Great stuff that never happened

Bury your memories bury your friends,
Leave it alone for a year or two.
Till the stories go hazy and the legends come true,
Then do it again. Some Things never end.
From “Eleventh Earl of Mar” Genesis

John Brandon has an article in ComputerWorld, Famous tech myths that just won’t die. Wherein he attempts to lay to rest some of our most treasured tech myths. Submitted for your approval is a concise list of those myths. And my brief comments. Seriously you didn’t think you were going to get off that easy did you.

  • Bill Gates dropped a $1,000 bill and didn’t bother to pick it up – Can you imagine the guy who ruled the Microserfs dropping a $1 bill much less not picking it up?
  • The iPhone 3G has a kill switch that Apple can use to disable the device – Actually it does. It’s called AT&T here in America. No wait, that’s a killjoy switch. My bad.
  • Internet2 will replace the Internet – Now this is just silly. Everyone knows the internet will be replaced by the Cepheid Galactic Internet.
  • PC gaming is dying or already dead – Just keep telling yourself this while you’re getting fragged online by newbs with an unfair advantage (a PC), X-box boy.
  • Apple is working on a MacTablet – What, the Newton wasn’t good enough?
  • Forwarding an e-mail has rewards of some kind – Only if you forward it from someone else’s account and can watch the comedic aftermath. And not get caught.
  • Al Gore said he invented the Internet – Well maybe not, but Ted Stevens discovered that the internet is “not a truck. It’s a series of tubes.” Which is a good thing since the truck couldn’t get to where it needs to go via another Stevens invention, the bridge to nowhere (actually that’s not completely true it could go to Gravina Island – population 50).

Come on John, the next thing you are going to tell me is that my long lost uncle really didn’t die in Nigeria and leave me millions. Just be that way.

DRM is a security threat

For my entire career I’ve designed, developed, maintained and secured commercial software products. So it is definitely not lost on me that the revenue generated by sales of those software products is what pays my bills. If customers don’t pony up then my employers quit paying me. So believe me, I’m certainly not advocating that all software should be free (“as in free beer” to quote Mark Shuttleworth).

But at the same time I’m a software user. I use both open source software (free as in speech because I like to tweak it, and free as in beer because I’m cheap and I like beer) and commercial software that my wife thinks I spend too much money on. And I hate Digital Rights Management (DRM) software. Hate it. It’s inconvenient, intrusive and hey – I paid for the product and I don’t want DRM. For me that is reason enough.
Okay, I think most of us can agree that DRM is annoying and intrusive but how is that a threat to information security? Glad you asked. From a recent article on the Harvard Law Zeroday blog:

EA could help end DRM

The backlash over DRM has finally started to gather serious momentum. Everyday consumers started a campaign to give the highly anticipated game Spore one-star ratings on Amazon. Thousands of Amazon users labeled Spore a poor choice because of the SecuROM DRM system that is forced onto PC users machines that purchase the game. EA has backpedaled a bit and eased the restrictions on the number of installs per machine. They have even made a verbal (but unenforceable) promise to disable the DRM system by patch should they ever end of life the product. But so far EA refuses to give in to consumer demand that they simply get rid of the DRM system. They hold on to the claim that DRM helps reduce piracy. Yet 30 seconds of searching on a popular torrent site shows not only Spore but a cracked copy that totally removes all DRM from the game.
This is possibly the most insulting bit for consumers. People who are pirating the game actually enjoy more freedom in the sense that their system does not have SecuROM permanently installed onto the hard drive. In the recent class action suit the defendants publicly document how the DRM used in Spore remains installed even after the game has been removed from the users computer. SecuROM also operates at “Ring 0″ which is to say the core of the kernel layer which is clever in that it is hard to bypass the program yet dangerous because anything that goes wrong will completely destroy the users session. All of these facts are not made plain to consumers before purchasing the game. Only after they have purchased the game and start installation will they have the chance to read about the DRM system in the EULA. Retailers almost never allow returns on software once opened which leaves consumers who don’t agree with the surprise DRM in a very bad position.

