At 06:56 PM 1/23/96 -0500, Ben <adept@minerva.cis.yale.edu> allegedly wrote:
Because this has Cpunks relevance in the use of crypto, I'm going to keep it on this list...
remain relatively secure. However, I am I'm not saying that adding firewalling capabilities would make the system invincible. I *am* saying that it would provide the system with more security than it currently has and would help to reduce (not eliminate) some risks associated with networking.
But what does it mean to add 'firewalling capabilities' to an O/S? By definition, a firewall is supposed to stop the spread of 'fire' by being the sole mechanism for the interchange of packets.
Essentially, adding protective mechanisms that would filter incoming network connections (incoming to the O/S) rendering potential risky connections harmless or rejecting them. Steve Bellovin has a very well-written paper called "Security Problems in the TCP/IP Protocol Suite" which addresses a number of these. If memory serves correctly at this late hour (midnight), then it can be ftp'ed from research.att.com and it is in the /pub/dist/smb directory (or somewhere around there).
If you're referring to making a hardened OS that can protect itself through the use of well written code, memory protections, etc. then, yes by all means add it to your OS, but these shouldn't be luxuries in that they're thought of as 'firewalling' features. Rather these things should be compulsory in the development of OS's.
I agree with you 100%. Eventually, I think the market will demand it and the vendors will have to begin delivering hardened O/S's.
Of course, it would be terrific if the vendors would produce Operating Systems which are secure AND usable. (I think the market will eventually demand this from vendors, but this probably won't happen in the next year or two.)
Even if OS's could be secure(lets not get into Orange Book here) they would need constant updating. Most users have problems printing, let alone installing patches and tweaking afterwards to deal with conflicts.
Good points. As stated above, the systems should be secure AND usable.
And you can't expect IS to micromanage the corporation's entire fleet of machines.
True. However, the systems can be monitored for compliance to Corporate Security policies and the non-compliant (read insecure) systems can be quickly brought back into compliance - frequently using automated scripts. NOTE: Implementing a high level of Information Security should be as user-friendly, as non-intrusive to business operations as possible, and as cheaply as possible. (Yes, it is possible to achieve all three objectives).
This would be nice, and would be a good start, but like I said above, these things shouldn't be considered to be luxuries. Rather they should be compulsory. That doesn't mean that they will obsolete firewalls by any stretch of the imagination.
I agree with you 100% Nice posting, BTW. (And not just because I agree with you). 8^)
Ben.
(I'm starting to think Frank may have been right to move this to firewalls. I think I'll crosspost this message too) ____ Ben Samman..............................................samman@cs.yale.edu "If what Proust says is true, that happiness is the absence of fever, then I will never know happiness. For I am possessed by a fever for knowledge, experience, and creation." -Anais Nin PGP Encrypted Mail Welcomed Finger samman@suned.cs.yale.edu for key Want to hire a soon-to-be college grad? Mail me for resume
Fortified Networks Inc. - Management & Information Security Consulting Phone: (317) 573-0800 - http://www.fortified.com/fortified/ <standard disclaimer> The opinions expressed above are of the author and may not necessarily be representative of Fortified Networks Inc.