Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: NASA Security Audit
From: "Anders Reed-Mohn" <anders_rm () utepils com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:28:52 +0200
Blocking this at the linux platform so he cant get through is a powerful way of shielding the flaws in microsoft architecture.
And if I were to perform such an audit/test, this is exactly the kind of thing that would get the system admin in trouble. think about it.. what are you really doing here? If I understand you correctly, you are just covering up a problem, pretending it is not there, instead of trying to fix it. This will be obvious to an auditor, if he's any good... Besides, if it does work, or fool, some people, this will lead to the sysadmin not fixing the real problem later either, because the patch applied seems to be ok. Dangerous territory, man ... Cheers, Anders :) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- NASA Security Audit Gregory M. Brown (Oct 08)
- Re: NASA Security Audit Roger A. Grimes (Oct 09)
- PIX introduction Daniel Cid (Oct 09)
- RE: NASA Security Audit Byron Copeland (Oct 09)
- Re: NASA Security Audit Eric (Oct 09)
- Re: NASA Security Audit Steve (Oct 09)
- Re: NASA Security Audit Marcos E. Rodriguez (Oct 10)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: NASA Security Audit KoRe MeLtDoWn (Oct 09)
- Re: NASA Security Audit Anders Reed-Mohn (Oct 10)
- RE: NASA Security Audit Simons, Rick (Oct 09)
- RE: NASA Security Audit Raymer, Dan (Oct 09)
- RE: NASA Security Audit Johnson, Kevin (Oct 09)
- RE: NASA Security Audit Mike (Oct 10)
- Re: NASA Security Audit Cl Clay (Oct 09)
- Re: NASA Security Audit Meritt James (Oct 10)
- RE: NASA Security Audit Morgado Alain (Oct 10)
- Re: NASA Security Audit Marcos E. Rodriguez (Oct 10)
- Re: NASA Security Audit Roger A. Grimes (Oct 09)