Re: [fw-wiz] tunnel vs open a hole
From: Adam Shostack (adam@homeport.org)
Date: 04/08/03
- Previous message: Melson, Paul: "RE: [fw-wiz] tunnel vs open a hole"
- In reply to: Frederick M Avolio: "Re: [fw-wiz] tunnel vs open a hole"
- Next in thread: Dave Piscitello: "Re: [fw-wiz] tunnel vs open a hole"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org> To: Frederick M Avolio <fred@avolio.com> Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 15:40:57 -0400
On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 03:07:08PM -0400, Frederick M Avolio wrote:
|
| Of course, encryption exacerbates the problem. :-) We can then gain a
| tremendously high level of assurance that Dave Piscitello did something
| over SSL to a particular IP address from a particular IP address. Which
| adds authentication and little else on top of the paragraph you cited:
Dave's a security expert. Their systems are notoriously 0wned. All
we really know is that Dave, or one of the 350 kiddies who trade his
passwords for a lark, did something. ;)
Adam
(Note to the sarcasm impaired: Dave and I have never met. I have no
idea how secure or insecure his personal computer is. I've never seen
a list of his passwords being traded.)
-- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- Previous message: Melson, Paul: "RE: [fw-wiz] tunnel vs open a hole"
- In reply to: Frederick M Avolio: "Re: [fw-wiz] tunnel vs open a hole"
- Next in thread: Dave Piscitello: "Re: [fw-wiz] tunnel vs open a hole"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|