Security Basics mailing list archives
RE: Secure host newbie - fun - humm
From: "Chinnery, Paul" <PaulC () mmcwm com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:29:55 -0400
That 8 million dollar fine is bogus. There is no such figure in any HIPAA documents I've seen. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -----Original Message----- From: Ranjeet Shetye [mailto:ranjeet.shetye2 () zultys com] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 2:55 PM To: Barry Fitzgerald Cc: Charles Highsmith; Alvin Oga; Simon Lemieux; security-basics () securityfocus com Subject: Re: Secure host newbie - fun - humm No, I am not pushing one decision over another. I am pointing out the fact that when a HUMAN BEING decides to run a server KNOWING that there is a security problem, then that is a HUMAN issue, NOT a technology issue. (e.g. I dont think that running an insecure service is any different from insecurely running a secure service - in both cases, its professional negligence.) Just cos an admin is helpless cos there is NO fix, does NOT exonerate the network admin of any blame, IF he or she KNEW that is an exploit available. In today's 24x7 broadband interconnected world, you have 2 options: 1. Take down the server yourself. 2. Hope that you do not get compromised and continue business as usual. (When you do get taken down, try to put it back together from backups.) Are there any other options ? That is what I was pointing out. Find out the cost of each option, and take the path with the lesser cost. Decision-making 101. e.g. Lets take a case where there IS a severe price to be paid for the NEGLIGENCE of KNOWINGLY running an insecure solution. If a US based service is hosting health records on a Linux server, and they KNOW that there is a kernel exploit that's available, BUT there is no fix available for it, then either they play safe and TAKE DOWN the server themselves, or prepare for a costly legal battle and/or a lengthy prison sentence if it can be proven that the admin was (deliberately ?) NEGLIGENT. The court is surely NOT going to think that running data servers for 24x7 (admin's desire) OR the health of the business (CEO's desire) is more important than the privacy of the health records. By law, EACH leaked health record will cost you $8 million + other civil and criminal proceedings if warranted + other intangibles like loss of customer trust, loss of reputation, etc. If that is worth keeping your servers up and running, you should make the decision accordingly. I wouldn't. I'd try to keep the service secure. On the other hand, if you are running a photo album server, then things are not so bad. As I said, you've got to take your own individual decision. This is very different from DoS attacks because in DoS, you dont get a choice, your server gets taken down for you. It's not a business decision taken on the basis of some calculated risk. And I DO think that security is a very black and white issue. Either you have it, or you dont. Ranjeet. On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 07:04, Barry Fitzgerald wrote:
Ranjeet Shetye wrote:I'd say that most of the **avoidable** security **problems** are created by human beings (and network admins too). just going over the recent well-publicised and researched breakins: ftp.gnu.org - known ptrace kernel exploit (but no solution available) - TECHNOLOGY + HUMAN (cos admins decided to leave machine running and "risk it").Are you advocating that people should just take their servers down if someone finds an exploit that isn't patched? Well, in that case, who needs denial of service attacks? You're also assuming that every admin is aware when an exploit is found, that's not always the case. (In fact, I'd argue that it's like that unless a patch or new version is released and said admin is on an announcement list, they probably don't know about the vulnerability.) If both of these are the case, then an issue like this is not a human issue at all - it's a technology issue.(My interpretation: TECHNOLOGY - unexpectedly getting a flat tyre while you're driving. HUMAN - driving around despite knowing that you have a flat tyre.)I disagree completely. I see what you're getting at, but it's not enough. I'd define it this way: TECHNOLOGY - Any issue which could have been prevented or stopped technologically. This includes flaws in software that are purely technical -- including flaws in design methodology. HUMAN - Improper use, misconfiguration of known-to-be-insecure configurations, use of inherently vulnerable services (like nfs and telnet) when better alternatives exist and are equally available, and not patching a system when it is known to be safely patchable. (In the real world, you can't just patch a system -- you have to test things first.) Most of these are configuration and use issues, and often there is a justification for carrying out the action. For instance, telnet is inherently "insecure". Yet, there are times when it's appropriate to use telnet. Sometimes, decisions aren't cut and dry and it's these decisions that fall into the HUMAN category, not the decision to run a vulnerable system when you don't have a choice. That's purely technological. -Barry
-- Ranjeet Shetye Senior Software Engineer Zultys Technologies Ranjeet dot Shetye2 at Zultys dot com http://www.zultys.com/ The views, opinions, and judgements expressed in this message are solely those of the author. The message contents have not been reviewed or approved by Zultys. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ethical Hacking at the InfoSec Institute. Mention this ad and get $545 off any course! All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 10 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. Attend a course taught by an expert instructor with years of in-the-field pen testing experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Master the skills of an Ethical Hacker to better assess the security of your organization. Visit us at: http://www.infosecinstitute.com/courses/ethical_hacking_training.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ethical Hacking at the InfoSec Institute. Mention this ad and get $545 off any course! All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 10 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. Attend a course taught by an expert instructor with years of in-the-field pen testing experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Master the skills of an Ethical Hacker to better assess the security of your organization. Visit us at: http://www.infosecinstitute.com/courses/ethical_hacking_training.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- RE: Secure host newbie - fun - humm, (continued)
- RE: Secure host newbie - fun - humm Ranjeet Shetye (Apr 05)
- Re: Secure host newbie - fun - humm Barry Fitzgerald (Apr 07)
- Re: Secure host newbie - fun - humm Ranjeet Shetye (Apr 07)
- Re: Secure host newbie - fun - humm Barry Fitzgerald (Apr 07)
- Re: Secure host newbie - fun - humm Ranjeet Shetye (Apr 07)
- Re: Secure host newbie - fun - humm Barry Fitzgerald (Apr 07)
- Re: Secure host newbie - fun - humm Ranjeet Shetye (Apr 07)
- Re: Secure host newbie - fun - humm Barry Fitzgerald (Apr 07)
- Re: Secure host newbie - fun - humm Barry Fitzgerald (Apr 07)
- RE: Secure host newbie - fun - humm Ranjeet Shetye (Apr 05)
- Re: Secure host newbie - fun - humm Fredrik Hult (Apr 12)
- corrected HIPAA facts. Ranjeet Shetye (Apr 07)