Page 4,215«..1020..4,2144,2154,2164,217..4,2204,230..»

IBM builds two new Quantum Computing processors – Enterprise Times

IBM has successfully built and tested two new universal quantum computing processors. The first one is aimed at developers, researchers and programmers. Many of these have been working with the APIs IBM released for the IBM Quantum Experience in March. They will now be able to move from testing their applications on a five quantum computing (qubit) processor to one with 16 qubits. This is a significant jump forward and it will be interesting to see if this leads to an acceleration in academic papers on the benefits from quantum computing.

The second processor is arguably far more interesting. IBM delivered a roadmap for its quantum computing journey that would see 50 qubit systems by 2020. It said that early access IBM Q commercial partners would get a new quantum chip this year and it is delivering them the prototype of that chip. It will have 17 qubits and a number of other technologies. At present IBM is talking about its current quantum computers as being accelerators to classical computers.

The delivery of this chip raises two questions. The first is what level of performance are early access customers getting from using a 17 qubits accelerator? Secondly, is the 17 qubit system capable of being a standalone solution and, if so, what level of classical computing is it comparable to?

According to Arvind Krishna, senior vice president and director of IBM Research and Hybrid Cloud: The significant engineering improvements announced today will allow IBM to scale future processors to include 50 or more qubits, and demonstrate computational capabilities beyond todays classical computing systems. These powerful upgrades to our quantum systems, delivered via the IBM Cloud, allow us to imagine new applications and new frontiers for discovery that are virtually unattainable using classical computers alone.

Interestingly this has changed since the March announcement. Back then IBM was targeting five areas, all of which it has invested a lot of money in solving with existing computer technology. The five were:

The latest list compresses this into four areas with Business Optimisation showing that this is more than just a research project. The four areas listed in this release are:

What is not known is how many of the 300,000 experiments already run on the IBM Quantum Experience are aimed at these target areas. It would be useful to know how quickly current researchers and business partners are testing the limits of quantum computing.

IBM set out its roadmap to say that by 2020 it expected to deliver commercial scale quantum computing through the IBM Cloud. It is adopting the same model for this as it has with IBM Watson. Pick key industry areas and then use the cloud to deliver it. Customers dont have to justify hardware costs while research teams will be quick to experiment with the technology.

So far there has been limited feedback from the early adopter customers who took to the platform in March. That they have had a significant upgrade since then will no doubt please many of them. However, there is a need to understand just how much quantum computing is delivered as an accelerator. IBM is about to deliver IBM POWER 9 to the market and all the public presentations show that the key focus of that processor is the accelerator technology.

The biggest indicator of where we are in terms of a commercial deployment will only arrive when we get details of how well a 17 qubit system compares with current technology. Until there is a clear indication of where it sits in terms of performance it is hard to assess how close we are to IBM reaching its target of delivering a quantum computer that is more powerful than any other computer.

IBM is heading into a large number of launches this year. IBM Power Systems will launch the POWER9 processor. There is also a refresh due for the z Systems mainframes with the likelihood that this will not just focus on z14 but also on a new generation of LinuxONE boxes. In the background IBM is making blockchain announcements at an almost weekly rate. There is a danger that some of the questions over quantum computing will get lost in the noise which could be why IBM has made this announcement now.

Whatever the reason, we are moving faster and faster towards a whole new computing paradigm.

See original here:
IBM builds two new Quantum Computing processors - Enterprise Times

Read More..

This week’s poll: Priorities for improving internet security – The Engineer

What is the most important target for investment to guard against incidents like last weeks cyberattacks?

The WannaCry ransomware attacks last Friday caught everyone unawares, and institutions around the world not least, our very own National Health Service are still assessing the damage and picking up the pieces. Attacks like these will almost always come without warning, and there seems to be widespread agreement that money needs to be spent to help prevent malware and hacking from damaging valuable and safety-critical systems and putting them out of action. As yet, however, there doesnt seem to be much clear consensus on the most important target for such investment, so were making that the subject of this weeks poll.

Should the main priority be on hardware; that is, replacing vulnerable IT systems? Should it be on updating software, such as the Windows XP operating system which most of the affected computers were running; or dedicated anti-malware programs to detect attacks and deflect them? Or should the priority be skills: training systems administrators in the best ways to handle malware attacks and mitigate their effects if necessary?

Comments are, of course, welcomed and as ever, particularly useful if you chose the None of the Above option. We will post the results of this survey on this page on 23 May.

Continued here:
This week's poll: Priorities for improving internet security - The Engineer

Read More..

Akamai Releases First Quarter 2017 State of the Internet / Security Report – PR Newswire (press release)

Download the latest State of the Internet / Security Report for data, analysis, and graphics at akamai.com/stateoftheinternet-security.

"If our analysis of Q1 tells us anything, it's that risks to the Internet and to targeted industry sectors remain and continue to evolve" said Martin McKeay, senior security advocate and senior editor, State of the Internet / Security Report. "Use cases for botnets like Mirai have continued to advance and change, with attackers increasingly integrating Internet of Things vulnerabilities into the fabric of DDoS botnets and malware. It's short sighted to think of Mirai as the only threat, though. With the release of the source code, any aspect of Mirai could be incorporated into other botnets. Even without adding Mirai's capabilities, there is evidence that botnet families like BillGates, elknot, and XOR have been mutating to take advantage of the changing landscape."

Highlights from Akamai's First Quarter, 2017 State of the Internet / Security Report include:

DDoS Attacks

Web Application Attacks

Top Attack Vectors

A complimentary copy of the Q1 2017 State of the Internet / Security Report is available for download at akamai.com/stateoftheinternet-security. Download individual figures, including associated captions, here.

About Akamai As the world's largest and most trusted cloud delivery platform, Akamai makes it easier for its customers to provide the best and most secure digital experiences on any device, anytime, anywhere. Akamai's massively distributed platform is unparalleled in scale with over 200,000 servers across 130 countries, giving customers superior performance and threat protection. Akamai's portfolio of web and mobile performance, cloud security, enterprise access, and video delivery solutionsare supported by exceptional customer service and 24/7 monitoring. To learn why the top financial institutions, e-commerce leaders, media & entertainment providers, and government organizations trust Akamaiplease visitwww.akamai.com,blogs.akamai.com, or @Akamai on Twitter.

Contacts:

Rob Morton

Tom Barth

Media Relations

Investor Relations

617-444-3641

617-274-7130

rmorton@akamai.com

tbarth@akamai.com

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/akamai-releases-first-quarter-2017-state-of-the-internet--security-report-300458077.html

SOURCE Akamai Technologies, Inc.

http://www.akamai.com

View original post here:
Akamai Releases First Quarter 2017 State of the Internet / Security Report - PR Newswire (press release)

Read More..

Do Macs get viruses? – PC Advisor

Do Apple Macs need security software, or is the Mac OS safe to use without antivirus? Do Macs even get viruses? We explore the issues surrounding Macs and security software. Why Macs don't need security software (mostly), but why you should still have antivirus on your Mac

By Matt Egan | 15 May 17

The question of whether Macs need antivirusis not a new one, but the answer is changing. While Macs are generally more secure than Windows PCs, they are far from immune.

Head over to the forums on the Apple's website and you'll find the same answer time and again - 'you don't need security software because I haven't got security software and it's never been a problem'.

The scientists among you will recognise this as a confusion of cause and effect. It's also a simplification of a complex issue.

2017 has already seen multiple reports that suggest Macs are less secure than they once were. Business Insider claims that Macs are now more vulnerable to viruses and attack than even Windows PCs. And Fortune has warned of Mac malwarethat can freeze Apple computers.

Here then, are reasons for and against the suggestion that Macs don't require antivirus.

There are no technical reasons whythe Mac OS cannot be targeted by cybercriminals. Indeed, there are exploits in the wild: albeit they are principally Trojans, and require a user to erroneously install them.

Yes, criminals target the lowest hanging fruit, it is harder to target Macs, and the numbers of Mac users are relatively small, but that situation could change.

Windows is becoming more secure -Windows 8and Windows 10arethe most secure Windows ever - and the Mac market share in wealthy western countries is around 20-30 percent.

When you consider that Macs are expensive, and so their owners tend to be wealthier than the average PC users, they start to look like an attractive target.

I'm not scare-mongering - the threat is not there in any significant scale. But someday it could be, and that may make AV a worthwile investment.

It's also worth remembering that the end user is always the weakest link. In many ways security software exists to save you from bad decisions - installing apps that appear to offer something for nothing, but turn out to be spyware or viruses.

Even Mac users can fall victim in this way. So for the price of a cup of coffee each week, it makes sense to install security software and then forget all about it.

Our colleagues over at Macworld UK have the definitive guide to the best antivirus for Mac. It is regularly updated, and is worth checking out as some of the best Mac antivirusproducts are free. Right now the number one recommended product isBitDefender Antivirusand the number two isNorton Antivirus.