I see, it’s that nasty malware that they foist on users’ machines that is the security threat. Sorry, good guess, but no cigar. That’s nasty for sure, but there is a very real and significant threat that is inherent to all intrusive DRM. To illustrate this I will defer to someone familiar with Electronic Arts (EA) software and who has way more gamer cred than me, my son Nick Webster. He reviewed the article above and responded thusly:

Atari implemented the same sort of system on Alone in the Dark. AITD didn’t get any cracks and remained untorrentable largely due to the suckiness of the game, crackers didn’t waste their time on such a poor excuse for a game.
That MIGHT be why EA is claiming DRM works, cuz no one stole Atari’s AITD. You can clearly see their logic, “They had this really BAD game that no one wants to play, but it had DRM so no one stole it. DRM MUST WORK!!!”. Assuming you haven’t suffered brain damage you can obviously see where their logic is wrong. The REAL solution to keep people from stealing your game WAS hit upon in AITD, though, just make the game BAD and have Yahtzee FLAME it that seems to help.
My general tactic with all of this is to just NOT EVER buy EA games. So far the only game I’ve  seen with any sort of REASONABLE DRM is UT3. They let you install it on as many comps as you want, you just can’t have more than 15 people logged ONLINE with your code at ONCE. Seems fair, right?
Or if you MUST be nasty about your DRM the BEST tactic is the old school one, leave some music on the CD that will be needed to load the game. Then the no-cd-cracks will hinder game play and frustrate the player, as Daemon Tools requires lots of work to get it to actually let you play games OFF the ISO.
Anyway… as a side note I DID go rate spore a 1 on Amazon the current rating for the game is like 1.5 stars… glad to see there are a lot of us out there.

Note: apparently Yahtzee doesn’t like Spore much either – so Nick could be on to something here!

Still not see it? I’m not surprised. It’s because Nick and the Zeroday author were both vague yet obvious in suggesting how to deal with intrusive DRM: They don’tthey torrent a cracked version of the software. This is where the very real and present security threat lies. Not only are warez sites notorious for purveying malware, but there are companies like MediaDefender that actually inject “spoof files into the [torrent distributors] network without permission … as part of its antipiracy efforts to dilute the pool of pirated content online”. Yikes! In fact this particular “antipiracy” effort caused a serious Denial of Service (DOS) attack on the popular – and completely legitimate – Revision3 network. So what happens when an employee decides to download a Spore crack from a warez site on your corporate network? Or what happens when your kid decides to grab it on your home network (note to self – check those firewall and IDS logs!).

The bottom line is this – at best DRM is ineffective and is counterproductive to the vendors antipiracy efforts. It is ineffective because people who want to steal your software and bypass the DRM can do it quite easily and it is counterproductive to your antipiracy efforts because it’s easier for users to deal with the pirates than it is to deal with the DRM. And what about the real sales lost due to DRM. Not the bogus sales lost to piracy (I posit that people who steal your software would not have paid for it, ergo they cannot be counted as lost sales), but the real sales. Some due in part to the free advertising you get from piracy. That’s right, I can’t count the number of software packages I have purchased after trying a “borrowed” copy. Nowadays I rarely have to resort to anything as nefarious as “borrowing” software since most shareware (I’m partial to small independent software developers) now employ a “try before you buy” model where I can try the full unencumbered program for several weeks before buying it. Just ask my wife how effective this model is – based on my software spending habits. But even though I can easily “borrow” a copy of Spore to try it out before I pony up $50 American, I absolutely will not consider it as long as EA insists on forcing the DRM on me. I may, however, go to Amazon and give Spore a 1-star rating.

