[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <15533237421C6E4296CC33A2090B224A54C9E3@UTDEVS02.campus.ad.utdallas.edu>
From: pauls at utdallas.edu (Schmehl, Paul L)
Subject: Flawed arguments (Was all that other crap about PFW day)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik van Straten [mailto:emvs.fd.3FB4D11C@....tn.tudelft.nl]
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 5:05 AM
> To: Schmehl, Paul L
> Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] Flawed arguments (Was all that
> other crap about PFW day)
>
> > > 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
>
The previous poster complains that PFWs fool people into thinking that
they are more secure. Several other posters have cited the fact that
most *nixes now come with "the firewall enabled", which obviously means
they think that makes *nix more secure. So, they believe, simply by
having iptables (or whatever) enabled, they are more secure.
Yet they see no contradiction between their belief in the added security
of *nix firewalls and their contention that Windows PFWs give a false
sense of security with no real benefit. I have to admit, on a security
list, I'm a bit surprised to see this sort of flawed argumentation, but
I guess I shouldn't be. Their hatred of Microsoft blinds them.
Paul Schmehl (pauls@...allas.edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists