Steve wrote:
>
> Eric K. Dickinson wrote:
> >
> > I am wondering if this is a suitable solution. Could one not set up a passive
> > defence by over writing the presented home-pages at a predeterminded time and
> > at some other trigger such as a write or copy. Any unauthorized action could
> > also be used as a trigger to just "over write". The real home-page coud be
> > anywhere accessable only by the OS itself or another hardened location not
> > presented to the world. I am used to the Unix world and have more experience
> > there than NT.
> >
> > Any Ideas? Thoughts? Or is this out in let field?
> >
> > eric @
nova .
dcrt .
nih .
gov
>
> Eric,
>
> A very interesting thought..but firewalls are supposed to prevent users
> from being able to tamper in the first place. But, I for one am going
> to give that more serious consideration as I see its possibilities for
> use on maybe another machine on the LAN to check on the status of say a
> web server. Thanks for the idea..
>
> Steve
> Steve @
hon .
com
> sdg consulting
2 things:
1. I disagree with the statement about firewalls....
some find it more palatable to put the web server OUTSIDE
the firewall and not let ANYONE through
2. the idea of re-writing the files regularly on the web server
is a good one.... we do something similar to 'rdist's
binary compare and unconditionally re-write that
which differes from the "master" copy stored well within
our security perimeter.
We also ascribe to 1 above and do NOT trust our web server
in anyway.... if it's crashed, we know it quickly, restore from
a recent backup, and go on with our lives.
--
[~]========================================================================[~]
| Patrick Larkin Jr. <plarkin @
iphase .
com> Systems Administrator |
| Ah, but Unix IS a User Friendly OS! It's just picky about its friends! |
[_]========================================================================[_]
|
|
