[iwar] [fc:Lobbying.for.Insecurity]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2002-08-28 19:00:14
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [NewsBits] NewsBits - 08/28/02 (fwd)"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Security.Advisory:.NY.Water.System]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-Id: <200208290200.g7T20Es06800@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Lobbying.for.Insecurity]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Lobbying for Insecurity

The NSA's Linux security project was so good it almost made up for that
whole Echelon thing. Then politics entered the picture.
By Jon Lasser Aug 28, 2002

The U.S. National Security Agency's contribution to open-source security,
Security-Enhanced Linux, found broad approval and support in geek forums
from Wired News to Slashdot that are typically suspicious of the government.

It's not surprising that it couldn't last, however, and a recent CNET
article suggests that the NSA may not make further contributions to software
released under the GNU General Public License, and perhaps other open-source
licenses.

What prompted this decision? Not abuse of their code by script kiddies, nor
the ungrateful trolling of the hordes, but lobbying by the U.S. software
industry against the government giving away something that could compete
with products sold commercially. Microsoft in particular allegedly conducted
intense lobbying to block further open-source development by the NSA,
according to CNET.

The most secure software in the world doesn't improve security if nobody
runs it, or if it's incompatible with what the vast majority of people run.
We already knew that security is less a technical problem than a human
problem. If true, Microsoft's alleged NSA coup demonstrates that it's a
political one as well.

Anything which encourages the use or development of proprietary systems that
are difficult to certify for even the most basic levels of security creates
additional risk to computer systems; reducing government support for
security development for any widely-available and widely-used operating
system creates additional risk; and suppressing the development of a
competitor's secure software on the basis of market concerns creates a
security risk for your customers as well as your competitor's customers.

None of which is to say that Microsoft is doing anything wrong. They're a
business, and they are doing what they need to do to win in the marketplace.
What's wrong is the rest of the industry allowing them to get away with it.

So what can be done about it? I believe that developing code that runs
securely is a good first step, as News.com columnist Declan McCullagh
suggests in a recent opinion piece. However, it's hardly a complete
solution.

No, what we need to do now is something we haven't been very good at. We
have to start playing politics.

The most secure software in the world doesn't improve security if nobody
runs it, or if it's incompatible with what the vast majority of people run.
Standard is better than better. VINES networks might be more secure than
TCP/IP but it does little to secure the Internet as a whole. MD5 password
hashing was always more secure than old Unix crypt password hashes, but
until vendors started shipping the code, and integrating it via Pluggable
Authentication Modules, it made little difference.

Politics is an essential element in the success of any given technology. The
quality matters some, as do other factors, but the people and organizations
with a knack for the for political are the ones who get to the finish line
first.

I'm using the term "politics" broadly here: it includes standards-setting,
personal relationships between major personalities, and marketing.

We've seen politics at work in our own community. Quite a number of people
feel that Linux is technically inferior to FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or even NetBSD.
That makes Linux's success in the marketplace the quintessential triumph of
politics: Linux succeeded by being in the right place at the right time,
having a unified front in public (if not behind-the-scenes), having a
recognizable name and logo, and a number of popular, well-liked people to
provide a public face for the effort.

The security community, and the open-source security community in
particular, can use that as a roadmap to ensuring that secure open-source
solutions aren't buried by proprietary competitors.

There's no harm in writing your Senator or the President; it might help to
submit comments to the FTC. But it takes a lot of money and a lot of power
to influence the NSA. We should focus our main efforts, instead, on battles
that we can win. These are the battles within standards organizations and
within our workplaces. Convince the W3C to reject patent-encumbered
standards. Make it a policy to rely on open, documented protocols instead of
proprietary monstrosities.

If we don't want to lose future market share, if we don't want Microsoft to
dictate its terms to the security community, if we don't want to be stuck
with whatever they choose to offer the marketplace, we have to play
politics. The only alternative is to let Microsoft dominate the marketplace
and dictate future standards. I can't imagine how

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [NewsBits] NewsBits - 08/28/02 (fwd)"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Security.Advisory:.NY.Water.System]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-10-01 06:44:32 PDT