Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Security Books Media Book Reviews Technology

Security Warrior 124

Peter Wayner writes with a review of O'Reilly's Security Warrior: "Close the doors and they come in the windows. Bar the windows and they slip through some cracks in the foundation. Seal those up and the find another way in through the door. Computer security is an odd pursuit because it's just not possible to have a strong, theory of everything when cracks can appear anywhere. Into this field comes Security Warrior, a book on the topic with a wide ranging collection of tidbits and suggestions on sealing as many holes as you can find." Read on for the rest.
Security Warrior
author Cyrus Peikari and Anton Chuvakin
pages 531
publisher O'Reilly
rating 7
reviewer Peter Wayner
ISBN 0596005458
summary Not a deep approach to security, but a great bag of tricks every sysadmin should have at hand.

The book comes lightly packaged in a metaphor about the training of samurai. A security warrior, it is said, must avoid a "superficial study of the subject" because that leads to a "deterioration of the samurai spirit." To avoid this, the authors plunge deeply into a wide variety of ways that attackers might break into your system. The book is meant to help you "know your enemy" and "see through an attacker's eyes."

This chestbeating fluff disappears pretty quickly because the authors dive into reading assembly code in the first chapter and start talking about the registers of the CPU by page 4. The rest of the first part of the book explores reverse engineering software by reading assembly dumps and using good tools to decipher it.

After poking around in binary code, they turn to the bits floating around the network. Chapters 6 through 10 explore how to sit on one end of the Internet and pry your way into another computer. Chapters 11 through 17 dive deeper into the specific defenses of platforms like UNIX, Windows, SOAP and SQL. The rest of the book, Chapters 18 through 22, explore how to figure out just what the attackers may be doing by setting up honeypots and log analysis tools.

Covering all of these topics in 531 pages is clearly not possible and the book reads more like a survey or a catalog of what can go wrong. If you use PHP, for instance, as a frontend to your database, you might want to be sure that some "script kiddie" won't slip in some extra SQL in the form fields. Each topic isn't built up from some bedrock foundation with perfect mathematical pedagogy, it's just defined as a list of bad things that you should avoid doing.

The authors seem to be aware of how this might be misinterpreted. There are many good tricks in the book and it wouldn't be hard to rename it Al K Da's 1337 Haxor Tips . So the authors stress how learning about the enemy is the only way to defeat the hordes.

I think the problem is deeper and more philosophical. There's no way to prove a negative. There are no good mathematical tools that make it easy to prove statements like P!=NP or big numbers can't be factored quickly. In a larger sense, it's not really possible to prove that someone can't break into a system. A more traditional, ground-up approach to the topic can offer some assurances, but books like this one are always necessary. Anyone doing battle against unknowable and unpredictable adversaries must look between the cracks.

If you look at it this way, the book is a good collection of tips and hints that will help someone keep their network a bit more secure. It doesn't provide a deep, elegant and rigorous explication of the topic, but I don't think that is possible. It's a great collection of tricks that should be part of a good warrior's training.


Peter Wayner is the author of Translucent Databases and Policing Online Games . You can purchase Security Warrior from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Security Warrior

Comments Filter:
  • Another good book in the same vein is Counter Hack [counterhack.net] by Ed Skoudis. It can be slightly dated, but still informative.

    Here's amazon's page on it [amazon.com]. It's ranked 5 out of 5 stars.
  • It's Good (Score:5, Informative)

    by qw(name) ( 718245 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @04:44PM (#8478800) Journal

    A good security policy is paramount. This book does a good job pointing out some not-so-obvious places that are often over-looked in our haste to meet deadlines.
  • Samurai (Score:5, Funny)

    by nacturation ( 646836 ) <nacturation AT gmail DOT com> on Friday March 05, 2004 @04:47PM (#8478823) Journal
    The book comes lightly packaged in a metaphor about the training of samurai.

    First rule: know when to commit seppuku.
    • Re:Samurai (Score:3, Informative)

      by fivesticks ( 664056 )
      ...and remember to wear badger skin underwear to keep out the fleas. (thanks Hagakure [amazon.com])
      • Re:Samurai (Score:2, Interesting)

        Heh, yes, Hagakure (In the Shadows of Leaves) has many insights on a lot of topics :). For the one at hand, a slightly more productive reflection from the book might be:

        If one is but secure at the foundation, he will not be pained by departure from minor details or affairs that are contradictory to expectation.

        But in the end, the details of a matter are important. The right and wrong of one's way of doing things are found in trivial matters.
        (Yamamoto Tsunetomo, Hagakure. Translation by William S Wils

    • Top 10 (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 05, 2004 @05:59PM (#8479625)
      Here are the top 10 reasons:

      10) You've just been ordered to migrate from sendmail to Exchange server.

      9) Your boss, let's just call him Bill, insists upon being given root priviledges, in spite of the fact that he constantly breaks things even with mere user priviledges.

      8) Your boss won't let you filter out .vbs & .exe attachments at the mail server because he is an amature (read: terrible) coder. Moreover, his amature programs cause as much if not more trouble than the virus-laden attachments he keeps opening. He also has crazy ideas about putting "stamps" on email.

      7) You are told by your boss, who (mis)read a computer security advisory to put the company webserver (which handles online sales) on a non-standard port "so the hackers won't be able to mess with it."

      6) Your boss expects you to find a way to make your Solaris servers, with tons of ancient, crufty legacy code which is vital to the company, run ASP pages just so they can use (read: justify the rediculous expense of) some crappy B2B application they bought without consulting IT. Preferably sometime next week.

      5) Your boss thinks that some 'internet accelerator' software (read: spyware) should be made mandatory for all employees to improve productivity.

      4) Your "security policy" is more like a list of who to blame for what.

      3) Your boss is negotiating a SCO IP license, since "any publicity is good publicity."

      2) Your boss thinks you should be more thankful, because the management is so "IT-savvy" and always ready to help you out.

      1) You ignore all this bad advice, pretend you took it anyway (he'll never actually know...), and waste your time posting on Slashdot instead of working.
  • by bcolflesh ( 710514 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @04:48PM (#8478835) Homepage
    • Is the whole book like that sample chapter?

      Because all I read was descriptions of some old attacks, SMB and UPnP exploits, some proof of concept code..

      Nothing about methods or philosophies to protect in the future, it looked more like every other O'Reilly book I've read, just info scraped from relevant forums and faqs to fill pages.

      Reads more like a script kiddy cookbook than a tool for Admins.
  • Can someone tell me if this is a good book to read if you are using a hosting service as opposed to operating your own server?
    • Re:Hrmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SquadBoy ( 167263 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @04:52PM (#8478873) Homepage Journal
      Yes yes it is. I have my copy in my bag right now. This is worth reading no matter what you do in IT. But I would come to this after reading Beyond Fear at least once and Secrets and Lies at least twice.

      http://www.schneier.com/
    • Re:Hrmm... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 05, 2004 @04:54PM (#8478892)
      Its a good book if you are interested in gaining a foundation in analysing TECHNICAL security issues. I.e. its a good pen-testing research book, but it doesn't go into any great depth with regards to higher-management issues, such as a corporate policy, ITIL/BS7799 type work. It is however a good base for skimming the surface of everything nasty that can come your way. It is excellently referenced! which is handy!

      • That's a very accurate assessmet. It is very much a PenTester's handbook.
      • ... but it doesn't go into any great depth with regards to higher-management issues, such as a corporate policy, ITIL/BS7799 type work.

        What would you recommend on ITIL/BS7799?
        Also, why would you mention BS7799 but not ISO 17799? Books of these type are usually pricey. Any free / PDF-type documentation? I am collecting docs of this kind. Thanks ...

