COMDEX: Panel: Accept the Net is vulnerable to attack

[InfoSec News <isn () c4i org>]

Forwarded from: William Knowles <wk () c4i org>

http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2002/1119vulnerable.html

By Nancy Weil
IDG News Service, 11/19/02

Companies and home Internet users need to accept that the global
computer network is inherently vulnerable to attacks, worms, trojans
and anything else miscreants want to unleash on it, and then accept
that securing the system is everyone's responsibility, a panel of
security experts said Monday at the Comdex trade show.

Security can't be accomplished through applying patches to vulnerable
software, panelists agreed, though they varied in how best to make the
Internet more secure and disagreed sharply in some areas, with Bruce
Schneier, founder and CTO of Counterpane Internet Security, serving as
the naysayer - a role he seemed to relish.

"As a scientist, I can tell you that we have no clue how to write
secure code," Schneier said, prompting agreement from John Weinschenk,
vice president of the Enterprise Services Group at VeriSign, who said
the best that can be done is to protect corporate computer systems and
Web sites so that if there is an attack they aren't taken out for a
long, costly period.

"I think every software vendor here can do a better job of providing
more secure software," Gene Hodges, president of Network Associates,
chimed in. As the discussion went on, though, it was that idea that
led Schneier into one of his favorite topics - liability.

The panelists were led by moderator Andrew Briney, editor-in-chief of
Information Security Magazine, into chatting broadly about their views
on whether there should be more government regulation related to
securing cyberspace, and as the other panelists talked, Schneier went
from grinning to smirking to shaking his head. Briney commented that
Schneier seemed to be disagreeing and asked him which comments he
found fault with to which Schneier replied: "Which part should I
respond to - I don't even know."

Then things got lively.

"The reason the software you buy isn't secure is that companies don't
care," Schneier said. Software vendors care about profits and without
a sufficient push from concerned users willing to pay more for
security features, companies just are not going to slow the production
cycle to add those features. Security is not a priority.

Microsoft with its ballyhooed Trustworthy Computing initiative drew
particular invective. "Microsoft is producing software that is
completely insecure," Schneier said, prompting scattered applause from
the audience. "The reason is there is no liability for producing a
shoddy product." If car makers produced vehicles that did not operate
properly, they would be held liable and sued, but the same doesn't
happen with software makers, Schneier said.

"Microsoft produces software that has three systemic flaws a week and
nothing happens to them," he said, adding that the company simply
releases patches and that's that. The Boeing Co., which makes
airplanes, "won't use Windows at all," he said, because the company is
"playing in the real world" where problematic software matters.

When Schneier was called to task for singling out Microsoft, he was
quick to note that Microsoft isn't the only offender, just an easy one
to cite.

The security vendors represented on the panel, in fact, could all be
doing a better job of making more secure software, Hodges had said
before Schneier ranted on Microsoft. Part of the problem is that the
security software industry is reactive. First, criminals exploited
vulnerabilities in floppy disks and so antivirus software was created
that prevented disks from spreading viruses. Then, the Internet
flourished and criminals figured out ways to exploit holes in that
system and the companies responded, creating products and patches
dealing with specific malicious code. Then, criminals started sending
nasty code by e-mail and the companies responded by creating products
and patches for that.

Wireless networks present the next major challenge. Companies need to
set up VPNs and other technology and products including firewalls and
also establish policies that forbid employees from bringing their own
wireless equipment into offices and using it on corporate LANs,
several panelists said. There was some back and forth on that point,
though, because one sentiment is that employees won't heed those
policies, so companies are better off to assume employees will violate
the rules and to figure out ways to keep networks safe in any event.

One things corporate users can't do is to rely on wireless security
standards. "The people who designed wireless protocols did a horrible
job with security," Schneier said, referring to Wired Equivalent
Privacy and IEEE 802.11, which has been notoriously problematic from a
security standpoint.

"It's something that's not just insecurity, it's robustly insecure,"  
he said.

Securing wireless LANs requires putting "enforcement technologies on
your network so you can tell when those (rogue devices not approved by
the IS department) are plugged in," said Dan McDonald, vice president
of Nokia.

In the view of some panelists, steps are already under way to focus on
security nationally with the initiative of President George W. Bush,
whose administration released a series of recommendations aimed at
educating Internet users and leading to cooperation between private
industry and the public sector.

Some have criticized the effort as lame because it doesn't go far
enough, but Tom Noonan, president and chief executive officer of
Internet Security Systems, who is a member of the National
Infrastructure Protection Board, which is spearheading the initiative,
defended it as focusing on prevention through education, creating a
mechanism to respond to attacks and cluing the public in to how the
computer infrastructure works and how to protect it.

"The problem is pretty vast, it's pervasive and the problem is
significant as far as how we're going to approach it," he said.

Businesses want to deal with system security without government
interference because "the last thing you want to do is to fully expose
everything you're doing to protect yourself because this is a
cat-and-mouse game," he said. Some have called for government to force
businesses to reveal what they are doing to keep their networks
secure.

Further complicating the issue of creating new laws and regulations is
that system administrators are already burdened and "can't get to
patches from last year," let alone figuring out how to comply with
additional federal requirements, Noonan said.

Asked by Briney to comment on the one thing that they either believe
is a myth about security or that they would like to see change, most
panelists said they want everyone to take responsibility for security
- which is part of the administration push - including home users who
need to insist that the software they buy have security features.

Schneier had a different take, saying he wishes government and
companies would focus on "actual criminals and not hackers ... I think
we focus too much on the kids, on the spraypainting and not on the
actual crime," including those who break into systems and steal
information or otherwise cause havoc.


 
*==============================================================*
"Communications without intelligence is noise;  Intelligence 
without communications is irrelevant." Gen Alfred. M. Gray, USMC
================================================================
C4I.org - Computer Security, & Intelligence - http://www.c4i.org
*==============================================================*



-
ISN is currently hosted by Attrition.org

To unsubscribe email majordomo () attrition org with 'unsubscribe isn'
in the BODY of the mail.