Bruce Schneier

Harvard Faculty, Fellows, Staff, and Students An AI Cyber Lunch with technology critic and industry analyst Sara M. Watson.

I am a public-interest technologist, working at the intersection of security, technology, and people. I've been writing about security issues on my blog since 2004, and in my monthly newsletter since 1998. I'm a fellow and lecturer at Harvard's Kennedy School, a board member of EFF, and the Chief of Security Architecture at Inrupt, Inc. This personal website expresses the opinions of none of those organizations.

Harvard Faculty, Fellows, Staff, and Students An AI Cyber Lunch featuring Mikko Hypponen, Chief Research Officer at WithSecure.

The malware has been circulating since at least 2021. It gets installed by exploiting more than 20,000 common misconfigurations, a capability that may make millions of machines connected to the Internet potential targets, researchers from Aqua Security said. It can also exploit CVE-2023-33246, a vulnerability with a severity rating of 10 out of 10 that was patched last year in Apache RocketMQ, a messaging and streaming platform that's found on many Linux machines.

Bruce Schneier and Nathan Sanders warn that AI will complicate the SEC's financially cutting in whistleblowers. "While AI automation will also help SEC staff process tips more efficiently, it could exponentially increase the number of tips the agency has to deal with, further decreasing the efficiency of the program."

When I create a virtual machine server in the Amazon cloud, I am prompted for an RSA public key that will be used to control access to the machine. Typically, I create the public and private keypair on my laptop and upload the public key to Amazon, which bakes my public key into the server's administrator account. My laptop and that remove server are thus entangled, in that the only way to log into the server is using the key on my laptop. And because that administrator account can do anything to that server—read the sensitivity data, hack the web server to install malware on people who visit its web pages, or anything else I might care to do—the private key on my laptop represents a security risk for that server.

Part of the problem is that we are constantly handed lists…list of required controls…list of things we are being asked to fix or improve…lists of new projects…lists of threats, and so on, that are not ranked for risks. For example, we are often given a cybersecurity guideline (e.g., PCI-DSS, HIPAA, SOX, NIST, etc.) with hundreds of recommendations. They are all great recommendations, which if followed, will reduce risk in your environment.

Really interesting research: “An LLM-Assisted Easy-to-Trigger Backdoor Attack on Code Completion Models: Injecting Disguised Vulnerabilities against Strong Detection“: Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed code com- pletion tasks, providing context-based suggestions to boost developer productivity in software engineering. As users often fine-tune these models for specific applications, poisoning and backdoor attacks can covertly alter the model outputs. To address this critical security challenge, we introduce CODEBREAKER, a pioneering LLM-assisted backdoor attack framework on code completion models. Unlike recent attacks that embed malicious payloads in detectable or irrelevant sections of the code (e.g., comments), CODEBREAKER leverages LLMs (e.g., GPT-4) for sophisticated payload transformation (without affecting functionalities), ensuring that both the poisoned data for fine-tuning and generated code can evade strong vulnerability detection. CODEBREAKER stands out with its comprehensive coverage of vulnerabilities, making it the first to provide such an extensive set for evaluation. Our extensive experimental evaluations and user studies underline the strong attack performance of CODEBREAKER across various settings, validating its superiority over existing approaches. By integrating malicious payloads directly into the source code with minimal transformation, CODEBREAKER challenges current security measures, underscoring the critical need for more robust defenses for code completion...

Stuart Schechter makes some good points on the history of bad password policies: Morris and Thompson's work brought much-needed data to highlight a problem that lots of people suspected was bad, but ...

Morris and Thompson's work brought much-needed data to highlight a problem that lots of people suspected was bad, but that had not been studied scientifically. Their work was a big step forward, if not for two mistakes that would impede future progress in improving passwords for decades.