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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:19:27 +0200
From: Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
To: Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds

OK.

"All those in favour of PCI raises their hands."

Kidding aside, of course it is a must, since the said companies doesn't have
any notion of security before this happens.
However, how much is this actually helpful? Now let's be honest, how much
would it stop a potential attacker from getting into a system "protected" by
PCI?
Little, if at all.

On the other hand, a company should adopt real and complete security
practices.

Again, my point is, these companies shouldn't be "educated" or limit their
security to this standard. Because if they do (and I'm pretty sure they do)
would make this standard pretty much useless.

Anyway, I won't get into this argument, since no one will give a sh*t about
it anyway.

Cheers.




On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com> wrote:

> Christian,
>
> Did you read my first post?
>
> ((( IMO, PCI is not that big security policy, but without it your not able
> to use the credit card companies gateway. I think its just the basics that
> any company dealing with CC must implement. Because it shall be nonsense to
> deal with CC, and not have an Anti-virus for example !! )))
>
> I am not stating that PCI is good in no way, but I am saying that its a
> MUST for companies dealing with CC. And in a windows environment, an AV is
> important.
>
> He probably thought that I am with the rules of PCI, or that I don't have
> any idea that the world is not just WINDOWS !!!
>
> Regards,
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
> *To:* Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com>
> *Cc:* full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
> *Sent:* Mon, April 26, 2010 3:54:20 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Full-disclosure] Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds
>
> Why exactly are you complying with Nick's statements? I would have thought
> you guys were arguing against said statements?
>
>
> By the way, requirement #6 is particularly funny; it sounds peculiarly
> redundant to me...
>
> Cheers.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>  Nick,
>>
>> Please if you don't know what the standards are, please read:
>>
>> https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/security_standards/pci_dss.shtml
>>
>> See *Requirement #5*. Read that requirement carefully and its not bad to
>> read it twice though in case you don't figure it out from the first glance !
>>
>> Also, I said that using an AV is some basic thing to do in any company
>> that wants to deal with CC, its a basic thing for even companies not dealing
>> with CC too !!! Or do you state that people must use a BOX with no AV
>> installed on it? If you believe in that fact? Then please request a change
>> in the PCI DSS requirements and make them force the usage of a non Windows
>> O.S, such as any *n?x system.
>>
>> Finally, the topic here is not about "default allow vs default deny" and
>> if I understand what that is or not! You can open a new discussion about
>> that, and I shall join there and discuss it further with you, in case you
>> need some clarification regarding it.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Shaqe
>>
>>
>> --- On *Sun, 4/25/10, Nick FitzGerald <nick@...us-l.demon.co.uk>* wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Nick FitzGerald <nick@...us-l.demon.co.uk>
>> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds
>> To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>> Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010, 1:57 PM
>>
>> Shaqe Wan wrote:
>>
>> <<snip>>
>> > Because it shall be nonsense to deal with CC, and not have an Anti-virus
>> for example !!
>>
>> Well, you see, _that_ is abject nonsense on its face.
>>
>> Do you have any understanding of one of the most basic of security
>> issues -- default allow vs. default deny?
>>
>> There are many more secure ways to run systems _without_ antivirus
>> software.
>>
>> Anyone authoritatively stating that antivirus software is a necessary
>> component of a "reasonably secure" system is a fool.
>>
>> Anyone authoritatively stating that antivirus software is a necessary
>> component of a "sufficiently secure" system is one (or more) of; a
>> fool, a person with an unusually low standard of system security, or a
>> shill for an antivirus producer.
>>
>> So _if_, as you and another recent poster strongly imply, the PCI
>> standards include a specific _requirement_ for antivirus software, then
>> the standards themselves are total nonsense...
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Nick FitzGerald
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>>
>
>
>

Content of type "text/html" 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/