On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:38:49 -0600 Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On Friday, January 16, 2004 4:14 AM +0100 Erik van Straten
> <emvs.fd.3FB4D11C@cpo.tn.tudelft.nl> wrote:
[snip]
> > Nope. It translates to not needing simple PFW's -for ingress traffic-
> > if there are no listening ports. Flaws shouldn't have been there in the
> > first place, and any found should be fixed ASAP%001.
> >
> Well, hell, let's ban iptables, ipfw, pf, ipchains, et. al. from
> "workstation" installs of *nix. After all, *nix is secure out of the box,
> right? And PFW's just give people a false sense of security anyway, right?
[snip]
> > With ABS you can drive much closer to the car in
> > front of you. With AV and a PFW people tend to believe it is safe to
> > run any exe (or hta). Marketing helps making people believe this.
> >
> I have to agree with you here. It's been made obvious to me by the posts
> today in this thread.
Explain this contradiction in your rant and we may talk
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Received on Fri Jan 16 05:31:23 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jan 16 2004 - 06:01:01 CST
