mailing list archives
Re: RE: In defense of non standard ports
From: "Paul D. Robertson" <paul () compuwar net>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 08:53:47 -0500 (EST)
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, R. DuFresne wrote:
I had to stop here, for the term "security professionals" is a hard one to
define, does this imply certified persons? Also, working for a state gov,
No, it means people getting paid to do security work. That implies that
management is willing to pay *something* for ongoing security.
I can state plainly, security professionals/certified persons means little
where I ern a paycheck, as they tend to have certs indeed, and yet lack a
skill tween the whole group of 10 or so, in fact we could hire monkeys to
accomplish the same "scan reports" that are the height of their abilities.
While I'm constantly dismayed by the lack of true understanding in the
field, that doesn't abate the fact that someone's paying for something
Now to the end of the statement, do they have pull with mgt? Well, they
are pulling in a far different diredtion the more they tend to ruffle
whole departments by crying wolf <sorry, no that trojan port your nessus
scan spotteed means less this month then it did last month you spewed it
up the mgt hill on our RACF mainframe, or sorry no your nessus skills are
not truely honed if you think pcanywhere is running on that solaris box>.
But it's a long climb from "Hey, you're a computer person, here's a
security hat" to "Hey, let's hire some security people." That's a big
jump forward- NOW we need to direct that energy more productively. That's
why I think we need to go back and start rattling firewall ruleset cages
instead of looking at shiney IDS reports, we've now got to get some
common, solid, understood security baseline industry-wide, otherwise we
all get painted with the "ineffective" brush.
We have more personell that do not work with ISO with a clue towards
security in their prospective realm/OS/platform or on a whole then any of
the certified monkeys that ISO has hired to "secure" this state, and the
more pull with mgt thet have means the worse things get with each new
project rolled out...
It's a problem many would be happy to have- the assault has begun, you
have a gun, it's just pointed at your own foot. You can adjust your aim-
some folks out there are still trying to get to step one. We do need to
get people away from thinking IDS reports are filled with security-fu.
How many here have taken Avishai's study and compared it to their own
rulesets? Their business partners? Forwarded a synopsis or copy up the
Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
paul () compuwar net which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
http://fora.compuwar.net Infosec discussion boards
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com