Security Basics mailing list archives
RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk
From: "Craig Wright" <cwright () bdosyd com au>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 09:27:16 +1100
Hi Al
I do agree that the additions and changes to Solarius will make it more secure and that this is good. At the same time
the addition of ECC and other functions from TS (trusted Solaris) will not make Solaris equivilant to TS.
In the case of the bus - people (at least for a very short time) will speak out and try to ensure that something
changes (Ferries here in Sydney is another issue)
Call me old fashion, but I still like a structure approach to programme testing with both black and white box tests and
Regards
Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: Al Sutton [mailto:asutton () argosytelcrest com]
Sent: Sat 25/02/2006 9:04 AM
To: Craig Wright; 'dave kleiman'; 'Darren W Miller'
Cc: 'defendingthenet'; security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk
Craig,
Just to tie this up with my other post, the move on Trusted Solaris is not
about dumping an additional product because it costs too much, it's about
making the base product more secure. I would disagree that poorly written
code is prevailing, instead I would say that the view that security is
something that must be in all code is prevailing and Sun are doing a good
thing by stopping the sale of two versions of an OS (a secure and a not so
secure version), and instead working towards a single reliable system.
I would also disagree that everyone should take responsibility for software
failures. If I ride on a bus and the wheels fall off it's not something that
I have directly caused, similarly if I use a piece of software for a purpose
it's sold for in a manner approved for my environment I should not be
responsible for it if it causes problems, it's the problem of the supplier,
tester, and/or the people maintaining it.
I would also disagree that rapid development processes are flawed. Extreme
Programming has some great ideas. Writing the tests before the code ensures
that tests are not fudged to fit in with what's written, and that the spec
isn't interpreted in a way that the developer has decided because it would
be easiest to code. The functionality cards concept gives a great way of
showing project managers and customers that if you want to put a new card in
the deck, the time either increases, or you have to take cards out of a
similar time value, and although I'm not a fan of shoulder surfing
programming, peer reviews are important. It's like anything, it's not all
bad, there are some good things in there.
Al.
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Wright [mailto:cwright () bdosyd com au]
Sent: 24 February 2006 12:51
To: Al Sutton; support () argosytelcrest com; dave kleiman; Darren W Miller
Cc: defendingthenet; security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk
Hi Al
I do agree with what you have stated and in fact the whole rapid development
process is flawed from a code integrity view.
I do disagree still with the terminology "prove it". However there needs to
be a quality of testing that may be enforcible and in itself subject to due
care. I am unsure as to if developers would choose the first code from
google. generally they would in my experiance choose the least expensive.
This is not to state that this is a better method ;)
It also should not be the IT comunity. It should be everyone. We all have to
start taking more responsibility. Developers, engineers coders, testers, and
even users. Trusted Solaris is being discontinued. This is not as it is
difficult to write, but as end users do not want to pay the premium for well
designed software. So poorly written code prevails.We as the IT
professionals need to take a stance to change this and to do this we need to
be able to communicate to the people in management and finance.
These people understand Risk and figures. Cost and Accounting. To get an
understanding accross the true costs of patching and maintance of poorly
design software needs to be "sold" in a manner they understand. To do this
annulised costs associated with the increased risk give a foundation to the
arguement.
Overall a more integrated approach to development and testing works to a far
higher degree.
Regards
Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: Al Sutton [mailto:asutton () argosytelcrest com]
Sent: Fri 24/02/2006 8:01 PM
To: Craig Wright; support () argosytelcrest com; 'dave kleiman';
'Darren W Miller'
Cc: 'defendingthenet'; security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk
Craig,
Nobody's perfect, but other forms of engineering fair far better
than
software development. If you looked at the first 5 years of the
software I'd
expect that you'll see a figure far greater than 2.7% becoming
vulnerable or
failing because of a fundamental problem. From personal experience
I've had
to apply patches to at least 70 % of the software packages installed
on our
internal systems within five years of their release due to either
security
issues or potentially fatal bugs from issues which are well known
(such as
buffer overflows, SQL injection, poor handling of low storage space,
poor
handling of loss of power to the system, etc.).
Firewalls are routinely deployed partly because of a general lack of
confidence in the ability of existing software to safely handle
anything
that can be thrown at it. If the same view was held of building
you'd see
everyone living in big domes with concrete floors which have
foundations
streaching tens or hundreds of meters into the ground to strictly
control
the environment in which the house exists.
It's interesting you mention the Hatfield Rail Crash, the cause of
that was
a cracked rail which was not delt with due to a poor maintainence
and
monitoring plan (see sidebar at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/17/newsid_2491000/2
491425.stm). While software does not develop faults over time in the
same
way, a poor maintainence and monitoring plan combined with poorly
written
software will leave systems outdated and potentially vulnerable to
"script
kiddies" who've just downloaded the latest exploit. If software had
a higher
level of quality monitoring would be far less important, and patch
management would be far less of an issue, but as a many recent
surverys have
shown one of the biggest headaches for IT deparments at the moment
is
testing and deploying all of the patches for all of the software
they run.
The original point I was trying to make is that the IT community
should look
to take a harder stance on developers who allow shoddy code to be
released,
and not stop developing software just because it looks tricky. This
is
inline with the views of people commisioning buildings and the
archiects who
designed the buildings which failed under normal load (such as the
gerrards
cross rail bridge, paris airport, etc.), after all would you want to
hire
someone to build your house where the last house they designed
collapsed?
If a developer chooses a library they should use test cases to
proove it
operates safely under the conditions they would use it, and the
conditions
under which the library can be abused due to their program (i.e. if
the
developer isn't checking the length of a copy and destination buffer
then
they should check the library doesn't go wrong when the length of
the copy
exceeds the destination buffer). Picking the first library that
comes up on
google which offers the functionality a developer needs is like
choosing the
first plot of land you find on which to build your house, and if
architects
and builders did that then I'm sure the 2.7% figure would be a lot
higher.
If we can improve the quality of software then hopefully one day
architects
will look at IT and go, "Now if we designed things the way the IT
guys
design their systems we'd have fewer problems....." ;).
Al.
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Wright [mailto:cwright () bdosyd com au]
Sent: 23 February 2006 23:29
To: support () argosytelcrest com; dave kleiman; Darren W Miller
Cc: defendingthenet; security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk
I am sorry - but I can not help responding to the point on
architects;
>From Elsevier - "Engineering Failure Analysis", about 2.7% (95% CI)
of
>homes suffer structural damage caused by soil subsidence within the
>first 5 years that should have been determined and countered in the
>design. If we look to the expected lifetime of 20 or 25 years for a
>home... Well things are worse.
Examples based on design failures follow (these are only the
catastrophic
failures). Would you like more? I have the references for all the
examples
below if you wish to read more than the headlines?
Is more solid proof required?
You have stated that you are a scientist, would you like me to
provide an
ANOVA table for the above figures?
Regards,
Craig
PS - I may not always put every piece of data in a post, but I
always have
it handy when I am writing the post. I am ALWAYS more than happy to
flood
anyone who requests it with the data.
See
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30190/descripti
on#description
Railway tunnel collapses at Gerrards Cross
A 20-metre section of a partially completed railway tunnel at
Gerrard Cross
in Buckinghamshire collapsed.
Roof Collapses at Paris Airport
A 120-foot section of a new terminal at the Charles de Gaulle
international
airport collapsed killing at least five people, injuring seven and
burying
an unknown number of others.
Girder collapse in Colorado
A 40-ton steel girder dropped from a freeway overpass construction
site into
morning traffic, crushing one car and killing all three people
inside.
Four Construction Workers Died after Crane Collapse in Toledo, Ohio
Three iron workers were killed and five injured Monday afternoon in
the
collapse of a crane on a construction site outside of Toledo, Ohio.
Crane Collaped in Stratford Bridge Project, Killing the Crane
Operator
A $96-million bridge replacement job in Stratford, Conn., two
barge-mounted
cranes collapsed, killing the crane operator.
Moscow Roof Collapse Kills 21, Hurts 106
The snow-covered glass roof of a Moscow water park collapsed
Saturday
evening onto hundreds of people, killing at least 21 people
A Partially Finished Bridge Collapsed in California, USA
An approximately 100-foot section of a partially finished bridge
collapsed,
killing one worker and injuring seven others.