        Collection of my books is here [insan.co.id]. See the section on security.

        -- br

  • scary no doubt (Score:5, Insightful)

    by segment ( 695309 ) <sil@po l i t r i x .org> on Friday March 05, 2004 @04:49PM (#8478844) Homepage Journal

    It's nice to see there is no lack of someone/somecompany trying to make some money off of the security FUD/Errata scene nowadays. Strangely I've been running webservers, databases, clients without problems for years. I keep a slight watch on lists, and I think (IMO) I keep systems pretty tight either via normal tools, whether they're open source or not.

    I still don't understand how hard it is for companies to throw up a so called webserver and have who knows how many ports open. If it's a webserver its a webserver, mailserver then its a mailserver. I call it shoddy administration. Taking the time beforehand to configure something properly will definitely save you a heck of a lot of time down the line, it becomes a matter of watching for new holes and patching them up quickly. If servers are an issue write some script to install patches/fixes to clusters or so.

    Sometimes I sit back and wonder what the hell is happening to the security field as a whole. Within the past four years it went from a couple of individuals to everything being overrun by corporations. Security Focus to me pretty much sucks nowadays, but yet aside from lists such as NANOG, Secfocus, ISP-Lists, there are little resources left. I say strong planning nulls out any information you can get from a book. Besides most of the information one could ponder looking for can be found using good old google. Why should I keep waisting money to see the same things over and over again.

    • If you use PHP, for instance, as a frontend to your database, you might want to be sure that some "script kiddie" won't slip in some extra SQL in the form fields. This can easily be fixed using mod_security [politrix.org]. Remember - for the PHPNuke/Postnuke, or any other content management based site - there needs to be a connection to your admin page at some point in order to manipulate anything. Another fix:

      <Location /admin.php>
      Order deny,allow
      Allow from MY_IP_ADDRESS
      Deny from all
      ErrorDocument 403 http


      • for those using apache, if you haven't had the chance to play with it you should, and you should also check out the snort2modsec perl script [infiltrated.net] if you're too lazy to make your own SetFilter rules. Sorry for the multiple postings

        • Using mod_security I replaced mod_redirect since I can achieve the same thing. One thing I've been doing when vulnerable Windoze hosts connect (/_vti_bin/owssvr.dll?UL=1&ACT=4&BUILD=2614&STRMV E R=4&CAPREQ=0), is sending them to the support.microsoft.com fix page for their machine. They won't connect period unless they put a patch on. I know it sounds a bit cheesy, and I don't think the end user knows why they get redirected, but I know if I didn't know compsec that much I would want someone
    • Good planning doesn't help inheritied systems, legacies, etc.
      • Re:scary no doubt (Score:3, Interesting)

        by segment ( 695309 )
        Sure good planning doesn't help legacy systems, but good knowledge does. If you know X_LEGACY_SYSTEM is vulnerable to certain things, then you seek out the fixes for them, if the amount of the machines is overwhelming, then being a system admin, you wouldn't be hinder. Somehow - if you're using say a cluster of machines - you have some mechanism to do certain things cluster-wide, then you use your admining skills. Its not that hard to write an expect script to run through your network and download, install
    • by Anonymous Coward
      I've been running your servers, databases, and clients for years without problems, too.
      • i love that joke. (my favorite variation is the t-shirt with "my other computer is your linux box" on it...)

        i flipped through this book recently at a borders after i had been given a specific vulnerability testing assignment at my large-lan-going-wireless-in-areas place of employment. (roughly, the assignment was "the box is over there...um...bring it down if you can. if not, make trouble. for us, not users.") and this book gave me some ideas on wireless sniffing (although no Kismet on windows REALLY REALLY

    • I've been hearing a lot about how IT stinks these days, so I've been thinking about getting a masters in Information Security after I finish my undergrad because it seems to be the hot thing lately. What do you guys think?
  • by Doesn't_Comment_Code ( 692510 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @04:49PM (#8478849)
    Security has been the same for a while:

    Don't open unused ports.

