Re: Re[2]: Routers

[Nick FitzGerald <nick () virus-l demon co uk>]

Pierre Vandevenne wrote:

> VKve> Further hatred is engendered by the fact that this creeping horror escaped from
> VKve> Microsoft *after* one of the great "Security is important" diatribes from the
> VKve> Gates/Ballmer duo.
>
> I find this to be a great idea, somewhere between DHCP and e-mail in
> terms of usefulness and significance. True, it has problems, but so
> had/has e-mail. If anyone here can propose some network thingy that is
> at the same time practically useful for most everyone and totally
> safe, boldly step forward!

The main difference between Email and UPnP is that Email never was 
supposed to be secure, and had obvious (but tolerable) security 
implications to its (originally intended) users.

UPnP is deliberately designed to _unbeknownst to the (likely) affected 
user_ lower the security of _other_ security measures that were 
presumably deliberately put in place to _increase_ said user's 
security.  Sure it's "convenient", but security-wise it is an entirely 
different kettle of fish from Email as it deliberately lowers the 
security of _other_ supposed security measures...


Regards,

Nick FitzGerald

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.