to reject tracking cookies from 3rd party websites. That means that unless you are directly and intentionally interacting with a site it should not be able to cookie and track you. Specifically that is intended to prevent tracking by advertisers displaying banner ads on websites.

The hack is that these advertisers use a script within the website to cause submit an invisible web form to the advertising website, which looks to Safari like you directly interacted with that site and so allows the site to send a cookie. Another flaw in Safari causes those cookies to be returned to the 3rd party sites once they have been set.

Apple is saying that they will address the issue. Google is blaming Apple for breaking with web standards (even though almost all browsers support blocking 3rd party cookies iOS Safari is unusual in making this the default).

My suggestion:

1. On your iOS device (iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch) go to "Settings", select "Safari", scroll down and "Clear Cookies and Data". Do this frequently.
2. Don't log into Google or other social media sites through the browser, only use the dedicated apps.
3. Use those social media apps to "like" or "+1" content, rather than doing so in the browser.
4. Protect your IP address with a tool like Anonymizer Universal so these sites can't just use your IP address in place of cookies to track you when you are at home or work on a WiFi connection with a long term IP address.

The WSJ had the first article I saw on this, but it is paywalled.

9 to 5 Mac has a nice article on it.

John Battelle's searchblog tries to look at this issue from both sides.

FBI: Anonymity implies terrorist

The FBI in conjunction with the Bureau of Justice Assistance and Joint Regional Intelligence Center have produced a number of fliers to help the public identify possible terrorists. While some of the points have merit, it is very likely that this will generate an extremely high proportion of false alerts based on perfectly reasonable and legal behaviors.

A big red flag for me were the fliers for cyber cafes and electronics stores. These suggest that the use of privacy protecting services, like Anonymizer, should be deemed suspicious. They also call out Encryption, VoIP, and communicating through video games.

In almost all of the fliers they suggest that wanting to pay cash (legal tender for all debts public and private) is suspicious.

Thanks to Public Intelligence for pulling together PDFs of the documents.

Internet Cafe flier.

Electronics Store flier.

India asks social network sites to manually screen all posts.

The NYTimes.com reports that Kapil Sibal, the acting telecommunications minister for India is pushing Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Facebook to more actively and effectively screen their content for disparaging, inflammatory and defamatory content.

Specifically Mr. Sibal is telling these companies that automated screening is insufficient and that they should have humans read and approve allmessages before they are posted.

This demand is both absurd and offensive.

• It is obviously impossible for these companies to have a human review the volume of messages they receive, the numbers are staggering.
• The demand for human review is either evidence that Mr. Sibal is completely ignorant of the technical realities involved, or this is an attempt to kill social media and their associated free wheeling exchanges of information and opinion.
• There is no clear objective standard for "disparaging, inflammatory, and defamatory" content, so the companies are assured of getting it wrong in many cases putting them at risk.
• The example of unacceptable content sighted by Mr. Sibal is a Facebook page that maligned Congress Party president Sonia Gandhi suggesting that this is more about preventing criticism than actually protecting maligned citizens.

Anonymizer Survey: Anti-virus and Firewall popular but ineffective privacy protectors

Anonymizer just released the results of a new survey of people's use of privacy protecting technologies. The short answer is that the old standards, anti-virus and firewalls, are widely used. Unfortunately they don't actually do much to protect your privacy. They are more about security.

For full details, read the article.

"Private" YouTube videos expose thumbnail images

Thanks to a PrivacyBlog reader for pointing me to this article: Blackhat SEO – Esrun » Youtube privacy failure

It looks like it is easy to find thumbnail images from YouTube videos that have been marked private.

If you have any such videos, go back and check that you are comfortable with the information in the thumbnails being public, or delete the video completely.

Schneier on Security: Domain-in-the-Middle Attacks

Schneier on Security: Domain-in-the-Middle Attacks

Bruce Schneier on the real world effectiveness of a very simple domain name based man in the middle attack.

Here is a Wired article on the same issue showing how it was used to steal 20 GB of email from a Fortune 500 company.

Sneaky tracking code (finally) purged from Microsoft sites • The Register

It looks like Microsoft got caught using "evercookie" or "supercookie" technologies to recreate tracking cookies even after users have tried to delete them from their browsers.

Sneaky tracking code (finally) purged from Microsoft sites • The Register

Amazon address exposure to strangers through your Wishlist

Amazon Customer's Privacy Exposed In theory, your Amazon wish list should allow people to buy you gifts, but should not reveal anything but the list of items you want.

Evidently, if you buy something for someone off their list, you can then see the delivery address in the order reports in your account.

Solution is to remove the delivery address from your list. Your friends and family would have to enter the delivery address manually, but one hopes that they already know it. A good description of the process is in the above linked article.