Voice of the DBA

Tag: security

  • Auto DevOps

    As much as I like DevOps, this scares me. There are a lot of employees (20%) at BMW that are software engineers. They want to increase that to a larger percentage, which I assume means that we’ll have more and more code in our automobiles, with more systems tightly integrated. We’re even gathering more and more data in modern vehicles. Maybe there are good database job opportunities for some of you with automakers.

    If there’s one thing we’ve learned in a few decades of writing software, it’s that large monolithic systems are a mess. They contain vulnerabilities, and more importantly, they are very difficult to patch and change. All of the DevOps success stories I’ve seen from large systems have either been a complete rewrite, or a long term refactoring that removes dependencies and tight couplings between modules.

    In cars, we’ve seen all sorts of hacking issues. Hackers can attack a vehicle remotely and a faulty (or hacked) update might leave you in trouble. Granted these things aren’t that likely, yet, though I think this piece understates the potential problems. I think that because once a hack is discovered, how sure are we that a) it will be reported to vendors (hackers might just exploit it), or b) that a fix will certainly be developed that works well and doesn’t cause any issues (remember 10s of millions of lines of code current year cars), and c) consumers will apply the patch. That last item worries me, especially if cars become more connected and share data about operation or as we move to autonomous (semi- or total) vehicles.

    Personally I’m not against code in vehicles. I’m not even against some connected systems. What I am against is a monolithic, tightly coupled system. I don’t want engine control or drive by wire sharing a network or code with a CD player or navigation system. I don’t want one computer controlling vehicular functions, entertainment, and climate control. I also want to be sure that there is some protection for all this data, to be sure it doesn’t overwhelm any system. I’ll also admit I like idea of upgrading or replacing parts from different vendors, some of whom might do a much better job of building systems.

    We’ve learned a lot about software and complex systems. While I don’t want all manufacturers to use one system or have tight regulations, I would like to see some mandates that separate critical systems from each other. Both in code, and physically. We don’t need to specify code standards, or encryption, or any details, but let’s ensure that a base bar of building software is being used in any of the mass produced vehicles, planes, trains,  automobiles, or anything else of substantial size that is operated by the general public.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 4.7MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and Libsyn.

  • Advancing Security

    One of the topics that is very important to many technology professionals is security. Security also might be one of the least understood aspects of our jobs. It’s an area that requires regular learning, monitoring, reactions, and vigilance. A healthy dose of paranoia makes a good security mindset, but this an easily devolve into greater stress and worry than might be appropriate, or the feeling that one should throw their hands in the air because of all the potential issues, attacks, and vulnerabilities.

    I think as individuals our part is to learn to write better code and scripts with security in mind, perhaps implementing best practices, but really the ways we will get better security is when vendors and platforms develop better ways to implement their security for us. They need people that study the issues and build fixes applicable to protect systems. This means we need good interfaces and basic contracts that ensure we can build software on top of platforms, but we will need to outsource this part of our security.

    Microsoft is one company that has been working to help us implement better security through defense in depth, through partnerships with other firms, and is making a difference. They’re not perfect, and there are still flaws in their software, but they are addressing and fixing them quicker and quicker. The world is changing, and Microsoft is a very different company than the one that build SQL Server 2008 R2, or even SQL Server 2012. They are maturing and becoming more responsive, and to me, more responsible about their place in the technology industry. They are striving to produce higher quality products, and when there are issues, they look to fix their mistakes quickly.

    Many of us that have struggled to believe in this new Microsoft and apply patches in a more timely manner. I’ll admit that I still rarely apply CUs unless I have a need for a fix, but mostly that’s because I don’t want any unexpected issues to crop up when I’m presenting and I don’t have time to test that regularly. Like you, I have multiple versions of SQL Server. I do catch up periodically, and I certainly try to apply Service Packs within a few weeks of release, if not sooner. As much as Windows updates can be annoying, this is more a matter of timing than concern over quality, and I do try to keep up with these.

    Will Microsoft and other vendors make mistakes with updates? Sure, sometimes there will be a patch that causes a problem with some, maybe many systems. However, we do need to grow and advance the security of our systems, which will always have vulnerabilities. Therefore, we need good quality updates from vendors like Microsoft, which I do think has happened. However, we also need customers to apply those patches. You can be slow and conservative, but don’t be negligent and try to avoid them completely. That makes the security situation worse for all of us.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 5.1MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and Libsyn.

  • Spread the Word about Basic Security

    I went with my daughter the other day to set up her bank account. She’s becoming a young adult and this is one of those items we need to get done, especially in today’s world of electronic banking and money transfers. It’s time she takes another step towards being responsible and accountable for her finances.

    As we went through the process, one of the steps was her setting up an account with the online presence of this bank. I told her to be sure to use a new password, one not in use anywhere. She agreed, but then said she has 3 or 4 passwords that she uses in different places. I told her that’s not enough, and explained why. This week, we have an article about a MySpace security flaw in 2017.

    Most of you don’t use MySpace, but you might have. Even if you haven’t, your kids or parents might use some popular tool, such as Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, etc. Tomorrow we might discover a similar security issue, or worse, a disclosure of your passwords. If you think it can’t happen, go try a few emails over at https://haveibeenpwned.com. You might be surprised at the results. My kids were.

    It’s not that your bank is necessarily vulnerable to hacking a password. However, if you’ve used the same (or very similar password like PasswordCNNdotcom) for your news reading at CNN, then if that company is hacked, it’s not too difficult to take all emails  and then try PasswordChasedotcom at Chase National Bank’s site.

    Reusing passwords is a bad idea. I do it for demo accounts across virtual machines, and even that bothers me. Everywhere else, I use a password manager and I have hundreds of passwords, separate ones for each site. My wife is annoyed if she needs a password for any of our accounts and I give her something like “4Gbv8A^f8” on my phone, but I’m not going to make simpler ones or reuse them.

    Separate accounts and separate passwords are a mantra I’ve used for years at work and at home. Please spread the word and get those in your life to use separate, strong passwords for their online activities.

    Steve Jones

     

  • Replication Silliness

    I wrote an editorial asking about things that needed to be done to improve replication. There are plenty of things that need help, but as I was testing some replication, I got this the other day.

    2017-06-20 10_35_01-Socrates - VMware Workstation

    I am trying to setup a secure home network (other than the same password for a few services to make life easier). I have firewalls running and open specific ports for SQL Server. In this case, I have multiple instances on this machine, so I opened a port for a named instance. I didn’t want the SQL Browser running, and connected with the port.

    These are all valid connections for the server:

    • Atlas,51433
    • Atlas\SQL2016,51433
    • Atlas.home.xxx.net,51433
    • Atlas\SQL2016
    • 192.168.1.201, 51433
    • 192.168.1.201\SQL2016, 51433

    Guess which ones work? Only the name/instance.

    Perhaps I’m doing something wrong, or there’s a setting, but this is a bit silly that valid connection strings with ports don’t seem to work with replication.

    Especially after seeing this:

    2017-06-20 11_20_43-What's New (Replication) _ Microsoft Docs