Tag Archives: Uncategorized

Microsoft Is Spying on Users of Its AI Tools

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2024/02/microsoft-is-spying-on-users-of-its-ai-tools.html

Microsoft announced that it caught Chinese, Russian, and Iranian hackers using its AI tools—presumably coding tools—to improve their hacking abilities.

From their report:

In collaboration with OpenAI, we are sharing threat intelligence showing detected state affiliated adversaries—tracked as Forest Blizzard, Emerald Sleet, Crimson Sandstorm, Charcoal Typhoon, and Salmon Typhoon—using LLMs to augment cyberoperations.

The only way Microsoft or OpenAI would know this would be to spy on chatbot sessions. I’m sure the terms of service—if I bothered to read them—gives them that permission. And of course it’s no surprise that Microsoft and OpenAI (and, presumably, everyone else) are spying on our usage of AI, but this confirms it.

EU Court of Human Rights Rejects Encryption Backdoors

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2024/02/eu-court-of-human-rights-rejects-encryption-backdoors.html

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that breaking end-to-end encryption by adding backdoors violates human rights:

Seemingly most critically, the [Russian] government told the ECHR that any intrusion on private lives resulting from decrypting messages was “necessary” to combat terrorism in a democratic society. To back up this claim, the government pointed to a 2017 terrorist attack that was “coordinated from abroad through secret chats via Telegram.” The government claimed that a second terrorist attack that year was prevented after the government discovered it was being coordinated through Telegram chats.

However, privacy advocates backed up Telegram’s claims that the messaging services couldn’t technically build a backdoor for governments without impacting all its users. They also argued that the threat of mass surveillance could be enough to infringe on human rights. The European Information Society Institute (EISI) and Privacy International told the ECHR that even if governments never used required disclosures to mass surveil citizens, it could have a chilling effect on users’ speech or prompt service providers to issue radical software updates weakening encryption for all users.

In the end, the ECHR concluded that the Telegram user’s rights had been violated, partly due to privacy advocates and international reports that corroborated Telegram’s position that complying with the FSB’s disclosure order would force changes impacting all its users.

The “confidentiality of communications is an essential element of the right to respect for private life and correspondence,” the ECHR’s ruling said. Thus, requiring messages to be decrypted by law enforcement “cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society.”

On the Insecurity of Software Bloat

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2024/02/on-the-insecurity-of-software-bloat.html

Good essay on software bloat and the insecurities it causes.

The world ships too much code, most of it by third parties, sometimes unintended, most of it uninspected. Because of this, there is a huge attack surface full of mediocre code. Efforts are ongoing to improve the quality of code itself, but many exploits are due to logic fails, and less progress has been made scanning for those. Meanwhile, great strides could be made by paring down just how much code we expose to the world. This will increase time to market for products, but legislation is around the corner that should force vendors to take security more seriously.

Upcoming Speaking Engagements

Post Syndicated from B. Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2024/02/upcoming-speaking-engagements-34.html

This is a current list of where and when I am scheduled to speak:

  • I’m speaking at the Munich Security Conference (MSC) 2024 in Munich, Germany, on Friday, February 16, 2024.
  • I’m giving a keynote on “AI and Trust” at Generative AI, Free Speech, & Public Discourse. The symposium will be held at Columbia University in New York City and online, at 3 PM ET on Tuesday, February 20, 2024.
  • I’m speaking (remotely) on “AI, Trust and Democracy” at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, USA, at noon ET on February 20, 2024. The talk is part of the 2023-2024 Beyond the Web Speaker Series, presented by The Ostrom Workshop and Hamilton Lugar School.

The list is maintained on this page.

Improving the Cryptanalysis of Lattice-Based Public-Key Algorithms

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2024/02/improving-the-cryptanalysis-of-lattice-based-public-key-algorithms.html

The winner of the Best Paper Award at Crypto this year was a significant improvement to lattice-based cryptanalysis.

This is important, because a bunch of NIST’s post-quantum options base their security on lattice problems.

I worry about standardizing on post-quantum algorithms too quickly. We are still learning a lot about the security of these systems, and this paper is an example of that learning.

News story.

A Hacker’s Mind is Out in Paperback

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2024/02/a-hackers-mind-is-out-in-paperback.html

The paperback version of A Hacker’s Mind has just been published. It’s the same book, only a cheaper format.

But—and this is the real reason I am posting this—Amazon has significantly discounted the hardcover to $15 to get rid of its stock. This is much cheaper than I am selling it for, and cheaper even than the paperback. So if you’ve been waiting for a price drop, this is your chance.

Molly White Reviews Blockchain Book

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2024/02/molly-white-reviews-blockchain-book.html

Molly White—of “Web3 is Going Just Great” fame—reviews Chris Dixon’s blockchain solutions book: Read Write Own:

In fact, throughout the entire book, Dixon fails to identify a single blockchain project that has successfully provided a non-speculative service at any kind of scale. The closest he ever comes is when he speaks of how “for decades, technologists have dreamed of building a grassroots internet access provider”. He describes one project that “got further than anyone else”: Helium. He’s right, as long as you ignore the fact that Helium was providing LoRaWAN, not Internet, that by the time he was writing his book Helium hotspots had long since passed the phase where they might generate even enough tokens for their operators to merely break even, and that the network was pulling in somewhere around $1,150 in usage fees a month despite the company being valued at $1.2 billion. Oh, and that the company had widely lied to the public about its supposed big-name clients, and that its executives have been accused of hoarding the project’s token to enrich themselves. But hey, a16z sunk millions into Helium (a fact Dixon never mentions), so might as well try to drum up some new interest!

No, Toothbrushes Were Not Used in a Massive DDoS Attack

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2024/02/no-toothbrushes-were-not-used-in-a-massive-ddos-attack.html

The widely reported story last week that 1.5 million smart toothbrushes were hacked and used in a DDoS attack is false.

Near as I can tell, a German reporter talking to someone at Fortinet got it wrong, and then everyone else ran with it without reading the German text. It was a hypothetical, which Fortinet eventually confirmed.

Or maybe it was a stock-price hack.

On Software Liabilities

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2024/02/on-software-liabilities.html

Over on Lawfare, Jim Dempsey published a really interesting proposal for software liability: “Standard for Software Liability: Focus on the Product for Liability, Focus on the Process for Safe Harbor.”

Section 1 of this paper sets the stage by briefly describing the problem to be solved. Section 2 canvasses the different fields of law (warranty, negligence, products liability, and certification) that could provide a starting point for what would have to be legislative action establishing a system of software liability. The conclusion is that all of these fields would face the same question: How buggy is too buggy? Section 3 explains why existing software development frameworks do not provide a sufficiently definitive basis for legal liability. They focus on process, while a liability regime should begin with a focus on the product—­that is, on outcomes. Expanding on the idea of building codes for building code, Section 4 shows some examples of product-focused standards from other fields. Section 5 notes that already there have been definitive expressions of software defects that can be drawn together to form the minimum legal standard of security. It specifically calls out the list of common software weaknesses tracked by the MITRE Corporation under a government contract. Section 6 considers how to define flaws above the minimum floor and how to limit that liability with a safe harbor.

Full paper here.

Dempsey basically creates three buckets of software vulnerabilities: easy stuff that the vendor should have found and fixed, hard-to-find stuff that the vendor couldn’t be reasonably expected to find, and the stuff in the middle. He draws from other fields—consumer products, building codes, automobile design—to show that courts can deal with the stuff in the middle.

I have long been a fan of software liability as a policy mechanism for improving cybersecurity. And, yes, software is complicated, but we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

In 2003, I wrote:

Clearly this isn’t all or nothing. There are many parties involved in a typical software attack. There’s the company who sold the software with the vulnerability in the first place. There’s the person who wrote the attack tool. There’s the attacker himself, who used the tool to break into a network. There’s the owner of the network, who was entrusted with defending that network. One hundred percent of the liability shouldn’t fall on the shoulders of the software vendor, just as one hundred percent shouldn’t fall on the attacker or the network owner. But today one hundred percent of the cost falls on the network owner, and that just has to stop.

Courts can adjudicate these complex liability issues, and have figured this thing out in other areas. Automobile accidents involve multiple drivers, multiple cars, road design, weather conditions, and so on. Accidental restaurant poisonings involve suppliers, cooks, refrigeration, sanitary conditions, and so on. We don’t let the fact that no restaurant can possibly fix all of the food-safety vulnerabilities lead us to the conclusion that restaurants shouldn’t be responsible for any food-safety vulnerabilities, yet I hear that line of reasoning regarding software vulnerabilities all of the time.

Teaching LLMs to Be Deceptive

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2024/02/teaching-llms-to-be-deceptive.html

Interesting research: “Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Training“:

Abstract: Humans are capable of strategically deceptive behavior: behaving helpfully in most situations, but then behaving very differently in order to pursue alternative objectives when given the opportunity. If an AI system learned such a deceptive strategy, could we detect it and remove it using current state-of-the-art safety training techniques? To study this question, we construct proof-of-concept examples of deceptive behavior in large language models (LLMs). For example, we train models that write secure code when the prompt states that the year is 2023, but insert exploitable code when the stated year is 2024. We find that such backdoor behavior can be made persistent, so that it is not removed by standard safety training techniques, including supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, and adversarial training (eliciting unsafe behavior and then training to remove it). The backdoor behavior is most persistent in the largest models and in models trained to produce chain-of-thought reasoning about deceiving the training process, with the persistence remaining even when the chain-of-thought is distilled away. Furthermore, rather than removing backdoors, we find that adversarial training can teach models to better recognize their backdoor triggers, effectively hiding the unsafe behavior. Our results suggest that, once a model exhibits deceptive behavior, standard techniques could fail to remove such deception and create a false impression of safety.

