> My message was not meant to convince the world that FIX is a magnificent
> gift to mankind, only that FIX, possibly unlike SWIFT, _has_ undergone
> severe security reviews by several large investment banks. The first draft
> of the protocol waved several hands and said that the protocol will be
> secure. That did _not_ go over well.
The first draft of the protocol was the one I was referring to as
being the sub-optimal one. I haven't looked at the latest version so
I really shouldn't comment (and I should have been more specific in
my first comments). I also don't know, but am concerned about,
possible penetration/implementation of the first version. One of the
things that tends to compound protocol security nightmares is the
early adopters who then refus to upgrade. :)
> written by a consulting firm hired by members of the FIX consortium, and
> supposedly includes strong encryption. As I haven't reviewed the source
> code, I can't say if they got it right or not, but it is more than security
> by vigorous assertion.
And, in some cases, its assertion by virtue of obscurity. It's really
unfortunate that there are still a LOT of people who expect the
security expert to buy an argument like: "the protocol is too
complicated for anyone to crack or spoof correctly." Uh-huh. Yeah.
Especially if it's a standard.
> For all I know, all of the above has changed and they're now trusting
> a Psychic Hotline to notify them of security problems, but I doubt it.
Carson, Carson, Carson -- psychics for security are completely
passe!! All the real experts these days are using voodoo. Papa Legba
review dis' code!
[In case anyone's been wondering about my sudden activity level, it's
because I've finally gotten around to installing a detached mailer on
my laptop. This week and next week I will be spending a LOT of time
in airplanes! :)]