Gentoo Archives: gentoo-security

From: Andreas Waschbuesch <awaschb@××××.de>
To: gentoo-security@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-security] firewall suggestions?
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 16:23:58
Message-Id: 200401081720.01084.awaschb@gwdg.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-security] firewall suggestions? by "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

epistula illius Thomas T. Veldhouse profluit verbis:
> Oliver Schad wrote: > > [scans are'nt dangerous - so reject] > > True, but if you do happen to have an exploitable service (i.e. the brk > issue with the linux kernel and rsync recently), a script kiddie might > grow tired of waiting for scan results from your network and go > elsewhere. Certainly slowing down potential hackers buys time and > frustration for the attacker if nothing else. The assumption that all > potential attackers are experts is not a good one.
And seduction got absolutely nothing to do with security. It's a simple boolean: either Your system is secure (in terms of human calculation[*]) or it's not. There is no enhanced or "partial" security ... And once again: From a more or less "psychological point of view" it's even worse concerning the traffic load: the curious "bad guy" would try to go on. So it's better to explicitly tell him to go away. [*] "secure" means: You have to invest more effort into breaking into the system than you can expect to gain from it. - -- If you don't have a nasty obituary you probably didn't matter. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE//YMwwGaWYjpgASMRAl/WAKCeKLpkaa21rdgDaCSz/L2Wex/n1gCgsbSs LFKxocfBcw0KM83fxEMw+rI= =SKyG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-security@g.o mailing list