<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Clarity Around Security</title>
	<atom:link href="http://72.249.21.88/nonintersecting/?year=2006&#038;monthnum=12&#038;day=04&#038;name=clarity-around-security&#038;feed=feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://72.249.21.88/nonintersecting/2006/12/04/clarity-around-security/</link>
	<description>Life and Technology (non-intersecting)</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 02:38:56 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Stefan Tilkov's Random Stuff</title>
		<link>http://72.249.21.88/nonintersecting/2006/12/04/clarity-around-security/#comment-2209</link>
		<dc:creator>Stefan Tilkov's Random Stuff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:11:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2006/12/04/clarity-around-security/#comment-2209</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Pete Lacey's WS-Criticism...&lt;/strong&gt;

In this interview, Pete Lacey, who recently became well-known in the SOA community because of a series of blog posts starting with a very funny one entitled S stands for Simple (which was covered at InfoQ as well), talks to InfoQ&#8217;s Stefan Tilkov ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Pete Lacey&#8217;s WS-Criticism&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>In this interview, Pete Lacey, who recently became well-known in the SOA community because of a series of blog posts starting with a very funny one entitled S stands for Simple (which was covered at InfoQ as well), talks to InfoQ&#8217;s Stefan Tilkov &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christopher Mahan</title>
		<link>http://72.249.21.88/nonintersecting/2006/12/04/clarity-around-security/#comment-2181</link>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Mahan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 02:07:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2006/12/04/clarity-around-security/#comment-2181</guid>
		<description>Pete,

I have a 1.5 year old boy. Not enough time to blog.

Thanks though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pete,</p>
<p>I have a 1.5 year old boy. Not enough time to blog.</p>
<p>Thanks though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pete</title>
		<link>http://72.249.21.88/nonintersecting/2006/12/04/clarity-around-security/#comment-2180</link>
		<dc:creator>Pete</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 01:44:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2006/12/04/clarity-around-security/#comment-2180</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;Christopher:&lt;/b&gt; Are you blogging? You should be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Christopher:</b> Are you blogging? You should be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christopher Mahan</title>
		<link>http://72.249.21.88/nonintersecting/2006/12/04/clarity-around-security/#comment-2179</link>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Mahan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 01:11:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2006/12/04/clarity-around-security/#comment-2179</guid>
		<description>I'm going to chime in and extend this to say that good security is "too hard".

Military grade authentication/encryption systems for what we do is an absolute overkill (reporting app with web-services back ends on an intranet), and yet if we do anything less, it's not secure anyway, because a dedicated hacker can get in and get the crown jewels.

We use ssl and hashing some, but overall the security is hodgepodge, accumulated layers over years of initiatives that have left things in a worse state than no security at all. 

Ultimately, the approach we take is to just watch everything. Yes we use automated tools as watchmen, and we watch those too. It's easier to watch things that aren't cryptic to the naked eye.

Security tool vendors, in my opinion, fail to address the "but how to we find out if a hacker _does_ break into the system" question. Between private keys, public keys, certificates, encapsulated encrypted payloads, there is nothing that stands out to the eye  as being out of place. Unlike, for example, an standards web server log, on which all kinds of attacks can be spotted by a diligent human.

Ultimately, if a system does not allow a human with  brain and eyes to supplement the software, it cannot be secured. 

Finally, web services in production environments with  mutliple database types, a hybrid os environment, and  integration of very many issues ((x)html, css, dhtml, cross-browserness, differing sql dialects, stored procedures, different languages (Java, .Niet, pyhton, perl, php, ruby and plain old shell scripts, with ASP and VBS) piled up on top of win2k, xp, vista, win2k3, solaris 9 and all the IBM mainframe stuff I don't even know enough to rant about ( I knowo there's some COBOL in there), along with FTP, SSH, EDI and XML-RPC, and now SOAP, with different client machines setups, (Novell NAL, Citrix, and other beasts of the kind), you can imagine how hard it is to get anything to work well enough to be productionalized to 10,000 users. (sprinkle Oracle 10, MSSQL and mySQL, plus a couple wikis (twiki and mediawiki) for good measure.)

Add security on top of all that? Hello? Houston to Earth: We have a Problem.

Let me tell you how it all happens in the trenches of IT (in a fortune 200 no less): like it did in the trenches in France in 1917: With blood and gore and screams of agony through mind-numbing boredom punctuated with episodes of utter terror. 

Things have to get simpler.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m going to chime in and extend this to say that good security is &#8220;too hard&#8221;.</p>
<p>Military grade authentication/encryption systems for what we do is an absolute overkill (reporting app with web-services back ends on an intranet), and yet if we do anything less, it&#8217;s not secure anyway, because a dedicated hacker can get in and get the crown jewels.</p>
<p>We use ssl and hashing some, but overall the security is hodgepodge, accumulated layers over years of initiatives that have left things in a worse state than no security at all. </p>
<p>Ultimately, the approach we take is to just watch everything. Yes we use automated tools as watchmen, and we watch those too. It&#8217;s easier to watch things that aren&#8217;t cryptic to the naked eye.</p>
<p>Security tool vendors, in my opinion, fail to address the &#8220;but how to we find out if a hacker _does_ break into the system&#8221; question. Between private keys, public keys, certificates, encapsulated encrypted payloads, there is nothing that stands out to the eye  as being out of place. Unlike, for example, an standards web server log, on which all kinds of attacks can be spotted by a diligent human.</p>
<p>Ultimately, if a system does not allow a human with  brain and eyes to supplement the software, it cannot be secured. </p>
<p>Finally, web services in production environments with  mutliple database types, a hybrid os environment, and  integration of very many issues ((x)html, css, dhtml, cross-browserness, differing sql dialects, stored procedures, different languages (Java, .Niet, pyhton, perl, php, ruby and plain old shell scripts, with ASP and VBS) piled up on top of win2k, xp, vista, win2k3, solaris 9 and all the IBM mainframe stuff I don&#8217;t even know enough to rant about ( I knowo there&#8217;s some COBOL in there), along with FTP, SSH, EDI and XML-RPC, and now SOAP, with different client machines setups, (Novell NAL, Citrix, and other beasts of the kind), you can imagine how hard it is to get anything to work well enough to be productionalized to 10,000 users. (sprinkle Oracle 10, MSSQL and mySQL, plus a couple wikis (twiki and mediawiki) for good measure.)</p>
<p>Add security on top of all that? Hello? Houston to Earth: We have a Problem.</p>
<p>Let me tell you how it all happens in the trenches of IT (in a fortune 200 no less): like it did in the trenches in France in 1917: With blood and gore and screams of agony through mind-numbing boredom punctuated with episodes of utter terror. </p>
<p>Things have to get simpler.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bugfox blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; RESTful Security</title>
		<link>http://72.249.21.88/nonintersecting/2006/12/04/clarity-around-security/#comment-2177</link>
		<dc:creator>bugfox blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; RESTful Security</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:41:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2006/12/04/clarity-around-security/#comment-2177</guid>
		<description>[...] The REST vs WS wars continue. Pete Lacey has an insightful post on RESTful Security, and a further clarification: Clarity Around Security. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The REST vs WS wars continue. Pete Lacey has an insightful post on RESTful Security, and a further clarification: Clarity Around Security. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: snellspace.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Security Stuff, Wrap Up</title>
		<link>http://72.249.21.88/nonintersecting/2006/12/04/clarity-around-security/#comment-2175</link>
		<dc:creator>snellspace.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Security Stuff, Wrap Up</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:17:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wanderingbarque.com/nonintersecting/2006/12/04/clarity-around-security/#comment-2175</guid>
		<description>[...] This morning Pete Lacey said, &#8220;There is nothing in REST that mandates transport-level security or precludes message-level security&#8220;. Guess what, it turns out that Pete is right. I&#8217;ll take it a bit further and say that WS-* and REST are both equally secure and insecure to exactly the same degree. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This morning Pete Lacey said, &#8220;There is nothing in REST that mandates transport-level security or precludes message-level security&#8220;. Guess what, it turns out that Pete is right. I&#8217;ll take it a bit further and say that WS-* and REST are both equally secure and insecure to exactly the same degree. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