But the point of this rant is: When your company implements a strictly self-serving mechanism that not only is ineffective in accomplishing it’s intended purpose, but has the (presumably) unintended consequence of promoting risky and (potentially) illegal behavior that increases the threat exposure on the network, I have a real problem with that. Sure we can disallow all P2P activity on our business networks – but what about users who need access to legitimate groups that rely on torrents to distribute their software like the Fedora project? Or we can teach our children that stealing software is wrong and they should always pay for it – but what about software that forcibly installs malware like EA’s SecuROM? I think the better lesson is “vote with your wallet” – don’t buy bad stuff that you don’t want – especially if it’s bundled with something you do want.

So how about it, EA? Why not do everyone a service and just say “no!” to stupid ideas like DRM. You won’t have to pay for it, and we won’t have to put up with it. Sounds like a win-win to me. And maybe I’ll consider buying your software instead of flaming you. Hey fifty bucks is fifty bucks. Or do you really need to suck up to Sony that badly. Whoa I better stop here – I feel a great conspiracy theory coming on.

I so want to be a Forrester analyst

Now that would be a totally sweet gig. No experience necessary, no research required. Just collect the swag from vendors. Totally sweet deal – sign me up.

Now hang on there, that’s harsh – even for you! Yeah, well what conclusion am I supposed to come to with this report on the state of Network Access Control (NAC)? Actually I should start at the beginning with how I came across this amazing piece of … information.

So I’m browsing the blogoshere, just minding my own business, looking for NAC news. I should mention that in real life I make my living developing a NAC system. So when I come across this article, it totally pegged the old BS-O-meter. I mean nailed it.

Microsoft NAP Leading the NAC Pack

It didn’t surprise us when Forrester Research put Microsoft NAP as the frontrunner in the Network Access Control market. “Microsoft’s NAP technology is a relative newcomer but has become the de facto standard…,” said Rob Whiteley in his report. While Cisco and others might be able to claim more direct revenue from NAC products as of now, I believe Microsoft has the technology and framework that positions it for success.
As Tim Greene pointed out in his NAC newsletter, “the result is interesting because it’s not based on how many units were sold or performance tests but rather on evaluation of how well the products would meet the challenges of a set of real-world deployment situations.”
Tim hit the nail on the head, as NAP works in the real world, not just in a complex architectural diagram that only exists in a 30-page white paper. I think NAP’s success is twofold: One, NAP is built into the operating system on the client and server, making it easier for customers to use and deploy; and, two, NAP is one of those rare examples of Microsoft truly achieving interoperability and playing nice with others.

So at this point, I’m thinking well sure, these Napera guys are NAC vendors who are trying to ride the NAP wave so I’ll cut them some slack. I mean you do have to dial down the sensitivity on the old BS-O-Meter when dealing with marketing copy. But they reference an article by Tim Greene in his NAC newsletter. So I go there thinking surely they must have taken Tim totally out of context for their own vulgar marketing purposes. But much to my astonishment, (after navigating past NetworkWorld’s lame cover ad – which shows up as a nice blank page for those of us who block doubleclick – get a clue guys!) those Napera flaks were pretty much quoting Tim verbatim.

Microsoft comes out on top of the NAC heap in an evaluation of 10 vendors that was published recently by Forrester Research.

The result is interesting because it’s not based on how many units were sold or performance tests but rather on evaluation of how well the products would meet the challenges of a set of real-world deployment situations.

Which led me to the original report by Forrester. By now my poor BS-O-Meter is toasted.

In Forrester’s 73-criteria evaluation of network access control (NAC) vendors, we found that Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Bradford Networks, and Juniper Networks lead the pack because of their strong enforcement and policy. Microsoft’s NAP technology is a relative newcomer, but has become the de facto standard and pushes NAC into its near-ubiquitous Windows Server customer base.

So at this point I can no longer remain silent – you guys broke my BS-O-Meter! And it was industrial strength! So NAP “would meet the challenges of a set of real-world deployment situations“? What color is the sky in your real-world?

