Reader Quiz: Network Security

[dreamshark]

Q: Do you usually secure the latch on the door of a stall in a public restroom?
Q: Do you think this would stop anyone who really wanted to get in?

From The Switch Book by Rich Seifert. A really exellent book on LAN switching technology with surprisingly entertaining sidebars.

Comments

[barondave.livejournal.com]

Yes and yes. Almost anyone who tries a closed restroom stall door probably really has to go. Further, the latch also serves, all too often, to keep the door simply closed; security theater, perhaps. It won't, to be sure, prevent a malicious attack, but if that's what I was worried about I wouldn't be using a public restroom in the first place.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

That is my answer, too. I "lock" it so that others will know the stall is occupied and so that the door won't swing open, embarrassing everyone.

(In Korea, stall doors not have locks, just latches. It is customary to keep the door closed whether the stall is in use or not; if one wants to use a stall, one knocks; the occupant's response is to cough or clear one's throat.)

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Some stalls in Korea, not all; for example, in modern department stores and such there are generally locks.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

That is precisely the point. Many, if not most, forms of security serve to keep out casual or accidental intruders but would barely slow down a determined malicious intruder. He's warning against expecting too much from simple security methods (in switched networks, in this case. But it's a good general point).

I suppose this particular example resonates with me because of one of Richard's war stories. Ask him sometime how he got wounded in Vietnam.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

"Locks are for honest people" has always been true. The question, in this case, is one of tradeoffs. I'm significantly less worried about determined malicious intruders in a public restroom than I would be over a LAN. The former would be personal (or at least random) and likely to be caught whereas the latter would be anonymous and with something to gain.

I take his point, but I don't think it's a good example. Bruce does better with this sort of analogy.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

The question, in this case, is one of tradeoffs.

No, actually, its not. I mean, yes, there are always tradeoffs to consider in security, but that wasn't the point he was making. In the case of the restroom door there is no significant tradeoff - it's just as easy to lock the door as not to lock it. This particular metaphor was about a false sense of security. Maybe you had to see the article that the sidebar was associated with to get that.

I'm significantly less worried about determined malicious intruders in a public restroom than I would be over a LAN.

Like I said, ask Richard sometime about his war story....

[vgqn.livejournal.com]

No, I agree with Dave that this is a bad analogy. The main reason for 'locking' (latching, really) a restroom stall is to keep the door closed for privacy, not to keep an intruder out.

it's just as easy to lock the door as not to lock it.

Well, most restroom stalls I've been in won't stay closed if you don't lock/latch it, so not locking it would mean trying to keep it closed with one hand while conducting one's business. MUCH more effort!

[guppiecat]

Yes and No. The point of the latch is privacy, not security. It is a social indicator that the stall is occupied and the occupant prefers not to be disturbed.

I have heard that, in certain communities, NOT latching the stall door (when combined with other signals) indicates a preference for companionship.

So, I view it as a communication issue.

[quadong.livejournal.com]

And then there are the bathroom stall locks that are so flimsy that they often don't even manage to keep the door closed. I'm talking about the brain-dead design where you twist a knob to push a little button in the door into a little depression on the stall. Not only is this design clearly more complicated than a sliding latch, but it doesn't work at all if the stall gets more than a quarter inch out of alignment.

And, on the other end of things, I think that the locks on some of the stalls in my building *would* substantially slow down someone who really wanted to get in. I mean, it probably wouldn't stop them entirely, but I imagine it would take throwing your body against the door more than a couple times unless you're a professional door-buster. Or, y'know, climbing over the top of the stall. In any case, they're built to last, which I appreciate, not because I'm worried about people getting in, but because they always work.

All of which is totally beside your point, but that's what you get. :-)

[skylarker.livejournal.com]

Yes, and yes. Especially since I'm there to reinforce the barrier.
That is, if someone tried to force it, I'd push back, and if someone tried to crawl under, I'd stomp their hands or kick them in the face if necessary.

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

Yes to the first, an no to the latter. (Of course you could use the ladder to look over into the stall...)

I'm with the "privacy" people--I've actually had the door the one of the changing rooms at the downtown Minneapolis Target swiing open after I was sure I'd locked it.

What gets me are how many bathroom stalls (at least in the men's rooms) don't have coat hooks. I mean, I got this big, honking duster, and I don't want to put it on the floor. I have enough trouble with things falling out of my coat pockets as it is. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's how I lost two flash drives when I was in Winnipeg...