A criminal says trust is stupid but security “experts” trust

Trust Me

Seriously, why doubt?

Sam Antar, convicted white collar criminal, says trusting is stupid clearly and explicitly:

President Ronald Reagan said:

“Trust, but verify.”

As a convicted felon, I say:

“Don’t trust, just verify.”

“Verify, verify, verify.”

As a criminal, I considered people’s humanity as a weakness to be exploited.

The inclination to trust first and then verify, gave me the upper hand.

The criminal always has the initiative.

While you initially trust us, we work on ways to solidify your trust before you verify.

Hopefully, you will never verify.

However, if you do verify, we will have corroded your skepticism to a large degree.

A word of advice from this convicted felon to the capital markets, securities analysts, journalists, the accounting profession, investors, and others:

The word “trust” is a professional hazard you can leave at home before you go to work.

A criminal says “Don’t trust”. Yet computer security experts talk about a “trust” model. When are we going to move beyond trust to verify? A google search finds endless examples of sites reassuring users that they are “trustworthy”. It should not be a surprise then that computer users are used to just entering their password or clicking o.k. when a security dialog comes up. Users are asked to always trust without any understanding. What does it mean when a certificate cannot be authenticated?

Furthermore, we now have “trusted” applications getting computer owners into trouble.

For example:

  • Andre Vrignaud is a such a victim.

    Comcast cut off broadband access to Andre Vrignaud. A month earlier, Vrignaud said he had a “polite but irritated” conversation with Comcast’s Customer Security Department about how much data he was using. He told them he had no idea how he used so much and wondered if his roommates may have hit the limit because they watched Netflix HD streaming movies and listened to Pandora’s internet-streamed music radio.

    Why can’t Vrignaud limit easily on his end?
    Once again, a google search reveals how important being able to control and manage at the application level.

  • How about the case of Matthew Brady? He is an innocent victim, like many others, framed by a poor computer security model.

    Until recently [story dated Tuesday, January 16, 2007], the 16-year-old Arizona boy faced life imprisonment for possessing child pornography; each of the nine images on his computer carried a possible 10-year sentence.

    The caution: Your computer could be storing and distributing child pornography without your knowledge. It could be what is called “a zombie.” A virus, worm or “bot” may have almost invisibly infected your operating system, perhaps when you opened an email attachment or clicked on the “wrong” (not necessarily adult) website.
    The “infection” allows another person to remotely access your hard drive. Often, the third party tries to capture financial information such as bank account numbers. Often, he stores data on the hard drive and uses your computer to distribute spam, including pornography.

    Benjamin Edelman, a computer security expert, indicates how quickly a computer can become infected. “I recently tested a WindowsMedia video file…On a fresh test computer, I pressed Yes once to allow the installation. My computer quickly became contaminated…All told, the infection added 58 folders, 786 files, and an incredible 11,915 registry entries to my test computer. Not one of these programs had showed me any license agreement, nor had I consented to their installation on my computer.”

    The Bandy’s two-year nightmare might be winding down, but the family has been financially ruined by over $250,000 in legal costs.

Instead of trust, as Sam suggests: “Don’t trust, verify, verify, verify”. No application should be given a blanket “trust” but rather a conditional trust. An application should not even be allowed to ask for a blanket trust.

Instead the application must ask for permission and indicate why it is asking for the permission:

  • write to a specific directory
  • send data to an internet site
  • receive data from an internet site
  • All data sent or received is logged
  • Any data the application wants to send or receive needs explicit permission from the user.

The user must be able to selectively deny or condition a granted permission at any time (not just when an application is starting) :

  • Granted for 10minutes
  • Data sent/received is logged
  • Data transmission rate is no more than 1mb/sec
  • Data transmission rate is no more than 10megabytes/month
  • Data stored for only 10 days
  • Data is stored is no more than 10megabytes
  • CPU usage is capped as a percentage.

It is up to the application to behave well if the permission is or it is denied permission. And if it doesn’t like the permissions then well – don’t run.

The application is a guest and needs to respect the rules as a guest.

Trust. is. stupid.

This entry was posted in broken, rants, technical. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to A criminal says trust is stupid but security “experts” trust

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *