Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

If there is a legitimate way in, there is an illegitimate way in. The only server that is fundamentally impossible to breach is one that is fundamentally impossible to access. In network security, this is known as "air-gapping"; a server or subnet is physically disconnected from any other network including the outside world. Combined with physical security ...


0

It proves much easier designing a system to keep the smartest people out than designing one to keep the nameless, shameless, creative, and persistent people out. Smart people proceed in an identifiably patterned manner, along predictable avenues of effort and exploration, and rely on a miserably predictable and similar set of assumptions. A genius seems ...


2

Unknown but bet yes: As we approach fundamental limits of nature, granting prior access to the defender ensures it is unbeatable. I attempt to cover the entire spectrum of privacy and integrity for a nontrivial service, even considering humans. In general, security comes down to various forms of isolation. I will go over them starting from the most basic. ...


1

Yes. A null server infrastructure is fundamentally impossible to breach. No server = nothing to breach = fundamentally impossible to breach. Anything else is fundamentally possible to breach.


0

The true question behind this is rather: how much resoures are you willing to spend to break the defense? And what is even the minimum level of security that it can be considered perfectly secure? No access whats so ever? Accessig any random data? Or only accessing the data that can be used for profit is considered a breach? To use your example of chess: ...


22

Security can be proven, but you have to understand what is proved https://sel4.systems/FAQ/proof.pml Our proof statement in high-level natural language is the following: The binary code of the seL4 microkernel correctly implements the behaviour described in its abstract specification and nothing more. Furthermore, the specification and the seL4 ...


1

Some core networking may be necessary for proper network configuration. If you disable DHCP, you won't be able to get an ip from the DHCP server (but you prevent getting an ip from an unlikely but possible rogue DHCP server) If you disable ICMP fragmentation, your network may not be as fast as possible (but you prevent someone unlikely but possible to abuse ...


1

Information security is fundamentally unlike chess. Chess is a poor model to apply to Information Security, though the differences between the two can be enlightening. Chess is a game of perfect information. Both parties know exactly where all the pieces are at all times. In information security much of the information is hidden, and one party can gain ...


0

Obviously, there's no perfect technical solution to prevent human error, or prevent an attacker from bribing your sysadmin. But if we look at the purely deterministic technical side of this, then the answer is (trivially) yes. You can look at a network-connected system as a function. You have some function that you want to compute, where the inputs are a ...


6

Such a system probably exists, but we probably won't find it We have many algorithms for use in Security. Some of them probably are correct. Specifically, some them probably are exponentially difficult to break. Indeed, we know some that are outright impossible to break (one time pad.) The problem is implementation. Security isn't about who's smarter. ...


3

A perfect defense is fundamentally possible. I am actually mediocre in chess, but it is trivial for me to stalemate the greatest players in the world and I can even stalemate the fastest, best chess playing computers. I just sit on my hands and wait for the time to run out and the chess grandmaster can not claim a victory over me. Similarly, the ...


5

Suppose security is like chess Unlike most people here, I actually know quite a bit about chess and just enough about security to make this a usefull answer. If you consider chess you will find that: The number of possibilities is so large that no practical strategy covers them all explicitly Therefore, as also we see in practice, the strongest ...


19

Nobody has found any particular reason to believe they have found such a system. You mention Chess, which is a nice game on a 8x8 grid. Consider that a modern server is slightly more complicated than that. Let's instead play in a 65536x65536 board, to make it more realistic. Also, in Chess, the more you play, the fewer positions are possible. Instead, a ...


7

The comparison with chess is interesting because it shows what protecting a system is not. Compared to chess the play between good and bad guys in IT security has no fixed rules, you don't know who your opponents are and you can be attacked outside of the chess board. And if the opponent loses a figure it can just get a new one while you don't. You have ...


66

"No perfect defense is fundamentally possible." In chess, you have 64 squares, 2 people playing, and one set of immutable, commonly known rules. In server infrastructures, there are an untold number of assets and ways to approach those assets, an unknown number of people playing, and rules that change constantly with players purposely seeking to bend, ...


0

This is mostly secure. To intercept localhost traffic an attacker would need root privileges and at this point you've already lost as the attacker can also read and modify memory at will - no amount of cryptography will help you as the attacker will get your confidential data straight out of memory. The only issue I see is that you can't prove it's indeed ...


2

If you're using simple HTTP for communication then TLS would be the easier route. While you think you might have thought everything through it's better to use an established protocol for the following reasons: It's already supported by most browsers, operating systems, and devices. The infrastructure is already in place, with lots of examples for ...


2

Is there a list of all known C&C servers published somewhere that I can just add firewall rules for? Unfortunately the operators of such botnets and malware have adapted various strategies to work around such blocks. A complete and always up-to-date list is not possible because these server change frequently either because they got taken down by ...


1

From the blog post itself they state that unlike Google Authenticator, the Authy system actually generates new, separate keys for each device. As such I don't see any reason that they would need to store them so an attacker compromising their database should not be able to access them. An attacker who compromised one of your devices would have access to a ...


2

This isn't a good idea. Using OAuth 2.0 or OAuth 2.0ish protocols for Authentication isn't correct. OAuth 2.0 was designed as an Authorization protocol. Using OAuth 2.0 as an authentication protocol carries a handful of security implications. OpenID Connect was developed to fix these deficiencies in OAuth 2.0 so OAuth 2.0 can be used for authentication. The ...


2

Is using L2TP/IPsec VPN over NAT-T actually insecure, or is this only a theoretical risk? Microsoft says Yes and No: Yes in case this scenario applies on you: A network address translator is configured to map IKE and IPSec NAT-T traffic to a server on a NAT-configured network. (This server is Server 1.) The network address translator ...


0

The application itself would be as secure as you can build it to be. There are some pitfalls like: Not treating SSL exceptions properly. If an invalid certificate is encountered, the obvious behaviour is to abort the connection. Some libraries might accept invalid certificates by default. Insecurely storing data from the banking website Using vulnerable ...


0

Through your comment, you asked about the safety of storing and retrieving your credentials that way, but also if it is enough secure to use them after to log in automatically to your bank account. For the first part, you need to assess yourself the security of your server first and since you want retrieve the credentials using SSH, may be you need to throw ...



Top 50 recent answers are included