Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
Re: Castles and Security (fwd)
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () research att com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 13:29:13 -0500
In message <D9C570D94236D4118DAE00508BCF3DA802218947 () cs14mail bestbuy com>, "Sc ott, Richard" writes:
<ramble> My sense of things is two fold. Firstly, if we are to build secure infrastructures, we need to use quality components. Would one build a castle out of straw. Despite bringing in another analogy, two of the three pigs built "castles" were not successful! If I decide to build an infrastructure, I should have the right to chose adequate components, and if those components are somehow certified, or legally advertising to be secure, that that should be sufficient. If I build a house and select quality bricks, and find that after the house was built the bricks were made of baked sand in stead of a concrete mixture (as advertised) as to allow anyone to enter in to my house, I could have legal recourse. The manufacture would be sued, and those who entered my house would also face legal prosecution either by my self or the state. Of all the discussions I seem to read on this, there tends to be a targeting of the attackers, or (exclusive) the manufactures. The problem are targeting I think should be reinforced at the component level. The gray area of security is that there isn't or lack of certified products that are secure. Yes, I could take NT/2000 set that up, and follow MS guidelines, and with the typical software disclaimer, I have no right in arguing that my system is safe, legally speaking. Targeting should be two pronged, at the attacker and the manufacturer.
There are a lot of problems with this line of argument, most notably that security components don't compose. Furthermore, whatever component certifications do exist are relative to a given security model; if you needs don't meet that model, the certification is useless. (A Orange Book B2 rating is quite irrelevant to protection of, say, a multi-customer Web hosting computer.) Certifications also tend to have environment restrictions; again, violating these can void the warranty. --Steve Bellovin _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards () nfr com http://www.nfr.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
Current thread:
- RE: Castles and Security (fwd), (continued)
- RE: Castles and Security (fwd) Frank Knobbe (Jan 03)
- RE: Castles and Security (fwd) twaszak (Jan 04)
- Re: Castles and Security (fwd) jeradonah (Jan 04)
- RE: Castles and Security (fwd) Bill_Royds (Jan 04)
- Re: Castles and Security (fwd) George Capehart (Jan 05)
- Re: Castles and Security (fwd) Ryan Russell (Jan 08)
- Re: Castles and Security (fwd) George Capehart (Jan 08)
- Re: Castles and Security (fwd) George Capehart (Jan 05)
- RE: Castles and Security (fwd) Scott, Richard (Jan 08)
- RE: Castles and Security (fwd) Antonomasia (Jan 08)
- Re: Castles and Security (fwd) Darren Reed (Jan 10)
- Re: Castles and Security (fwd) Steven M. Bellovin (Jan 10)
- RE: Castles and Security (fwd) Robert Graham (Jan 12)
- RE: Castles and Security Lance Spitzner (Jan 12)
- RE: Castles and Security (fwd) Robert Graham (Jan 12)
- RE: Castles and Security (fwd) Ben . Grubin (Jan 12)