The Immutable Laws of Computer Security

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc722487.aspx

by waitwhat • 15 years ago

52 37 15 years ago

technet.microsoft.com

tehjones• 15 years ago

I really disagree with the use of bad guy in any of those laws. It biases the reader from the get go to only worry about the bad guy, you should worry about every user.

crenshaw• 15 years ago

The articles says this, "If a stranger walked up to you and handed you a sandwich, would you eat it? Probably not. How about if your best friend gave you a sandwich? Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't—it depends on whether she made it or found it lying in the street. Apply the same critical thought to a program that you would to a sandwich, and you'll usually be safe."

Which I thought was pretty good.

vinutheraj• 15 years ago

I thought you wanted them to say bad guy or gal.

qixxiq• 15 years ago

The Law #1 seems to have been proved wrong. I'm against closed systems but what the iPad/iPhone have done in terms of security is fantastic.

It would be great if other systems worked as smoothly. I'm particularly disturbed by Android's permission system (only tested on stock Nexus S). You are shown a list of permissions but I don't see why I have to allow Twitter access to my contact information and gps location.

I understand it improves the experience but personally I would rather have those turned off and the twitter application should be able to deal with that choice (rather than me having to deal with Twitter having access to my location and full contact list)

javert5• 15 years ago

The Law #1 seems to have been proved wrong.

I can't agree with you more. It seems to me that with interpretation (e.g. a Java virtual machine, for example), exactly what a program can do can be controlled precisely. Build a trusted interpreter, which should be possible (right?), and you're golden.

One question: How does the security in iOS differ from that in Android? I'm only familiar with Android. I would imagine iOS must also have some kind of selective permission system?

jerf2• 15 years ago

If you run a program on a virtual machine, then it is not "running on your computer". It is "running on a virtual machine, running on your computer", and the security implications are different. Law #1 still holds. Especially if you are unwilling to simply take as given the perfection of the virtual machine... which history says is not a wise thing to take as a given.

That's also which qixxiq is wrong in the GP post; it's only true if you assume that Apple's security is perfect. As a practical matter as a user it's a tolerable approximation, especially if you have no personal assets of value on your phone, but if you're really concerned about security it is not something you can assume.

Xuzz4• 15 years ago

iOS does not have a general purpose "permissions" system. It does, however, ask for permission (via a modal popup with an explanation) before performing some things that you might to deny, such as accessing your photo library or physical location. (However, most likely for legacy reasons, the Contacts isn't protected in the same way.)

It's also enforced through the review process: in addition to checking for stability and compatibility, the iOS review process also checks for malware and some data theft. This is also helped by the fact that iOS apps cannot dynamically load code after the review process, so you can be pretty sure that Apple at least took a quick look at what you install.

It's far from foolproof — I'm sure a dedicated attacker could sneak something through the review process and steal your contacts — but nothing has happened so far (at least as far as I know).

(As a side note about the lack of a true "permissions" system: having the app request access when it makes sense (Twitter only asks for location when I tap the geotag button, for example) means that I know why the app is asking, rather than on Android where I've seen frantic messages in the description to explain why the app needs some theoretically-privacy-invading permission, even if it's only used for a minor feature, since just asking for that permission scared users away. Neither system is perfect, but a contextual system where you can allow or deny individual permissions (as on iOS) combined with full coverage of what permissions might be wanted to be controlled (as on Android) would work pretty well.)

_snsh• 15 years ago

There are some apps (all requiring root) that allow selective permissions for android apps. I like knowing what the app wants to be able to do and if something strange sticks out, I'll look it up or block it.

>You are shown a list of permissions but I don't see why I have to allow Twitter access to my contact information and gps location.

On your iphone, the twitter app has the same permissions but nobody tells you about it. Only upside is, that you can disable the gps access.

Natsu• 15 years ago

There are two points I'd put in reply:

1) They only allow you to download apps they've vetted, not just any old application. Yes, this review process increases security.

2) It's somewhat better in that respect, but not perfect. Imagine a malicious version of jailbreak.me, for example. Yes, they use security holes to perform that operation.

whatusername• 15 years ago

Law #1 looks pretty good.

Apple here is the trusted friend. A jailbreak is like the sandwich on the street. The friends checking isn't infallible, but it's good enough that you can normally trust them.

jwatte• 15 years ago

Ten years after, and it's still true. There have been malware on iOS too. They ought to teach this stuff in grade school...

Xuzz4• 15 years ago

What malware on iOS?

justincormack2• 15 years ago

Well one click jailbreak is proof of concept. It could do something worse. It is hard to know if your iOS device has been rooted...

schwit• 15 years ago

#9 says "Read the privacy statements on the websites you visit, and only do business with ones whose practices you agree with."

This statement is incredibly naive. Websites can change their privacy statements daily or they may not adhere to their own privacy statement.

thedufer• 15 years ago

Re: Law #1; This is what the idea of a super user is supposed to help with, and not properly using that concept is part of the reason Windows has developed such a poor reputation for security. To some degree, a program run by a normal user can do damage, but nowhere near what a program run by a super user can do.

contextfree• 15 years ago

I would say that a program run by a normal user can do most of the damage that the owner/user of a personal system (as opposed to an admin of a multi-user system) actually cares about.

rohit89• 15 years ago

Laws #1 and #2 for all intents and purposes mean the same. If an unauthorized person is allowed to modify anything on your computer, you could be in trouble.

jules• 15 years ago

Most of these are a failure of technology of which virus scanners are the most obvious symptom. Why is it that if I run a program on my computer it can do basically anything I can do? It can delete my files and depending on your OS all files. It can run a keylogger. It can add toolbars to my browser. It can send emails from my email account. It can access the saved passwords in my browser.

This doesn't have to be the case. OSes should have been designed so that it is safe to run any program, unless you explicitly grant it permission to e.g. delete your files. If I open foo.png in an image editor, the editor should only have access to that file and the image editor's directory, not the entire filesystem. Nor should it be able to add a program to run at startup or to observe the things I'm typing in the password box of my online banking login form.

Facebook at least got this partially right. When you run an application it asks you "Application X wants permission to: access your phone number, send messages on your behalf, etc.".

shithead• 15 years ago

Law #1: If a bad guy can persuade you to run his program on your computer, it's not your computer anymore

Law #2: If a bad guy can alter the operating system on your computer, it's not your computer anymore

Law #3: If a bad guy has unrestricted physical access to your computer, it's not your computer anymore

s/bad guy/vendor/g, looking at phones and e-readers.

Computer for which someone else has the root password and a comm link: not yours.

16s• 15 years ago

Number 5 is so true. I've seen it first hand many times. If the password on your TrueCrypt volume is "password" (or something similarly trivial) then you've just given away everything. And you need to understand this.

Strong encryption with a weak password means nothing. You've undone all the power of AES encryption when you select a weak password. So please use strong passwords and understand why they are important.

jayfuerstenberg• 15 years ago

Law 7 is the most poignant for me.

Some people believe you can get security along with convenience. This COULD NOT be further from the truth.

Convenient for you = convenient for hackers!

You need to be accountable regarding your passwords and how you choose them. There is no system that makes passwords magically secure.

You need to just stay away from the commonly abused passwords and go with combinations of characters, numbers and punctuation to increase the possible permutations a hacker would have to exhaust before discovering yours.

The Immutable Laws of Computer Security

Related Stories