Rick Smith wrote:
> At 9:38 AM +1100 2/12/98, Darren Reed wrote:
>
> >Personally, I'd prefer a service that fell victim to D.O.S attacks than
> >one which could be compromised.
>
> Outside of the intelligence agencies, I've found that Internet savvy
> enterprises generally consider denial of service to be as bad or worse a
> "compromise" as anything else a hacker might do. This is certainly becoming
> true in military environments.
I guess it really depends on the situation. For example, if I have a firewall
that is generating logs locally, and that system runs out of disk space, I
would far prefer the firewall to shut down (thus a denial of service) than to
continue to happily pass traffic even though it is no longer able to record
events. IMO, a firewall that no longer records sessions has been "compromised".
A D.O.S. is far preferable.
Cheers,
Chris
--
**************************************
cbrenton_at_sover.net
Multiprotocol Network Design & Troubleshooting
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0782120822/0740-8883012-887529
Support the anti-spam movement: http://www.cauce.org/
Received on Feb 13 1998
Intro
