Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: Forward into the past: "securing the phone system"
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 01:44:12 -0500
From: "Bob Frankston" <BobRMF17 () Bobf Frankston com> To: "Dave Farber" <farber () cis upenn edu> [[[Dave -- I was going to add some more philosophical comments and observations to this but decided you'd prefer an entry that focused on a particular issue. I will try to put together a coherent set of comments about how the current situation compares with fears and realities of the 50's and about xenophobia at a time when embracing the world is more vital than ever. But the real point I need to write about on my on site is why we not only must, but can, tolerate disruptive change. This includes civil liberties. Expectations of a suitcase bomb park on Pennsylvania Ave (in DC, not the one I lived on in Brooklyn), doesn't create a good environment for considered discussion. At least we haven't built bomb shelters yet -- instead we have SDI.]]] >From the New York Times "Attacks at Hubs Could Disrupt Phone Lines" November 23, 2001 By SIMON ROMERO http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/23/technology/23PHON.html?ex=1007573841&e i=1&en=c22f9074c02bfc05 Once more, it is disturbing to find that the current fears are used as a way to argue against change. The vulnerability of the phone network is being blamed on the requirement that companies open up their systems to competitors. This is an outright lie since the "small club" approach to telephony created vulnerabilities by focusing on a security perimeter that separated the good guys from the bad guys. The issue is really insufficient openness. The effort to deal with the problems of openness have the added benefit of requiring that one deals with threats be their simple errors or malicious. We should assume that any system that is not tested by stress is likely to be vulnerable. Before the "blue box" the "club" model of telecommunications security allowed for complacency. The article closes by noting "A move toward more decentralization is key, but it's something that will probably happen slowly," said A. Michael Noll of the University of Southern California Qwest has announced that it is moving towards IP-based telephony. We already have a decentralized telecommunications system thanks to openness! (Of course redundancy at the packet level is an issue that must be addressed.) Using fear as an excuse to stop progress in telecommunications is just one more reason I am worried about the current "war" as it is used to a return to an simplistic past rather than recognizing the value of disruptive change. Bob Frankston http://www.Frankston.com
For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- IP: Forward into the past: "securing the phone system" David Farber (Nov 23)