I am always losing or damaging my mobile phone. I have two small children, so my damage statistics would be familiar to parents and shocking to those without kids. Over the last 5 years I've lost my phone, cracked the screen several times, had it dunked in water (don't ask me where), and several other mishaps. The costs definitely started to add up over time. When it was time to re-up my contract with my mobile phone provider, Verizon, I decided to consider an upgraded type of insurance called Total Mobile Protection. The insurance covers events such as lost/stolen devices, cracked screens, and out-of-warranty problems.Read More
In February 2018, I wrote a chapter in a Risk.net book, titled Fintech: Growth and Deregulation. The book is edited by Jack Freund, who most of you will recognize as the co-author of Measuring and Managing Information Risk.
I happy to announce that I’m now able to re-post my book chapter, titled “Cyber-risk Quantification of Financial Technology” here. If you are interested in blockchain tech, Fintech, risk quantification and emerging risks, you may find it interesting. It’s also a primer to Factor Analysis of Information Risk (FAIR), one of many risk quantification models. It’s not the only one I use, but the one I use most frequently.Read More
Our minds are instruments of measurement. We may not be as accurate as a tape measure, which is not as accurate as a laser distance measurer, which is not as accurate as an interferometer. All instruments of measurement of have error bars. When determining the level of precision needed in a measurement, we always need to consider the cost of obtaining new information, if it’s relevant and if we need additional uncertainty reduction to make a decision.Read More
What do paying cyber extortionists and dumping toxic sludge into the Chicago River have in common? A lot, actually! Decipher recently interviewed me on some of the research I’ve published and talks I’ve given on ransomware, incentives, negative externalities and how we, the defenders, can influence decisions.Read More
Improving defender decision making when responding to ransomware infections and other forms of cyber extortion has been a research topic of mine for several years now. It was sparked by the fairly common advice I heard, and continue to hear, from experts, law enforcement and security vendors: don't ever pay the ransom.Read More
The very first security related item I authored was a piece for "2600: The Hacker Quarterly." I was a very young, angry Microsoft Exchange 5.5 sysadmin (who wouldn't be angry working on that tech all day) and put together an article on all the ways Exchange can be misconfigured to allow an attacker to exploit the system. It showed up in the Winter 1999 issue. When I gave it a re-read nearly 20 years later, I was surprisingly proud of it.Read More
If you can't prove what you want to prove, demonstrate something else and pretend that they are the same thing. In the daze that follows the collision of statistics with the human mind, hardly anybody will notice the difference.
-Darrell Huff, “How to Lie with Statistics”
Out of all the ways to lie with statistics and manipulate peoples’ perceptions, the semi-attached figure may be the most prevalent. It’s hard to spot unless you are really looking for it because it’s sneaky, subtle and takes a fair bit of concentrative analysis to identify. A semi-attached figure occurs when proof is given for a claim, but when the reader looks at it closely, the proof and the claim are not related. It’s called “semi-attached” because the proof seemsto support a claim, but upon inspection, it doesn't. Marketing and advertising professionals are absolute masters of the semi-attached figure.
The semi-attached figure is a hard concept to understand without tangible examples, so let’s start out with a few easy marketing claims outside of the security field.
Example 1: Now, with Retsyn!
This example was touched on by David Lavenda in a post at FastCompany. It’s such a familiar advertising campaign that went on for decades, that most of us can recite parts of it from memory. It’s also one of the best examples of the semi-attached figure.
In Certs commercials, the narrator says “Want fresh, clean breath? Get the only mint with Retsyn,” or a similar slogan. Most viewers will hear this and unconsciously accept the “…with Retsyn” phrase as proof that Certs gives someone fresh, clean breath. It soundsgood – it actually sounds great! It sounds like it will make stinky breath less stinky. Here’s where the claim and the proof are semi-attached: you the audience, have bad breath and need evidence as to why you should buy Certs. Here’s the proof – Certs has Retsyn.
What exactly is Retsyn? According to an article by Slate, it’s “…natural flavoring, partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil, and a nutritional supplement called copper gluconate, none of which will kill bacteria.” The proof and the claim have nothing to do with each other, but it’s very effective as a marketing technique.
Example 2: These cigarettes are fine for your health
Post-World War II to the early 1970’s was the golden age of tobacco marketing in the United States before advertising restrictions were put in place. Cigarette advertising downplayed the unhealthy effects of smoking – and in many cases, made the case that it was actually healthy, and cured various maladies even though a strong statistical link between smoking and lung cancer was established in the 1940’s.
