Come see me at these conferences in the next few months

I thought I should share some upcoming conference where I will be speaking or in attendance.

  • 9/16 — Indy DevOps Meetup (Indianapolis, IN) — It’s an informal meetup, but I’m speaking about how Cycle Computing does DevOps in cloud HPC
  • 10/1 — HackLafayette Thunder Talks (Lafayette, IN) — I organize this event, so I’ll be there. There are some great talks lined up.
  • 10/26-27 — All Things Open (Raleigh, NC) — I’m presenting the results of my M.S. thesis. This is a really great conference for open source, so if you can make it, you really should.
  • 11/14-18 — Supercomputing (Salt Lake City, UT) — I’ll be working the Cycle Computing booth most of the week.
  • 12/4-9 — LISA (Boston, MA) — The 30th version of the premier sysadmin conference looks to be a good one. I’m co-chairing the Invited Talks track, and we have a pretty awesome schedule put together if I do say so myself.

Bio-IT World recap

Last week I was in Boston for the annual Bio-IT World Conference and Expo. I spent most of the conference working the company booth. It was a lot of fun talking to people about what our software does. Even the conversations that won’t lead to a sale were interesting because I got to learn more about what other people are doing. Of course, there were some people who lit up when I gave a demo (and let’s be honest, it’s probably not just my charming personality).

My role wasn’t just limited to booth duty, though. On Thursday morning, I chaired a session in the cloud track. I was a little nervous chairing a session at a conference I’ve never attended in a domain that I know next-to-nothing about. Fortunately, it went very well. Perhaps too well, as we got so far ahead of schedule that we had to ad lib 10 minutes of Q&A before the last presentation. But it worked well enough, and the talks were really interesting.

When I was introduced ahead of the conference to the presenters, I asked all of them for guidance on how to pronounce their names in addition to the bio that the conference organizers asked them to send. The next time I chair a conference session, I’m also going to ask for a few questions in case there are none from the audience. Sometimes, the pump just has to be primed a bit, and I’d rather ask a question that the presenter thinks is relevant than whatever I come up with while listening to the talk.

 

Submit your LISA16 proposal!

I am co-chairing the Invited Talks for this year’s LISA Conference, alongside Patrick Cable. I’ve attended LISA since 2010 (with the exception of 2014) and it’s a great conference for systems administrators and other operationally-minded tech folks. I’ve enjoyed many great talks over the years, and as a co-chair, it’s up to me to help make sure that trend continues.

So here’s where you come in: it’s time for you to submit a proposal. The Call for Participation is open through 11:59 PM PDT on Monday, April 25. You may think “I have nothing worth sharing,” but you may be wrong. Patrick and I are particularly interested in finding talks that address cross-cutting topics, talks from new attendees, and generally interesting talks.

Talks don’t have to be about the cutting edge of technology to be interesting. Some of the best-received talks last year weren’t even technical in nature. So much of the job is cultural: the culture of your team and the larger organization. Alice Goldfuss’s “Scalable Meatfrastructure” talk may have broken the record for the amount of praise on social media channels.

Tell us about a problem you had and how you solved it. Tell us about how you applied technology to improve life for your organization and users. Or propose a tutorial in order to share your deep knowledge.

Go out on a limb and propose a talk. If you get accepted, it’s a great way to attend the conference and expand your professional network. if you don’t get accepted, I promise it it’s okay (I’ve had several proposals to other conferences rejected). If you want some advice on how to make your proposal awesome, both Patrick and I are happy to talk to you.

I hope you’ll submit your proposed talk soon.

Supercomputing ’15

Last week, I spent a few days in Austin, Texas for the Supercomputing conference. Despite having worked in HPC for years, I’ve never been to SC. It’s a big conference. Since everyone heard I was going, they set a record this year with over 12,000 attendees. That’s roughly 10x the size of LISA, where I had been a few days ago.

I missed Alan Alda’s keynote, so my trip was basically ruined. That’s not true, actually. I spent most of the time in my company’s booth giving demos and talking to people. I had a lot of fun doing that. I’m sure the technical sessions were swell, but that’s okay. I look forward to going again next year, hopefully for the whole week and not immediately following another week-long conference.

20151117_103152

Ben with a minion

LISA Conference wrap-up

After a one-year hiatus, I returned to the LISA Conference as a member of the blog team. It was great to see old friends and make new ones. Continuing the theme from last year, the blog was less about daily summaries and more about telling stories. This was a lot more rewarding, but it was also more work. All told, I wrote 2822 words, which is less than normal, but I’d like to think the quality is better.

People stories

  • Alice Goldfuss — This year was Alice’s first LISA trip and first time presenting to a large conference. The reaction to her talk was overwhelmingly positive, and I’m sad I missed it.
  • Kyle Neumann — Kyle is another first-time attendee and loved his experience. He also gave me a lot of good ideas for how to make the first-timer experience better.
  • Jamie Riedesel — A long-time friend of this blog is recognized for contributions to the professional community.

Conference program

  • Government for better or for worse — The Wednesday keynote was delivered by the head of the US Digital Service and the Thursday keynote by a principal technologist at the ACLU. They provided contrasting perspectives on government.
  • The mini-tutorial experiment — Wednesday through Friday now has mini-tutorials interspersed with the conference program instead of being separate half- and full-day sessions.
  • Monday — Before I got into the groove of telling stories, I wrote what was basically a summary of my day.

Vendor articles

  • Midfin — This company just exited stealth and has an interesting product for making internal datacenters more nimble.
  • Xirrus — They donated equipment and engineering effort for the WiFi network.
  • JumpCloud — This company provides cloud-based Directory-as-a-Service, something I’ve been looking for at work.

CERIAS Recap: Featured Commentary and Tech Talk #3

Once again, I’ve attended the CERIAS Security Symposium held on the campus of Purdue University. This is the final post summarizing the talks I attended.

I’m combining the last two talks into a single post. The first was fairly short, and by the time the second one rolled around, my brain was too tired to focus.

Thursday afternoon included a featured commentary from The Honorable Mark Weatherford, Deputy Undersecretary of Cybersecurity at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Weatherford was originally scheduled to speak at the Symposium, but restrictions in federal travel budgets forced him to present via pre-recorded video. Mr. Weatherford opened with an observation that “99% secure means 100% vulnerable.” There are many cases where a single failure in security resulted in compromise.

The cyber threat is real. DHS Secretary Napolitano says infrastructure is dangerously vulnerable to cyber attack. Banks and other financial institution have been under sustained DDoS attack and it has become very predictable. In the future, there will be more attacks, they will be more disruptive, and they will be harder to defend against.

So what does DHS do in this space? DHS provides operational protection for the .gov domain. They work with the .com sector to improve protection, especially against critical infrastructure. DHS responds to national events and works with other agencies to foster international cooperation.

Cybersecurity got two paragraphs in President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union address. Obama’s recent cybersecurity executive order has goals of establishing an up-to-date cybersecurity network and enhancing information sharing among key stakeholders. DHS is involved in the Scholarship for Service student program which is working to create professionals to meet current and future needs.

The final session was a tech talk by Stephen Elliott, Associate Professor of Technology Leadership and Innovation at Purdue University, entitled “What is missing in biometric testing.” Traditional biometric testing is algorithmic, with well-established metrics and methodologies. Operation testing is harder to do because test methodologies are sometimes dependent on the test. Many papers have been written about the contributions of individual error on performance. Some papers have been written on the contribution of metadata error. Elliott is focused on training: how do users get accustomed to devices, how they remember how to use them, and how can training be provided to users with a consistent message.

One way to improve biometrics is understanding the stability of the user’s response. If we know how stable a subject is, we can reduce the transaction time by requiring fewer measurements. Many factors, including the user, the agent, and system usability affect the performance of biometeric systems. Improving performance is not a matter of simply improving the algorithms, but improving the entire system.

Other posts from this event:

CERIAS Recap: Panel #3

Once again, I’ve attended the CERIAS Security Symposium held on the campus of Purdue University. This is one of several posts summarizing the talks I attended.

The “E” in CERIAS stands for “Education”, so it comes as no surprise that the Symposium would have at least one event on the topic. On Thursday afternoon, a panel addressed issues in security education and training. I found this session particularly interesting because it paralleled many discussions I have had about education and training for system administrators.

Interestingly, the panel consisted entirely of academics. That’s not particularly a surprise, but it does bias the discussion toward higher education issues and not vocational-type training. This is often a contentious issue in operations education discussions. I’m not sure if such a divide exists in the infosec world. Three Purdue professors sat on the panel: Allen Gray, Professor of Agriculture; Melissa Dark, Professor of Computer & Information Technology and Associate Directory of Educational Programs at CERIAS; and Marcus Rogers, Professor of Computer & Information Technology. They were joined by Ray Davidson, Dean of Academic Affairs at the SANS Technology Institute; and Diana Burley, Associate Professor of Human and Organizational Learning at The George Washington University.

Professor Gray began the opening remarks by telling the audience he had no cyber security experience. His expertise is in distance learning, as he is the Director of a MS/MBA distance program in food and agribusiness management. The rise of MOOCs has made information more available than ever before, but Gray notes that merely providing the information is not education. The MS/MBA program offers a curriculum, not just a collection of courses, and requires interaction between students and instructors.

