Argumentation: Attack and Defense Part II

Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning

Commentary: This is a series on effective reasoning as it applies to project management. Using proper argumentation in a project while vetting risk, options, objectives, strategies, and workaround solutions can strengthen a project's performance, improve communications, and develop a sense of unity. Effective argumentations comes down to building the strongest case for a claim. In this series I will be summarizing points made by David Zarefsky in his Teaching Company coursework as well as drawing on other resources.   This series of posts may be reviewed at the Argumentation Series Posts link.  

In the last post we discussed the process of refuting and rebuilding cases. In this post, we will focus on the arrangement and presentation of attacks with a shift to defending and rebuilding. 

Argumentation: Attack and Defense Part II

Attacking arguments requires making arrangement choices such as should the attack be structured in the same way as the argument being attacked as well as how completely should the attack be developed. There are advantages and disadvantages or risks to be had. If structuring the attack similar to the argument being attacked then following the rejoinder is easy. An unfortunate risk is that the arguer is now on the opponent's ground. This requires considerable knowledge of the oppositions position in order to manuever the argument. An effective means to manuever is to build an organizational scheme around the central points. Comment: The opponent may have structured pre-judicial agruments or may have scripts to route the arguer into no win situations. Without strong knowledege and foresight of the opponent, positions, and subject the arguers may find themself in a no win scenario. For example, President  Reagan was being cornered in a discussion over the economy. Sam Donaldson demanded that President Reagan own up to his failures in a carefully crafted line of questioning. Left with little room to manuever in the conversation Reagan responded, "You're right. I am responsible. At one time, I was a Democrat." This response was unexpected and put the conversation on a different course by manuevering around a theme that Democrats are irresponsible in economic management matters. Reagan gained the upper hand instantly and maintained that position for the duration of the conversation.  In regards to the degree of developing a complete attack, the argument and basis of the attack must be clearly stated in way that the audience will accept. Then the attack should be developed and supported. In the end, the significance of the attack's accomplishments should be made clear.

The strategy choices regarding the defense of an argument that has been attacked are limited to about five options.

• Demonstrate that the attack is inapplicable to the case
• Demonstrate that the attack is of trivial consequences
• Demonstrate that the attack is inadequately established
• Demonstrate that the attack is in error
• Take the possible attacks into account and seek to marginalized them. This is the most basic choice made In the original presentation.

More importantly, The selection of a choice is not focused so much on whether or not to respond. Instead, the choice is how seriously to take the attack and which strategic choice to use. The choice centers on which will dominate the organizational plan; the original argument structure or the structure of the attack. The responder must take care not to restate the argument but to extend it or at least respond to the attack. Care should also be taken to prevent a run away attack so that the attack does not become the dominant focus.

General methods of refutation can be used in both attack and defense. There are six general approaches for refutation.

1. Reductio ad Adsurdum suggests that the opposing position leads to unacceptable implications.
2. Turning the tables demonstrates how an opposing position benefits the other
3. Dilemmas indicate that the choices to be made are from unattractive alternatives.
4. Argument residues dictate the opposing position by eliminating all other possibilities.
5. Argument a fortiori suggests that what is true of the lesser is true of the greater or vica versa.
6. Contradictions and inconsistencies eliminate at least one of the other Arguers positions, as well as questioning the oppositions credibility.

The processes of the attack and defense help move the argument forward. By making strategic choices some potential issues will be waived from consideration. Some aspects of argument and controversy will be dropped through the process of attack and defense. Ultimately, the central issues of the dispute will be identified, positions clarified, and the differences will be recognized.

Commentary: In project management it is important that project managers properly strucutre thier justifications using argumentation processes and anticipate political and personal agendas that may lead to attacks on the reasoning. Stakeholder registers are one tool in aiding PM's with assessing risk and positional attacks on project decisions. In the summary post, I'll reflect on the series with tools and methods to deflect, deter, deny, and diminish attacks.  I will also be consolidating the remaining briefs on argumentation in order to move onto other topics sooner.  I encourage readers to review Date Carnegie's notion of arguments: You Cannot Win an Argument: The Dale Carnegie Method

References:

Zarefsky, D. (2005) Argumentation: the study of effective reasoning. 2nd Ed. the Teaching Company. Chantilly, VA

Argumentation: Attack and Defense Part I

Commentary: This is a series on effective reasoning as it applies to project management. Using proper argumentation in a project while vetting risk, options, objectives, strategies, and workaround solutions can strengthen a project's performance, improve communications, and develop a sense of unity. Effective argumentations comes down to building the strongest case for a claim. In this series I will be summarizing points made by David Zarefsky in his Teaching Company coursework as well as drawing on other resources. This series of posts may be reviewed at the Argumentation Series Posts link.

This post begins a series of post that are more focused on the process of arguing with Tactics and techniques rather than the somewhat boorish structure and background. In this post I'll use evolution and creation debates since they are rather passionate debates as an example of the points being made here.

Argumentation: Attack and Defense Part I

Attack and defense of an argument is the process of refuting and rebuilding cases. Despite the use of the military metaphor, attacks serve the cooperative purpose of reaching the best possible resolution of a controversy. Attack and defense are constructive not destructive if well constructed. Just as choice in planning a case are determined, so are decisions selected in planning an attack. This includes which arguments to attack and the type of the attack to develop. Thus, attack and defense in argumentation shares with a military campaign the concern for strategic decision making. The strategic choices are instinctive to skilled arguers and with stronger clarity understood by all if examined systematically. Nonetheless, do not be misled by the militaristic connotation in thinking attack and defense has the militaristic goal to dominate. Instead, attack and defense arrives at a shared sound judgment, a common purpose and outcome of determining a cooperative outcome.

The argument becomes dynamic after the advocate declares the case. If the case is plausible, prima fascia (at first glance), then the other arguers are obligated to meet the burden of rejoinder, which is the interrelated process of attack and defense known as refutation.

Attacking arguments involves several selection criteria and choices. Attacking all the arguments may create internal inconsistencies placing your defensive argument in tenuous situations. Arguments not attacked are granted by default even if ignored. Deciding which arguments to attack narrows the potential issues to actual issues. The strength of the attack and relevance of the argument to the resolution should govern the decision.

