IS101/IPv6 is back! (was Re: 99.9 % of Software/Hardware Firewalls DO-NOT.....)

From: James Greerson (jamesgreerson2@hotmail.com)
Date: 12/30/01 

From: James Greerson <jamesgreerson2@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 01:54:22 GMT

On Sat, 29 Dec 2001 17:24:41 -0600, Patrick Farrell <grimlock@xnet.com>
wrote in message <3C2E50B9.4235E2CA@xnet.com>:

>What it appears we have here, is someone who read something somewhere and
>doesn't understand enough about it to make any sort of a case for it.
>
>You make many claims, have been challenged by people who disagree with you, who
>have given you legitimate counter points, and all you can say is that they are
>wrong.
>
>So do you not understand your argument well enough to debate it, or are you just
>annoying? (Well we know the second answer, but I'd say both are yes based off
>of this thread).
>
>Put up or shut up.
>
>Provide an example. Pick a firewall, your choice, as I'm sure there's at least
>one person in this group with expertise on any major brand you pick. Show a
>specific example on how something you define as a risk can actually impact.
>
>Oooh unknown protocols and experimental IP's are the boogeymen.
>
>Illustrate how one of these will compromise a firewall.
>
>If you can't then just admit your either wrong, or you don't know.

"Sick&Tired" <lililmanlilii@yahoo.com> is trolling the firewall group
again. Regulars who remember him from the flame wars he caused last year
and the year before, will note that he used to post here under various
pseudonyms, most notably as "InternetSecurity101" and " IPv6". The last
time he posted as InternetSecurity101 (aka IS101), he said he was
permanently leaving the group but apparently he couldn't stay away.

His real name is Thomas Herrod.

See
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&th=21864c7a0b966fa0&seekm=3a4ae61f.1616421%40
for details on his identity.

See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8hfh86%24e5u%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&output=gplain
for an example of some of his previous nonsense postings.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 99.9 % of Software/Hardware Firewalls DO-NOT.....
    ... > doesn't understand enough about it to make any sort of a case for it. ... Pick a firewall, your choice, as I'm sure there's at least ... > specific example on how something you define as a risk can actually impact. ... > Oooh unknown protocols and experimental IP's are the boogeymen. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: 99.9 % of Software/Hardware Firewalls DO-NOT.....
    ... doesn't understand enough about it to make any sort of a case for it. ... specific example on how something you define as a risk can actually impact. ... Oooh unknown protocols and experimental IP's are the boogeymen. ... Illustrate how one of these will compromise a firewall. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • RE: [fw-wiz] RPCs over HTTPS through the firewall
    ... >> it matter much if we add RPC to the sludge? ... > a similar risk profile, although encrypting traffic over 443 ... of the firewall admin's major bugbears. ...
    (Firewall-Wizards)
  • RE: RE: Front End/Back End communication
    ... communication between FE/BE via IPSEC then IF the front end server ... How likely is it that someone gets past your firewall? ... the FE and BE communicate in the clear. ... you against the real risk. ...
    (Focus-Microsoft)
  • Re: [more specific] Signature vs. Protocol Analysis
    ... >>isn't a sane way to develop a firewall ruleset. ... Security stupidity has three basic stages: ... to standardising security nomenclature in a number of areas (from things ... What would be very useful, I think, is a formal -grammar- of some sort ...
    (Focus-IDS)
Loading