1. The new state of the network: how security issues are reshaping our world Terry Gray UW Computing & Communications Quarterly Computing Support Meeting 28 October 2003

2. security in the post-Internet era : the needs of the many vs. the needs of the few

3. 2003: security ”annus horribilis” Slammer Blaster Sobig.F increasing spyware threat attackers discover encryption hints of more “advanced” attacks and let’s not even talk about spam…

4. 2003: security-related trends more critical application roll-outs more mobile devices growing wireless use VoIP over 802.11 pilots faster networks new network designs (e.g. lambda) class action lawsuits RIAA subpoenas SEC filings on security?

5. Security Trouble Ticket Trend

6. impact end of an era… say farewell to  the open Internet  autonomous unmanaged PCs  full digital convergence? say hello to  one-size-fits-all (OSFA) solutions  conflict... everyone wants security and max availability, speed, autonomy, flexibility min hassle, cost the needs of the many trump the needs of the few (but at what cost?)

7. consequences more closed nets (bug or feature?) more VPNs (bug or feature?) more tunneling -“firewall friendly” apps more encryption (thanks to RIAA) more collateral harm -attack + remedy worse MTTR (complexity, broken tools) constrained innovation (e.g. p2p voip) cost shifted from “guilty” to “innocent” pressure to fix problem at border pressure for private nets

8. consequences (2) mindset: “computer security” failed, so “network security” must be the answer pressure to make network topology match organization boundaries ”network of networks” evolution  1982: minimum impedance between nets  2003: maximum impedance between nets loss of Network Utility Model  “Heisen/stein” networking...  uncertain and relativistic connectivity

9. metamorphosis: Internet paradigm 1969: “one network” 1983: “network of networks” 199x: balkanization begins 2003: “heat death” begins 2004: paradigm lost?

10. how we lost it: inevitable trainwreck? fundamental contradiction  networking is about connectivity  security is about isolation  vendors sell what users want, not need conflicting roles  the networking guy  the security guy  the sys admin  oh yeah… and the user insecurity = liability  liability trumps innovation  liability trumps operator concerns  liability trumps user concerns

11. observations system administrator view  some prefer local control/responsibility  some prefer central/big-perimeter defense  some underestimate cost impact on others user view  want “unlisted numbers”  want “enough openness” to run apps network operator view  frustration over loss of diagnosability  despair over loss of utility vision  dismay over increasing mgt cost, complexity

12. observations (2) feedback loop:  closed nets encourage constrained apps  constrained apps encourage closed nets tunneling, encryption trends undermine perimeter defense effectiveness isolation strategies are limited by how many devices you want on your desk. roads not taken:  What if windows XP had shipped with its integral firewall turned on?  What if UW had mandated and funded positive desktop control?

13. gray’s defense-in-depth conjecture given N layers of topological device defense… MTTE (exploit) = k * N**2 MTTI (innovation) = k * N**2 MTTR (repair) = k * N**2 NB: there is also “vertical” D-I-D for info/session protection, e.g. IPSEC + SSL… but those equations would look different.

14. never say die goal: simple core, local policy choice how to avoid OSFA closed-net future?  design net for local open or closed choice  pervasive IPSEC  asymmetric connectivity (“unlisted numbers”) combine with tools for “rapid response won’t reverse trend toward closed nets,  but may avoid undesirable cost shifts alternative: only closed nets, policy wars

15. questions? comments?