What follows is the counter argument as to why Macs don't need antivirus, but we still think it's better to be safe than sorry.

Quite simply, because all the evidence suggests they don't. I've had an unprotected Mac connected to the web for nearly 15years, and I have never had a problem. Why this is the case is worth investigating, however.

The argument most often put forward is a simple one of market economics: because Apple's global market share is in single figures, criminals go after the bigger shoals of fish in the Windows world.

There is something in this - virtually all current malware exists to generate cash for criminals. Crooks are not known for their application or invention, so the biggest, easiest target gets all the attention.

In practice, cybercriminal gangs are focused exclusively on Windows because there are more Windows users, yes, but also because Windows is still easier to hack.

As a Unix-based operating system the Mac OSis by its very nature sandboxed. It's like having a series of fire doors - even if malware gains access to your Mac, it is unable to spread to the heart of the machine.

Macs are not unhackable, but they are more difficult to exploit than are Windows PCs. So just as a burglar could break into a house with an alarm system but will probably choose the unprotected dwelling next door, a Mac makes a less attractive target in a world in which only attractive targets tend to be attacked.

The most recent versions of macOS - everything sinceOS X 10.8 Mountain Lion - take this even further. Theyinclude the GateKeeper function that by default prevents Mac users from installing anything other than Apple-approved software.

The existence of the Mac app store means that Apple computer users can install software with total peace of mind.

And the lack of Java and Flash plugins removes the temptation to install fake versions of both - previously the principal vectors of infection for Macs.

I'd say that if you are using your Mac at home, mostly for non-business purposes, you can close this article and continue to operate without security software. Yes, it is a risk. But using the internet is a risk, and in my considered view running a Mac without AV is a worthwhile calculated risk.

There are exceptions, however. If you are running a business with a fleet of Macs, or a network of both Macs and Windows PCs, I'd suggest getting in some protection. It's a belt and braces approach that may not be necessary, but if you have a lot to lose it's a small price to pay for peace of mind.

You may also consider using antivirus on your Mac if for some reason you could be targeted individually - if you have access to sensitive or high-value data, for instance. If you do choose to buy Mac antivirus, take a look at the reviews roundup put together by our colleagues on Macworld:Best Mac antivirus software.

More here:
Do Macs get viruses? - PC Advisor

Read More..

Encryption | Android Open Source Project

Encryption is the process of encoding all user data on an Android device using symmetric encryption keys. Once a device is encrypted, all user-created data is automatically encrypted before committing it to disk and all reads automatically decrypt data before returning it to the calling process. Encryption ensures that even if an unauthorized party tries to access the data, they wont be able to read it.

Android has two methods for device encryption: full-disk encryption and file-based encryption.

Android 5.0 and above supports full-disk encryption. Full-disk encryption uses a single keyprotected with the users device passwordto protect the whole of a devices userdata partition. Upon boot, the user must provide their credentials before any part of the disk is accessible.

While this is great for security, it means that most of the core functionality of the phone in not immediately available when users reboot their device. Because access to their data is protected behind their single user credential, features like alarms could not operate, accessibility services were unavailable, and phones could not receive calls.

Android 7.0 and above supports file-based encryption. File-based encryption allows different files to be encrypted with different keys that can be unlocked independently. Devices that support file-based encryption can also support a new feature called Direct Boot that allows encrypted devices to boot straight to the lock screen, thus enabling quick access to important device features like accessibility services and alarms.

With the introduction of file-based encryption and new APIs to make applications aware of encryption, it is possible for these apps to operate within a limited context. This can happen before users have provided their credentials while still protecting private user information.

Follow this link:
Encryption | Android Open Source Project

Read More..

NuCypher is using proxy re-encryption to lift more enterprise big data into the cloud – TechCrunch

After spending time at a London fintech acceleratorlast year, enterprise databasestartup ZeroDB scrapped its first business plan and mapped out a new one. By January this year it had a new name: NuCypher. It was no longer going to try to persuadeenterprises to switch out their Oracle databases but rather to sell them on a specialized encryption layerto enhance their ability to perform big data analytics by tapping into the cloud. Its slogan: body armor for big data.

Today itslaunching an open source version of its general releaseproduct here at TechCrunch Disrupt New York. At this point, the almost 1.5-year-old startup is also running a handful of pilots with major banks, says co-founder MacLane Wilkison.

Its a combination of cloud and big data, he says of the underlying drivers which the team reckons are creatinga need for the technology. Now all of a sudden youre workingin computing environments that are distributed across hundreds or thousands of machines, and that could be spanning both some on-prem, some private and evenpublic cloud. And that sort of scenario presents a lot of new and different security challenges.

Instead ofbuilding an open source end-to-end encrypted database, NuCypher is selling a proxy re-encryption platform forcorporates with large amounts of sensitive data stored in encrypted databases to letthem securely tap into the power of cloud computing. An idea that might need a bit of explaining to appreciate, but one thats grounded in a genuineneed at least based on what NuCyphers earlybanking partners are telling it.

On the competitors front Wilkison names the likes of HP-owned Voltageand Protegrityas the largest existing players in the space. Albeit, he says theyre both doing tokenization of data, whereasNuCypher reckons proxy re-encryption technologyoffers greater security for certain types of data.

Unlike some other approaches to processing big data in the cloud, heemphasizesthat NuCypher is not using tokenization to mask any data arguing this is necessary for the target customers because certain types of data when masked with tokens can be vulnerable to statistical attacks.

While proxy re-encryption is an existing area of cryptography, applying it to big data is whats novel here, according toWilkison, who saysthe tech has mostly been used in academia thus far. Were the only people that applied it to big data platforms like Hadoop and Spark, he says. As far as I know were the only one using proxy re-encryption in business.

So while the teamsearly ideas focused mostly onlooking at data archiving and encryption to enable banks to make use of cloud storage, he says the businesswas pulled onto its currentrails afterbanks asked if theycouldapply the encryption tech the team hadbeen building for data archiving to big data cloud processing.

Safe to say, this mini pivot is a familiar story for enterprise startups after all, who knows better the businessneeds than the target customers?

When we originally started the company, my co-founder and I had built an open-source database and then an encrypted database that allows you to operate unencrypted data without sharing encryption keys with the database server What the banks were particularly interested in was taking some of what we had built for that and applying it to more compute-heavy type of workloads, says Wilkison.

After a period of talking to customers we took some of what we had built for that and made it into a more generalized encryption layer for different platforms specifically for the big data space. So Hadoop, Kafka and Spark.

So what is proxy re-encryption aka NuCyphers secret sauce, as Wilkison putsit and why isthe technique useful for banks?

Proxy re-encryption is a set of encryption algorithms that allow you to transform encrypted data. Specifically it allows you to re-encrypt data so you have data thats encrypted under one set of keys, you can re-encrypt the data without de-encrypting it first, so that now its encrypted under a second, different set of keys,is how Wilkisonexplains it.

He gives the example of a person who has some encrypted files stored in Dropbox. If they want to share the files with someone else that could be achievedby downloading them, decrypting them with their key and then re-encrypting them with the public key of the person theywant to share with. But obviously at scale thats a pretty network-intensive and cumbersome process.

Even more naively, this personcould just share theirprivate encryption key with the person theywant to share the file with. But then theyreabandoning all control of theirsecurity.

Clearly neither scenario is ideal for NuCyphers target customers with their vast lakes of sensitive, highly regulated data. This is where NuCypher reckons proxy re-encryption can step in to offer an edge.

What I can do with proxy re-encryption thats much more elegant and secure than either of those alternatives is I can basically delegate access to my encrypted data to someone elses public key, he adds.

The platform creates a re-encryption token off of the public key of the entity with whom its customers wants to share data. That token can then be uploaded to the cloud where the third partycan access it in turn enabling them to decrypt and access the data.

Wilkison says re-encrypted tokens can be created and used todelegate access to as many people as I like.

Ensuring compliance with regulations around the processing of sensitive data data such as a bank or healthcare company might hold is one key selling point for the platform.

Hepoints to a regulation like HIPAA, which sets standards for protecting healthcare data, as one example where a lot of care is needed when handling data toensure compliance. He also flags upthe European Unions incoming GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), which ramps up penalties for violations of rules on processing citizens personal data, as another instance ofdata-centric lawscreating data processing pain-points thatNuCyphers platform is setting out tofix.

Other target data-laden industries couldinclude telecoms and insurance, though the team has kicked-offfocusing on financial services, and the current pilot phase of the platform is with major banks.

Wilkison saysthere are essentially three main use-cases for the platform:

Another benefit henotes isthat NuCyphers proxy re-encryption technology enables itto givecustomers the ability to manage access controls without needing to provide full access to the data which meansit canremove any single point of failure (i.e. via an admin who has to have full access control to all of the data).

With NuCypher a hacker would have to hack into each node individually in order to get all the data, he adds.

Given the complexities of the technology, customer education is clearly one of the big challenges, with Wilkison saying thisboils down toexplaining how the approach differs from standard encryption.

And on that front, he says one selling point for the platform is that theproxy re-encryption tech works with NIST standardized encryption algorithms. Which means NuCypher customersdont have to abandon the tried and tested encryption algorithms theyre comfortable using, such as AES-256, in order to make use ofthe tech.

That was one of the pieces that we added that took a pretty significant amount of research to develop for us to get proxy re-encryption to work with things likeECIES, which is a standard elliptic curve, NIST-certified, he notes.So we can go to a customer and say, everything that were doing on a crypto level is very standardized, very well understood by industry. So theyre not having to rely on newly rolled crypto.

NuCyphers platform exists as an SDK and an encryption library, so its business model is licensing the software its not hosting any data itself, confirmsWilkison; customers can install the softwareon premise, such as within an existing Hadoop deployment, or directly in the cloud on the infrastructure theyre managing.

Funding-wise, the teamhas raised a $750,000 seed round to date, from Valley investors including Base Ventures, NewGen Capital and some angels. It also went throughY Combinator last summer. Wilkison says it will be looking to raise again in Q3 this year.

How big do they reckonthis market is? Wilkison says hes hoping the current six to seven pilot customers of NuCypher will turn into high double digit or maybe low triple digits in a years time. But with those target large enterprises typically spending vastamounts of money on securely storing the sensitive data theyre entrusted with,theres also a very sizeableincentive for them toshift some of that compute load into the cloud.And, potentially, a lot of money at stake if NuCypher can convince them to buy in.

NuCypher presents at Startup Battlefield at TechCrunch Disrupt NY 2017

NuCypher presents at Startup Battlefield at TechCrunch Disrupt NY 2017

NuCypher presents at Startup Battlefield at TechCrunch Disrupt NY 2017

NuCypher presents at Startup Battlefield at TechCrunch Disrupt NY 2017

NuCypher presents at Startup Battlefield at TechCrunch Disrupt NY 2017

NuCypher presents at Startup Battlefield at TechCrunch Disrupt NY 2017

Judges Q&A

Q: Can you talk a bit more about how far along you are with some of the early clients? A: Were in pilot stage right now. The bulk of our early customers are in financial services. Were starting to get traction in healthcare and telcos as well. Pilot phase at this stage.

Q: Tell me a bit more on the competition A: Theres a couple of ways to look at this. One: the platforms that we support do have some native data protection built in. So Hadoop for example. These tend not to be robust enough for the types of enterprise customers that were working with. Other alternatives include data masking and tokenization. HP Voltage for example.

Q: You worked before at Morgan Stanley. Why did you leave a steady job with nice salary and Wall Street and went into this kind of adventure? A: Ultimately I wanted to get back to a more technical role, and actually start building a product in a company again as opposed to building financial models and pitch decks

Q: And this is the actually launching of the product? A: Were launching the open source version. Weve had Hadoop available for a while. And then Kafka is launching as well

Q: What did your mother say when you told her that you were leaving Morgan Stanley for this adventure? A: She was supportive. Although maybe didnt quite understand what we were doing

Q: Can you tell me more about the implementation? What does it look like as you deploy to enterprise how do you get all of their existing data encrypted and how do you do key management? A: On the key management side we actually integrate with hardware security modules so at lots of banks we use HSM from vendors like Thales or SafeNet.

For Hadoop we encrypt at the HFS layer. And everything is transparent to applications running on top of Hadoop, so it doesnt change the experience for someone running Hive queries for example.

And we also integrate with access control tools like Ranger and Sentry. So people can keep using the standard tools that they use.

Q: Is your business a classic SaaS model? A: Were not hosting anything. Its not software as a service. We have term-based subscriptions, and then also a consumption-based model for cloud deployments.

Q: How do you intend to go to market? Sales force? direct sales? A: Some combination of direct sales, which weve done today, and then also the channel partners and big data vendors and the cloud service providers as well, folks like Amazon and Microsoft.

Q: Who are your main competitors? A: The data masking and tokenization companies are the one we run into most regularly. Voltage which is now part of HP. In Europe we see a company called Protegrity pretty frequently. And then as I mentioned before a lot of the underlying platforms will have some sort of protection tools natively.

