Internet privacy The ability to control the information one reveals about oneself over the internet, and who can access that information, has become a growing concern.
One of my programmer buddies refers to this process as "turd polishing" because, as he says, it doesn't make your code any less smelly in the long run but management might enjoy its improved, shiny, appearance in the short term.
Richard Feynman's " Personal Observations on the Reliability of the Space Shuttle " used to be required reading for the software engineers that I hired.
It contains some profound thoughts on expectation of reliability and how it is achieved in complex systems. In a nutshell its meaning to programmers is: The premise of the "vulnerability researchers" is that they are helping the community by finding holes in software and getting them fixed before the hackers find them and exploit them.
The premise of the vendors is that they are doing the right thing by pushing out patches to fix the bugs before the hackers and worm-writers can act upon them. Both parties, in this scenario, are being dumb because if the vendors were writing code that had been designed to be secure and reliable then vulnerability discovery would be a tedious and unrewarding game, indeed!
Let me put it to you in different terms: What has it been? If you look at major internet applications you'll find that there are a number that consistently have problems with security vulnerabilities.
There are also a handful, like PostFix, Qmail, etc, that were engineered to be compartmented against themselves, with modularized permissions and processing, and - not surprisingly - they have histories of amazingly few bugs. The same logic applies to "penetration testing.
That's because their design or their security practices are so fundamentally flawed that no amount of turd polish is going to keep the hackers out. It just keeps managers and auditors off of the network administrator's backs.
I know other networks that it is, literally, pointless to "penetration test" because they were designed from the ground up to be permeable only in certain directions and only to certain traffic destined to carefully configured servers running carefully secured software. Running a "penetration test" for Apache bugs is completely pointless against a server that is running a custom piece of C code that is running in a locked-down portion of an embedded system.
|Table of Contents||Authentication, authorization and auditing are the most important issues of security on data communication.|
|#2) Enumerating Badness||Computer network security research papers Computer network security research papers 4 stars based on reviews icuaofdc. Creative writer job description Creative writer job description higher order thinking skills questions for english my pet animal cat animal care courses near me how did jane goodall change the world lichtenstein art lesson how much does it cost to go to trinity college?|
|Essay: Network security - Essay UK Free Essay Database||User Behavior Website Chat Software Our website contains chat software that enable visitors to communicate with us live online or offline by email.|
|Us army general officer management office website||When Morris applied for re-admission a few years later, Cornell refused to accept him. Morris earned his Ph.|
|Copyright 2002 by Ronald B. Standler||Files with such dangerous double file extensions are executable programs perhaps malicious programs that are pretending to be a picture, a document, text, or a webpage.|
So, "Penetrate and Patch" is pointless either because you know you're going to find an endless litany of bugs, or because you know you're not going to find anything comprehensible. One clear symptom that you've got a case of "Penetrate and Patch " is when you find that your system is always vulnerable to the "bug of the week.
Doesn't that sound dumb? Your software and systems should be secure by design and should have been designed with flaw-handling in mind. That's a dumb idea.
One of the best ways to discourage hacking on the Internet is to give the hackers stock options, buy the books they write about their exploits, take classes on "extreme hacking kung fu" and pay them tens of thousands of dollars to do "penetration tests" against your systems, right?
Around the time I was learning to walk, Donn Parker was researching the behavioral aspects of hacking and computer security. He says it better than I ever could: Anonymity and freedom from personal victim confrontation increased the emotional ease of crime, i.
Timid people could become criminals. The proliferation of identical systems and means of use and the automation of business made possible and improved the economics of automating crimes and constructing powerful criminal tools and scripts with great leverage.
It's not a technology problem, at all. The 4th dumbest thing information security practitioners can do is implicitly encourage hackers by lionizing them. The media plays directly into this, by portraying hackers, variously, as "whiz kids" and "brilliant technologists" - of course if you're a reporter for CNN, anyone who can install Linux probably does qualify as a "brilliant technologist" to you.
I find it interesting to compare societal reactions to hackers as "whiz kids" versus spammers as "sleazy con artists. If you're a security practitioner, teaching yourself how to hack is also part of the "Hacking is Cool" dumb idea. Think about it for a couple of minutes: It means you've made part of your professional skill-set dependent on "Penetrate and Patch" and you're going to have to be part of the arms-race if you want that skill-set to remain relevant and up-to-date.
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?Introduction This essay contains a description of several famous malicious computer programs (e.g., computer viruses and worms) that caused extensive harm, and it reviews the legal consequences of each incident, including the nonexistent or lenient punishment of the program's author.
Network Security essaysThe field of network security is a very dynamic, and highly technical field dealing with all aspects of scanning, hacking and securing systems against intrusions.
There are many positions related to this, however the most common would be that of a Network Security Engineer, a. Network Security essaysThe field of network security is a very dynamic, and highly technical field dealing with all aspects of scanning, hacking and securing systems against intrusions.
There are many positions related to this, however the most common would be that of a Network Security Engineer, a. All Classes Subject to Change.
Use the Schedule Options to search other terms and filter results. Network Security Is The Procedure Of Computer Or Any Computer On Your Network Words | 6 Pages Network security is the procedure of preventing and identifying unsanctioned use of your computer or any computer on your network.
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory ESSAYS ABOUT COMPUTER SECURITY Prof. E. Stewart Lee or that the network will be secure against unauthorised observation of traffic, or a myriad of other requirements.
course in computer security that was started in in the Department of.