On Apr 27, 3:34pm, Larry Kealey wrote:
> Subject: Re:TRUST US
>
> Hmmmm, I do not believe I would like to risk the assets of my company to a
piece of software
> which has been reviewed by all the hackers out there. If they gave it the
"good
> housekeeping" seal of approval, I think I'm gonna stay as far away as
possible.
Guess you aren't using satan or ISS or any other tools, eh?
Question: do you trust your network to a security perimeter that some vendor
tells you "trust us, we know what we are doing, and our code is perfect for
your protection. You have our word on it." (with a Joe Isuzu smile...)?
If so, I have some land I would like to offer you.
IOW, it sounds like one should protect their network against what one imagines
the threats are, rather than what are known as threats?
I think any security professional owes it to their company to look at ALL
methods, alternatives, and analyze the products properly. The fact that your
'enemies' have examined the same piece of software is irrelevant. The fact
that 'hackers' have talked about the fwtk in their little circle and magazines
and so forth is a credit in its favor, since it is viewed by that community as
a credible and strong method of protecting the network perimeter, and one whose
mechanism is reisitant to penetration.
I don't see what the problem is...or am i missing something here?
--
Bryan D. Boyle |The Moving Finger writes,and having writ, moves on.
#include <disclaimer> |Nor all your Piety nor Wit can call it back to cancel
EMAIL: bdboyle @
erenj .
com |Half a line, or all your tears wash out a Word of it.
--------------http://www.access.digex.net/~bdboyle/index.html---------------
Follow-Ups:
References:
-
Re:TRUST US
From: Larry Kealey <kealeyl @
Phibro .
COM>
|
|
