Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Security

Inventor of Proxy Firewall Blames Hackers 742

An anonymous reader writes "SecurityFocus published an interview with Marcus Ranum, the inventor of the proxy firewall. It's an interesting reading, and the end is even better: Truly, the only people who deserve a complete helping of blame are the hackers. Let's not forget that they're the ones doing this to us. They're the ones who are annoying an entire planet. They're the ones who are costing us billions of dollars a year to secure our systems against them. They're the ones who place their desire for fun ahead of everyone on earth's desire for peace and the right to privacy."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Inventor of Proxy Firewall Blames Hackers

Comments Filter:
  • Here we go (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @10:00AM (#12880381)
    Here comes 100+ comments attempting to rationalize the need for hackers.
  • I agree... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cheezemonkhai ( 638797 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @10:00AM (#12880388) Homepage
    How dare a large american mega-corperation that wants to keep our private data on their systems and make money off selling it have to spend any money protecting it.

    Yes hackers are a pain in the arse, so are spam merchants. Thats life, live with it.

    In other news the inventor of the Yale lock blames thieves for the invention of the lock, which irritates us daily.
  • by BlogPope ( 886961 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @10:10AM (#12880474)
    Problem is, just like the phreakers, while the hackers showed the way, organized crime (and yeah, I think I'll lump CoolWebSearch in that group) has pushed them out. The number of attacks related to real hackers is minimal these days, though there's enough idiots writing the tools thats the equivalent to giving uzis to schoolkids.

    Suddenly we're all little piggiesliving in the big bad wolf's neighborhood and we're living in software houses built of twigs.

  • by Dancin_Santa ( 265275 ) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @10:18AM (#12880559) Journal
    Closer to home (inasmuch as /. is "home"), I really hate people who come onto this site or any site, for that matter, for the express purpose of disrupting discussion. We call them trolls, but in the same way we try to differentiate between "hackers" and "crackers", maybe it would be good to try to differentiate between "trolls" and these despicable "troll jihadists".

    A logged in user may occasionally troll (who knows what kind of warped mind finds this "fun"?), but someone who logs in to drop bombs in a discussion with the express aim of causing confusion and conflagration is a "discussion terrorist".

    Such terrorism can only be combatted, but never squelched.
  • by FictionPimp ( 712802 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @10:23AM (#12880611) Homepage
    Yea, but my house was built without doors, just big gaping holes. So how dare you come in and steal my stuff. I can't belive people would be so dishonest.

    At least a door is an effort at security. Most software makers make no effort. I can prove this by the large list of programs that require me to make hours of phone calls to find all the stupid places they put stuff so my users do not have to run in admin mode in windows.
  • by kandresen ( 712861 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @10:25AM (#12880626)
    Even though I am on the defensive side, trying to keep my servers safe from crackers, script kiddies and so on, I do apreciate these groups for existing.

    If they didn't exist, I would really have felt much more unsafe from espionage and the prying eyes of national and international bodies.

    From my stance, confidential information must be very well protected, and if you put available on the internet, you better have secured it or face the consequences.

    By knowing that crackers exist, you might hessitate to put important and confidential information online, imagine how it would be if everybody only talked about cracking as teoretically possible!!! Spies would never tell what they do, they would be everywhere! Knowing your accounting, your secret papers, everything, for nobody would care to improve the security of their products from something that was only teoretical... All the good guys would have no privacy whereas only the black hats would be able to move around as they liked.

    Face it - the world have all kinds of people - angles, devils, and all sort of people in between. To be hit by someone who expose you is many times better than to be hit by those who simply abuse the information without any words.
  • by maraist ( 68387 ) * <{michael.maraist ... mail.n0spam.com}> on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @10:51AM (#12880878) Homepage
    To say hackers are evil is like saying germs, viruses, and carnivores in general are evil. By merely acting out Adam Smith's society being benifited best by each acting in his own best interests (adapted by John Nash to include societal interests for best outcome), we are keeping in step with mere nature.. A dog will forage for food, defend it's food, and kill it's food, so that it can stay alive. A rabbit will defend against other rabbits if need be (though they'll generally run away from anything else).

    A patron is looking for a good deal, and will expend effort to maximize their deal, so sloopy wording on a sign on your store-front are invites to a natural onslaught of fiscal frustration. By natural, I mean there is no evil intent in people trying to keep you for your word in maintaining a good bargain (that you didn't intend).

    If there is money on the street, it is conceivable that:
    a) the original owner will never find it again
    b) someone else will take the money

    So you justify taking the money yourself.

    If you are hungry, you might be inclined to take two samples at a free food-sample kiosk. It's unfair as it goes beyond the intent of "sampling" and takes away from other's (since there is usually a set amount of sample provided for the day).

    In reality, those that are sheltered from such harsh survival of the fittest environments will EVENTUALLY meet with that environment.. It is impossible (short of death) to avoid it. Thus the question is not IF we will meet our challenges, but when, and how quickly will the difficulty level rise.

    For those with assets we fear to loose (time,money,posessions,intellectual property, etc), it is natural for them to be saught by others. Having a public wiki is valueable advertising real-estate (or a personal repository for globally accessible content). So grafiti, being merely a primitive form of marketing, is bound to happen. Bank accounts are an obvious point of content.. If you happened to come across money on the street, you are more than likely to take it. If your ATM machine started allowing you to withdraw cash w/o deducting from your bank account, there is a better than likely chance that you'll take advantage (anonymous theft when it is considered to not overwhelmingly harm someone else - proportionate loss/gain - is often self justified). There isn't much difference from taking from that ATM machine and taking from an online bank account that you've happened by. Yes there is a greater issue of proportionality (you might be stealing from someone poorer than you), but you might think to yourself (I'm teaching them a lesson).. What-ever the cause, an otherwise moral man may find themselves tempted.. To say nothing of the mafia.

    And ultimately organized crime is the tyrannasauras of our internet age. The mafia being only one form of it (unfriendly governments being an even more serious threat). The age of mafia and internet "WAR" (literally between nation-states) is only a matter of time.

    So if our "evolution" through natural selection and adverse environment does not "toughen" us enough to sustain such natural phenomena, then we will die (or at least the medium will die).

    So lets look again at these "evil" hackers. Many of the hackers were self-professed white-hackers, or anonymous exposers. If you are inclined to see if a WEB-INF directory or IIS-specific file-set are visible on a public site, you can either email their sys-admin who might sue you for hacking, or simply ignore you (like MS tries to do with serious security alerts so long as the general public is oblivious), or you can make it a priority for them... Deface their web site, delete lots of their database records.. Make it too expensive for them NOT to resolve the issue.

    These are altruistic people. Slightly less altruistic are those that advertise themselves 3l33t hacker-names advertised here and there. As they have the fun and recognition-factor of it all (especially if they get CNN coverage).

    Embrace th
  • by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @11:04AM (#12881000) Homepage Journal
    I think your post should replace the story.

    Blaming "the hackers" for finding and exploiting insecurities in your software is like blaming barking dogs for your insomnia. The dog is just being a dog. Hackers or dogs may or may not be providing you with a service, by alerting you to real trouble coming your way.

  • Hacker Justification (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mulletproof ( 513805 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @11:09AM (#12881051) Homepage Journal
    Now this is just a sad justification and can easily be turned the other way-- If it had been organized crime that started hacking, the governement would probably take it more seriously than it is now, with laws and penalties to match. The tools would have been developed anyway, so it's really a non-issue.

    Besides. Hackers have been doing serious damage from day one. Besides just breaking into networks for "curiosity sake" they've been planting worms, trojans, trolling entire credit card data bases, commiting DDoS attacts, etc etc. No, not all of them, but enough to make the OPs point a ridiculous one to even attempt to justify.
  • by rainman_bc ( 735332 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @11:25AM (#12881195)
    Uhm, let's take the tinfoil hat off.

    All corporations exist to make money for shareholders.

    Secondly, Banks exist to link people with money to people who wish to borrow money. You put your money in the bank. The bank pays you interest (pretty low interest today, but still). Then the bank lends it out at a higher rate of interest. The difference is the bank's profits. Its role is to act as an intermediary. Lending money yourself is risky. You put your money in the bank and the bank assumes all costs, and all risk. Your money is guaranteed by the bank, and (in Canada) it's insured by CDIC for up to $75k

    I think the OP meant that no one gets YOUR money without your permission. You are always entitled to the money in your demand deposit account.

    Let's face it though, where will you withdraw it to? If you make a $1 million cash withdrawal, the bank will look at you funny, and there isn't much reason for it. Try depositing it again and see the flack you'll get. You have to prove the origin. Not cool...

    Nay, most of the times you transfer the money to another bank - if you pay by check, it's still just a transfer to another bank. It's just an accounting entry, nothing more. The cash never movies, and the money probably doesn't really either.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @11:31AM (#12881246)
    Okay, I realize this is OT, but why are you afraid of guns? I own four. Two rifles and two handguns. I enjoy shooting them. I enjoy practicing the skills that it takes to become proficient with them. They have never ever ever gone off by themselves. Be afraid of the people that would do violence against you, not the tools that they use. Take away guns, and the psychos will use knives. Guns are just a hunk of metal. Not until they get in the hands of someone dangerous are the scary. On a side note, don't take away my right to carry my gun and just maybe I'll protect you from one of the nutjobs who would try to kill you with a gun.
  • UberMUD & UnterMUD (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Macka ( 9388 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @11:49AM (#12881413)

    Thought I'd mention a bit of history (long since forgotten) that Marcus Ranum was also the author of the UberMUD and UnterMUD, mud engines. Two very nice mud cores, written in K&R C that ran on Ultrix. Both had their own strengths and weaknesses. UberMUD was my favourite, as it had its own scripting language called "U". UnterMUD didn't so it was harder to develop on, but its filestore backend was much smarter than Uber's. A union of the two would have been the perfect MUD engine IMO.

  • by JWW ( 79176 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @11:52AM (#12881449)
    You should be expecte to install updates on your system, as the basic precaution.

    To follow along with this analogy. But with my house when I install a new deadbolt I'm done. With a PC users need to install a new "lock" every month.

    I just find the amount of crap users are expected to do just to keep their machine usable is amazing. Everyone is expected to be an expert and they're not. In the real world Brinks will outfit your house with a security system, install it, manage it , the whole nine yards. With PCs the user has to do all the maintenance, all the management.

    It suprises me that there aren't more ISPs offering a fully blocked and monitored service to customers (wait I should patent that idea ;-). This way they could ease the users burden in the defense of their PCs. Of course their users would complain that their really cool (spyware laden) browser toolbar doesn't work anymore, and they'd get angry. Wait, I was defending the users wasn't I? Oops.
  • by PHP Addict ( 873566 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @12:09PM (#12881612)

    You've got it 100% right. My family is all about outdoor activities: camping, hiking, fishing, and hunting. Every summer, my entire family would take a week-long camping trip, and my dad would bring a few guns and go hunting at least twice. They were always locked up, never loaded, and stored separately from the ammunition.

    We'd sit around the campfire at night and my dad would clean his guns from that day's use. As a child is naturally curious, I wanted to know what that thing dad had was. He didn't pull it away and say, "No! Bad!" He showed me what it was, described how it worked, and let me hold it (obviously unloaded and extremely supervised).

    For as long as I can remember, gun safety has been ground into me, so I have no problem with anyone owning a gun, as long as they're responsible with it (locked up, unloaded, and stored separately from the ammunition). It's the ass-hat that leaves a loaded pistol in his unlocked nightstand drawer that everyone needs to worry about.

    Guns don't decide how they're used. Guns don't choose to be stored in a drawer where a child can get to them. Dumbass people do. "Guns! Bad!" is the cry of the ignorant.

    Moral of the story: Guns don't kill people, idiots and assholes do.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @12:11PM (#12881627)
    This is FUD. There are a huge number of fireamrs death because of the idiot gangbangers who should be offing themselves. In addition, the rates of crime are going UP in countries where guns have been banned (UK, Austrailia, etc...). FWIW, I don't have kids at home. But my family has always had guns when *GASP* I was a kid. I knew what they could do and I knew they weren't playthings. So guess what, I didn't play with them. Most of my friends and extended family are in the same boat. They have guns and their kids know better than to touch them. Also, I think it's a really good idea to have them locked up anyways.
  • by proberts ( 9821 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @12:43PM (#12881931) Homepage
    No, you're wrong. It doesn't imply that things would be safe, it implies that if people didn't do bad stuff, then that subset of bad stuff wouldn't happen. The fact is that we're dealing with social issues, which don't have technical solutions. Social solutions fix social problems, and part of the solution is to make criminal activity socially unacceptable.

    The fact is that people have been kidding themselves that they have some level of security for a long time, and if there was no security at all, then the base problem would have likely had a lot more attention paid to it, especially the transitive trust part that Marcus talks about. But because people think "We have a firewall, so we're safe!" the real base problem doesn't get addressed.

    Paul
  • by 1lus10n ( 586635 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @01:40PM (#12882459) Journal
    You also have the responsibility to put forth an effort to protect your privacy.

    Have sex with a woman in a parked car on some random street. Anyone can stop and watch and they are doing nothing wrong.
  • by sphealey ( 2855 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @01:49PM (#12882537)
    There is this thing out there called Google News. You might want to give it a try [israelnn.com]:
    (IsraelNN.com) The first charges in the "Trojan Horse" mass industrial espionage case, which implicates many of Israel's economic powerhouses, have been filed with a Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court today.

    The charges were filed against the private investigator alleged to have obtained sensitive business information from Israeli businesses illegally by means of a Trojan Horse computer program. He then sold the information obtained to the targeted businesses' competitors.

    It is in fact not teenagers, but directed industrial espionage at best, international espionage at worst.

    sPh

  • by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) <Satanicpuppy@gma ... minus herbivore> on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @01:53PM (#12882584) Journal
    In a perfect world, maybe. But everything in the world we live in is driven by conflict and competition, not the betterment of our fellow man, not the betterment of our world, not even the betterment of ourselves.

    Until that changes, war is indeed a creator of value, because it's unlikely that many of those advances would have been made otherwise. All we know of space exploration is founded on advances that were originally made to kill people. Nuclear power came after nuclear weapons.

    It's nice to imagine a world where there is o conflict and there is no competition. That world is probably also without technology, however.
  • by hempalicious ( 842546 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @02:27PM (#12882954)
    The obvious exception is people who are *paid* to attempt a break-in because the property owner wants to know just how well they're secured things.
  • by Chris Tucker ( 302549 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @03:05PM (#12883373) Homepage
    It is NOT "hackers" causing all those problems with the internets that Dumbfuck McCumstain so laments. (Yes, I AM being really insulting and offensive to Marcus Ranum! He's been really insulting and offensive towards me and my fellow hackers.)

    It is thieves and vandals causing all those problems.

    Hackers invented the micro/home/personal computer. Hackers invented the diverse protocols that allowed these machines to talk to one another. Hackers invented the operating systems. Hackers invented the Internet. A hacker invented the World Wide Web.

    Thieves and vandals merely took advantage of what hackers have invented and shared with the world. Took advantage and turned these tools to an evil purpose. Not hackers, THIEVES & VANDALS!

    So fuck you, Ranum! Fuck you with Bill Gates dick! Fuck you with Monkeyboy Ballmer's dick! Fuck you with the collective dicks of SCO!

    Just fuck you in general for your stupid, blinkered, stereotypical "oh, it's those damned hackers causing all my problems!" bullshit.

    Strongly worded comment to follow!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, 2005 @03:34PM (#12883680)
    I just hate seeing this Canard all the time. Regardless of whether you are wrong or right about gun control, you need some facts about gun ownership in Switzerland.

    1) Guns are highly controlled in Switzerland,
    the gov't can and does do random intrusive searches, checking for agreement to the gun laws.

    2)There are mandatory yearly inspections with Stiff penalties.

    When was the last time the police showed up at your door and conducted a search to check that you had a supply of emergency food & water, and had your guns properly locked and your ammunition properly checked and that you had passed your mandatory gun proficiency tests?

    When this is the situation in the States then you can argue that guns have nothing to do with this stat. Switzerland has Gun control. If anything the situation in Switzerland is is an argument for Gun controls.

    Guns don't kill people, it's idiots with guns that kill people.

All the simple programs have been written.

Working...