• “Consider the use of smart cards ... for especially critical functions.  Although more costly than software, when properly implemented the assurance gain is great.  The form-factor is not as important as the existence of an isolated processor and address space for assured operations – an ‘Island of Security,’ if you will.  Such devices can communicate with each other through secure protocols and provide a web of security connecting secure nodes located across a sea of insecurity in the global net.”

    Brian Snow, Former Technical Director of the US National Security Agency (NSA), "We need assurance!", 1999-2008

  • Build-in Security: Ensure that security is considered and built into the design of new infrastructure, so that our critical assets are protected from the start and more resilient to naturally-occurring and deliberate threats throughout their life-cycle."

    Obama-Biden Plan, Agenda: Homeland Security, December 2008

  • "Today’s systems must anticipate future attacks. Any comprehensive system – whether for authenticated communications, secure data storage, or electronic commerce – is likely to remain in use for five years or more. It must be able to withstand the future: smarter attackers, more computational power, and greater incentives to subvert a widespread system. There won’t be time to upgrade it in the field."

    Bruce Schneier, "Why Cryptography Is Harder Than It Looks", 1997
  • "First and foremost, there is no proper excuse for continued use of a broken cryptographic primitive (MD5) when sufficiently strong alternatives are readily available, for example SHA-2. Secondly, there is no substitute for security awareness." ... "Advice from experts should be taken seriously and early in the process. In this case, MD5 should have been phased out soon after 2004."

    Alexander Sotirov, Marc Stevens, Jacob Appelbaum, Arjen Lenstra, David Molnar, Dag Arne Osvik, Benne de Wegerr, "MD5 considered harmful today - Creating a rogue CA certificate", December 2008
  • "The future ability of quantum computers might be a decade or two away, their future ability to break public-key cryptography has important implications for the encryption of highly sensitive information today. For these applications, we must already design new public-key cryptosystems and one-way functions that are immune to quantum cryptanalysis."

    ARDA, Report of the Quantum Information Science and Technology Experts Panel, 2004

  • “Briefly and simply, assurance work makes a user or a creditor more confident that the system works as intended without flaws, without surprises, even in the presence of malice.” … “The major shortfall is absence of assurance or safety mechanisms in software.  If my car crashed as often as my computer does, I’d be dead by now.”

    Brian Snow, Former Technical Director of the US National Security Agency (NSA), "We need Assurance", AusCERT 2008

  • “Given today’s common hardware and software architectural paradigms, operating systems security is a major primitive for secure systems – you will not succeed without it. This area is so important that it needs all the emphasis it can get. It is the current ‘black hole’ of security.”

    Brian Snow, Former Technical Director of the US National Security Agency (NSA), "We need assurance!", 1999-2008

  • "Some physicists predicted that within the next 10 to 20 years quantum computers will be built that are sufficiently powerful to implement Shor’s ideas and to break all existing public key schemes. Thus we need to look ahead to a future of quantum computers, and we need to prepare the cryptographic world for that future.

    Prof Seth Lloyd of MIT, MIT Review 2008

  • In the next five years we will counter many 'hacker' attacks but we will not be safe from Nation States and other large entities

    Brian Snow, Former Technical Director of the US National Security Agency (NSA), "We need assurance!", 1999-2008

  • "But conventional security is not enough. The complexity of today's operational environment means organisations must embrace a level of business resilience that is normally associated with the protection of critical national infrastructure."

    Detica, a BAE Systems Company

  • "History has taught us: never underestimate the amount of money, time, and effort someone will expend to thwart a security system. It's always better to assume the worst. Assume your adversaries are better than they are. Assume science and technology will soon be able to do things they cannot yet. Give yourself a margin for error. Give yourself more security than you need today. When the unexpected happens, you'll be glad you did."

    Bruce Schneier, "Why Cryptography Is Harder Than It Looks", 1997
  • “When will we be secure? Nobody knows for sure – but it cannot happen before commercial security products and services possess not only enough functionality to satisfy customers’ stated needs, but also sufficient assurance of quality, reliability, safety, and appropriateness for use. Such assurances are lacking in most of today’s commercial security products and services.”

    Brian Snow, Former Technical Director of the US National Security Agency (NSA), "We need Assurance", 2005

Resources Frequently asked questions Synaptic security ecosystem faq: Why do we need a new security ecosystem? (Quantum Focus)
faq: Why do we need a new security ecosystem? (Quantum Focus)
Synaptic Facts and FAQs - Synaptic security ecosystem


We need a new security ecosystem for many reasons.

The interdependent web of our critical infrastructures and information systems undergirding the global village are fundamentally insecure on account of poorly designed systems, poor integration of cryptographic and security functions, a low assurance development model and the choice of marginally secure cryptographic primitives. Many of our critical global communications networks offer little to no security against targeted malice. Complex interdependent systems are designed with single points of failure that can impact millions of people. The entire system must be systematically hardened.

In particular it is recognised that one of the cornerstones of modern cryptography is at risk of abrupt and catastrophic failure with the arrival of code-breaking quantum computers.

Cryptographic primitives such as block ciphers, stream ciphers, hash functions, key exchanges and digital signatures are the fundamental building blocks which modern computer security is built from. A secure cryptographic primitive on its own cannot guarantee security. Conversely a weak cipher offers no security or worse, the illusion of security.

Cryptographic security has always been a moving target. Cryptographic security is influenced by advances in cryptanalysis (mathematical attacks against ciphers), advances in computing power and advances in our understanding of physics. Today we are entering into the next great shift in cryptography. To quote an official publication advising on the strength of different cryptographic primitives by the European Network of Excellence for Cryptology (ECRYPT), a European FP7 program that coordinates over 32 organisations including Ericsson AB (Sweden), France Telecom, Gemalto, IBM Research GmbH (Switzerland), MasterCard Europe sprl (Belgium), Vodafone Group Services Ltd (UK) and over 20 leading European universities:

Advances have often been done in steps, and beyond approximately 10 years into the future, the general feeling among ECRYPT partners is that recommendations made today should be assigned a rather small confidence level, perhaps in particular for asymmetric primitives. ... For instance, signing a message both with RSA and discrete logarithm technology does not offer any additional security if quantum computers become a reality.


The ECYPT report places an unprecedented umbrella disclaimer over all its recommendations for modern asymmetric and symmetric primitives by stating:

The recommendations in this report assumes (large) quantum computers do not become a reality in the near future.

Today a vast array of important data is secured by at-risk public key algorithms. This data has been and continues to be recorded. The longer the at-risk systems are used the more data we ultimately are providing to the attackers for eventual decryption and exploitation.  It can take more than a decade to migrate to a post quantum secure cryptographic ecosystem and so if a code breaking quantum computer is created 'by the wrong people' for example in five years, and no attempt has been made to begin a migration, then a complete rip and replace exercise becomes mandatory at incalculable cost and effort.

Every year that we delay a migration the larger and more complex the global community and its transactions become.  The cost to begin to migrate a global system in 5 years from now will be exponentially more expensive given the speed with which major populations such as China, India and South America and also under developed nations are entering the global economic village.

Click here to learn about the quantum computing advances that are leading to greater discomfort and uncertainty in the global cryptographic community.

Click here to learn more about the conservative security strategy Synaptic proposes to comprehensively manage these known risks on the event horizon.

 
This website uses cookies to manage authentication, navigation, and to provide you with a better and more personal service. By continuing to use this website, you are consenting to this use. Find out more here.

image Introduction to synaptic Laboratories global cyber safety and Security status 2012 Cyber Security Technical Problems, Drivers and Incentives Video Presentation by Brian Snow

"Synaptic Laboratories is a rare company; they tackle the hard problems! Their basic approach is directly relevant to Governments and/or any commercial companies that deploy products that must function correctly in high-risk environments. They differ from most competitors in that not only do they work hard to get the concepts right, they also work very hard to assure the implementation is correct and robust as well."

Related Items