Dean Davidson is in charge of the master’s degree programs offered by the SANS Technology Institute. This is a new offering and they are still working on accreditation. Although it incorporates many of the SANS training courses, it goes beyond those. “The old days of protocol vulnerabilities are starting to go away, but people still need to know the basics,” he said. “Vulnerabilities are going up the stack. We’re at layers 9 and 10 now.” Students need training in legal issues and organizational dynamics in order to become truly effective practitioners.

Professor Dark joined CERIAS without any experience in providing cybersecurity education. In her opening remarks, she talked about the appropriate use of language: “We always talk about the war on defending ourselves, the war on blah. We’re not using the language right. We should reserve ‘professionalization’ for people who deal with a lot of uncertainty and a lot of complexity.” Professor Burley also discussed vocabulary. We need to consider who is the cybersecurity workforce. Most cybersecurity professionals are in hybrid roles, so it’s not appropriate to focus on the small number who have roles entirely focused on cybersecurity.

Professor Rogers drew parallels to other professions. Historically, professionals of any type have been developed through training, certification, education, apprenticeship or some combination of those. In cybersecurity, all of these methods are used. Educators need to consider what a professional in the field should know, and there’s currently no clear-cut answer. How should education respond? “Better than we currently are.” Rogers advocates abandoning the stove pipe approach. Despite talk of being multidisciplinary, programs are often still very traditional.”We need to bring back apprenticeship and mentoring.”

The opening question addressed differences between education and training. Gray reiterated that disseminating information is not necessarily education; education is about changing behavior. Universities tend to focus on theory, but professionalization is about applying that theory. As the talk drifted toward certifications, which are often the result of training, Rogers said “we’re facing the watering-down of certifications. If everybody has a certification, how valuable is it?” Dark launched a tangent when she observed that cybersecurity is in the same space as medicine: there’s so much that practitioners can’t know. This lead to a distinction being made (by Spafford, if I recall correctly) between EMTs and brain surgeons as an analogy for various cybersecurity roles. Rogers said we need both.They are different professions, Burley noted, but they both consider themselves professionals.

One member of the audience said we have a great talent pool entering the work force, but they’re all working on same problems. How many professionals do we need? Davidson said “we need to change the whole ecosystem.” When the barn is on fire, everyone’s a part of the bucket brigade; nobody has time to design a better barn or better fire fighting equipment. Burley pointed out that the NSF’s funding of scholarships in cybersecurity is shifting toward broader areas, not just computer science. This point was reinforced by Spafford’s observation that none of the panelists have their terminal degree in computer science. “If we focus on the job openings that we have right now,” Rogers said, “we’re never going to catch up with the gaps in education.” One of the panelists, in regard to NSF and other efforts, said “you can’t rely on the government to be visionary. You might be able to get the government to fund vision,” but not set it.

The final question was “how do you ensure that ethical hackers do not become unethical hackers?” Rogers said “in education, we don’t just give you knowledge, we give you context to that knowledge.” Burley drew a parallel to the Hippocratic Oath and stressed the importance of socialization and culturalization processes. Davidson said the jobs have to be there as well. “If people get hungry, things change.”

Other posts from this event:

CERIAS Recap: Fireside Chat

Once again, I’ve attended the CERIAS Security Symposium held on the campus of Purdue University. This is one of several posts summarizing the talks I attended.

The end of Christopher Painter’s talk transitioned nicely into the Fireside Chat with Painter and CERIAS Executive Director Gene Spafford. Spafford opened the discussion with a topic he tried to get the first panel to address: privacy. “Many people view security as the most important thing,” Spafford observed, which results in things like CISPA which would allow unlimited and unaccountable sharing of data with government. According to Painter, privacy and security “are not incompatible.” The Obama administration works to ensure civil liberty and privacy protections are built-in. Painter also disagreed with Spafford’s assertion that the U.S. is behind Europe in privacy protection. The U.S. and the E.U. want interoperable privacy rules. They’re not going to be identical, but they should work together. Prosecution of cyber attacks, according to Painter, aids privacy in the long run.

An audience member wanted to know how do to address the risk of attribution and proportional response now that cyber defense is transitioning from passive to active. Painter noted that vigilante justice is dangerous due to the possibility of misattribution and the risk of escalating the situation. “I don’t advocate a self-help approach,” he said.

Another in the audience expressed concern with voluntary standards concern me, observing that compliance is spotty in regulated industries (e.g. health care). He wondered if these voluntary international standards were intended to be guidance or effective? Painter said they are intended to set a “standard of care”. Governments will need to set incentives and mechanisms to foster compliance. Spafford pointed out that there are two types of standards: minimum standards and aspirational standards. Standards can also institutionalize bad behavior, so it is important to set the right standards.

Painter had earlier commented that progress has been structurally. An audience member wondered where the gaps remain. The State Department, according to Painter, is a microcosm of the rest of the Executive Branch. Within State, they’ve gone a good job of getting the parts of the agency working well together. They weren’t cooperating operationally as much as we could, but that’s improved, too. Spafford asked about state-level coooperation. 9/11 drove a great deal of state cooperation, but we’re now beginning to see states participate more in cyber efforts.

One member of the audience said “without accountability, you have no rule of law. How do you have accountability on the Internet?” Painter replied there are two sides to the coin: prevention and response. Response is more difficult. there have been efforts by the FBI and others in the past few years to step up enforcement and response. Spafford pointed out that even if an attack has been traced to another country with good evidence, the local government will sometimes deny it. Can they be held accountable? We have to build the consensus that this is important, said Painter. If you’re outside that consensus you will become isolated. A lot of countries in the developing world are still building capabilities. They want to stop it, but they can’t. Cybercrime is often used to facilitate traditional crime. That might be a lever to help encourage cooperation from other nations.

Fresh off this mornings attack of North Korean social media accounts, the audience wanted to hear comments on  Anonymous attacking governments. “If you’re doing something that’s a crime,” Painter said, “it’s a crime.” Improving attribution can help prevent or prosecute these attackers. The conversation moved to the classification of information when Spafford observed that some accuse goverments of over-classifying information. Painter said that has not been his experience. When people reveal classified information, that damages a lot of efforts. We have to balance speech and protection. The openness of the Internet is key.

Two related questions were asked back to back. The first questioner observed that product manufacturers are good at externalizing the cost of insecurity and asked how producers can be incentivized to produce more secure products. The second question dealt with preventing misuse of technology, with The Onion Router being cited as an example of a program used for both good and bad. Painter said the market for security is increasing, with consumers becoming more willing to pay for security. Industry is looking at how to move security away from the end user in order to make it more transparent. Producers can’t tell how their work will be used, but even when technology is used to obscure attribution, there are other ways to trace criminals (for example, money trails).

One other question asked how we address punishment online. Painter said judges have discretion in sentences and U.S. sentencing laws are “generally pretty rational.”  The penalities in cyberspace are generally tied to the penalties in the digital world. In seeming contradiction, Spafford pointed out that almost everything in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is a felony and asked Painter if there is room to have more misdemeanor offenses in federal law? Painter said there are misdemeanor offenses in state and local laws. Generally, Spafford says, policymakers need better understanding of tech, but tech people need better understanding of law.

There were other aspects of this discussion that I struggle to summarize (especially given the lengthy nature of this post). I do think this was the most interesting session of the entire symposium, at least for me. I’ve recently found my interest in law and policy increasing, and I lament the fact that I’ve nearly completed my master’s degree at this point. I actually caught myself thinking about a PhD this morning, which is an absolutely unnecessary idea at this stage in my life.

Other posts from this event:

CERIAS Recap: Thursday keynote

Once again, I’ve attended the CERIAS Security Symposium held on the campus of Purdue University. This is one of several posts summarizing the talks I attended.

Thursday’s keynote address was delivered by Christopher Painter, the Coordinator for Cyber Issues at the U.S. State Department. Mister Painter has a long and distinguished career in law and policy, starting with the U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles, and moving through several roles in the Justice Department. He served as acting Cyber Czar during his time in the White House, and finally ended up in the State Department.

Cyber security issues have started receiving increased attention in recent years. Painter said President Obama came to the White House with a unique understanding of security because his 2008 campaign was hacked. In his 2013 State of the Union address, Mr. Obama became the first president to address cyber security on such a stage.

As Todd Gebhart noted the morning before, conversation has evolved from being purely technical to involving senior policy officials. This requires the technical community to work with the policy community so that they policy is informed. Painter takes heart in observing senior officials discuss cyber security issues beyond the scope of their prepared notes.

Although the State Department has a role in responding to DoS attacks against diplomatic institutions, the primary focus seems to be on fostering international cooperation. The international nature of cyber crime makes it very difficult to combat. Many different targets and intents are involved, as well. Although there have not been any [publicly reported] terrorist attacks on critical infrastructure, the threat exists. There are financial motivations for other cyber crimes. For example, one man spoofed Bloomberg web pages to publish fake articles in order to manipulate the stock price of a company. Although he got cold feet about executing the trade, people lost money in their own trades.

