|
|||||||||||
|
RE: IDS is dead, etc
From: Bob Buel <bob(at)buel.org>
Date: Fri Aug 08 2003 - 12:34:46 EDT
Much as I appreciate the practicality of what you are saying, and agree totally with it in an ideal sort of way, I can never say those thoughts out loud where someone might hear it, because it is not a perfect world, never will be, and I can't afford not to keep a watchful eye for someone, sufficiently motivated, who will do the impossible!
Good day, gentlemen one and all,
Bob Subject: Re: IDS is dead, etc
2003-08-07T16:49:10 Barry Fitzgerald:
Perhaps you're referring to my comment: 2003-08-06T14:57:53 Bennett Todd: > I have to chime in and say that I couldn't possibly disagree more. Understandable. I really shouldn't have included that remark; or else I should have expanded on it. I didn't say "properly configured firewall", I said "really perfectly implemented firewall", and I meant something different by that, although I neglected to explain. A perfectly implemented firewall allows no protocols through for which there are vulnerable implementations inside. That means it's impossible to implement a perfect firewall if you're going to allow Windows users to have internet access. You can come moderately close, with a hideous amount of work, but you'll still be very exposed, and an IDS will be critical reinforcement of your flawed security. But given suitable systems configuration, it is possbile to have a perfect firewall, and if you do then an IDS is just an educational tool, and would probably be most useful in concert with a honeypot. -Bennett Captus Networks - Integrated Intrusion Prevention and Traffic Shaping
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 23 2006 - 14:01:16 EDT |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||