full-disclosure - CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: lcamtuf at ghettot.org (Michal Zalewski)
Subject: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Paul Schmehl wrote:

> Oh, you might have a firewall that cordons off accounting from the rest
> of the enterprise, but *inside* accounting, you still have the "soft,
> chewy"  problem. I haven't really seen anything that addresses this
> problem, and I'm not aware of anyone who is working on solving it.

I'd argue... many vendors (Okena aka Cisco, BlackICE aka ISS, etc)
provide integrated corporation-wide mechanisms for enforcing group
firewalling, access and logging/IDS policies on workstations or groups of
workstations (and, why not, also servers).

Whatever you think about personal firewalls, some of those projects are
getting quite impressive and far from displaying annoying "You are being
attacked by your DNS server" pop-ups. The technology is quite useful for
this purpose, when used correctly.

There are some ridiculously expensive "firewall switches" that are
IP-aware and enable per-port separation and firewalling...

The technology is there. It takes some effort to use it and do it
correctly, of course.

-- 
------------------------- bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --
 Michal Zalewski * [http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx]
    Did you know that clones never use mirrors?
--------------------------- 2003-09-28 19:58 --

   http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/photo/current/