Q: Do you run into people like Ciphercloud or Ionic? A: Not so much anymore. Were similar in some ways to them were more focused on infrastructure like Hadoop and data platforms

Q: How many people are you now? A: Were the two founders and then seven people total on the team

Q: And how much money did you raise? A: Weve raised $750K so far from Y Combinator, NewGen Capital and Base Ventures

Q: How long ago? A: Last fall

Q: How hard would it be for your competitors to replicate the work that youve done? A: Certainly its a lot easier now that its open source That said we do have an open core approach so we have certain enterprise features that are still proprietary that are only available in the enterprise version. Additionally if the Hadoop vendors integrated what were doing natively into Hadoop thats still just for Hadoop.

So NuCyphers meant to be layered, it sits across all of the organizations big data platforms. Right now theyve use Hadoop, Kafka, Spark. In the future that could include some new SQL databases, and potentially structured databases as well

Q: Judging from your experience with your colleague how do you compare the American level of mathematics and physics to the Russian one? A: The American approach is lacking. Im hugely impressed. Not only is my co-founder Russian educated, and Russian born, a lot of our engineers are as well, so weve been very fortunate in that regard

See the article here:
NuCypher is using proxy re-encryption to lift more enterprise big data into the cloud - TechCrunch

Read More..

How to make Fully Homomorphic Encryption "practical and usable … – Network World

Thank you

Your message has been sent.

There was an error emailing this page.

By Bob Brown

News Editor, Network World | May 15, 2017 11:39 AM PT

Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) for years has been a promising approach to protecting data while its being computed on, but making it fast enough and easy enough to use has been a challenge.

The Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity, which has been leading the Department of Defenses examination of this topic, recently awarded research and development firm Galois a $1M contract to explore ways to bring FHE to programmers.

The goal, says Galois Principal Investigator Dr. David Archer, is making FHE practical and usable, and his outfit is working with researchers at the New Jersey Institute of Technology on this front via the Rapid Machine-learning Processing Applications and Reconfigurable Targeting of Security (RAMPARTS) initiative.

While its up to IARPA as to what becomes of the researchers' output, Archer says he wouldnt be surprised if it goes the open source route.

Just to step back, Archer describes FHE as a variant of Somewhat [or Semi] Homomorphic Encryption, and allows for computing a function on data that is encrypted so that the data is never in the clear while the computation is going on. It produces an encrypted result that a user with the right key can decrypt. The first live construction of FHE showed up from IBM in 2009, whereas Somewhat Homomorphic Encryption has been around since the 1970s and 80s.

FHE allows for conducting more complex functions than Somewhat Homomorphic Encryption.

"There's more and more data available," Archer says. "And people are recognizing, maybe not for the first time, that it's important to keep that data private, yet it would be great if we could get utility out of it."

A researcher studying the opioid crisis, for example, might benefit from running an analysis on private healthcare data, but the owner of that data might not feel comfortable providing access due to privacy concerns. FHE, if trusted by both parties, could allow a way for researchers to make use of data without actually seeing the original information.

Dr. David Archer, Principal Investigator at Galois, says FHE could boost network management

Archer even cites an example that could apply to IT networking pros, such as if you wanted to study network data traces from service providers to possibly spot attacks from new adversaries.

But he acknowledges that even a promising technology like FHE could be a tough sell.

"There are a couple of problems you need to get people past," he says. "One is belief that the data is never going to be in the clear, because there's still a bit of black magic sound to this... Another challenge is you have to think beyond just the thing you want to compute, you also have to think about what does it reveal? Because none of these things can hide the output. So if someone was to be a little malicious and said the analysis I want to run is just show me the data, then that wouldn't accomplish this privacy preservation that the data owners would want. So there's also this negotiation challenge between the researcher and data owner."

Statutory regulation is one more challenge, as there could be statutes that don't even let you share encrypted data, Archer says.

For now, Galois and New Jersey Institute of Technology are building a prototype that lets an analyst using the Julia language write programs that run functions on FHE data just as they would any other programs, except they'd tag these functions to deal with encrypted data. "Think of it as a transparent homomorphic subsystem that can run in a Julia environment," Archer says.

The reality is that "your mileage may vary" when using FHE, which is still very limited in production applications and still needs plenty of work on optimization, Archer says. So it might work quite well on certain functions like linear regressions, but be terribly inefficient on other operations, he says. However, Archer says the future for FHE is bright. About 5 years ago, using FHE was 10 to 12 orders of magnitude slower than computing in the clear, whereas a couple of years ago that had been improved by 6 or 7 orders of magnitude, he says. We're still not near real-time processing, but FHE is definitely getting faster, Archer says.

