IP: Forward into the past: "securing the phone system"

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> 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/