[fw-wiz] A fun smackdown...

From: David Wagner (firewall-wizards-gate_at_abraham.cs.berkeley.edu)
Date: 05/22/05

  • Next message: Bill Royds: "RE: [fw-wiz] A fun smackdown..." 
    To: BehmJL@bvsg.com, firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT)

    Behm, Jeffrey L. wrote:
    >This made me think of a denial of service attack which
    >renders the system (door) unavailable. Does a DoS make
    >the system more secure? It seems like some _might_ say
    >_Yes_, since the system would effectively be blocked.
    >I would say no, it's not more secure, at least, not if
    >the definition of security includes _availability_.

    This is a very confused answer. Let me help you think about this
    more clearly. It's all about security goals. Integrity? Is that
    a goal? What about availability? Now, which is a higher priority?
    There is no "One Right Answer"; priorities will depend on your goals,
    on your application, and on the specifics of the setting. That's a
    policy question.

    Let's assume you have know what your goals are, and you have been
    able to prioritize them.

    If integrity is a higher priority than availability, then you want
    systems that will fail closed: in case of doubt, better to shut the
    system down (at cost to availability) then allow an intrusion to
    happen (at cost to integrity).

    If availability is a higher priority than integrity, then you want
    systems that will keep running, no matter what: in case of doubt, it
    may well be better to allow an intrusion to happen and try to tolerate
    it, possibly sacrificing some degree of integrity for availability.

    Of course, we often cannot disentange the two concepts. Often the
    availability of our system rests on the integrity of certain system state.
    But this gives you a way to think about whether to fail open vs to fail
    closed.
    _______________________________________________
    firewall-wizards mailing list
    firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards

  • Next message: Bill Royds: "RE: [fw-wiz] A fun smackdown..."

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Patching
      ... Security is availability, ... confidentiality and integrity, isn't it? ... to behave incorrectly from a security perspective. ... revision X.x with applications Y.y and disk/tape drivers at revision Z.z. ...
      (Security-Basics)
    • Re: Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard
      ... A great example of a system where confidentiality is more important ... than availability. ... >Nixing the ATM service suddenly seems like a very attractive solution. ... A good example of a system where integrity is more important ...
      (sci.crypt)
    • Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns
      ... The issue is whether integrity is more important, or availability ... I assert that for almost all Internet apps, integrity is more important ... array bounds checking that throws an exception or terminates your program ... Of course, in other domains, other tradeoffs could be right. ...
      (sci.crypt)
    • Re: What does Security include?
      ... >> Cryptography is one of many means to ensure privacy and integrity. ... Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability. ... accountability, auditing, non-repudiation, etc... ...
      (sci.crypt)
    • Re: Is this a crazy idea
      ... For availability check: ... resources and need to work on specific tasks, but other than that I do ... but I do have some that are higher priority ... I am wondering if I can actually use project to do all the scheduling ...
      (microsoft.public.project)