full-disclosure - Re: Getting Off the Patch

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]

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:44:56 +0100
From: Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
To: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <thor@...merofgod.com>
Cc: Zach C <fxchip@...il.com>,
	"full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>,
	"lists@...com.org" <lists@...com.org>
Subject: Re: Getting Off the Patch

Thought I should point out that they seem to have forgotten the main
function in mass/distributed computer control and management.
What otherwise would be a "huge" waste, it's done in little time and tested
reliable in as much little time. According to the reliability of the patch,
one would also assume that worst case scenarios involve *just* rolling back
changes, again, not really loosing anything at all.



On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Thor (Hammer of God)
<thor@...merofgod.com>wrote:

> >We disagree. Patches changes code which has already been operationally and
> >functionally tested. This requires additional testing for each update and
> patch
> >and that takes time, money, and other resources away from other things.
> >Therefore no wonder when operations scale upward, the cost of security
> >goes exponential. It's because of all the waste.
>
> Please share the research you have that backs up this statement.  I would
> be very interested in knowing the details that that provide the foundation
> for this argument.  I'm particularly interested in the cost points and
> identification of the exponential cost of security from patching and the
> money saved by not patching in your environment.
>
> I presume that you have empirical evidence of the vast savings based on
> concurrent operational models in an enterprise environment, so I'm curious
> as to how many thousands of servers you are operationally responsible for,
> because that information is not only critical, but required for this model
> to be considered.  IOW, if you could share the analysis you presented to
> management that they bought off on, that would extremely helpful.
>
> Thanks!
>
> t
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

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