MORE: Dark thinking on IoT and exploding enterprise networks

Bob Brown is a news editor for Network World, blogs about network research, and works most closely with our staff's wireless/mobile reporters. Email me at bbrown@nww.com with story tips or comments on this post. No need to follow up on PR pitches via email or phone (I read my emails and will be in touch if interested, thanks)

Sponsored Links

Continue reading here:
How to make Fully Homomorphic Encryption "practical and usable ... - Network World

Read More..

The worst-case scenario on encryption back doors – Washington Post

May 16

The May 14 front-page article Nations race to contain hacks has implications for the debate on encryption back doors.

If you view the broad world through a keyhole defined only by a need to catch the bad guys, you might conclude that mandating encryption back doors on all electronic devices is a good idea, particularly if the government has custody of those back doors. The recent global ransomware cyberattack, purportedly using the National Security Agencys own tools, proves otherwise and will hopefully end this debate.

When I was a product manager for a major smartphone company, we urged the Department of Homeland Security not only to avoid an encryption backdoor policy but also to zealously advocate strong encryption privacy among federal government agencies and global partners. We now have a glaring example of a worst-case scenario.

John Morrison, Crownsville

See the original post:
The worst-case scenario on encryption back doors - Washington Post

Read More..

Vendors will break WannaCry’s encryption within months, strategist predicts – CSO Australia

The heat is on the ransomwares creators but its not clear whether they will crack under pressure, or redouble their efforts

Concerted industry efforts are likely to produce a decryption tool for the WannaCry ransomware attack within months, the head of one vendors security team has predicted while warning that the attacks emboldened creators may be using it as a distraction for other malicious activity.

Every security vendor has turned its sights to reverse-engineering the WannaCry code in the wake of its high-profile worldwide outbreak, Bitdefender chief security strategist Catalin Cosoi told CSO Australia, and the sheer numbers pitted against it meant a solution was going to happen one way or another.

There is a war room in every security vendors offices, Cosoi explained. At some point it will open up and while Im not saying we will necessarily be the ones to do it, it will be a joint effort. These guys caused too much attention for us to not find a solution to the problem.

Whether through sheer determination or by exploiting vulnerabilities in the code, researchers have previously been successful in developing tools to help victims of ransomware attacks including TeslaCrypt, CryptXXX and CryptoLocker.

In the case of TeslaCrypt, the crack came after the ransomwares authors gave researchers the encryption key they had used leading Cosoi to suggest that even WannaCrys creators may end up pulling the plug in a similar way if they feel the attack has blown way out of control. This might be in exchange for a reduced penalty if they are caught, or simply because they are worried that the attack is causing much more damage than they ever expected.

Another possible scenario bodes much more poorly for victims, with Cosoi warning that the whole thing may be a distraction. Since the entire industry is focusing on this ransomware, he said, it may be that other perpetrators are working their way around in a targeted attack on an institution where they want to steal something very important.

The attack has served as a painful reminder of the importance of patching for companies that have failed to patch their old Windows systems which WannaCry targets and have often left them unchanged for years. Yet with the worm still very much in play and its creators likely to be reworking their use of the NSA-originated EternalBlue exploit, even companies that have patched their systems may be left exposed and many in the industry are warning that the worst may well be yet to come.

The success of WannaCry confirms earlier predictions, such as a new analysis by the Institute for Critical Infrastructure Technology that predicted 2016 would be the year ransomware holds America hostage.

One reason that ransomware is so effective is that the cybersecurity field is not entirely prepared for its resurgence, the report noted. Attacks are more successful when effective countermeasures are not in place. Information security systems exist to detect and mitigate threats, to prevent data modification, to question unusual behavior, etc.

After it is on a system, ransomware bypasses many of these controls because it effectively acts as a security application. It denies access to data or encrypts the data. The only difference is that the owner of the system does not own the control.

Ultimately, the runaway success of the WannaCry ransomware has not only served as a wakeup call to businesses but has forced the security industry to reassess its approach to handling vulnerabilities. The damage it has caused might, for example, create additional impetus for mandatory software updates that vendors have previously been reluctant to push onto users.

Whatever change comes from WannaCry and however long it takes to crack as law enforcement picks up the investigation Cosoi says the incident will be remembered for a long time to come.

A phenomenon like this happens once every five years, he said. Since it has been a very media-ised event, it will be a wakeup call for all those people believing that nobody will target them which is often why they didnt update their systems. Its a reminder for institutions and companies that security isnt a joke and that something will eventually happen that will bite you on the arse.

Error: Please check your email address.

Tags chief security strategistCryptolockerCatalin CosoiWannaCry ransomwareTeslaCryptencryptionCritical Infrastructure Technologbitdefendermalicious activity

More about AustraliaCSONSATechnology

Read the original:
Vendors will break WannaCry's encryption within months, strategist predicts - CSO Australia

Read More..

Bitcoin Balloons on Overheated Air – Bloomberg

Ever since the dot-com and housing bubbles popped in 2000 and 2008, spotting bubbles has become a national obsession. Investors have spotted bubbles in bonds, credit, equities, gold -- you name it -- over the last several years.

I wouldnt use the B-word to describe any of those investments -- yet. In fact, I wouldnt even nominate any of them for Most Likely to Bubble Over. I would give that distinction to a certain cryptocurrency that is quickly making its name and fortune: Bitcoin.

Bitcoin has all the attributes of a bubble in the making. First, its radically new. Its a digital payment system that allows users anywhere in the world to transact directly without interference from intermediaries, governments, regulators or central banks -- at least for now. Transactions are administered by a decentralized network of computers, much like the internet.

In his book about the 17th-century tulip bubble in Holland, "Tulipmania," British journalist Mike Dash points out, It is impossible to comprehend the tulip mania without understanding just how different tulips were from every other flower known to horticulturists in the 17th century. The same could be said about the internet in the 1990s and about digital currency today.

Second, Bitcoin is shrouded in secrecy. Buyers and sellers of Bitcoin can trade anonymously, which makes the digital currency a favorite of criminals and hackers demanding ransom. Its origins are shrouded in mystery. Its creator goes by the name of Satoshi Nakamoto, but it's unclear who that person is or if it's even one person. That, too, is reminiscent of another bubble. At the height of Englands South Sea Bubble in 1720, one company floated shares "For carrying-on an undertaking of great advantage but no-one to know what it is." Of course, that didnt stop investors from throwing money at the company.

Riding the Wave

In 1720, share prices of the South Sea Company rose 400 percent in three months and then collapsed just as quickly

Source: ICF working paper, New Evidence on the First Financial Bubble by Rik Frehen, Will Goetzmann and Geert Rouwenhorst Note: European date format.

Third, Bitcoin has no value other than what a buyer is willing to pay for it, which makes it susceptible to the argument that underlies all bubbles. Namely, that any price is appropriate. But theres already reason to worry that Bitcoin's price is excessive. An investment in Bitcoin has returned a breathtaking 351 percent annually since its inception in July 2010 through Tuesday. To put that in perspective, an investment of $100 in Bitcoin from the beginning would be worth close to $3 million today. Its not easy to justify that kind of return for any investment.

Digital Gold

The price of Bitcoin is up 3 million percent since July 2010

Source: Bloomberg

Bitcoin is similar to other currencies and commodities such as gold, oil, potatoes or even tulips in that its intrinsic value is difficult -- if not impossible -- to separate from its price. But there are governments standing behind currencies and reliable currency markets for exchange. And with commodities, investors have something to hold at the end of the transaction. Bitcoin feels more speculative because its just digital ephemera.

That isnt true for all investments. Stockholders are entitled to a share of a companys assets, earnings and dividends, the value of which can be estimated independent of the stocks price. The same can be said about a bonds payments of principal and interest.

This distinction between price and value is what allowed many observers to warn that internet stocks were absurdly priced in the late 1990s, or that mortgage bonds werent as safe as investors assumed during the housing bubble. A similar warning about Bitcoin isnt possible.

During the dot-com craze, Warren Buffett was asked why he didnt invest in technology. He famously answered that he didnt understand tech stocks. But what he meant was that no one understood them, and he was right. Why else would anyone buy the NASDAQ 100 Index when its price-to-earnings ratio was more than 500 times -- a laughably low earnings yield of 0.2 percent -- which is where it traded at the height of the bubble in March 2000.

Internet Gold

The NASDAQ 100 Index's spectacular rise and fall within five years embodied the dot-com bubble

Source: Bloomberg

Thinking back on investors credulity during the last two bubbles, I cant help but wonder if buyers of Bitcoin understand what theyre invested in. They would be wise to ask themselves that same question.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Nir Kaissar in Washington at nkaissar1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Daniel Niemi at dniemi1@bloomberg.net

See the original post here:
Bitcoin Balloons on Overheated Air - Bloomberg

Read More..