RE: Flawed arguments (Was all that other crap about PFW day)

["Schmehl, Paul L" <pauls () utdallas edu>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik van Straten [mailto:emvs.fd.3FB4D11C () cpo tn tudelft nl] 
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 5:05 AM
> To: Schmehl, Paul L
> Cc: full-disclosure () lists netsys com
> Subject: RE: [Full-disclosure] Flawed arguments (Was all that 
> other crap about PFW day)
>
> > > 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 
The previous poster complains that PFWs fool people into thinking that
they are more secure.  Several other posters have cited the fact that
most *nixes now come with "the firewall enabled", which obviously means
they think that makes *nix more secure.  So, they believe, simply by
having iptables (or whatever) enabled, they are more secure.

Yet they see no contradiction between their belief in the added security
of *nix firewalls and their contention that Windows PFWs give a false
sense of security with no real benefit.  I have to admit, on a security
list, I'm a bit surprised to see this sort of flawed argumentation, but
I guess I shouldn't be.  Their hatred of Microsoft blinds them.

Paul Schmehl (pauls () utdallas edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html