A call to action we ignore at our peril

You don't have to watch all of this video to know that Josh Corman has clearly articulated the massive scope of the IT security challenges we face today, and he has done it using language that even a CEO or a Middle School teacher can understand. I think the whole thing is worth watching, but if you cut to minute 15 you get to the crux of the matter:

"Our dependence on technology is growing faster than our ability to secure it....Issues of public safety and public concern require public discussion and public solutions...We are going to be the ambassadors of technical literacy."

My committment to my ambassadorial duties is my New Year resolution. Let the educational outreach begin.

The Privacy Meter Redux

My prediction that data privacy is going to be a hot topic in 2014 was not surprising, but I am surprised at how many interview requests I've had so far, and we're barely halfway through January. Yesterday I found myself filling a last minute request to appear on a local TV channel. So I dusted off the trusty privacy meter.

I created this learning device in 2001 and it went into my privacy book that came out in 2002. And it is just a visual device, an image to use as a tool when discussing privacy. (Feel free to use it, you have my permission, it is released to the public domain.)

The idea is to ask people to self-assess where they fit on a scale from closed book to open book. They do not need to reveal their "privacy reading" but they do need to think about whether or not it is fair to impose their position on others.

In other words, there is no correct reading, but plenty of scope to use the meter as a basis for discussion. For example, suppose you are an open book. Is it fair to make others become open book about their personal data if they prefer to be more of a closed book? On the other hand, if you think you are a closed book, are you prepared to provide information about yourself in order to authenticate your identity and establish trust?

Why there is so much cyber crime: #1 It's our spending priorities

With the number of potential victims of the Target data breach now topping 100 million, a lot of people who have never really given much thought to cyber crimes are asking: Why? How is it that criminals can commit computer crime on this scale with apparent impunity? After all, we pay taxes to be protected from the kind of scum that perpetrate crimes like this.

There are a number of answers to the question "why is there so much cyber crime?" But for me, the first answer on the list, the one that has been ignored by most of the talking heads who've been hashing over the scant details of the Target breach on TV, looks like this:

Despite all the hot air from politicians over the last 15 years, repeatedly pledging to do something about computer crime, the U.S. has failed to make fighting cyber crime a priority. I think these relative spending numbers make that clear. I would love to hear anyone argue that we are spending enough money to track down and prosecute cyber criminals right now.

An academic study published in 2012 put the total U.S. law enforcement spend on the fight against cyber crime at $200 million per year. I decided to be generous in my chart and rounded it up to $250 million.

The figure of $15 billion is often cited as the annual cost of the war on drugs, so apparently that is 60X more important than cyber crime. We know from the Snowden revelations that spy agencies spend over $52 billion per year, so apparently we think that what they do is 200X more important than fighting cyber crime.

How about we shave $0.5 billion off the intelligence agency budgets and spend it on bringing cyber criminals to justice? That's a 3X increase over what we spend right now. That might well be enough to put a significant number of perpetrators behind bars, including the ones we could afford to bring to the U.S. from other countries, thereby tipping the risk/reward equation against the bad guys and in the favor of honest citizens.

I'm writing to my representatives in Washington to tell them what I think our priorities should be. I'm sending them this chart. If you agree, I invite you to send it to the folks who are supposed to be representing you.

My #4 personal privacy and security prediction for 2014: A BIG year for good/bad news

As we enter 2014 it is clear that two events in 2013 have rocketed data privacy and information security to the highest level of public awareness that these the complex topics have ever attained. I'm talking about the Snowden revelations and the Target breach.

For me, this surge in public awareness of the importance of data privacy and cybersecurity is both exciting and frightening.Why? Because 2014 is obviously going to be a big year for those of us who work in these closely intertwined fields, a year when more people than ever before will be concerned about securing their data, yet more distrustful than ever of the folks who are trying to help them do that (among whom I count myself).

Consider that I have spent the better part of 20 years writing and speaking about these issues, starting with computer security, then network security, system security, information assurance, data privacy, and now "cybersecurity." You could say that I have wanted nothing more than to make the world aware of the importance of these things, for the simple reason that, without such awareness, the true potential of digital technology will never be realized.

Let me put it a different way: Are you wondering where the flying cars are? Are you disappointed that in 2014 we don't yet have them, or transoceanic high speed rail service, or the handheld medical scanner that can diagnose the top 100 medical conditions in a single swipe? I believe we would have achieved these or similar technological marvels by now if it were not for the massive distraction of information insecurity.

I don't want to wander off into too many examples, but consider one: Towards the end of the last century email was poised to become a universal tool for managing transactions cheaply and easily. Then came the spam-plosion, a massive surge in unsolicited commercial email that rose to become 80% or more of all email and had Internet service providers (ISP's) buying new servers once a fortnight just to maintain legitimate service. Combine that with the inability of the major email providers to agree on improvements to email protocols, and you have the death of transactional email that is still hampering large slices of our economy, like banking, healthcare, government, and retail.

So the good news / bad news in 2014 goes like this:

• Are most consumers now aware that cybercrime is a serious problem? Yes. Can a young working mother buy diapers at a discount store without fear of losing her identity, and all the money in her back account, despite the billions that have been spent on cybersecurity? No, because we have grossly under-funded the vital work of catching the cyber-scum at the root of that fear. 
• Are most companies now aware that cybercrime is a serious problem? Yes. Can a company develop new products without fear of them leaking from their computers to a nation state agency and/or its clients? No, because it is possible that every piece of hardware and software you buy to build your dreams has already been hacked, back-doored, or otherwise compromised, thanks in part to your own tax dollars at work (see this article or the pictures here if you are not clear on this).

Now this next bit may sound self-serving, but I assure you it is not. I am employed by a company that sells security software, some of which requires root access in order to protect systems. However, the company doesn't pay me to sell this software, they pay me to think about security and privacy and explain of much of this stuff as I can to as many people as possible. The company has, in my considered opinion as a 20-year industry veteran, the very highest ethical standards. All of the people that I work with, in this company and in many of our leading competitors, are dedicated to eliminating the scourge of malware and other threats perpetrated by the world's cyber-scum. A fair number of us have been at this for 10 or 20 years or more. Yet today, in 2014, we are being asked: Are you helping the government spy on its people?"

The answer is no, but although part of me feels hurt and even insulted by this line of questioning, objectively-speaking I cannot object, particularly when I see these pages from a catalog of hardware and software crippled by the NSA, in other words, produced by my own government. I am sure that the people who developed these things thought they were doing the right thing, and only intended them to be used for righteous purposes like defending our nation. But the people in charge clearly failed to consider what would happen to the nation when the world found out about them.

I bet you a box of donuts that in 2014 at least one person will ask me where they can get a USB cable that is certified uncompromised. The fact that I don't have a good answer really bothers me. More people than ever before are going to be asking security professionals for help in creating secure systems, even as those professionals try to deal with NSA-fueled doubts about the very building blocks of such systems. One way or another, or both, it's going to be a BIG year.

My #3 personal privacy and security prediction for 2014: Cyber won't be icky any more

I predict, and sincerely hope, that in 2014 most of us information security professionals will stop apologizing whenever we use the letters c-y-b-e-r like in cyber crime, or cyber security. I also predict/hope we will stop putting "cyber" in ironic air quotes or pronouncing it in a snide tone that implies we are above using words that the world has thrust upon us.

Let's face it, computers, networks, information systems, endpoints, digital devices, tablets, smartphones, Internet-enabled-DVD-players, Bluetooth insulin pumps, they are all cyber. 

So computer security, network security, information system security, endpoint security, digital device security, tablet security, smartphone security, Internet-enabled-DVD-player security, Bluetooth insulin pump security, they are all cyber security, or cyber-security, or cybersecurity.

In 2014 we are going to have to answer a lot of questions about the security of digital information. In our answers we can call it digital security, or refer to "the security of all things digital", but it is also okay to say cyber security. And referring to the bad guys as cyber criminals is a lot easier than saying "those who would subvert any or all things digital with criminal intent."

In 2013 there were times when I said things like cyber scammers and cyber scum well as cyber criminals. I'm not going to apologize for that because I think the general public gets what cyber means. It means all things digital, it means my data and the devices and systems that process and store them. Cyber security is about protecting that stuff. Let's save our erudition and expository powers for the many other, more complex and nuanced concepts that will need to be explained in 2014, like why public key encryption needs private keys, and what pseudo random number generators have done for us lately.