Intrusion Detection and Secuirty Policy

From: Bill_Roydsat_private
Date: Thu Apr 16 1998 - 08:22:15 PDT

  • Next message: Russ: "RE: When to do something about detected attacks (was Re: how to d"

    Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
       I built a lot of firewalls, and I've seen a lot of firewalls
       installed every which way but backwards. The reason I am going out
       on a limb here is to try to get folks to build the right things
       into their IDS' early on! Before it's too late! If I could go back
       in time, I'd'a built firewalls that had "policy writing wizards"
       that you could walk through and which would not only configure
       the firewall but give you a hardcopy risk assessment of the policy
       you built. Templates, too. We need the same kind of stuff for IDS.
       Or they will also be complicated, obscure products that get
       installed and ignored and finally unplugged. I'd hope that the
       fact that I am saying this in a public forum, effectively giving
       advice to potential competitors, will serve as proof of my
       earnest or foolishness or both.
    
    
    
    One problem that a  needs to be addressed is a "Security Policy Language"
    which would be a formal notation for writing security policies that would
    be both
    explainable to managers and executives and verifiable in a formal sense.
    There has been work done on this in programming language verification
    (Euclid and stuff from late 70's) but it ended up being too "mathematical"
    for real world use. The tradeoff between ease of use and completnenss has
    always been one of the deisgn problems in all computer software. It is a
    hard problem as any firewall  make can tell you. If you make a nice
    friendly GUI to sell the product, it becomes an obstacle to actually using
    the product in daily business.
    
       Perhaps the next security product is not at the detection level but at
    the policy generation level. An expert system that allows one to view
    security policies so that the expected behaviour of both the people and the
    system is compared with past experience and with required data to monitor
    this behaviour. THis kind of high thought level software has always been
    harder to create than circuit level stuff, but it is the most important for
    actually getting results.
    
    
        Bill Royds
        Internet Security Manager
        Department of Canadian Heritage
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 12:55:13 PDT