Especially note one of the sentences from the abstract: “For example, we train models that write secure code when the prompt states that the year is 2023, but insert exploitable code when the stated year is 2024.”

And this deceptive behavior is hard to detect and remove.

Using one-click unsubscribe with Amazon SES

Post Syndicated from Pavlos Ioannou Katidis original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/messaging-and-targeting/using-one-click-unsubscribe-with-amazon-ses/

Gmail and Yahoo have announced new requirements for bulk senders that take effect in February 2024. The requirements aim to reduce delivery of malicious or unwanted email to the users of these mailbox providers. We recommend that Amazon SES senders who operate outside of the SES sandbox assume these bulk sender requirements apply to them.

Gmail’s FAQ and Yahoo’s FAQ both clarify that the one-click unsubscribe requirement will not be enforced until June 2024 as long as the bulk sender has a functional unsubscribe link clearly visible in the footer of each message.

This blog presents a reference architecture for Amazon SES senders who independently manage email subscriptions outside of Amazon SES. Alternatively, Amazon SES senders can employ our native subscription management capability as part of their compliance with the Gmail and Yahoo bulk sender requirements.  Note that the scope of Gmail and Yahoo’s bulk sender requirements extends beyond enabling an easy unsubscribe method.  Read our blogs on email authentication and managing spam complaints for more information that will help you successfully operate as a bulk sender with Amazon SES.

Email headers contain metadata that describes the content, sender, relay path, destination, and other elements of an email. The bulk sender easy subscription requirement references use of the List-Unsubscribe email header (RFC2369) and List-Unsubscribe-Post email header (RFC8058). The order of the headers should be first the List-Unsubscribe followed by the List-Unsubscribe-Post.

  • List-Unsubscribe: <https://nutrition.co/?address=x&topic=x>, <mailto:unsubscribe@ nutrition.co?subject=TopicUnsubscribe>
  • List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe=One-Click

These headers enable email clients and inbox providers to display an unsubscribe link at the top of the email if they support it. This could take the form of a menu item, push button, or another user interface element to simplify the user experience – see the Gmail client screenshot below.

gmail-inbox

Unsubscribing can take place from the email footer by clicking on a hyperlink, and/or from an unsubscribe link that mailbox providers render. These different unsubscribe methods can be custom-built or provided by Amazon SES.

  • Unsubscribe method footer: An unsubscribe link in the email footer, which redirects recipients to a landing page, where they can unsubscribe or edit their communication preferences.
  • Unsubscribe method header: A hyperlink that is rendered by the mailbox provider based on the List-Unsubscribe email header. Recipients can use this link to unsubscribe from that sender.
  • Amazon SES unsubscribe method: The Amazon SES subscription management feature, which provides subscription management via the List-Unsubscribe header and ListManagementOptions footer links.
  • Custom-built unsubscribe method: A custom-built unsubscribe link in the email footer and manually added List-Unsubscribe header.

The table below lists all unsubscribe method combinations, indicating if they are custom-built or provided by Amazon SES and whether they comply with the easy unsubscription requirement from Google and Yahoo.

Unsubscribe method Amazon SES or custom-built Complies with Gmail & Yahoo
Footer & Header Amazon SES Yes
Footer & Header Custom Yes
Header Custom Yes
Footer Custom Partial

Failing to comply with the easy unsubscription requirement mailbox providers such as Gmail and Yahoo will start rejecting non-compliant emails.

Note: Gmail might not show the easy unsubscribe link. This might happen because Gmail shows the link if they trust that the sender is honoring the unsubscribe requests and not attempting to track recipients. We recommend senders continue to provide the unsubscribe link in an easy to find location of the body of the message.

Implementing the unsubscribe header has many benefits for you:

  • Reduces spam complaint rate: Email recipients will click on “Report as SPAM” if they find it difficult to unsubscribe. A high spam complaint rate makes mailbox providers more likely to block your sending. Making unsubscribe easier can improve deliverability.
  • It can increase the trust in your brand: The fact that it is easy for recipients to unsubscribe could be seen as evidence that the content is valuable enough that the company believes people will want to stay subscribed.
  • Reduces issues with false suppression: Senders that rely solely on account-level suppression lists could suppress all email sending to an address even though the recipient may wish to receive other types of email from the account. Offering an easy unsubscribe method allows recipients to indicate which type of email they would like to receive and not receive based on topic or category.

There are two types of list-unsubscribe options:

  • Mailto: unsubscribe requests come in the form of an email sent from the mailbox provider to the email address specified on the List-Unsubscribe header. The process of managing unsubscribe emails can be automated with SES inbound.
  • URL unsubscribe link: redirects recipients to an unsubscribe landing page, from where they can edit further their communication preferences. Adding the List-Unsubscribe-Post email header, senders can provide recipients with one-click unsubscribe experience, which doesn’t require them to visit a landing page.

