May 5, 2021
Updates to the Linux kernel controversy: https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/854645/334317047842b6c3/
@pageinSec on Twitter
Dan Kaminsky obit: https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/25/dan_kaminsky_obituary/
Spencer Geitzen: http://brakeingsecurity.com/2018-024-pacu-a-tool-for-pentesting-aws-environments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210421130105.1226686-1-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org/
https://cse.umn.edu/cs/statement-cse-linux-kernel-research-april-21-2021
https://www.labbott.name/blog/2021/04/21/breakingtrust.html
Seems like a number of patches were added (~190) and each had to be reviewed to ensure badness
https://twitter.com/UMNComputerSci/status/1384948683821694976 response to researchers
Linux Kernel mailing list: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH%2FfM%2FTsbmcZzwnX@kroah.com/
https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/1384871385537908736
@sarahJamieLewis shows the change they submitted in their paper: https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/1384876050207940608
https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/1330671897822982144/photo/1
https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/1384880034146574341/photo/1
https://web.archive.org/web/20210421145121/https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/papers/crix.pdf (appears the researcher deleted this paper from their site.)
https://web.archive.org/web/20210422144500/https://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kjlu/papers/clarifications-hc.pdf
(researcher deleted this paper from
their site.)
“Throughout the study, we honestly did not
think this is human research, so we did not apply for an IRB
approval in the beginning. We apologize for the raised concerns.
This is an important lesson we learned---Do not trust ourselves on
determining human research; always refer to IRB whenever a study
might be involving any human subjects in any form. We would like to
thank the people who suggested us to talk to IRB after seeing the
paper abstract.”
https://github.com/QiushiWu/qiushiwu.github.io
NSF Grant application (thank you Page!) https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1931208&HistoricalAwards=false
NSF IRB requirements (from 2007): https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf07006/nsf07006.jsp
Might be more recent - Human Subjects | NSF - National Science Foundation
The researchers issued an apology today 25 April: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAK8KejpUVLxmqp026JY7x5GzHU2YJLPU8SzTZUNXU2OXC70ZQQ@mail.gmail.com/ *thanks to Zach Whittacker’s security mailing list..*
Thought provoking question for your show: is it realistically possible for an organization to build and scale a culture of code review that catches malicious insertions through (1) expert analysis; (2) adversarial mindset?
Co-author of : https://www.amazon.com/Building-Secure-Reliable-Systems-Implementing/dp/1492083127
Introduction of bugs (meaningful or otherwise) caused more work for devs.
Revert: https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/4/21/454
Quick overview of using deception in research from Duke’s IRB: Using Deception in Research | Institutional Review Board (duke.edu)
Is this better? Where’s the line on this?