<mcwidget said>:

>> the security on these boxes could be tightened/restricted to our
heart's content as this would not impact the user's everyday use.

:) As someone who shares geographical commonality and is honored to be a 
'padowan' of Valdis, when I brought up something very similar to this argument 
a while back, I was smacked down so bad by him and his peers, it still hurts to 
remember that day! :p

In any event, before ya'll make even more 'human' comments like the one above, 
please consider that:

A) you are dealing with an extremely considerate and intelligent man who has 
and continues to put up with this very question among many other things on a 
daily basis, while pretending to be a regular IT guy :)

B) The suggestion you made mcwidget is pretty much (I'm very sad to agree) 
'just not worth it'...

To expand, design a model keeping the following factors in mind:

* cost of implementing such technique onto existing hardware (i.e. Openwrt like 
systems) vs. distributing new hardware

* cost of the load that will be placed on the vendor's support team for this 
project (don't forget that vendors will be hiring Punjab-I-read-Scripts farms 
so calculate for the 'hold please!' and the customer getting so aggravated due 
to false-neg's/pos's or just plain non-functionality that they cont. To waste 
support resources over and over and ...)

* cost of maintaining a team of clued -IT prof.'s who will create/update a 
central db of sig's on extreme hardware by cooperating with other vendors who 
will deliberately shoot down attempts b/c such a product will drive down their 
sales (not everyone cares for the greater good, in today's greedy society)

* speed of adaptation of said technology, given all the lovely comments it will 
be receiving from early-Joe/Jill Sixpackers blogs/sites who had no idea how to 
use it other than they were told it's a 'Good Thing', and given a Flash video 
demonstrating how they can implement the device with it's color-coded cabling 
and free-of-charge 1st support call if all else failed!

* The cost on the vendor with all the returns it receives back

***###***###***###***###***###***### (there were more factors but after the 6th 
or 7th hit to the back of the head, you tend to lose way too many memory cells 
to remember all :p)

Now... Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you, at first it sounds like a 
great idea to implement NAC/P like technology for the reg. Joe/Jill out 
there... But as you can all deduce it's just not pheaseable in the 'Real 
World'. 

As for your original comment and why I singled it out...

So... Your scenario assumed successful  implementation of the tech. by the 
user... And totally disregarded false-negatives and false-positives... So 
here's Joe Sixpack staring at this warning sign saying, 'according to our 
immature calculations 'something isn't  right', so we're gonna let you figure 
that out by allowing you to only go to our approved 3rd party/marketing 
associate sites (which others can also join the network for a pheaseable fee) 
or by calling us at 800-OUTSRC-IT and wasting 2-3 hours on the phone to figure 
out that our central db doesn't include signatures for your 
AV/firewall/anti-malware combo yet...

Sincerely,
Aras 'Russ' Memisyazici
Systems Administrator

Office of the Vice President for Research
Virginia Tech

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Reply via email to