    Don't make your system unnecessarily complex.

    Don't use software if you haven't inspected it.

    Don't give access to those who don't need it.

    Handle every exception.

    Assume your user is an a**hole/dumbass who will use your system every way except the way it was intended to be used.

    Dot your i's and cross your t's.



    Now... Who wants to give me a book deal?
  • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Friday March 05, 2004 @04:50PM (#8478852)
    There's no such thing as a physical lock that can't be broken. It's only a matter of how much force needs to be gathered to break down the door, or break a hole in the wall.

    An entirely secure site can be breached by a bomb being dropped on top of it. Now, some people might say that's cheating, because demolishing the site, and therefore whatever valuable was being protected too, doesn't give control of the valuable to the atacker. However, it does deny the services of the valuable to its owner as well. That's a security failure, the job is to keep the services of that valuable always available.

    Computer security should be thought of in those terms. There's no such thing as unbreachable security, you just want to set the threshholds of what it takes to breach the security high enough so that it becomes highly unlikely that anybody can come up with the force it takes to defeat them.

    Clearly, if somebody comes up with a processor that can quickly factor large numbers, then a good chunk of today's security theory will go straight out the window. However, since to our knowledge nobody has done so and nobody's close to doing so, we can consider that a good security technique to use now.

    One must always keep up with what tools the bad guys have available, because once they have something that can knock down a defensive tool with ease, that defensive tool had better have another line of defense behind it.
    • However, physical security and network security are somewhat different issues. If you unplug from the net you are entirely secure from attacks over the net. Yeah, somebody can still drop a bomb on you, just as someone can drop a bomb on your house. Motivation to do so is often lacking though, since that denies them the ability to walk off with your TV set.

      The issue with net security is that you're inviting people into your foyer, and perhaps even your living room and bathroom, but wish to keep them from sn
      • However, physical security and network security are somewhat different issues. If you unplug from the net you are entirely secure from attacks over the net. Yeah, somebody can still drop a bomb on you, just as someone can drop a bomb on your house. Motivation to do so is often lacking though, since that denies them the ability to walk off with your TV set.

        Unplugging from the 'net is a good idea for servers that offer no services to the 'net. (Software updates can be delivered to it by sneakernet when need
        • While i always appricate a good "sneakernet" reference, it is possible to remove a system from the standard network and still have it connected to a network for updating reasons. That what non-routable address space is all about. Try to remember that the noetwork was built for us to use too, not just our customer.
          • Do you realy thing non routeable address space provides much security? In general to many people think that NAT is a security messure and by itself it's not. Get on the other end of that leased line DSL cable modem what have you and you can make the space routable for you easily enough. Granted this dosent happen often but as somebody that works with that sort of gear techs do get bored and play every now and then.

            For your specific example decent security might be no open ports, no incomming ports in it
          • Non-routable address space is only secure if all points on the internal network are secure. If an internal machine is compromised, then the non-routable address space is then reachable through that compromised point.

            Any time you give network access, you're trading away some unit of security. Sneakernet is more secure than non-routable space. Of course, taking updates in by disk gets too annoying, that's a trade you'll be willing to make, just don't lie to yourself and say you didn't give up any security, j
            • What you say is true. Even delivering power to the server lowers its security. A truly secure server is off, unplugged, disconnected and in a vault. I guess you could argue the defenses of vaults, but I digress. In this example I was speaking of putting servers which have no need for internet access on non-routable IP ranges. When routers don't pass info, you are preventing access in and out of the space. I felt that it goes without saying that firewalls should be set up correctly but there is no need
    • by Chazmyrr ( 145612 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @06:05PM (#8479681)
      You're very close. The part that is wrong is how you decide where the threshold should be set.

      The correct answer is that the threshold should be set at the point where increasing security further incurs a greater cost than the value of the risk mitigated by the increase. In other words, you perform a risk assessment and a cost/benefit analysis before you spend a lot of time/money on elaborate security measures.

      If a security measure is going to cost $50k to mitigate $5k of risk, it isn't worth it.
    • >you just want to set the threshholds of what it takes to breach the security high enough so that it becomes highly unlikely that anybody can come up with the force it takes to defeat them.

      That's the classical definition of physical security, which assumes that attackers are controlled by economic motivations. It's highly unlikely that anyone would spend money on bribes and/or tools to steal my 1979 Volkwagen Rabbit, for example.

      It doesn't apply to some corners of information security, though.

      Technica
  • by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06@@@email...com> on Friday March 05, 2004 @04:50PM (#8478854)
    One word: caulk.

    Nuff said.

  • Unbreakable? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @04:55PM (#8478897) Homepage Journal
    Is it impossible? I mean, there are known vulnerablities, know secure tricks (i.e. passwords that would require unreachable computational power, "security areas" accessible only by people invulnerable to social engineering, after special training, system routines written with security in mind, hardware that is sealed in such a way that it cuts off any attacker on attempt of attack, and physically assaulted self-destructs?

    Things slipped out of control because growth wasn't followed by quality control. It would need to be designed from scratch. I think it would be possible - system completely unbreakable, without ANY holes.

    But I guess building it would be so expensive, that EVERYBODY prefers systems that work so-so and contain unknown bugs and nobody would be willing to buy it.
  • by cipher chort ( 721069 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @04:59PM (#8478951) Homepage
    I'm reviewing the book as well with the intent to publish the review, but with so much work lately I haven't had time for reading. Any way, my summary so far (up to the UNIX specific attacks) is that it feels somewhat fragmented, and the order is slightly jarring. The first section of the book jumps right into assembly. While that might be a foundation to computing (one step up from machine code), it's a real bucket of ice water in the face for anyone trying to get started with the book. Even though I've been trained in a couple of programming languages and I'm familiar with ASM, it was still difficult to follow along some times. The first section on networking felt very incomplete and shallow, but then after skipping around a bit they come back to more network security topics a bit later. It remains to be seen how well it will flesh out in the later chapters. I was rather hoping for some details, like W. Richard Stevens tcpdump approach to teaching TCP/IP, given all the detail they had earlier on ASM, but alas I haven't seen anything like that, so far. On the other hand, I found the section on reversing Linux binaries to be very enlightening. I never realized how broken/limited the tools are for reversing on a Linux platform. Certainly that could make it very difficult to examine Linux viruses and worms when they finally start circulating in large numbers. Any way, I'll reserve the rest of my judgement until I actually finish the book.
    • Sweet, merciful crap! Apparently FireFox does not add proper CRLF when submitting a form? WHERE ARE MY PARAGRAPHS???
      • Sweet merciful crap?

        Where the heck did you hear that? Or start saying it? I could have sworn that it was started by accident by my friend and co-actor Mike L, during a puppet show long about 8 years back or so.

        The "crap" part came out that way because he was about to say "Christ" and, playing a Moor, realized that would be wrong. so it came out "Sweet Merciful Cr- ... -ap!"

        Mmm. Dirty Puppet Shows...
        • Oh, SMC, I forgot to mention that I'm using FireFox 0.8 myself, and posting as P.O.T.

          But seeing as I'm now following up to my own post, I can honestly say that I'm not having the same problems with CRLF inserts that you are. Perhaps you default to HTML posting?
  • Seppuku (Score:4, Funny)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @05:02PM (#8478972)
    The book comes lightly packaged in a metaphor about the training of samurai

    Does this mean I can look forward to lots of MSCE admins comitting seppuku when they get cracked?
  • ...and replace your PC with a Timex Sinclair [oldcomputers.net]. In over twenty-two years of use, not a single one has ever been infected with a virus.

