Re: SCADA (or: How I learned to love receiving FWW in digest form)

[Dotzero <dotzero () gmail com>]

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Mike Barkett
<mbarkett () us checkpoint com> wrote:
> Yeah, I know the subject line makes me sound like a fuddy-duddy.  Anyway, because this is apparently a 
> last-one-to-post-wins thread, I figured I'd chime in.
>
> It seems that all of us subscribe to differing degrees of the same possibly incorrect notion... that all systems must 
> be connected to something.  If a system risks failure due to being connected to an infrastructure that will also fail 
> along with it, then maybe the net value of such connectivity is greatly diminished.  I believe Marcus' artist friend 
> rather elegantly made a similar point.

Systems do not have to be connected to anything..... as long as one
accepts the tradeoffs involved (just as there are tradeoffs to
deciding something should be connected).

All things being equal and there not being an incident in the news,
would Marcus' artist friend agree to a 10% or 20% increase in his
utility bills to have "proper security" (however one defines this)? I
seriously doubt the average person is willing to pay for that extra
security until after an incident (well, if I had known THAT was going
to happen.....). Remember the days when customer support was unlimited
and free when you bought software? And then it became free for 90
days.... and then it became free if you were willing to post to a
forum......

> We've already talked about solving the logging problem with physical air gaps and a connectionless logger.  Save for 
> physical access and possibly a dedicated leased line to an isolated emergency outpost (for example, to try to 
> remediate things if physical access is too dangerous for humans, or to manually apply patches IF applicable), why 
> introduce any additional risk?

One argument for the introduction of additional risk is that there is
added value to interconnected systems. Look at Electric production and
distribution. In the good old days one company produced and
distributed across a given area. Now it is a lot more complex. There
might be any number of producers transiting a distribution grid and
there might even be a choice of paths as to how those electrons get
from point A to point B. You have interties across networks, etc. This
means more people need access and/or provide more input.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, simply that it is. Some of the
tradeoffs are made intentionallly. Some are made without the
decisionmakers thinking about it.

I like this hypothetical world that some are describing where security
is easy and all the tradeoffs work easily. Where exactly is this
place?
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () listserv icsalabs com
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards