Message-ID: <4135E145.2030902@sdf.lonestar.org>
From: bkfsec at sdf.lonestar.org (Barry Fitzgerald)
Subject: New paper on Security and Obscurity

Peter Swire wrote:

>Greetings:
>
>	I have been lurking on Full Disclosure for some time, and now would like to
>share an academic paper that directly addresses the topic of ?full
>disclosure? and computer security:
>
>	
>

Hello Peter,

There are some glaring flaws in the the basis of this paper. Though I 
tend to agree with the abstract theme of the paper (being that there is 
both a place for secrecy and a place for disclosure) I disagree with the 
very basis of the analysis. It seems to oversimplify both the military 
position and the "Open Source and Encryption" position. Further, it also 
misrepresents the arguments of disclosure advocates.

The paper makes the assumption (without adequate evidence) that the 
military and Open Source positions are fundamental opposites when 
juxtaposed. In actual practice, this couldn't be further from the truth. 
I'm not saying that primary military policy isn't to maintain a state of 
secrecy and that Open Source ideology dictates disclosure; that much is 
blatantly true. However, in order for your model to work, these 
oversimplifications have to be put into their actual context in order to 
be understood.

First and foremost, when talking about disclosure most Free Software and 
Open Source advocates are referring to disclosure regarding "things" 
that they have direct access to. They're referring to programs that are 
distributed to them. In fact, this is written into the archetype Free 
Software document, the GNU General Public License. If I write a program 
and never distribute it to you, I have absolutely no (0) obligation to 
disclose anything about the program to you. Similarly, if I modify a GNU 
GPL'ed program and don't distribute it, I have no obligation to disclose 
anything. I can even distribute the program to an isolated set of people 
and I still have no obligation to share any information with you if you 
aren't one of the recipients. (note: in this economy, the program will 
probably get distributed and disclosure will eventually occur because 
the people I distribute it to can choose to distribute it -- but, they 
might not choose to.) Any customizations I make can stay secret -- it's 
written into the ideology and practice.

You can extend this to identify the *true* rule of disclosure in the 
Free Software and Open Source movement: If you "own" something (though 
software is not exactly owned by the user) you should have the right to 
be able to modify it to fit your needs. In order to have this right, 
disclosure must occur. Hence, disclosure only counts towards items that 
are openly distributed. Full disclosure in the market sense.

This is a fundamental point because the military secrecy argument 
applies almost exclusively to proprietary information utilized almost 
exclusively by the military. I can't own a trident missile so therefore 
not having access to its design schematics is not counter to Free 
Software/Open Source ideology.

Now we get into a little cultural history and applying this to society 
in general. The Free Software movement does have, within its roots, the 
ideological belief that information "wants" to be free. All information 
will eventually get out and therefore, relying on secrecy is foolish. 
This is fundamentally true. It's fundamentally true because it only 
applies to information that the person comes in contact with. If I have 
a black box that has some function but it's locked by the manufacturer, 
I can eventually gleen information out of it -- enough to discover its 
secrets. There is no way to hide secrets indefinitely.

The military doesn't even hide secrets indefinately. There is a limit to 
how long information can be regarded as top secret. Eventually all 
secrets are disclosed, if they're sufficiently interesting enough that 
someone would look for them. To the context of our society, this is 
absolutely essential. Without information disclosure, you have a 
dictatorial tyrrany. Participation in the system is essential for 
democracy, but perhaps even more essential is open access to the secrets 
of the "democratic" nation. Without access to this information, the 
polis is making decisions blindly. Thus, said society would only be a 
democracy in name and not in function.

As the information distribution context, in either case, has to be taken 
into effect -- I think that once this is done, you'll see that there 
aren't that many real-world differences between the military paradigm 
and the Open Source paradigm regarding secrecy of proprietary 
information. The difference is the belief in whether or not disclosure 
of infrastructure can create an economic benefit. Note that I'm 
referring to specialized infrastructure (like, say, a corporate network) 
and not a generalized infrastructure. The reason for keeping trident 
missile design specs secret, for example, is to keep "enemies" from 
reproducing them. This is a very specialized motivation and has to be 
taken into account when analyzing the issue. To understand the 
comparrison, consider how many public projects the military runs and how 
much public infrastructure they use. The military does actively benefit 
on a regular basis from technical disclosure. I think you'll find that 
they military is much more open than it advertises itself as.

A flaw in the basis of the analysis can bring into question the entire 
method of analysis.

-Barry

p.s. It's good that someone is trying to tackle this issue. I do have to 
agree with Dave Aitel, though, and say that you should not publish this 
until you are 100% certain that it is accurate, which is may never be. 
This kind of paper can be very influential and should be done with great 
care. If incorrect conclusions are gleened from the data, it could be 
catastrophic.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists