Too true, but understated. It's more the case I think that at present, they are
too complex for all but the most savvy and focused professional to keep up with
completely, and for the untrained person it is hopeless. I personally have no idea
whether or not that last request for the NT CD undid any of the 38 security patches
I applied previously... Or even how many I ought to have applied but I missed
because I thought it was included in another patch, or was re-released and I
installed one with a vulnerability, or was identified as being for an application I
don't run (like the patches for Outlook Express that had to be applied to Outlook
from Office 97).
But one thing I am ABSOLUTELY sure of is that the average corporate user is NOT
capable of deciding intelligently if a request by XXX application to communicate on
port YYY is an ok thing or a bad thing. So if there is any hope of catching this
at all, I must do it at the "Firewall" - or whatever you want to call this
"Enhanced Malcode Detection Device" that I maintain between myself and the most
likely transfer point for a payload. Or deal with the consequences of it not being
detected.
Guy Skaggs
Gary Flynn wrote:
> Computers are presently too complex for untrained personal
> to keep up completely with what code should be trusted and what code
> shouldn't be.
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
