19.12.2012 Views

IT Baseline Protection Manual - The Information Warfare Site

IT Baseline Protection Manual - The Information Warfare Site

IT Baseline Protection Manual - The Information Warfare Site

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Safeguard Catalogue - Organisation Remarks<br />

____________________________________________________________________ .........................................<br />

- Organisational/personnel costs (administration, key management, training,<br />

etc.)<br />

Expenditure on organisational matters and personnel is dependent on the<br />

way the security policy is implemented and on the level of „convenience“<br />

of the encryption components. General decision criteria for or against one<br />

of the three solutions cannot be formulated with universal validity.<br />

- Economic efficiency (procurement, training/administration costs, ...)<br />

It is difficult to make any general statement about economic efficiency. If<br />

only the procurement costs are taken into consideration, software solutions<br />

will often be better value than hardware solutions. However, if the losses<br />

that can arise as a result of inadequate protection in the longer term are<br />

taken into account, investment in more secure and perhaps more expensive<br />

solutions may be worthwhile in comparison. Economic disadvantages may<br />

accrue in certain circumstances because of performance losses in the PC<br />

system.<br />

- Residual risks (operating system, compromising of the hard disk key, etc.)<br />

Consideration of residual risk plays a significant part in the selection of a<br />

suitable encryption component. <strong>The</strong> questions that arise include:<br />

- What residual risks can be considered acceptable?<br />

- What residual risks are or can be minimised by other measures (such<br />

as physical or organisational measures)?<br />

It is perfectly possible to obtain several different acceptable solution<br />

options by combining various measures.<br />

Example 2: E-mail encryption<br />

<strong>The</strong> exchange of electronic mail (e-mail) via or within computer networks is<br />

becoming ever more important. If this involves exchanging sensitive<br />

information (for example company secrets) over unprotected networks,<br />

mechanisms to safeguard the confidentiality and/or guarantee the authenticity<br />

of messages are required. This is the purpose of e-mail encryption programs.<br />

<strong>The</strong> most widespread of these are two program packages or standards of<br />

American origin:<br />

- PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) and<br />

- S/MIME (Secure Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)<br />

PGP is a software package that was originally available over the Internet as<br />

freeware and has therefore entered widespread use. <strong>The</strong> S/MIME standard is<br />

used in (among others) the secure e-mail applications from Microsoft,<br />

Netscape and RSA Data Security Inc.<br />

What does an e-mail encryption program of this type have to do?<br />

<strong>The</strong> answer is of course dependent to a certain extent on the security measures<br />

surrounding it. <strong>The</strong> requirements are no doubt at their highest when the<br />

messages are to be sent via a large, open, insecure network such as the<br />

Internet. In this case it may even be that people not known to each other<br />

personally want to communicate with each other confidentially and with<br />

authentication. What cryptographic services are required in order to be able to<br />

do this?<br />

____________________________________________________________________ .........................................<br />

<strong>IT</strong>-<strong>Baseline</strong> <strong>Protection</strong> <strong>Manual</strong>: Oktober 2000

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!