maxqnz
Newbie
Walekam salaam, noho ora mai!
Posts: 26
|
 |
Re: Conjectures and Refutations
« Reply #5 on: Oct 24th, 2003, 11:54pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Oct 24th, 2003, 11:30pm, 8Signs wrote:
It's been made.
When Network Associates first published the McAfee Firewall (acquired from Signal 9), they called it "An Impenetrable Barrier" around your computer ".. to secure and defend it from Internet hazards such as a hacker trying to steal your private information, a Trojan horse taking control of your PC or other insidious dangers. ...". "Impenatrable" implies total protection. They were forced to back off those words.
Symantec used more finesse in their words, but still gives the impression of total protection: "It automatically hides your PC from hackers, stops spyware and Trojan horse programs from connecting to the Internet, ...". A customer reads that and thinks they will be safe from trojans. A lawyer reads that and says "They didn't say it stops all Trojan horse programs, as long as they stop some, the statement is true.".
|
|
Thanks. Both examples definitely do state, explicitly or implicitly, that they offer total protection, and this, of course, is nonsense. I have been informed. 
Quote:
I dunno. Maybe it comes down to the level of security you expect. Someone who demands a lot will call leaktests proof that PFs are not good enough. Someone with a life  who just wants something that will probably work fine (and has in the past) will not be worried by the leaktest stream.
Think of going out on the ocean in a boat and someone says, "that boats going to leak" and you say "looks fine to me". Then they take a hose and shoot water through a hole. You fix the hole and say, "there, the boat will float" and they shoot water through another hole. The optimist will say that some day the holes will all be found and the boat will surely float. The pessimist will say the boat is a seive and I can go on finding holes until you switch to Canoenix  .
I guess that analogy makes me a boat repairman and I don't like selling tubes of glue that customers must continually apply on their voyage just to stay afloat.
|
|
Ah, but that's the all-or-nothing type of analogy. A boat with a hole, any hole, will take on water and eventually become unsafe, most likely very quickly. A better analogy for your purposes would be a suit of armour. One could walk around in a suit of armour, taking and successfully deflecting many hits, without knowing that there was a hole in the suit. Once you know about the hole, you fix it, or buy a new suit with fewer holes. I say fewer becauser there ain't no such thing as a suit with no holes,or else you couldn't put it on.
Quote:
I suppose in the practical sense, the question is are they reactive enough? A/V products are updated daily and you apply an update that doesn't require a reinstall or reboot. I don't think PFs are there yet. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Leaktest updates require reinstalls, except for BlackICE, which has an update mechanism.
James Grant
|
|
Sygate Pro has an update mechanism, also.
I stres again, though, that the point of my post was the need for careful choice of language. I have read lengthy treatises that explained in minute, and specious, detail, how the existence of and success of leaktests proved that software FWs are a waste of time. That's like saying that a kevlar vest for a cop is a waste of time because he can still get shot in the head. Both sides of the debate tend to resort to oversimplification and hype to make their point. Here's how I see it:
1. Perfect, complete security for a computer does not exist while connected to any other computer at all. Therefore, security is all about risk reduction and management, not risk elimination.
2. Software firewalls can play an important part in reducing exposure to the risks inherent in being connected.
3. Users must inform themselves of the risks, solutions on offer that address those risks, and thier own unique risk status. This status includes things like the amount of time online (exposure to risk), and the user's ability to afford protection. (If you're offering to shout me a router, that would be very nice) They are then in a position to make an educated decision about a risk management strategy that suits them.
4. Sloppy, or worse, intentionally misleading, use of language, whether by security product vendors, or others, serves only to muddy the waters, making more difficult the process of user education that is the key to a successful programme of risk management.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 25th, 2003, 12:12am by maxqnz » |
 IP Logged |
ओ पालनहारे, तुमरे बिन हमरा कौनों नहीं
What's a pieriansipist?
|
|
|
Mischel Internet Security Forum
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
Author
Search
Members
Login
Register