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]

Message-ID: <20030928082039.GA8154@deneb.enyo.de>
From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer)
Subject: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly

On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 01:12:01PM -0500, Curt Purdy wrote:

> I think we have lost the point of the thread CyberInsecurity: The Cost of
> Monopoly which states your exact point that diversity is the most important
> aspect of network protection.

I often hear such claims, but I'd rather see companies to allocate
adequate resources to deal with a uniform computing environment.
Currently, most companies with such an environment do not deploy *any*
countermeasures.  There was a wide range of options to counter the
recent malware waves, yet many organziations did nothing.

Diversity is good, sure, but unless you can afford the costs of a
workforce which is equally skilled on very diverse platforms, you just
make things worse.

Furthermore, some aspects of diversity are already creating huge
problems, e.g. mobile devices which are not configured according to
company guidelines, but are nevertheless connected to the company
network.