Slashdot Mirror
Gov't Vulnerability-Disclosure Program Draws Heat
AndreyF writes " Securityfocus.com reports: 'a long-anticipated program meant to encourage companies to provide the federal government with confidential information about vulnerabilities in critical systems took effect Friday, but critics worry that it may do more harm than good.' The article discusses both sides of the PCII question, but leaves me wondering why the pro argument rests on my trusting large corporate CEO's to 'do the right thing.'"
Is this Gov't Vulnerability-Disclosure program written in C or Java?
welcome our ... oh, wait, I guess it would be old Bush overlords
Does pretty much running all of the computers in the US count as being critical infrastructure? ;)
got sig?
Moulton says a more effective approach would compel companies to report vulnerabilities to the government, and give the government the power to enforce reforms, or, alternatively, warn the public.
:-(
Since when do governments of any country inform the public when they don't absolutely have to? when was the last time you thought of your leaders are public *servants*?
No, I think a better alternative would have been to screw PCII and let public scrutiny (and reactions) dictate what the government and the critical facilities should do. But as always since the war-on-terror bullshit, the government passes laws behinds people's back, without any consultation and approval of the people they're meant to represent and serve. F#)(*%&g brilliant
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
One big concern is that the companies can get immunity (and public silence) if they 'fess up to the problems. Leakers of confidentially submitted information will be prosecuted, and the government will be on the hook, not the company. Except since nobody can leak it, the ones really on the hook for the problems are the people who will be depending on it.
Still, that could be the only carrot that might convince the big companies to actually admit to their failures.
Companies should be legally required to disclose vulnerabilities to government, with stiff penalties for failing to do so. It should also be made available via the Freedom of Information Act because we have a right to know that our information is being protected.
What's next? Microsoft doesn't disclose a vulnerability in SQL Server and the IRS database is leaked to hackers?
This is just one more reason why we need Open Source in government. The official in Peru who blasted Microsoft over closed source got it right. The citizen's right of information protection comes first and this can only be achieved through Open Source software, where every citizen has the right to make sure their data is being handled properly.
Closed source products have no business in government (or really anywhere for that matter) and should be outlawed.
Have you read the GNU Manifesto lately?
[A] long-anticipated program meant to encourage companies to provide the federal government with confidential information about vulnerabilities in critical systems...
You can find the vulnerabilities in my systems at http://www.debian.org/security/.
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade
Long live Schrodinger's cat...
Geez I feel safe already. It's not like any teenager could break into a gov website or anything. Makes me warm and fuzzy inside. And in more "E"lated news... The US government announces the greatest terrorist to walk the planet... Mother Nature, and her Weather of Mass Destruction
MoFscker
"Closed source products have no business in government (or really anywhere for that matter) and should be outlawed."
:)
What an amazing quote. So typical of slashdot, but with the well presented arguemnt it makes sense.
A key provision of the law bars the government from using the vulnerability information in any enforcement action against the company, or from using it as the basis for proposing new legislation or regulations on industry.[snip]
Of course, the law wasn't intended as a shield for corporate negligence: information that comes to the government independently of the PCII reporting is still fair game.
So if a company doesn't want to put any money in to securing their computer infrastructure, they simply report that and the govt can't force them. When an attack occurs, the company will point at the govt and say that the govt new that they "lacked the funds" or something to secure their comps.
Incredible BS-law Protecting companies and enableing them to assign the blame on others. Is this really what the government wanted to achieve with the law, or was this simply the result of corporate lobbying?
Oops, I linked to the Microsoft letter. Here is the Peru congressman's reply. Specifically, here's a good summary:
"To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indispensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.
To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.
To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*."
Have you read the GNU Manifesto lately?
The big CEO's tell the government what to do anyway, so any program that appears to put the government in charge merely conceals the truth.
MoFscker
Campaign contributions and old-school business-think anyone? FSVO "right thing", of course.
Naahh...
C|N>K
Ask yourself, do tax cuts for big businesses create American jobs? Then compare it to this, will big businesses care about big government?
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
Mandate or not, the most serious vulnerabilities will be those that the company is ignorant of.
If a company is aware of a serious vulnerability, and decides that it doesn't make business sense to correct, it has the option of making the government aware in order to limit the company's liability. Clever indeed.
The last I heard funds are being tied up all over the place in the Dep't of Homeland Security. What makes them think they can, on a whim, create an organisation that would affect the security of systems nationwide? We need patches 0-second from the release of exploits at the rate things are going these days. Even though the government wouldn't be the one controling the release of anything, wouldn't involving them and especially the DoHS put a big slowdown on the process? It seems many system admin's patch only when they hear about it on the news. I wonder how long the gov't would wait before acknowledging that something is infact a problem - unless of course somebody releases a Terrorist.B virus?
Steal This Sig
Companies should be legally required to disclose vulnerabilities to government Uhh that's what security lists are for. Just look at the recent securityfocus rantings about MS taking 6 months for a patch, because the vuln was in development. So what can you really blame MS when, sure they did disclose it when their engineers pinpointed it. That would be unfair to any vendor. Just look at private exploits, what would you say about that?
It should also be made available via the Freedom of Information Act because we have a right to know that our information is being protected. Good luck. Hell if non top-secret energy documents are kept from the public, you should know that they'll throw a "We're protecting the infrastructure from terrorists... Even mother nature (sorry I can't get over the mother nature humor)
MoFscker
Corporations should be required to disclose all problems with their products and infrastructure as soon as they know about them, and given immunity for doing so. Failure to disclose problems immediately would drop the immunity. I am all for suing the pants off the bastards when they hide defects and cover up and it is only found out after deaths and accidents. Remember Ford Explorers and Bridgestone tires? Remember Ford overheating electronics causing fires in the engine compartment? Remember GM side saddle fuel tanks? etc etc. I have no problem with companies making mistakes, but they better disclose them as soon as they find out, not try to cover up.
Infuriate left and right
Ok, I'm curious, and perusing the website doesnt help me too much. What do these guys have against /. ?
"There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
"feel good" paper tiger that does nothing but further gut the FOIA. Being on the outside, I almost want to see Bush and Blair get re-elected, possibly forcing the rest of the world to make a real attempt to effectively deal with what is becoming the american/european menace.
What?
I thought we were supposed to NOT comment on security flaws...
>>Companies should be legally required to disclose vulnerabilities to government
> Uhh that's what security lists are for.
That's what they're for, but the majority of exploits are found first by people *outside* of companies. And Microsoft really wants it that you tell them first, give them 30 days to work on it, then finally tell everyone else about it. While I can understand the want to "minimize damages", the truth is the fastest way to minimize damages is to *stop* using vulnerable software. Waiting 30 days or more to tell people there's a problem isn't helping anyone.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
They keep you busy with jobs that require more time than brains. They keep you running on a treadmill for as many hours as possible. It disorients and distracts. It keeps your mind off the fact that you are slowly slipping and sliding down that slope. But keep breeding- They are going to need that population to stay high so they will have a never ending resource of willing subjects.
They rely on having large numbers of people, because when people become a scarce resource, the value of humanity increases. It's harder to control a person who has value, so the more idiots they can create, the less value the average, or even slightly above average person will have. It's only the privileged few that should enjoy life to the fullest, and a few token morons just for show, "See? Anyone can live like a king in America. So the problem is yours."
So the corporatists have overtaken the government with layers of lobbyists. They have convinced the "elected" leaders that they have the nations best interests at heart. They use you as a pawn, and they see the nuclear family as their greatest ad campaign. All that remains is to keep this little secret less than obvious.
Keep them watching those sports channels, the so-called reality based TV, and the endless parade of entertainment provided by the cable TV and TiVo. It keeps them off the streets, and ensures that the rabble stay out from under their agenda. Turn up the noise, and keep them riveted to the latest episode of "Survivor". If they have a tech fetish, let them watch Star Trek knock-offs, but never again show anything that might force them to think.
This technology we contrived does most of the work for us. But it's ingeniously engineered to have a drone standing over a mind-numbing machine for eight hours or more. This kills two birds with one stone: It keeps our standards artificially high, and keeps that drone occupied and out of our hair. If they don't like it, we'll start accusing them of being Luddites, and since the Luddites were destructive we can automatically associate and brand them with being vandals, and terrorists.
Nice, neat, and easy to justify.
OH LOOK! A TERROR THREAT! QUICK! BURY YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND! That's right... The big friendly corporate brother will take good care of you.
That ought to shut them up for a while...
Big business made this country what it is today. What will it turn this country into tomorrow.
OK, I'm done. Burn my karma and send in the flaming AC trolls.
Do you think that small corporate CEOs are more honest? What do you have against fat people anyway!?
A key provision of the law bars the government from using the vulnerability information in any enforcement action against the company, or from using it as the basis for proposing new legislation or regulations on industry.
Looks like Bill Gates just bought himself a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Trust companies to do what's right, what's efficient, even what's best for you, becuase capitalism is the best system of dealing with people's needs and wants.
I'm not going to burn you, I've already done a few trolls for anti-slash
I see suggestions that corporations should be held responsible for security vulnerabilities.
Apart from offering yet an other US inspired opportunity for a lawyer led sue fest the idea is appalling.
If corpoartions are 'responsible' for security then they will be required to have ' due dilligence'
What does 'due dilligence' entail - perhaps a pre-emptive strike by Mcdonalds against animal liberationists ?
A utility finds that it's IT staff and engineers all live clustered in a particular location. A bio or nuclear incident that affected the cluster location leaving them incapable of operating. How do they respond ? A security directorate for risk evaluation ?
Corporate responsibility for security is a dangerous slippery slope. It provides not just justification but will inevitably lead to the compulsion for corporations to set up the kind of "security/intelligence apparatus" that goverments have trouble keeping in control.
If I have to be spied on because of some "threat analysis" please let it be caused by Clinton/Bush subject to congressional oversight not by the board of Enron.
Even the PCII papers that a company compiles should not be subject to any sort of immunity... This is, generally, information that the company already has. The fact that this information has been compiled and/or submitted to the government doesn't provide any sort of real immunity -- especially if it is being used internally by the company for any other sort of purpose.
The second that a PCII document is used for any sort of internal company purpose, whatsoever, then there should be absolutely no reason why the company copies should have any sort of special immunity on account of a copy having been sent to PCII.
Some of the above will depend on how the law is written. the rest will depend on the first plaintifs who come against a PCII wall having really good lawyers.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Frankly I would consider the release of any information to the Government to be a vulnerability in itself.
If it happens on my premises or to a computer or system under my care I consider my priorities to be to my company, my employer, and to my employer's/company's clients to as quickly as possible resolve, repair, and restore systems to regular operation rather than gathering evidence and making reports to the Government.
and yes, I have had a hacked system under my care and control that we discovered, the issue was resolved, the system restored and put back into service. About two months later our network provider did forward an email from an FBI office stating that that computer's IP number had turned up in the logs of a computer system they had seized from some suspected hacker. We were able to respond that we had discovered this activity and had erased, reformatted, and reinstalled the system in question and that the breach, if any, had been secured.
I can't imagine if I had to report this, hold the system in reserve and not have it in service for our clients for several months or longer for the Government. I understand this has already happened to another isp hosting an IRC server where the FBI has seized all the computers in the facility so they can copy data.
Take, choosing a company totally at random, say... Diebold.
Think they would "do the right thing?"
Those companies with the biggest vulnerabilities and the most depending on their security would have the least incentive to report their issues, and probably are the least likely to have to ethical fortitude to do it, given the choice.
(Yes, there is an assumption hidden in there: critical sw with major security flaws, which linger for years without being resolved, is a certain indication of ethical laxness.)
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
It'll be funny when someone hacks in and steals a massive list of vulnerabilities.
I wouldn't trust the government to secure anything. It's actually kinda scary to think these people would have a massive collection of vulnerabilities nicely indexed with the targets - ripe and ready for malicious hackers to slurp up.
BTW, to those cooperating CEO's, I got a BARGAIN deal on the Brooklyn Bridge for ya! Gimme a shout!
So, they put the e-mail address for
submission on the webpage: pcii-info@dhs.gov
No doubt, some spam bots are now gathering it,
and some anti-Homeland wrong-thinkers are going
to make sure that address gets a double dose of
spam (and more).
This will effectively make their e-mail submission
system unusuable. This leaves only mail and
'controlled' mail submission (commercial carrier,
UPS, FedEx, etc.)
How will this delay affect the program?
For an organisation intent on doing some kind of harm, this system makes a very good target. Rather than having to try and "find" all these security flaws in the critical infrastructure I can go to one place and they are all served up on a silver platter. So who looks after this?
I know it's kind of trite, but who is going to guard the guards and ensure they are taking care of this ultra sensitive information? Who is going to audit the government infrastructure to ensure that it is secure and not vulnerable?
I know risk management strategies are generally based around the choices of accept, transfer or mitigate risk but this really seems to be purely blind transferance of risk with no understanding as to the capabilities of the receipient to properly manage or account for that risk.
Mod parent insightful. Funny no longer provides karma.
