Re: Anti Virus: Improving the current defense strategy.
From: Uzi (none@none.invalid)Date: 12/15/01
- Next message: 401k: "Re: Using BID to block SMTP-sending-mass-mailers...?"
- Previous message: Lauren: "Re: NIS 2001 v. 3.0 and Outlook Express 6.0"
- Maybe in reply to: John Elsbury: "Re: Anti Virus: Improving the current defense strategy."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: none@none.invalid (Uzi) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 06:39:44 GMT
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 05:28:15 GMT, Jem Berkes
<berkesREMOVE@DELETE.pc9.org> wrote:
>> Except that diversity isn't security by obscurity. We're not trying to
>> conceal which OS and software the target's running. We're trying to
>> reduce the size of each target.
>
>>> I also think it is a bit too simplistic to blame Mr. Gates. Outlook
>>> (Express) is so vulnerable, not because it is so crappy per se, but
>>> because it can do the most. As simple as that. Sure, no virus will
>>> enter pine;
>>
>> I have to blame Gates a lot. MS software designers _know_ all the
>> problems their design causes.
>
>This reminded me of...
>
>http://www.securityfocus.com/news/281
There is a fairly exhaustive discussion about the issue of whether it
is good to publically expose security holes or not in the November
issue of Crypto-Gram:
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0111.html
Uzi
For e-mail contact: user is uzi and domain is wireworm.com
- Next message: 401k: "Re: Using BID to block SMTP-sending-mass-mailers...?"
- Previous message: Lauren: "Re: NIS 2001 v. 3.0 and Outlook Express 6.0"
- Maybe in reply to: John Elsbury: "Re: Anti Virus: Improving the current defense strategy."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]