Re: [fw-wiz] Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints]
From: Crispin Cowan (crispin_at_immunix.com)
Date: 09/01/04
- Previous message: Bruce B. Platt: "Re: [fw-wiz] Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints]"
- In reply to: Tina Bird: "RE: [fw-wiz] Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints]"
- Next in thread: Adam Shostack: "Re: [fw-wiz] Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints]"
- Reply: Adam Shostack: "Re: [fw-wiz] Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: Tina Bird <tbird@precision-guesswork.com> Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:42:00 -0700
Tina Bird wrote:
>When I'm in a particularly rebellious mood, I like to argue about the entire
>
>
>>existence< of the discipline of >>computer science<< -- what are the
>>
>>
>underlying theories and how do you test them?
>
It is wisely said that any discipline with the word "science" in its
name is not really a science :)
Less flippantly, the fundamental theorem of computer science is Alan
Turing's Halting Problem <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem>.
At the time (1932) this was just a cute extension to Gödel's
Incompleteness Theorem <http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html>, but with
the modest consequence that Turing had to invent computing machines to
be able to prove a theorem about the limit of computability.
> Little of what I >>do<< now
>has anything to do with science, although a lot of the skills I use day to
>day are similar to things I did for my research job.
>
>
Ah, but it secretly does :) Turing's Halting problem says that,
basically, you cannot have a static analyzer that looks at other
programs and their inputs and decides whether they will halt (finish).
The *security* consequence is that you cannot have a static analyzer
that will look at your software (or your systems) and tell you
*definitively* if they are secure. You can only have analyzers that will
give you half answers like "it is definitely *insecure*" (here's a known
vuln or a sploit), or "this one is secure but that one I can't tell".
That in turn leads to a plethora of security problems and half solutions:
* Code audits: use humans to detect programs with vulnerable defects
and close them
* Patch managers: when you learn of a defect, close it ASAP
* Intrusion Detection: I don't trust my systems, so I will try to
detect them going nuts
* Firewalls and Network Intrusion Prevention: I can't tell if it is
safe for my systems to process this kind of input, so I'll block it
* Host Intrusion Prevention: allowing programs to do what they are
supposed to do, and *nothing else*
Thus security is forever a kludge, and we all have lifetime employment
:) But for very well-founded mathematical reasons :)
Crispin, "why yes, I do have a PhD in Computer 'science', what's your
point?" :)
-- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://immunix.com/~crispin/ CTO, Immunix http://immunix.com _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- Previous message: Bruce B. Platt: "Re: [fw-wiz] Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints]"
- In reply to: Tina Bird: "RE: [fw-wiz] Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints]"
- Next in thread: Adam Shostack: "Re: [fw-wiz] Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints]"
- Reply: Adam Shostack: "Re: [fw-wiz] Re: Flawed Surveys [was: VPN endpoints]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|