Definitly applies in part to MS's operations.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Like the other poster says, the same tires on other SUVs were ok, and Explorers with other tires were ok ... and their internal memos show they knew of the problem and tried to cover it up. Ditto for the engine compartment electronics overheating and causing fires: some bean counter actually wrote a memo saying it was cheaper to get sued a few times than to spend $4 per vehicle to fix the design. And again ditto for the side saddle fuel tanks; more internal memos showing a cover up.
What frustrates me so much is that it really is in their best interest to cover up, since if they disclose the flaw by redsigning it, they get sued anyway. The legal system makes no allowance for honest mistakes. That's what I propose, to provide indemnity if mistakes are admitted publicly and immediately, and throw the book at them for covering up problems.
Infuriate left and right
Jack: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere travelling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now: should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Single Serving Friend: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
Jack: You wouldn't believe.
Single Serving Friend: Which car company do you work for?
Jack: A major one.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
when was the last time you thought of your leaders are public *servants*?
I think a better question is, when was the last time *they* thought of themselves as public servants?
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Seems like jackbbot legislation to me. Damn those black helicopters are thick today!
-- Exposing the hype of Gentoo zealots. Modded into the ground to suppress opinion.
even the most cursory examination of the facts shows this whole story to be flamebait
Dude/ette I saw your sig & I agree.
Slash is not a place for expression of opinion any more (whoops their goes MY mod points). Too much censoring by gangs of zealots.
I suggest they do away with whole mod thing.
I don't understand why Schmidt is saying that casual conversations are the only way the government gets information, nor why he seems to imply that the government has to coax them into giving up the information. There's another simple solution to the problem:
"If you are considered "critical infrastructure", failure to report security vulnerabilities to the appropriate agencies is a Federal crime punishable by a prison term of no less than 10 years for the managers responsible for the vulnerable systems and all executives who knew of the failure to report and failed to correct it. Interfering with the reporting process is punishable by a similar prison term for all persons responsible for the interference. Failure to correct the vulnerabilities when correction is possible, or to mitigate them to the greatest extent possible if they cannot be corrected, will result in the government immediately rearranging things so that you are no longer part of the "critical infrastructure"."
If we need to protect the critical infrastructure as much as the politicians say we do then I see no reason to treat the corps with kid gloves, and if we can tolerate those vulnerabilities not being fixed then obviously the threat to that infrastructure can't be that great now can it?
"hold the system in reserve?"
Why?
When you reinstalled the machine, you should have:
- installed a new disk
- installed the system on the new disk
- keep the hacked disk for evaluation purposes, including passing it to the FBI when necessary.
I don't see how this would have hold your system on reserve.
And I doubt that the FBI would seize machines in that way. There are ways to retrieve the information from the machines without taking them. But I just doubt and I cannot prove was the FBI's operative mode is.
Sneak teach kids Algebra using a game
Havent any of you heard of Irony and Humor? Geez
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
"Basically, the information goes into government, and that's the dead end," says Sean Moulton, a senior policy analyst at OMB Watch. "Aside from encouraging the companies to do something, as far as my reading of the statute, they don't have much authority at all, and they can't warn the public."
(Setting: the school playground where government and corporations play)
Government: I can keep a secret. Tell me all your nasty mistakes and I won't tell anyone.
Company: Ok, but you have to promise that you won't tell Joe Consumer! Pinky swear!
This seems a tad scary to me. I'd prefer to have the government require that all companies must disclose information about vulnerabilities to the public. After all, aren't other companies outside of IT required to do this? How many times have we read about lawsuits where the public discovered that X company (tobacco, automobile, or otherwise) refused to disclose information about the hazards of their products to the public?
Sounds about a decent analogy, presidents are like diet food... Half the stupidity, but having him in government still leaves a bad taste in one's mouth?
which are available to the average person on a completely voluntary, elective basis
You think you have choice..., but the problem is that big companies often either misuse a monopolistic position to crush competing companies, or big amount of $$$ to enact laws limiting customer choice.
Look at the writable-media tax in Canada. Every CDR you buy puts $$$ in the pockets of a corporation that in many instances has very little to do with the product being purchased (I generally buy my CD's for data, or failing that the music I buy is freely/legally distributed anyways).
In this modern age of US Patriot Act (I & II), on-going DARPA TIA projects, FBI "Carnivore", and (God only knows what) various NSA projects, PCII is NOT something that I would encourage participating in. With public disclosure of government encroachment of privacy at an all- time low, I wouldn't revealing my company's vulnerabilities to anyone, let alone some faceless government "black-hats". Damn, now where did I put that tin-foil hat?