The Six Dumbest Ideas in Computer Security

Read this earlier today, and I found some very good points within, especially the notion of "Enumerating Badness" as a stupid premise. Why have security software that must maintain a list of thousands of harmful programs to block--which must be constantly updated--instead of simply allowing only authorized programs to run. Great idea in principle, though I expect the application would be difficult, especially at the home user level.

The idea goes off the rails in the "block all attachments" rants, because I legitimately receive exe files and have the good sense to know which ones to run and which not to. Some of these extreme countermeasures could easily toss out the baby with the bath water.

Still, required reading for IT pros, as far as I'm concerned.

Some years ago someone said to me that if you tell people what they already believe they will think that you are a genius. As far as I'm concerned this guy is a genius.

One of the great design elements of my beloved DEC VMS operating system is that the security model was designed around the kind of model that Mr. Ranum describes. All user accounts were created within the scope of permitted actions. All else was denied. This greatly simplified security configuration. The basic premise is to deny everything to everyone then enable specific actions for specific accounts or groups of accounts.

I also like the idea that he expressed several times that if a given approach hasn't worked by now then it never will work. Patching bugs in software hasn't worked. Penetration testing hasn't worked. Educating users against social engineering attacks hasn't worked. Finding and implementing methods such as code reviews have proven to be effective, yet corporations refuse to adopt new ways of developing products. Developing a product to be secure makes more sense than trying to patch holes as they are discovered.

When I started in this business in 1985 I thought that this business would certainly have a short run. Even back then when most businesses didn't have a computer it seemed to me that computers could soon be made as easy to use as a telephone or a television. That could have happened but it didn't. Poor quality software has kept system administration alive and well. We still require years of experience to develop skills to keep bad software working more or less safely. We still have to think of baroque schemes to make computers work the way that people think that they should work.

All of this might be acceptable if system administrators were all competent and did their best work. Unfortunately that isn't the case. Like all people, the group of system administrators has a few people who want to do a good job and who work hard. But like all people, the group of system administrators are mostly comprised of people who do the least that they can get away with doing without losing their job. That fact combined with the poor quality software and the vast amount of valuable, sensitive, personal information stored on computers combine to create a disastrous scenario whose potential for crime has only just been glimpsed. When I hear stories of "highly secure" government military computers having been recently hacked I know that the software products and the system administrators are sorely lacking in quality.

I'm not sure I see the difference between patching and keeping an antivirus up to date. He rails against patching a system (to defeat exploits), but goes on to say in another article that he has his antivirus product update itself automatically. This is very similar to a patch (since the AV wouldn't be able to protect the system without it), but I don't know a way around it outside of having a bubble-boy computer that isn't attached to the internet and has no removable media. I suppose he could argue that we don't have a good antivirus system, since they all continually need updates.

I really do like the way he thinks. He bypasses the standard arguments and looks at the underlying assumptions.

Essentially everything came down to design secure programs and then only allow those you know are secure to execute.
As a programmer I've done a LOT of turd polishing, buffed up several products into usable in fact. In fact I have to wholeheartedly agree, it won't happen Security is very lucrative commercial industry.

This is the midset a university networking fellow I know used to get his mc* certs.
he picked answers that best sold ms products.
aced the exams.

since his degree, and experience, are in Unix networking he has the knowledge that ms tools don't require.

If you read this short opinion piece along with 6 Dumbest Mistakes, you might make the connection that the reason we are losing is because the whole industry is based on those bad ideas/premises.

Cyber Crimefighters Are Losing The Battle

http://www.governmententerprise.com/170700548

Without trying to sell, Trustifier for Linux is a "default deny" security model that "enumerates goodness". Patching becomes unnessary in many cases. All unauthorized attempts to access the system or files just fall off the system as non-events. Lock down your Linux systems and get to work.

