Schneier on Security

ArchAngel • September 26, 2008 2:11 PM

Chaz: OK, but if I later find this in my email inbox as a chain letter making the rounds there will be hell to pay:

Physical Security Maxims
Roger G. Johnston, Ph.D., CPP

Security Maxims
The following maxims, based on our experience with physical
security, nuclear safeguards, & vulnerability assessments, are
not absolute laws or theorems, but they will be essentially
correct 80-90% of the time.

Infinity Maxim: There are an unlimited number of security
vulnerabilities for a given security device, system, or program,
most of which will never be discovered (by the good guys or
bad guys).

Arrogance Maxim: The ease of defeating a security device
or system is proportional to how confident/arrogant the designer,
manufacturer, or user is about it, and to how often they use
words like “impossible” or “tamper-proof”.

Ignorance is Bliss Maxim: The confidence that people have in
security is inversely proportional to how much they know about it.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid Maxim: If you’re not running
scared, you have bad security or a bad security product.

High-Tech Maxim: The amount of careful thinking that has
gone into a given security device, system, or program is
inversely proportional to the amount of high-technology it uses.

Schneier’s Maxim #1: The more excited people are about a given
security technology, the less they understand (1) that technology
and (2) their own security problems.

Low-Tech Maxim: Low-tech attacks work (even against
high-tech devices and systems).

Father Knows Best Maxim: The amount that (non-security)
senior managers in any organization know about security is
inversely proportional to (1) how easy they think security is,
and (2) how much they will micro-manage security and
invent arbitrary rules.

Huh Maxim: When a (non-security) senior manager,
bureaucrat, or government official talks publicly about security,
he or she will usually say something stupid, unrealistic, inaccurate,
and/or naïve.

Voltaire’s Maxim: The problem with common sense is that
it is not all that common.

Yipee Maxim: There are effective, simple, & low-cost counter-
measures (at least partial countermeasures) to most vulnerabilities.

Arg Maxim: But users, manufacturers, managers, & bureaucrats
will be reluctant to implement them for reasons of inertia, pride,
bureaucracy, fear, wishful thinking, and/or cognitive dissonance.

Show Me Maxim: No serious security vulnerability, including
blatantly obvious ones, will be dealt with until there is overwhelming
evidence and widespread recognition that adversaries have already
catastrophically exploited it. In other words, “significant
psychological (or literal) damage is required before any significant
security changes will be made”.

I Just Work Here Maxim: No salesperson, engineer, or
executive of a company that sells security products or services
is prepared to answer a significant question about vulner-
abilities, and few potential customers will ever ask them one.

Bob Knows a Guy Maxim: Most security products and services
will be chosen by the end-user based on purchase price plus
hype, rumor, innuendo, hearsay, and gossip.

Familiarity Maxim: Any security technology becomes more
vulnerable to attacks when it becomes more widely used, and
when it has been used for a longer period of time.

Antique Maxim: A security device, system, or program
is most vulnerable near the end of its life.

Payoff Maxim: The more money that can be made from
defeating a technology, the more attacks, attackers, and hackers
will appear.

I Hate You Maxim 1: The more a given technology is despised
or distrusted, the more attacks, attackers, and hackers will appear.

I Hate You Maxim 2: The more a given technology causes
hassles or annoys security personnel, the less effective it will be.

Shannon’s (Kerckhoffs’) Maxim: The adversaries know and
understand the security hardware and strategies being employed.

Corollary to Shannon’s Maxim: Thus, “Security by Obscurity”,
i.e., security based on keeping long-term secrets, is not a good idea.

Gossip Maxim: People and organizations can’t keep secrets.

Plug into the Formula Maxim: Engineers don’t understand
security. They think nature is the adversary, not people. They
tend to work in solution space, not problem space. They think
systems fail stochastically, not through deliberate, intelligent,
malicious intent.

Rohrbach’s Maxim: No security device, system, or program
will ever be used properly (the way it was designed) all the time.

Rohrbach Was An Optimist Maxim: Few security devices,
systems, or programs will ever be used properly.

Insider Risk Maxim: Most organizations will ignored or
seriously underestimate the threat from insiders.

We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us Maxim: The insider
threat from careless or complacent employees & contractors
exceeds the threat from malicious insiders (though the latter is
not negligible.)

Mission Creep Maxim: Any given device, system, or program
that is designed for inventory will very quickly come to be
viewed–quite incorrectly–as a security device, system, or program.

We’ll Worry About it Later Maxim: Effective security is
difficult enough when you design it in from first principles. It
almost never works to retrofit it in, or to slap security on at the last
minute, especially onto inventory technology.

Somebody Must’ve Thought It Through Maxim: The more
important the security application, the less careful and critical
thought has gone into it.

That’s Entertainment Maxim: Ceremonial Security (a.k.a.
“Security Theater”) will usually be confused with Real Security;
even when it is not, it will be favored over Real Security.

Schneier’s Maxim #2: Control will usually get confused with Security.

Ass Sets Maxim: Most security programs focus on protecting the wrong assets.

Vulnerabilities Trump Threats Maxim: If you know the
vulnerabilities (weaknesses), you’ve got a shot at understanding
the threats (the probability that the weaknesses will be exploited
and by whom). Plus you might even be ok if you get the threats
all wrong. But if you focus mostly on the threats, you’re probably
in trouble.

Mermaid Maxim:  The most common excuse for not fixing security vulnerabilities is that they simply can’t exist.

Onion Maxim:  The second most common excuse for not fixing security vulnerabilities is that “we have many layers of security”, i.e., we rely on “Security in Depth”.

Hopeless Maxim:  The third most common excuse for not fixing security vulnerabilities is that “all security devices, systems, and programs can be defeated”.  (This is typically expressed by the same person who initially invoked the Mermaid Maxim.) 

Takes One to Know One Maxim:  The fourth most common excuse for not fixing security vulnerabilities is that “our adversaries are too stupid and/or unresourceful to figure that out.”

Depth, What Depth? Maxim:  For any given security program, the amount of critical, skeptical, and intelligence thinking that has been undertaken is inversely proportional to how strongly the strategy of “Security in Depth” (layered security) is embraced.