mailing list archives
Re: Why the IPS product designers concentrate on server side protection? why they are missing client protection
From: Nelson Brito <nbrito () sekure org>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:23:31 -0300
Comments are inline!
Please, help me to develop the ENG® SQL Fingerprint™ downloading it
from Google Code (http://code.google.com/p/mssqlfp/) or from
Sent on an iPhone wireless device. Please, forgive any potential
On Jun 1, 2010, at 9:52 AM, "Cor Rosielle" <cor () outpost24 com> wrote:
You're missing one point: Host IPS MUST be deployed with any Network
Security (Firewalls os NIPSs).
Please be aware this is a risk decision and not a fact. I don't use
an host IPS and no anti Virus either. Still I'm sure my laptop is
perfectly safe. This is because I do critical thinking about
security measures and don't copy behavior of others (who often don't
think for themselves and just copies other peoples behavior). Please
note I'm not saying you're not thinking. If you did some critical
thinking and an host IPS is a good solution for you, then that's OK>
It just doesn't mean it is a good solution for everybody else and
everybody MUST deploy an host IPS.
That's so 1990! NIPS and/or Firewall just protect you if you're inside
the "borders"... But, come on. Who doesn't have a laptop nowadays? So,
multiple protection layers is better than none, anyways.
You have choices when adopting a security posture or, if you prefer,
risk posture. I believe that it's quite difficult and almost
impossible you stay updated with all the threads, due to exponential
growth of them.
No security solution/technology is the miracle protection alone,
so that's the reason everybody is talking about defense in depth.
Defense in depth is often used for another line of a similar defense
mechanism as the previous already was. Different layers of defense
works best if the defense mechanism differ. So if you're using anti
virus software (which gives you an authentication control and an
alarm control according to the OSSTMM), then an host IDS is not the
best additional security measure (because this also gives you an
authentication and an alarm control).
Woowoo.. I cannot agree with you, because AV has nothing to do
protecting end-point against network attacks. AV will alert and
protect only when the thread already reached your end-point. Besides,
there are other layers, such as: buffer overflow protection inside
HIPS. Look that I am not talking abous IDS. 8)
This would also be a risk decision, but based on facts and the rules
defined in the OSSTMM and not based on some marketing material. You
should give it a try.
It always is a risk decision, and I not basing MHO on any "standard",
that's based on my background... And, AFAIK, nodoby can expect that
users and/or server systems will be able to apply all or any update in
a huge environment.
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/