Here’s the deal guys. Until all enterprises make the switch to Windows Server 2008, there is no real NAP install base. Also, NAP is critically dependent on these nifty little client and server plugin combos – System Health Agents (SHA) and System Health Validators (SHV), that fill the roles of TNC Integrity Measurement Collectors (IMC) and Integrity Measurement Verifiers (IMV) respectively. It not a bad idea since the SHA’s are managed by a single client-side meta agent, and the SHV’s are plugins on the server side (the Network Policy Server (NPS) to be exact). But the real strength of this idea is that everyone who has some endpoint component they want to monitor for policy purposes (like say an AV package) just builds an SHA and corresponding SHV to be part of the happy NAP family. As of now there is one, count ’em, one SHA/SHV set provided to the “near-ubiquitous Windows Server customer base“. And guess who provides it (hint – they build a well known OS). So if your endpoint policies require only the Microsoft Security Center stuff and all of your endpoints are Windows XP SP3 or Vista Business+ and your servers are Windows Server 2008 you are golden! Both of you. Maybe I’m wrong and Napera has partnered with a whole bunch of competing endpoint security vendors to get all the system heath gizmos that they have been developing in secret. Hey – they do make this claim:

Napera then builds on the NAP platform to provide a single solution that combines health enforcement for both Windows and Macintosh computers with identity enforcement and guest access.

Whoa – A Mac SHA? I had no idea that OS/X had the basic plumbing to support such a beast! Oh wait – I get it – it’s a TNC IMC. So what’s the SHV for that bad boy look like? You see, I’ve written an SHV (no I’m not going to tell you how it works) and I’m pretty sure the Napera guys are blowing marketing smoke. If not I’d love a demo of an actual working system (not a “30-page white paper”). Preferably in my real-world.

So this brings me back to my original point. I want to be a Forrester analyst. I mean if I can make conclusions “not based on how many units were sold or performance tests but rather on evaluation of how well the products would meet the challenges of a set of real-world deployment situations“. Dude! sign me up. Don’t get me wrong – in all likelihood NAP will eventually become a “de facto standard” (well duh, it’s a Microsoft framework) and that’s not a bad thing. It’s just not there yet. In the meantime I need a new BS-O-Meter.

Sarah Palin and the great Yahoo! angst

I’ve really been trying to stay out of this one. I really have. Mostly because everyone, and I do mean everyone, has this story covered. While mainstream media, in stories like this, were concentrating on where to place blame, whether nasty sites like wikileaks are legal (while dutifully linking the prurient details) and whether Ms. Palin was a victim or villian (how about just clueless), the Security Bloggers Network, yea the entire blogoshere, has been alight with posts about what we can learn from this incident and how to make sure this doesn’t happen to you. Kindred spirit Alan Shimel even weighs in with words of advice and consolation for Ms. Palin.

So what’s the most important takeaway from this ugly, yet amusing, incident? That Yahoo!’s email security policies suck? I’m guessing that Alan would answer that with a resounding “yes! (albeit more emphatically and certainly more colorfully). Or is it that all web-based email services’ security sucks? Or maybe that there is a vast left-wing conspiracy to discredit our lovely GOP VP wannabee? (Oh! – I like that one).

Not to minimize or criticize the excellent analysis and advice proffered by fellow security bloggers, I think the most important takeaway was this:

Security is about managing risk. First you identify the assets that are exposed, then determine the threats that those assets will be exposed to, and finally determine how best to to manage that risk. This was yet another, albeit high profile, case of poorly managed risk.

Does Yahoo!’s mail security, particularly their password reset mechanism, introduce threats? Of course. Same with Google Mail or Hotmail. Can these threats be mitigated? Of course. Is it safe for me to use webmail? Ah, now we get to the question, however obliquely, that we should have asked first. So lets start at the beginning shall we?

  1. What is the benefit received from a web-based email/calendar/contacts system?
  2. What are the information assets that would be exposed?
  3. What are the threats to those assets?
  4. How can those threats be mitigated?
  5. Given the value of the exposed assets, can the threats be mitigated sufficiently such that the risk can be accepted?
  6. Do the benefits outweigh the cost in money and risk?

