Google is introducing a new Captcha, instead of trying to read a distorted word and write it down (because robots have troubles reading distorted words) you will just have to click on one button. Google will analyze small cues that prove that you are not a robot (like the movement of the cursor before clicking on the button). Some of those cues will only happen when the mouse will hover the widget, as google is not in control of the entire document when used outside of google's domain.
see more info on wired
edit: more info on google blog as well
someone on hackernews:
It's definitely not only relying on cursor movements. A simple $('iframe').contents().find('.recaptcha-checkbox-checkmark').click() proved that I'm not a robot, without me touching the mouse.
It seems to rely heavily on your cookies as well.
I'm overwhelmed with interviews those last days. I just spent more than 8 hours on one (remote location, late trains, low battery, no keys... long story).
And like this is not enough, Hack Summit just started
Right now Ed Roman is introducing the hack.summit(). talking about a lot of good stuff and giving some book recommendations.
EDIT: Some notes on what he just said:
- pair coding (when you code and someone is watching, or the inverse)
- pomodoro technique (I'm already doing this, even made this)
- remove distractions (mail, phone...)
- pretend to talk and explain what you're doing/coding (close to my theory about writing down stuff to organize your thoughts, and pretend to write stuff on the table with your fingers to memorize it)
- iterate quickly, fail quickly and often.
- personalize your IDE
- use git, use the command line...
Now Scott Hanselman is talking but I have to go to the Champs Elysées drink some Glühwein at the Marché de noël some pardon me ;)
Now Tom Chi
I'm studying the internals of hash functions and MACs right now. One-way Compression Functions, Sponge functions, CBC-MAC and... the Merkle–Damgård construction. Trying to find a youtube video about it I run into... The Cryptography course of Dan Boneh I already took 3 years ago. I have a feeling I will forever return to that course during my career as a cryptographer.
The whole playlist is here on youtube and since his course is awesome I just watched again the whole part about MACs. And I thought I should post this explanation of the birthday paradox since as he says:
Everybody should see a proof of the birthday paradox at least once in their life
Something that always bugged me though is that he says the formula for the birthday is
1.2 sqrt(365) whereas it should be square root of 366 since there are indeed 366 different birthdays possible.
This morning I had a course on Return Oriented Programming given by Jonathan Salwan, a classmate of mine also famous inventor of RopGadget.
The slides are here.
A lot of interesting things there. Apparently it's still kind of impossible to completely protect your C code against that kind of attack. Even with all the ASLR, PIE, NX bit and other protections... There is also an awesome lecture about ROP on Coursera I linked to in the previous post here.
Basically, since you can't execute code in the stack, and since the addresses of libraries are randomized because of ASLR, you can find bits of codes ending with a return (called gadgets) and chain them since you control the stack (thus the saved EIPs). What I learned by doing was that it gets complicated if it's 64bits (since a lot of address will have a lot of 0x00 and you can't point to those doing a buffer overflow through a strcpy or something similar) and you won't get a lot of those gadgets if you have dynamically loaded libraries. Static libraries are loaded in the .text section (which is executable of course), so that's all good. Also a good way to store strings of data are in the .data section since it is untouched by the randomization contrarily to the stack.
A lot of researches is done on the subject and new tools like RopGadget are coming, using an old concept (but still actively researched): the SAT solvers. There seems to be a problem though, those SAT solvers yield a set of gadgets to be used for some action you want to accomplish with your shellcode, but you have to do the work of putting them in the right order.
This is what I took from that talk, you can question the guy if that interests you!
I've already talked about Coursera before, and how much I liked it.
The Cryptography course by Dan Boneh is amazing and I often come back to it when I need a reminder. For example, even today I rewatched his video on AES because I was studying Differential Fault Analysis on AES (which is changing bits of the state during one round of AES to leak information about the last round subkey).
So if I could give you another course recommendation, it would be Software Security by Michael Hicks. It looks ultra complete and the few videos I've watched (to complete the security course I'm taking at the University of Bordeaux by Emmanuel Fleury) are top notch.
Communication Theory of Secrecy Systems is a paper published in 1949 by Claude Shannon discussing cryptography from the viewpoint of information theory. It is one of the foundational treatments (arguably the foundational treatment) of modern cryptography. It is also a proof that all theoretically unbreakable ciphers must have the same requirements as the one-time pad.
Crypt, already omitted by most linux distributions, is being retired as well by OpenBSD: http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/retiring-crypt
The crypt function is a unix classic. Unfortunately, its age is showing. It’s an interface from another time, out of place on modern systems, and it’s time for OpenBSD to move on.
I found an old Matthew Green's post where he wrote a really useful list of cryptography blogs and resources
I'll get back here after reading everything.
Studying about smartcard there seem to be a lot about whitboxes to learn, since it is indeed a whitebox: the encryption/decryption that are done inside the cards can be analyzed since you own the card. Analysis are separated in different categories like non-intrusive and intrusive. Intrusive because for efficient analysis you would have to remove some part of the plastic covering the interesting parts and directly plug yourself on the chip. This is what Differential Power Analysis (DPA) do, it's a stronger kind of Simple Power Analaysis (SPA).
Kocher & al found out about this in 1998 and released a paper that is still very useful today: http://www.cryptography.com/public/pdf/DPA.pdf
The idea is to record the power consumption of the chip along multiple encryptions. You then obtain curves with pics that you can correlate to XORs operations being performed. You can guess what cipher is used, and where are the known rounds/operations of the cipher from the intensities of some peaks, and the periodicity of some patterns. In the paper they study DES which is still the state of the art for block ciphers then.
Looking at a big number of such curves, along with the messages (or ciphertexts) they encrypted, you can focus on one operation and one bit of the internal state to find out one bit of one of the subkey. One bit should affect the number of XORs being performed thus you should find a correlation between the bit you're looking for and the power consumption at one point. Repeat and find all the other ones. It's powerful because you only need to find one bit of the subkey, one after the other.
It's pretty hard to explain it without pictures (and a video would be even better, that's always something I have been wanting to do, if I dig deeper into it maybe I'll try that). But the basic idea is here, if you want more info check the original paper
It was already pretty amazing when Cloudflare introduced Universal SSL (and this blog uses cloudflare ssl by the way).
Today the EFF has launched Let's Encrypt that aims to simplify the setup of SSL. They claim it takes 20-30 seconds to deploy SSL to your server. And this for free.
I was reading some articles on the security blog of stackexchange. Ended up there reading articles/comments from Thomas Pornin who is one of the best answerer on stackoverflow.
I ran into this one intitled Is our entire password strategy flawed?
I wanted to bring my point of view on how to deal with multiple passwords. I don't necessarily do this because it's not practical but I'm trying more and more.
So if I were to be extremely paranoiac I would:
- use a password manager like 1Password for websites you don’t really care.
- use passwords you memorise for websites you care about.
- use multi-factor authentification for critical websites.
1. Password Manager
I've never used 1Password but it seems to generate passwords on the fly when you need to sign up on a new website. It's pretty cool! But a problem arises when you need to login on some website when you're not using your computer. If you don't know the passwords it created then you will always be dependent of this password manager.
A good idea would be to hash the name of the website + some salt only you know, and use it as a password. All of that in your head. That's what one of the famous Blum proposes. More here. He appeared to have invented a hash you could compute mentally.
3. Two-Factor Authentification
I really like the yubikey (and own one). It's literally a secret key. Every time I need to log into gmail from a cybercafe I wish I had it configured with my yubikey.
By the way, if you're scared there might be a keylogger but really have to enter some password you could prey on the fact that the keylogger is badly coded and, when entering your password, could move to another input field and write random words, then come back to the password input field and type some more letters of your password, etc.. .
Last year I also learned how to read dotsies (I completely forgot how to read it now though...) and I seldom switched all the fonts to dotsies so no one could look over my shoulder and read what I was reading/typing.
a topic on the math version of stackoverflow, filled with funny stories, anecdotes, urban legends about mathematicians. If you're like me you're gonna love every bit of it.
Although David Hilbert was one of the first to deal seriously with infinite-dimensional complete inner product spaces, the practice of calling them after him was begun by others, supposedly without his knowledge. The story goes that one day a visitor came to Göttingen and gave a seminar about some theorem on "Hilbert spaces". At the end of the lecture, Hilbert raised his hand and asked, "What is a Hilbert space?"
When the logician Carnap was immigrating to the US, he had the usual consular interview, where one of the questions was (and still is, I think): "Would you favor the overthrow of the US government by violence, or force of arms?". He thought for a while, and responded: "I would have to say force of arms..."
Just a few weeks after Silk Road 2.0 and its owner got seized, the US government posted this:
THIS SEALED BID AUCTION IS FOR A PORTION OF THE BITCOINS CONTAINED IN WALLET FILES THAT RESIDED ON CERTAIN COMPUTER HARDWARE BELONGING TO ROSS WILLIAM ULBRICHT, THAT WERE SEIZED ON OR ABOUT OCTOBER 24, 2013 (“COMPUTER HARDWARE BITCOINS”).
Apparently it's from the first Silk Road. Pretty comical.
Ever fiddled with your TI-8x or played LineRider? Well this guy combined both and it looks awesome!
the game is here: http://sineridergame.com/
Scott Aaronson found a 1994 issue of Cryptolog an internal newsletter at the NSA. He's quoting funny extracts from one of its article about a field trip at the 1992 Eurocrypt Conference.
Those of you who know my prejudice against the “zero-knowledge” wing of the philosophical camp will be surprised to hear that I enjoyed the three talks of the session better than any of that ilk that I had previously endured. The reason is simple: I took along some interesting reading material and ignored the speakers. That technique served to advantage again for three more snoozers, Thursday’s “digital signature and electronic cash” session, but the final session, also on complexity theory, provided some sensible listening.
more on his blog: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2059