Bra podcast
Sveriges mest populära poddar
Overview
This week we bring you part 3 of Camila’s cybersecurity buzzwords series - looking at blockchain, zero trust and quantum / post-quantum security.
Decoding cybersecurity buzzwords (part 3) [00:10]
Hello listener! Hopefully I set the stage well enough last time that you are back here today for more after getting excited about ending our cyber security buzzword journey with a bang! A journey where we try to understand the meaning of the word behind the buzz in order to better navigate this crazy world of ours! A little bit of an exaggerated description, some might say, but definitely not lacking in inspiration! If you haven’t listened to our previous episodes I highly recommend you do so before proceeding with this one, as preparation will be key to digest what is to come. Oh yes, today is going to be a good one. So let’s get buzzing and let’s get into it, shall we?
Buzzword #7 - which is the first buzzword of today: blockchain. Ah…this one I had to do some serious research on, because even though I hear about it all the time, as you probably do to, I didn’t really know the specifics of how it worked. Anyway, one thing I did know is that this is DEFINITELY a buzzword, one that started trending and gaining traction together with all of the crypto currencies that started showing up out there. And now, I can’t even see a job listing without the good old Blockchain developer position included within the various openings. So, what is the notorious blockchain afterall? Even after researching about this and learning more, it is still a very complicated thing to explain, so please be patient with me if I don’t get all the details right, although I will attempt to be as accurate as possible. Well, let’s board this train and use crypto currencies to explain how blockchains work from a HIGH LEVEL point of view, shall we? Please do note, however, that I did say HIGH LEVEL! I am by no means a block chain/crypto currency expert, as I previously mentioned, and I will only share with you the basics of how this thing works, so that we can really get past the buzzword point of the word, even though we might not reach the true connoseuir point of it. Anyway! Let’s get to it!
Think about a blockchain as being a distributed ledger, which as per dictionary definition is a “a book or other collection of financial accounts of a particular type”. So, this applies to our cryptocurrency example here, and to blockchains being applied to crypto currencies. Just to make that very clear. Each block in the blockchain is like a page of this ledger. What about the chain? We will get to that part soon enough. For our cryptocurrency situation here, let’s consider that each block in our blockchain will contain three important groups of information: data regarding transactions that have been happening for a specific cryptocurrency, a hash for this data and the hash of the block that was generated before it, or, if you’d rather think of it in analogy terms, the hash of the “page” that comes before it. What is a hash, you might ask? To keep it simple, since our topic for today is not hashing, a hash is a fixed size data output that is generated after the processing of some kind of input of variable length. So, for example, a number generated as output for the input data that is a word, which can have from 1 to…a lot of letters. The word is processed such that the position of each letter in the alphabet is used in a sum that starts with value 0. Word ‘blockchain’, in this case, would have a hash of…uh, I don’t want to calculate that, so let’s choose a simpler example. Word ‘aaa’ would have a hash of 3. There, nice and easy…and lazy. Anyway, with a good hash function - a cryptographic hash function - different input data, after processed by a specific hash algorithm, will 99% of the time generate different outputs (which is not the case for our earlier example. You can try to figure out different words that would have the same hash. I’ll leave that as an exercise for you). All of the outputs will possess the same format, which is usually a fixed size sequence of alphanumeric characters, but, more than that, for our case, predicting changes in the hash by analyzing changes in the data is not something easy to do, that is how powerful out cryptographic hash algorithm is. Therefore, we can look at our hashes as if it were the fingerprint of the data it is connected to, if said data were a person able to have fingerprints. Different data equals different fingerprints, and forging a fingerprint, or, in other words, changing your own, is not something you can easily or seamlessly do. Ok…that being said, can you start seeing how our blocks actually constitute a chain? We have various sets of data containing information about financial transactions that are happening. Connected to each set is the hash for that specific set, as is the hash of the set that came before it! So block n will always know who n-1 is, n-1 will know who n-2 is, and so on and so forth. Therefore, if I am an attacker and I want to tamper with the data in the blockchain and say…add a transaction in which I make my worst enemy transfer all of their funds to my account, I can’t just change the data of a block in the middle of the chain without causing havoc for all of the blocks that follow it. To be able to sneakily add my fake transaction into the blockchain, not only would I need to change the data segment of the block which will contain the transaction, I will also need to change the “hash of the previous block” segment for all blocks that come after this block. If I am able to do this instantaneously, say…using a computer, then the problem is solved. But of course it wouldn’t be that easy, or else I don’t think everyone and their mother would be freaking out about how awesome or how safe blockchain is. What is the catch then? The blockchain protocol forces you to provide a proof-of-work every time you wish to add a block to the chain. What exactly does this mean? The blockchain challenges you. It tells you: you cannot add a page to the ledger that is myself unless you solve this very hard puzzle that even a computer will take a humanly noticeable time to solve. This puzzle could be, for example, discovering which set of 100 characters you need to add at the end of the data set to force the block’s hash to start with 10 consecutive zeros. As I previously said, it is not easy to predict what is the output of a hash function given an input when you have a good hash function, so the easiest way to achieve this is by brute forcing it: testing all possibilities until you find something that matches that which you are looking for. Therefore, to add a block to the chain, you must waste some time solving the puzzle, which in turn means that changes made to the middle of the chain cannot propagate instantaneously throughout the tail of the chain. You change a block and you need to change all that follow, but for each block you will take some time solving the puzzle before adding it to the chain. If I were the one listening to this podcast and not the one doing the explaining, at this point I would have two questions: (1) why does this matter if I have full control of the blockchain? (2) Why not add your malicious transaction to the last block instead of adding it to a block in the middle and solve this whole ‘having to update subsequent blocks’ in order to achieve lots of money in your bank account? I don’t know if you have these questions as well, or started asking them after I mentioned it, but what I do know and what I can tell you is that the same answer applies to both of these: blockchain does not rely on a centralized entity to manage it, it is instead distributed. Why should we care? Because then there is never only one person that is in full control of the blockchain (the ledger). Everyone is able to grab a copy of this blockchain, follow which transactions are happening, and include them into a new block. If more than 50% of the peers which participate in building the ledger agree on the new block to be added, meaning, if more than 50% has the same resulting block after including transactions broadcasted and gathered, then this block is officially added to the chain and considered the last block of said chain. Therefore, if I plan to include a fake transaction to the new block that will be added to the chain, I need 50% of the peers that are also listening to transactions and building this new block to agree to include my fake transaction, which might seem simple if you have a lot of friends, but the beauty in having a non-centralized server lies in diversity and on the fact that most people will probably not want to partake in you shady activities of tampering with the blockchain. And even if it is technically possible to do this Mr.Smarty Pants - I see you there in the corner - that will try to bring the argument down by saying “but what if I am super powerful and I CAN convince everyone to do it”, see it as one more thing a potential attacker needs to do, another burdensome task to perform in order to achieve the desired result: change the block AND convince more than 50% of the people in the peer network to go along with it. Have you ever been in any comment section on the Internet? If you have, you know that ‘agreeing on things’ is not something the Internet community does very well. Anyway…more than preventing you from changing the last block, the distributed peer network will also enforce the utility of things such as the proof-of-work. If the blockchain were to be controlled by one single entity, then it matters less if it takes one nanosecond to perform the proof-of-work or if it takes a few minutes. You are a single entity in control of the data, you can eventually catch up with the new blocks that will be added to the chain. Maybe you have 1000 super computers on the side to calculate the blocks that will follow your tampered one, and then the proof-of-work is rendered kind of useless. However, with a distributed network, each peer is trying to solve the puzzle to add the next block to the chain, and once again, you can create however many blocks with fake data you want, if the entire peer-to-peer network disagrees with you on what that block should be, it won’t be added to the chain…and you will need to ask that for each new block you want to add. Other people, some of which might not have been bribed by Mr. Smarty Pants, may end up obtaining the next block in the chain first, and then all of your super computers will have worked for naught, and you would need to start all over again. It’s like participating in an auction…you can make a very high bid…but other people can also do the same. Plus, it’s even worse because everyone participating in the auction is actually checking your bank account to see if you really have the money you claim to have, and if you make a false bid…they can call you out on your lies if they wish to do so. The last question I think remains is: what would make people want to participate in the creation of a blockchain? Seems like too much work and no fun, and choosing people for the job defeats the purpose of not having a centralized entity to manage the ledger, because then, as the verb implies, you get to CHOOSE who will participate, and you can choose whoever you want, and maybe these will be people that will side with you. Well, for crypto currencies I can tell you that the bang is in the buck. The person that is the first to solve the puzzle which allows for inclusion of a new block in the chain is rewarded with a certain amount of crypto currency. Therefore, people want to participate in the blockchain creation and make sure to check that all is well because they will gain something from it. This is what we know as crypto mining. Someone who is crypto mining is trying to earn some digital cash by adding a new block to the crypto currency ledger before other people, and that is how the problem is solved. Give the people something that they want and they shall follow! Well…I think that is enough talk about blockchain, am I right? This is so long that it has almost become a mini-episode inside of a bigger one! So let’s move on and actually go to our next and almost last buzzword of this series of episodes!
Next buzzword, suggested by our one and only Alex Murray, buzzword #8, is zero trust. This one is a hard one for me to explain and I will tell you why: I already have kinf of a zero trust mentality, or at least I have only heard of the “zero trust way” ever since I started studying cyber security. Or maybe it is because the term zero trust was coined very close to the time I was born. Baby me didn’t even have to know the non-zero trust model, because at that time the “never trust, always verify” slogan for this model was already something people were considering. So what is zero trust after all? I think I will begin defining it by saying it is a model. A set of rules, frameworks and principles to take into consideration when setting up your IT infrastructure, one that, as the slogan itself says, trusts no one. Trusts zero persons…zero trust. Get the origin of the name now? As a second way to define it, or as a way to compliment the definition, let us go back and understand what is a non-zero trust model and why the zero trust model was created. A time where the Internet was simpler, and networks were a lot more self contained than they are today. The clouds were only the ones you could see flying around in the sky and WiFi was probably just a weird name someone would give to their pet. When your entire infrastructure is restricted to one single area and your network can only be accessed by those physically present where devices of that network are also physically present at, it is easy to define your headquarters and whoever is in it as being a safe space, with safe people. You only let in people who are allowed to be in there, and people who are allowed to be in there won’t cause any harm to the infrastructure because they are friends, and not foes. Right? In comes the insider threat, that disgruntled employee that decides to do malicious things to the company’s resources and has the means to do so exactly because they are trusted. In comes more technology that allows your infrastructure to exist in more than one physical location, and that allows people to access company resources from areas outside the supposed trusted security perimeter. In come new business models for software products where third party companies are responsible for managing resource from your own company as part of a service provided by them together with their own software. And then the castle walls are no longer enough to protect the kingdom, because the kingdom is no longer just within the castle walls. Zero trust is the model that starts to consider security when the castle walls are no longer enough to prevent the occurrence of cyber attacks, exactly because we can have foes which are inside our own network and because we are expanding our own network and letting it exist beyond what would be a trusted physical location. To mention a few exampĺes…remember our previous buzzword ‘phishing’ from a few episodes back? Well imagine that you have an attacker which is able to successfully trick one of your employees in a phishing campaign they are running. This employee clicks a malicious link and gives this attacker access to the target company’s internal network with their own set of credentials. In a model that is not zero trust, this employee’s user might have a lot of privileges inside the network. Why not let them access the database containing sensitive data? They work for the company, they must be trustworthy! …and yet…now our attacker has access to that same database because they were able to trick someone we trust into giving them privileged information. Notice how we don’t even need to have a disgruntled employee to have an insider threat. It can be the happiest company in the world! All people who work for this company love it and would never harm it…but one of its employees just became an unknowing insider threat because they fell for the tricks of an attacker well trained in the arts of social engineering. Attacks have evolved, so the security model needs to evolve with it, and that is one of the advantages of considering the zero trust model. Another example of a situation where you might need to consider this model: nowadays we can access our work environments from anywhere, so long as anywhere has an available WiFi password for you to use. Maybe you work from home but you are tired of looking at the same boring old view from outside your window. You decide to go work at a local sweets shop for a change of scenery and a change in your lunch menu for that day. The shop has a delightful atmosphere and also has free WiFi. You connect to their network and start working, filled with new energy and joy while you drink a cup of coffee and eat some delicious ‘insert any type of food that you love here’. And yet…ah, once again I say ‘and yet’, and by now you must know some bad news is coming: and yet, this is a free network, meaning that anyone, including attackers can connect to it. You might use a VPN to access your company’s internal network, which encrypts data you are sending through the public network to it, however, you also end up using some applications without connecting to a VPN and sometimes without even having to use encryption. An attacker is sniffing for data, searching for gold, in this sweets shop’s local network, and ends up running across your network traffic and is able to extract some juicy information from it. And once again assets and resources are not kept safe because not enough is being considered when establishing processes and permissions for a company’s network. Yes, you are a trusted user and your device SHOULD be trustworthy, but as many times we have seen, it is not always that theory and practice shake hands and call it a day. IT infrastructures have evolved, so the security model needs to evolve with it, and that is one of the advantages of considering the zero trust model. Oh…wait? Am I repeating myself? Then it must mean I really want you to remember that, don’t you think? Anyway, to close this topic off, I will say that one of the most important principles in the zero trust model is the principle of least privilege, which is a good place to start from if you intend to implement this model in your own environment. The principle of least privilege states that you should only allow a user to have access to resources that they will actually need…no less and no more. No less because otherwise they won’t be able to do their jobs. No more because if you give them more, you are UNNECESSARILY increasing the attack surface for your network. If something does not exist, it cannot be taken advantage of. And that is where I’ll leave it…so you can think about this a little more while drinking your coffee and connecting to that free WiFi network in a sweets shop. Careful!
Give it up to buzzword #9, our last buzzword in the list! Quantum and post quantum security! Let’s finish this off with a big bang, pun intended for the physics lovers out there, and talk about the eerie and wacky thing that is quantum computing. Not really though, because I can definitely assure you that physics is not my jam, and as the name suggests, quantum computing is related to physics and, surprise, surprise, the quantum theory! So…I could say that the next generation of computers will arise in quantum computers, however, it is a little bit more complicated than that, as the quantum computer will be useful to solve a specific set of problems, mainly the ones it was conceptualized to solve. As a bonus, some problems it will be able to solve include a few well known ones which we still can’t efficiently solve with our old regular computers today. However, at the same time problems solved by quantum computers also do not include some of the problems which we already can solve with our old regular computers today. Quantum computers, for example, are not too big on big data, and are limited in their I/O capabilities…so we can keep using regular computers for that. It also wouldn’t be very interesting to use a quantum computer to write blog posts, or create internet memes or even use an app to listen to this awesome podcast: shameless plug. The point is, the quantum computer will not substitute our well known 0s and 1s calculator, it will instead be useful, to solve a few sets of complex problems which require small data sets as input and to model quantum systems…hence the name quantum computers. All of that being said, instead of a son of what we know as the current computer, we could see the quantum computer as a young cousin of our well known 64bit friend. Quantum computing, to perform calculations, instead of simply using the regular transistors which represent a 0 or a 1 at a certain point in time, tries to consider the collective properties of quantum states, such as superposition, interference, and entanglement, to obtain results we wouldn’t be able to with the technology we currently have. Wow, so many complicated words in one sentence! I won’t explain any of those today though, sorry about that. However, what I will explain is that instead of bits, quantum computers use qubits. Qubits can have more than just a 0 or 1 state at a given instant, and this state is actually based on probabilities of results you might have for a certain task. When solving a specific problem, a regular computer needs to test all possibilities individually since bits can only have one state at a given time, while a quantum computer, due to the nature of qubits, is able to go down various paths at once since qubits are able to exist in more than one state at a given time. Of course, to extract useful data from such a different base unit, you need to create algorithms that will appropriately use them and extract results from them, so quantum computer algorithms are not the same as our regular and well known 0 and 1 logic gate algorithms. Yes, I know…I explained a lot of stuff without actually explaining it, and unfortunately…I can’t offer you much more. Even scientists say they don’t fully understand quantum theory, so I can assure that lil’ old me will not be the one to crack that code before them. However, what I can offer you an explanation on why this has become a CYBER SECURITY buzzword. Out of physics and back into cyber security! We might not be using quantum computers to write blog posts about quantum computing itself, however, we CAN use quantum computers to easily and quickly solve problems which would kind of render our current cryptographic algorithms useless! So, the current asymmetric cryptographic algorithms that we use are based on mathematical premises which the quantum computer aims to quickly ignore. One example of that is the ever difficult problem of obtaining the prime factors for very large numbers. Being able to factor a number and extract its prime factors might seem like something simple: 6 equals to 2 times 3. 51 equals 3 times 17, 100 equals 2 times 2 times 5 times 5…and so on. Start actually putting in some large numbers over there and then ask yourself the same question: what are the prime factors of 589.450.367.123.907? Now imagine that with a decimal number that has 617 digits. You might want to buy a lot of pens if you plan on doing that by hand, because I can tell you not even your computer can do that in a viable time frame. You will be living your billionth next life when the computer beeps reminding you that one of your past incarnations wanted to crack that key. The point here is, this is a difficult problem to solve and that is why these algorithms are considered safe and are widely used in encryption protocols for various software out there. In come quantum computers and actually make this an easy and quick problem to solve. Yeah…I know what you are thinking…now what? Now my friends, it is time to focus our efforts on developing post-quantum cryptographic algorithms! And there it is, our actual last buzzword! Have you ever heard the saying “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”? Well, in this case, it will be broken, repeatedly, so we do need to fix it! We need to find new ways to encrypt our data, and evolve cryptographic algorithms in order to maintain confidentiality of this data when faced with possible future quantum computer attacks. And yes, I know that quantum computers will not be easily accessible to every single person on the planet, at least in the beginning, as I also know that quantum attacks won’t be your everyday script-kiddie daily attack of choice. That does not mean, however, that we shouldn’t be preparing for a reality we are certain will exist in the future. Better safe than sorry. Better still encrypted than sorry!
Well friends, those are the buzzwords I have for you. I created this list based on words I know and am quite tired of seeing everywhere, and also based on suggestions given to me by the Ubuntu Security team! However, I do know that these are not the only ones, and that these will definitely not be the last words we extensively overhear regarding the cyber security world. As we all know, technology is ever changing and ever evolving, and in suit, the buzzwords shall follow. Maybe in a few years you can do a check-in, go back to this episode and see what has changed and how you might see some of these buzzwords in a different light once they have lost their buzz and new queen bees have arrived to torment us in every cyber security advertisement ever! Feel free to share your thoughts and share words I might have missed that you think are cyber security buzzwords in any of our social media channels! I hope you enjoyed this series, for now, I bid you all farewell, and until next time! Bye!
Get in contact
00:00
-00:00