    For the rest of us, my advice usually follows something like this:

    • Paranoid but looking for a more useable solution which easily connects to the internet, buy a Macintosh.
    • Willing and interested in learning how to administer a system, run Linux or BSD.
    • Have a large company handling support for you, join the Windows hoards. Expect some downtime due to security issues, but yo
  • by Hardwyred ( 71704 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @05:05PM (#8479020) Homepage
    It was called the Art of War by some guy named Sun Tzu. I think he worked for IBM or something ;-)
  • Get Safari (Score:5, Informative)

    by Michael Crutcher ( 631990 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @05:06PM (#8479022)
    I'm not associated with O'Reilly in any shape or form but a lot of like minded geeks have never heard of safari [oreilly.com]. For $15 bucks a month you get access to an amazing number of technical books. You can keep 10 books on your "bookshelf" at a time and can remove a book from your bookshelf after you've kept it for a month.

    Some people might not like reading the books on your monitor, but it doesn't bother me. I think the electronic search features (in a specific book, across all books, etc.) really makes the service much more useful.

    Again, I'm not trying to plug, but after years of spending at least $50 a month on books I'm really satisfied with safari.

    • Re:Get Safari (Score:2, Informative)

      by sbonds ( 603944 )
      I just read this book on the Safari website. The chances that I would have read it without Safari were pretty slim (though having the book show up on Slashdot helps those chances a lot.)

      Safari is definately worth a look for any techie, and the first two weeks are free.

      Here's a link to the full contents of the book on Safari [oreilly.com].

      The book itself is also good. As the review said, it was nicely detailed where needed and skims over points that could be skimmed.
    • From the "Yeah But" department: I've found many titles published by O'Reilly short almost to the point of being inadequate. Which isn't a Bad Thing necessarily, but when you need information not provided in the carefully targetted book you're reading, you're looking at 2 or 3 books per subject at a minimum. (Perl, for example has 35 titles.) Add to that an equal number of books on subjects directly related, and the "amazing number of technical books" doesn't seem so amazing.

      Maybe it's me, but I'm start
    • Last time I checked Safari out was few years ago when it first started. Based on your advice I revisited, and was amazed at the amoount of books they have now. This is absolutely an amazing resource. Thanks for the reminder!!!

      Now the only question is what to spend the remaining monthly $230 left out of my training and books stipend on.

      Hey I can could save up a few months and by me one of them there Linux licenses from SCO. Then I'll be knowledgable & LEGAL!!! :)

    • $15/month is not the cheapest. They have $110 per year for 5 books/month. That's less than $10/month or with access to 50 books roughly $2.20 per book.
      • $15/month is not the cheapest. They have $110 per year for 5 books/month. That's less than $10/month or with access to 50 books roughly $2.20 per book.

        They have a variety of pricing plans, including something like $30 a month for unlimited access (assuming you're a corporation willing to commit to licenses for lots of employees). Whatever you decide on, Safari is definitely worth the price.

        I'd like to add that although Safari is by O'reilly they've got a number of books by other publishers (including

  • by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @05:06PM (#8479028)
    Computer security is almost an oxymoron in a networked environment. On the one hand we want to be connected to everyone and seamlessly share data, software, and functionality. And so we connect to large numbers of people, like the poeple we meet on /. and other forums.

    On the other hand, we want to restrict access to all but a "trusted" few. Yet the tools for creating trust on the internet are poor or illusory.

    Trust takes time to develop. Only after we have a breadth and depth of experience with the coutnerparty can we truely trust them. The existence of people willing to create a trusted persona over the months or years in order to gain black-hat access or run a scam is at odds with the natural speed of the internet were it only takes a few months to become a trusted veteran.

    Trust also requires tokens of commitment -- the idea that each party has something to lose in the relationship. Unfortunately, most online venues lack this because it is too easy to abandon a troll/criminal persona and create a fresh persona.

