Re:Linux kernel: multiple x86_64 vulnerabilities
by pdkl95 on Wednesday December 17, 2014 @08:39PM
(#8765587)
The point is that there is another possible outcome beyond the "yes"/"no" questions you asked, which is "I can't do my job with these security requirements" and "I don't understand these complicated methods and/or requirements". Both of these lead to security being bypassed on purpose, which is often far worse than the risk of someone walking in with a trojan USB stick.
Education about the risks involved in picking up random hardware, email requests/attachments, etc are important, but so is acclimating the average user to the very idea of secuirty. Both sides need time and experience to find ways to make security and the work being done compatible with each other.
A good example of the problem is PGP/GPG - it's too complicated and has a terrible UI (for most peole), so nobody even bothers. Yes, even if we somehow forced everybody to use GPG, the mistakes made while using it will likely compromise most of the "protected" data.
On the other hand, even if we went into the situation expecting 100% failure due to someone messing up, there would still be benefits. We would end up with keys being exchanged (infrastructure), making the beginnings of a trust network. Even better, we would see a lot more people starting to learn about keys and how they should (or shouldn't) be trusted.
TL;DR - never let perfection be the enemy of good, even in must-be-perfect security; even if it will probably fail in the usual sense, it may be worth it as a necessary lesson for future security attempts.
Education about the risks involved in picking up random hardware, email requests/attachments, etc are important, but so is acclimating the average user to the very idea of secuirty. Both sides need time and experience to find ways to make security and the work being done compatible with each other.
A good example of the problem is PGP/GPG - it's too complicated and has a terrible UI (for most peole), so nobody even bothers. Yes, even if we somehow forced everybody to use GPG, the mistakes made while using it will likely compromise most of the "protected" data.
On the other hand, even if we went into the situation expecting 100% failure due to someone messing up, there would still be benefits. We would end up with keys being exchanged (infrastructure), making the beginnings of a trust network. Even better, we would see a lot more people starting to learn about keys and how they should (or shouldn't) be trusted.
TL;DR - never let perfection be the enemy of good, even in must-be-perfect security; even if it will probably fail in the usual sense, it may be worth it as a necessary lesson for future security attempts.