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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <653239.26217.qm@web30206.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds

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/
> 

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/