Saltzer  and later Saltzer and Schroeder 
list the following principles of the design of secure
protection systems, which are still valid:
Each user and program should operate using the fewest privileges possible.
This principle limits the damage from an accident, error, or attack.
It also reduces the number of potential interactions among privileged programs,
unwanted, or improper uses of privilege are less likely to occur.
This idea can be extended to the internals of a program: only the smallest
portion of the program which needs those privileges should have them.
See Section 6.3 for more about how to do this.
Economy of mechanism/Simplicity.
The protection system's design should be simple and
small as possible.
In their words,
``techniques such as line-by-line inspection of software and physical
examination of hardware that implements protection mechanisms are necessary.
For such techniques to be successful, a small and simple design is essential.''
This is sometimes described as the ``KISS'' principle
(``keep it simple, stupid'').
The protection mechanism must not depend on attacker ignorance.
Instead, the mechanism should be public, depending on the secrecy of
relatively few (and easily changeable) items like passwords or private keys.
An open design makes extensive public scrutiny possible, and it also
makes it possible for users to convince themselves that the system about
to be used is adequate.
Frankly, it isn't realistic to try to maintain secrecy for a system that
is widely distributed;
decompilers and subverted hardware can quickly expose any ``secrets''
in an implementation.
Bruce Schneier argues that smart engineers should ``demand
open source code for anything related to security'',
as well as ensuring that it receives widespread review and that
any identified problems are fixed [Schneier 1999].
Every access attempt must be checked; position the mechanism
so it cannot be subverted.
For example, in a client-server model, generally the server must do all
access checking because users can build or modify their own clients.
This is the point of all of
Chapter 4, as well as
Fail-safe defaults (e.g., permission-based approach).
The default should be denial of service, and the
protection scheme should then identify conditions under which
access is permitted.
See Section 6.5 and Section 6.7
Separation of privilege.
Ideally, access to objects should depend on more than one condition, so
that defeating one protection system won't enable complete access.
Least common mechanism.
Minimize the amount and
use of shared mechanisms (e.g. use of the /tmp or /var/tmp directories).
Shared objects provide potentially dangerous channels for information
flow and unintended interactions.
See Section 6.8 for more information.
Psychological acceptability / Easy to use.
The human interface must be designed for ease of use so users will routinely
and automatically use the protection mechanisms correctly.
Mistakes will be reduced if
the security mechanisms closely match the user's mental image of
his or her protection goals.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Patrocinam este site
DMARCPal On Reddit
Todas a marcas e direitos autorais desta página são de propriedade de seus autores e/ou detentores de direitos.
Copyright © 1998-2003 Flávio Veloso. Todos os direitos reservados. All rights reserved.
Linux é marca registrada de Linus Torvalds.
Magnux Linux é marca registrada de Flávio Veloso.