Rick:
Heya...
> > Sounds doable. Now to find an Angel to front the $25k. ;)
>
> Egadsnow there's the problem; I can't see sinking $25 into it,
> when it's just going to put a badge that most have never heard of
> on a single derivative [possibly one that doesn't see a lot of use,
On 3 Feb 2001, at 18:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 04:22:02PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled:
> > I would suggest the following ideas as part of
> > any Open Source product:
> >
> > * What is your target audience? (a/k/a targeted
> > demographic)
>
> Not only tha
At 11:31 AM 2/5/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 09:45:27PM -0800, Mike Sensney scribbled:
>we just do a whole lot of testing and provide a log of the output.
>
>We could even write a script that does much/all of said testing.
>
>It would just be important to make sure t
On Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 09:45:27PM -0800, Mike Sensney scribbled:
> BTW, we can always create our own professional association with its own
> firewall certification criteria. How about the YAFCA? (Yet Another Firewall
> Certifying Association)
bwahahahahah!
I didn't want to be the crazy fool wh
On Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 12:59:06PM -0800, Scott C. Best scribbled:
> Sounds doable. Now to find an Angel to front the $25k. ;)
Egadsnow there's the problem; I can't see sinking $25 into it,
when it's just going to put a badge that most have never heard of
on a single derivative [possibl
At 09:45 PM 2/3/01 -0800, Mike Sensney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 01:27 PM 02/03/2001 -0800, Mike Noyes wrote
>
>>At 12:36 PM 2/3/01 -0800, Mike Sensney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Instead, why not test our "standard" distributions against the list of
>>>well know Internet scanning services
At 09:45 PM 2/3/01 -0800, Mike Sensney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 01:27 PM 02/03/2001 -0800, Mike Noyes wrote
>>https://sourceforge.net/pm/?group_id=13751
>>Security
>>Task ID: 25528
>>Summary: Test releases with NMAP and Nessus
>
>(Add Saint to this list.)
>
>I would say that scans by NMAP,
At 01:27 PM 02/03/2001 -0800, Mike Noyes wrote
>At 12:36 PM 2/3/01 -0800, msensney@mail wrote:
>>Instead, why not test our "standard" distributions against the list of
>>well know Internet scanning services? For example: the WebSaint scanning
>>service. Cost for a complete scan of a single work
At 12:36 PM 2/3/01 -0800, msensney@mail wrote:
>Instead, why not test our "standard" distributions against the list of
>well know Internet scanning services? For example: the WebSaint scanning
>service. Cost for a complete scan of a single workstation/server unlimited
>usage is $50 for 3 months
Jack, David, Rick:
Heyaz, thanks for the feedback. Some
comments below:
> > understanding is that the Linux 2.2 kernels
> > would not be able to make it since the
> > firewalling is not state-ful.
>
> I bet 2.2 can be back-patched to use 2.4's netfilter;
> would that make it stateful?
At 04:16 PM 02/02/2001 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
>On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 03:23:42PM -0800, Scott C. Best scribbled:
>
> > Okay, sure, some of the ICSA guidelines are good ones...though
> > I can't imagine using anything that didn't meet them at the
> > very least.
>
>How about this:
>"Meets
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 04:22:02PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled:
> > How about this:
> > "Meets ICSA guidelines.*"
> > "* == Not ICSA certified"
>
> ICSA might get upset - but in any case, my
That's how I figure it anyway. :)
> understanding is that the Linux 2.2 kernels
> would not be
I don't think ICSA certification is suitable at this point in time for
the whole LEAF project, but if someone choose to sell a LEAF variant and
certify it, that's their own business so long as the source is readily
available.
>
> > (though a successful certification, admittedly, will), but rat
On 2 Feb 2001, at 21:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 03:23:42PM -0800, Scott C. Best scribbled:
> > Okay, sure, some of the ICSA guidelines are good ones...though
> > I can't imagine using anything that didn't meet them at the
> > very least.
>
> How about this:
> "Meets
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 03:23:42PM -0800, Scott C. Best scribbled:
> the certification process. It is expensive: $25k for non-FWPD
> consortium members and $15k for members. That's per product
>
> This leaves me wondering...is it worth it? To reach
No way.
> a specific target user for LE
I think this is going to be a very interesting email. :)
So...I contacted the ICSA group today asking about
the certification process. It is expensive: $25k for non-FWPD
consortium members and $15k for members. That's per product
and per platform. I haven't read thru all the doc
David:
> > The certification authority you're looking for is www.icsa.net; I
> > had a potential customer ask me not-so-long-ago about it
> > specifically.
>
> I know it's probably not a "product" certification, but what about
> GIAC?
Perhaps we could find a GIAC-certified Security En
On 31 Jan 2001, at 16:21, Scott C. Best wrote:
> The certification authority you're looking for is www.icsa.net; I
> had a potential customer ask me not-so-long-ago about it
> specifically.
I know it's probably not a "product" certification, but what about
GIAC?
--
David Douthitt
UNIX System
18 matches
Mail list logo
