November 10, 2006 - #154
Good Morning:
Shhhh! Can you hear that? No? Good neither can I. That is the sound of silence in my house as my wife took my oldest one away for the weekend and the twins are in school. It's a Daddy weekend (for the twins anyway) and I'm looking forward to that. It's funny, I really enjoy my solitary time. But you do get used to the chaos of having a lot of activity and mayhem around you most of the day.
In security-land, I can only hope that our next import from the UK will be ISP responsibility (here [0]). The vociferous few (in that great British accent) are calling for the ISPs to take responsibility for DDoS attacks. Here here. Boddington's on me!!! Next (here [0]) I want to rail on the so-called "site certifications" like HackerSafe, SecurityMetrics, and one certain former employer of mine (TruSecure/CyberTrust). A questionnaire and a vuln scan does not give me comfort that my data is safe. But I guess like the TSA show at your local airport, these little seals put on a show that someone cares about security (at least enough to pay a couple hundred bucks to go through the process). But don't be misled, there is only a slight correlation between these programs and data protection.
In blog-land, Michael Wright misses the old days when worms roamed the earth and security was easy (here [0]). I don't. Now we see who has talent and who is a pretender. Who can talk business and who can't. Sure it's harder, but what fun is it if it's easy? But maybe that's just me. Looks like Stiennon is using his NetworkWorld pulpit (here [0]) to rail on pre-admission NAC (again). Shocker! But we've already played that one out here in blog-land and nothing I'm seeing is changing my opinion that both pre- and post- are important.
Have a great weekend.
Technorati: Information Security [1]
Top Security News
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn10494-isps-should-be-responsible-for-hacker-attacks.html [2]
Link to this [2]
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2054615,00.asp?kc=EWSTEEMNL110906EOAD [3]
Link to this [3]
http://weblog.channel-marker.com/?p=43
[4]Link to this [4]
http://www.etfdigest.com/index.php [5]
Link to this [5]
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193700219 [6]
Link to this [6]
Top Blog Postings
http://mcwresearch.com/archives/342
[7]Link to this [7]
here [7]) and I agree with Richard that the access control part of NAC is most interesting. But I also believe that there is a role for host integrity checking, as well as the IDS/IPS like worm mitigation that some solutions provide as well. So yes, the answer is (D), all of the above.
http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2006/111306stiennon.html
[8]Link to this [8]
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/11/report_phishers_hooking_fewer.html
[9]Link to this [9]
http://news.com.com/2061-11203_3-6134194.html
[10]Link to this [10]