People born in the 1980’s and after have probably never seen a cigarette ad or have a vague recollection of one, perhaps forgetting or not knowing how insidiously manipulative tobacco marketing used to be. Due to the overwhelming evidence that started to build in the 1950’s that cigarettes cause serious illnesses and death, advertising had to counteract this message with pushing the "cool factor," downplaying health issues and touting benefits. To convince people to buy cigarettes, contrary to extensive evidence that they should not, marketing had to find new ways to be effective and directly play to human emotion. The semi-attached figure plays a vital role in achieving that.
This 1949 ad from Viceroy Cigarettes is a perfect application of the semi-attached figure. This came out at a time in which public health advocates started discussing the link between smoking and cancer, and this ad is an attempt to counter the message.
The claim here is implied: cigarettes are not harmful to your health. There are two pieces of proof provided: First, Viceroys filter the smoke. (The truth is irrelevant: research indicates filtersmay increase lung cancer risk). The second proof is, your dentist recommends Viceroys, with a cartoon drawing of a dentist. The problem here is obvious. The dentist isn’t real – but the reader is led to think that either this man is their dentist, or whoever really is their dentist would surely also recommend Viceroys.
Example #3: Exactly what is Unbreakable?
Starting around 2005, on the 101 freeway corridor between Palo Alto and San Francisco, Oracle advertising started to appear. It featured an armored Linux penguin mascot and the tagline “Unbreakable Linux.” The same ads showed up for years at RSA security conferences, emblazoned on the sides of busses that took trips between the Moscone convention center and area hotels. This claim refers to a product called Oracle Linux, which is based on Red Hat. Oracle has also used the word “unbreakable” to refer to other software products.
This is a classic semi-attached figure – Oracle makes a statement, “unbreakable,” and leads the reader to associate the statement with a piece of software and pretends it’sthe same thing. The claim and proof are taking advantage of the perception that Linux enjoys greater stability when compared to competitors. Of course, the software isn’t “unbreakable” (no software is), and Oracle Linux has been subject to many of the same vulnerabilities all flavors of Linux has had over the years.
Unbreakable. This Linux distro that cannot be… what? Hacked? Experience downtime? Patched without rebooting? Does this refer to high availability? It’s very reminiscent of “with Retsyn.” It sounds great, but when it’s really analyzed, the reader is left thinking, what does that even mean?
Oracle still uses the term “Unbreakable,” but backtracked and admitted that it’s a marketing tagline, describing Oracle’s commitment to product security and does not refer to any specific product, feature or attribute.
Oracle is no stranger to hyperbole. This is the same company who’s marketing slogan used to be “Can’t break it. Can’t break in.”
Example #4: We won the Cyber!
100% true story; only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.
Timeshare, used car and cyber security vendor sales people all have a special place in my heart. I was in a security vendor sales pitch many years back, and the salesman projected this graph of the number of cybersecurity incidents reported by federal agencies from 2006 to 2015 on the screen. The vendor was selling next generation firewall technology.
The room fell silent to the stark reality on the chart before us as the vendor started their pitch:
“Look at this graph – from 2006 to today, cyberattacks have increased over 10-fold! We’re at war. This is proof that we’re at cyberwar and you must protect yourself. The current equipment you have cannot protect your company from these types of unrelenting, sophisticated, advanced AND persistent attacks...”
The salesman went on and on and on. I love stuff like this. I love it when vendors build their pitch around a house of cards: one tap and it all falls apart. Where’s the semi-attached figure here?
The vendor was trying to lead us to a path to believe that the sky is falling. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t – I have plenty of reason to believe that there is some type of cyber-related doom on the horizon, but this graph has nothing to do with it. In order to find the semi-attached figure, let’s ask a few probing questions.
It would appear that cyberattacks have increased from 2006 to 2015. Why? Are there more computers in 2015 than in 2006?
What is the ratio of attack targets and surface versus attacks?
Is detection of attacks better in 2015 than it was in 2006, meaning we have the ability to detect and measure a larger range of attacks?
What is being measured here?
What does the Federal government consider an attack?
What do attacks against the Federal government have to do with my company (a bank, at the time)
The claim is: we’re going to get hacked unless we upgrade firewalls. The proof is this graph – from a different sector, provided without context, using an unknown method of measurement.
The graph above is from 2015. See 2016’s graph below – and I have great news! WE WON THE CYBER!
No, sorry, we didn’t. The federal government changed the definition and reporting requirements of a cyber-attack in 2016. They no longer consider a simple port scan an attack. In other words, what was being measured and the unit of measurement was changed from 2015 to 2016. Not only was the vendor pitch a semi-attached figure, the salesman was also guilty of the post hoc fallacy, also known as correlation does not imply causation.
How to spot the semi-attached figure
While using the semi-attached figured is manipulative, it’s unlikely to end any time soon. It’s far too effective. Keep in mind that the most effective marketing plays on human nature’s greatest fears and aspirations. Here are a few tips to spot and resist the lure of the semi-attached figure.
Anyone can take a number, graph, data visualization, or statistic and shoehorn it into proof for a claim. Just because something has a number or seems “sciencey” it doesn’t mean it can be automatically trusted.
Spot the claim, such has “this product makes you hacker-proof” or “Unbreakable!” What’s the supporting proof? Ask yourself: does the proof support the claim, or is it semi-attached?
Last, be especially wary of authority figures: doctors, dentists, cybersecurity experts, a CEO or past or present government officials. It could be a legitimate opinion or endorsement, but also remember that nearly everyone will say nearly anything if they get paid enough.
Here’s a challenge for readers: after you read this post, think about the semi-attached figure next time you are at the Blackhat or RSA vendor expo halls. How many do you see?
This post is part of a series titled How to Lie with Statistics, Information Security Edition– visit the link to read more.
The San Francisco Chapter of the FAIR Institute had its latest meeting on June 21, 2018, generously hosted by Twilio at their company headquarters. It was a well-attended event and featured two great speakers; Jack Jones, Chairman of the FAIR Institute and Calvin Liu, Director of Operations at Ventura Enterprise Risk Management. Both talks elaborated on specific use cases of FAIR, quantitative risk analysis and techniques, with ample time to network and ask questions. As with all local FAIR chapters, the San Francisco meetings are a fantastic opportunity to hear great speakers, get tips on how to integrate quantitative risk into your risk program and meet new people — from newcomers to FAIR, to those with broad experience.Read More
Have you ever finished reading a vendor whitepaper or a research institution’s annual security report and felt your Spidey sense begin to tingle with doubt or disbelief after reading some of the conclusions or research methodology? What you are probably sensing is a manipulation of statistics, an age-old hoodwink that has been occurring as long as numbers have been used to convey information.Read More
On April 25, 2018, the online gaming company Gravity Interactive announced they are shutting down all games and services in the EU, effective May 25th– the day GDPR takes effect. All EU-based IP-addresses will be blocked. Understandably, there’s an uproar, especially from EU-based players of Ragnarok Online, one of Gravity Interactive’s most popular games. Gravity Interactive has operated EU-based servers for 14 years and to many, the sudden decision to pull out of the market entirely seems unfair and unexpected. It’s understandable that people would be upset. The company has been the subject of much derision over the decision. But clearly there’s more to the story disappointed gamers.Read More
From April 15–20 2018, the city of San Francisco hosts several simultaneous security conferences. The sub-field of quant, data driven cyber / information security / technology risk and metrics is very small, so I’ve started to compile a list of talks and events that week. To make it on this list, the talk should be about the sub-field described above OR presented by/hosted by someone who is active in that sub-field.Read More
The term “Black Swan event” has been part of the risk management lexicon since its coinage in 2007 by Nassim Taleb in his eponymous book titled The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Taleb uses the metaphor of the black swan to describe extreme outlier events that come as a surprise to the observer, and in hindsight, the observer rationalizes that they should have predicted it.Read More
My New Year’s Day ritual has been the same for nearly 10 years now: a late breakfast, a cup of strong coffee and a scan of security blogs and news for two things that always make me chuckle: cyber predictions for the new year, and a retrospective that declares the past year the “Year of the Data Breach.” Kelly Shortridge perfectly parodied the former and I actually thought we might go a year without the latter, until I found this headline on Bloomberg news in which 2017 is named the Year of the Data Breach.Read More
Would you be surprised to find that “nearly 40% of ransomware victims pay attackers,” according to a recent article published by DarkReading? I sure was. The number of victims that pay ransomware and the amount paid has been an elusive figure for years now. To date, law enforcement has not collected and published ransomware crime statistics like they have for other forms of criminal activity.Read More
Selection bias is what makes these surveys virtually worthless. I previously wrote about the problems of surveys in information security vendor reports and I want to dig in deeper on a topic from the last post: properly selecting a representative sample from the general population being surveyed. This matters so much. This is perhaps the most important step when conducting a statistically sound survey.Read More