    I applaud the work of computer security professionals -- its an extremely hard job made harder by the conflicting demands on computer infrastructures and the mismatched timescales of trust and the internet.
    • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Friday March 05, 2004 @06:20PM (#8479854)
      "Trustworthiness" is created when somebody given the opportunity to screw up does not do so, and is the best predictor we have for whether somebody will screw up in the future.

      To banks, in order for you to have perfect credit credentials, you must have taken loans before and not violated the terms. Never taking a loan is a nuetral value... you haven't screwed up, but on the other hand you haven't had the chance to either. There's no data on you, which means the system has nothing upon which to make a decision, and therefore it's the system's least confident prediction.

      Tokens of committment can only be used to prevent somebody from breaching trust when what they've put up at stake is more valuable to them than what they might get as a result of breaching the trust. A token that isn't strong enough doesn't really create trust. However too strong of a token also will turn away those who don't trust you, which can deny the project you're trying to protect from getting the help it needs.

      The paradox of open yet closed is not one that can be solved, it just has to be dealt with.
  • Ob (Score:4, Funny)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @05:06PM (#8479030) Homepage Journal
    1. Pull network cord
    2. Pull power cord
    3. ???
    4. Security!!!
  • by stand ( 126023 ) <stan.dyck@ g m a i l.com> on Friday March 05, 2004 @05:19PM (#8479147) Homepage Journal

    I think it's like that old joke about how to protect yourself from being killed by a bear. (I don't need to outrun the bear, I just need to outrun you). I only need to be slightly more secure than the rest of you. Right now, frankly, that's not too hard.

    • >(I don't need to outrun the bear, I just need to outrun you)

      Funny? That's insightful. The analogy is physical security. You don't make your house burglarproof. You harden it to the point that the burglar picks on someone else.

      The hidden assumption, though, is that you're dealing with an individual attacker who wants or needs to conserve effort and who thinks all targets are equal.

      If you're a high-profile target then this doesn't apply. You'll have bad guys aiming specifically at you.

      Automated attack
  • by ausoleil ( 322752 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @05:25PM (#8479208) Homepage
    IMHO, computer security is like trying to make something idiot-proof...as soon as it is (idiot-proof) someone perfect a better idiot. In regards to computers, there is no 100% safe way to fully protect your data -- except by rendering the machine inaccessable and turning it off. Of course, that's highly counterproductive.

    So, at the end of the day, all a sysadmin can do is operate the machine in a prudent manner (set it up to have security reasonable to the risk), keep it patched and raise the bar to keep as many potential foes out as possible. But bear in mind, no matter what you do, if one is determined enough, they WILL be able to break into your machine.

    After all, the best hackers are the ones you hve never heard of. Their best exploits are the ones that no one knows about. Children brag about their shenanigans, a wise criminal keeps his tools to himself so they keep working.

    Linux and other OSS projects have a community to identify the risks, but not even a community nor the author(s) of a given piece of code as complex as a working modern Linux system can identify them all.

  • windows (Score:2, Funny)

    by hak hak ( 640274 )
    close the doors and they come in the windows.

    Yeah, many computer hackers in recorded history have come in through Windows.

  • For as long as I can remember, everyone has been saying that computer security flaws are inevitable. Somehow they are part of the "laws of physics" of the computer world and we must learn to live with them. This thought pattern is out of date and is holding us back from having secure systems. We have accepted this idea of inevitability of security problems just like we used to accept the inevitability of cars leaking oil or that certain medical conditions were incurable.

    Computer security problems almost

  • Unfortunately I find that too many "do-it-yourselfers" are leasing dialups and servers from hosting companies and reselling these dialups and server space without really knowing anything about server work.

    The use of server tools such as plesk makes being an admin for a server an easy job for someone who's never even logged into a shell.

