Firewall Wizards: Re: RE:Vulnerability Scanners ( was: concerning ~el8 / project mayhem )

["B. Scott Harroff" <Scott.Harroff () att net>]

> Actually, I think it's not necessarily good to stop "folks like Jim-" the
> "bad apple" defense means you *must* stop Jim once he's reported.
> However, if you put in a mechanism and it has flaws, you could be more
> liable for the things that get through than you are if you don't try.
> Suddenly you've placed yourself in the position of an editor, and legally,
> not trying and not failing is different than trying and failing.
Your opinion is its better to do nothing and let 100% get though then though
a combination of technology / process / policy that stops 95%?

I think one would be better of showing "intent to protect and missing one
instance or two" than "doing nothing about a known problem".



_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards