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: <1064777650.524.18.camel@localhost>
From: frank at knobbe.us (Frank Knobbe)
Subject: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly

On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 13:04, Michal Zalewski wrote:
> I'd argue... many vendors [...]
> 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).
> [...]
> The technology is there. It takes some effort to use it and do it
> correctly, of course.

Michal, 

I think Paul's sentiment was that current efforts are focused on
networks, IP addresses, firewalls, protocols, etc, basically focusing on
the _transport_ of data. I think what we need are better mechanism to
protect the _data_ itself, not just the transport/protocol of it. I'm
not talking about Palladium crap, but more in the direction of more
efficient ACL's, RBAC, and finer system level control. We *can* harden
the chewy insides by applying better controls. (All too often I see
networks with Share and File/Dir permissions being
Everyone-Full_Access...).

Paul, feel free to disagree if I put words in your mouth ;)

Cheers,
Frank

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20030928/440e2955/attachment.bin