←back to thread

I read the federal government’s Zero-Trust Memo so you don’t have to

(www.bastionzero.com)
656 points EthanHeilman | 2 comments | 27 Jan 22 15:06 UTC | HN request time: 0.5s | source
Show context
KarlKemp ◴[27 Jan 22 18:13 UTC] No.30103958[source]▶
I’m somewhat unhappy the “zero trust” terminology ha caught on. The technology is fine, but trust is an essential concept in many parts of life[0], and positioning it as something to be avoided or abolished will just further erode the relationships that define a peaceful and civil society.

0: trade only works if the sum of your trust in the legal system, intermediates, and counterparts reaches some threshold. The same is true of any interaction where the payoff is not immediate and assured, from taxes to marriage and friendship, and, no, it is not possible to eliminate it, nor would that be a society you’d want to live in. The only systems that do not rely on some trust that the other person isn’t going to kill them are maximum-security prisons and the US president’s security bubble. Both are asymmetric and still require trust in some people, just not all.

replies(7): >>30104178 #>>30104430 #>>30105899 #>>30106409 #>>30106727 #>>30106920 #>>30108257 #
kstrauser ◴[27 Jan 22 18:27 UTC] No.30104178[source]▶
The "trust" here largely refers to identity. Do you trust that everyone in your house is your relative, by virtue of the fact that they're in your house? That falls down when you have a burglar. Similarly, is it good to trust that everyone on your corporate network is an employee, and therefore should have employee-level access to all the resources on that network? I wouldn't recommend it.
replies(1): >>30105036 #
1. KarlKemp ◴[27 Jan 22 19:27 UTC] No.30105036[source]▶
No, but I trust the people I regularly interact with and therefore allow them to be in my home. Nobody trusts people just because they happen to be in their home. To the extend that trust can go to “zero”, my fear is it will harm the (existing) first form of trust, which is vital, and have little impact on the stupid latter definition of trust.

I know tech operates on different definitions/circumstances here. That’s why the word ”zero” is so wrong here, because it seems to go out of its way to make the claim that less trust ks always better.

Call it “zero misplaced trust” or “my database doesn’t want your lolly”, whatever.

replies(1): >>30110404 #
2. agar ◴[28 Jan 22 03:25 UTC] No.30110404[source]▶
I see this as the exact point of the Zero Trust terminology.

People extend your exact trust assertions to their networks, and bad actors exploit it to effect a compromise. A corporate network cannot be like your home. Zero Trust says that you should assume anything, and anyone, can be exploited - so secure appropriately.

Per your analogy, what would you do if your invited houseguests, unbeknownst even to themselves, wore a camera for reconnaissance by a 3rd party? What would you do if these cameras were so easy to hide that anyone, at any time, might be wearing one and you couldn't know?

You would have to assume that anyone that entered your home had a camera on them. You would give them no more access than the bare minimum needed to do whatever they were there to do (whether eat dinner or fix your sink). You'd identify them, track their movement, and keep records.

Your term, "Zero misplaced trust," assumes that you can identify where to place trust. Did you trust that system you had validated and scanned for 5 years...until Log4shell was discovered? Did you trust the 20-year veteran researcher before they plugged in a USB without knowing their kid borrowed it and infected it?

Zero Trust is a response to the failure of "trust but verify."