This article helped me realize why so few people in security "get it". They have a certain mindset, have blinders on to anything new, and probably enjoy the swashbucking adrenaline rush of being on the front battle lines while they milk the cash cow at their clients expense.

is when they DENY opening that attachment that gave them sircam or whatever. X-(

Or when they open it, it does nothing so they open it again and again. Hmmm, maybe there is something wrong? ?:|

"Only opened if for a second!" Too funny! (Sounds like what my future ex-wife would do [in bed]). :O

But just that.
1st dumbest It is a variation on don't install default settings. At least it is at my level- I don't write programs to sell to people.
One thing he does ignore is the choices. Yes, 20 to 40 programs are the norm for a user: but As Robert Heinlein used to say about horse races "It is well established that one horse runs faster than another-but which one? Differences are critical!"
Not to start another thread devoted to screaming about freedom verses safety, just that there is a middle of the road approach that is needed in some places. There is a real cost to security. Try locking all materials in a room in an manufacturing plant. Unless the stuff is small, expensive or rarely used, the cost outways the benifit. Futher there is a cost to living in a locked down state. The benifits may some time outway that, and an employer can do what they want on thier machines and network, but there is still a cost in tems of employee satisfaction, morale, and creativity.
His views on user education and patching involve some card palming. In the last ten years Microsoft has offered 8 OS's for the desktop- let alone the server. IE has been through 3,4 languages and To dismis that increased complexity and change by saying "2-3 patches a month for 10 years" should have fixed it I say Hey, just set your browser to text only.
Education sometimes requires pain. People need to pay the consequences of breaking rules. This is not a technology issue, it is a social issue. For a conputer startup you can require people to install their own machines as a way to weed out wannabes, not on a loading dock or a cash register.
Hacking- leaving alone the 'hacker/cracker' definition issue, the cool issue is moot. People are doing this for cold hard cash-no other reason. They are doing it in counties where the fix is in, screw "timid" it's safe. There is a difference between B&E goofs who rattle doorknob and slit window screens in the next neighbor hood and those who break into jewelry stores for big hauls. You better know the latest tools and tricks.

I think your link is broken

Firstly, there are user requirements. Often, such include running of Internet Explorer with permission to execute scripts, that Microsoft did not foreseen when integrating of their browser into their Operating Systems. That alone is a dumbest idea of them all. While I agree that this is not such a big problem if you put a experienced admin on a spot, the chance of being "hacked" is already down by at least 98%. (Last 2% is Microsoft itself and their complaint department is closed for the weekend)

That said, secondly, even dumbest idea might be is to employ a network administrator with insufficient knowledge and assign him to a manager who spends most of the time sticking his head up his butt.

Computers are tools. There is no magic or romance involved here. If someone would give you a spoon and say dig out a swimming pool for me asap. -- even when I have seen in my experience dumb admins who would actually start digging, and middle management supporting the idea -- the spoon will eventually brake.

I want to be secure, but I want to have no restrictions! Voila -- there we go, dumbest idea number three.

Should I continue?

Wow! And I thought we were all alone out here struggling against the tide. On an individual basis the delete key is the most effective effective tool for computer security through e-mail. If you don't want it, delete it.

Secondarily, why did the article have to be thin white print on a black background, that's really dumb!

We find our travelling roadshow for small businesses (1 hour plain English PowerPoint of what the problems of allowing staff to indiscriminitly email, IM and surf are). DRAMATICALLY reduces support requirement for stupid stuff. If only because they now understand how the kids have screwed up their home machines and they got hit in the pocket to fix them. The hit in thwe pocket lesson transfers to the workplace - for about 6 months. Then it needs re-inforcing.

If only the MS "Limited" account was really such a thing......... I like this guy's approach and arguments.

Great article...it's as good this time as it was the first 10 or 20 times I have read it (in one form or another).

Now back to the hard work fo fighting every foolish idea, notion or inspiration that comes from managers, HR and especially Marketing.

Generally speaking...there are more good System Admininstrators than there are bad ones, don't laugh-bear with me a moment. The biggest flaw with most Sys Admin is not having the strenght of conviction to not allow the systems they are charged with protecting to be compromised by for a "minor" drop in security..."just until we get this sorted". Invariably, "just until" becomes, "just a little longer" and finally morphs into...well, "why change it now, we havent had any problems".

The point is...if they are paying you for knowledge, then be knowledgable. Complacency is the biggest enemy of a secure system. Seems the better you are at keeping staff from shooting themselves in foot, the less they respect our warnings.

As stated in the article; the sys admin that "saves" the system or "cleans" a corrupt email system...after it is infected or comprmised...gets a boat load of "Atta' boys". The guy that prevents the infection, compromise, is labeled as a "hard ass" and roundly vilified by managment and staff.

lol, as if...

You do like everyone else, you patch the whole...fight the virus...lick your wounds...do it again tomorrow.

You do make some points but for the most part what you describe does not exist in most infrastructures today. To put out the idea that these methods are dumb ideas is silly in most existing corporate infrastructures you must do these things until your so called zen network is in place. By the way good luck with that. Oh and what ever you create can be hacked in ten minutes with one payoff to a disgruntled employee, let's not forget about the attacks from within. I'm not sure what you goal is with this article but I think if you have a new OS to take over the market well put it out otherwise get back to patching since Microsoft is not going to build bullet proof OSs anytime soon. Good Perimeter, Good Domain Security and sensible design will help you hande things in between patching and IDS but they are not instead of it.

Just My two Cents

I am the Net admin, not the mail admin.

The only thing I CAN do is what the firewall able to do for me. Anything more than that is seen as encroaching on someone elses area, and if you don't think that creates problems then you haven't been in IT for long. I am not going to create a war with people I have to spend 1/3 of my life with, over this.

I can make suggestions, but that is as far as that goes.

I am seen as "paranoid" because I am concerned with security. Oh well, politics as usual.

Excuse my typing, I am one-handed this week! The dreamworld is OS's that don't need pattching. Every OS will require patching. You can't create and OS that is bulletproof, when new bullets are coming out every day. Windows, Linux, Mac, they all have patches. Who ever assumed 5 years ago, we would be fighting an army of Zombies. How are you going to lock down Granny's computer, and have her just activate the services she needs. Are you going to install a quarentine server for her emails, and one for her 200 friends? They solution is the same one the solves the problem if having to lock you doors. If the penalty for trespassing is so sever, no one will do it, then the problem is solved. To send a hacker to less than a year in a juvenile detention center, complete with Cable TV, golf course, swimming pools is the punishment, we have lost. That is better than some people have at home. Not a big proce to pay for millions of $ of damage. The author has some very valid points, but is obviously stuck in a IT world that only exists in his dreams. This isn't a discussion on what OS is better, but how to make computing safe. And you have to start with the problem, that attackers, not trying to protect something that shouldn't have to be protected.

If the user wasn't browsing as ADMINISTRATOR, the code on the web pages would be limited to what damage they could do to the users system, while still letting them access dynamic websites.

Also, if web devolopers would get a clue and adhere to internet standards instead of trying to use every non-standard "feature" that MS can throw their way, the world would be a much better place.

If I can't run something on multiple browsers, it has no place on a business web site. Why would I make it hard for someone to do business with me?

"Hacking is Cool" will never go away. That's like telling a teenage boy never to look at a Playboy magazine. Or telling any kid, "never do anything that will get you in trouble."
"Educate Users" sounds like a great plan. Problem is, there will always be a ton of users who just don't care. They'll run anything on their machines, download whatever comes their way, and never give it a second thought.
On top of that, consider how much hacking comes in from outside U.S. borders, just out of spite for the U.S.
Do you lock the doors to your office to keep unauthorized people out? Do the same to your network.

Well what a load of twaddle!

I don?t know about the rest of you, but isn?t this the world in which no same 10 million lines of code can be occupy the same copyright, doesn?t all the goodness eventually become outdated badness anyway! Just think on the false positives that are being asserted here! default permit/default deny I just love it when people start making these sort of statements, know this; default permitting the goodness without sufficiently providing for the invariable event of your goodness turning into an exploited badness, leaves you where exactly ? down the river without a paddle my friend!

