Full Disclosure mailing list archives
RE: Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for good security
From: "Beaty, Bryan" <Bryan.Beaty () vector com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 17:50:03 -0600
Correct me if I am wrong but... I believe every worm listed below could have been prevented had everyone patched their systems. I would like the security community to take more responsibility for their own (in)actions. If you were hit by Blaster then you failed to enforce a good patch management policy. Who's fault is that? Patch management is boring and so we often ignore it. Hackers and worms simply take advantage of our laziness. I guess blaster could be a form of social engineering. "I know admins don't patch so I can write a worm and kill the world." There is no such thing as perfect code. If you want a completely secure system you can buy them but they are unbelievably expensive. If you have a business justification for something that secure then buy it. Otherwise you have to live with what you can get from Linux, UNIX, or even Microsoft. Microsoft has at least come out with some very good patch management systems lately (SUS) and they are free. Red Hat charges me a yearly fee for their RHN. I believe the #1 security threat today is poor patch management. Is that Microsoft's fault? --> I am off of my soap box now. Bryan Beaty -----Original Message----- From: Exibar [mailto:exibar () thelair com] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 1:40 PM To: Jeremiah Cornelius; full-disclosure () lists netsys com Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for good security What an idiot.... Take the loveletter worm, when it was first released even if you had a 100% up to date AntiVirus software program, you would still get hit within the first 8 hours.... slammer, blaster, etc all the same thing. The took advantage of holes in the OPERATING SYSTEM!!!! Yes we have ways of updating our VirusSoftware that works very very well, McAfee has E-Policy Orchstrator, which I swear by. I'm not going to go on, but if Windows was as secure as Bill Gates and company says it is, why was blaster, slammer, codered etc even an issue? Exibar ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremiah Cornelius" <jeremiah () nur net> To: <full-disclosure () lists netsys com> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 1:32 PM Subject: [Full-disclosure] Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for good security
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 FLAME ON! http://www.itbusiness.ca/index.asp?theaction=61&sid=53897 "But there are two other techniques: one is called firewalling and the
other
is called keeping the software up to date. None of these problems (viruses and worms) happened to people who did either one of those things. If you
had
your firewall set up the right way - and when I say firewall I include
scanning e-mail and scanning file transfer -- you wouldn't have had a problem. But did we have the tools that made that easy and automatic and
that
you could really audit that you had done it? No. Microsoft in particular
and
the industry in general didn't have it." "The second is just the updating thing. Anybody who kept their software up
to
date didn't run into any of those problems, because the fixes preceded
the exploit. Now the times between when the vulnerability was published and
when
somebody has exploited it, those have been going down, but in every case
at
this stage we've had the fix out before the exploit. So next is making
it easy to do the updating, not for general features but just for the very
few
critical security things, and then reducing the size of those patches,
and reducing the frequency of the patches, which gets you back to the code quality issues. We have to bring these things to bear, and the very
dramatic
things that we can do in the short term have to do with the firewalls and
the
updating infrastructure. " -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/oqq3Ji2cv3XsiSARAlkdAJ0aGkBViYkoE193iZycTmQZohzwbQCg1KDA SjPLY1EEzamQCtIGKwJT1Vk= =mIsY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for good security |reduced|minus|none| (Oct 31)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for good security Beaty, Bryan (Oct 31)
- RE: Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for good security james (Oct 31)
- RE: [spam] RE: Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for good security Exibar (Nov 01)
- udp port 2615 Trond Kringstad (Nov 01)
- RE: Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for good security Cedric Blancher (Nov 01)
- Re: Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for good security William Warren (Nov 02)
- Re: Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for good security Matthew Murphy (Nov 02)
- Re: Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for good security Geoincidents (Nov 02)
- Re: Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for good security Matthew Murphy (Nov 02)
- Re: Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for good security Geoincidents (Nov 02)
- Re: Gates: 'You don't need perfect code' for good security George Capehart (Nov 03)