[59142] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Mobile code security (was Re: rr style scanning of non-customers)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Borchers)
Mon Jun 16 11:21:44 2003
From: "Mark Borchers" <mborchers@igillc.com>
To: "Brandon Butterworth" <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:19:35 -0500
In-Reply-To: <200306161443.PAA18675@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> Brandon Butterworth
>
> Or they may be happy thinking their NOC is more 0day virus proof rather
> than hoping a 3rd party will update their scanner in time
>
> Who'd want to risk the NOC falling to the same problem that's just
> taken out the network they're trying to fix?
>
> brandon
A NOC or abuse desk that figuratively puts its hands over its eyes
by blocking a signficant subset of trouble reports is arguably as
useless as one that is hit by a virus. The most clueful reports are
going to be the ones with some evidence attached or included.
I think the point was that there are some other alternatives between
the two opposing extremes of bouncing all email with text attachments
on the one hand and leaving yourself completely unprotected on the other.