So if I’m me (which I was last time I checked) I would get a great deal of benefit from an online system like Yahoo! (disclaimer: I don’t actually use Yahoo!, I use something else), since I like to be connected everywhere and I make a point of keeping my work and personal stuff well separated.

In my case, the information assets that are exposed by my webmail are intentionally minimal. No important numbers or addresses and minimal Personally Identifiable Information.

The major threat to my assets is exposure due to data breach, with the most likely vector being a compromised password.

I’ve already written a blog entry about password security and I also use some of the stuff outlined here.

The value of my exposed information assets is pathetically low – my family weekend plans or my personal address list are, sadly, valuable only to me. So any common sense mitigation I can put in place will definitely make the effort required to compromise my data a very poor investment indeed.

Therefore, the convenience of having my todo list available on my iPhone far outweighs the risk of that data being exposed.

But then I’m not the Governor of Alaska and a vice presidential candidate. Ms. Palin should have gotten to #2 and started hearing all kinds of alarms going off. Barring that (hey, she only recently became a celebrity – er… high profile person) the answer to #5 is “no!” (actually “HELL, NO!“). Particularly since the data identified in #2 was not hers to risk – some of it belonged to the people of the sovereign state of Alaska. I can safely say that were I to expose my employer’s data via a personal online account, no matter what precautions I took and regardless if it were actually compromised, I would be fired. Immediately. Walked right out the door. And rightly so.

I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t get promoted to Vice President.

Nice stuff from DHS for your FDPP

In recent days the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been getting spanked pretty hard for being unprepared for cyberthreats. Since that mule has been pretty well beat to death, I’m not going to chime in on that. Instead, in the immortal words of the great philosopher sage Monty Python “And now for something completely different”.

I’d like you to know about something the DHS is doing right – the Ready Kids Campaign. From this press release on September 17:

Today the Department of Homeland Security’s Ready Kids Campaign announced with Sesame Workshop a new tool on emergency preparedness for parents of young children called “Let’s Get Ready!” This guide aims to get families planning together for emergencies through simple activities and games that focus on talking to young children about the people, places and things that will keep the family safe during an emergency.

“Emergencies can happen at any time with little or no warning and, as we’ve seen with recent natural disasters, personal and family preparedness are critically important,” said Erin Streeter, Director of the Ready Campaign. “‘Let’s Get Ready!’ gives parents the tools they need to talk to their young children in a very kid-friendly and non-threatening way and instill in them important information to help them deal with the unexpected.”

Specifically, the guide offers tips from Sesame Street’s and Rosita on how families can prepare their children for an emergency in age-appropriate ways such as:

  • Everyone, including young children, can play a role in planning for the unexpected.
  • Creating an emergency kit and plan that the entire family practices and shares is important.
  • Helping children learn personal information such as a phone number, their full names and the full names of their parents or caregivers, is helpful in case of any emergency.

If you have children you should definitely take advantage of this excellent resource. This is something that every family needs to consider seriously. Just like every business should have a Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) and a Business Continuity Plan (BCP),  (I’ll bet you were wondering how I was going to relate this to security) you need to have a Family Disaster Preparedness Plan (FDPP). Except that your  FDPP is way more important than any DRP or BCP because this is your family, not some business that we’re talking about. It’s critical to note that no disaster plan (or any plan for that matter) has value if all of the players don’t know their parts. In the same way that it is critical for a business to make sure all employees, especially those in leadership roles, have and understand current copies of the DRP and BCP documents, all members of your family, must understand your FDPP. Furthermore, (and this is where many if not most businesses fall down) you must practice the plan. That’s right, it’s very well and good to have a plan that calls for tuning the weather radio to the correct station in case of a tornado warning, but it doesn’t work too well if you don’t know what station that is or where to find the radio.

