Red Hat & Dell Host Open Source Security Summit

wishus writes "Red Hat and Dell said they would co-host an Open Source Security Summit. 'Join Red Hat, Dell and experts in enterprise security from around the world for a summit on securing infrastructures with open source software.'"

Comments

So..

[Anonymous Coward]

when can I get an easy-to-use-and-configure, secure network file system ?

Timing...

[ackthpt]

And there's this nice bit being splashed about on Yahoo News this morning.

Re:User Friendly Security

[netphilter]

I agree that security should be easy, and believe it or not I think that in some ways Microsoft is beginning to do a good job in this arena. Before you flame me hear me out. I'm not claiming that Microsoft OS's are secure, or that they're even as secure as Linux. However, they have found ways to integrate some basic security features in a user-friendly way. For example, the Internet Connection Firewall. Is it a great firewall? No, not at all. However, it does provide basic firewalling services, and it logs. I know that Redhat incorporates ipchains and allows for relatively simple configuration, but ICF just seems a bit more userfriendly. I would, however, like to see someone (I started to but don't have the time) write a perl script that goes through the logs looking for traffic patterns so you can do basic intrusion detection.

Again, in general I think that Microsoft has deployed some simple security tools like ICF, the MBSA, and even Windows Update that Redhat can't really compete with. Even up2date is a little more complicated than most people want to deal with. The RHN is a good service for enterprises, but for Joe User that doesn't want to pay it's just not that great. I have recently converted a family member to Redhat from Win2k, and one of their complaints is their inability to update their PC because "Free service limited due to high load..." Most people don't know what that means and don't care...it discourages them from even updating their computers at all. Overall, I think that Microsoft is winning the user-friendly security tool war, even though their software is not secure.

Design, Development, Deployment "load marks"

[NZheretic]

From the Plimsoll Club history

Samuel Plimsoll, M.P.
(1824-1898)
Samuel Plimsoll brought about one of the greatest shipping revolutions ever known by shocking the British nation into making reforms which have saved the lives of countless seamen. By the mid-1800's, the overloading of English ships had become a national problem. Plimsoll took up as a crusade the plan of James Hall to require that vessels bear a load line marking indicating when they were overloaded, hence ensuring the safety of crew and cargo. His violent speeches aroused the House of Commons; his book, Our Seamen, shocked the people at large into clamorous indignation. His book also earned him the hatred of many shipowners who set in train a series of legal battles against Plimsoll. Through this adversity and personal loss, Plimsoll clung doggedly to his facts. He fought to the point of utter exhaustion until finally, in 1876, Parliament was forced to pass the Unseaworthy Ships Bill into law, requiring that vessels bear the load line freeboard marking. It was soon known as the "Plimsoll Mark" and was eventually adopted by all maritime nations of the world.

The risks,issues and solutions for providing a more secure operating and application enviroment have been known for decades. Those who do not already comprehend the issues and are willing to learn, should take some time out to listen to some of the speeches at Dr. Dobbs Journal's Technetcast security archives, starting with Meeting Future Security Challenges by Dr. Blaine Burnam, Director, Georgia Tech Information Security Center (GTISC) and previously with the National Security Agency (NSA)

The "security rules" for Unix based system and application development are well known, although not widely taught. See Secure Programming for Linux and Unix by David Wheeler. Although Microsoft's NT,2000 and XP are not Unix based, a lot of the core above "rules" apply or have direct or indirect equivalents

Because some developers ignore similar above rules, the design and implementation of some applications and servers are just too unsafe to use in the "open ocean" of the internet.

Numerous security experts have railed against Microsoft's lack of security, best summed up by Bruce Schneier Founder and CTO Counterpane Internet Security, Inc who rightly stated ...

Honestly, security experts don't pick on Microsoft because we have some fundamental dislike for the company. Indeed, Microsoft's poor products are one of the reasons we're in business. We pick on them because they've done more to harm Internet security than anyone else, because they repeatedly lie to the public about their products' security, and because they do everything they can to convince people that the problems lie anywhere but inside Microsoft. Microsoft treats security vulnerabilities as public relations problems. Until that changes, expect more of this kind of nonsense from Microsoft and its products. (Note to Gartner: The vulnerabilities will come, a couple of them a week, for years and years...until people stop looking for them. Waiting six months isn't going to make this OS safer.)

However Microsoft's products are not alone in the presence of vulnerabilities, this is a major issue for Linux/BSD and Unix as well as any other OS and vendor.

In a recent speech Fixing Network Security by Hacking the Business Climate Bruce Schneier claimed that for change to occur, the software industry must become libel for damages from "unsecure" software, however historically, this has not always been the case, since most businesses can insure against damages and pass the cost along to the consumer.

The Ford Pinto and more recently the Ford Explorer's tires are two examples of public and media pressure being more successful than just threat of lawsuits. Even so, eventually though public pressure the governments around the world have to step in and pass regulations that set up a minimum set of requirements an automobile has to meet to be deemed "road worthy". This includes crash testing as well as the inclusion of safety equipment on all models. The requirement are not constant and change to meet the expectations and demands of the public and lawmakers.

The onus is not only on the automotive industry itself but also on the users. Most countries require that all automobiles undergo regular inspection and maintain an up to date "Warrant of Fitness".

In the same way, if you want a secure IT infrastructure, eventually the software design, implementation and each deployment will have to undergo the same type of regulation and scrutiny.

For paid software distributions, this could mean just a tick list of security features and security tests to the other extreme of requiring the source code to be fully audited for government/secure deployments.

For users, this would require running a program that checks to make sure that all the required software security update/patches have been installed to the other extreme of requiring an audited deployment for government/secure deployments.

Users and vendors should be taking a more active approach, including lobbying government, to
1) set up a minimum set of expectations, in the design and implementation of internet "accessing" software ; and
2) ensure that all deployments are more securely implemented ; and/or
3) remove inherently unsecure products from the marketplace.

IMO the above three are preferable to all software vendors, including Microsoft, than attempts to allow liability lawsuits against vendors for deployments which the software vendors have very little control over.

Kernel compiles don't have to be horror stories

[PetiePooo]

How many people here remember the older versions of SCO UNIX? It used to be, when you got drivers for an add-in card, you received only the source or a library file and headers. You'd have to recompile the kernel just to get that old NetCom X.25 card working.

Thankfully, they had an interface to automate that. It was a CUI, of course, because few people had the luxury of enough memory to run X11.. (Ack! I sound like my dad.. "I had to walk to school! Up hill; both ways!) But, all you had to do was run a script. Perhaps more than "./configure; make; make install," but not too involved. An entry-level sys-admin could do it. Of course, they had dead-tree instructions to guide them too; something that's missing all to often today.

Some of you may be thinking there's no need to recompile the kernel if you can just use insmod. Have you heard of the module-based rootkits? My hardened system has loadable modules disabled. If I need to compile something, I do it on another system. A little paranoia pays off in this world.

There are many things to do yet that would help people who aren't gurus create secure, hardened Linux installs. I foresee only good things coming from summits like this.

Re:User Friendly Security

[back_pages]

How useful is that friendly firewall going to be once every cracker interested in breaking into Windows boxes knows what the failings of it are? That user friendly firewall becomes a user friendly waste of time.

It would be fantastic if their user friendly firewall did all the work rather than part of the work, but the ability to root a box in 5 ways instead of 10 is still the ability to root. The real danger is in convincing the users that the firewall makes them safe and therefore need not be vigilant or suspicious. That creates users who do not patch their software, making the inevitable breach more disasterous.

In fact, your quote, "Microsoft is winning the user-friendly security tool war, even though their software is not secure," is rather telling. They aren't winning anything related to security. They're succeeding in generating revenue through marketing and slogans, which they've always done. The security of their products is not enhanced in any fashion by their user friendly firewall in the long run. If you think it takes a public relations department and TV commercials to win the security tool war, you simply don't have a clue and probably don't want one.

Turn up the logic and turn down the posting

[Marc2k]

On the one hand they're Microsoft's little bitch and make it hard as hell to buy systems with Windows on them, on the other hand they pull crap like this.

What? Did you mean WITHOUT? If you didn't, then you surely have three hands, because you're talking about three different viewpoints, plus that's just not true. If you did, did you see THIS article? Hmm? Didja?

Also, what's this crap about "crap like this"? I dont' think hosting an OS conference is crap.

Re:Interesting

[pellaeon]

You (and my co-responder) haven't run RedHat for a while haven't you? By default, since RH7.1, NO services are started!

Get your facts straight before flaming please. Red Hat is doing a good job, progressively being more 'secure by default' since about RH 6.1 (took them a while though ;-)