Slashdot Mirror
Do We Really Need a Security Industry?
netbuzz noted that Bruce Schneir's latest column
discusses the security industry where he points out that "The primary reason the IT security industry exists is because IT products and services aren't naturally secure. If computers were already secure against viruses, there wouldn't be any need for antivirus products. If bad network traffic couldn't be used to attack computers, no one would bother buying a firewall. If there were no more buffer overflows, no one would have to buy products to protect against their effects. If the IT products we purchased were secure out of the box, we wouldn't have to spend billions every year making them secure."
At least spell his name correctly: Schneier.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
The article assumes security is static: "..if computers were designed to not be susceptible to virii.."
If it's not virri or worms or buffer-overflows then it would be something else. Human intellect has this uncanny ability to grow and adapt.
Website Hosting
And if our buildings and public places were built securely, we wouldn't need police, right?
If murderers just stopped wanting to kill us. If drivers just wouldn't have accidents. If kids just didn't wander into swimming pools and drowned..........
Utopia is a pretty cool place. I'd like to go there too.
Sure, why not? You don't rely on the contractors who build your house to provide all the security you could ever need, but you do expect them to install windows and doors that lock. Windows and doors that lock aren't inherently "impenetrable", though. If you want to go beyond that, you call ADT or someone similar and let them take it to the next level.
If computers were already secure against viruses, there wouldn't be any need for antivirus products. If bad network traffic couldn't be used to attack computers, no one would bother buying a firewall. ...
And if pigs flew out of my arse, I wouldn't need to go to the supermarket to buy bacon. What's his point?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
As long as there is a human behind the computer, there *will* be a possibility of exploiting a vulnerability on the system... the human being.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Also, do not forget that an Internet connection allows anonymous attackers to assault your systems 24/7/52.
Having a firewall may not force the workstation software providers to improve their security. But the firewall provides a single point where you can focus intensive monitoring efforts.
We live in a world where people will trade their password for a bar of chocolate.
Over time the technology WILL get better. We're already seeing some of that. But in the end, even with perfect software security, we will still have problems because PEOPLE will be using the systems.
The problem here is that 99% of software purchasers simply don't have the ability to evaluate a product on the merits of its security. They do have the ability to evaluate products (1) on the merits of their prices.
The companies that develop software know that (2) doing security properly is extremely expensive, and requires hiring skilled specialists, and inegrating those specialists at all levels of the development process.
When you take points (1) and (2) into consideration, you realize that there is a lot more ROI in developing cheap insecure software than there is in developing expensive secure software.
This is an example of capitalism failing due to poorly-informed consumers. But I can think of no way to solve the problem (a security quantifier???), so the industry will continue along as it does today: cheap software and band-aid security.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
You'd eat bacon from your own ass pigs? Remind me not to come to your house for BLTs.
Now, take a default installation of Ubuntu Feisty Fawn. Even if you hook it straight into the Internet WITHOUT an external firewall (or running any firewall software) you'll still be very secure.
That's because, by default, there aren't any open ports. There's no way for any worms to attack your system. That's just basic security practice.
Now, there are other ways to crack a default Ubuntu installation. But they require that the admin have done something to make it LESS secure (or you can physically access the box).
Your example is about the physical world. And the problem there is that physical access is already assumed. We can take steps to REDUCE the physical access, but that still leaves social engineering attacks.
You will always need police just as you will always need sysadmins who will READ THE SECURITY LOGS. No matter how secure you are.
Demented But Determined.
If people didn't commit crimes there wouldn't be a need for police.
Put down that analogy; you're liable to cut yourself. 8^)
Security in buildings and public places represents an utterly different problem set from software security. They have virtually nothing in common. Suggesting that software security today is like (heh) a walk in the park is wildly wrong.
I hate analogies, because they cloud things more than they clarify them. But if I were to use yours, I would say that if our buildings and public spaces were better policed, we wouldn't need to pay for personal, individual security guards who pat down and disarm even our friends before they allow us to so much as look at one another.
Schneier's point is valid. In a healthy, heterogeneous software environment, the threats are fundamentally different from those we face today. We could move from trying to protect ourselves from clicking on tainted image and document files(!) to creating secure site configurations tailored to our particular needs. I too dream about the day when we have configurations that are not so draconian that people are precluded by fear from taking advantage of some of the Internet's greatest advantages: the end to end network.
There are some who will say that software is inherently insecure, and that it cannot be secured. There are some who say that people using 'safe' technologies and processes are only safe by virtue of the fact that there are easier targets in abundance. They are wrong. And this is Schneier's point: Whatever inherent problems there may be in software security, the vast majority of Windows users - let's call a spade a spade - work in an environment that is so utterly flawed that there is a quantum difference between the security issues they face and the vastly more limited security issues they could be facing, if only the manufacturers would cease to treat security as a cost centre external to their core business.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
A better question is: Do we really need columnist like Bruce Schneir telling us what a perfect world might look like?
[[ the only 15 letter word that is spelled without repeating a letter is uncopyrightable: it may soon be, however. ]]
All the "..and if..." replies really miss the point here. Its not that he's stating the obvious, he's saying the glory days of IT security as an aftermarket industry are over. The focus of IT security is shifting from point products that deal only with the threat du jour, to integrated infrastructure. Security as a service, if you will.
Look at Cisco. More and more of the monitoring and mitigation systems we run are turning up as part of the switch in next generation gear.
Businesses want simple, cost effective systems that are built in to the infrastructure, don't get in the way of the money-making, and keep the bank and federal auditors happy.
Besides, the best security tools are free. And most of IT security is just plain common sense. You don't have to have been at it as long as I have to know that. The technology we use only works one way, so threats aren't that hard to figure out. The rule is to be aware of what runs on your network and keep an eye on what comes and goes. If in the years to come that's all built in, cool.