Slashdot Mirror


Michal Zalewski On Security's Broken Promises

Lipton-Arena writes "In a thought-provoking guest editorial on ZDNet, Google security guru Michal Zalewski laments the IT security industry's broken promises and argues that little has been done over the years to improve the situation. From the article: 'We have in essence completely failed to come up with even the most rudimentary, usable frameworks for understanding and assessing the security of modern software; and spare for several brilliant treatises and limited-scale experiments, we do not even have any real-world success stories to share. The focus is almost exclusively on reactive, secondary security measures: vulnerability management, malware and attack detection, sandboxing, and so forth; and perhaps on selectively pointing out flaws in somebody else's code. The frustrating, jealously guarded secret is that when it comes to actually enabling others to develop secure systems, we deliver far less value than could be expected.'"

2 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. So let me get this straight by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When Virtual Security mirrors Physical Security - people should expect more from virtual security? How is a Night watchmen not a form of "vulnerability management" and "attack detection"?

    All security in general is reactive. You can't proactively solve every problem - this philosophy goes beyond security. The proactive solution is to plan on how to handle the situation when a vulnerability gets exploited, something I think virtual security has managed to handle a lot better than physical security.

  2. Re:It'll Never Happen by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you actually think that all IT and PC security companies have a giant cartel going, where they all secretly agree to suck? Somehow including all the "independent security researchers", which includes anybody with a computer, a clue, and some free software?

    Seriously? If there were some magic bullet, the temptation for one cartel member to make a giant pile of cash on it would be overwhelming.

    Much more troublesome, for security, is the fact that there are no known methods of secure computing that are economically competitive with insecure ones, not to mention the issue of legacy systems.

    You can buy a lot of low end sysadmins re-imaging infected machines for what it would cost to write a fully proven OS and application collection that matches people's expectations.