Regardless of the specific incident, the international nature of cyber crime makes it difficult to pursue and prosecute offenders. Some governments are more interested in “regime security”, protecting the interests of their own authoritarian states. The goal of U.S. cyber policy is an open, secure, reliable Internet system. To accomplish this, the State Department is promoting a shared framework of existing norms grounded in existing international law. Larger embassies have created “cyber attache” positions in order to help foster international cooperation.

Other posts from this event:

CERIAS Recap: Panel #1

Once again, I’ve attended the CERIAS Security Symposium held on the campus of Purdue University. This is one of several posts summarizing the talks I attended. This post will also appear on the CERIAS Blog.

With “Big Data” being a hot topic in the information technology industry at large, it should come as no surprise that it is being employed as a security tool. To discuss the collection and analysis of data, a panel was assembled from industry and academia. Alok Chaturvedi, Professor of Management, and Samuel Liles Associate Professor of Computer and Information Technology, both of Purdue Unversity, represented academia. Industry representatives were Andrew Hunt, Information Security Research at the MITRE Corporation, Mamani Older, Citigroup’s Senior Vice President for Information Security, and Vincent Urias, a Principle Member of Technical Staff at Sandia National Laboratories. The panel was moderated by Joel Rasmus, the Director of Strategic Relations at CERIAS.

Professor Chaturvedi made the first opening remarks. His research focus is on reputation risk: the potential damage to an organization’s reputation – particularly in the financial sector. Reputation damage arises from the failure to meet the reasonable expectations of stakeholders and has six major components: customer perception, cyber security, ethical practices, human capital, financial performance, and regulatory compliance. In order to model risk, “lots and lots of data” must be collected; reputation drivers are checked daily. An analysis of the data showed that malware incidents can be an early warning sign of increased reputation risk, allowing organizations an opportunity to mitigate reputation damage.

Mister Hunt gave brief introductory comments. The MITRE Corporation learned early that good data design is necessary from the very beginning in order to properly handle a large amount of often-unstructured data. They take what they learn from data analysis and re-incorporate it into their automated processes in order to reduce the effort required by security analysts.

Mister Urias presented a less optimistic picture. He opened his remarks with the assertion that Big Data has not fulfilled its promise. Many ingestion engines exist to collect data, but the analysis of the data remains difficult. This is due in part to the increasing importance of meta characteristics of data. The rate of data production is challenging as well. Making real-time assertions from data flow at line rates is a daunting problem.

Ms. Older noted that Citigroup gets DDoS attacks every day, though some groups stage attacks on a somewhat predictable schedule. As a result, Citigroup employs a strong perimeter defense. She noted, probably hyperbolically, that it takes 20 minutes to boot her laptop. Despite the large volume of data produced by the perimeter defense tools, they don’t necessarily have good data on internal networks.

Professor Liles focused on the wealth of metrics available and how most of them are not useful. “For every meaningless metric,” he said, “I’ve lost a hair follicle. My beard may be in trouble.” It is important to focus on the meaningful metrics.

The first question posed to the panel was “if you’re running an organization, do you focus on measuring and analyzing, or mitigating?” Older said that historically, Citigroup has focused on defending perimeters, not analysis. With the rise of mobile devices, they have recognized that mere mitigation is no longer sufficient. The issue was put rather succinctly by Chaturvedi: “you have to decide if you want to invest in security or invest in recovery.”

How do organizations know if they’re collecting the right data. Hunt suggested collecting everything, but that’s not always an option, especially in resource-starved organizations. Understanding the difference between trend data and incident data is important, according to Liles, and you have to understand how you want to use the data. Organizations with an international presence face unique challenges since legal restrictions and requirements can vary from jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction.

Along the same lines, the audience wondered how long data should be kept. Legal requirements sometimes dictate how long data should be kept (either at a minimum or maximum) and what kind of data may be stored. The MITRE corporation uses an algorithmic system for the retention and storage medium for data. Liles noted that some organizations are under long-term attack and sometimes the hardware refresh cycle is shorter than the duration of the attack. Awareness of what local log data is lost when a machine is discarded is important.

Because much of the discussion had focused on ways that Big Data has failed, the audience wanted to know of successes in data analytics. Hunt pointed to the automation of certain analysis tasks, freeing analysts to pursue more things faster. Sandia National Labs has been able to correlate events across systems and quantify sensitivity effects.

One audience member noted that as much as companies profess a love for Big Data, they often make minimal use of it. Older replied that it is industry-dependent. Where analysis drives revenue (e.g. in retail), it has seen heavier use. An increasing awareness of analysis in security will help drive future use.

Other posts from this event: