Slashdot Mirror
Sendmail Bug Tests US Dept Homeland Security
yanestra writes "CNET reports that the reported Sendmail bug has been a test for the US Department of Homeland Security which seems to have managed information flow in this case."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
While keeping news of the issue from leaking to those who might exploit the vulnerability.
Free flow of information > Security
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Are they saying that this worked perfectly? If so, what about the next exploit? What if Joe Nobody finds a hole, and makes it public before the DHS gets with the makers of the software? What about the businesses in the private sector that fail to patch their systems? Wasn't the fix for SQL Slammer out for months? I'm sure this is a step in the right direction, but really, what happens next time?
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
Sendmail is a very flexible mail package...too flexible for most people.
It's power and configuration settings make it a good choice for admins who have taken the time to read on it. However, more often then not we find that there are a lot of lazy admins out there who just get it "up and running" and don't care to understand the security issues with the server. While I've used sendmail for years in the past, but now use postfix. There are a slew of other mail programs out there that can be configured without having to use m4 rules, understand sendmail's rewrite metods etc. I would suggest that if you must have a mail server up, but don't want to take the time to learn sendmail, PLEASE, use something else. I realize this is a little off-topic but it's not too much. It all boils down to securing the net. That takes more then a few bug fixes (and YES you must apply all of them) and a good admin to configure the server/services.
We all got notified to patch our systems immediately.
Everyone is working togther to get all the systems running sendmail patched.
While this doesn't seem like a big deal in the corporate world, in the government world, all red tape has been removed and we can make changes to critical systems INSTANTLY.
FIX FIRST, meet later. It's an entirely different attitude, and it allows me to do my job more efficently. It works.
Wouldn't it be best to issue a statement like "sendmail has an exploitable vulnerability, we recommend that you switch to your standby alternate mail system until we release a fix"? There is no way that blackhats would figure out where to look from a statement like that, and those of us with really good security could switch to our exim-based solution if we really feared to be hacked. Basically, do we trust the homeland security dept to determine our security policy?
That being said, good to see a well coordinated patch release. I just wish the paranoids would get advance warning.
Stop the brainwash
sadly, i don't see the 'force people to fix security holes' where we need it.
we have (mostly) good timing getting patches out (even ms gets patches out), but getting end users to *apply* the patches has been a problem. lack of knowledge, time, technical skills, etc.
at this point, this does seem to be addressed.
how do we (ahum) fix the end user? my belief is that it should be required that end users have staff/contractors that are certified on their stuff *and* that hey maintain a maintenance log that documents actions or lack of them. if you look at radio stations and the requirements they include licensed radio engineers and logs and other must-dos and must-haves.
it's time people understood that being connected to everyone else requires a little bit more work.
eric
Is the U.S. Department of Homeland Security also going to try and take care of software developed internationally?
For example, it seems that a lot of OpenSSH development is done in Canada and Germany. And the server is run out of Canada.
The OpenSSL team looks primarily international too (UK, Germany, Sweden, New Zealand). There server is managed by Brits and Swedes.
Actually... I think you'll find that a lot of crypto software is based outside the US. Probably due to constraints placed on crypto development in the last decade.
I liked the handling of ssh's problems last year much better. "Heads up, there's a problem in these versions. We'll let you know exactly what after we get the patch out." It's not enough to give a hacker a reasonable foot up, but it gets the service off the network should anyone already be quietly taking advantage of the weakness.
Once again, ISS have let the community down. Instead of informing the vendors, or CERT, or even just posting to Bugtraq, they informed the USG first. As a result .mil sites had the patch four days before anyone else (so far as we know) were even aware that there was an issue. [Although they claim that they checked their private "sensor" networks, somehow I doubt they have better coverage than eg DShield.org. ) This is unacceptable behaviour for an info-sec company that wants to be a responsible member of the community, and of course is just the latest in a list of behaviour that I at least consider unethical. I work for an ISS reseller outside the USA, and I will be exercising my influence internally to push for replacing the ISS prodcuts either with Free alternatives, or proprietary products from companies with a better grasp of their responsibilities. BTW we have several very big global clients.
I think you answered your own question:
The biggest criticisms voiced about CERT were that they acted too slow and didn't provide enough detail information about problems
In other words, CERT was a day late and a dollar short.
we'll start hearing the same complaints about the Dept. of Homeland Security soon...
I agree. Except they'll be a year late and ten billion dollars short.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
> Speaking of the Dept. of Homeland Security, here's an link [democratic...ground.org] to an article with some suggestions to Tom Ridge on how to improve his department, so that it actually keeps the citizenry well-informed and aware of possible terrorist threats and how to handle them (as opposed to keeping them scared and in an information blackout).
You're making a mighty big assumption about what the DoHS was created for.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Does anybody else find it disturbing that "good security" is being equated with "keeping exploits quiet"?
It's precisely the threat of publicity that pressures vendors into patching their compromised software quickly. If that threat is relieved, by Official KeepYerDamnMouthShut Orders from a government body, those same vendors may start to think "Phew, now we can wait for the next upgrade".
This is Not a Good Thing.
I think it's interesting that the government is getting credit for working with the private sector in releasing information. Part of the the point of open sourced software is so that bugs can be found and patched quickly. The CERT email I got yesterday afternoon had MANY patch sources listed by vendor (RedHat, Apple, Sendmail etc) and was timely. I don't belive that the pat on the back goes to Uncle Sam in this situation, but rather the folks at Sendmail who worked to resolve this issue in a timely and organized fashion. They released the information to those who needed to know (including the DHS) and worked on a solution to get this stuff out to the public.
To quote Eric Raymond, "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"
Kudos to Sendmail for getting this taken care of.
AF-Design, web development.
In the future, the Department of Homeland Security will be the U.S. agency that will manage any response to major cyberthreats.
I hope these guys have Microsoft's number on speed dial...
Run with Scissors!
The one thing I didn't like about this article was the idea that this kind of process should be followed by everyone. This is what I saw as the process:
Here's the flaw(s) in this process:
I guess the biggest thing that I don't like about this is that idea that this model will support the Closed Source software model because of the arguments of: