Re: [fw-wiz] Worms, Air Gaps and Responsibility

From: ArkanoiD (ark_at_eltex.net)
Date: 05/14/04

  • Next message: Kelly, Chris W.: "RE: [fw-wiz] Worms, Air Gaps and Responsibility"
    To: Dana Nowell <DanaNowell@cornerstonesoftware.com>
    Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 14:26:42 +0400
    
    

    nuqneH,

    More sophisticated data analysis is performed by device, more possibilities
    to exploit it via _transit_ data, not initiating connections to the router
    itself..

    On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 02:38:56PM -0400, Dana Nowell wrote:
    > On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:51:55 -0400 (EDT) Paul D. Robertson opined:
    > >On Wed, 12 May 2004, Claussen, Ken wrote:
    > >
    > >> Paul,
    > >> Even Cisco is not immune to the exploits.
    > >
    > >My point was that given the platform's ubiquity, we hadn't seen a worm-
    > >that doesn't mean it's not possible to do one, it means that it's not a
    > >given that ubiquity equates to common and automatic malcode exploitation.
    > >
    > >In fact, the point that we've had Cisco exploits in the past simply
    > >underlines the fact that ubiquity isn't the only driver for mass malcode
    > >exploits.
    > >
    >
    > Come on Paul that's a skewed comparison. I don't know about you but I do
    > not let any traffic arriving at the external router adapter 'talk to' the
    > router. Sure it passes through but if 'you' go ahead and try telneting to
    > my external address, the ACL says NO! and logs the attempt (and I
    > frequently contact 'your' ISP).
    >

    _______________________________________________
    firewall-wizards mailing list
    firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards


  • Next message: Kelly, Chris W.: "RE: [fw-wiz] Worms, Air Gaps and Responsibility"