| 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: <200509281537.j8SFbcRQ008224@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Date: Wed Sep 28 16:38:04 2005 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu) Subject: Suggestion for IDS On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:01:34 EDT, "J. Oquendo" said: > While I do agree with the statement made "Quite frankly, anybody who > already has a PIX installed and wants to install an IPS needs to quantify > *exactly* what protection the PIX is failing to provide before they go > shopping for anything" to a degree, I also disagree with that statement > since it eludes to the thinking that solely a PIX will save your ass. It > won't, nor will any other firewall, nor will any other product combined > with any OTHER product and so on. Obviously, the original poster isn't thinking that a PIX will save their ass, because they're in the market for something in addition :) They should be figuring out *why* they need more protection (quite frankly, for many places, a *properly configured and maintained* PIX is quite sufficient), and exactly what areas they want extra protection. Amazingly enough, people who will look at their current car and say "I need a new one, and it needs to have X, Y, and Z, and maybe W if it adds less than $500 to the bottom-line price" seem to be unable to do similar rational analysis when they go shopping for security gear. -------------- 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/20050928/88b1dd37/attachment.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists