Re: thoughts on kernel security issues

[Zan Lynx <zlynx@acm.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2829 bytes --]

On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 10:37 -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 January 2005 13:56, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 25 January 2005 15:05, linux-os wrote:
> > > > This isn't relevant at all. The Navy doesn't have any secure
> > > > systems connected to a network to which any hackers could connect.
> > > > The TDRS communications satellites provide secure channels
> > > > that are disassembled on-board. Some ATM-slot, after decryption
> > > > is fed to a LAN so the sailors can have an Internet connection
> > > > for their lap-tops. The data took the same paths, but it's
> > > > completely independent and can't get mixed up no matter how
> > > > hard a hacker tries.
> > >
> > > Obviously you didn't hear about the secure network being hit by the "I
> > > love you" virus.
> > >
> > > The Navy doesn't INTEND to have any secure systems connected to a network
> > > to which any hackers could connect.
> >
> > What's hard about that? Matter of physical network topology, absolutely no
> > physical connection, no machines with a 2nd NIC, no access to/from I'net.
> > Yes, it's a PITA, add logging to a physical printer which can't be erased
> > if you want to make your CSO happy (corporate security officer).
> 
> And you are ASSUMING the connection was authorized. I can assure you that 
> there are about 200 (more or less) connections from the secure net to the
> internet expressly for the purpose of transferring data from the internet
> to the secure net for analysis. And not ALL of these connections are 
> authorized. Some are done via sneakernet, others by running a cable ("I need
> the data NOW... I'll just disconnect afterward..."), and are not visible
> for very long. Other connections are by picking up a system and carrying it
> from one connection to another (a version of sneakernet, though here it
> sometimes needs a hand cart).
> 
> > > 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.

Secure nets _are_ possible.
-- 
Zan Lynx <zlynx@acm.org>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]