The mailto option is supported by many mailbox providers and it’s recommended to include it in addition to the URL in the List-Unsubscribe email header and the unsubscribe link in the email footer.

One-click unsubscribe for Amazon SES

This section guides you on how to use Amazon SES V2 SendEmail API operation for email sending and describes how to use other AWS services to effectively manage each kind of unsubscribe request.

The architecture covers both easy unsubscribe options, mailto and URL. This is because not all mailbox providers support the List-Unsubscribe-Post header. The architecture, assumes that Amazon SES has email receiving enabled for the unsubscribe email address used in the List-Unsubscribe mailto header and your recipient preferences can be updated via an API.

The reference architecture diagram illustrates the AWS services used and how they interact with each other to process a recipient’s unsubscribe request:

  • AWS KMS: is a managed service that makes it easy for you to create and control the cryptographic keys that are used to protect your data.
  • Amazon API Gateway: Is a fully managed service that makes it easy for developers to create, publish, maintain, monitor, and secure APIs at any scale.
  • AWS Lambda: Compute service that runs your code in response to events and automatically manages the compute resources.

The first part of the process is described in detail below:

email-sending-flow

  1. Compliant emails should include the List-Unsubscribe and List-Unsubscribe-Post headers. This can be achieved with the Amazon SES SendEmail V2 API operation. Using MIME standard, build a MIME message containing the headers, subject and body. The MIME message will be in the SES V2 SendEmail API request body under Content => Raw field – see code example below. Amazon SES is planning to extend the SendEmail V2 API to natively support unsubscribe email headers. The unsubscribe email address and URL contain the recipient’s email address and email subject parameters, which are encrypted using AWS Key Management Service. These parameters are used later on to identify and unsubscribe the recipient from a specific topic.
    1. The email domain used to send emails needs to be first verified successfully – see here how to create and verify identities in SES.
    2. Gmail uses the Friendly From value to populate the unsubscribe pop-up message. Friendly From is the part of the From header that is displayed to the recipient (not the email address) “To stop getting messages like this one, go to the <Friendly From> website to unsubscribe. Learn more.”. If you see Unknown or experience other issues, ensure that the From header of your messages conforms to RFC5322.
      
      	msg = MIMEMultipart()
      	msg.add_header('List-Unsubscribe','<https://nutrition.co/?address=x&topic=x>, <mailto: [email protected]?subject=TopicUnsubscribe>')
      	msg.add_header('List-Unsubscribe-Post','List-Unsubscribe=One-Click')
      	msg.attach(MIMEText("Welcome to Nutrition.co", 'plain')) 
      	msg['Subject'] = "Welcome to Nutrition.co"
      
      	response = sesv2.send_email(
      	  FromEmailAddress='Nutrition.co <[email protected]>',
      	  Destination={'ToAddresses': ['[email protected]']},
      	  Content={
      		  'Raw': {
      			  'Data': msg.as_string()
      		  },
      	  },
      	  ConfigurationSetName='ConfigSet'
      	)
    3. Amazon Pinpoint senders need to use Custom channel instead of Amazon Pinpoint’s native email channel. Custom channel gives the flexibility to invoke an AWS Lambda function and execute custom code such as calling Amazon Pinpoint’s send_messages API operation. Using Amazon Pinpoint’s send_messages API operation you can specify an endpoint as the recipient and add the email content and the List-Unsubscribe and List-Unsubscribe-Post headers in a MIME message under the RawEmail => Data field – see below a code example:
      	msg = MIMEMultipart()
      	msg.add_header('List-Unsubscribe','<https://nutrition.co/?address=x&topic=x>, <mailto: [email protected]?subject=TopicUnsubscribe>')
      	msg.add_header('List-Unsubscribe-Post','List-Unsubscribe=One-Click')
      	msg.attach(MIMEText("Welcome to Nutrition.co", 'plain')) 
      	msg['Subject'] = "Welcome to Nutrition.co"
      
      	endpoint_id = "endpoint_id"
      	application_id = "application_id"
      
      	response = pinpoint.send_messages(
      	ApplicationId = application_id,
      	MessageRequest = {
      		'Endpoints': {
      			endpoint_id: {}
      		},
      		'MessageConfiguration': {
      		'EmailMessage': {
      			'FromAddress': 'Nutrition.co <[email protected]>',
      			'RawEmail': {
      				'Data': msg.as_string()
      			}
      		}
      	  }
      	})
  2. The email recipients whose mailbox provider supports List-Unsubscribe, such as Gmail & Yahoo, will see an Unsubscribe hyperlink next to the sender details as shown in the screenshot below.

gmail-inbox

So far, we have talked about how to craft and employ the headers for presenting mail recipients with an easy unsubscribe option.  In the following sections, we’ll walk through the two options for sending the unsubscribe request back to the sender.

The first option uses only the List-Unsubscribe header and only specifies the mailto email address to receive unsubscribe requests. The second option uses both the List-Unsubscribe and the List-Unsubscribe-Post headers. The unsubscribe requests are made with a POST API call to an endpoint provided in the List-Unsubscribe header.

When the recipient clicks on the Unsubscribe call to action next to the sender’s information, a pop-up appears asking for final confirmation using either option – see screenshot below.

unsubscribe-pop-up

Scenario – List-Unsubscribe

list-unsubscribe-scenario

  1. The recipient clicks on the Unsubscribe call to action next to the sender’s details and again on Unsubscribe on the pop-up.
  2. The mailbox provider sends an email to the email address specified in the header List-Unsubscribe => mailto. Amazon SES can be configured to receive emails for the unsubscribe email address, the Amazon SES receipt rule Invoke Lambda function action.
  3. An AWS Lambda function gets invoked. The payload contains all email headers and omits the email body as well as any attachments. The AWS Lambda function uses the AWS KMS key to decrypt the email subject, which contains the topic the recipient wants to unsubscribe from. Depending where your recipient preferences are stored, you can expand the AWS Lambda function code to update the recipients’ communication preferences.

Scenario – List-Unsubscribe & List-Unsubscribe-Post

list-unsubscribe-post-scenario

  1. The recipient clicks on the Unsubscribe call to action next to the sender’s details and again on Unsubscribe on the pop-up.
  2. The mailbox provider performs a POST API call to the URL provided in the List-Unsubscribe header. In this architecture, the URL is an Amazon API Gateway endpoint with an AWS Lambda integration.
  3. An AWS Lambda function gets invoked, which uses the AWS KMS key to decrypt the email address and topic stored in the URL parameters. Depending where your recipient preferences are stored, you can expand the AWS Lambda function code to update the recipients’ communication preferences. The code in the AWS Lambda function serves two purposes 1) processing a POST request to unsubscribe the recipient and 2) processing a GET request to redirect the recipient to page on your website (Gmail specific). Use a micro web framework like Flask to process unsubscribe requests and accordingly redirect recipients to a page of your website.

In Gmail, to view the Go to website call to action, recipients need to first Unsubscribe and then and then click on Unsubscribe again – see diagram below.

unsubscribe-flow-gmail

Conclusion

In this blog you learned how to configure Amazon SES to manage One-click unsubscribe requests when not using SES’s subscription management feature. The reference architecture shows how to structure and add the List-Unsubscribe and List-Unsubscribe-Post email headers when sending emails as well as how to manage unsubscribe requests generated from these email headers respectively. In addition to the List-Unsubscribe and List-Unsubscribe-Post email headers, we recommend (continue) using the footer unsubscribe link.

Easy unsubscribe benefits both the sender and recipient. It is one of the Gmail and Yahoo’s bulk sender requirements announced back in October 2023. The one-click unsubscribe requirement will not be enforced until June 2024 as long as the bulk sender has a functional unsubscribe link clearly visible in the footer of each message.

Generative AI Meets AWS Security

Post Syndicated from Trevor Morse original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/devops/generative-ai-meets-aws-security/

A Case Study Presented by CodeWhisperer Customizations

Amazon CodeWhisperer is an AI-powered coding assistant that is trained on a wide variety of data, including Amazon and open-source code. With the launch of CodeWhisperer Customizations, customers can create a customization resource. The customization is produced by augmenting CodeWhisperer using a customer’s private code repositories. This enables organization-specific code recommendations tailored to the customer’s own internal APIs, libraries, and frameworks.

When we started designing CodeWhisperer Customizations, we considered what our guiding principles, our tenets, should be. Customer trust was at the top of the list, but that posed new questions. How could we best earn our customer’s trust with a feature that fundamentally relies on a customer’s sensitive information? How could we properly secure this data so that customers could safely leverage the advanced capabilities we launched for them?

When considering these questions, we analyzed several design principles. It was important to ensure that a customer’s data is never combined, or used alongside, another customer’s. In other words, we needed to store each customer’s data in isolation. Additionally, we also wanted to restrict data processing to single-tenant compute. By this, we mean that any access of the data itself should be done on short-lived and non-shared compute, whenever possible. Another principle we considered was how to prevent unauthorized access of customer data. Across AWS, we build our systems to not only ensure that no customer data is intermingled during normal service operation, but also to mitigate any risk of unauthorized users gaining unintended access to customer data.

These design principles pointed to a set of security controls available via native AWS technologies. We needed to provide data and compute isolation as well as mitigate confused deputy risks at each step of the process. In this blog post, we will consider how each of these security considerations is addressed, utilizing AWS best practices. We will first consider the flow of data through the admin’s management of customization resources. Next, we will outline data interactions when developers send runtime requests to a given customization from their integrated development environment (IDE).

In reading this blog post, you will learn how we developed CodeWhisperer Customizations with security at the forefront. We also hope that you are inspired to leverage some of the same AWS technologies in your own applications.

Diagram

This diagram depicts the flow of customer data through the CodeWhisperer service when managing, and using, a customization.
The diagram above depicts the flow of data during an administrator’s management of a customization as well as during a developer’s usage of the customization from their IDE.

  1. API Layer: Authenticates and authorizes each request. Passes data references to the downstream dependencies.
  2. Data Ingestion Layer: Ingests and processes customer data into the format required for CodeWhisperer.
  3. Customization Layer: Produces a customization resource based on the internal representation of the customer data. Shares the customization artifacts for inference.
  4. Model Inference Layer: Provides customer-specific recommendations based on the customization.
  5. AWS IAM Identity Center: Provides user-level authentication.
  6. Amazon Verified Permissions: Provides customization-level authorization.

Customization Management

Organization admins are responsible for managing their customizations. To enable CodeWhisperer to produce these resources, the admin provides access to their private code repositories. CodeWhisperer uses AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) encryption for all customization data, and admins can optionally configure their own profile-level encryption keys. Based on the role assumed by the admin in the AWS console, CodeWhisperer accesses and ingests the referenced code data on the user’s behalf.

Data Isolation

During customization management, data storage occurs in two forms:

  1. Longer-term/persistent (e.g. service-owned Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) buckets)
  2. Short-term/transient (e.g. ephemeral disks on service-managed, serverless compute)

When persisting data in any form, the best security control to apply is encryption. By encrypting the data, only entities with access to the encryption key will be able to see, or use, the data. For example, when encrypted data is stored in Amazon S3, users with access to the bucket can see that the data exists, but will be unable to view the content, unless they also have access to the encryption key.

Within CodeWhisperer, long-term customer data storage in Amazon S3 is cryptographically isolated using KMS keys with customer-level encryption context metadata. The encryption context provides a further safeguard which prevents unauthorized users from accessing the content even if they gain access to the key. It also prevents unintentional, cross-customer data access as the context value is tied to a particular customer’s identity. Having access to the KMS key without this context is like having the physical invitation to a private meeting without knowing the spoken passphrase for the event.

CodeWhisperer gives customers the option to configure their own KMS keys for AWS to use when encrypting their data. Additionally, we restrict programmatic access (i.e. service usage) to Amazon S3 data via scoped-down IAM roles assigned to specific internal components. By doing this, AWS ensures that the KMS grants created for each key are strictly limited to the services that need access to the data for service operation.

When data needs to be persisted for short-term processing, we also encrypt it. CodeWhisperer leverages client-side encryption with service-owned keys for such ephemeral disks. Data is only stored on the disk while the process is executing, and any on-disk data storage is explicitly deleted, alarming on any failures, before the process is terminated. To ensure that there is no cross-over of customer data, each instance of the serverless compute is spun up for a specific operation on a specific resource. No two customer resources are processed by the same workflow or serverless function execution.

Compute Isolation

When creating or activating a customization, customer data is handled in a series of serverless environments. Most of this processing is facilitated through AWS Step Functions workflows – comprised of AWS Lambda, AWS Batch (on AWS Fargate), and nested Step Functions tasks. Each of these serverless tasks are instantiated for a given job in the system. In other words, the compute will not be shared, or reused, between two operations.

The general principle that can be observed here is the reuse of existing AWS services. By leveraging these various serverless options, we did not have to spend undifferentiated development effort on securing the compute usage. Instead, we inherited the security controls baked into these services and focused our energy on enabling the unique capabilities of customizing CodeWhisperer.

Confused Deputy Mitigations

When building a multi-tenant service, it is important to be mindful not only of how data is accessed in the expected cases, but also how it might be accessed in accidental as well as malicious scenarios. This is where the concept of confused deputy mitigations comes into picture.

To prevent cross-customer data access during data ingestion, we have two mitigations in place:

  1. We explicitly check that the AWS credentials received in the request correspond to the account that owns the data reference (i.e. AWS CodeStar Connections ARN).
  2. We utilize a secure token, based on the administrator’s role, to gain permissions to download the data from the customer-provided reference.

Once the data is inside the CodeWhisperer service boundaries though, we are not done. Since CodeWhisperer is built on top of a microservice-based architecture, we also need to ensure that only the expected internal components are able to interact with their respective consumers and dependencies. To prevent unauthorized users from invoking these internal services that handle the customer data, we utilize account-based allowlists. Each internal service is restricted to a set of CodeWhisperer-owned service accounts that have a need to invoke the service’s APIs. No external actors are aware of these internal accounts.

As further protection for the data inside these services, we utilize customer-managed key encryption for all Amazon S3 data. When a customer does not explicitly provide their own key, we utilize a CodeWhisperer-owned KMS key for the same encryption.

KMS key usage requires a grant. These grants provide a given entity the ability to use the key to read, or write, data. To mitigate the risk of improper usage of these grants, we installed certain controls. To limit the number of entities with top-level grant permissions, all grants are managed by a single microservice. To restrict the usage of the grants to the expected CodeWhisperer workflows, the grants are created for the minimum lifecycle. They are immediately retired once the CodeWhisperer operation is complete.

Customization Usage

After an admin creates, activates, and grants access to a customization resource, a developer can select the customization within their IDE. Upon invocation, CodeWhisperer captures the user’s IDE code context and sends it to CodeWhisperer. The request also includes their authentication token and a reference to their target customization resource. Given successful authentication and authorization, CodeWhisperer responds with the customized recommendation(s).

Data Isolation

There is no persistent data storage used during invocations of a customization. These invocations are stateless, meaning that any data passed within the request is not persisted beyond the life of the request itself. To mitigate any data risks within the lifetime of the request, we authenticate and authorize users via IAM Identity Center.

Since a customization is tied to proprietary company data and its recommendations can reproduce such data, it is crucial to maintain tight authorization around the resource access. CodeWhisperer authorizes individual users against the customization resource via Amazon Verified Permissions policies. These policies are configured by a customer admin in the AWS Console when they assign users and groups to a given customization. (Note: CodeWhisperer manages these Verified Permissions policies on behalf of our customers, which is why admins will not see the policies themselves listed in the console directly.) The service internally resolves the policy to the corresponding service-owned resources constituting the customization.

Compute Isolation

The primary compute for CodeWhisperer invocations is an instance hosting the generative model. Generative models run multi-tenanted on a physical host, i.e. each model runs on a dedicated compute resource within a host that has multiple such resources. By tying each request to a particular compute resource, inference calls cannot interact or communicate with any other ongoing inference.

All other runtime processing is executed in independent threads on Amazon Elastic Container Service (Amazon ECS) container instances with Fargate technology. No computation on user data spans across more than one of these threads within a given CodeWhisperer service.

Confused Deputy Mitigations

As we discussed for customization management, confused deputy mitigations are applied to reduce the risk of accidental and malicious access to customer data by unauthorized entities. To address this when a customization is used, we restrict customers, via Verified Permissions permissions, to accessing only the internal resources tied to their selected customization. We further protect against confused deputy risks by configuring a session policy for each inference request. This session policy scopes down the permission to a specific resource name, which is internally managed and not exposed publicly.

Conclusion

In the age of generative AI, data is a chief differentiator for the efficacy of end applications. CodeWhisperer’s foundational model has been trained on a wide array of generic data. This enables CodeWhisperer to boost developer productivity from the baseline and utilize open-source packages that are commonly included throughout software development. To further improve developer productivity, customers can leverage CodeWhisperer’s customization capability to ingest their private data and securely provide tailored recommendations to their developers.

CodeWhisperer Customizations was built with security and customer trust at the forefront. We have the following security invariants baked in from day one:

  • All asynchronous customer data workloads are fully data isolated.
  • All customer data is KMS key encrypted at rest, and when possible, encrypted with a customer KMS key.
  • All customer data access is gated by authorization derived from authenticated contexts obtained from trusted authorities (IAM, Identity Center).
  • All customer data in customization management workflows is stored in cryptographically enforced isolation.

We hope you are as excited as us about this capability with generative AI! Give CodeWhisperer Customizations a try today: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/codewhisperer/latest/userguide/customizations.html

Friday Squid Blogging: Illex Squid in Argentina Waters

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2024/02/friday-squid-blogging-illex-squid-in-argentina-waters.html

Argentina is reporting that there is a good population of illex squid in its waters ready for fishing, and is working to ensure that Chinese fishing boats don’t take it all.

As usual, you can also use this squid post to talk about the security stories in the news that I haven’t covered.

Read my blog posting guidelines here.

Import entire applications into AWS CloudFormation

Post Syndicated from Dan Blanco original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/devops/import-entire-applications-into-aws-cloudformation/

AWS Infrastructure as Code (IaC) enables customers to manage, model, and provision infrastructure at scale. You can declare your infrastructure as code in YAML or JSON by using AWS CloudFormation, in a general purpose programming language using the AWS Cloud Development Kit (CDK), or visually using Application Composer. IaC configurations can then be audited and version controlled in a version control system of your choice. Finally, deploying AWS IaC enables deployment previews using change sets, automated rollbacks, proactive enforcement of resource compliance using hooks, and more. Millions of customers enjoy the safety and reliability of AWS IaC products.

Not every resource starts in IaC, however. Customers create non-IaC resources for various reasons: they didn’t know about IaC, or they prefer to work in the CLI or management console. In 2019, we introduced the ability to import existing resources into CloudFormation. While this feature proved integral for bringing resources into IaC on an individual basis, the process of manually creating templates to match those resources wasn’t ideal. Customers were required to look up documentation on resources and painstakingly copy values manually. Customers also told us they traditionally engaged with applications (that is, groupings of related resources), so dealing with individual resources didn’t match that experience. We set out to create a more holistic flow for managing resources and their relations.

