Jefferson's Wheel

The Boston Herald also has a story: Research: CharlieCard is far from hack-proof, March 6, 2008.

The Daily Press (Hampton Roads, Virginia) has a story about Karsten Nohl’s cryptanalysis work: U.Va. student, hackers crack credit card security code, March 1, 2008. It is currently #7 on their list of most popular stories (but I doubt it will overtake this story: Here’s a guy who takes his beer seriously).

[Added 2 March] Also reported by WTOP (Washington DC), Examiner.com (Norfolk, Virginia), Richmond Times-Dispatch, WVEC-TV (ABC in Norfolk), The Washington Times, WAVY-TV, WSLS (Roanoke), Culpeper Star Exponent, and WVIR NBC-29 (Charlottesville).

Dr. Dobb’s has an article on Adrienne Felt’s work: Privacy, Security, and Social Networking APIs

Do social networking users need to worry about privacy and security? You bet, says CS student.

Facebook, the social networking platform that has redefined communications, has millions of users. And according to University of Virginia computer science major Adrienne Felt, all of these users should be concerned about security.

… Felt’s goal is to make users more aware of how their private information is being used — and to close this privacy loophole.

She has developed a privacy-by-proxy system — a way for Facebook to hide the user’s private information, while still maintaining the applications’ functionalities. Under Felt’s system, at the point at which the Facebook server is communicating with the application developer’s server, the Facebook server would provide the outside server with a random sequence of letters instead of the user’s name (and other personal information).

The Daily Progress has an article about Karsten Nohl’s work on analyzing RFID tag security: Security code easy hacking for UVa student, 28 February 2008.

… Projects such as hacking the security code of a RFID chip is the “evil twin” of Nohl’s regular research, he said, which focuses on the development of cryptographic algorithms for computer security.
…
Nohl said that a more secure option for RFID security codes would be to rely on publicly known and time-tested security algorithms. NXP’s secret code, he said, is an example of “security by obscurity,” or the practice of keeping the code private and hoping hackers do not figure it out. Private algorithms, Nohl said, are more likely to have flaws and vulnerabilities.

“We found significant vulnerabilities in their algorithm,” he said. “By keeping it secret, they hurt themselves in the end.”

[Added 1 March] The story also appears in The Danville Register (Hackers claim they broke key security code). Blog reports include PogoWasRight and LiquidMatrix Security Digest.

[Added 2 March]: More reports: Xenophilia, WAVY-TV.

UVaToday has an article about Karsten Nohl’s work on reverse engineering the cryptographic algorithms on the Mifare Classic RFID tag:

… The idea of keeping secret the design of a security system is known in the trade as “security by obscurity.” It almost never works; the secret invariably leaks out and then the security is gone, Evans and Nohl said.

As a result, most security professionals espouse Kerckhoffs Principle — first published by the Dutch cryptographer Auguste Kerckhoffs in 1883 — the idea that the design of all security systems should be fully public, with the security dependent only on a secret key. Public review of security designs also tends to catch flaws during the design process, rather than after the flaws are inherent in expensive systems, such as in the Netherlands transit system, noted Nohl and Evans.

… If more consumers understand the fundamental flaw of “proprietary security algorithms” and other marketing-speak that touts what amounts to security by obscurity, then manufacturers may start opening up more of their security designs to the light of public scrutiny, which will ultimately result in better security in our digital age.

Full article: Group Demonstrates Security Hole in World’s Most Popular Smartcard, UVaToday, February 26, 2008.

A group at Princeton has released an interesting paper showing that encryption keys can be read from DRAM even after power is lost: Lest We Remember: Cold Boot Attacks on Encryption Keys. 

The research team includes Joseph Calandrino, who was a UVa undergraduate student, as well as J. Alex Halderman, Seth Schoen, Nadia Heninger, William Clarkson, William Paul, Ariel Feldman, Jacob Appelbaum, and Edward Felten.

It seems that most encrypted disk drives (any drive where the key is stored in the host’s DRAM) are likely to be vulnerable to this attack. This work seems to provide further support for moving more processing to the disk itself – if the disk processor performs all the encryption and decryption directly, there is no need to move the key into the host memory at all (where this work provides even more evidence that it becomes difficult to protect).

[Added 23 Feb]: New York Times article

I gave a talk in cs290 (which is our weekly undergraduate seminar) on “What Every Human Should Know About Security”.
My slides are available here: [PPT (warning: 18MB)] [PDF].

CMU’s newspaper, The Tartan has an article on Adrienne Felt’s facebook platform privacy work: Study shows dangers in Facebook apps, The Tartan, 11 February 2008.

Each day, students are bombarded with requests to become a Greek god, a Disney princess, and the biggest brain — on Facebook, that is. Over 15,000 Facebook applications exist today, offering a variety of capabilities to the social networking website. However, according to a new study from the University of Virginia, users risk losing their privacy by simply rating their 10 hottest friends or discovering their ideal desperate housewife.

It even includes a comic featuring nudity!

[Added 23 Feb] Cornell’s The Ithacan also has an article: Facebook applications access personal information, February 21, 2008.

Jonathan Zittrain, Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation at the Oxford Internet Institute, has an interesting blog post about Adrienne Felt’s work on Facebook platform privacy: Should Facebook preemptively protect users against rogue apps?.

It is worth reading the whole article, but here are a few excerpts:

Enterprising UVa senior Adrienne Felt has developed an intriguing argument about privacy for Web 2.0 apps like those on the Facebook development platform. It will get lots of news coverage, much of it boiling down to reports that don’t capture the richness of the problem.
…
But there is another difference at work: partly because of technology and partly because of historical inertia, Facebook can more obviously be asked to play a gatekeeper role with its apps than an OS maker can with its desktop apps. Felt’s solution to the problem she identifies is to have Facebook run interference — serve as a proxy — between most apps and the data they presumably don’t really need. The app can say to Facebook, “Display the user’s birthday in the upper right corner of the screen,” without having to know the user’s birthday. Only in a few instances, they say, must an app really access the data in order to work.
…
Social networks are rightly recognized as powerful, even transformative. The ability for unaccredited third parties to write apps that users can run to access their data and do cool things with it further leverages their power. The wild card of the platform makers’ power over those apps creates a range of options simply not available to the OS makers that preceded Web 2.0, and being put out of business by it.

From Study Finds Privacy Lapse in Facebook Apps, The Harvard Crimson, 8 February 2008:

Playing Jetman on Facebook.com may cause you to lose more than just the game. Your private information is also at stake.

Facebook application developers—who can be anybody—are unnecessarily given full access to both users’ and their friends’ private information, according to a University of Virginia study.