RE: CRIME FW: @Stake pulls pin on Geer: Effect on research and publication

From: Andrew Plato (aplato@private)
Date: Sun Oct 12 2003 - 19:16:30 PDT

  • Next message: Crispin Cowan: "Re: CRIME ADMININSTRATOR:"

    > My parents would be shocked to discover that you think the 31
    > unpatched vulnerabilities in internet explorer are THEIR fault:
    >  http://xev.us/dg (google cache of PivX's list, which seems to be
    >  down at the moment.)
     
    I don't think users are responsible for the vulnerabilities, they're
    responsible for their machines. 
    
    How about an analogy: You walk into a public space with a radio that is
    softly playing music and not bothering anybody. The radio malfunctions
    and changes the station to some obnoxious music and blares it full
    volume. You just sit there and ignore the radio and the pain it is
    causing others around you. That is irresponsible behavior. The fact that
    the radio had a malfunction is incidental. Its your radio, and you have
    to be responsible for it. 
    
    Let's say you buy a Dell. And you plug it in and never patch it and do
    nothing to secure it. A worm comes out, hacks your machine, and then
    tries to hack your neighbor's machine. That is irresponsible computer
    ownership. If you are going to own a powerful piece of equipment, it is
    your responsibility to use it in a safe manner. This is true of
    chainsaws, firearms, automobiles, etc. 
    
    Now...if the product is DEFECTIVE and causes you to hurt yourself or
    others, then clearly the manufacturer needs to take care of that. But as
    many people have pointed out, virtually every single software
    manufacturer has an explicit release of liability in their EULAs.
    Microsoft is not unique in this way. Almost ALL software companies do
    this. 
    
    Hence, the logical way to resolve the "monoculture risk" is:
    
    1. Encourage responsible computer usage. 
    2. Push for changes in EULAs that do not allow software manufacturers to
    escape liability. 
    
    1. Is already being done. Home users ARE taking security seriously. This
    is why there are zillions of downloads of ZoneAlarm everyday and those
    Linksys firewalls sell like crazy. Business users are also taking
    security more seriously and purchasing third-party technologies that
    reduce the risk of intrusion/misuse. 
    
    2. Is not easy. It would require a fundamental shift in the software
    industry. I am reasonably certain that pushing software liability on
    manufacturers won't be easy. And not only Microsoft would be affected.
    Virtually ALL software licenses exclude liability. Even the open-source
    licenses limit liability. You would also see a huge spike in the cost of
    software, since now manufacturers had to account for liability issues. 
    
    Since #2 is not likely to happen soon, the logical answer to the
    monoculture risk is to encourage people to make use of the myriad of
    third party technologies that can mitigate and eliminate risk. 
    
    ___________________________________
    Andrew Plato, CISSP
    President/Principal Consultant
    Anitian Enterprise Security 
     
    503-644-5656 Office
    503-644-8574 Fax
    503-201-0821 Mobile
    www.anitian.com
    ___________________________________ 
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Oct 12 2003 - 19:51:11 PDT