Oct 212015
 

So there's this new TV series called "CSI: Cyber" (well technically it's new to me and the UK) which is all about an FBI cybercrime unit. 

As it hapens cyber security (if you insist on calling it that) is something I know a bit about. And so this new TV series has two ways of amusing me – the normal entertainment that TV offers, and of course the chance at falling about laughing at the mistakes.

Is it entertaining in the first sense? It's an American cop show with a bit of added "tech", so to some extent it stands out of the American cop show crowd (or perhaps flood). So yes, it's mildly entertaining; nothing worth staying in for, but it will kill an hour that you're too tired to do anything more productive with.

In the second sense I mentioned – yes it's got that in spades.

The most obvious flaw is that everything happens too quickly. Analysing a malicious printer firmware as you plug in the USB disk that contains it? Not going to happen. Finding a zero-day exploit in a collection of IoT devices within an hour? Not going to happen. Hacking a municipal transport network whilst being driven around at furious speed? Well that could happen if you had already done it (they hadn't), but it isn't something you would really try.

Causing a printer to burst into flames with a malicious firmware? I believe the possibility was jokingly mentioned a few years ago when printer firmware became a target for attack amongst the white hat community, but it was also mentioned that it was pretty unlikely as things like thermal cut-out units are isolated and hardwired – you can't turn them off.

Or a malicious exploit causing a laptop battery to burn up; I'm not saying that's impossible, but again battery pack microcontrollers are usually isolated from the computer they power. 

Labelling "zero-day exploits" as something that effects personal devices? Just plain daft, although the rest of the definition was Okay.

Is this a problem? Well, sensible people will realise that this is all just entertainment and will not take it seriously. Indeed it may increase the realisation that criminals with IT skills (and governments) can cause nasty things to happen; even if this show highlights the wrong kind of nasty things. 

Of course the knuckle-dragging neanderthals (with apologies to the real Neanderthals) who watch this show and pay attention (so perhaps there isn't much danger after all) will assume that everything this show demonstrates is for real. And starts panicing anytime someone whips out a copy of metasploit

I imagine I'll be saying: "It's just entertainment" many times over the years.

Oct 032015
 

More up to date information can be found here.

One thing that has always puzzled me about Linux Containers was why it is necessary to configure the network address in two places – the container configuration, and the operating system configuration. The short answer is that it isn’t.

If you configure network addresses statically within the container configuration :-

» grep net /var/lib/lxc/mango/config 
# networking
lxc.network.type = veth
lxc.network.flags = up
lxc.network.link = br0
lxc.network.ipv4 = 10.0.0.35/16
lxc.network.ipv4.gateway = 10.0.0.1
lxc.network.ipv6 =         2001:0db8:ca2c:dead:0000:0000:0000:000a/64
lxc.network.ipv6.gateway = 2001:0db8:ca2c:dead:0000:0000:0000:0001

Then the configuration within the container’s operating system can simply be :-

» cat /var/lib/lxc/mango/rootfs/etc/network/interfaces
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback

auto eth0
iface eth0 inet manual
iface eth0 inet6 manual

And that works fine.

Oct 032015
 

A newer post has more information (and more reliable information).

One of the things that has been mildly irritating me about my little collection of Linux containers has been that in addition to the statically defined IPv6 addresses, there is also an automatically defined IPv6 address :-

» lxc-ls --fancy
NAME      STATE    IPV4       IPV6                                                              AUTOSTART  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
apricot   RUNNING  10.0.0.34  2001:db8:ca2c:dead:21e:a0ff:feb6:6a, 2001:db8:ca2c:dead::3eb      YES        
chagers   RUNNING  10.0.0.32  2001:db8:ca2c:dead:804a:bfff:fe83:f98d, 2001:db8:ca2c:dead::5e11  YES        
glanders  RUNNING  10.0.0.31  2001:db8:ca2c:dead:21e:a0ff:feb6:66, 2001:db8:ca2c:dead::ba11     YES        
lyme      RUNNING  10.0.0.30  2001:db8:ca2c:dead:21e:a0ff:feb6:65, 2001:db8:ca2c:dead::cafe     YES        
mango     RUNNING  10.0.0.35  2001:db8:ca2c:dead:6c42:24ff:fe7d:4e9, 2001:db8:ca2c:dead::a      YES        
peach     RUNNING  10.0.0.33  2001:db8:ca2c:dead:21e:a0ff:feb6:68, 2001:db8:ca2c:dead::3a11     YES        
rhubarb   RUNNING  10.0.0.40  2001:db8:ca2c:dead:21e:a0ff:feb6:69, 2001:db8:ca2c:dead::dead     YES

Now this is hardly the end of the world, but it is not tidy and it is the sort of thing that may lead to problems down the road if servers are communicating on an address that is not reverse DNS registered. Or indeed when someone contacts a server on an address such as 2001:db8:ca2c:dead::3eb and the reply comes from 2001:db8:ca2c:dead:21e:a0ff:feb6:6a.

After any number of false starts, the answer is quite simple – use sysctl to turn off autoconfigured address from within the container; which doesn’t make much sense logically – containers don’t have a kernel of their own, so the global kernel should be the one that is tuned. However :-

for container in $(lxc-ls)
do
  echo net.ipv6.conf.eth0.autoconf = 0 >> /var/lib/lxc/$container/rootfs/etc/sysctl.conf
done

Does the trick (after a reboot)  :-

» lxc-ls --fancy
NAME      STATE    IPV4       IPV6                                                              AUTOSTART  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
apricot   RUNNING  10.0.0.34  2001:db8:ca2c:dead:21e:a0ff:feb6:6a, 2001:db8:ca2c:dead::3eb      YES        
chagers   RUNNING  10.0.0.32  2001:db8:ca2c:dead:18d9:99ff:fe28:3591, 2001:db8:ca2c:dead::5e11  YES        
glanders  RUNNING  10.0.0.31  2001:db8:ca2c:dead:21e:a0ff:feb6:66, 2001:db8:ca2c:dead::ba11     YES        
lyme      RUNNING  10.0.0.30  2001:db8:ca2c:dead::cafe                                          YES        
mango     RUNNING  10.0.0.35  2001:db8:ca2c:dead:2411:80ff:feb9:6600, 2001:db8:ca2c:dead::a     YES        
peach     RUNNING  10.0.0.33  2001:db8:ca2c:dead::3a11                                          YES        
rhubarb   RUNNING  10.0.0.40  2001:db8:ca2c:dead::dead                                          YES        

Except for the older containers 🙁

I’ve obviously missed something, but fixing nearly half of the containers is a good start.

After attending to pending upgrades (some of my old containers were still running wheezy), and setting the network configuration to manual, one of the recalictrant containers (glanders) lost it’s autoconfigured address.

Two more containers lost their unwanted extra addresses after “fixing” their configuration. I’m not sure what was wrong with the old configuration, but after copying and modifying a recently created container configuration, they rebooted with just one IPv6 address. The last one was mango, but after an extra reboot, it also was fixed :-

» lxc-ls --fancy
NAME      STATE    IPV4       IPV6                      AUTOSTART  
-----------------------------------------------------------------
apricot   RUNNING  10.0.0.34  2001:db8:ca2c:dead::3eb   YES        
chagers   RUNNING  10.0.0.32  2001:db8:ca2c:dead::5e11  YES        
glanders  RUNNING  10.0.0.31  2001:db8:ca2c:dead::ba11  YES        
lyme      RUNNING  10.0.0.30  2001:db8:ca2c:dead::cafe  YES        
mango     RUNNING  10.0.0.35  2001:db8:ca2c:dead::a     YES        
peach     RUNNING  10.0.0.33  2001:db8:ca2c:dead::3a11  YES        
rhubarb   RUNNING  10.0.0.40  2001:db8:ca2c:dead::dead  YES        
Sep 242015
 

2015-09-24 19.02.32

Your new phone turned up on my desk today. It's all very sparkly but there is one big problem with it.

The name.

If you are going to release a product named with an English-language word, then you may want to check the spelling of that word because spelling that word wrong is not very impressive.

Now Americans would have you believe that the word is spelt as you have spelled it – honor. However there is a clue to the originators of the language in the name; you should the spelling with the English.

If you ever release a version of the phone in North America, it would be reasonable to use their spelling of the word. But elsewhere in the world, please use the correct spelling.

It's a bit over the top to insist on a product recall for this, but please remember when it comes to releasing the next version of this phone that it should be called the "Honour 8".

Sep 222015
 

So it looks like Volkswagen has been fixing emissions testing in the US …

220px-Volkswagen_logo_2012.svg

It seems that they have probably built into the engine management software something that detects when the engine is being tested for emissions. This apparently detects testing conditions and switches to a test mode where the engine power is reduced sufficiently to reduce emissions below the legal limit. Real emissions are up to 40 times the legal limit.

Volkswagen are apparently very sorry about this, but probably more about being caught than anything else. It could be just a one-off aberation, but frankly it is more believable that this sort of thing only happens within a company that has a culture where deceiving the customers and regulatory authorities is seen as perfectly acceptable practice.

So what else are they up to?

In a Science Fiction story by Charles Stross (Halting State), auditors do a much more thorough job of checking companies for ethical behaviour and screening executives for sociopathic tendencies; Volkswagon's path out of this mess involves and up close and personal relationship with a savage group of auditors looking into the ethics of the company. 

But who else is using engines that lie to emissions tests? Not only do many other car manufacturers use Volkswagen engines, but other car manufacurers also have an incentive to do the same sort of thing. How much do we trust them?

How many Volkswagen engineers and managers involved in this "special" project have gone on to work for other manufacturers?