full-disclosure - Re: router naming

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Sat Sep  3 18:57:56 2005
From: dgerow at afflictions.org (Damian Gerow)
Subject: Re: router naming

Thus spake luka.research (luka.research@...il.com) [02/09/05 11:53]:
: >How about using FIPS-55.
: > Thanks
: 
: In my modest opinion I think that with approach like FIPS-55 you can spread 
: precious information .to attackers.
: 
: e.g: "wich is the major link that connect two city ? ...ok let to see the 
: router name... mhhh interesting..."

And using a naming scheme that incorporates the cities makes it much, much
easier to administer.  I'd say keep the city names, and secure the router.
Probably more secure than giving it an obscure name, and leaving it
unsecured.  But this is that pesky secure vs. functional issue that's really
up to the person making the decision.

(There are dozens of other options: publish an obscure name in public DNS,
use a normal name in private DNS, and use a CNAME/TXT/whatever RR in
internal DNS to map the two...)

And if you're going to publish LOC records, why not publish HINFO records as
well?