full-disclosure - Re: Sony: No firewall and no patches

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]

Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 16:48:45 +1000
From: "Ivan ." <ivanhec@...il.com>
To: Tracy Reed <treed@...raviolet.org>
Cc: "full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Sony: No firewall and no patches

doesn't it also mandate the encryption of CC info? requirement 4 Encrypting
and Storing Credit Card Data

plenty of reports that the data was not encrypted, and also plenty that say
it was.

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Tracy Reed <treed@...raviolet.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 05:07:39AM +0000, Dobbins, Roland spake thusly:
> > Stateful firewalls have no place in front of servers, where every
> incoming
> > request is unsolicited, and therefore there is no state to inspect in the
> > first place.
>
> The PCI SSC requires a stateful firewall in front of servers processing
> credit
> card data. Not only to block inbound access to any ports or services
> accidentally exposed but the outbound policy must also be default deny to
> make
> it more difficult to exfiltrate stolen data. If you have traffic going out
> to a
> high numbered port and you are not keeping state how do you know if that is
> a
> reply packet to an existing inbound connection or if it is an unauthorized
> outbound connection?
>
> Of course, the network should be properly segmented so that only the
> servers
> processing payment data are in-scope. You may be right about not putting a
> stateful firewall in front of the gaming servers (in Sony's case).
>
> > Where stateful firewalls in front of Web servers are incorrectly mandated
> by
> > various regulatory frameworks, making use of mod_security or its
> equivalent
> > on the Web servers themselves ensures compliance without creating a DDoS
> > chokepoint.
>
> If you don't have a stateful firewall blocking outbound connections why
> would
> the traffic even have to go through mod_security?
>
> --
> Tracy Reed
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/