Security research guru Ross Anderson has a talk up on Google Video, "Searching for Evil", that, among other things, surveys some of the more unusual Web-based financial schemes.
If you only have a few minutes, jump to 20:23 to check out Ross' frightening examples of some phishing-like schemes that are popping up on the web. The first example shows how people recruit mules on the Web to sit in the middle of a fraudulent financial transaction, with the person who accepted a too-good-to-be-true job offer getting badly screwed in the end.
If you have more time to dive in deeper and watch the whole thing, I enjoyed Ross' discussion at the beginning of the talk about using evolutionary game theory in simulations of network attacks. He refers to a WEIS 2006 paper, "The topology of covert conflict" (PDF), for more details. That paper starts to "build a bridge between network science and evolutionary game theory" and to "explore ... sophisticated [network] defensive strategies" including "cliques ... the cell structure often used in revolutionary warfare" which turn out to be "remarkably effective" for defending a network against adaptive attackers.
Similarly, though not mentioned in his talk, Ross has a ESAS 2007 paper, "New Strategies for Revocation in Ad-Hoc Networks" (PDF) which looks at how to "remove nodes that are observed to be behaving badly" from ad-hoc networks. They come up with a remarkable conclusion that "the most effective way of doing revocation in general ad-hoc networks is the suicide attack ... [where] a node observing another node behaving badly simply broadcasts a signed message declaring both of them to be dead."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
good talk, though i did only watch from your pointer to the scams. i really like the term "security theater" -- it is very descriptive. Interesting that some of the identified (potential) evils only exist because google ads give them a business. not sure I would put the Ad trolls in the same camp as the other scams myself, but as Ross points out, the same methods identify both.
I guess "do no evil" does not preclude "create a business model for those (possibly) doing evil." :)
Post a Comment