full-disclosure - Re: Getting Off the Patch

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: <AANLkTikwoskRAYTaMsdVeM8vC5R-XWN2OQNgBF2pYqsG@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:29:13 +0000
From: "Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]"
	<cal.leeming@...plicitymedialtd.co.uk>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Getting Off the Patch

Apologies if I have completely missed the point here, as I have only skimmed
through this.

Most people wouldn't rely solely on patch day to protect their
systems/network, they would also employ the use of a NIDS / HIDS to mitigate
the risk further (of course, said solutions should have a large community
base and/or a record of releasing 0day incrementals in a timely manner). On
top of this, workstation based anti virus packages (such as AVG or w/e), to
help prevent those pesky drive by kits.

Taking all that into consideration, I would agree that patching shouldn't be
considered the "be all and end all" of security, but that's no reason to
disable patching completely, surely? The more layers of protection you add,
the better your odds are.

The idea of presenting these ideals as a training opportunity is a clever
idea, but only if the trainers themselves are established names in the
security field, otherwise it will be another case of "the blind leading the
blind".

>

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/