Re: Thinking about Security rules...

["Ray Parks" <rcparks () sandia gov>]

"f.harster" wrote:
> Rhino Bond wrote:
...
> > Any thoughts on this?  Anyone seen a white paper on
> > such a set of rules?
> David,
>
> actually this reminds me of the "Defense-in-Depth" concept applied to
> network/system security, but i may be wrong ;)
> have a look at this one in the meantime :
> http://rr.sans.org/start/primer.php

  Just remember this aphorism - Depth without Breadth is useless.
  We engaged in a series of experiments within the DARPA IA program in
which we proved that Defense in Depth is an over-rated concept.  Layered
defenses can actually be weaker than single defenses because
administrators/developers think that another layer is providing the defense
they are ignoring.  The results of these experiments were recorded in a
paper, unfortunately I don't have a cite at this time.
  Bottom line - we were able to get through layers of defense in depth
because we could attack each layer in a different way.  This allowed
attacks to woogle through to the goal despite multiple layers of defense.

-- 
Ray Parks
rcparks () sandia gov
V:505-844-4024
F:505-844-9641
P:800-690-5288