Computing in Compromised Environments: Beyond the Castle Model of Cyber-Security

The predominant metaphor for secure computing today is defence in depth: higher, better layers of walls. This article explains why that approach is as outmoded for cybersecurity today as it became for physical security centuries ago. Three forces are undermining the castle model as a practical security solution. First, organizations themselves tear down their walls and make their gateways more porous because it pays off in terms of better agility and responsiveness—they can do more, faster and better. Second, technological developments increasingly destroy walls from the outside as computation becomes cheaper for attackers, and the implementation of virtual walls and gateways becomes more complex, and so contains more vulnerabilities to be exploited by the clever and unscrupulous. Third, changes in the way humans and technology interact, exemplified (but not limited to) the Millennial generation, blur and dissolve the concepts of inside and outside, so that distinctions become invisible, or even unwanted, and boundaries become annoyances to be circumvented. A new approach to cybersecurity is needed: Organizations and individuals need to get used to operating in compromised environments. The article’s conclusion operationalize this strategy in terms of a paradigm shift away from a Castle Model and towards a more nuanced form of computation and data assurance.

[1]  M. Foucault,et al.  Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. , 1978 .

[2]  Deborah A. Frincke,et al.  Guarding the Castle Keep: Teaching with the Fortress Metaphor , 2004, IEEE Secur. Priv..

[3]  Eli Pariser FILTER BUBBLE: Wie wir im Internet entmündigt werden , 2012 .

[4]  Thomas J. Johnson,et al.  Believing the blogs of war? How blog users compare on credibility and characteristics in 2003 and 2007 , 2010 .

[5]  Andrea Hershatter,et al.  Millennials and the World of Work: An Organization and Management Perspective , 2010 .

[6]  Ming-te Lu Digital Divide in Developing Countries , 2001 .

[7]  J. Zittrain The Future of the Internet , 2008 .

[8]  Martin Gill,et al.  The Handbook of Security , 2014 .

[9]  Eli Pariser,et al.  The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think , 2012 .

[10]  Saskia Sassen,et al.  Towards a Sociology of Information Technology , 2002 .

[11]  Jeffrey Roy,et al.  Cyber-Security and Risk Management in an Interoperable World , 2012 .

[12]  David Lyon,et al.  Liquid Surveillance: A Conversation , 2012 .

[13]  Zeynep Tufekci Can You See Me Now? Audience and Disclosure Regulation in Online Social Network Sites , 2008 .

[14]  Thomas H. Karas,et al.  Metaphors for cyber security. , 2008 .

[15]  Russell Brewer,et al.  Digital drift and the criminal interaction order , 2015 .

[16]  Lonnie G Hibbard Communicating with the Net Generation , 2011 .

[17]  Richard J. Harknett,et al.  The New Policy World of Cybersecurity , 2011 .

[18]  Clay Shirky Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations , 2008 .

[19]  D. Lyon,et al.  After Snowden: Rethinking the Impact of Surveillance , 2014 .

[20]  Karen K. Myers,et al.  Millennials in the Workplace: A Communication Perspective on Millennials’ Organizational Relationships and Performance , 2010, Journal of business and psychology.

[21]  P. Norris Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide , 2001 .

[22]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  The communication of meaning and the structuration of expectations: Giddens' "structuration theory" and Luhmann's "self-organization" , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[23]  M. Castells Die Internet-Galaxie , 2001 .

[24]  Manuel Castells,et al.  The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society , 2001 .

[25]  David Beer,et al.  Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious , 2009, New Media Soc..