A Casino Garage in New Jersey, USA, Collapsed
The top five stories of a parking garage under construction at a
casino
collapsed. Three people were killed.
Flooded Subway Project Causes Subsidence in Shanghai, China
An underwater tunnel connected with Shanghai's planned fourth subway
line
has collapsed, causing several buildings to tilt and subside.
Rhode Island Nightclub Fire
A pyrotechnics display ignited the stage of a Rhode Island
nightclub, which
caused the blaze to spread throughout the building. At least 98
people were
killed and 160 injured.
South Korean Subway Fire
A formal mental patient set fire to the packed subway train in
Daegu, South
Korean, killing up to 200 people.
Chicago Club Fire
At least 21 people were killed at the Club when they panicked and
tried to
escape a fight.
Building Collapsed in San Antonio
A five-story building collapsed in downtown San Antonio, 3 people
injured.
A Schoolhouse Collapsed in An Earthquake in Italy
26 children were buried in the collapsed house while most of nearby
buildings stand.
N.Y. pedestrian bridge collapse
A pedestrian bridge under construction collapsed as concrete was
being
poured onto its steel girders, killing one worker and injuring 10
others.
Panels and roofing metal collapsed in Western Australia
A concrete "tilt-up" slab at a Western Australia construction site
crushed,
killing a construction worker.
Miami bridge-tower collapses
The control tower on the Flagler Street bridge in Miami collapsed,
injuring
a woman.
A Dam in Northern Syria Collapses
A dam in northern Syria collapsed, killing at least two people.
Apartment building in St. Petersburg collapses
A nine-story apartment building in St. Petersburg collapses, killing
three
people.
Russian Cosmodrome Roof Collapses
Part of the roof of Russia's space launch complex in Kazakhstan has
collapsed, injuring at least eight people.
Beirut Building Collapse Kills Four
A seven-story building collapsed into a pile of rubble Saturday,
killing
four people and crushing cars.
Falling Scaffolding in Chicago Killed Three People
Scaffolding from the 43rd floor of John Hancock Building fell to the
downtown street, killing three people.
Convention Center Girders Collapses in Pittsburgh
Steel girders collapsed at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center
under
construction, killing a Moon ironworker and injuring two others.
Scaffolding Collapsed at A Manhattan Office Building
Five construction workers were killed and 10 others were injured
when a
scaffolding collapsed at a Manhattan office building.
Wedding Hall Collapses in Jerusalem
An over-crowded wedding reception hall collapsed Thursday night in
Jerusalem, killing at least 25 people and injuring 250.
Steelwork Collapses at Convention Center Site
Part of the new D.C. convention center collapsed.
A Bridge Collapse in Portugal Kills up to 70 People
A 116-year-old bridge in Portugal collapsed. One of support pillars
gave way
under pressure from river water.
Selby rail disaster
Caused by a piece of metal from a Land Rover which had plunged onto
the
track falling onto the line, the accicident killed 13 people,
injured a
hundred.
Dulles Airport Tunnel Collapse
Part of a pedestrian tunnel under construction at Dulles
International
Airport caved in trapping a worker in the rubble.
Construction Trench Collapsed in Texas, USA
A construction trench collapsed, killing three workers who were
buried in 14
feet of dirt.
Hatfield Rail Crash
A high-speed train crash north of London that killed four people and
injured
34 put the safety of Britain's railways in question on Wednesday.
Kansai International Airport
Six years after its completion, Japan's second-largest airport is
sinking
into the ocean much faster than expected.
High School Gym in Cleveland, USA
The roof of a Cleveland, Ohio, high school gym collapsed, injuring
three
students and two adults.
Building Collapse in India
Twenty-three people are reported to be killed in building collapse
in
Tundla, India.
Moscow's Giant TV Tower Collapse
Completed in 1967, the Europe's Telecommunications towe's exposed
prestressing cables inside are vulnerable to blaze.
SW China Bridge Collapse
A newly built pontoon bridge collapsed in Luzhou, a city in
Southwest
China's Sichuan Province, killing at least two people.
Wall Collapse on Construction Site, Maryland, USA
Two people were killed and three others were hurt when an eight inch
thick
cinder-block wall collapsed at a construction site in suburban
Baltimore.
Winery Terrace Collapse in Ohio, USA
A terrace loaded with tourists collapsed at an island winery in Lake
Erie,
Ohio, USA
Overpass Collapse Shuts down Quebec Highway
A huge concrete beam fell on the vehicle as it was passing under the
viaduct.
Millennium Bridge Sways
This newly completed bridge in London had to be closed because it
swayed.
Speedway Bridge at North Carolina, USA
A concrete pedestrian walkway spanning a four-lane highway in front
of the
speedway collapsed, injuring more than 100 people.
-----Original Message-----
From: Al Sutton [mailto:asutton () argosytelcrest com]
Sent: 24 February 2006 8:33
To: Craig Wright; 'dave kleiman'; 'Darren W Miller'
Cc: 'defendingthenet'
Subject: RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk
Hi,
I too am very open to being proven wrong, but as a scientist I need
solid
proof which involves cold hard facts, not statements such as "I
can't go
into all the details for various reasons.".
I've been involved in many development projects, and at the end of
the day a
product ships with bugs from a library then it's the developer who
is
responsible for their choice of libraries. The attitudes Darren
describes
are typical in Development, the "If it ain't in my code it ain't my
problem"
is one of the most fundamental problems of current development
mentality.
How many architects do you know that would design for the side of a
hill
without making sure the hill could support their design?, or design
an
extension to a house without ensuring the house was sound?, the same
is true
of code, if you're writing software you need to make sure your
libraries
support it securely, if not, then you're not doing your job.
Developers can
add verification code before they send code to libraries, and if
they have
concerns of a library this is what they should be doing (after all
why
rewrite a string copy routine when you just need to check that the
length of
your copy is less than the length of your destination buffer?).
My view is that the original paper was FUD, intended or not, that's
how it
appeared, that's how it read, and it it walks like a chicked and
clucks like
a chicken people are going to call it a chicken.
Al.
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Wright [mailto:cwright () bdosyd com au]
Sent: 23 February 2006 21:10
To: dave kleiman; Darren W Miller
Cc: Al Sutton; defendingthenet
Subject: RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk
Hello,
Dave stated; "Craig.. And be gentle Craig will pick apart opinions
and bring
back factual information without batting an eye."
True and I am always open to being proved wrong. The thing is that I
have to
be PROVED Wrong. Opinion and anecdotal evidence is not proof.
Validated
points and correctly collected statistical data are.
As much as many people find this difficult to believe (even my wife)
I enjoy
being proved wrong. It is both a learning opportunity for my self
and a
demonstration that others are engaging in serious peer review
processes
outside of academe.
In the past 20 years I have performed close to 5,000 engagements. At
the
moment I am conducting one of the largest vulnerability and risk
assessments
ever conducted in Australia in association with the Attorney
Generals CNVA
programme.
The first issue to address is yes you found a vulnerability and it
was
exploitable. What is the risk? The impact threat vectors and other
analysis
factors need to be considered. Vulnerabilities do not matter by
themselves.
They create a risk potential. When you understand this you will both
serve
your clients more effectively and also add value in a manner they
will
understand. You need to sell to management. They understand finance
and
risk. Vulnerabilities are FUD. They do not help.
As for engineering something not to fail. This is where I have an
issue with
people who think they are engineers. Engineering is the process of
building
something to a set specification. An example is giving a 95%
Confidence
Internal of a 5 year expected life. It involves the analysis and
design of
hazard functions and survival processes.
Regards,
Craig
PS this is about as nice as I get unless people actually seek to
open their
minds and learn.
-----Original Message-----
From: dave kleiman [mailto:dave () davekleiman com]
Sent: 23 February 2006 4:25
To: 'Darren W Miller'
Cc: Craig Wright; 'Al Sutton'; 'defendingthenet'
Subject: RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk
Darren,
I am going to explain this to you, since you are new here on this
forum, or
at least I have only saw one or two of your posts go by recently. I
am not
the form moderator, nor do I have any influence over the posts that
make the
forum.
First, I wanted to give you a friendly heads-up, because you are
throwing
"articles" out to this forum and they are your opinion.
Secondly, I am a nice guy :), maybe you are taking this personally,
but you
need to read through the archives, this s what we do here debate!!
"""I don't have the time to keep this discussion (if that I what we
are
actually having) going for an infinite amount of time""" You posted
this to
a Security Discussion board, that is what we do here.
Do not get me wrong you have the right to post almost anything you
want
pertaining to security, but if throw your opinion out here, expect
to have
to defend it, and back it by fact. Because it is going to get torn
up by the
professionals.
I have seen threads, that is what you started a thread, go for 20-30
days.
See "Forensic/Cyber Crime Investigator" in the archives, it went
from
mid-Jan until Feb 15th, and I thought Craig was going to kill me on
that
one, but that is how this forum goes, you make a statement expect
educated
well-informed/experienced responses, a lot of them you will not
agree with,
but will not be able to tap dance away from.
Craig.. And be gentle Craig will pick apart opinions and bring back
factual
information without batting an eye. He and I have gone toe-to-toe on
many a
subject on this and other discussion forms.
Darren, I know you are used to posting articles at CastleCops were
the home
user is the basic audience and nobody is retorting, but when you
step into
this arena you will see some serious professionals in varying fields
and
they will not let misinformation slide. You of course do not have to
respond
to the responses, but expect even heavier discussion when you post
and
disappear.
By the way if you were to post this at a higher level forum such as
pen-test, they would eat your below write-up for breakfast. But
since you
left it off post, I did the same....however I know Craig loves
pen-testing
so he may not.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Darren W Miller [mailto:Darren.Miller () paralogic net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 20:06
To: Craig Wright; dave kleiman
Cc: Darren W Miller
Subject: RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk
Gentlemen,
I don't have the time to keep this discussion (if that I
what we are actually having) going for an infinite amount
of time. But let me give you a couple high-level examples
of what I am talking about here. The key word is
high-level, I can't go into all the details for various
reasons.
In the last 3 months I have performed 5 assessments. Phase
I of these assessments involved penetration testing of
external public facing systems. Out of the 5, we achieved
total systems penetration / compromise of 4. All 4 of
these systems were web based services. All 4 of these
systems were compromised by exploiting "custom" code or
modules. During post-assessment meetings the developers
(who were independents) were present. When they were shown
what modules were used to achieve the compromise everyone
one them blamed it on other external modules they used (or
re-usable code / modules,) and that they had no idea these
bugs existed. They further explained that some of the
source code, at least the ones they had access to, were so
extensive and complex that they probably would never had
found the bugs. One gentleman even stated that it was not
up to him to make sure code developed by others is secure
even if he is using that code. That did not go over well
in the meeting, trust me
AS far as "engineering something not to fail", I don't
even think that is possible at this point in time. Or ever
will be. Quite frankly, if someone were to tell me that a
particular system, any system, was fail-proof, I'd say
that they were off the wall. Let me just include a couple
bullet point items that may fall into this category of
"complex systems" and security:
1) Compromise of internal network systems using citrix as
an entry point. End users thought that the citrix remote
desktop profiles were secure because of how they were
setup but never realized that flaws in something as simple
(or complex) as ms-word would allow an isolated compromise
to lead to additional systems compromise.
2) System A interacts with System B which interacts with
system C. End users are aware, to an extent, about the
flaws in system A & B and their interaction, but not aware
of much regarding system C. In fact, they were not even
aware there was a system C. That interaction with system C
resulted in a security breach. In this case, complex
systems interacting with other complex systems, some of
which were unknowns, leading to security breaches.
3) IT department decides to increase the over all security
of authentication methods so increase complexity rules and
other related items such as aging.... However, they have
poor auditing measures internally and have know idea that
there are 150 user accounts for people who no longer work
for the company. Even though authentication measures /
procedures have been changed on the system, these
particular accounts will not have them applied until the
next time they are used. Several of these accounts are
compromised because they don't meet even basic complexity
rules for passwords. However, the end user thought that
the system would take care of this and force all accounts
to abide by the same rules immediately. Did not happen.
Here is the bottom line. Either I did a really poor job at
trying to get my message across in a high-level way, or I
am just being totally misunderstood. I would suggest it's
a little of both based on this dialoged.
Note: One final point. I would rather you not make the
statement that I am using FUD as a selling tool. The fact
is that is not true and is not my intention. If either of
you new me personally you would know that. I would never,
and have never, made that kind of assumption without
knowing for sure. Quite frankly, I'm not sure I would make
that kind of statement about anyone, even if I knew for
sure that is what they were all about.
Regards,
Darren W. Miller
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Wright [mailto:cwright () bdosyd com au]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 5:41 PM
To: dave kleiman; security-basics () securityfocus com
Cc: Darren W Miller; defendingthenet
Subject: RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk
Hello
Here I have to state that I agree 100% and categorically with
Dave.
FUD - Fear Uncertainty and Doubt is a common tool used by
vendors to sell security. It is also one of the greatest
threats to security today.
It makes people inured to security in the long run (i.e.
cry wolf) and in the short term results in a lot of
technical solutions that generally fail to address the issue.
NASA uses hazard and survivability models to determine
risk. They do not engineer to not fail - they just reduce
the probability of an incident. What needs to be
remembered that is that 1 in a million occurrence happens
all the time in the real world. Even a 1 in a billion
occurrence will happen daily somewhere in the world.
Welcome to the world of risk.
So as to the original post, how would complex software
make you less risk prone?
Regards,
Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: dave kleiman [mailto:dave () davekleiman com]
Sent: 23 February 2006 2:23
To: security-basics () securityfocus com
Cc: Darren.Miller () defendingthenet com; 'defendingthenet'
Subject: RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk
Inline....
-----Original Message-----
From: defendingthenet [mailto:mlapidus () ccim net]
Sent: 20 February 2006 14:35
To: security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk
Title
-----
Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk
Can Easy To Use Software Also Be Secure
----------------------------
Anyone who has been working with computers for a long time
will have noticed
that mainstream operating systems and applications have
become easier to use
over the years (supposedly). Tasks that use to be complex
procedures and
required experienced professional to do can now be done at
the push of a
button. For instance, setting up an Active Directory
domain in Windows 2000
or higher can now be done by a wizard leading even the
most novice technical
person to believe they can "securely" setup the operating
environment.
Where does it claim that it is "securely" setting up AD in
the wizard?
This
is actually quite far from the truth. Half the time this
procedure fails
because DNS does not configure properly or security
permissions are relaxed
because the end user cannot perform a specific function.
Sounds like you have had this problem a few times, maybe
you should not use the wizard, or attempt AD setups.
Do you understand how to "securely" setup AD, for your
comments here, I would say no.
Instead of using the "sky is falling routine" suggest how
to do these things securely instead of syaing "look how
terrible this is"
If It's Easy To Develop, Is It Also Secure
--------------------------------------------------
One of the reasons why operating systems and applications
"appear" to be
easier to work with then they use to is developers have
created procedures
and reusable objects to take care of all the complex tasks
for you.
Are you referring to shared code? In case you do not know
what that is, it is code that is shared by apps for the
same routines.
For instance, back in the old days when I started as a
developer using assembly
language and c/c++, I had to write pretty much all the
code myself.
Are you suggesting your code was more secure back in the
"old" days, when security was not a concern in coding?
Now everything is visually driven, with millions of lines
of
code already
written for you. All you have to do is create the
framework for your
application and the development environment and compiler
adds all the other
complex stuff for you. Who wrote this other code? How can
you be sure it is
secure. Basically, you have no idea and there is no easy
way to answer this
question.
Secure Environments Don't Exist Well With Complexity
----------------------------
The reality is it may look easier on the surface but the
complexity of the
backend software can be incredible. And guess what, secure
environments do
not coexist well with complexity. This is one of the
reasons there are so
many opportunities for hackers, viruses, and malware
to attack your
computers. How many bugs are in the Microsoft Operating
System? I can almost
guarantee that no one really knows for sure, not even
Microsoft developers.
However, I can tell you that there are thousands, if not
hundreds of
thousands of bugs, holes, and security weaknesses in
mainstream systems and
applications just waiting to be uncovered and maliciously
exploited.
How Reliable and Secure are Complex Systems?
----------------------------------------------------------
Let's draw a comparison between the world of software and
security with that
of the space program. Scientists at NASA have know for
years that the space
shuttle is one of the most complex systems in the world.