So this is where you can really leverage the “Let’s Get Ready!” resources. It can help you devise, disseminate and practice your family’s FDPP. While this specific program is targeted at families with young children, there are links on this page to many excellent resources. I will admit that I learned a few things and picked up some ideas for my family’s FDPP. According to the site, this month, as part of Emergency Preparedness month, Sesame Workshop will be distributing 150,000 of the free kits to families. These kits include not only the downloadable materials on the site, but a DVD that is great for young kids.

So get going on your own FDPP, and definitely check out the resources at DHS. Seriously, they’re not just about fighting terrorism and cyberthreats. Which I guess is a good thing. Sorry couldn’t resist.

Information on “Let’s Get Ready!” is here. Materials are available in English and Spanish.

I am dizzy now

Increasing Piracy to Cause Rise in Cyber Crime article on DarkReading prompts me to grant the Security For All “Merry-Go-Round” award to Metaforic‘s CEO Andrew McLennan for most ergregious and creative spin to promote a product or service.

“Piracy is a persistent problem which continues to cost software vendors worldwide billions of pounds in lost revenue, as well as harming local resellers and putting a strain on research and development in the technology industry,” comments Metaforic’s CEO Andrew McLennan. “More worryingly, hackers are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their methods of attack. The issue of hacked software and compromised websites goes far beyond that of piracy and standard copyright infringements. It can – and has – led to an explosion in the number of cyber crimes, including the exploitation of personal data, delivering malicious payloads to user machines, the installation of spyware and even taking over a PC as part of a botnet for hosting illegal content, often unbeknown to the owner.”

Hold on! Stop the software presses! You mean that all we have to do is implement one of those annoying little soft key dongles on our software products and we can help prevent our PCs from becoming zombies in botnets? Not only that, but it would be a boon to the folks who manufacture USB hubs since we would need to plug those dongles in somewhere. I’m getting dizzy just thinking about it.

Seriously, I doubt that Mr. McLennan is suggesting that software publishers not implementing “Anti-tamper” technology is a main contributor to cyber-crime, or that all software should be using it (although he might fervently wish for it). But to suggest that software piracy and copyright infringement leads to any cyber-crime (other than software piracy itself being a cyber-crime) – much less an “explosion in the number of cyber crimes” is, well, just spin. Really wicked spin, but balderdash. Hogwash. Crapola.

I mean, I can definitely see where inferior knockoff, “pirated” hardware like fake Cisco equipment poses a real threat, but pirated software? Certainly large software manufacturers lose money due to piracy of their products, but “billions of pounds”? This sounds like the same kind of whining and creative valuation that the RIAA does for pirated music. The consumer (not the professional pirate organizations in China) who pirates copyright protected content would not have purchased it if they had to pay for it. So how can that be revenue lost? Charge these guys penalties for copyright violation when they get caught – sure. Or when they post copyrighted content to a torrent site – absolutely.  But how, exactly does “Anti-tamper” technology prevent any of this – much less mitigate any cyber-crime threat? I could go on to actually question the value of “Anti-tamper” technology period. But I won’t. I’ve been plenty snarky already.

Beside I’m just too dizzy.

Losing our History

My wife and I spent the Independence Day weekend this year in Washington DC. In addition to watching the fireworks from the base of the Iwo Jima memorial we visited a number of other memorials and museums. But probably the most amazing place we visited was the National Archives. Aside from the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, the National Archives is in fact an archive of the U.S. government’s correspondent, business and legal transactions some of which are on exhibit. These exhibits include excerpts from the infamous Nixon Watergate tapes to (my person favorite) a letter from a 10-year-old Fidel Castro to President Franklin D. Roosevelt dated November 6, 1940, asking for a “ten dollar bill green American” (maybe Roosevelt should have sent him the 10 bucks – you never know). The fact is that the National Archive is a repository of everything the U.S. Government is involved in. Everything. The good, the bad, the ugly. The greatest achievements, the finest moments and the things we would like to forget. Especially the things we’d like to forget. This is everything from the most visible, substantial and important documents like the U.S. Constitution to mundane interoffice correspondence, which can in the long run be just as important historically.

