Why is security through obscurity a bad idea? [clo

Question

I recently came across a system where all of the DB connections were managed by routines obscured in various ways, including base 64 encoding, md5sums and various other techniques.

Is it just me, or is this overkill? What are the alternatives?

Answer 1

The main reason it is a bad idea is that it does not FIX the underlying problems, just attempts to hide them. Sooner or later, the problems will be discovered.

Also, extra encryption will incur additional overhead.

Finally excessive obscurity (like using checksums) makes maintenance a nightmare.

Better security alternatives is to eliminate potential weaknesses in your code such as enforced inputs to prevent injection attacks.

Answer 2

All of the forms of security available are actually forms of security through obscurity. Each method increases in complexity and provides better security but they all rely on some algorithm and one or more keys to restore the encrypted data. "Security through obscurity" as most call it is when someone chooses one of the simplest and easiest to crack algorithms.

Algorithms such as character shifting are easy to implement and easy to crack, that's why they are a bad idea. It's probably better than nothing, but it will, at most, only stop a casual glance at the data from being easily read.

There are excellent resources on the Internet you can use to educate yourself about all of the available encryption methods and their strengths and weaknesses.

Answer 3

I argued in one case that password protection is really security through obscurity. The only security I can think of that wouldn't be STO is some sort of biometric security.

Besides that bit of semantics and nit picking, STO (Security through obscurity) is obviously bad in any case where you need real security. However, there might be cases where it doesn't matter. I'll often XOR pad a text file i don't want anyone reading. But I don't really care if they do, i'd just prefer that it not be read. In that case, it doesn't matter, and an XOR pad is a perfect example of an easy to find out STO.

Answer 4

Security through obscurity can be said to be bad because it often implies that the obscurity is being used as the principal means of security. Obscurity is fine until it is discovered, but once someone has worked out your particular obscurity, then your system is vulnerable again. Given the persistence of attackers, this equates to no security at all.

Obscurity should never be used as an alternative to proper security techniques.

Obscurity as a means of hiding your source code to prevent copying is another subject. I'm rather split on that topic; I can understand why you might wish to do that, personally I've never been in a situation where it would be wanted.

Answer 5

Security is about letting people in or keeping them out depending on what they know, who they are, or what they have. Currently, biometrics aren't good at finding who you are, and there's always going to be problems with it (fingerprint readers for somebody who's been in a bad accident, forged fingerprints, etc.). So, actually, much of security is about obfuscating something.

Good security is about keeping the stuff you have to keep secret to a minimum. If you've got a properly encrypted AES channel, you can let the bad guys see everything about it except the password, and you're safe. This means you have a much smaller area open to attack, and can concentrate on securing the passwords. (Not that that's trivial.)

In order to do that, you have to have confidence in everything but the password. This normally means using industry-standard crypto that numerous experts have looked at. Anybody can create a cipher they can't break, but not everybody can make a cipher Bruce Schneier can't break. Since there's a thorough lack of theoretical foundations for cipher security, the security of a cipher is determined by having a lot of very smart and knowledgeable people try to come up with attacks, even if they're not practical (attacks on ciphers always get better, never worse). This means the crypto algorithm needs to be widely known. I have very strong confidence in the Advanced Encryption Standard, and almost none in a proprietary algorithm Joe wrote and obfuscated.

However, there's been problems with implementations of crypto algorithms. It's easy to inadvertantly leave holes whereby the key can be found, or other mischief done. It happened with an alternate signature field for PGP, and weaknesses with SSL implemented on Debian Linux. It's even happened to OpenBSD, which is probably the most secure operating system readily available (I think it's up to two exploits in ten years). Therefore, these should be done by a reputable company, and I'd feel better if the implementations were open source. (Closed source won't stop a determined attacker, but it'll make it harder for random good guys to find holes to be closed.)

Therefore, if I wanted security, I'd try to have my system as reliable as possible, which means as open as possible except for the password.

Layering security by obscurity on top of an already secure system might help some, but if the system's secure it won't be necessary, and if it's insecure the best thing is to make it secure. Think of obscurity like the less reputable forms of "alternative medicine" - it is very unlikely to help much, and while it's unlikely to hurt much by itself it may make the patient less likely to see a competent doctor or computer security specialist, whichever.

Lastly, I'd like to make a completely unsolicited and disinterested plug for Bruce Schneier's blog, as nothing more than an interested reader. I've learned a lot about security from it.

Answer 6

One of the best ways of evaluating, testing or improving a security product is to have it banged on by a large, clever peer group.

Products that rely for their security on being a "black box" can't have the benefit of this kind of test. Of course, being a "black box" always invites the suspicion (often justified) that they wouldn't stand up to that kind of scrutiny anyway.