The part of the arguments to attack is governed by the Mini-Max principle that states the amount of effort is governed by the greatest results with the least effort. The arguer must begin the attack by selecting the part of the argument to attack in re4lation to the Mini-Max principle. There are four general attack points:

• Attack the claim. This denies it outright or by countering it.  Comment: In the evolution-creation debate, evolution proponents attack the creation account that God did it as unsubstantiated and counters creation with natural causation. Meanwhile, creation proponents deny natural causation with the counter argument that God caused the natural through supernatural means. The two arguments are polarized on the natural versus supernatural stasis. 
• Attack the evidence upon which the claim is based.  Comment: In the evolution-creation debate, evolution proponents have presented a litany of evidence in support of their claims such as fossil evidence. Many creation proponents argue that the fossil layer is highly concentrated in one geological seam with very little evidence prior to or after that seam where fossil fuels originate indicating there is no discernable evolutionary progression. Many creation proponents use this as evidence of miraculous appearance of biological life in a counter attack.
• Attack the inference linking the evidence to the claim. Comment: Evolution proponents infer that humans evolved from chimpanezes, the closest biological cousin to humans, and regress the progression back to a protoplasmal primordial globule floating in a primeval soup that was shocked into life by an electrical jolt - most likely. This is known as Abiogenesis and the inference links sporadic evidence that infers across 'the missing link' to claim the descent of man. Creation proponents attack the inference pointing out the lack of consistent evidence. They also attack the tendency of evolution proponents to engineer and inject intelligence into experiments that speculate or infer how it could have happened. Creation proponents call these experiments baseless given the lack of evidence suggesting the engineered experiment has no viable possibility. 
• Attack the contextual assumptions that undergird the whole argument. Commentary:  Creation proponents attack the foundations of evolution often.  The context under which evolution occurs involves random actions and genetic drift that lead to compounding mutations and adaptations resulting in speciation; near infinite time tables for evolution to evolve; and self-sustaining , self-perpetuating, and self-originating natural systems as their is no supernatural involvement. Creation proponents point to the fact that randomness is denied by the well accepted Chaos Theory which states there is an underlying order to all things natural. Order is the opposite of randomness. Creation proponents also point to the discoveries in atom smashing during the 1970's that concluded the universe is bounded. The event horizon also is a boundary limit to the universe. Thus, nothing natural is infinite as there is a beginning and an end. The Law of Diminshing Returns and Goedel's Thoerum state that nothing natural can be self-sustaining , self-perpetuating, and self-originating. Hence, creation proponents cite scientific laws, theorums, and principles that deny Evolutions most fundamental underpinnings or the context of randomness, infinity, and self-perpetuating in which it occurs. 

The next consideration is the type of attack to develop. The type of attack comes in many forms. A strong arguer may shift types during the course of the argument.

1. Question. In general, questioning is a operation that demands an answer. Comment: Questioning is more than simply asking and awaiting a satisfactory answer. Skilled arguers may use a Socrates approach of asking small incremental questions that lead to a greater conclusion when the greater conclusion would be rejected if presented earlier in the discussion. Questioning can also be used to deflect an attack by putting the burden of rejoinder on the assailing voice. Questions can also be deferred to a late time in the argument. This technique makes use of a parking lot in which the question is placed until a better time to respond has arrived. Another use of questioning is establishing a prejudicial argument. This is an argument strucutured in such a manner that no matter how it is answered the judgment is in favor of the questioner. 
2. Identify internal deficiencies. This situation occurs when the arguer fails to meet the burden of proof. Comment: Internal deficiencies often occur when an arguer has not matured in the skill or has a strong cognitive bias in a personal belief. For example, evolution proponents’ often site evidence claiming undirected natural causation such as randomness is a natural phenomenon that has its seed set at the Big Bang. This claim fails because seeding randomness implies a mathematical expression or order through which the seed operates and intelligent causation. Such an expression describes order, not randomness, and is consistent with Chaos Theory’s axiom of an underlying order to all natural things. Order and the act of seeding a randomness formulation imply intelligent causation, not undirected natural causation.
3. Identify inconsistencies. The discovery of any inconsistencies will cast doubt on the sincerity of the arguer, as well as require a response.  Commentary: Evolution proponents from time-to-time present evidence and experiments that are found to be hoaxes. One famous hoax was the Piltdown Man in 1912 which turned out to be a human skull with a orangatang jawbone. The fossils were made to appear to be ancient and from the dig site but had material inconsistencies as well as physical inconsistencies. By 1954, scientists had discovered the inconsistencies and exposed the Piltdown Man as a hoax.   
4. Label or Tag. This is a tactic that identifies an argument with undesirable qualities or characteristics in an attempt to thwart the goal of critical reasoning and resolving the argument. Commentary: Creation proponents have begun to label Evolution as a religion linking it to European Panthiesm which worships the mother Earth. They also point to the evolutionist's evandelical-like passion for the theory and righteous indigination as well as Darwin's unscientific and personal motivation of countering the Creation account. The tagline of evangelical evolutionist has been used to describe the viral efforts of promoting evolution in the schools. 
5. Counter argue. This is outright denial of the claim that refines the stasis forcing the audience to choose sides. Commentary: As mentioned earlier, the evolution-creation arguments are polarized on the natural versus supernatural stasis. Neither side is willing to compromise and continues an attempt to redefine the argument. 
6. Recontextualize. This places the argument in a broad context that demonstrates its weakness. Commentary:  Often evolutionist focus narrowly on a specific natural phenomenon developing what appears to be plausible arguments. For example, the process of vertical speciation is complete when the originating species can no longer copulate with the emergent species. Evolutionist  argue the various types of dogs emerged through breeding demonstrating the process of genetic drift and adaptation. However, Creationist claim after many centuries of this observed process new verticle species have not evolved. Instead there are a lot of different dogs. Hence, their claim is no vertical speciation observed as argued in the descent of man.   

Learning the tools and methods systematically aids in increasing awareness of the range of choices available to the arguer during discourse. Thus, we become stronger ‘coaches’ in steering strategic judgments. Most of the time, though, during discourse and in the heat of the moment we make these decisions instinctively.

Commentary: I deliberately leaned away from evolution in this posting in order to demonstrate argumentation nature. Regardless of whether you feel the subject matter was accurate or not, you may have felt a sense of antagonism or possbility confirmation depending on your position on the evolution-creation debate. You may have had questions or thoughts about what was said.  The evolution-creation debate itself is not an argument that will be settled any time soon as the opposing sides are strongly postured and cognitive biases may be more at the heart of the controversy than the desire to resolve it. 

The next posting will continue to discuss Attack and defense. Please feel free to post questions or comments. I can be reached at james.bogden@gmail.com. I have had many comments and I have incorporated them in the postings. 

References:

Zarefsky, D. (2005) Argumentation: the study of effective reasoning. 2nd Ed. the Teaching Company. Chantilly, VA

Argumentation: STASIS - The Heart of the Controversy

Commentary: This is a series on effective reasoning as it applies to project management. Using proper argumentation in a project while vetting risk, options, objectives, strategies, and workaround solutions can strengthen a project's performance, improve communications, and develop a sense of unity. Effective argumentations comes down to building the strongest case for a claim. In this series I will be summarizing points made by David Zarefsky in his Teaching Company coursework as well as drawing on other resources.   This series of posts may be reviewed at the Argumentation Series Posts link.

The past post discussed argument structures, jargon, and analysis. This discussion on stasis will now bring us to a point where attack and defense can be discussed in the upcoming postings.

Argumentation: STASIS - The Heart of the Controversy

The concept of stasis originated from legal disputes and is useful to the arguer and for analysis of an argument. The term stasis refers to the focal point of a dispute and means a point of rest between opposing forces. It is the point at which contending positions meet and is determined by the choices that proponents make about what to contest and what to stipulate. Movement towards a goal cannot resume until the opposition has transcended. Therefore, the first decision to be made is what the point of stasis will be. There are four classic stasis identified; conjecture, definition, quality, and place.

• Stasis in conjecture is concerned with whether or not an act occurred
• Stasis in definition is concerned with what the act should be called
• Stasis in quality is concerned with whether or not the act is justified
• Stasis in place is concerned with the proper form for the discussion

Stasis has several features that should be understood. First, stasis is determined not by the original assertion alone but also with the combination of any of the many ways one may respond to the claim. Therefore, preliminary to attacking a case one must find where the stasis can most usefully be drawn. Second, stasis is generally progressive. Quality implicitly concedes to conjecture and definition. Definition implicitly concedes to conjecture. Thus, advocates should begin the argument as close to the beginning of a chain as can be sustained. Presenting multiple stasis is better than jumping around during the course of an argument. Finally, stasis in place is pre-exempted as an exception.

The concept of stasis is adaptive to non-legal arguments. There are models for non-legal arguments in which one popular model applies conjecture, definition, and quality to the topoi for a resolution of policy. This results in a matrix of possible stasis. Status in place is not often applicable.

Ultimately, failing to agree on a stasis may have serious outcomes for the argument. The argument can be hijacked and/or change the understanding. The argument could be lost. Also e argument could be locked in a stalemate.

The concept of stasis has multiple uses. For the analyst, stasis enables one to locate the cent of the dispute. For the arguer, stasis permits strategic choices for alternative responses for a given situation. This is preliminary to attack and defense. Stasis also focuses arguers and avoids the tendency to talk past each other.

Commentary: The jargon of argumentation may be difficult to follow for some people. The bottom line is the arguer needs to stay focused consistently on the same points of contention structuring the argument in support of that focus. Going off focus can result in an undesirable outcome or result for the original argument. For the project manager, loosing focus can result in scope creep or that important project decisions may not be made or accepted.

The next couple of postings will focus on the more interesting topic of attack and defense of an argument.

References:

Zarefsky, D. (2005) Argumentation: the study of effective reasoning. 2nd Ed. the Teaching Company. Chantilly, VA.

Case Construction Requirements and Options

Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning

Commentary: This is a series on effective reasoning as it applies to project management. Using proper argumentation in a project while vetting risk, options, objectives, strategies, and workaround solutions can strengthen a project's performance, improve communications, and develop a sense of unity. Effective argumentations comes down to building the strongest case for a claim. In this series I will be summarizing points made by David Zarefsky in his Teaching Company coursework as well as drawing on other resources.   This series of posts may be reviewed at the Argumentation Series Posts link.

The last several posts developed the structure of an argument and the language behind argumentation. These posts were supplemented with a variety of supporting briefs that could be used by project managers. This post will focus on the construction and argumentation patterns. Understanding argumentation construction will allow project managers to develop well designed arguments.

Argumentation Case Construction Requirements and Options

A case for an argument is the structure of subsidiary claims and evidence selected for supporting or opposing a resolution for a specific audience. Constructing a case involves choices from a broader range of arguments that are potentially available. The choices include selecting an argument and supporting evidence then their arrangement which tends to be audience specific. Usually there is a target audience and a broader audience in mind. The choices made combine some creativity with a degree of constraint which is the need to address all the issues in the resolution.

When assembling an argument, arguers must address all the issues raised by a claim. An aid to identifying the issues is the concept of "Topoi" meaning stock issues or literally places. Topoi are patterns of issues that reoccur for given claim types and situations that offer a shortcut to locating issues in a given case.  By classifying a resolution, we can determine the Topoi and the general questions associated, Table 1.

TOPOI QUESTIONS BY RESOLUTION
Resolution Types	Topoi
Fact	What is the criterion for assessing truth? Has the criterion been satified?
Definition	In the interpretation relevant? Is it fair? How should we choose among competing interpretations?
Value	Is the value truly good or bad as alleged? Which among competing values should be preferred? Has the value been properly applied to the specific sutuation?
Policy	Is the a problem? Where is credit or blame due? Will the proposal solve the problem? On balance, will the proposal be better?

Table 1: Topoi by Resolution

The arguer, advocate, or supporter must provide the initial burden of proof that is compelling in the absence of any response. This is accomplished by answering the Topoi for the given resolution type.  After this burden of proof is met then a burden of rejoinder begins. This is the responsibility to maintain the conversation and analogous to the production burden in law. The rejoinder is typically a back and forth dialogue between the arguers in which the trigger to switch is when the resolution is met. The rejoinder prevents the argument from terminating and previous positions from reoccurring without extending them to answer subsequent challenges.

The key considerations during case construction are how many arguments to include and whether those arguments are strong enough to support the case. The number and range of arguments, known as amplitude, is affected by more factors than time to prepare. Increasing amplitude can offset inconclusiveness of individual arguments and hedge against diverse audiences. The risks of increasing amplitude may affect credibility and demonstrate a defensive posture damaging the arguer's acceptance by the audience. Nonetheless, with diligence these risks can be marginalized. Strength is a function of the audience's adherence to the evidence and the relevance to the claims. Strength factors are influenced by probability, timing, and acceptance by social morays.

Organizing individual arguments is also important and requires choices to be made regarding logical indifferences and rhetorical significance. The first choice is the arguments structure as parallel, convergent, or series. The next choice is to determine where to place the strength in the argument; first or last. Then the arguer should begin to anticipate questions answering the Topoi questions first then other objections that are known to the particular claims made.  Finally, the arguer should formulate a strategy of how to move between the unfamiliar and familiar.   Overall, the independent arguments have common organizational patterns.

• Chronological
• Spatial Order
• Categorical
• Cause - Effect
• Problem - Solution
• Comparisons or Contrasted
• Method Residuals

In conclusion, arguers must critically think though their arguments then structure the argument giving it the proper strength and amplitude. In doing so, the many basic questions can be answered quickly and the crux of the argument can be discussed more readily. 

Commentary:  In making choices, a degree of restraint is just as important as constraints and creativity. The potential for abuse in argumentation can be problematic as there is a tendency to structure arguments deceptively on topics less than truthful or that do not uphold ethical integrity. In some cases, the arguer unknowingly may be deceived due to innate biases and a high degree of confidence in a personal belief.  Epistemology is the study of the limits and limitations of knowledge and truth. Epistemic truths are logically ordered and are generally based on a 'good' set of assumptions.  The audience must agree with those assumptions in order for the claim to be accepted. Therefore, the arguer must adhere to a set of social morays, beliefs, and limited inferential leaps in order to successfully argue.

Next weeks post will look at the focal point of the dispute.

References:

Zarefsky, D. (2005) Argumentation: the study of effective reasoning. 2nd Ed. the Teaching Company. Chantilly, VA.

Argumentation Series Posts

Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning 

This is a series on effective reasoning as it applies to project management. Using proper argumentation in a project while vetting risk, options, objectives, strategies, and workaround solutions can strengthen a project's performance, improve communications, and develop a sense of unity.  Effective argumentations comes down to building the strongest case for a claim. In this series I will be summarizing points made by David Zarefsky in his Teaching Company coursework as well as drawing on other resources.

As I develop the series, I will post the new post in this summary post. 

1. Introduction to Argumentation
2. Underlying Assumptions of Argumentation
3. Formal and Informal Argumentation
4. Argument Analysis and Diagramming
5. Complex Structures of an Argument
6. Case Construction Requirements and Options
7. Stasis - The Heart of the Controversy
8. Attack and Defense Part I
9. Attack and Defense Part II
10. Argumentation: Language, Style and Evidence
11. Parts to Whole, Comparisons, and Correlations
12. Moving from Cause to Effect, Form, Hybrid Patterns
13. Validity and Fallacies Part I and II
14. Arguments between Friends and Experts - Summary

Supporting Briefs

1. Cognitive Biases
2. Non-Dimensionalized Methodology
3. All the Carnegie Principles In One Post
4. Operational Risk Management Brief
5. You Cannot Win an Argument: The Dale Carnegie Method

References:

Zarefsky, D. (2005) Argumentation: the study of effective reasoning. 2nd Ed. the Teaching Company. Chantilly, VA.

Complex Structures of an Argument

Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning

Commentary: This is a series on effective reasoning as it applies to project management. Using proper argumentation in a project while vetting risk, options, objectives, strategies, and workaround solutions can strengthen a project's performance, improve communications, and develop a sense of unity. Effective argumentations comes down to building the strongest case for a claim. In this series I will be summarizing points made by David Zarefsky in his Teaching Company coursework as well as drawing on other resources.   This series of posts may be reviewed at the Argumentation Series Posts link.

The model explored in the last post was a simple argument with a simple claim. Simple arguments develop sequentially through conversation. Most arguments, in contrast, are complex and are developed based on the premises that the audience accepts or rejects. In this posts we will explore more complex structures and how to formulate stronger arguments. I have also provided a review on Cognitive Biases as well.

Complex Structures of an Argument

Complex arguments begin with a resolution which is a single declarative statement or sentence that captures the substance of the controversy being explored. The resolution may be implicit or explicit and is the ultimate claim upon which judgement is made. There are different types of resolutions such as fact, definition, value, and policy of which all require proofs by the audience.

Part of a complex argument are issues, used loosely in everyday language, which are implicit with resolutions as well as questions inherent to the controversy. Thus, they are vital to the success of the resolution. One may observe issues by examining the text of the resolution, underlying context, or from the pattern of claims and responses, Figure 1. The actual issues are the potential issues less the uncontested issues within an complex argument.

Figure 1: General Complex Argument Structure

Source: The Teaching Company, Argumentation Course

Figure 2 illustrates the three major patterns for constructing an argument which are series, parallel, or convergent,. A series argument builds on earlier arguments and all the arguments must yield to free ascent in order for the resolution to be accepted.  In the parallel argument all the arguments are independent. However, any one of them is sufficient for acceptance of the resolution.In a convergent argument, each argument is independent but converges on the resolutions and, again, all must yield to free ascent in order for the resolution to be accepted.

Figure 2: Complex Argument Structures

Source: The Teaching Company, Argumentation Course

The use of argument models has been criticized as useful for analyzing and identifying argument structure but not useful for constructing them. The criticism is that models "Abstract Out" subtle features of language, emphasis, and presentation integral to the argument. Additionally, some argue that models incorrectly demonstrate a linearity in the thread line of an argument suggesting an evidence-to-claim relationship ignoring the inferential leap found in informal argumentation. The benefits of using models to structure an argument includes:

1. Identifying the components of an argument
2. Alerting to the internal dynamics of the argument
3. Allowing to make a transition to a common form for comparisons.

Commentary: The use of a model to structure an argument before offering the argument to the audience is left up the arguer. Mapping the arguments components may yield insight that strengthens the resolution that should realize a  free ascent more easily. For example, a project manager may be confronted with principles and stakeholders who are polarized having strong opinions. The project manager must broker a resolution that makes sense to all of them. Most likely there will need to be some compromise and some gains for each. Carefully, structuring the model the project manager may seek either unilateral or popular support for his resolution. Unilateral support will be difficult to achieve as everyone must agree with the claims and resolution. Whereas with popular support the project manager only needs a majority in agreement.

Once the project manager decides on the level of support required, he will select a model. In the case of popular support the parallel model works because not all the arguments need to come to free ascent in order to be accepted. So the project manager may focus energy and strengthen arguments for primary stakeholders or issues that once won over will result in acceptance of the resolution. The issuers of lesser importance may be resolved too but if they are not the resolution still moves forward. There is potential risk found in this approach and those risk may be dealt with in a timely manner through an operational risk management approach rather than the more formal, deliberate, and lengthy method PMI suggests.

Next week's post will be case construction. If you have any comments or ideas please feel free to forward them to me at james.bogden@gmail.com.

References:

Zarefsky, D. (2005) Argumentation: the study of effective reasoning. 2nd Ed. the Teaching Company. Chantilly, VA.

Cognitive Bias Brief

Commentary: This is a discussion on cognitive bias which is important to understanding decision making. Understanding bias's and how they influences decisions and thought will aide in managing audiences and individuals alike. There are many bias's and types. Unfortunately, not all the bias will be included. I will highlight a few to demonstrate project decision making and argument formulation.  

Cognitive Bias Brief

Cognitive bias results in poor decision making as it is a tendency to acquire and process information by filtering it through one's own likes, dislikes, and experiences. In general, the term is used to describe effects within the human mind, some of which can lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation. The bias's fall into generalized categories of decision-making and behavioral biases, biases in probability and belief, social biases, and biased memory errors. In all, there are over seventy-eight different bias's identified.

The purpose of this posting is to offer some background regarding cognitive bias's. All too often analysis paralysis can set in as the project manager attempts to sort through the real issues when the focus should be  effectiveness at moving projects forward.  I'll discuss a few of the prevalent bias's and put the focus on techniques used to move things forward.

Cognitive Bias Types

As commented earlier there are over seventy-eight different bias's identified that fall into four generalized categories of decision-making and behavioral biases, biases in probability and belief, social biases, and memory errors.  For a comprehensive list of biases please refer to Wikipedia: List of Cognitive Biases. I'll look at three biases and discuss approaches to handling these.

Confirmation Bias

The first bias I would like to highlight is the confirmation bias which is defined as the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. This is particularly of interest when stakeholders and principles come to the project with an agenda. The options they desire and choices they push for are justified based on the agenda and selective information. This can be of a particular challenge during a project. Especially, if they are ardently pressing for the agenda which conflicts with or constrains the project by driving changes to the scope or delaying schedules due to the change orders that may be whimsically directed through political connections without properly vetting the options.

Hyperbolic Discounting Bias

Another bias deserving attention is hyperbolic discounting. This is the tendency of people to have a stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs. The tendency increases the closer to the present the pay off occurs. Humans are said to discount the value of the later reward, by a factor that increases with the length of the reward delay. This process has been modeled in form of exponential discounting and has been improved over the years to a hyperbolic discounting model.  In project management, there are organizations that have a technology project in which the catch phrase "Go Live" or "We got to show results" becomes pervasive. This is reflective of a short technological attention span within an organization and generally originates out of a desire for a return on the investment driven by accountants.

Planning Fallacy Bias

Planning fallacy bias is the tendency to be optimistic on task-completion times or set unrealistic premature times for one's own tasks completion while independent third party estimates for the same task are typically pessimistic or overstated. This is a common problem in information technology projects. Optimistic and unrealistic dates are set resulting in schedules that are constantly being pushed out and delivery dates that are rarely achieved. 

There are so many biases that apply but limited time and space to post. Given these three biases, let's look a little further into them and how project managers can minimize the effect of these biases and others.

A Deeper Look at What is Going On

Given all the different biases and combinations in which they may occur project managers may seem overwhelmed trying to learn the biases and responses to them. Fortunately, there are methods available that preclude learning individual responses to each bias. Although, it could be of benefit to learn how to handle a few of the more prevalent one's with more direct methods. In this post I'll simply defer to generalized methods of handling biases when the symptoms show up.

In projects many symptomatic traits surface that indicate the presence of a bias. People have been shown to have very brief technological attention spans; as short as 3 seconds. This may be observed as glassy eyed looks when discussing technical issues or a frustration when waiting on the system to respond. In the case of technological projects, studies by the Gartner Group have shown the attention span is about 90 days when the average technology project term is 18 months. This differential can cause planning fallacy bias contributing to overly optimistic delivery dates. Additionally, catch phrases will begin to surface that we got to show results or go live at about the 90 day mark.

Another symptomatic trait is the natural tendency to seek an ROI, return on investment. Financial and accounting staff have professionally formulated this bias into their financial decision making. The sooner the return the better the option.  In fact,  in accounting and financial management practices there is a discount rate that shows a lower value for more lengthy capital investments periods. This bias, hyperbolic discounting, can be detrimental to the success of technology and strategic projects which often seek long term results or outcomes. For example, some companies seek to leverage a technological advantage in thier operations. This advantage may improve responsiveness to volatile markets or expose emerging niche markets that operate on a time-based profit model in which money to be made is measured in very brief periods before the market evaporates.  However, the time to develop the systems and processes may take long periods before the benefits are realized in the time after delivery.

In short, nearly all information technology projects are strategic in nature.  Most technological projects support operations by improving the immediate concerns such as compressing information or decision processing time as a collateral benefit of a larger picture. The organization pursuing information technology projects is usually seeking to reduce latencies, exploit patterns and trends for profit, improve quality-cost relationships, or strengthen measurable organization value MOV).

Handling Biases Means Managing Personalities

Personality management is a term coined to describe the processes and means of rallying people to a common cause and focus. The term has been widely used in the military where a wild child, a maverick, shows character and needs to be focused.   Often the need for expediency relies on compromise, guidance, and leadership. More importantly, is the ability of the project manager to develop a sense of community and unity of purpose.

For the project manager this process begins by developing a strong stakeholder register that includes project principles; people who are not stakeholders yet affect the project such as artisans, technicians, administrative staff, etc... Project principles can have strong influence on the project and often have significant experience they bring into a project. Principles may see poor paths the project is taking or know that certain approaches have failed in the past. Principles and stakeholders also have career aspirations and desire to see their ideas instituted over others.  Rather than assessing which cognitive bias is in play, project managers can use simple and common methods to move things forward.

All to often people pay too much attention to prepackaged programs such as Win-Win or Highly Effective Habits. They have their merits and should be implemented with earnest interest and not as some sort of thespian running through the script.  Dale Carnegie offers basic guidance in his principles.  The core principles of Carnegie's approach involves sincere appreciation, not condemning or complaining, arousing eager want, smiling, and being genuinely interested in other people. Practicing these five core principles can win others over during argumentation as well as move projects forward. When people have career aspirations such that their drive influences decision making, project managers can listen and given people a good name which are other Carnegie principles.

Nonetheless, project managers should not yield fully to other people's whims but instead genuinely listen and incorporate thoughts of value that do not delay or increase cost. If a principal or stakeholder insists on an idea that impacts costs or schedules then formal processes of change managment should be invoked.  Having structured arguments and processes are a baseline from which to deviate and measure ideas. Informal argumentation offers more flexibility to maneuver and reason constructively. Occassionally, leadership or others want to work outside the system of processes in place. There are circumstances in which this is productive. The project manager at this point may choose to accept the decision or encourage a parallel process to corroborate the decision and work outside the system.  There are a myriad of  exceptions. Project managers fall back on thier personal and political captial during these times and rely on guiding principles to move things forward.

Principles set moral and ethical boundaries. Acting and managing in a principled manner allievates the project manager from having to memorize biases and approaches used to correct them based on predetermined and managed scripts. Using principles as guideposts will establish the project manager as aspiring to greater heights and trying to sincerely achieve results within a set of parameters. People will understand that principles are to be upheld and decisions are to made against them as well as the system or structures in place to manage change. In the end, the project manager will have lead people towards the vision and objectives, extacted value from the corporate knowledge within the project, and made people feel a part of the system.   

The Non-Dimensionalized Methodology Brief

In business there is an almost an absolute single mindedness on financials. However, a financial bias does not account for the entire circumstance to the chagrin of accounts and financial analysts who often attempt fudge factors and assign financial values to other qualities. Other non-financial approaches include measurable organizational value (MOV) and non-dimensionalization methods. This post explores non-dimnensionalization.

The Non-Dimensionalized Methodology
by
JT Bogden, PMP

Non-dimensionalization is the removal of dimensions such as dollars, square feet, or other units of measure in order to observe the characteristic performance of a system in terms of a ratio or coefficient. In statistics the process is known as normalization. The technique is common to aerospace engineering where they use coefficients of lift, drags, and stability given specific aerodynamic bodies. The performance graphs can be easily redimensionalized for the differing flight environments found off planet. For example, Venus's atmosphere is sulfuric acid, carbon dioxide and nitrogen as opposed to Earth's atmosphere of oxygen and nitrogen but the flight performance of the aerodynamic body is basically the same in any fluid.  Project managers can take advantage of the same methodology in order to improve decision making.

Often project managers are confronted with complex decisions involving multiple options and interrelated characteristics such as rent and square footage or purchase price and yield rates. Many may look at these relationships in terms of ratios such as dollars per square foot or dollars per unit yields. This may suffice for simple decisions but what if there were a dozen of these characteristics? How should the highest performing option be reasonably vetted?

Non-dimensionalization is a method that reduces dimensionalized characteristics to a coefficient of performance for comparison purposes. The process makes use of a spreadsheet. Options are listed across column and established performance characteristic are shown in the rows. The coefficients are computed by rows and the option columns are averaged.  An organization may use project portfolio performance characteristics or formulate them for the specific decision as long as they are consistent across and supported by all the options.  The organization will also need to establish the vetting criteria such as maximizing benefit and minimizing cost. In this discussion maximization will always be 1 and minimization will always be 0. This results in the use of the  formulas shown in Figure 1. If cost is at its maximum the CPmin will be used. If benefits are to be maximized then CPmax will be used.

Figure 1: Non-Dimensionalizing Formulas

Please refer to Figure 2 as we discuss the process of non-dimensional analysis. When cost are at a maximum value, we desire to minimize the impact. Therefore, CPmin was used to minimize with an ideal value being 0. When the benefit is at a maximum, we desire to maximize the impact with the ideal value being 1. Thus, CPmax was employed. The decision making scheme is such that when the Average CP by option value closest to 1 the more desirable that coefficient of performance or CP_n. In Figure 2, the most desirable option is Option 2 with an average CP2 value of 0.58 since it is the closest to 1. The CP_row values is the average value of the characteristic which gives the decision maker a gauge to determine the degree of impact of the CP for the characteristic being reviewed.

Figure 2:  The Non-Dimensionalized Decision Matrix

As an example of this approach in use, when selecting drives for my personal data storage unit I identified the factors, collected the information and purchased the drive meeting the performance criteria. Overall, this is one tool the project manager may employ when making like decisions and arguing the reasons behind his selection. By removing the financial bias of the purchase costs and return on investment, ROI, better performing options become available. I hope this clarified the use of the method. 

Argument Analysis

Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning

Commentary: This is a series on effective reasoning as it applies to project management. Using proper argumentation in a project while vetting risk, options, objectives, strategies, and workaround solutions can strengthen a project's performance, improve communications, and develop a sense of unity. Effective argumentations comes down to building the strongest case for a claim. In this series I will be summarizing points made by David Zarefsky in his Teaching Company coursework as well as drawing on other resources.   This series of posts may be reviewed at the Argumentation Series Posts link.

In the last, posting we discussed the need for a transition from formal towards informal argumentation. I had several readers comment on the series. One reader desires a discussion on cognitive bias as it applies to argumentation in project management. Cognitive bias is a tendency to acquire and process information by filtering it through one's own likes, dislikes, and experiences. In general, the term of cognitive bias is used to describe effects within the human mind, some of which can lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation. I have  provided a review on Cognitive Biases.. In the next few post, we will consider the argument's structure and process.

Argument Analysis and Structure

Arguments begin with a controversy or disagreement that is nontrivial. There is no easier means of resolving the disagreement through empirical methods or recognition of some authority and the outcome cannot be deduced from existing knowledge. New information must be introduced and supported. Assent of  the other party is desired or required to settle the dispute. Thus, the situation cannot be abandoned. Recall that respect for the other party and confidence in the outcome makes free assent essential. Thus, the argument is over significant controversies between the parties. The origin of the controversy arises from several possible sources. For example:

1. A statement that was made during a conversation, presentation, or in a meeting. Sometimes people conflict information, do not make sense, or offer an opinion. The other party seeks clarification in order to accept the statement. Commentary: For example, blue is a better color than red. The challenge to this opinion is why?
2. Given multiple choices, options, solutions, or outcomes only one selection can be made. The result is sometimes difficult to discern and requires discussion. The selection of a particular option or solution may be the consensus or assent of the group.Commentary: There are often tools to aid in making these selections for project managers. One methodology is to use a non-dimensionalized performance matrix.  In this approach a series of characteristics common to all the options are made then compared relative to each other using formulas in a spreadsheet that reduce the dissimilar dimensions to performance indexes in order to compare the apples to oranges.  The formulas seek to optimize toward the maximum or minimum values as determined in the formulation of the selection criteria. This kind of argument approach can be managed more discretely and formally reducing the conflict and disagreement in the decision making.  
3. Cognitive bias affecting knowledge, methods, or judgments. Often people commingle their personal views with a claim. This is especially true when politics, money, religion, or power is involved.  They tend to align the view to their understanding rather than forming the view to the information available or presented. Commentary: For example, many Young Earth Creationist hold to a 24 hour solar creation day claiming a day is a day not a month or year but a day. However, empirically a solar day varies on the planet Earth and is defined as an evening-to-evening event in the immediate scriptural references. The evening-to-evening event at the Equator is 24 hrs and at the poles an evening-to-evening event is one year. Hence, based on a natural observation the support for a definitive 24 hour solar creation day is not present but instead what is supported is an evening-to-evening event which demonstrates temporal variance in the present.   
4. Defense of a position taken.  Often the challenge arrives as "How do you know?" or "What do you mean?" as a means of further evaluation. The arguer must present valid reasons and free assent must accept those reasons in order to settle the position or claim. Commentary: For example, the claim may be that Global Warming effects are impacting a projects progress as PVC pipes are breaking down in the exposed sunlight and leaking. The arguer may show evidence of UV radiation and increased temperatures. The challenge to this argument may show an exception that the PVC pipe is not designed or rated for outdoor use. Thus, exceptions can re-examine a claim altogether by presenting the new information.
5. A critical position taken in prose or public speaking as though engaged in dialogue. Often the speaker or author will assume both positions as they argue a point. They attempt to demonstrate strengthens and weaknesses of each position in a non-bias manner in order for a third party to make a reasonable decision. The speaker or author will make claims of generally four types; fact, definition, value, and policy.  Claims of fact involve descriptions that are verifiable. Claims of definition are a matter of interpretation that provide perspective. Claims of value are judgments that appraise as absolute or comparative as well as instrumental or terminal. Classifying the claim is important in order to determine the kind of proof necessary. Commentary: Although considered informal as inferential links are made this includes a formal approach as the sides are presented in third person in a structured manner. Critical writing or speaking methods attempt to remove bias and focus on the real outcomes. Readers and listeners have little opportunity if any to dispute the claims and justifications made at the time they review the argument. Although with the advent of YouTube and other social media channels dissection and commentary is becoming pervasive to the point that learning is no longer taking place. Instead, many are unmovable or pigeon holed while attempting to support a personal view often with abusive mannerism. The American Forefathers admired the notion of the public sphere yielding to common people the ability to debate topics of nobility through free speech and freedom of the press but not at the expense of civility.      

The structure and components of an argument are just as important as the claims made. The basic structure of the argument consists of the claim, evidence, an inferential link between the claim and evidence, and a warrant that justifies the inference. 

These components are not always apparent and the advocate advances the claim which is not immediately accepted. This results in the advocate producing evidence and support for the claim. If the truth of the claim is not accepted then a separate argument addresses the truth. If the truth and evidence is accepted but does not justify the claim then a warrant is made making the inferential link between the evidence and claim. If the warrant is not accepted then another argument is made to support the inferential link. An exception or other explanations may be noted and the claim may need to be further qualified. This process repeats until the dispute is settled.

David Zarefsky adapted the work of Stephen Toulmin who identified the major components of an argument in this review. Claims are the statements that we want listeners to believe and act upon. Evidence is the grounds for making a claim and supports it but is not the claim itself. Evidence must be accepted by the audience as truthful.  The inference is the main proof line leading from the evidence to the claim. The warrant is the license to make the inference and a general rule to recognize the possibility of exceptions. Exceptions to the warrant qualify the claim. Figure 1 illustrates the simple argument.

Source: The Teaching Company (C) 2005

Commentary: Informal argumentation is structured and makes an inferential linkage between the claim and the evidence.  In making this inferential linkage, the project manager must have a reasonable degree of technical knowledge in the supporting background to make sense to the audiences. This may mean the project manager should be well studied in many disciplines in order to  be able to converse reasonably well during the dialogues. Listening and skimming skills become important. Even small talk is important. The book series such as the "Intellectual Devotionals" aid in growing foundational knowledge from which to build.

In the next posting, we will look at complex structures of an argument.  If you have any comments or ideas please feel free to forward them to me at james.bogden@gmail.com.

References:

Zarefsky, D. (2005) Argumentation: the study of effective reasoning. 2nd Ed. the Teaching Company. Chantilly, VA.

COMPUTER ATTACKS: TCP/IP SECURITY

TCP/IP SECURITY

Through the years, computers have been subjected to many attacks. Users were advised to choose good passwords and not to share accounts/passwords with other users. They were to also obtain a strong virus checker and firewall. Resourceful hackers, malcontents, and other attackers have found ways to compromise computer systems by using protocols such as TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol). Many of these attacks were anticipated long ago. Yet the the Internet itself is not well protected against them. It is to the benefit of users to understand these methods and seek defenses and configurations against them.

As with most disciplines there is a host of jargon that goes along with it that tends to confuse the lay person. The following definitions will aide in your understanding TCP/IP security.

Chronograph (CRON): A command that executes a list of one or more commands in a computer operating system at a particular time.

Demilitarized Zone (DMZ): This is a virtual region that is used to isolate a private network from a public one. It is usually bracketed by an inside and outside router, one or more firewalls, and security monitoring software watching activity inside the DMZ. The concept is to prevent network access by buffering the network from general internet traffic. If someone makes unauthorized entry into a DMZ the presumption is they are hostile and measures are taken to prevent further access to the systems.

File Transfer Protocol (FTP): This is a command that allows for the transfer of files between systems.

Global/Regular Expression/Print (GREP): A utility that is used to search one or more files for a given character string or pattern and can replaces the character string with another one.

Host Tables: This table associates IP addresses with host names on the network. Typically, it can be found in the etc/host directory on UNIX machines. It is not commonly used since most systems have addressing assigned dynamically.

Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA): An organization that oversees the allocation of IP addresses to Internet Service Providers (ISP).

Internet Protocol Security (IPSec): A series of standards that provide general-purpose security for any IP-based network including Intranets, extranets and the World Wide Web or Internet itself.

Network Address Translation (NAT): Originally intended to substitute official Internet addresses for private and unregistered IP addresses. However, it became an effective method to hide internal addresses from detection on the Internet. This is often targeted by hackers in order to footprint the network and enumerate.

Port: A logical connection point on a network device used in programming which allows originating devices or programs to communicate using TCP/IP across a network or the Internet to access a destination devices or program. Ports are managed by the operating system and TCP services resident on any network device.

Port Numbers: The number assigned to a specific port corresponding to one of the 65,536 possible ports on any specific device.

Request for Comment (RFC): Internet documents used for everything from general information to the definitions of the TCP/IP protocol standards. This is part of the world wide web consortium, 3WC, democratization of internet design.

Router Table: Directs packets toward their destination. It may be built by the system administrator or by routing protocols. Hackers target this table as part of their efforts to gain access to the system.

Routing Protocols: Programs that exchange the information through packets and are used to build routing tables.

Sockets: The combination of an IP address and a port number. Sockets are expressed in this manner: (IP Address):(Port Number).

Transmission Control Protocol (TCP): A reliable connection oriented message delivery service. This protocol manages the assembly of messages or a file into smaller packets that are transmitted over telecommunications telemetry (wires, fiber optics, microwave, etc...) and received by a similar TCP layer in the destination machine where the packets are reassembled  into the original message.

User Datagram Protocol (UDP): An unreliable connectionless delivery service that provides limited services across a network or the Internet.

Virtual Private Network (VPN): A method of point-to-point connections through firewalls to automatically encrypt packets sent between networks and specific devices on those networks. The VPN can use the Internet as a private wide area network without compromising the data. Considered a reliable and secure communication.

TCP/IP Commands:  These are some of the classic commands used in command line administration of network systems. It is not uncommon for administrators to remove these commands or severely restrict access to them. In Windows 7, launching the command console by typing CMD in the start menu's  Start Programs and Files feature, one can run some of these commands.

Address Resolution Protocol (ARP): Provides information about Ethernet / IP address translation. Used to detect bad IP addresses, incorrect subnet mask and improper broadcast addresses.
Command line Switches: arp -s [ip] [mac]
- a List the table of values
- ip Specifies an IP address in dotted decimal notation.
- d Deletes the entry specified by inet_addr.
- mac Hardware physical address.
- s Adds an entry in the ARP cache to associate the IP address inet_addr with the physical address ether_addr.

AT: Executes commands at a given time. Command line switches:

-l lists scheduled jobs
-r removes a scheduled job

CRON: Executes scheduled commands on a regular basis.

Find: Detects potential filesystem security problems and allows you to perform many logical tests on files.
Command line switches:
-name file name of a file or wild-carded filename
-links n any file that has n or more links is selected for processing
-size n any file that has 512-byte blocks is selected for processing.
-atime n select any file that has been accessed in the past n days.
-print prints out the name and location of any selected file

GREP: Searches the named input files for lines containing a match to a given pattern. Command line switches:
-G interprets pattern as a basic regular expression.
-E interprets pattern as an extended regular expression.
-F interprets pattern as a list of fixed strings, separated by newlines, for any match.

Last: Displays who has logged into a system in the past. It is useful for learning normal login patterns and detecting abnormal login activity.

LS: Shows the ownership, permissions, creation date, and size of every file on your computer. Command line switches:
-a lists all entries
-c use time of last edit (or last mode change) for sorting or printing
-C force multicolumn output with entries sorted down the column
-d if argument is a directory, list only its name
-i print each file’s node number in the first column of the report.
-l list in long format, giving mode, number of links, owner, size in bytes, & last modification
-n list the user and group ID numbers
-q display nongraphic characters in filenames
-r reverse the order of sort

Netstat: Displays statistics about each network interface, sockets, and routing tables.
Command line switches:
-a displays a list of all the ports that programs and users outside the network can use
-r displays the routing table
-n displays the IP address of the foreign machine

PS: Display the status of current processes.
Command line switches:
-aux or -ef Displays the user and command that started each process

Telnet: Provides remote login over the network.

Who: Provides information about who is currently logged on the system. It displays the login name, what device they are using, when logged in, and what remote host.
Command line switches:
-w show active processes started by the login name.
-d shows expired processes
-s shows name, line, and time

Network Security and Technologies

Security Planning involves a well-thought out security plan that will decide what needs to be protected, how much to invest, and who will be responsible for carrying out the security aspects. Security planning is the building block of security, but a plan must be formed before it can take effect. A strong plan usually entails a system of checks and balances. For example, system administrators manage the system on a day-to-day basis, users and support who operationally observe the network performance, and auditors who review and monitor activity and settings on the networks.  Network security also involves many technologies.

IP Security (IPSec) consists of a collection of RFC standards. It is not the only standard for Internet-related security. It is the solution when dependable, general-purpose security is needed for confidential communications via the public or private IP networks. IPSec provides three distinct forms of protection for the transfer of secure data. They are:

• Authentication: The property of knowing that the data received is the same as the data that was sent and that the claimed sender is in fact the actual sender.
• Integrity: The property of ensuring that data is transmitted from source to destination without undetected alterations
• Confidentiality: The property of communicating such that the intended recipients know what was being sent but unintended parties can’t determine what was sent.

An advantage to IPSec is that it can be implemented entirely in shared network access equipment. Doing this eliminates the need to upgrade any network-attached resources.

Firewalls are systems that replaces an IP router with a multi-homed host that does not forward packets. There are four types of firewalls:

• Packet Filtering, which is a simple static means of examining traffic based on addresses and/or packet type.
• Circuit-level gateways that provide “openings” for all approved sessions based on an assortment of criteria.
• Proxy or application gateways that perform a more in-depth analysis of traffic, including the higher-level application.
• Stateful inspection, which combines features of the other types to achieve a truly dynamic way of adapting to changing traffic patterns.

Passwords are the simplest and most important part of network security. Passwords should be cleverly structured in order to avoid compromise.  Attackers enter most systems by simply guessing passwords. One form of password guessing is dictionary guessing. Dictionary guessing uses a program drawing words from a dictionary and compares each word to a password until a match is found.

Routing control is necessary for a system and requires a routing table entry for every network communicated with. Without the proper routes, the system cannot communicate with remote networks. Because of this, an attacker can control which remote sites are able to communicate with the a system by controlling the contents of the routing table. Therefore, controlling access to routing tables is essential. Administrators will typically, remove commands that give access to the routing table and hide it behind the DMZ making it difficult to find and exploit. 

Security Monitoring

Systems differ on how to monitor. High level monitoring, of course, involves firewall logs, intrusion detection system logs, router logs and establishing a DMZ. The logs are all checks and run in software that looks for patterns of activity. However, as an administrator there are many things that can be done to look for activity.

In some UNIX systems, use the command ls -a | grep0 '^\.' . This will enable the administrator to look for traces of a break in. Intruders create files that begin with a dot such as .mail or .xx that are used to help them in future break-ins.  

In most systems administrators should monitor the names of programs started. Ensure that no shell programs are started. Also check to ensure that the log file is not world writable. Check for other directories under the home directory. Look for entries from outside the trusted network. No files should be world-writable. Check for unaccounted for login names and changes to the UID or GID of any account. Monitor for abnormal login patterns.  Also check for file activity for files run by 'at' or 'cron', looking for new files or unexplained changes. Attackers create scripts to re-admit themselves to a network using these commands, even after being kicked off and previous access methods closed off. One should check and monitor executable files file sizes, date changes, and changes in rights. 

Defensive Tactics

Denial of Service (DOS) is any action that prevents users from accessing system resources. These resources may be stopped entirely, degraded or interrupted. UNIX provides few types of protection against accidental or intentional denial of service attacks. Some versions let you limit the maximum number of files or processes that a user is allowed. Others let you place limits on the amount of disk space consumed by any single account. Having a low time-to-live on port wait states also aides in reducing DOS attacks. Manufacturers are offering more sophisticated hardware that also identifies DOS attacks sources and ignores those request.  

There are two types of denial of service attacks: destructive and overload attacks. Destructive attacks attempt to damage or destroy resources so you can’t use them. Attackers can do this in a number of ways. For example, deleting critical files would be considered a destructive attack. Restricting access to critical accounts and files can prevent this attack.

Overload attacks flood resources with request to the point that it is unable to process another user’s request. If the attacker overwhelms the port, others won’t be able to access it.  The system can be setup for automatically detecting overloads and restarting the device or simply ignoring the source.

One of the simplest denial of service attacks is a process attack. With this attack, one user makes a computer unusable for others who happen to be using the computer at the same time. These types of attacks are generally of concern only with shared computers.

Conclusion

The Internet’s worldwide presence, combined with its affordable access and ever-expanding capabilities, is the most common reason for network security because it has no inherent security. Networks are invaluable, but they are also vulnerable to industrial espionage or disgruntled employees. The potential exposure is especially profound when the enterprise network is interfaced with the Internet.

References:

Englander, I. (2003). The Architecture of Computer Hardware and Systems Software: An information Technology Approach. (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley &Sons Inc.

McClure, S, (2009). Hacking Exposed 6, Mcgraw-Hill Company, ISBN 9780071613743

Slade, R. (1994). Computer viruses: how to avoid them, how to get rid of them, and how to get help.New York.Springer-Verlag.

Other posts in this series

COMPUTER ATTACKS: HACKERS

COMPUTER ATTACKS: VIRUSES

COMPUTER ATTACKS: PROBING PORTS

COMPUTER ATTACKS: TCP/IP SECURITY