Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Perimeter

5/7/2009
07:29 AM
Gadi Evron
Gadi Evron
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

CouchSurfing: A Working Trust Model

Trust. At the beginning we take it on faith. On the Internet, a fortiori, all the more so. While security professionals struggle to establish online trust, CouchSurfing, a social site for tourists who want to borrow your couch and, perhaps -- wink, wink -- make friends, has a working trust model that is cool to boot.

Trust. At the beginning we take it on faith. On the Internet, a fortiori, all the more so. While security professionals struggle to establish online trust, CouchSurfing, a social site for tourists who want to borrow your couch and, perhaps -- wink, wink -- make friends, has a working trust model that is cool to boot.Building trust among people is complicated face-to-face, even with beer to help you along. Over the Internet we rely on a person's words over time (how a person "sounds," interaction history, and a Google search), mutual friends or colleagues we may have, and what the person does (how they conduct themselves, work history, and if they follow words with actions).

On CouchSurfing, members upload profile information, pictures of themselves, and add friends, much like on other social networks. When you want to stay in a foreign country, you examine people from that country who have a couch ready for you.

Do they have many friends? Are they active in their local CouchSurfing community? Do they look creepy? If they have no pictures of themselves, why not?!
So far, other than being single-purpose, CouchSurfing has normal social networking traits. Where it is special is with members rating each other after every stay, much like you'd rate sellers on eBay:
What do reviews by people who stayed with them before say about them? How do they review people they stayed with? How do people they stayed with review them?
In my opinion the most critical part of CouchSurfing security is the above safety feature. It comes in two forms, references and vouching. References are given by fellow members much as we described. Vouching is an extra measure added purely for reasons of security:
"When someone is vouched for, it signifies an elevated level of trust in the community. The only way to become vouched for is to be extremely trusted by someone who has been vouched for by three other members. You must know each other in the real world. If you are a trusted friend, the vouched member can vouch for you. Once you have been vouched for three times, you can in turn vouch for members you sincerely believe to be trustworthy."
Further, CouchSurfing provides with a verification system (optional). Members donate a bit of money which supports the site and the community. At the same time this provides CouchSurfing with your real name and address. They then mail you a (real) postcard with a verification code for you to enter back at the site, completing the process.

This creates a lively, worldwide community where friendly tourists can feel safe, and travel the world among friends, while saving a buck. And, perhaps -- wink, wink -- make a friend.

In our industry, building trust has the added complication of sharing sensitive information, as well as dealing with paranoid people. Having run several trust-based operational and research groups during the years, I can attest that we mostly limit ourselves to members who already trust each other.

This creates a circle very difficult to break. Limiting the membership considerably, we create a closed club of sorts based on profession, industry, and usefulness to the group, with a difficulty for new people to enter and be accepted. How do we expand trust and accommodate new members when each addition detracts from established trust?

Online, how do you establish someone's identity even if you did trust them? You look for consistency and identifiable patterns, such as names (or nicknames), email addresses, and PGP keys. These could easily be manufactured, which brings us back to taking it on faith and historic experience.

"On the Internet men are men, women are men, and children are FBI agents."

Another form of online trust is the blacklist, or DNSBL, which contains IP addresses seen involved in malicious activities and can be filtered by users who want to avoid attacks or spam. Naturally, listing strategies differ between blacklists, and some do a better job than others. Mistakes happen, both by listing those who did nothing wrong (false positive), or not listing someone who did do harm (false negative).

In email, we have seen attempts, such as SPF to DomainsKeys, where people can agree on a certain distribution system or database where they can be listed and verified. Similar systems that failed include Website certification business (selling digital certificates) and so far, DNSSEC.

Trust is a key challenge for anyone who works online. Being a security professional who likes to connect people, I have the distinct pleasure and continued pain of trying to make large groups of people with competing interests (and a reason to be paranoid), cooperate. It is always a long process.

It is interesting that CouchSurfing, a social site from long before the Web 2.0 buzzword era, with friendly people who simply want to travel on the cheap side, does a better job of it than we do.

But if you think CouchSurfing has it easy -- not needing to share sensitive information -- think again. Members may not be sharing data on organized crime, but a 19-year-old girl who travels to another country has other types of worries, which is why CouchSurfing and the model it made work are so impressive. And it's cool.

The main difference between CouchSurfing and trust established in our industry, is that CouchSurfing's system is open and scalable. What can we learn from them?

Follow Gadi Evron on Twitter: http://twitter.com/gadievron

Gadi Evron is an independent security strategist based in Israel. Special to Dark Reading. Gadi is CEO and founder of Cymmetria, a cyber deception startup and chairman of the Israeli CERT. Previously, he was vice president of cybersecurity strategy for Kaspersky Lab and led PwC's Cyber Security Center of Excellence, located in Israel. He is widely recognized for ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
News
Inside the Ransomware Campaigns Targeting Exchange Servers
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  4/2/2021
Commentary
Beyond MITRE ATT&CK: The Case for a New Cyber Kill Chain
Rik Turner, Principal Analyst, Infrastructure Solutions, Omdia,  3/30/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-23381
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-18
This affects all versions of package killing. If attacker-controlled user input is given, it is possible for an attacker to execute arbitrary commands. This is due to use of the child_process exec function without input sanitization.
CVE-2021-23374
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-18
This affects all versions of package ps-visitor. If attacker-controlled user input is given to the kill function, it is possible for an attacker to execute arbitrary commands. This is due to use of the child_process exec function without input sanitization.
CVE-2021-23375
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-18
This affects all versions of package psnode. If attacker-controlled user input is given to the kill function, it is possible for an attacker to execute arbitrary commands. This is due to use of the child_process exec function without input sanitization.
CVE-2021-23376
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-18
This affects all versions of package ffmpegdotjs. If attacker-controlled user input is given to the trimvideo function, it is possible for an attacker to execute arbitrary commands. This is due to use of the child_process exec function without input sanitization.
CVE-2021-23377
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-18
This affects all versions of package onion-oled-js. If attacker-controlled user input is given to the scroll function, it is possible for an attacker to execute arbitrary commands. This is due to use of the child_process exec function without input sanitization.