软件安全:ok够好吗?

J. Dickson
{"title":"软件安全:ok够好吗?","authors":"J. Dickson","doi":"10.1145/1943513.1943518","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Widely publicized breaches regularly occur involving insecure software. This is due to the fact that the vast majority of software in use today was not designed to withstand attacks encountered when deployed on hostile networks such as the Internet. What limited vulnerability statistics that exist confirm that most modern software includes coding flaws and design errors that put sensitive customer data at risk. Unfortunately, security officers and software project owners still struggle to justify investment to build secure software. Initial efforts to build justification models have not been embraced beyond the most security conscious organizations. Concepts like the \"Rugged Software\" are gaining traction, but have yet to make a deep impact. How does an organization - short of a breach - justify expending critical resources to build more secure software? Is it realistic to believe that an industry-driven solution such as the Payment Card Industry's Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS) can drive secure software investment before headlines prompt government to demand top-down regulation to \"fix\" the security of software?\n This presentation will attempt to characterize the current landscape of software security from the perspective of a practitioner who regularly works with Fortune 500 chief security officers to build business cases for software security initiatives. Given the current status of software security efforts, and the struggles for business justification, industry would be well-served to look further afield to other competing models to identify future justification efforts. There is still much that can be learned from models outside the security and information technology fields. For example, the history of food safety provides lessons that the software security industry can draw from when developing justification models. We can also learn from building code adoption by earthquake-prone communities and draw comparisons to communities that have less rigorous building codes. Finally, we can learn much from certain financial regulations that have or have not improved confidence in our financial system.","PeriodicalId":90472,"journal":{"name":"CODASPY : proceedings of the ... ACM conference on data and application security and privacy. ACM Conference on Data and Application Security & Privacy","volume":"7 1","pages":"25-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Software security: is ok good enough?\",\"authors\":\"J. Dickson\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/1943513.1943518\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Widely publicized breaches regularly occur involving insecure software. This is due to the fact that the vast majority of software in use today was not designed to withstand attacks encountered when deployed on hostile networks such as the Internet. What limited vulnerability statistics that exist confirm that most modern software includes coding flaws and design errors that put sensitive customer data at risk. Unfortunately, security officers and software project owners still struggle to justify investment to build secure software. Initial efforts to build justification models have not been embraced beyond the most security conscious organizations. Concepts like the \\\"Rugged Software\\\" are gaining traction, but have yet to make a deep impact. How does an organization - short of a breach - justify expending critical resources to build more secure software? Is it realistic to believe that an industry-driven solution such as the Payment Card Industry's Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS) can drive secure software investment before headlines prompt government to demand top-down regulation to \\\"fix\\\" the security of software?\\n This presentation will attempt to characterize the current landscape of software security from the perspective of a practitioner who regularly works with Fortune 500 chief security officers to build business cases for software security initiatives. Given the current status of software security efforts, and the struggles for business justification, industry would be well-served to look further afield to other competing models to identify future justification efforts. There is still much that can be learned from models outside the security and information technology fields. For example, the history of food safety provides lessons that the software security industry can draw from when developing justification models. We can also learn from building code adoption by earthquake-prone communities and draw comparisons to communities that have less rigorous building codes. Finally, we can learn much from certain financial regulations that have or have not improved confidence in our financial system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":90472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CODASPY : proceedings of the ... ACM conference on data and application security and privacy. ACM Conference on Data and Application Security & Privacy\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"25-26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-02-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CODASPY : proceedings of the ... ACM conference on data and application security and privacy. ACM Conference on Data and Application Security & Privacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/1943513.1943518\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CODASPY : proceedings of the ... ACM conference on data and application security and privacy. ACM Conference on Data and Application Security & Privacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1943513.1943518","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

被广泛报道的违规行为经常涉及不安全的软件。这是由于目前使用的绝大多数软件在设计时都不能抵御部署在因特网等敌对网络上时遇到的攻击。现有的有限漏洞统计数据证实,大多数现代软件都包含编码缺陷和设计错误,这些缺陷和设计错误会使敏感的客户数据处于危险之中。不幸的是,安全官员和软件项目所有者仍然在努力证明投资构建安全软件的合理性。构建合理性模型的最初努力并没有被大多数具有安全意识的组织所接受。像“坚固软件”这样的概念正在获得牵引力,但还没有产生深刻的影响。一个组织如何在缺少漏洞的情况下证明花费关键资源来构建更安全的软件是合理的呢?相信一个行业驱动的解决方案,如支付卡行业的数据安全标准(PCI-DSS),可以在头条新闻促使政府要求自上而下的监管来“修复”软件安全之前,推动安全软件投资,这是现实的吗?本演讲将尝试从一个经常与财富500强首席安全官一起为软件安全计划构建业务案例的实践者的角度来描述软件安全的当前图景。考虑到软件安全工作的当前状态,以及为业务辩护而进行的斗争,工业界将很好地向更远的地方寻找其他竞争模型,以确定未来的辩护工作。从安全和信息技术领域之外的模型中仍有很多可以学习的地方。例如,食品安全的历史提供了软件安全行业在开发合理性模型时可以借鉴的经验教训。我们还可以从地震多发社区采用建筑规范的情况中学习,并与建筑规范不那么严格的社区进行比较。最后,我们可以从某些金融监管中学到很多东西,这些监管是否提高了人们对金融体系的信心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Software security: is ok good enough?
Widely publicized breaches regularly occur involving insecure software. This is due to the fact that the vast majority of software in use today was not designed to withstand attacks encountered when deployed on hostile networks such as the Internet. What limited vulnerability statistics that exist confirm that most modern software includes coding flaws and design errors that put sensitive customer data at risk. Unfortunately, security officers and software project owners still struggle to justify investment to build secure software. Initial efforts to build justification models have not been embraced beyond the most security conscious organizations. Concepts like the "Rugged Software" are gaining traction, but have yet to make a deep impact. How does an organization - short of a breach - justify expending critical resources to build more secure software? Is it realistic to believe that an industry-driven solution such as the Payment Card Industry's Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS) can drive secure software investment before headlines prompt government to demand top-down regulation to "fix" the security of software? This presentation will attempt to characterize the current landscape of software security from the perspective of a practitioner who regularly works with Fortune 500 chief security officers to build business cases for software security initiatives. Given the current status of software security efforts, and the struggles for business justification, industry would be well-served to look further afield to other competing models to identify future justification efforts. There is still much that can be learned from models outside the security and information technology fields. For example, the history of food safety provides lessons that the software security industry can draw from when developing justification models. We can also learn from building code adoption by earthquake-prone communities and draw comparisons to communities that have less rigorous building codes. Finally, we can learn much from certain financial regulations that have or have not improved confidence in our financial system.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信