Re: thoughts on kernel security issues

[Jesse Pollard <jesse@cats-chateau.net>]

On Thursday 27 January 2005 11:18, Zan Lynx wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 10:37 -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
>
> >
> > > > Unfortunately, there will ALWAYS be a path, either direct, or
> > > > indirect between the secure net and the internet.
> > >
> > > Other than letting people use secure computers after they have seen the
> > > Internet, a good setup has no indirect paths.
> >
> > Ha. Hahaha...
> >
> > Reality bites.
>
> In the reality I'm familiar with, the defense contractor's secure
> projects building had one entrance, guarded by security guards who were
> not cheap $10/hr guys, with strict instructions.  No computers or
> computer media were allowed to leave the building except with written
> authorization of a corporate officer.  The building was shielded against
> Tempest attacks and verified by the NSA.  Any computer hardware or media
> brought into the building for the project was physically destroyed at
> the end.
>

And you are assuming that everybody follows the rules.

when a PHB, whether military or not (and not contractor) comes in and
says "... I don't care what it takes... get that data over there NOW..."
guess what - it gets done. Even if it is "less secure" in the process.

Oh - and about that "physically destroyed" - that used to be true.

Until it was pointed out to them that destruction of 300TB of data
media would cost them about 2 Million.

Suddenly, erasing became popular. And sufficient. Then it was reused
in a non-secure facility, operated by the same CO.

> Secure nets _are_ possible.

Yes they are. But they are NOT reliable.
Don't ever assume a "secure" network really is.

All it means is: "as secure as we can manage"