Enumerating badness, well again plugging the holes in the dam before we all get drowned, is preferable to being overwhelmed isn?t it, here is a small basic program to demonstrate:-
10 GOSUB LOOK_FOR_HOLES
20 IF HOLE_FOUND = FALSE THEN GOTO 50
30 GOSUB FIX_HOLE
40 GOTO 10
50 GOSUB CONGRATULATE_SELF
60 GOSUB EXPLOIT_POTENTIAL_NEGATED
70 GOTO 10

?if "Penetrate and Patch" was effective, we would have run out of security bugs in Internet Explorer by now. What has it been? 2 or 3 a month for 10 years, Space Shuttle! supposed to be hackable then it shouldn't be hackable?

Ye, bu, no bu ye bu no bu, again what the writer fails to point out is how many revisions and new functional elements have been applied to IE over the past 10 years, clearly far more benefit than detriment has been afforded Microsoft worldwide audience than ever the trickle of reported exploits.

?Doesn't that sound dumb? Your software and systems should be secure by design and should have been designed with flaw-handling in mind?

Er yes it does sound dumb actually, there is no such thing as secure by design, design involves people, people are not without fault does this make sense to anyone else?

Hacking is cool oh yes it is, finding other peoples faults? What you don?t read the tabloids, Penetrate and Patch is the part of any design that leads to comparable best practice. Hacking is way cool period.

?There have been numerous interesting studies that indicate that a significant percentage of users will trade their password for a candy bar, and the Anna Kournikova worm showed us that nearly 1/2 of humanity will click on anything purporting to contain nude pictures of semi-famous females. If "Educating Users" is the strategy you plan to embark upon, you should expect to have to "patch" your users every week. That's dumb.?

A. The first statement here is made up rubbish
B. The second statement fails as the other half of humanity never got to see Anna, Aw! As the vulnerability had already been squished, Penetrated and Patched, sorry about that!

Educating Jane Bloggs user, well the real real answer is maybe if I were more interested in the real world everyday usage of the myriad applications under our control and the idiosyncrasies of those systems, then who knows just maybe you could really help someone, educate yourself and instil an environment in which people are lead by your example of how to work smarter and save themselves the bother of continually having to call you for support, it?s a two way thing don?t ya know!

?It really is easier to not do something dumb than it is to do something smart. The trick is, when you avoid doing something dumb, to make sure your superiors know you navigated around a particularly nasty sand-bar and that you get appropriate credit for being smart. Isn't that the ultimate expression of professional kung-fu? To get credit for not doing anything?!?

No NO Sir, the trick is to let all your colleagues know how you navigated the sand-bar, or indeed how you fell foul of it, thereby extenuating the knowledge of your team, and hey don?t worry, if it was really that great a manoeuvre or crash your team will make it known to whom the adulation is owing, Win-Win!

Best advice:-

Worry not about that which is beyond your control, nor that which is under your control, for if it is under control there is little to worry about, if beyond your control it?s someone else?s worry.

Even the stupidest man knows by some instinct of nature per se, that the greater the number of conforming observations the surer the conjecture.

Happy hacking!

ElSteveo LetricToken

Engineering is about maximizing certain features by design. Each time you make a decision that maximizes a feature, you are doing so at the expense of another feature.

Most of the examples Mr. Ranum supplies trade security for flexibility or ease of use. Quite often these are the appropriate choices, sometimes they are not. The root of the problem might well be that maximizing security does not maximize profits.

#1. This is the way all software SHOULD be written. You don't let anyone do anything they aren't explicitly allowed to do. This is the way Novell, UNIX, and Oracle have handled their security since day one. Its too bad Microsoft abandoned this concept.

#2. This one is a little more contentious, in that this isn't currently practical for many companies. I won't point fingers at who is to blame for this, because it is fairly self-evident. It would require a certain proprietary software company to divulge their communications specifications in order to make this a reality.

#3. This one has both fact and fiction. Penetration testing can be useful information, but I agree with the underlying premise - that because the original software wasn't built securely in the first place, that it is inherently (and possibly intentionally) flawed. Noone is expecting anyone to write a non-trivial application securely the first time. That's why there is beta testing and trial before it goes out to customers. But I have to agree that the sheer volume of patches indicates a haphazard underlying programming framework.

#4. This is right on the money. Of course, if it weren't so easy to hack things, much of this would disappear.

#5. Ultimately, this one is more a business decision than a technical decision. This is a question of whether or not the effort to train employees in basic IT practices is worth the reduced instances of viruses, misuse, etc. From a human resources perspective, companies are required to train employees on what constitutes misuse of company property for legal and employment reasons. While I can understand the logic, I disagree with the conclusion not on security principles, but on business principles.

#6. This is also a business decision. I think the crux of this one comes down to the trust relationship that exists between the decision-maker (management) and the IT staff (recommendation team/implementers), and comes down to whether or not the manager knows IT. If the manager knows IT principles, he/she is much less likely to make poor decisions, and much more likely to rely on the IT department/staff for recommendations and implementation plans. If the manager DOESN'T know IT, however, they have to rely on someone else's knowledge. To me, this is more of a management issue of knowledge and trust that a security problem.

Just switch to an IBM MVS system.

And that's the problem.

The "reason" PCs/LANs/WANs exist is because of the inflexible nature of M/F operating systems.

So, you can be secure OR you can be flexible. I don't believe you can be both.

Doug

Well written, well thought out.
We quarantine all attachments in Notes, and examine them for malware before releasing them. Used to make the users grumpy until it was pointed out that unlike every other site in our division, we had not had a disruption of service due to viruses in over two years.
We also only allow vpn'd connections through our firewall ( inbound) and proxy access with URL scanning/blocking outbound. If we don't want you in, you don't come in.

I agree in total with Ranum that society changing for the worse IS the real problem; but that is not under our control to reverse, that I know of.
Computer design was a great invention, but it was designed by beginners as well. Now that it is apparent that we need to change the way we think and design, initiation of the changes should take place and virtually eliminate the badness of society. This would happen when we take their "playground" away by removing the basic access to individual machines.
No matter what the subject is, take one step back in the discussion and view it and you will usually find a different focus on the item. That is what Ranum did and I applaud him for this insight! It is the way I *feel* and it is nice to hear someone actually say it and put it in print!
Cant change society and the growing badness? Change the playground and the access to it!

one software package.

Securewave, sure it's expensive, but it can lock down what can and can not run at the kernel level so go ahead double click on that exe it won't run unless it's on the white list.

Not to mention you can lock down the usb ports so that printers work but usb keys do not. You can lock the floppy and the cdrom. Think about it, if there is no way a virus can execute it's code then you don't even need a virus checker.

they really are after me!

Seriously, the admins at our county think our school district is paranoid because we have things locked down so tightly. But guess who doesn't get infected with the Worm of the Month?

I would like to take this author's approach, but I'm overridden by my supervisor. He's the "fun uncle" who lets the kids do what they want, then mops up after them later.

Of course the author makes some very good points, but does sometimes goes off in whatever direction that is basically a non-exsistant world... and never will exist. As one replier insinuated(sorry, forgot who) business drives IT, NOT the other way around. That is not to say that what ever business says 'goes'... of course IT has to be sure that it is safe, beneficial and cost effective.

As far as educating users ( the weakest link in the security chain) to 'demand'(?) that CPA's, insurance adjusters, finance executives, heart surgeons... whomever, become IT experts is to completely misunderstand the purpose of the business. People do not go to a medical specialists because the doctor has a BS in Computer Science or security certifcation.

Anyway, in closing ( I know...finally!)yes, some good ideas, some a little too esoteric, and some that just will not work in the real world.

infamous clientside scripting is a needed concept.

I build my mozilla with no support for java, javascript or plugins at all.
if I can't use a site without having clientside scripting, then there is nothing on that site I'm interested in.

I don't miss the garbage that comes with the clientside scripting.

dynamic websites can easily be done with server side scripting.
it's called server push.
the original animated images online were all done with it.

css has fancy dynamic capabilities without using javascript, java, vbscript, activex or flash in the website.

we already have all of your personal information, thank you very much.

I just can't believe you wear THAT to bed each nigh! :)

Lets put an end to EXE's...
Thats not smart... that's plain Lunatic
Your intire Frame work depends on Executeable Files, weather upper class or subclass.
Upperclass = loading schematic that puts the program on your computer... by simply embedding it into the framework of your funtional code.
1 Messing with this eliminates program addions to be easily if not entirely capable of embeding them selves into the system... which means you cannot also load the software you want without reloading your entire system mainframe, and that will cause more problems then permiscuous spyware.
2 When you think that your problems can't get any worse then the previous statment... then you realize that you also messed up the Subclass EXE's
Subclass = loading schematic that opens the program each time you want to use it... so in a manner of speaking... you just initially prevented most of your programs from running properly.
If you affect the Upperclass = loading schematic you will also affect the Subclass = loading schematic and visa-versa.

In other words... you just created a diffrent and maybe even larger pile of headaches.

I know most of the folks who frequent these boards are pretty busy, so I'll cut to the chase...

When you say that something is "a dumb idea", you are stating the obvious, but you have yet to really offer up any real solutions or plans that the average IT guy/gal can take up and follow through with.

Next time you want to rant about the standard practices, you might want to try re-designing the infrastructure of a mega-corporation first; only then will you see the futility in the whole design and re-design process. The whole idea behind most of the "dumb ideas" listed is the fact that they allow most things to work across a wide variety of setups. Until you invent something better, keep your rants to a minimum please. I want useful ideas not mindless drabble or follow the leader (and bash the industry standards), thanks.

And please don't take this as a flame or that I disrespect your point of view; I like the fact you are willing to voice this, just please remember that until there is something better, we are all pretty much stuck with what we have...

Just because you're paranoied,
that does not nececeraly meen that,
they're not out to get you!!!

Linux does the same thing: looks at it quizzically and says "So?"

Our Security guy used to push patches in the middle of the day. Oh would users be pissed.

I believe that to completely implement his suggested solutions in today's IT market is an impossibility; too many people have an entrenched economic interest in the status quo.

On the other hand, if software developers would simply write their applications so all actions take place by default in the &user& directory, we could probably eliminate 90% of what is already out there. It might even make the Microsoft "Limited" account actually useful for something besides an interesting entry in the WinXP user setup dialog.

When was the last time you saw clean white shirts in an IT shop?

Overall, I thought the article was excellent. The author did what
a few others I have encountered have done: he stood the
problem on its ear and looked at it in a different way, and drew a
set of conclusions that defied conventional wisdom. Even if you
find cause to disagree with him, he makes you think.

The article is most relevant to businesses which can afford to
have smart sysadmins, isolation servers, etc. Home users, who
are both victims and vectors for malware, wouldn't be able or
interested enough to do everything he calls for.

The solutions should come from the OS providers. NOTHING that
can harm a system should be allowed onto it without explicit
permission, whether we're talking about .exe executables, Java
scripts, VBS or whatever. The OS should be layered and should
protect itself. That doesn't render a system completely
bulletproof because social engineering can trick a user into
making an ill-informed choice, but it's a major step in the right
direction.

Furthermore, installed software should list every unique feature
and request permission before putting in components that you
didn't explicitly ask for. Why should Acrobat Reader add a Yahoo
search bar without asking me if it's OK?

And every installed component should be required to list the
vendor who provided it along with a brief description in plain
language that says this is part of such-and-such an application.
That information should be available in things like System
Configuration files, the System Registry, Add/Remove Programs
in Windows, and whatever provides similar functions in other
OSes.

That said, I think the article should be required reading for every
software designer/programmer. It wouldn't be a bad idea to
circulate it around management, either.

Regarding the 80/20 rule as applied to sysadmins, netadmins, et
al., that may be true, but even more to the point, it's a
management problem. Management often doesn't see the
problem, or imposes constraints that make it nigh unto
impossible to provide a secure system.

And when catastrophe strikes, who will get the blame? He or she
to whom responsibility was delegated (see attached memo
outlinking job responsibilities), but who lacked the resources to
do the job.

I still hold the OS developers most to blame, followed by the ISPs
who can catch this stuff before it lands on your lap.

