[iwar] [fc:Computer.Security.Is.Like.Military.Intelligence.-.A.Contradiction]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-09-28 12:16:05


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-2476-1001704567-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 28 Sep 2001 12:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 3236 invoked by uid 510); 28 Sep 2001 19:16:21 -0000
Received: from n16.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.66) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 28 Sep 2001 19:16:21 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-2476-1001704567-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.4.52] by mo.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 Sep 2001 19:16:07 -0000
X-Sender: fc@big.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 28 Sep 2001 19:16:06 -0000
Received: (qmail 34615 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2001 19:16:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Sep 2001 19:16:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO big.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Sep 2001 19:16:06 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by big.all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id MAA12478 for iwar@onelist.com; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 12:16:06 -0700
Message-Id: <200109281916.MAA12478@big.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 12:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Computer.Security.Is.Like.Military.Intelligence.-.A.Contradiction]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Computer Security Is Like Military Intelligence - A Contradiction 
Thomson Financial, 9/28/2001
<a href="http://www.antionline.com/showthread.php?threadid=115118">http://www.antionline.com/showthread.php?threadid=115118>

As banks of all sizes push their on-line treasury management systems
farther down the corporate food chain, their risk of being hacked rises,
because the systems of smaller companies are typically less well-
protected than bank systems. 

So the more successful banks are selling service, the more vulnerable
they are."You're joining [systems] together, and every time there's a
join, you get a risk," says Alan Matthews, CEO of Rapid 7, a computer
security firm.  "You're creating more layers between end users, and
anytime there are layers, you have danger."

This is a bigger problem than people think, says Matthews, because
smaller banks and larger banks are linked.  So once a hacker has
penetrated, say, a pet food store's computers and used them to attack
that company's local bank, the hacker is well-launched to cruise
wherever he or she wants. 

Of course, Matthews is in the security business-security types depend
for business on feelings of insecurity, just as financial companies
depend on the image of security.  But Matthews still says hack attacks
are easier to launch than most people think.  Not only are there large
numbers of hacker sites with ready-made attack programs available for
the taking; the better security gets, the more it tends to assume a
homogenous format.  The more it assumes a homogenous format, the greater
the value of breaking the security-and thus, the greater likelihood of
attack. 

Matthews says the best security models tend to be those which allow
broad information exchange.  But these hold more information, which is
more valuable to crack.  And that makes it more likely that people will
try to hack it.  Popularity usually begets success in the hacking game. 
Matthews is not a fan of digital certificates.  Since most are based on
a single algorithm, all public/private key infrastructures are equally
vulnerable, to the extent the algorithm can be broken-has been shown. 
"It makes it very easy to de-encrypt information en masse," he says. 
Even so, since it's currently state-of-the-art encryption, digital
certificates are likely to spread across the most sensitive parts of the
digital landscape. 

Matthews argues when digital certificates are used for encryption the
certificate only encrypts the key that secures the data.  The precious
data itself is usually encrypted with a weaker encryption technology. 
This weakness is unavoidable since digital certificates multiply the
amount of data a computer needs to deal with as much as 15
times-straining the capacity of any system to deal with the
transmission. 

Institutions that invest in digital certificates aren't safe, says
Matthews, because a hacker with any brains or skill who wants to poke
around a major, well-protected firm wouldn't attack the big bank
directly anyway-he or she would attack a smaller bank that probably has
weaker security, and then breach the firewall. 

This makes committing real crime easy, says Matthews.  "If I were an
intelligent black hat, I would be writing programs that dug deep into
the recesses of things like a wide- spread accounting programs, and
learn how to mail checks to myself, or just create accounts and put very
small positive balances in them, and then call up the company rather
later and ask for a credit," he says. 

Copyright, Thomson Financial, [2001] All Rights Reserved. 


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Pinpoint the right security solution for your company- Learn how to add 128- bit encryption and to authenticate your web site with VeriSign's FREE guide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yQix2C/33_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:51 PDT