Agreed, vendor lock in is a very big problem, what the economists would call
increasing returns. Interestingly most of the research on the subjest finds that a
vendor achieves lock in and a dominant market position not by being the most
competitive product. Random historical accident,
Sean Donelan wrote:
Assuming lawful purposes, what is the best way to tap a network
undetectable to the surveillance subject, not missing any
relevant data, and not exposing the installer to undue risk?
'Best' rarely has a straight-forward answer. ;-)
Lawful access is subject to many of the
Scott C. McGrath
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Eriks Rugelis wrote:
Sean Donelan wrote:
Assuming lawful purposes, what is the best way to tap a network
undetectable to the surveillance subject, not missing any
relevant data, and not exposing the installer to undue
Uhm, that would be wrong. This is simply security through obscurity.
Yes, it is wrong for the _smart books_. But it works in real life. Of
course, it should not be the last line of defense; but it works as a first
line very effectively.
If I rate safety as a number (10 is the best, 0 is the
Correct. Microsoft's problem is not security alone, but monoculture. If we
have all systems around Windows2003, we are exposed to risk of devastating
virus attack. No matter, how secure this Windows2003 is.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL
Alexei Roudnev wrote:
- turn off power - safety is 10. Secure
system, is a dark system.
I have to disagree on this one; there is WOL (Wake-up On Lan), the
system can be lit remotely.
- turn off power - safety is 9
- Unplug all cords - safety is 10
Michel.
PS. Sniffer... there are not any way to detect sniffer in the non-switched
network, and there is not much use for sniffer in switched network, if this
network is configured properly and is watched for the unusial events.
depends on brand and model of switch
$ portinstall
Eriks Rugelis wrote:
On the other hand, if your environment consists of a large number (100's) of
potential tapping points, then you will quickly determine that in-line taps
have very poor scaling properties.
a) They are not rack-dense
b) They require external power warts
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], William Allen Simpson writes:
Eriks Rugelis wrote:
On the other hand, if your environment consists of a large number (100's) of
potential tapping points, then you will quickly determine that in-line taps
have very poor scaling properties.
a) They are
Well folks, since the middle of August I've been tracking the spread and
subsequent efforts by our community to stop the nachia/welchia infection
that took down so many networks.
Sadly, by my estimations, only about 20-30% of infected hosts were
cleaned. After Jan 1, 2004 it appears that the
: What kind of effects did everyone see from this devastating worm and what
: lessons did we learn for preventing network downtime in the future?
Proper network design is a good thing... ;-)
scott
: : What kind of effects did everyone see from this devastating worm and what
: : lessons did we learn for preventing network downtime in the future?
:
:
: Proper network design is a good thing... ;-)
Before I get flamed, I should say that is for end-user networks, not the
normal BANs (Big
lesson learned:
stop using /makeshift/ layer3 switches (without naming vendor) to run
L3 core
-J
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:22:52PM -0800, Brent Van Dussen wrote:
Well folks, since the middle of August I've been tracking the spread and
subsequent efforts by our
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Israel) [Tue 20 Jan 2004, 18:48 CET]:
On 1/20/2004 at 09:18:07 -0800, Alexei Roudnev said:
[..]
- unpatched sshd on port 30013 - safety is 7 (higher) because no one
automated script can find it, and no one manual scan find it in reality
Actually, an automated script
Not all L3-switches are flow-based; prefix-based ones should do just fine.
Can people add/correct this initial list ?
Flow-based: Foundry with IronCore modules, Cisco Catalyst 6500 with Sup1(A)
Prefix-based: Foundry with JetCore modules, Cisco Catalyst 6500/7600 with
Sup2(A), Sup3(A/BXL)
yes in concur.. prefix based ones (like FIB) are fine.
unfortunately some models from some vendors (tisk tisk) who use
slow process path to reprogram the CAM per flow can be quite painful
during situations like random dest. dos attacks and worms..
add the
On Tuesday 20 January 2004 04:16 pm, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
Not all L3-switches are flow-based; prefix-based ones should do just fine.
Can people add/correct this initial list ?
Flow-based: Foundry with IronCore modules, Cisco Catalyst 6500 with Sup1(A)
Prefix-based: Foundry with JetCore
Flow-based: Foundry with IronCore modules, Cisco Catalyst 6500 with
Sup1(A)
Prefix-based: Foundry with JetCore modules, Cisco Catalyst 6500/7600
with
Sup2(A), Sup3(A/BXL)
Where do the Extreme and Juniper fit into this?
Private and public answers to my question indicate that both Summit
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexei Roudnev writes:
Uhm, that would be wrong. This is simply security through obscurity.
Yes, it is wrong for the _smart books_. But it works in real life. Of
course, it should not be the last line of defense; but it works as a first
line very effectively.
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
Flow-based: Foundry with IronCore modules, Cisco Catalyst 6500 with
Sup1(A)
Prefix-based: Foundry with JetCore modules, Cisco Catalyst 6500/7600
with
Sup2(A), Sup3(A/BXL)
Where do the Extreme and Juniper fit into this?
Private and
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 10:16:03PM -0200, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
Not all L3-switches are flow-based; prefix-based ones should do just fine.
Can people add/correct this initial list ?
Flow-based: Foundry with IronCore modules, Cisco Catalyst 6500 with Sup1(A)
Prefix-based: Foundry with
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
Not all L3-switches are flow-based; prefix-based ones should do just fine.
Can people add/correct this initial list ?
Flow-based: Foundry with IronCore modules, Cisco Catalyst 6500 with Sup1(A)
Prefix-based: Foundry with JetCore modules, Cisco
lesson learned:
stop using /makeshift/ layer3 switches (without naming vendor) to run
L3 core
more generally... if you want routing, buy a router.
i have a hybrid switer that i'm very happy with. at my house, that is.
(the idea of using one in commerce or production gives me cold
23 matches
Mail list logo
