Select Committee on Science and Technology Minutes of Evidence


Memorandum by Alan Cox

  This submission attempts to summarise aspects of the open source community viewpoint on the questions asked by the inquiry, as was requested. It represents the personal viewpoint of the author based upon extensive experience and his position within the community. Although the author is employed in this field it does not represent the viewpoint of his employers and has not been reviewed by them.

RESPONSE TO THE INQUIRY INTO PERSONAL INTERNET SECURITY

  This response attempts to explain how the "open source" methods of software development used by projects such as Linux and Firefox relate to personal Internet security. Open source is a broad church and to cover anything but the generalities is worthy of a book not a response.

DEFINING THE PROBLEM

  The Open Source community, generally speaking, is focused on two threats. The first is technical flaws in software which create an opportunity for attacks on systems. The second is attacks on the users themselves such as "phishing". Both threats are rapidly evolving in terms of attacks and countermeasures. As computer security increases, the attack target appears to be shifting as the user becomes the easier target.

  The scale of the problem is difficult to measure and the open source community does not generate detailed end user data. It may also be misleading to think about it in a conventional crime recording model. Unlike a burglar who discovers a flaw in a common type of car lock, a software based attack can go from unknown to global within hours. This significantly changes the threat model and the required response. In particular, the open source community is sceptical of the longterm viability of virus scanners. These depend upon a reaction from a vendor and an update being issued before they can protect against a new virus. That may be too late.

  The community does not track data on the number of users affected although data is tracked on the number of bug fixes made that may involve security. However it is very hard to relate bug fixes directly to actual incidents of user attack, as most flaws are fixed before they are exploited.

  Open source users are probably atypical in terms of their understanding of the threat. There is a higher percentage of technical users in the open source community. Nevertheless there are some concerns within the open source security community that some of the less well informed attitudes of endusers may be problematic. In particular some users believe that open source software is totally secure and there will never be a risk of viruses or other problematic attacks.

TACKLING THE PROBLEM

  The number of flaws in open source software is lower than average. This has been measured by academics and commercial organisations using tools which look for flaws in software.[5], [6], [7] The public nature of the source code also allows extensive peer review of the code for quality. More popular programs generally get more review. The public nature of the code also makes it possible to search through all the code for all the programs in a system. This is important because a newly discovered flaw is often a mistake that will have been repeated in many other places. Having access to all the code allows screening on a large scale.

  Developments in tools that identify flaws more rapidly, and languages that make it harder to write insecure code, are followed actively in both the open source community and the proprietary sphere. Extensions to computer hardware that are useful for security are also used; although many hardware features touted by vendors to be for security are actually mostly for marketing and not as useful as they would have the world believe.

  Open source, particularly Linux, has also focused on making users secure by default. Red Hat Linux shipped with a built-in and automatically enabled firewall for years, something Microsoft has finally followed. This has led to new attacks being increasingly targeted against the web browser which must talk through the firewall, rather than against the system itself. Each step taken to improve security triggers a response of this nature.

  Fixing software flaws is only one part of the process. For these fixes to be useful, endusers must be able to obtain them, verify they are correct and install them easily. Open source systems use management tools to automate this process, and digital signatures to verify that the code obtained is the correct code. But non-broadband users face a huge barrier. Fixes are not small, and the packaging methods are not currently optimal either. Thus we face the same problem that proprietary vendors face: users with limited connectivity are vulnerable to attack because they lack the ability to update their system.

  Attacks directed at the user of a computer are much more problematic. Some defences are also hampered by US patent concerns which prevent the deployment of certain technologies which can help identify fake emails. In the UK there are also concerns about libel risks that make it hard, if not impossible, to keep the kind of databases needed to identify phishing attacks.

  The open source community is following several strands of work in this area. Good user interface design can help to guide users to the correct choices. However there is a permanent conflict between ease of use and security. This conflict is difficult to resolve. Tools like SELinux implement security policies that extend further than traditional access rights. With such tools it becomes possible for a company to encode and enforce some company rules in software instead of depending upon education. For a variety of reasons (notably that the rules are in the company's interest, not the users') education rarely works well. For example it becomes easier to control who can run downloaded files or install software. This is important as it turns a security breach into a helpdesk call inquiring why the user cannot perform the undesirable act. It is a general opinion that the focus of attacks on confusing and misleading the user will continue to grow as the potential for attacks on software flaws decreases.

GOVERNANCE

  The international nature of the Internet requires international governance. Unfortunately the open source experience of regulation of the Internet and technology in general has been extremely poor. There is deep distrust of the establishment. The EU in particular is generally seen as the tool of big industry, lacking both transparency and control over lobbying.

  Currently proposed and actual regulation affecting the industry includes the EUCD, rules on encryption export, and proposals to license computer security workers. These are likely to have strong negative effects on the open source community. Proposed regulation has already triggered responses that are not those desired by government: open source cryptography tool developers are completing software to render obsolete the government's proposed legislation on access to encryption keys.

  The biggest barriers affecting security in the UK are probably:

    —  proposals in the EU for the adoption of software patents, making it impossible for people to implement some features even when they are critical to security; and

    —  the proposed updates to the Computer Misuse Act which make it unclear whether possessing a tool for breaking into a computer is an offence even when such ownership is for the purpose of security testing and software debugging and development. This will reduce security testing and discourage people from working on security (This is the area Lord Northesk has been attempting to correct).

  It would be difficult to summarise the open source community view on improving governance of the Internet as it spreads such a wide political range.




5   B P Miller, D Koski, C P Lee, V Maganty, R Murthy, A Natarajan, and J Steidl, "Fuzz Revisited: A Reexamination of the Reliability of UNIX Utilities and Services", Computer Sciences Technical Report 1268, University of Wisconsin Madison, April 1995.
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/-bart/fuzz/fuzz.html 
Back

6   http://www.Internetnews.com/devnews/article.php/3448001 Back

7   http://www.prnewswire.com/cgibin/stories/pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03062006/00043137 56&EDATE= Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007