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]

Message-ID: <1305146954.26856.183.camel@subarashii>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 22:49:14 +0200
From: phocean <0x90@...cean.net>
To: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@...or.net>
Cc: "full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Sony: No firewall and no patches

Le mercredi 11 mai 2011 à 17:40 +0000, Dobbins, Roland a écrit :
> On May 12, 2011, at 12:31 AM, phocean wrote:
> 
> > When I look at the specs of high end machines of most makers, they are and they outmatch most of x64 servers.
> 
> 
> <http://urbanairship.com/blog/2010/09/29/linux-kernel-tuning-for-c500k/>

Nice but not very precise : nature of packets, fragmentation, sessions,
bandwidth, etc.
Anyway, most appliances run a version of Linux or some BSD, so there is
potentially not much difference with an appliance.

To go back to my point: an application server (IIS, Apache) cannot
sustain as many connections as a firewall (of course in a sane and
standard environment).
So you cannot tell that a firewall will increase the risk of DoS.

From what I have seen so far as arguments, I think the discussion is
over.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/