full-disclosure - Re: Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds

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: <21548.1270675777@localhost>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:29:37 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Tracy Reed <treed@...raviolet.org>
Cc: security-basics@...urityfocus.com,
	full-disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>,
	Keith Tomler <ktomler@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:06:41 PDT, Tracy Reed said:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 12:43:47PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu spake thusly:
> > Whether said checkbox is actually the best solution *for the actual problem*
> > is the issue.  I've seen cases where checkbox auditors insisted that a
> > certain critical system "absolutely positively *HAD* to have a firewall".
> 
> This is where compensating controls come in with PCI. If there is an
> even better solution you are free to implement it.

Yes, the PCI "compensating controls" are overall a Good Thing.  Unfortunately,
a lot of regulatory regimes don't see things that way yet.  And it still
requires a clued PCI auditor who actually understands the real world enough
to deal with compensating controls.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/