Rossander’s Security Reader

The Wall Street Journal ran an article the other day about a new profanity policy. The policy is a spinout from the public embarrassment they got during a Senate hearing back in April. Some of the traders’ blunt and explicit comments about the securities they were selling were read on the Senate floor. (It was the first time I’d heard CSPAN bleeped out.) Ignoring the ethical issues of selling a product that you don’t believe in, Goldman is trying to reduce the potential for future embarrassment by cleaning up their language before the next time.

I have mixed opinions about the new policy. On the one hand, that industry has a very macho image. Profanity is an ingrained part of their culture. Profanity recognizes and reinforces the aggressive attitudes valued among the traders. Profanity can show the passion of the speaker. And, arguably, it helps in bonding and cultural norming. Similar trends are common among soldiers, journalists, police, some sports teams, etc. The language is offensive to outsiders but, in some ways, that’s the point. It becomes part of the group identity. And as long as it’s limited to the insiders who participate by choice, well, you should be cautious about changing the a successful culture.

Having said all that, I think the new policy is a good one. Clearly their behavior has gone too far. It was adversely impacting the business and needed to be reined in. More than that, the informal language leaked out of mere speech and into their emails, creating a permanent record that will inevitably be exposed to outsiders who do not participate in, understand or appreciate the ingroup’s culture – outsiders who may be deeply offended by the choice of language. That’s just inexcusable.

As we’ve often talked about before, emails are official business communications and must be treated as such. They deserve all the thought and professionalism that we used to put into a formal memo back in the days of carbon paper and typewriter ribbons. If you’d be embarrassed to have your email read in church or quoted on the front page of the newspaper, then you should rethink the message.

But I’m not such a fan of the automated filters that Goldman and others are using to enforce their policy. Profanity filters try to identify the offensive words and, depending on the company’s settings, return the email to the sender, block the email or allow the message to go through but flag a copy to HR. The filters use long lists of keywords, usually including common abbreviations and aliases (like adding ** in place of the vowels). The problem is that the offensiveness of a message is often dependent on context. As soon as you get a list long enough to be even marginally effective, you will inevitably suffer false positives.

As an example, my company tried to do something similar as a spam filter a few years back. In hindsight, it’s not really a surprise that construction companies (many of whom were our customers) use the word “erection” in legitimate business messages. BS can be a pejorative abbreviation or a respectable undergraduate degree. POS can describe a defective piece of hardware or your Point Of Sale register (and, yes, your POS can be a POS if you bought from the lowest bidder).

I should note that some of the most advanced filters now claim to be able to differentiate meaning based on the context of the message. They do alright for spam filtering and are showing promise for some other purposes but I don’t think they’re ready for use as profanity policy enforcement. The English language is too loose and our people are too creative. Very few of the filters would correctly parse the paragraph above and none can keep up with the changing acronyms and innuendo that people employ to dodge the censors. My prediction is that the filter will have some short-term shock value but the real change will only come when managers do their jobs – teaching employees the new standards, leading by example and holding people accountable when they backslide. That’s the only real way to change the culture.

“Cloud” computing has been a popular buzzword in the news for a few years now but it’s rarely defined. So in the interest of debunking some of the hype and identifying some of the unique risks, here goes…

Cloud computing means having someone else do your computing for you – taking data and calculations that you would have crunched on your own mainframe or workstation and, instead, crunching it on some computer on the internet. (The name comes from the IT diagramming convention of showing the internet as an amorphous cloud.) In theory, this gets you access to more and bigger computers than you would be able to afford yourself. It also gets you access to your data from any internet browser, not just your own dedicated computer. If you are a webmail user (yahoo, gmail, hotmail, etc), you are already using cloud computing.

There are two general business models for cloud computing providers. The first are companies who already have lots and lots of computers but who only need their computing power for surges. Amazon, Google and eBay might be examples. They have to build their data centers to handle Cyber-Monday. Renting computer time to you is a way to get back some of their investment when they’re not busy with their own crunch.

The second are companies who start out with the model of renting – the United Rentals of the computer world. IBM is moving aggressively in this space. A variation on this is Software-as-a-Service (or SAAS) where a particular vendor lets you move his application and the associated data out of your data center and onto his machines for a fee. Moving your financials to Peachtree’s online application might be an example.

In either business model, there are some serious security and legal issues to think through before you decide to outsource your computing. For example:

1. Security – Are they able to keep your data separate from the data of all their other customers? Who else now has access to your confidential data?
2. eDiscovery – If you get sued and have to turn over your computer records, can they segregate them? Can they produce your records fast enough to keep the courts happy? And how much are they going to charge you for the privilege?
3. Privacy – What if the vendor gets a subpoena or request for your data? Will they fight it? Will they even tell you about it?
4. Records Retention – Hopefully, you have a carefully thought-out policy that makes sure all information is kept as long as it is needed (either by the business or by law) but no longer. Keeping information longer than you need it is, by definition, risk without reward. How will you ensure that the vendor lives up to your policy?
5. Privacy laws – Some of these vendors send data overseas. All of them send it outside your local jurisdiction. Is this contract going to get you in trouble with any processing, retention or transfer restrictions, such as those in the European Data Protection Directive? Worse, are you going to inherit those privacy obligations because your data is comingled with others?

Cloud computing can be a boon to small businesses that are growing rapidly and can’t yet afford a dedicated data center. But the cloud can also be a dangerous place. Don’t rush into the relationship without a lot of thought and consideration for the risks and for your mitigation strategy.

CNN recently ran an excellent article asking this question. The article included five case studies on privacy issues being raised by all our new technology. The connecting question was whether and how our old privacy laws apply to this new environment.

To me, the answer is simple. Yes, you are responsible for anything you write, whether you post it on Twitter, a personal blog or by regular mail. If your words would be libelous when published in the newspaper, they are equally libelous published online. (Of course, speaking the truth is the best defense against accusations of libel.)

The problem in my opinion is that being online gives some people an illusion of anonymity. (And, yes, it is an illusion – more on that in future posts.) This illusion encourages some to say things that they would never say in person. This is unacceptable to me. If you have something to say, stand up and be proud. Take all the credit – and all the blame – that your words deserve. Stand behind your words, whether you post them on Facebook or shout them from a soapbox in the village square.

In fairness, there are a few exceptions to that rule. Political dissent can be quite dangerous in some parts of the world. I am lucky enough to live in a country that explicitly protects political speech. Many in this world are not so blessed. True anonymity has a place in that arena and should be protected wherever and however possible. But short of the level of physical danger, you are responsible for what you say and should not expect otherwise.

Most other privacy “conundrums” are equally easy to solve if you fairly apply the old principles to the new environment. The differences are of degree and speed, not in the fundamental principles.

A couple of years ago, I taught a class on reducing email bloat and “taking back control of your inbox”. It was a fun class based on the lessons in The Hamster Revolution. If you haven’t read the book, it’s well worth the time.

CIO magazine recently published an article on keeping email from ruining your vacation. The same basic principle applies. That is, if you write well-crafted, professional, on-topic emails, the people you talk with will start to write more professionally back to you.

The CIO article goes on with some other suggestions to take advantage of new technologies to help people either remember that you’re on vacation or to help themselves while you’re gone.

• Filesharing is good. Take the time during the year to set up better collaboration and it will pay dividends when you need some time away.
• Minimize constant email exchanges. They’re too transient and hard to file. They don’t create the institutional knowledge that a wiki or well-designed fileshare can. And if it’s a really complicated or sensitive issue, email may not be the best choice in the first place. Some things should be sorted out in person.
• If you can manage a wiki, they’re great tools.
• Updating your status on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn will let everyone know where you are but I really do not recommend it. The updates are helpful for your customers and friends but they also paint a big red target on your house while you’re gone. You’re advertising that your house is unattended and vulnerable.

Take some time up front so that you can really be on vacation.

NPR ran an interesting story this morning about President Obama’s dispute with his own information security team about whether or not he would keep his Blackberry. The President won and will be keeping it. An expert from SANS.org blasted that decision, saying that the device was inherently insecure and talking about all the special modifications that he thinks the Secret Service will make to protect it.

He went on to describe some of the attacks that can be made against a Blackberry. For example, with the right set of instructions, the phone’s microphone can be turned on without it being obvious. Someone can listen in on your conversation right through your phone. For another example, the email server can be hacked or the cell phone transmissions intercepted.

All those arguments are entirely true. And they are real reasons for the President’s security team to be worried. After all, the President really does have nuclear secrets that he needs to protect. And there are all sorts of people who would love to break into his messages and who will devote immense resources to do so.

But the story was edited in a way that implied that Blackberrys are inherently insecure for the rest of us, too. Much as I like to think highly of my own self-importance, there just aren’t that many people out there who are attacking me and they certainly won’t be devoting the same kind of resources to breaking into my phone messages.

That said, you should always remember that Blackberrys run email and email is an inherently insecure system. (You can run an encrypted email program on top of regular email but PDAs don’t support that well today.) As a matter of general practice, never say anything in email that you wouldn’t want to see on the front page of the newspaper tomorrow.

The same goes for your cell phone conversations. They are a bit better protected than the SANS guy implied but there are still ways to intercept and decrypt them. Most importantly, most cell phone intercepts require the hacker to be physically close. For those of us who are not heads of state, this dramatically reduces the risk. But you still shouldn’t say anything on a cell phone that you wouldn’t say in public.

Lastly, you should keep up to date on PDA protections. There are some new viruses that target mobile phones. The major phone companies are starting to include anti-virus on their phones. If you have it, make sure you don’t turn it off. If you don’t have it, look for that capability when you next renew your phone contract. Keep using your Blackberry but use it safely.