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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <200403171951.i2HJphOh009830@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu) Subject: Re: Microsoft Security, baby steps ? On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:46:58 GMT, John.Airey@...b.org.uk said: > From experience, you can't just lock down to that one server. You need to > allow port 80 and 443 access to different servers. Each day the list of > servers changes because of the Akamai caching that is used. I spend some > time configuring locked down systems to be able to talk to them. So yes, it > is an unreasonable request. > > On the other hand, access to Red Hat Network needs only one port and one IP > address. No doubt there's some serious load-balancing going on in the > background. If RedHat had the same "customers times patch frequency times average patch size" product that Microsoft has, they'd be an Akamai customer too... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 226 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20040317/a0fde152/attachment.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists