CyberInsecurity: The Cost of Monopoly¶
Geer, D., Bace, R., Gutmann, P., Metzger, P., Pfleeger, C. P., Quarterman, J. S., & Schneier, B. (2003). CyberInsecurity: The Cost of Monopoly: The Cost of Monopoly — How the Dominance of Microsoft's Products Poses a Risk to Security. Computer & Communications Industry Association.
Cited by¶
3 citations across 3 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Dependency Distribution Concentration
- In information technology, single-vendor lock-in, single-CDN dependency, cloud-region concentration, and operating-system monoculture all amplify any single vulnerability or outage.
This sourceArgues operating-system monoculture concentrates dependency so that a single vulnerability is shared system-wide — the IT-concentration instance amplifying a single outage or exploit.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
The report supports OS monoculture and single-vendor lock-in amplifying a single vulnerability system-wide, but says nothing on CDNs or cloud-region concentration.
“it is essential that society become less dependent on a single operating system from a single vendor if our critical infrastructure is not to be disrupted in a single blow.”
- In information technology, single-vendor lock-in, single-CDN dependency, cloud-region concentration, and operating-system monoculture all amplify any single vulnerability or outage.
- Swiss Cheese Model (Layered Defense with Aligning Holes)
- Reliability engineering's defense-in-depth arithmetic moved into cybersecurity, where hole-correlation analysis makes single-product complete-security claims structurally suspicious.
This sourceA software monoculture creates correlated vulnerability — one exploit affects every machine at once — making single-product complete-security claims structurally suspect.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
The report applies reliability concepts (redundancy vs diversification) to a software monoculture's correlated vulnerability, but never uses defense-in-depth or hole-correlation language.
“having more computers with the same vulnerabilities cannot help if an attack can reach them all.”
- Reliability engineering's defense-in-depth arithmetic moved into cybersecurity, where hole-correlation analysis makes single-product complete-security claims structurally suspicious.
Mechanisms¶
- Counter-Monoculture Seed Grant
- The danger of software monoculture as a systemic fragility is not hypothetical — it is the argument security researchers made two decades ago about betting an entire ecosystem on one codebase.
This sourceArgues that dependence on a single dominant software platform creates aggregated systemic security risk because common vulnerabilities can cascade across the ecosystem.
- The danger of software monoculture as a systemic fragility is not hypothetical — it is the argument security researchers made two decades ago about betting an entire ecosystem on one codebase.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 3 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Was it audited? Yes. A second, independent pass read the citation against the article text and recorded a verdict.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 2 other ways.
- https://ccianet.org/wp-content/uploads/2003/09/cyberinsecurity%20the%20cost%20of%20monopoly.pdf ×1
- https://www.schneier.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CyberInsecurity.pdf ×1
Registry ID ref:817e8f1c0090 · see in the full table