Hi Jim,
I passed your post along to a colleague of mine who is a security specialist. The opening sentence of her reply is worth repeating here, IMO:
"I am glad to see that Phil Zimmerman has joined the chorus in publically saying that the Internet Commons is a crime-ridden slum, and that these unsecured wireless connections are a fertile field for all sorts of malicious behavior, including identity theft - if only of the ABC and XYZ corporate credentials."
It's common to think of the early exhaustion of capacity when we hear the term "tragedy of the commons," along with the chaos and angst that would normally ensue on the part of end users. So it would naturally appear, as well, that if capacity issues could somehow be miraculously solved through the application of the usual bromides associated with Moore's Law, then we'd continue to be in good, if not better, shape as time goes by. And, in fact, if a glut could ever be declared forcing bandwidth capacity pricing down in a precipitous way, then as far as the end user is concerned it would be all the better. But I usually don't (or, I should say, "didn't") associate vulnerabilities to personal and corporate security with the chaos mentioned above as much as I do at this time.
A legitimate question to ponder at this point is whether security on the open Internet is merely an overly optimistic dream whose primary beneficiaries are the alchemy labs of the IP security firms and the management fiefdoms within enterprise IT departments that purport to keep the matter in check? Or, can security actually be implemented on the open Internet and within client end points that would satisfy reasonable levels of end user expectations, while still permitting the openness that is so crucial to the delivery of what we perceive the Internet's benefits to be?
The problem appears to be worsening all the time with no plausible reasons for hoping that it will reverse itself anytime soon, when you view it in the context of straight line capex dollar expenditures on systems and software, and the monies spent on the ongoing operating costs to improve the situation. Even if we set financial costs aside, we also face a certain loss in our freedom of movement, as well, which may prove to be an even higher price to pay in order to maintain reasonable levels of security. Your Comments? Anyone?
FAC
frank@fttx.org |