Recently, we announced the IaC generator and CDK Migrate, an end-to-end experience that enables customers to create an IaC configuration based off a resource as well as its relationships. This works by scanning an AWS account and using the CloudFormation resource type schema to find relationships between resources. Once this configuration is created, you can use it to either import those resources into an existing stack, or create a brand new stack from scratch. It’s now possible to bring entire applications into a managed CloudFormation stack without having to recreate any resources!

In this post, I’ll explore a common use case we’ve seen and expect the IaC generator to solve: an existing network architecture, created outside of any IaC tool, needs to be managed by CloudFormation.

IaC generator in Action

Consider the following scenario:

As a new hire to an organization that’s just starting its cloud adoption journey, you’ve been tasked with continuing the development of the team’s shared Amazon Virtual Private Cloud (VPC) resources. These are actively in use by the development teams. As you dig around, you find out that these resources were created without any form of IaC. There’s no documentation, and the person who set it up is no longer with the team. Confounding the problem, you have multiple VPCs and their related resources, such subnets, route tables, and internet gateways.

You understand the benefits of IaC – repeatability, reliability, auditability, and safety. Bringing these resources under CloudFormation management will extend these benefits to your existing resources. You’ve imported resources into CloudFormation before, so you set about the task of finding all related resources manually to create a template. You quickly discover, however, that this won’t be a simple task. VPCs don’t store relations to items; instead, relations are reversed – items know which VPC they belong to, but VPCs don’t know which items belong to them. In order to find all the resources that are related to a VPC, you’ll have to manually go through all the VPC-related resources and scan to see which vpc-id they belong to. You’ll have to be diligent, as it’s very easy to miss a resource because you weren’t aware that it existed or it may even be different class of resource altogether! For example, some resources may use an elastic network interface (ENI) to attach to the VPC, like an Amazon Relational Database Service instance.

You, however, recently learned about the IaC generator. The generator works by running a scan of your account and creating an up-to-date inventory of resources. CloudFormation will then leverage the resource type schema to find relationships between resources. For example, it can determine that a subnet has a relationship to a VPC via a vpc-id property. Once these relationships have been determined, you can then select the top-level resources you want to generate a template for. Finally, you’ll be able to leverage the wizard to create a stack from this existing template.

You can navigate to the IaC generator page in the Amazon Management Console and start a scan on your account. Scans last for 30 days, and you can run three scans per day in an account.

Scan account button and status

Once the scan completes, you create a template by selecting the Create Template button. After selecting Start from a new template, you fill out the relevant details about the stack, including the Template name and any stack policies. In this case, you leave it as Retain.

Create template section with "Start from a new template" selected

On the next page, you’ll see all the scanned resources. You can add filters to the resource such as tags to view a subset of scanned resources. This example will only use a Resource type prefix filter. More information on filters can be found here. Once you find the VPC, you can select it from the list.

A VPC selected in the scanned resources list]

On the next page, you’ll see the list of resources that CloudFormation has determined to have a link to this VPC. You see this includes a myriad of networking related resource. You keep these all selected to create a template from them.

A list of related resources, all selected

At this point, you select Create template and CloudFormation will generate a template from the existing resources. Since you don’t have an existing stack to import these resource into, you must create a new stack. You now select this template and then select the Import to stack button.

The template detail page with an import to stack button

After entering the Stack name, you can then enter any Parameters your template needs.

The specify stack details page, with a stack name of "networking" entered

CloudFormation will create a change set for your new stack. Change sets allow you to see the changes CloudFormation will apply to a stack. In this example, all of the resources will have the Import status. You see the resources CloudFormation found, and once you’re satisfied, you create the stack.

A change set indicating the previously found resources will be created

At this point, the create stack operation will proceed as normal, going through each resource and importing it into the stack. You can report back to your team that you have successfully imported your entire networking stack! As next steps, you should source this template in a version control system. We recently announced a new feature to keep CloudFormation templates synced with popular version control systems. Finally, make sure to make any changes through CloudFormation to avoid a configuration drift between the stated configuration and the existing configuration.

This example was primarily CloudFormation-based, but CDK customers can use CDK Migrate to import this configuration into a CDK application.

Available Now

The IaC generator is now available in all regions where CloudFormation is supported. You can access the IaC generator using the console, CLI, and SDK.

Conclusion

In this post, we explored the new IaC generator feature of CloudFormation. We walked through a scenario of needing to manage previously existing resources and using the IaC generator’s provided wizard flow to generate a CloudFormation template. We then used that template and created a stack to manage these resources. These resources will now enjoy the safety and repeatability that IaC provides. Though this is just one example, we foresee other use cases for this feature, such as enabling a console-first development experience. We’re really excited to hear your thoughts about the feature. Please let us know how you feel!

About the author

Dan Blanco

Dan is a senior AWS Developer Advocate based in Atlanta for the AWS IaC team. When he’s not advocating for IaC tools, you can either find him in the kitchen whipping up something delicious or flying in the Georgia sky. Find him on twitter (@TheDanBlanco) or in the AWS CloudFormation Discord.