Having read every prior post, there seem to be many reasons to avoid doing the one thing a certain large and well known company refuses to do...
LOCK THE DOOR.
Yes, nothing man can devise cannot be UNdone by yet another man; I was under the impression though, that the lock is designed to stop the honest man and will only deter those motivated by lesser ideals.
If redmond is filled with people that never lock their doors, why is it any surprise thieves congregate there? Why is it any surprise there are so many attacks?
Unless someone has a financial interest in working the (known and exploited)failures in any OS, there is no other reason to advance the relevance or utility of such a system. Dump it at the first available opportunity.
I really do understand the "enumerate the bad" crowd; somebody had to be the first to understand what a rattlesnake was.
What they may not see in their rush to justify their salaries is that others have already decided
they will avoid the bite in the first place, by design.
I am currently on my LAST redmond product, and I figure it is only a matter of time before Redmond gets a DARWIN AWARD. I have no interest purchasing ANY OS that is "encryted for my safety". All I see is a big push for Cover Your A** out of Redmond, which has apparently taken the screen door and firmly welded it to a submarine.
Open source allows many eyes to assure that every prior set of eyes all see the very same thing... a secure and stable system.
Advances in programming and technology should make that MORE of a reality, not less, and any attempt to cloud your view of what is running on YOUR systems only advances the cause of cash flow for courses, updates, patches and technicians.
I'm lucky... my company is so far behind the curve on technology spending, all the rest of you are my test bed, and my boss thinks I am amazing with all the stuff he reads that we can AVOID due to that single fact.
Funny thing is, as an ex-military guy, he feels just as I do that encrypting your OS is a great way to assure that nobody on the outside can see just how stupid you have been on the inside... you just limit everyone to chasing the end result at questionable cost across the board, as opposed to having far less to react to in the first place.

Actually, the boss said "Trustworthy computing from REMOND is like BANKING with DILLINGER AND BARROWS"
I'll work for this guy until they drag me kicking and screaming out the door.

This is the most definative analysis of what's wrong with modern computing.

I was wondering if I was the only one who felt like that after reading that article.

yep. I've got a director whose idea is "We can't cause any hate, pain or discontent with the users". So I find myself constantly trying to do things in some roundabout way taking me twice as long throwing me into the syndrome of "I'll secure it later". Later never comes because later it will cause even more hate, pain and discontent and the vicious circel continues...

Ongoing coding is exclusively in C++, but there is still C code in the kernel. I guess that makes your statement true, if you mean "is coded" as in "ongoing work" rather than "all included code".

Of course, mandating that everything be C++ might be part of the security issue.

still a lot of C code in it, there again as C++ is a superset of C we could both be right.
Both languages are extremely powerful, but power is a two edged sword.
Have you had the misfortune to use Delphi 2005, they rewrote the IDE in C++ for some reason best known to themselves and a complete wanker. It is seriously flaky. I've spent as much time dealing with it's issues as I have with those in the code I'm working on.
It has C++'s endemic problem, all your pointer management problems surface at run time.
Long live Pascal.

All of the points you raise are based on a lack of central control in systems development. Initially (not that I was around back then) systems development was about a bunch of smart people helping each other out and the basic assumption was that code should be open, sharable, decentralized... (see the cathedral and the bazaar). Interestingly as systems have evolved and become core infrastructure to most aspects of daily life from defending our country to buying movie tickets perhaps it is time for the industry to evolve as well. The next question is who should be standards body (govt, IEEE, business community, consumer watchdogs...) who will audit, list, and maintain the validated software lists? Who will pay for that? It would be an interesting study to see how much it would cost to do versus how much is spent now on wasted cpu cycles and person hours on current practices.

Oh yeah how about closing some of the holes in email?

"Wouldn't it be more sensible to learn how to design security systems that are hack-proof than to learn how to identify security systems that are dumb?" I agree with the ideas presented but, if you don't know how to hack it how can you hack proof it? I'm talking real hacks not script kiddie stuff. I'm not saying hacking is cool I'm saying you may lose a million dollars waiting for a patch, not to mention your job. Sometimes a change of heart is a tough lesson.

Borland was one of the first companies to actively adopt and participate in the standards.
almost every product they have meets the iso standards that are appropriate for it.

but, why on earth would they go 100% .net with delphi?
you can't install it without latest .net patches.
you can't code anything unless it's .net

a complete and utter waste of time.