Security Basics mailing list archives
RE: Concepts: Security and Obscurity
From: "Mandelcorn, Seymour" <smandelc () umd edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 13:58:56 -0400
Are you aware of any scientific study that proves your point that "Security by Obscurity is an ineffective control" and that any benefit is outweighed by the cost? Some simple technique like disallowing DNS transfers enhance security without causing lost of functionality. Seymour M. Mandelcorn, M.S. System Administrator Institute for Govermental Service and Research University of Maryland 9658 Baltimore Blvd, Suite 205 College Park, Maryland 20742 Telephone: 301 397-2349 -----Original Message----- From: listbounce () securityfocus com [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com] On Behalf Of Craig Wright Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 8:15 PM To: warl0ck () metaeye org; security-basics () securityfocus com Subject: RE: Concepts: Security and Obscurity What is forgotten is that there is an economic/financial cost to all controls. A control is only effective if the cost of the control provides more utility than not having the control. Thus a control that provides some security at a cost that is greater than another control is ineffective overall. Security by Obscurity is an ineffective control. The gains are minimal in economic terms. The cost however is more than the pure cash/money costs. The additional losses to productivity and added difficultly in maintaining secrecy does not provide the required level of gains to offset the costs and thus creates a dead-weight loss in economic terms. Thus security by obscurity is no security as the costs in real economic terms do not bring benefit. It is of no use to spend $1,000,000 protecting a $1,000 asset. This is a loss and thus it is not a decision that provides security as the loss exists even before the system goes live. Regards, Craig 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. The information in this email and any attachments is confidential. If you are not the named addressee you must not read, print, copy, distribute, or use in any way this transmission or any information it contains. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email, destroy all copies and delete it from your system. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and not necessarily endorsed by BDO Kendalls. You may not rely on this message as advice unless subsequently confirmed by fax or letter signed by a Partner or Director of BDO Kendalls. It is your responsibility to scan this communication and any files attached for computer viruses and other defects. BDO Kendalls does not accept liability for any loss or damage however caused which may result from this communication or any files attached. A full version of the BDO Kendalls disclaimer, and our Privacy statement, can be found on the BDO Kendalls website at http://www.bdo.com.au or by emailing administrator () bdo com au. BDO Kendalls is a national association of separate partnerships and entities. -----Original Message----- From: listbounce () securityfocus com [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com] On Behalf Of Pranay Kanwar Sent: Thursday, 5 April 2007 5:55 AM To: security-basics () securityfocus com Subject: Re: Concepts: Security and Obscurity Hi Daniel, Nice write up,but you are missing the crux of the matter obscurity is mostly about secrecy and according to kerchoff's princliple and Mr. Bruce Schneier. secrecy or obscurity induces brittleness in the system. I'll replay the kerchoff's principle here from the wikipedia "Kerckhoffs' principle applies beyond codes and ciphers to security systems in general: every secret creates a potential failure point. Secrecy, in other words, is a prime cause of brittleness-and therefore something likely to make a system prone to catastrophic collapse. Conversely, openness provides ductility." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerchoffs_law Regards warl0ck // MSG http://www.metaeye.org
Current thread:
- Concepts: Security and Obscurity Daniel Miessler (Apr 04)
- Re: Concepts: Security and Obscurity Pranay Kanwar (Apr 04)
- Re: Concepts: Security and Obscurity Daniel Miessler (Apr 09)
- Re: Concepts: Security and Obscurity ericfurman (Apr 10)
- RE: Concepts: Security and Obscurity David Gillett (Apr 11)
- Re: Concepts: Security and Obscurity Daniel Miessler (Apr 09)
- RE: Concepts: Security and Obscurity security (Apr 05)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Concepts: Security and Obscurity work (Apr 04)
- Re: Concepts: Security and Obscurity Daniel Miessler (Apr 05)
- RE: Concepts: Security and Obscurity Mark Sutton (Apr 09)
- Re: Concepts: Security and Obscurity Daniel Miessler (Apr 05)
- RE: Concepts: Security and Obscurity Craig Wright (Apr 05)
- RE: Concepts: Security and Obscurity Mandelcorn, Seymour (Apr 09)
- RE: Concepts: Security and Obscurity Daniel Miessler (Apr 05)
- Re: Concepts: Security and Obscurity krymson (Apr 05)
- RE: Concepts: Security and Obscurity Ken Kousky (Apr 09)
- RE: Concepts: Security and Obscurity John Rodriguez (Apr 09)
- RE: Concepts: Security and Obscurity Ken Kousky (Apr 10)
- RE: Concepts: Security and Obscurity Ken Kousky (Apr 09)
- Re: Concepts: Security and Obscurity Pranay Kanwar (Apr 04)
- Re: Concepts: Security and Obscurity Pranay Kanwar (Apr 05)
- Re: Re: Concepts: Security and Obscurity levinson_k (Apr 09)
- Re: RE: Concepts: Security and Obscurity levinson_k (Apr 09)
- RE: Concepts: Security and Obscurity krymson (Apr 10)
- Re: Concepts: Security and Obscurity Joe Yong (Apr 11)