I agree wholeheartedly.
----
Yes, BCP (any relevant to your business), filtering, active tit-for-tat
with abuse teams, calling out manufacturers, ISPs doing /anything/ (most
already block 25 and 80, not that they give you the upload to bother
with the latter and it's not necessarily for the good of the 'net as a
whole) - they're all things we absolutely should be doing. That doesn't
change the fact that all of those are just*ambulances in the valley*.
<http://www.tonycooke.org/stories-and-illustrations/ambulance_valley/>
If we're going to solve this, we need to be better as a species - we're
about to the place where we can't progress much farther (without some
sort of caste system nightmare - /The Diamond Age/ comes to mind) *until
basic computing and good practice are as pervasive as the ability to
read and write.* Hint: I don't mean 'can do an app on the smartphone'
- real understanding and appreciation.
I'm not saying everyone needs to be a savant, but a basic understanding
of the technology you*^1 use *every.single.day* for almost
*every.single.function* of your life isn't asking much, I don't think.
The ability to think logically and problem solve is something that I see
declining in even the brighter of the youths I've encountered in the
past few years.
This "it just works/should work" willfully (almost maliciously
sometimes) ignorant mentality - pushed by vendors and craved by the
overworked - is stunting our potential. Christ, the people who are *in
charge of the world* (not necessarily those who /run/ it...but I'd be a
good portion still) don't even understand the basics of how these
machines, and this thing that facilitates the global economy, work. The
root problem is much, much more significant than DoS attacks and spam.
Maybe we need to start younger - I can't speak for all schools, but my
'computer course' was "here's Mavis Beacon - play games and...whatever"
- I hope it's not [really | still] like that. Maybe we, the community,
create and sponsor course material, maybe there's a push for more than
Cisco Academy - at this point this knowledge a public safety issue and
should be a respected part of the general education syllabus (too bad
we're all too busy with standardized tests to care). Something so
inherently part of everyday life cannot be just for the 'nerds' or even
the especially interested, anymore.
I don't know what to do about manufacturers - it's been a global race to
bottom for years now. Someone mentioned a device certification
earlier. It's something and a start at least, so I'm on board and
willing to devote some time. I'm not sure this is something the
community alone will be able to drive, silently, from the shadows. The
cynic in me wants to throw in to buy a politician or two.
The usual trick is to hit them where it hurts - in the wallet. Their
wallets are so large these days (and constantly consolidating, lessening
the chance of real change and competition) that I'm at a loss as to how.
Maybe a slow increase in user-required configurations, decisions, and
interaction...complete with logical explanations to help with said
decisions? I don't know...that could affect profits this quarter
(because who looks farther ahead than that...long term effects and
progress aren't important anymore, right?). Pavlovian training? Seems
a bit totalitarian.
The /last/ thing I want is government (on the country or global scale)
intervention..the 2nd to last is to use this upcoming metaphor (but I
haven't a better one).
Look at cars - in more places then not, it's damn near impossible to be
a functional and contributory adult without a car; some might even call
it a 'right' in the 1st world. Does that stop us from driver's ed
courses**^2 in school? Do we not teach the basics of safe operation,
maintenance, and even a bit about how it works under the hood (my school
did)? Does the ubiquity of the automobile stop the removal of that
(legal) ability for those who *endanger others* or otherwise abuse the
driving privilege? No...no it doesn't. Granted, there are still those
who are going to do what they're going to do - but that number is
lessened (and some even come around to see the harm).
That does *not* mean I think there should be a 'compu-tar license' - not
at all. But it *does* mean that everyone should be taught responsible
computing, the harms of carelessness, and the fun in knowing how these
things work.
Anyway - thanks for the rant (been bothering me for a while now)...I do
believe we should address and minimize the symptoms as they appear, but
without surgical attacks directed at the dark heart of the beast (be
that people, intrinsically, or just our social norms) we're going to end
up with either a horribly censored, totalitarian internet "app" regime,
or burnt to the ground in chaos - too distracted by inane, emotionally
infused, bullshit pumped forth day-to-day at an ADD inducing pace (meant
to give us the ol' numb & dumb - I'll admit I succumb more often than
I'd like - not trying to high-horse here), to notice the fires until
it's too late to stomp them out. I never imagined we***^3 could become
so dichotomous-ly obsessed yet ignorant.
Yes, there will always be malicious people but, in the same way we
convinced most of the world that sacrificing humans is murder and kinda
wrong (and engaged them in at least a few active prevention tactics), we
need to stigmatize -- really */really/* stigmatize (to the core of the
soul) this bullshit. On a side note: giving 10 years to the guy who
just wanted to tinker with "his own" (because we don't /own/ anything
anymore, in a hyperbolic way) equipment isn't the way to do it.
Everything seems overly fatalistic and over-dramatized until the moment
it's not - how many disasters could have been prevented if people just
listened to the engineers (ask the Challenger)? Of course, we're still
prescribing antibiotics for virii in the face of MRSA and worse - hell
Pompeii partied until they were literally dying in the streets...so
let's drink up, add a little duct tape, and worry about it in a few
years (/s). Or, we keep pushing, wherever possible, and maybe something
will pop.
Seldom do I wish to be proven incorrect - here I do. Contrary to what
it may seem, I think we***^3 still have a chance.
*1: That's /you, the generalization I'm referring to/, and not /you, the
specific people reading this./
**2: Though, unfortunately due to that government intervention, we spent
more time memorizing the specific BAC to age ratio to determine your
fine and loss of license than honing basic knowledge and skills.
***3: Again, that's /we, as a society of 7 billion - call it a median or
mode/ rather than /we, individuals in a set/.
----
(Disclaimer: I don't like speaking publicly, especially at this length
(though I've cut out a good 60%, as I admit I have a rambling problem).
I've spent the last week writing and re-writing versions of this; I
still don't like it (both overly idealistic and fatalistic at the same
time, and the "voice" is much harsher than I would have liked - the
tradeoff of curtailing the rambling I suppose), but I had a strong
reaction to this subject. ...And yes I even debated the disclaimer, as
it's hokey as all getout...best I could muster was to move it to the
end. My apologies if I've overlooked points below being covered
previously in the thread - /thank you for the ear & I'm sorry/™).
~knack
On 10/26/2016 3:12 PM, Ken Matlock wrote:
As a relative 'outsider' I see a lot of finger-pointing and phrasing this
as (effectively) someone else's fault.
To me this is a failing on a number of levels all contributing to the
problem.
1) The manufacturer - Backdoors, hidden accounts, remote access
capabilities, no proper security testing. No enforcing of security updates.
2) The end-user - No initiative on the end-user's perspective to gain even
a basic understanding of how the device works, connects, etc. Also no tools
or understanding of how to recognize *which* of their many devices on the
network might be compromised and participating in the botnet. (Only
indication they get is maybe their internet is slow)
3) The service providers - No effective monitoring of outgoing traffic from
the end users to identify botnets and DDoS in a real-time fashion
I contend that all 3 levels have failed in this, and nothing has
fundamentally changed (today it's IoT, before it was unpatched windows
boxes, etc) in decades. We keep talking about the problem but very little
actual action has occurred to *fix* the underlying issues.
- Manufacturers need to be held accountable for devices that go on the
internet (that includes *anything* that's connected. PCs, servers, routers,
IoT devices, etc)
- End users need to have ways to easily see what's going on over their
local networks, to see botnet-like activity and DDoS participation (among
other things) in a more real-time fashion
- Service providers need to be much more proactive in watching for threats
and identifying/blocking them at the source, not allowing the traffic to
flow to your peers and making it someone else's problem. Right now there's
a financial disincentive to doing this, in both real costs (standing up
monitoring gear/etc), and imagined (my ISP is SPYING on me!).
Until we fix all 3 of these main issues we're just going to keep going in
the same set of circles we do every time a 'new' threat/vector comes in.
Now, are these issues *easy*? Oh, heck no! Are they *cheap*? Once again,
heck no! But to 'fix' this issue it will take all 3 levels being fixed.
If we continue to keep pointing fingers at "the other guy" as the root of
the problem we're inviting external forces (Legislation) to step in and
'fix' the problem for us (and it will just make it worse).
My 2 cents (adjust for inflation)
Ken
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:40 PM, jim deleskie <deles...@gmail.com> wrote:
So device is certified, bug is found 2 years later. How does this help.
The info to date is last week's issue was patched by the vendor in Sept
2015, I believe is what I read. We know bugs will creep in, (source anyone
that has worked with code forever) Also certification assuming it would
work, in what country, would I need one, per country I sell into? These
are not the solutions you are looking for ( Jedi word play on purpose)
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 3:53 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> wrote:
Exactly, I was arguing exactly the same with some folks this week during
the RIPE meeting.
The same way that certifications are needed to avoid radio interferences,
etc., and if you don’t pass those certifications, you can’t sell the
products in some countries (or regions in case of EU for example),
authorities should make sure that those certifications have a broader
scope, including security and probably some other features to ensure that
in case something is discovered in the future, they can be updated.
Yes, that means cost, but a few thousand dollars of certification price
increase, among thousands of millions of devices of the same model being
manufactured, means a few cents for each unit.
Even if we speak about 1 dollar per each product being sold, it is much
cheaper than the cost of not doing it and paying for damages, human
resources, etc., when there is a security breach.
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> en nombre de Leo Bicknell <
bickn...@ufp.org>
Organización: United Federation of Planets
Responder a: <bickn...@ufp.org>
Fecha: miércoles, 26 de octubre de 2016, 19:19
Para: <nanog@nanog.org>
Asunto: Re: Spitballing IoT Security
In a message written on Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 08:06:34AM -0400, Rich
Kulawiec wrote:
> The makers of IoT devices are falling all over themselves to rush
products
> to market as quickly as possible in order to maximize their
profits. They
> have no time for security. They don't concern themselves with
privacy
> implications. They don't run networks so they don't care about the
impact
> their devices may have on them. They don't care about liability:
many of
> them are effectively immune because suing them would mean
trans-national
> litigation, which is tedious and expensive. (And even if they
lost:
> they'd dissolve and reconstitute as another company the next day.)
> They don't even care about each other -- I'm pretty sure we're
rapidly
> approaching the point where toasters will be used to attack garage
door
> openers and washing machines.
You are correct.
I believe the answer is to have some sort of test scheme (UL
Labratories?) for basic security and updateability. Then federal
legislation is passed requiring any product being imported into the
country to be certified, or it is refused.
Now when they rush to market and don't get certified they get $0
and go out of business. Products are stopped at the boader, every
shipment is reviewed by authorities, and there is no cross boarder
suing issue.
Really it's product safety 101. UL, the CPSC, NHTSA, DOT and a
host of others have regulations that if you want to import a product
for sale it must be safe. It's not a new or novel concept, pretty
much every country has some scheme like it.
--
Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, including attached files, is prohibited.