Which approach best addresses preventing eavesdropping and tampering in inter-process communication on a mission computer?

Which approach best addresses preventing eavesdropping and tampering in inter-process communication on a mission computer?

• A. Use encryption, authentication, integrity checks, access control, and secure channels.
• B. Use plaintext messages with no authentication.
• C. Rely only on hardware isolation.
• D. Disable all logging to reduce risk.

Answer: (A)

Protecting inter-process communication requires ensuring confidentiality, integrity, and proper access control so that messages cannot be read, altered, or forged as they move between processes. Encrypting the data keeps the contents hidden from any eavesdropper, while authentication confirms who is sending the message, preventing impersonation. Integrity checks, such as MACs or digital signatures, detect any tampering along the way, so corrupted data is caught. Enforcing access control ensures only authorized processes can participate in the communication, reducing the surface for illicit access. Using secure channels ties these protections together, safeguarding the message from eavesdropping and tampering across the communication path, often with cryptographic protections that are resistant to tampering and interception. Plaintext messages with no authentication leave both confidentiality and integrity at risk, making it easy for an attacker to read or modify content. Relying only on hardware isolation might help in some isolation scenarios, but it doesn’t address threats from compromised processes or from data still traveling between components. Disabling logging reduces visibility into what happened, making it harder to detect and respond to tampering. The combination of encryption, authentication, integrity checks, access control, and secure channels provides comprehensive protection for IPC in a mission-critical environment.

Protecting inter-process communication requires ensuring confidentiality, integrity, and proper access control so that messages cannot be read, altered, or forged as they move between processes. Encrypting the data keeps the contents hidden from any eavesdropper, while authentication confirms who is sending the message, preventing impersonation. Integrity checks, such as MACs or digital signatures, detect any tampering along the way, so corrupted data is caught. Enforcing access control ensures only authorized processes can participate in the communication, reducing the surface for illicit access. Using secure channels ties these protections together, safeguarding the message from eavesdropping and tampering across the communication path, often with cryptographic protections that are resistant to tampering and interception.

Plaintext messages with no authentication leave both confidentiality and integrity at risk, making it easy for an attacker to read or modify content. Relying only on hardware isolation might help in some isolation scenarios, but it doesn’t address threats from compromised processes or from data still traveling between components. Disabling logging reduces visibility into what happened, making it harder to detect and respond to tampering. The combination of encryption, authentication, integrity checks, access control, and secure channels provides comprehensive protection for IPC in a mission-critical environment.