|
|||||||||||
|
Re: [Snort-users] Re: [Snort-devel] IDS vs IPS
From: Jeff Nathan <jeff(at)snort.org>
Date: Sat Aug 30 2003 - 21:08:44 EDT
Mark, In 2003 commercially ready has come to mean that a product contains an acceptable number of flaws. There are a few analysts out there who I have faith in (Greg Shipley to name one), but by and large let's not give analysts too much credit. There are plenty of security product companies whose products are designed by marketing organizations whose members have neither worked in operational security nor attempted to penetrate a system. Yes, Brian Reid and the others credited with inventing the firewall at DEC WRL did an impressive job at the time. Just as the IDS efforts at SRI and LLNL in the 1980s were impressive. It's now 2003 and time doesn't stand still. Hartmeier's PF *IS* good firewall code. Were we to compare the quality of the underlying code it's as good or better than the work at WRL. Were we to compare its features to those the WRL firewall it's no contest; the level of completeness is an order of magnitude higher. http://www.benzedrine.cx/pf.html (this site appears to be down at the moment). IPS is a made up term. It's nonexistent. It's marketing voodoo. It's nondescript and just like other forms of language that have permeated the English language as a result of political correctness and the haphazard nature of people working in marketing organizations to pull buzzwords out of thin air, it reduces the specificity of the topic at hand. IPS might describe any number of concepts. After all, what does intrusion prevention REALLY mean? Are we talking about preventing execution of CPU instructions? Preventing network data containing malicious data from being allowed to reach an end host? Obviously the marketing folks are going to try to spin this in dozens of ways but I'm not ready to let them have their way when it comes to destroying the specificity of language. As each security company tries to get their hand in the proverbial cookie jar we're going to see more and more products touting their IPS features. Taken literally, they might be right. However, this lack of linguistic specificity moves the state of security back several years rather than propel it forward. Much like NIDS vendors played the game of counting how many signatures they had before CVE was created, every security company is going to tout their IPS features until a common definition is agreed upon. I'll put my stock in industry analysts such as the folks over at Gartner when they stop producing research reports whose data was gathered by making phone calls to company executives rather than empirical analysis. That's right, folks. That much touted Gartner report was exposed not all that long ago when they were questioned directly about the source of their information. As the story goes, they admitted (in a room full of people) to having simply made phone calls. I look forward to my beer. :) Take care,
On Saturday, August 30, 2003, at 05:43 PM, Mark Teicher wrote: > Jeff,
iD8DBQE/UUqkEqr8+Gkj0/0RAn/sAKCWCa6tyPlQHJM7JPb4V83wKuJdpQCeIMy8
7GW4yRWGtMPlf07BO9Lc6HY=
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf Snort-devel mailing list Snort-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-devel Received on Sat Aug 30 21:13:34 2003 This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 23 2006 - 14:08:09 EDT |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||