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.'"
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?
"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.
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.
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
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
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.
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!
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.
First of all, make no mistake that to the corporations and government, the average person is little more than a veal calf. You are merely a by-product of what they desire, and of course managing that takes time and energy away from them, so naturally they will regard the common citizen with a certain degree of contempt. After all, don't you feel a little ripped off when you have to pay your taxes? Corporatists feel a little ripped off when they have to share liberty and dignity with you. They regard themselves as the exceptional few, the elite, the have's. And the rest of you? Well... There you are.
This is one of the most amusing posts I've read in a while...;) So, I wanted to respond...
To governments the "average person" is a tax payer and a voter; to corporations, he's a customer. I cannot see that governments which levy taxes by decree, and enforce tax collection at the point of a gun, and routinely spend far more money annually than they collect in taxes by running up huge debts which will be paid by future generations are any better than corporations who compete among themselves to offer the "average person" a wide choice of goods and services, which are available to the average person on a completely voluntary, elective basis. In other words, I don't have to ever buy a GM car if I choose not to--but try that trick with the government where your taxes are concerned...;) The government won't sieze your property and put you in jail if you don't vote, however--that only happens if you decide to "opt out" on your taxes...:)
The other logical fallacy I see in your comment here is that "government" and "corporations" employ hundreds of millions of exactly the kind of "average people" you describe. We use abstract expressions like "government" and "corporations" to describe the *people* who administer them. Without those people the abstractions have no meaning.
Are you saying that we need to abolish governments and corporations? If so, what comes next?..;)
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.
You might like to think of what it is that these lobbyists use in their "convincing"...;) It's often money, isn't it? The problem for your analogy here, too, is that it overlooks the difference between what is voluntary and what is not. All corporations do not lobby, and all elected officials do not compromise their integrity by improperly capitulating to lobbyists. So in that sense it might be more accurate for you to say that "The government is overrun by greedy politicians who allow themselves to be improperly influenced by lobbyists."
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.
You might not be aware of it, but watching TV is entirely voluntary...:) I hate much of it personally, and rarely watch anymore. Unlike the compulsion the government uses to collect taxes, no one who doesn't want one has to own a TV, let alone watch it. What I get from your remarks is that you apparently watch way too much TV yourself--so do what I do--don't watch TV and do something else instead.
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
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.