bugtraq - Re: Remote Desktop Command Fixation Attacks

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: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:45:05 +0200
From: hvdkooij@...derkooij.org
To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Remote Desktop Command Fixation Attacks

pdp (architect) wrote:
> Thor, with no disrespect but you are wrong. Security in depth does not
> work and I am not planning to support my argument in any way. This is
> just my personal humble opinion. I've seen only failure of the
> principles you mentioned. Security in depth works only in a perfect
> world. The truth is that you cannot implement true security mainly
> because you will hit on the accessibility side. It is all about
> achieving the balance between security and accessibility. Moreover,
> you cannot implement security in depth mainly because you cannot
> predict the future. Therefore, you don't know what kinds of attack
> will surface next.
> 
> Security is not a destination, it is a process. Security in depth
> sounds like a destination to me.

Security in depth is neither a destination nor a process. It is a state
of mind. Each part should take care of itself. And it should be as
secure as possible in each step.

Hugo.

-- 
hvdkooij@...derkooij.org               http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/
	Don't meddle in the affairs of sysadmins,
	for they are subtle and quick to anger.