With miles of
wiring, incredible mechanical functions, millions of lines
of operating
system and application code, and failsafe systems to
protect failsafe
systems, and even more failsafe systems to protect other
systems. Systems
like the space shuttle need to perform consistently, cost
effectively, and
have high Mean-Time-Between-Failure(MTBF).
*All in all the space shuttle has a good record.*
One thing
it is not though
is cost effective and consistent. Every time there is a
launch different
issues crop up that cause delays. In a few circumstances,
even the most
basic components of this complex system, like "O" rings,
have sadly resulted
in a fatal outcome. Why are things like this missed? Are
they just not on
the radar screen because all the other complexities of the
system demand so
much attention? There are million different variables I'm
sure. The fact is,
NASA scientists know they need to work on developing less
complex systems to
achieve their objectives.
Ok now you have stepped out of bounds, first of all I love
NASA and have the utmost respect for them and all the
astronauts who have braved the frontier.
However, the record of the shuttle is 110+ scrubbed
launches. That is more than the number of launches. You
can do the math for the rest, but it does not add up to a
good record, you might have to use one of those "complex
systems" though to run calc.
So your saying a more simplistic system would create a
better record, maybe they should try fly the Kitty Hawk to
the moon.
I am just going to stop here and say Hogwash.
My advice to you is stop selling fear and your opinion,
and start selling solutions to problems. Next time tell us
how to fix your proposed problems.
Respectfully,
______________________________________________________
Dave Kleiman, CAS,CCE,CIFI,CISM,CISSP,ISSAP,ISSMP,MCSE
www.SecurityBreachResponse.com
This same principal of reducing complexity to
increase security,
performance, and decrease failures really does apply to
the world of
computers and networking. Ever time I here associates of
mine talk about
incredibly complex systems they design for clients and how
hard they were to
implement I cringe. How in the world are people suppose to
cost effectively
and reliably manage such things. In some cases it's almost
impossible. Just
ask any organization how many versions or different brands
of intrusion
detection systems they have been through. As them how many
times the have
had infections by virus and malware because of poorly
developed software or
applications. Or, if they have ever had a breach in
security because the
developer of a specific system was driven by ease of use
and inadvertently
put in place a piece of helpful code that was also helpful
to a hacker.
Can I Write A Document Without A Potential Security
Problem Please
-----------------------------------------------
Just a few days ago I was thinking about something as
simple as Microsoft
Word. I use MS-Word all the time, every day in fact. Do
you know how
powerful this application really is? Microsoft Word can do
all kinds of
complex tasks like math, algorithms, graphing, trend
analysis, crazy font
and graphic effects, link to external data including
databases, and execute
web based functions.
Do you know what I use it for, to write documents. nothing
crazy or complex,
at least most of the time. Wouldn't it be interesting that
when you first
installed or configured Microsoft Word, there was an
option for installing
only a bare bones version of the core product. I mean,
really stripped down
so there was not much to it. You can do this to a degree,
but all the shared
application components are still there. Almost every
computer I have
compromised during security assessments has had MS-Word
installed on it. I
can't tell you how many times I have used this
applications ability to do
all kinds of complex tasks to compromise the system and
other systems
further. We'll leave the details of this for another
article though.
Conclusion
----------
Here's the bottom line. The more complex systems get,
typically in the name
of ease of use for end users, the more opportunity for
failure, compromise,
and infection increases. There are ways of making things
easy to use,
perform well, and provide a wide variety of function and
still decrease
complexity and maintain security. It just takes a little
longer to develop
and more thought of security. You might think that a large
part of the blame
for complex insecure software should fall on the
shoulders of the
developers. But the reality is it is us, the end users and
consumers that
are partially to blame. We want software that is bigger,
faster, can do just
about everything, and we want it fast. We don't have time
to wait for it to
be developed in a secure manner, do we?
You may reprint or publish this article free of charge as
long as the
bylines are included.
Original URL (The Web version of the article)
------------
http://www.defendingthenet.com/NewsLetters/WhyEasyToUseSoft
wareIsPuttingYouA
tRisk.htm
About The Author
----------------
Darren Miller is an Information Security Consultant with
over seventeen
years experience. He has written many technology &
security articles, some
of which have been published in nationally circulated
magazines &
periodicals. If you would like to contact Darren you can
e-mail him at
Darren.Miller () defendingthenet com. If you would like to
know more about
computer security please visit us at
http://www.defendingthenet.com.
-----------------------------------------------------------
----------------
EARN A MASTER OF SCIENCE IN INFORMATION ASSURANCE - ONLINE
The Norwich University program offers unparalleled Infosec
management education and the case study affords you
unmatched consulting experience.
Tailor your education to your own professional goals with
degree customizations including Emergency Management,
Business Continuity Planning, Computer Emergency Response
Teams, and Digital Investigations.
http://www.msia.norwich.edu/secfocus
-----------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional
Standards Legislation in respect of matters arising within
those States and Territories of Australia where such
legislation exists.
DISCLAIMER
The information contained in this email and any
attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended
recipient, you must not use or disclose the information.
If you have received this email in error, please inform us
promptly by reply email or by telephoning +61 2 9286 5555.
Please delete the email and destroy any printed copy.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender. You may not rely on this message as
advice unless it has been electronically signed by a
Partner of BDO or it is subsequently confirmed by letter
or fax signed by a Partner of BDO.
BDO accepts no liability for any damage caused by this
email or its attachments due to viruses, interference,
interception, corruption or unauthorised access.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards
Legislation in respect of matters arising within those States and
Territories of Australia where such legislation exists.
DISCLAIMER
The information contained in this email and any attachments is
confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use or disclose
the
information. If you have received this email in error, please inform
us
promptly by reply email or by telephoning +61 2 9286 5555. Please
delete the
email and destroy any printed copy.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender. You
may not rely on this message as advice unless it has been
electronically
signed by a Partner of BDO or it is subsequently confirmed by letter
or fax
signed by a Partner of BDO.
BDO accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its
attachments due to viruses, interference, interception, corruption
or
unauthorised access.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards
Legislation in respect of matters arising within those States and
Territories of Australia where such legislation exists.
DISCLAIMER
The information contained in this email and any attachments is
confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use or disclose
the
information. If you have received this email in error, please inform
us
promptly by reply email or by telephoning +61 2 9286 5555. Please
delete the
email and destroy any printed copy.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender. You
may not rely on this message as advice unless it has been
electronically
signed by a Partner of BDO or it is subsequently confirmed by letter
or fax
signed by a Partner of BDO.
BDO accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its
attachments due to viruses, interference, interception, corruption
or
unauthorised access.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards
Legislation in respect of matters arising within those States and
Territories of Australia where such legislation exists.
DISCLAIMER
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use or disclose the
information. If you have received this email in error, please inform us
promptly by reply email or by telephoning +61 2 9286 5555. Please delete the
email and destroy any printed copy.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. You
may not rely on this message as advice unless it has been electronically
signed by a Partner of BDO or it is subsequently confirmed by letter or fax
signed by a Partner of BDO.
BDO accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its
attachments due to viruses, interference, interception, corruption or
unauthorised access.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation in respect of matters arising within
those States and Territories of Australia where such legislation exists.
DISCLAIMER
The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you
must not use or disclose the information. If you have received this email in error, please inform us promptly by reply
email or by telephoning +61 2 9286 5555. Please delete the email and destroy any printed copy.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. You may not rely on this message as advice
unless it has been electronically signed by a Partner of BDO or it is subsequently confirmed by letter or fax signed by
a Partner of BDO.
BDO accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments due to viruses, interference,
interception, corruption or unauthorised access.
Current thread:
- RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk, (continued)
- RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk Al Sutton (Feb 22)
- RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk dave kleiman (Feb 22)
- RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk Craig Wright (Feb 22)
- RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk Craig Wright (Feb 22)
- FW: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk Craig Wright (Feb 24)
- RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk Craig Wright (Feb 24)
- RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk Al Sutton (Feb 24)
- RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk Craig Wright (Feb 24)
- RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk Al Sutton (Feb 24)
- RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk Al Sutton (Feb 24)
- RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk Craig Wright (Feb 24)
- RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk Al Sutton (Feb 22)