You might think that the digital age has made the job of the National Archives quite a bit easier. Unfortunately nothing could be further from the truth as this article from the New York Times points out.

Countless federal records are being lost to posterity because federal employees, grappling with a staggering growth in electronic records, do not regularly preserve the documents they create on government computers, send by e-mail and post on the Web. Federal agencies have rushed to embrace the Internet and new information technology, but their record-keeping efforts lag far behind.

Moreover, federal investigators have found widespread violations of federal record-keeping requirements. Many federal officials admit to a haphazard approach to preserving e-mail and other electronic records of their work. Indeed, many say they are unsure what materials they are supposed to preserve.

This confusion is causing alarm among historians, archivists, librarians, Congressional investigators and watchdog groups that want to trace the decision-making process and hold federal officials accountable. With the imminent change in administrations, the concern about lost records has become more acute.

While those conspiracy theory fans among us (okay, I admit it – but the truth is out there) prefer a more tantalizing threat like a shadowy cabal that secretly removes and suppresses information embarrassing or threatening to their members, the reality is much more mundane – and insidious. And it’s a whole lot harder to address.

“The Achilles’ heel of record-keeping is people,” said Jason R. Baron, the director of litigation at the National Archives. “We used to have secretaries. Now each of us with a desktop computer is his or her own record-keeper. That creates some very difficult problems.”

That’s right – it’s those pesky end users. You know, those regular folks who are just trying to get their job done as efficiently as possible. Yeah, those people who we never have the time or budget to provide with decent hardware and software. And forget about education (no money for that in this year’s budget). Oh, and the folks who actually control the purse strings don’t have “keep a public record of the stupid things we do” at the top of their must-fund list. (Yes! I knew I could slide a conspiracy theory in there).

All this is really patriotic, and sufficiently alarmist to get some good hits on Google, but what does it have to do with security, Mr. Security For All?

Actually – everything. Remember the CIA triad: Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability. This issue is fundamental to both Integrity and Availability. From Wikipedia:

  • Integrity – In information security, integrity means that data cannot be modified without authorization. Integrity is violated when an employee (accidentally or with malicious intent) deletes important data files.
  • Availability – For any information system to serve its purpose, the information must be available when it is needed. This means that the computing systems used to store and process the information, the security controls used to protect it, and the communication channels used to access it must be functioning correctly.

I think we can all agree that not saving important information through neglect is the same thing as deleting important data. And when future generations – or a researcher today – can’t get access to an email that is germane to their research because it was never saved violates availability.

So how do we go about mitigating this threat? There is already a program in progress to bring the National Archives more fully into the 21st century, but it is not without it’s all too typical problems.

The National Archives is in the early stages of creating a permanent electronic record-keeping system, seeking help from the San Diego Supercomputer Center at the University of California, and from some of the nation’s best computer scientists.

The electronic archive is behind schedule and over budget. But officials say they hope that the project, being developed with Lockheed Martin, will be able to take in huge quantities of White House records when President Bush leaves office in January.

As a point of reference 32 million White House e-mail messages were preserved as records of the Clinton administration. The National Archives expects to receive hundreds of millions from the Bush White House. And since disputes over White House records have occurred at the end of the last three administrations, we can count on more litigation in January.

So here’s a bold idea: why not take the money that will be flushed down the litigation rat hole and put it towards the electronic record-keeping system? Oh, but wait, that would mean that politicians would have to be subject to the same laws, standards and directives that all government employees are. Or maybe Lockheed Martin could get some help from the IBM Almaden research guys on storing, indexing and accessing insane amounts of information since the Webfountain project went dark. Or underground. (Yes! another conspiracy theory reference).

In any case this is a risk that must be managed – and soon – before we lose what amounts to our civic cultural heritage.