    A class or certification in ISP/Web Server management and server security would greatly benefit from using this type of reading. I've got a friend of mine who is this type
  • Some Wisdom (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Close the doors and they come in the windows. Bar the windows and they slip through some cracks in the foundation. Seal those up and the find another way in through the door.

    Best security practice- get rid of your Windows first.

  • I'm sure one too many admins have seen this. Something else that one can do that costs nothing to very little, is find those l337 hacker sites. Something to test your skill and/or knowledge. The book referred to "thinking or seeing through a hackers eyes", well put up or shut up. Real world experience trying to compromise either a webpage or a server is worth a few chapters in a book. I admit I was drawn into computers for the glamour, or the romance of the hack. I wanted nothing more than to be an elite sk
  • Social Engineering (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pizzicar ( 473570 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @05:55PM (#8479586)
    Even with the best of hardware and software locks and keys, the weak link is still the human. There have been many /. articles on social engineering and the current crop of books (The Art of Deception by Kevin Mitnick for example) shows how the best laid security plans can be circumvented by a minimum wage clerk. Education for all employees should be a big factor in securing systems. An email from the IT department just won't cut it - we need to teach people how and why to make a difference.
  • by The Pim ( 140414 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @06:29PM (#8479991)
    There's no way to prove a negative. There are no good mathematical tools that make it easy to prove statements like P!=NP or big numbers can't be factored quickly.

    You have no idea what you're talking about. Mathematicians and computer scientists prove negatives and non-existence all the time. For example, it is proven that there exist no non-zero rationals a, b, and c, and integer n > 2, such that a^n + b^n = c^n.

    Computer security is an odd pursuit because it's just not possible to have a strong, theory of everything when cracks can appear anywhere.

    The reason it's not possible in practice to prove anything about computer security is that the languages and protocols we used were not designed with this ability in mind. You can't prove anything useful about unix, C, or HTTP. It's true that it would take a massive overhaul of our computer infrastructure, but it's possible to have systems that you can reason about.

    Even then, it's true that you can only prove things in a model, and it's always possible that there will be a real-world attack that isn't reflected in the model. But the situation could be much, much better than it is today. If you use a safe language and design your library carefully, you can probably provably protect yourself from some vulnerabilities.

    • I don't believe he is referring to the use of negitive numbers in math. (Well sorta is, but he's mixing metaphors)

      I believe he is either referring to the Logical Fallacy of Relevence: Appeal to Ignorance. where on person states a statement must be true because no-one can prove it wrong.

      I think what he is trying to say is that you can't prove that something can't be done (like quickly factor large integers) because it's impossible to know the full scope of the problem, or keep up with the advance of knowl
  • by GringoGoiano ( 176551 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @06:30PM (#8480000)

    If you really think you're not going to seal all the cracks, or that you create new ones as you rebuild your electronic foundation, you need to track what goes on inside the house at all times.

    The best way to do this is to log all significant events in your infrastructure:

    • network connections
    • web server hits
    • DB queries
    • app server events
    • machine syslogs
    • ...

    Without knowledge of your history you can't see new trends or look back and see how often in the past newly discovered exploits by external attackers and internal were used. The company I work for (Addamark) discusses the log-everything approach to security [addamark.com]. It's a tough problem because of the scale of info required. Sorry for the shameless plug but this is the problem we address, and do so rather well at several real-world companies.

  • Seal those up and the find another way in through the door.

    "Encyclopedia salesman!"

    Seriously, that's what e-mail viruses are turning into these days. Now they're encrypting zip attachments and expecting the idiots to remember a five-digit number for more than a few seconds. And it's actually working.

  • Close the doors and they come in the windows. Bar the windows and they slip through some cracks in the foundation. Seal those up and the find another way in through the door.

    Sounds like you need to buy a can of RAID and spray it all over the place. Also, Home Depot sells those ant baits that are supposed to kill off the entire colony (the ants take the poison to their nest and kill all their relatives, including the queen). Other than that, I'd say get a professional pest control company to take care of it

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Working...