Linux and Open Source

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols & Paula Rooney

Who will trust open source security from the government

By | July 21, 2010, 5:47am PDT

Summary: The Open Information Security Foundation, headed by Mark Jonkman of Emerging Threats and Victor Julien of the Vuurmuur firewall project, are offering an intrusion detection and prevention engine with multi-threading automatic protocol detection for a wide variety of protocols.

Sometimes the old joke is true. Sometimes the government is just trying to help.

An open source consortium funded by military and civilian security agencies within the U.S. government has released a final version of Suricata, a new security framework.

Operating as the Open Information Security Foundation, and working with a number of government-related private companies, a team headed by Mark Jonkman of Emerging Threats and Victor Julien of the Vuurmuur firewall project are offering an intrusion detection and prevention engine with multi-threading automatic protocol detection for a wide variety of protocols.

Unfortunately the timing of the release could not have been worse, coming as it did the same week the Washington Post launched its series Top Secret America, detailing just how immense and intrusive the nation’s national security apparatus has become, an economic boom for Washington seen as increasingly dangerous by many on both the left and right.

Jonkman acknowledged the help of “thousands of people” in delivering Version 1.0 of the software, which was immediately fisked by Martin Roesch, creator of Snort, who called it a cheap knock-off funded with taxpayer dollars.

In this he was echoing the expected criticism of many who either fear government’s power in security matters or believe any dollar spent by government is a wasted dollar.

On the Sourcefire blog, Matt Olney offered the headline “Innovation — you keep using that word” and a more detailed critique. He concluded with this challenge:

If you want to see what innovation looks like, come to Vegas and let the Vulnerability Research Team (VRT) show you the Razorback system. It isn’t Snort, it isn’t ClamAV, and it isn’t Suricata. It’s a new approach to the detection problem, and was built from the ground up in close collaboration with groups that are facing APT-level threats. It may not be perfect, it may not even be the right answer (but we think it is), but it is truly innovative.

My own view is that Internet cops have long been several steps behind Internet robbers, and that this medium is at the heart of the 21st century, so it’s hard to dump on free help. The code is also open source, thus it can be edited and improved. The arguments between the professionals should settle down with time.

On the other hand I don’t believe that the massive security apparatus constructed with the support of both parties since September 11, 2001 has really made us any safer or increased our freedom one bit. Those looking to reduce our nation’s deficits will find juicy targets in the Washington Post series.

But Suricata will remain.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983.

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years.

At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog.

DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air.

My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

Talkback Most Recent of 25 Talkback(s)

  • Cuckoo!
    If you don't watch this video, you're going to die eh? How does it feel knowing that billions of people will prove you wrong?
    ZDNet Gravatar
    jasonp@...
    21st Jul 2010
  • RE: Who will trust open source security from the government
    Sometimes the government is just about it is bank that website attacked from the site support from any soldier site to the light home page is great trying
    ZDNet Gravatar
    musdahi
    16th Sep
  • Where has the sanity gone?
    @max597 :

    When Bush did all the damage and we criticized him as incompetent, people were defending him and saying that we were criticizing the US.

    Now that the damage is done (by the Bush administration) you want to blame a single man?

    You are either delusional and have no brain, or plainly malicious and have no shame.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    rarsa
    21st Jul 2010
  • RE: Who will trust open source security from the government
    @rarsa

    That's right. Blame it all on Bush. Surely the Obaminator hasn't done anything hazardous to the nation and it's people.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Dr. John
    21st Jul 2010
  • RE: Who will trust open source security from the government
    @rarsa Bush...while not a good President, did not create the mess we are in. You have to go back to Mr. Clinton congress during his 8 years. We won't see any of Bush's items (of significance) until during the next President or at the end of their term. And God willing it won't be the current DA in office.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    ItsTheBottomLine
    21st Jul 2010
  • Nothing I've seen
    @Dr. John

    Maybe he has, but at least nothing that is public policy. His policies seem sound and are only crippled when the Republicans go around doing some scaremongering. (Health care reform, for example).

    The big mistake from him has been not to use the good will from the campaign and implement his policies faster to prove wrong all the naysayers.

    His campaign was about Change, but you are all so afraid of it.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    rarsa
    21st Jul 2010
  • RE: Who will trust open source security from the government
    @rarsa

    Thom Hartmann has interviewed people who work for well-funded right-wing organizations whose entire purpose is to go online, find conversations like this, and spout bumper sticker slogans and talking points. Whenever I read right-wing views on forums such as this, I think of the banks of poorly paid political trolls that Thom interviewed about.

    I don't know whether to believe that people who bad-mouth Obama and Clinton as above this comment are serious or paid.

    We have a problem in this country in that when we hear such comments, we have no idea whether there is any sincerity behind them or whether they are simply doing a job funded with laundered money by people who have a financial agenda that is not disclosed.

    There is no moral equivalency--there are no banks of hired liberal trolls to counter those hired by the right. We don't fund propaganda, like they do. We have a corrupt system, made ever more corrupt by these paid apologists for the think-tanked and focus-grouped messages that are then propagated with little variation from as many mouths as possible. Makes one think of the invasion of the body snatchers.

    One of the things that trolls are paid to do is to flag anything that questions their legitimacy for removal. That will no doubt happen to my post, even though I've clearly said that I know nothing about whether Dr. John and IttheBottomLine have anything to do with the opinion factories that Thom Hartmann uncovered.

    My post doesn't flame anyone, but reports on interviews by Thom Hartmann, as well as reporting on the personal feelings of doubt that this raises in me. But I will be flagged for having the audacity to report on the elephant in the living room--because shooting the messenger is a favorite technique of the right.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    cougar.b@...
    20th Jun
  • pretend two-party political opposition meant to divide and conquer aside
    There is a clear and obvious, legitimate conflict between the government's (if we stay in the theoretical and assume the government represents the people) need to have access to our otherwise private information (including the record of our thoughts and actions) and OUR need (not just right, I said "need") to maintain that privacy.

    A shorter version of the question asked might have been, " who will trust open source security [ 'from the government' omitted ]? "

    There is a clean set of motivations in play here that could be treated honestly and successfully. I propose that the balancing moves needed in the seeming deadlock are:

    1) The government CAN access anything if and when the case is made and a court or some arguably neutral and logical oversight body approves or at least genuinely audits the uses and justifications therefor. These requests and justifications must be recorded real time and indellible records must be put beyond arms reach from enforcement authorities or other potential abusers.
    2) SEVERE unpardonable consequences are put in place AND enforced for those who willingly and knowingly abuse the access.
    3) SIGNIFICANT rewards and protections are put in place for whistleblowers.
    4) AND MOST IMPORTANTLY we the people have access to all logs of who accesses our data,the justifications given/used, the approval rationale/basis.

    Add these REQUIREMENTS to the project plan and insure they are implemented and we will have a system that simultaneously meets the needs of the authorities to protect us and our needs not to be stifled or abused by those authorities. With this core set of requirements included I believe that Open Source would be the PERFECT development and maintenance model for providing the needed facilities and mechanism.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Onehorse
    21st Jul 2010
  • Almost
    @Onehorse

    Good idea bar one small problem, the "SEVERE unpardonable consequences" part. For one thing, I.T. crimes already recieve higher punishments than murder and rape. Need to increase severe crimes before you increase I.T. yet again. And U.S.A. prisons already contain how many people?

    Either you start using that population as a major workforce or your reintroduce capital punishment. Floggings and the death penalty.

    In regards to logs, you do realise that logs for access are controlled by somebody? Who may be the person who attacks and penetrates the security system?

    FOSS is a "problem" in that it gives people trying to break the software a much easier job. No dissassembling and figuring out how everything works, it's all there in front of you. Doesn't even need to have the F in front of it, commercial software is still available, still need to supply the source in OSS.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Cyberjester
    27th Jul 2010
  • You mean the same government that runs the VA?
    You know, the ones that lost my personal data to great fanfare and press coverage...and then recently did it again (this time with very little coverage). The same government that runs the Social Security Administration and its associated privacy breaches? Just wanted to be clear about who we are talking about here.

    As to the explosion in the "security apparatus" that is easily explained. America is schizophrenic. We (as a nation, not me personally) want perfect safety and perfect freedom at the same time. We want complete security but no lines at airport check ins. In other words, we want, we want, we want, we DEMAND! but do not want to pay the price for the things we are wanting/demanding. Personally, I have said from the beginning that accepting a certain level of risk is simply the price we pay for living in a free society. But our legislators (and our executives too) are always under pressure to DO SOMETHING D@^^N IT! and when the DO SOMETHING is precisely when we get in trouble.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    cornpie
    21st Jul 2010
  • RE: Who will trust open source security from the government
    @cornpie The problem is you can have security or you can have freedom, personally I want freedom, a wise man once said "he that would give up liberty to obtain temporary safety deserves neither liberty OR safety" I i believe no truer words have been spoken, as for the government having anything to do with Open Source software it kind of turns my stomach, this is the same government that could run a strip club, if you cant sell sex and booze, how do you expect me to think you are capable to doing anything right much less writing security software.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    nickdangerthirdi@...
    22nd Jul 2010
  • RE: Who will trust open source security from the government
    @nickdangerthirdi@... The Constitution provides "ordered liberty," not "freedom." Haiti has lots of freedom. America is a nation of laws and ordered liberty. Guess which works best?
    ZDNet Gravatar
    DanaBlankenhorn
    22nd Jul 2010
  • RE: Who will trust open source security from the government
    @nickdangerthirdi@...

    You American's push freedom though.. You expect to be able to buy AK's and then are horrified when someone uses one.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is from your Declaration of Independance. This from a country that has been pushing to remove God from every factor of life.

    Another famous quote, try explaining it nowadays? Without God, you're not created equal. Which, by a massive coincidence of course, we're currently seeing from employers more and more. Genetic tests to see potential defects, skin colour, etc, etc.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Cyberjester
    27th Jul 2010
  • The problem isn't Republican or Democratic
    This is a democracy. The problem is us. All of us. Mainly our willingness to be divided so readily by rhetoric so that we act against our own interests.

    This national security nightmare was created by our own fear. The Bush people just took advantage of it. And now that it's out of control, notice how anxious some of us are to give power back to the same people who got us into this mess.

    And this happens on issue-after-issue. Eventually people wake up, and not all leaders are venal. I don't think the current Administration is. But we're in a deep hole,and too many Americans think the solution is a shovel because some rich guys told them so.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    DanaBlankenhorn
    21st Jul 2010
  • RE: Who will trust open source security from the government
    @DanaBlankenhorn This is NOT a democracy, its a representative republic, the politicians have confused you into thinking its a democracy.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    nickdangerthirdi@...
    22nd Jul 2010

Talkback - Tell Us What You Think

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources