The deepest root of all the misunderstandings that constitute the InfoSec discourse nowadays is that the normal people («security experts» included) do not understand what is software, and its fundamental difference from the physical world we live in.

The entire realm of software is purely artificial.

Not only programs and functions, not only bugs and security holes, but also all the notions and intentions, all phenomena in the realm of software, even those perceived as «natural», are created by a man.

There are no natural laws that a program must follow and obey. While your computer does follow all the laws of physics, your programs do not at all. This very distinction makes a computer useful for us. The purpose and the only purpose of your computer's existence is to create a virtual TABULA RASA world, the world devoid of any laws, the world completely disconnected from the physical reality, the world that you are supposed to populate with laws of your own creation.

In other words, a computer can produce any output from any input — this is the definition and the characteristic property of a computer. This is what they always forget, and I stress ALWAYS.

REMEMBER THAT! If you want to improve your «safety», «cyber security», whatever. Every time you assume any expectation to a program of someone else's creation. Remember that! Every time you are disappointed: I gave this stupid machine a perfect input! Remember what a computer is: a machine that produces any output from any input — no restrictions at all. If you remember it well, first you will stop acting surprised when you wonder into a trap, second you will become more challenging prey, third you will stop believing InfoSec selling stories.

Before you indulge into an experiment investigating the effects of whatever quality of a subject, it is the best for you to make sure beforehand that the quality in question does belong to your subject.

We colloquially say: «a red pencil» as if it is not a question whether a pencil can be red. Indeed, it can. In this particular case our «intuition» coincide with physical reality. We can create an experiment that demonstrates a possibility of any colour be a quality of a pencil. We can clearly define «red» as a specific feature of the light spectrum, and we can unambiguously link those spectra to each pencil. We can see (experimentally) that some pencils share this quality, while some do not. Even if the dividing line between these sets is fuzzy, we now have a CHARACTERISTIC PROPERTY of a «red pencil»: all red pencils share this property, and all non red do not have it. Facing a pencil, we can (experimentally) determine if it is red (and to what extent).

It is perfectly legitimate for anyone to call a pencil «red» or otherwise tag a pencil with a colour, because of the physics, not because the language allows it. Language is equally suitable for describing reality and nonsense as well. We still can call a pencil «aggressive» but it does not make physical sense. Aggressiveness can not be observed in pencils. There are many qualities applicable to pencils and there are many qualities inapplicable to pencils. Some qualities are plainly inapplicable to some objects — this fact is so basic that is often forgotten.

Now, I give you two grains of wheat, one is «GMO» and another isn't.
Can you conceive an experiment that tells me which is which?

Maybe it is time to make one step back and determine if «GMO» is a quality of an organism? Is there any CHARACTERISTIC PROPERTY of a «GM organism», something that all «GM» subjects share, while none of the rest have? Please, define this property for me. ...or simply ask yourself (every time you are looking for the magical label on the food package) what is this characteristic property I am looking for?

Now, as you have yelled at me all your suggestions, think carefully which of them is actually a property of an organism. Not single one. All that you have come up with are qualities of a production process or a design process or even earlier. None of those can be observed in a grain of wheat.

Observing a car, can you tell, for example, a difference between a car that was sketched with HB pencil and a car sketched with 2B pencil during their stage of development? In case of a car you would not claim that all qualities of a design phase are inherited by the product. You may consider me foolish to even suggest this very possibility. It is too obvious for you that a car and a car production process are two wildly different objects. Ok, then. What makes you claim that «GM» property of an organism design process is also a quality of a resulted organism? Hopefully you are not going to claim that organisms and their production processes are the same object.

However, you may legitimately conjecture that this particular property somehow translates from the design process to the organism. This is why I gave you these two grains of wheat. Take them and prove your conjecture. Show me the CHARACTERISTIC PROPERTY of «GMO».

I know you are wondering what all this nonsense has to do with passwords.
Well, this is all about the information entropy, which you do happily assign to your passwords without even a glimpse of doubt: IS IT REALLY A QUALITY OF A PASSWORD??? CAN I CREATE A CHARACTERISTIC RELATION THAT MAPS PASSWORDS ON REAL NUMBERS AND IS A FUNCTION???

It has become a dangerous fad to talk about biometrics as a replacement for the traditional authentication methods. It is often claimed that passwords are losing battle to biometrics… Despite the futility of the claim, I don't even need to dismiss it. There is one simple physical fact that renders this entire «battle» completely impossible.
Read more →

For a million years you are being trained to reason about the physical world as perceived by your sensors. You evolved to search for patterns and assume animal agency by default (simply because the cost of the mistake is lower with this assumption). Then came computer programs… they are invisible for your sensors, they do not follow any patterns, they can make computers appear animate, they can disguise as a reasonable actor, or fool your senses otherwise. And on top of it all they do not obey the laws of physic, the laws that your brain perceive as unbreakable for any agent in the visible world. This is a disaster for your neolithic brain.
Read more →

I have a strong conviction that 99% of «security experts» do not know the definition of the entropy. This conviction does certainly seem wildly deranged for you, unless you know the definition in question. So, let's begin with the definition, by the book.
Read more →

Previously (in "What Makes Your Password Yours" and "Auth vs ID") We have established that your exclusive and complete control over your password makes the password belong to you, and this is the one and only characteristic property of a valid password. Now, we are to scrutinize the second member of the 2-Factor formula.
Read more →

It turned out that my "Authentication vs Identification" article was not sufficiently conclusive in the sense that some hardcore biometrics fans still nurture a non-trivial and well justified objection. So I need to address and destroy it, in order to close the topic. My opponents' argument is:

Your analysis narrows the both sides of the problem to a knowledge/ownership claim. Even if you are right, the conclusion is only applicable to the authentication by means of a knowledge token, whereas all the rest relations between the user and the token (suitable for authentication purposes) are set aside. There is one particularly important relation (the one fundamental for the entire biometrics field): «the user is» or other way around «the token is a part of the user» — this relation implies inalienability which makes the token safe for authentication purposes.

It is true. Completely true. It is undeniably true! In the physical realm.
Read more →

Once again I have to return to the topic of strict antagonism between the authentication and the identification, meaning these very processes and the tokens involved as well. Before I indulge into boring you with tedious decomposition of entities you used to perceive as atomic, I present you a synthetic illustration of the difference in question. A bad guy tries to get a false-negative outcome of identification, and a false-positive outcome of authentication. This is not explanatory, yet very indicative, I hope it gives you an idea of the magnitude of the difference, and we are going to dig into this now.
Read more →

Simple questions are usually the most difficult ones to answer. And the most important among them are traditionally labeled stupid and dismissed. The modern days InfoSec is based upon unanswered questions. The lack of theoretical basis allows InfoSec gurus to produce teachings and «best practices» without a limit.

Today I want to address two very basic questions about passwords:

What are characteristic properties of a password? and what makes your password yours?

By answering these questions you achieve understanding of the utter malevolence of the password abandonment movements, that are so frighteningly popular today. There is a particularly dangerous movement to replace passwords with bio-metric attributes that can reliably identify your body (e.g. voice, fingerprints, and such). Although these attributes are successfully used in forensic practice for centuries, it does not make them good authentication tokens. Why? Because your password's job is NOT to identify your body.

I hear you screaming: «WHAT?!?!?!» That means you are ready to investigate what IS a password, what is its job, and what properties do you want your password to possess.
Read more →