On Fri, 27 Mar 1998, Caldwell, Matt wrote:
> What was your point in this statement, I agree with the statement that
The point was that a warranty of "security" is not achievable in the near
to mid term, and any company attempting to do any significant monetary
backing of its product would basicly spend most of its time in court
proving its detractors wrong.
> firewalls are just a start in protecting a network, however
> it would be nice to have a firewall that had automated patches and
> things of that nature, this was the point of the paragraph not your
Those three words weren't the obvious point of your note from my reading,
and I don't think that a single company, or even a group of companies with
even a bonded guarantee will change the overall paradyn of this industry.
We've been asking for secure systsms for *decades*, and liability and
fiduciary responsibility are more likely to shift the general nature of
the industry towards either a fertile ground for litigation, or one where
most places can't afford protection once again, and it becomes a fertile
ground for litigation based on shareholder lawsuits.
> micropoint. Most security professionals on this list realize that
> firewalls aren't "magic bullets".
And yet they continue to make statements like:
"If this firewall is setup by our professionals and is not modified, then we
guarantee that you will not be compromised through our product..."
*shrug*
Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
proberts @
clark .
net which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
PSB#9280
References:
|
|
