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

Message-ID: <AANLkTikYk=sU94yckA_z5O9Yhoh3A45uQTXTzBEkX4pk@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:16:47 +0100
From: Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
To: "Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]" <cal.leeming@...plicitymedialtd.co.uk>
Cc: "Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
	"full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Getting Off the Patch

Ah, but that is YOUR argument. They don't seem to agree with it.

Heck if they did, every single word so far would have been completely
unnecessary, since layering security is what we've done ever since the first
knife was invented!







On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd] <
cal.leeming@...plicitymedialtd.co.uk> wrote:

> Christian,
>
> There is no 'direct alternative' as we have already established that there
> is no "be all and end all" for security, it's when you layer these factors
> on top of each other that it becomes more effective.
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>wrote:
>
>> I'm getting a bit annoyed reading over and over arguments which I've
>> highlighted some time ago anyway (
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk/msg44454.html
>> ).
>>
>> The real question, what is the *direct* alternative to patching?
>>
>> Don't say "sandboxing" because it doesn't always work.
>> And don't tell me about only installing the system critical issues only -
>> that's called "update by priority".
>> Also, please remember that we are talking against patching, not discussing
>> where patching works(/ is better) or not so I would expect any serious
>> arguments to completely exclude patching.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chris.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:05 PM, coderman <coderman@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:43 AM, phocean <0x90@...cean.net> wrote:
>>> > ... how is this new ? It has been the best
>>> > practice of good system/security administrators for years.
>>> >
>>> > And it doesn't look like a "no patching" policy yet...
>>>
>>>
>>> sure, .. though you've made me sad considering how few organizations
>>> do "best practice, good system/security administration".
>>>
>>> not new, still difficult?   (~_~;)
>>>
>>>
>>>  that leaves consensus:
>>>    "no patching" elusive, yet to be observed in real-world. (e.g.
>>> yeti or bigfeets)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/