Firewall Wizards: Re: The Morris worm to Nimda, how little we've learned or gained

["Paul D. Robertson" <proberts () patriot net>]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

> I've been watching the blame in computer security flow in circles for
> years. The flow looks like this:
> - The hackers blame the sysadmins who leave their machines open
> - The sysadmins blame the vendors who write buggy insecure code
   and not producing patches quickly enough.
> - The vendors blame the customers who place a premium on features over quality
   and not installing patches quickly enough.

> What's ironic - and what makes the whole problem so intractible is the
> fact that they're _all_ right. Everyone has to do a lot less whining and get
It's the Default Deny stance- "By default, I deny that I caused the 
problem." ;)

> I can tell you a few of the indicators that I'm looking for which will indicate
> that progress is about to be made in security:
> 1) The first time a company goes public and becomes huge based on the
>         premise that their software is super-high-quality.
That's counter to profit margins unless 3 and possibly 5 happen.

> 2) The first time an operating system ships that doesn't need to have all
>         its software installed with system privileges to function
That's been done- it's too difficult to administer with the level of IT 
staff that's currently fielded- heck it's just too difficult to 
administer period.

> 3) The first time customers place and enforce a puchase ban on a software
>         product notorious for insecurity and unreliability
If that were the case, MS Office wouldn't have survived macro viruses...

> 4) The first time that ISPs act together to ban an application from their
>         backbone(s)
Hell, let's start with them banning some users from their leaves.

> 5) The first successful class-action lawsuit over software quality encompassing
>         security
That'll be the only way we'll get impetus to change in any significant 
manner.

> Note that not only do I see no sign of the above happening, I see signs in
> the industry and community that steps are being taken to _prevent_ some of
> the above. Most notably #5 and possibly #3.
People/companies don't really want SECURITY, they just don't want PAIN 
from INSECURITY.  That's a fundamental issue.

> The sad reality is that safety technology only gets applied once it's obvious
> that the damage from not applying it is extremely expensive to the entire
> community. Remember - we didn't have mandatory seatbelts in cars until
> the 1960's and didn't have mandatory shoulder straps until the 1970's. Air
> bags didn't come until the 1980's and mandatory _use_ laws are only recently
> on the books in most states. Internationally, the situation is worse. And
> people have known for a long time that seat belts save lives...
It's not *just* damage that's an issue (motorcycle helmets are a prime 
example), there also needs to be some sort of control structure which can 
enforce the greater common good.  That tends to mean the evils of 
legislature and enforcement.

I think we'll see improvements from evolution, it's just that evolution 
takes lifetimes and we could really use some genetic engineering.

Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Robertson      "My statements in this message are personal opinions
proberts () patriot net      which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."

_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () nfr com
http://list.nfr.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards