Boy, do I agree with the first comments from elvene! I get so tired and
frustrated with the arrogant drivel thinking that everyone connected to
anything is going to have or buy or hire everything that it takes to be
"secure" based on who's opinion??!! The concept that if we don't jump and
install every product patch that comes out for every potential vulnerability
whenever it occurs is ridiculous. I think the latest DoS attack is one that
adheres to the following model: let's just keep throwing crap at them until
they can't do anything but apply the latest patch that will no doubt
introduce new bugs/vunerabilities and the hackers (if you want to call them
that) have infinite entertainment!! PLEASE.... give me a break. JMHO....
Loren
----- Original Message -----
From: "elvene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: Undesired outbound data "leaking" - the next frontier?
>
> 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.]
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
