full-disclosure - Flawed arguments (Was all that other crap about PFW day)

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: <20040116110500.AFAEF97B44@cpo.tn.tudelft.nl>
From: emvs.fd.3FB4D11C at cpo.tn.tudelft.nl (Erik van Straten)
Subject: Flawed arguments (Was all that other crap about PFW day)

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:38:49 -0600 Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On Friday, January 16, 2004 4:14 AM +0100 Erik van Straten
> <emvs.fd.3FB4D11C@....tn.tudelft.nl> wrote:

[snip]

> > Nope. It translates to not needing simple PFW's -for ingress traffic-
> > if there are no listening ports. Flaws shouldn't have been there in the
> > first place, and any found should be fixed ASAP%001.
> >
> Well, hell, let's ban iptables, ipfw, pf, ipchains, et. al. from
> "workstation" installs of *nix.  After all, *nix is secure out of the box,
> right?  And PFW's just give people a false sense of security anyway, right?

[snip]

> > With ABS you can drive much closer to the car in
> > front of you. With AV and a PFW people tend to believe it is safe to
> > run any exe (or hta). Marketing helps making people believe this.
> >
> I have to agree with you here.  It's been made obvious to me by the posts
> today in this thread.

Explain this contradiction in your rant and we may talk