[126923] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Nato warns of strike against cyber attackers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Wed Jun 9 00:36:40 2010
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <4036E91C-ED3D-4E62-8F75-C3C7B3DD2A37@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 00:36:29 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 9, 2010, at 12:26 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>> Problem is there's no financial liability for producing massively =
exploitable software.
>> No financial penalty for operating a compromised system.
>> No penalty for ignoring abuse complaints.
>> Etc.
>>=20
>> Imagine how fast things would change in Redmond if Micr0$0ft had to =
pay the cleanup costs for each and every infected system and any damage =
said infected system did prior to the owner/operator becoming aware of =
the infection.
>>=20
>=20
> It isn't Microsoft. It once was, but Vista and Windows 7 are really =
solid, probably much better than Linux or Mac OS. (Note that I run =
NetBSD and Mac OS; I don't run Windows not because it's insecure but =
because it's an unpleasant work environment for me.)
>=20
> Microsoft is targeted because they have the market. If Steve Jobs =
keeps succeeding with his reality distortion field, we'll see a lot more =
attacks on Macs in a very few years. It's also Flash and Acrobat =
Reader. It's also users who click to install every plug-in recommended =
by every dodgy web site they visit. It's also users who don't install =
patches, including those for XP (which really was that buggy). There's =
plenty of blame to go around here....
>=20
> A liability scheme, with penalties on users and vendors, is certainly =
worth considering. Such a scheme would also have side-effects -- think =
of the effect on open source software. It would also be a lovely source =
of income for lawyers, and would inhibit new software development. The =
tradeoff may be worth while -- or it may not, because I have yet to see =
evidence that *anyone* can produce really secure software without =
driving up costs at least five-fold.
I agree the miscreants go for the bigger bang for the buck. That said, =
earlier versions of Windows really were soft targets. I don't know =
enough about Win7 to comment, but I respect Steve and will accept his =
opinion. Let's hope MS keeps up the good work - I do not want to bash =
Windows (no matter how fun it is :), I want to stop being attacked.
But it is not -just- market share. There are a lot more Windows Mobile =
compromises, viruses, etc., than iOS, Symbian, and RIM. I think =
combined. Yet Windows Mobile has the lowest market share of the four. =
So unless that is spill over because Windows Mobile & Windows Desktop =
have the same vulnerabilities, it shows that market share is only one =
piece of the puzzle.
All that said, the biggest problem is users. Social Engineering is a =
far bigger threat than anything in software. And I don't know how we =
stop that. Anyone have an idea?
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
