Do We Really Need a Security Industry?

netbuzz noted that Bruce Schneir's latest column discusses the security industry where he points out that "The primary reason the IT security industry exists is because IT products and services aren't naturally secure. If computers were already secure against viruses, there wouldn't be any need for antivirus products. If bad network traffic couldn't be used to attack computers, no one would bother buying a firewall. If there were no more buffer overflows, no one would have to buy products to protect against their effects. If the IT products we purchased were secure out of the box, we wouldn't have to spend billions every year making them secure."

"Schneir"?

At least spell his name correctly: Schneier [schneier.com].

I have a better question...

A better question is: Do we really need columnist like Bruce Schneir telling us what a perfect world might look like?

Incorrect assumption

The article assumes security is static: "..if computers were designed to not be susceptible to virii.."

If it's not virri or worms or buffer-overflows then it would be something else. Human intellect has this uncanny ability to grow and adapt.

Mod parent up!

Also, do not forget that an Internet connection allows anonymous attackers to assault your systems 24/7/52.

Having a firewall may not force the workstation software providers to improve their security. But the firewall provides a single point where you can focus intensive monitoring efforts.

We live in a world where people will trade their password for a bar of chocolate.

Over time the technology WILL get better. We're already seeing some of that. But in the end, even with perfect software security, we will still have problems because PEOPLE will be using the systems.

Bosco

We live in a world where people will trade their password for a bar of chocolate.

In many cases, they don't need to trade the chocolate because we also live in a world where people name their passwords after chocolate.

Re:Mod parent up!

My password is t0b|3rOn3 ... someone hook me up.

In other news

If people didn't commit crimes there wouldn't be a need for police.

Re:In other news

If people didn't commit crimes there wouldn't be a need for police.

We'd still need analogy police. Speaking of which, you're under arrest.

O RLY?

And if our buildings and public places were built securely, we wouldn't need police, right?

Sort of ... but not exactly.

From TFA:

If computers were already secure against viruses, there wouldn't be any need for antivirus products. If bad network traffic couldn't be used to attack computers, no one would bother buying a firewall.

Now, take a default installation of Ubuntu Feisty Fawn. Even if you hook it straight into the Internet WITHOUT an external firewall (or running any firewall software) you'll still be very secure.

That's because, by default, there aren't any open ports. There's no way for any worms to attack your system. That's just basic security practice.

Now, there are other ways to crack a default Ubuntu installation. But they require that the admin have done something to make it LESS secure (or you can physically access the box).

Your example is about the physical world. And the problem there is that physical access is already assumed. We can take steps to REDUCE the physical access, but that still leaves social engineering attacks.

You will always need police just as you will always need sysadmins who will READ THE SECURITY LOGS. No matter how secure you are.

Re:Sort of ... but not exactly.

Err... I think you took the example too literally.

That is besides the fact that the original analogy is wrong. What Bruce thinks is that as computing becomes a utility the security needs will decrease.

I hate to disagree. They will remain, probably even increase to match the "it just works" expectations you have for an utility.

Utilities do not have less expenditure on security just because they have become a utility.

Water companies have to deal with mandatory security of the water supply. Gas companies have to deal with mandatory security of the gas grid. Electrical companies need to provide security of the electrical grid. Old style telecommunication companies have some very hefty obligations regarding the availability of their communications in an emergency and have expenditure related to that as well.

Add to this the day-to-day battle with fraud and theft of service. Even without "national minorities" going around and digging out all of your copper cables and selling them for scrap there is a very large expenditure on security in any utility. Granted, it no longer appears as an item on the end-user bill, but it is there none the less. And lots of it.

If it all ends up being folded into the utility fold it may in fact end up being more than now. Everything else aside a utility is obliged to maintain a certain standard of service, hence 100% of Joe Bloggs will be covered by AV and firewall, not 1% like now and so on.

Do not run with analogies!

And if our buildings and public places were built securely, we wouldn't need police, right?

Put down that analogy; you're liable to cut yourself. 8^)

Security in buildings and public places represents an utterly different problem set from software security. They have virtually nothing in common. Suggesting that software security today is like (heh) a walk in the park is wildly wrong.

I hate analogies, because they cloud things more than they clarify them. But if I were to use yours, I would say that if our buildings and public spaces were better policed, we wouldn't need to pay for personal, individual security guards who pat down and disarm even our friends before they allow us to so much as look at one another.

Schneier's point is valid. In a healthy, heterogeneous software environment, the threats are fundamentally different from those we face today. We could move from trying to protect ourselves from clicking on tainted image and document files(!) to creating secure site configurations tailored to our particular needs. I too dream about the day when we have configurations that are not so draconian that people are precluded by fear from taking advantage of some of the Internet's greatest advantages: the end to end network.

There are some who will say that software is inherently insecure, and that it cannot be secured. There are some who say that people using 'safe' technologies and processes are only safe by virtue of the fact that there are easier targets in abundance. They are wrong. And this is Schneier's point: Whatever inherent problems there may be in software security, the vast majority of Windows users - let's call a spade a spade - work in an environment that is so utterly flawed that there is a quantum difference between the security issues they face and the vastly more limited security issues they could be facing, if only the manufacturers would cease to treat security as a cost centre external to their core business.

I see what he did there

If murderers just stopped wanting to kill us. If drivers just wouldn't have accidents. If kids just didn't wander into swimming pools and drowned..........

Utopia is a pretty cool place. I'd like to go there too.

Re:I see what he did there

Utopia is a pretty cool place. I'd like to go there too.

You make it sound like building software that is secure by nature is impossible. It isn't. SELinux is secure by nature. Qmail is secure by nature. Qmail is guaranteed by the programmer to not have security bugs, with a $500 bounty for the reporter of the first exploit.

Modern desktop operating systems have mediocre to poor design from a security perspective. They could be built a lot better, only they're not because it is far more profitable to not improve the security and focus on features instead (flashy window animations sell better than being bulletproof).

Heck, even the software I build for a living is far less secure than it could be, because I have feature-pressure forcing my hand.

Do we really need law enforcement?

The primary reason we need law enforcement is because people don't always follow laws. If people always followed the law there wouldn't be any need for law enforcement. If bad people weren't allowed out of childhood no one would bother buying guns or even locks on their doors. If everyone was generally nice we wouldn't have to spend billions every year enforcing the law.

True, but not realistic.

In a perfect world software would meet it's requirements perfectly. But because of politics, timing, money, or just overlooking a single character in the source, bugs do and will happen. Just the way the world works. Same thing goes for anything. If your TV breaks, you take it to be repaired or get a new one.

Yeah

Sure, why not? You don't rely on the contractors who build your house to provide all the security you could ever need, but you do expect them to install windows and doors that lock. Windows and doors that lock aren't inherently "impenetrable", though. If you want to go beyond that, you call ADT or someone similar and let them take it to the next level.

Blah, blah, blah ...

If computers were already secure against viruses, there wouldn't be any need for antivirus products. If bad network traffic couldn't be used to attack computers, no one would bother buying a firewall. ...

And if pigs flew out of my arse, I wouldn't need to go to the supermarket to buy bacon. What's his point?

That's gross

You'd eat bacon from your own ass pigs? Remind me not to come to your house for BLTs.

Security industry is needed

As long as there is a human behind the computer, there *will* be a possibility of exploiting a vulnerability on the system... the human being.

Re:Security industry is needed

Amen. Technology is limited, and the bad guys know where those limits are. Awareness is a huge part of the equation, no matter how much technology you throw at it, and no matter how tight that technology is.

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Always remember that a human is in the matrix.

Yeah, but...

Secure out of the box doesn't matter. Secure after I have installed the many third party programs I require to run my business matters. Secure after my clients install the latest OS 'update' matters.

There is no way to absolutely positively guarantee any complex product can remain safe over a period of time as the environment it runs in will change through both vendor and user additions to that environment. And anyways, the market does not want to wait for 'secure.' The market hardly waits for 'workable.'

Bruce's question is interesting on some levels, but seems shallow in a number of ways. That being said I read him all the time.

Regards.

Just Build A PC with no Functionality!

I say just build an unbelievably simple AIS that has zero functionality. Thats right: no user interfaces, no applications, no storage of information, not even a keyboard. Then we wouldn't have to worry about all that nasty malicious code, and keystroke loggers and... Oh crap someone just walked in and stole my do-nothing non-functional system. Guess I still need physical security.

I have the utmost respect for Bruce, but that statement is fairly ridiculous. Its like saying if we built automobiles that could never crash then we wouldn't need road rules. Basically you can sub anything into that statement. If we made food that wasn't unhealthy we would need Jared and annoying Subway commercials...

don't need one, but will always have one

The problem here is that 99% of software purchasers simply don't have the ability to evaluate a product on the merits of its security. They do have the ability to evaluate products (1) on the merits of their prices.

The companies that develop software know that (2) doing security properly is extremely expensive, and requires hiring skilled specialists, and inegrating those specialists at all levels of the development process.

When you take points (1) and (2) into consideration, you realize that there is a lot more ROI in developing cheap insecure software than there is in developing expensive secure software.

This is an example of capitalism failing due to poorly-informed consumers. But I can think of no way to solve the problem (a security quantifier???), so the industry will continue along as it does today: cheap software and band-aid security.

Bad reasoning in the article

"The primary reason the IT security industry exists is because IT products and services aren't naturally secure."

Which is like saying that the primary reason the physical security industry exists is because buildings aren't naturally secure.

That simply isn't true. It exists becasue people are sneaky little bastards who naturally want what other people have. You cannot make something secure enough to keep everyone out - physically or digitally.

Geese Louise, this is stupid.

The primary reason the IT security industry exists is because IT products and services aren't naturally secure.

Do we really need locksmiths? If buildings were naturally secure (aka didn't have doors or windows), we wouldn't need locksmiths.

However, people need to get in to and out of buildings, so we need doors. And sometimes we need to control which people are going in to and out of a building. So we need locksmiths.

So, if your IT systems are powered down, unplugged, encased in carbonite, and buried at the bottom of the sea, then the answer is no, you do not need a security industry. Or, at the other end, if all your IT doors and windows are open, and you don't care who comes in and out, then again, you do not really a security industry.

But if you want some people to have access to your computer, but not others. Or you want to control the level of access people have, then yes, you do need a security industry.

A reason to implement the Evil Bit

If bad network traffic couldn't be used to attack computers, no one would bother buying a firewall.

Sounds like a good reason to implement the Evil Bit [faqs.org] for all IP traffic from now on. (Of course, if you own stock in a firewall distributor or other security company, better diversify before they implement this RFC.)

This is awefully fanciful

If people were perfectly peaceful, we wouldn't need laws or governance

If everybody washed their bums correctly and cooked meat well every time, nobody would have to worry about butt-worms

If people were perfectly courteous and attentive on the road, there would be no need for auto-insurance

So now let us imagine what it would take to get to a point where we no longer need people specialized in securing and maintaining the integrity of data. Do We Really Need a Security Industry? YES! We most definitely do, and always will! Is there room for improvement? Yes, vasts, and there always will be!

Do you need to bebug stuff?

Shouldn't code be able to debug itself? Do we still need auditors? Why? Shouldn't our training and processes be up to snuff by now. See the point of a 'security industry' is not because things should work this way or that way but because they in fact DO work this way or that way. That's why they call it engineering, because it's engineered and that means it's imperfect.

He's right, you know....

All the "..and if..." replies really miss the point here. Its not that he's stating the obvious, he's saying the glory days of IT security as an aftermarket industry are over. The focus of IT security is shifting from point products that deal only with the threat du jour, to integrated infrastructure. Security as a service, if you will.

Look at Cisco. More and more of the monitoring and mitigation systems we run are turning up as part of the switch in next generation gear.

Businesses want simple, cost effective systems that are built in to the infrastructure, don't get in the way of the money-making, and keep the bank and federal auditors happy.

Besides, the best security tools are free. And most of IT security is just plain common sense. You don't have to have been at it as long as I have to know that. The technology we use only works one way, so threats aren't that hard to figure out. The rule is to be aware of what runs on your network and keep an eye on what comes and goes. If in the years to come that's all built in, cool.

Good points

I think some of his points are good:

"Additionally, as long as IT security is a separate industry, there will be companies making money based on insecurity -- companies who will lose money if the internet becomes more secure."

All the commercial anti-virus software I've ever used has been full of FUD, displaying big red crosses and popup balloons telling me that my system is at risk because I haven't purchased some additional product or upgrade. I see the same companies rolling out stats about virus attacks and in mainstream media warning of the next big threat, doom saying wherever possible.

Personally, as a programmer, I think the weaknesses in software will be fixed and operating systems changed such that deep probing virus checkers are obsoleted. I'd happily see this whole FUD spreading portion of the security industry die.

Some of his points may however be too general:

"The whole IT security industry is an accident -- an artifact of how the computer industry developed."

There are still places where a security industry will always be needed, such as authentication though RSA tokens/smart-cards/biometrics and the associated infrastructure.

In general I think he's about right though. Over time software will improve and things will be built in such a way that common failures of today are obsoleted just like other engineering disciplines have improved methodologies e.g. airplanes are not built with square windows anymore - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet [wikipedia.org].