[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D2F4839.2070600@isecom.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:45:13 +0100
From: Pete Herzog <lists@...com.org>
To: Tim <tim-security@...tinelchicken.org>
Cc: "full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>,
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Subject: Re: Getting Off the Patch
> Yeah, sounds good in theory. What about when vulnerabilities (and
> presumably patches) come out for your "sandbox" or other security
> software?
That's why you use a wide array of operational controls and not just
one, like a sandbox. The sandbox in the article was just a small example.
>
> IMO, adding more software to a system rarely results in overall
> management gains. This is because most software, including security
> software, sucks. If you find yourself patching too often, or you
> can't trust that the patches won't break your environment, then you
> probably need to find a software vendor that invests more in QA.
>
I couldn't agree more. Flaws in operational controls (security
software) are a serious shame on the security industry and as you
suggested, if you have that many flaws in a software, replace the
vendor. However, I'll go one more- if you find your patches breaking
too often or too many things, then stop patching and find an alternative.
Sincerely,
-pete.
--
Pete Herzog - Managing Director - pete@...com.org
ISECOM - Institute for Security and Open Methodologies
www.isecom.org - www.osstmm.org
www.hackerhighschool.org - www.badpeopleproject.org
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists