Insecure Security

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Porky, Jun 19, 2005.

  1. Porky

    Porky Guest

    On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:25:30 +1200, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:


    >
    > Why exactly do you say that? The basic fact is that these security
    > companies are increasingly running into flaws in their own products, is
    > it not?
    >
    >> Hell, she even lists hardware appliances as
    >>"Computer-security programs".

    >
    > Those boxes are in fact computers running programs, are they not?
    >
    >>She exhibits a lack of understanding of how
    >>these products work and what exactly these "flaws" are.

    >
    > It is enough to know that those flaws threaten security, is it not?



    Another ***** LAME ***** troll from a COLA fruitcake ...
     
    Porky, Jun 19, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Interesting BusinessWeek article
    <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2005/tc20050617_1613_t
    c024.htm> suggesting that relying on additional "security" software to
    plug holes in an insecure underlying operating system is simply making
    the problem worse instead of solving it.

    Here's a table of flaws found in security software:
    <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/tech_stats/flaws050616.htm>.
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 20, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Porky

    Mark Guest

    "Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Interesting BusinessWeek article
    > <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2005/tc20050617_1613_t
    > c024.htm> suggesting that relying on additional "security" software to
    > plug holes in an insecure underlying operating system is simply making
    > the problem worse instead of solving it.
    >
    > Here's a table of flaws found in security software:
    > <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/tech_stats/flaws050616.htm>.


    Pretty uninformed article, looks like another uneducated reporter looking
    for a story when there is none. In fact I'd go as far to say its misleading
    and bad advice. Hell, she even lists hardware appliances as
    "Computer-security programs". She exhibits a lack of understanding of how
    these products work and what exactly these "flaws" are. Still, might be a
    fun bit of gossip for the uneducated masses out there ;)
     
    Mark, Jun 20, 2005
    #3
  4. In article <42b64814$0$91618$>,
    "Mark" <> wrote:

    >"Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Interesting BusinessWeek article
    >> <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2005/tc20050617_1613_t
    >> c024.htm> suggesting that relying on additional "security" software to
    >> plug holes in an insecure underlying operating system is simply making
    >> the problem worse instead of solving it.
    >>
    >> Here's a table of flaws found in security software:
    >> <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/tech_stats/flaws050616.htm>.

    >
    >Pretty uninformed article, looks like another uneducated reporter looking
    >for a story when there is none. In fact I'd go as far to say its misleading
    >and bad advice.


    Why exactly do you say that? The basic fact is that these security
    companies are increasingly running into flaws in their own products, is
    it not?

    > Hell, she even lists hardware appliances as
    >"Computer-security programs".


    Those boxes are in fact computers running programs, are they not?

    >She exhibits a lack of understanding of how
    >these products work and what exactly these "flaws" are.


    It is enough to know that those flaws threaten security, is it not?
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 20, 2005
    #4
  5. Porky

    thing Guest

    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    > Interesting BusinessWeek article
    > <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2005/tc20050617_1613_t
    > c024.htm> suggesting that relying on additional "security" software to
    > plug holes in an insecure underlying operating system is simply making
    > the problem worse instead of solving it.
    >
    > Here's a table of flaws found in security software:
    > <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/tech_stats/flaws050616.htm>.



    But it means salesmen get fed, CEOs feel safe as they can say they did
    something and sys admins because they trust the "black box"
    software....!!!!!

    I remember attending a cisco seminar, they discussed how installing
    their "protection" software would stop a known Linux worm (I think it
    was BIND actually), once their software had had its virus/worm
    signitures updated....so I asked why not guarantee fixing the issue by
    patching the problem itself? (as the patch was out in hours) and how
    long had it taken to get the signitures out there?.....oi I got a nasty
    look......"everyone knows there are linux viruses out there" really I
    replied, name one outside of a anti-virus compnies lab, in the
    wild.....second nasty look....

    There have been some severe critisims over such buy a black box and
    forget security strategies.....somehow it always comes back to the sys
    admin knowing what he/she is doing and having the time to do it.....

    On amore positive note I think there are more and more signs of snake
    oil salesmen getting the shove....
    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Jun 20, 2005
    #5
  6. Porky

    thing Guest

    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    > In article <42b64814$0$91618$>,
    > "Mark" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>"Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>
    >>>Interesting BusinessWeek article
    >>><http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2005/tc20050617_1613_t
    >>>c024.htm> suggesting that relying on additional "security" software to
    >>>plug holes in an insecure underlying operating system is simply making
    >>>the problem worse instead of solving it.
    >>>
    >>>Here's a table of flaws found in security software:
    >>><http://www.businessweek.com/technology/tech_stats/flaws050616.htm>.

    >>
    >>Pretty uninformed article, looks like another uneducated reporter looking
    >>for a story when there is none. In fact I'd go as far to say its misleading
    >>and bad advice.


    I thought it actually high lighted an going problem.

    > Why exactly do you say that? The basic fact is that these security
    > companies are increasingly running into flaws in their own products, is
    > it not?


    Yes, rapid development of get it to market cause the margins are high.
    The biggest piece of advice I could give anyone looking to prove
    security is go for mature products, eg Firewall1 on
    Linux/Solaris/Windows and not be a beta tester for some unkown blackbox...

    >>Hell, she even lists hardware appliances as
    >>"Computer-security programs".

    >
    >
    > Those boxes are in fact computers running programs, are they not?


    Yep, many have Linux or BSD though some have embedded XP....

    >>She exhibits a lack of understanding of how
    >>these products work and what exactly these "flaws" are.

    >
    >
    > It is enough to know that those flaws threaten security, is it not?


    Yes IMHO.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Jun 20, 2005
    #6
  7. Porky

    Dave Taylor Guest

    thing <> wrote in news:42b67032$:

    > Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    >> Interesting BusinessWeek article
    >> <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2005/tc20050617_161
    >> 3_t c024.htm> suggesting that relying on additional "security"
    >> software to plug holes in an insecure underlying operating system is
    >> simply making the problem worse instead of solving it.
    >>
    >> Here's a table of flaws found in security software:
    >> <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/tech_stats/flaws050616.htm>.

    >
    >
    > But it means salesmen get fed, CEOs feel safe as they can say they did
    > something and sys admins because they trust the "black box"
    > software....!!!!!
    >
    > I remember attending a cisco seminar, they discussed how installing
    > their "protection" software would stop a known Linux worm (I think it
    > was BIND actually), once their software had had its virus/worm
    > signitures updated....so I asked why not guarantee fixing the issue by
    > patching the problem itself? (as the patch was out in hours) and how
    > long had it taken to get the signitures out there?.....oi I got a
    > nasty look......"everyone knows there are linux viruses out there"
    > really I replied, name one outside of a anti-virus compnies lab, in
    > the wild.....second nasty look....
    >
    > There have been some severe critisims over such buy a black box and
    > forget security strategies.....somehow it always comes back to the sys
    > admin knowing what he/she is doing and having the time to do it.....
    >
    > On amore positive note I think there are more and more signs of snake
    > oil salesmen getting the shove....
    > regards
    >
    > Thing
    >


    Did you see this?:
    It is quite relevant to the topic:
    http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5749234.html

    "Matt Thomlinson, whose job it is to help make Microsoft engineers create
    more secure code, noticed that some of the engineers were turning red,
    becoming obviously angry at the demo hacking incident. Yet as painful as
    the lesson was, he was glad to see the crowd of engineers taking things
    personally."

    --
    Ciao, Dave
     
    Dave Taylor, Jun 20, 2005
    #7
  8. Porky

    thing Guest

    Dave Taylor wrote:
    > thing <> wrote in news:42b67032$:
    >
    >
    >>Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >>>Interesting BusinessWeek article
    >>><http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2005/tc20050617_161
    >>>3_t c024.htm> suggesting that relying on additional "security"
    >>>software to plug holes in an insecure underlying operating system is
    >>>simply making the problem worse instead of solving it.
    >>>
    >>>Here's a table of flaws found in security software:
    >>><http://www.businessweek.com/technology/tech_stats/flaws050616.htm>.

    >>
    >>
    >>But it means salesmen get fed, CEOs feel safe as they can say they did
    >>something and sys admins because they trust the "black box"
    >>software....!!!!!
    >>
    >>I remember attending a cisco seminar, they discussed how installing
    >>their "protection" software would stop a known Linux worm (I think it
    >>was BIND actually), once their software had had its virus/worm
    >>signitures updated....so I asked why not guarantee fixing the issue by
    >>patching the problem itself? (as the patch was out in hours) and how
    >>long had it taken to get the signitures out there?.....oi I got a
    >>nasty look......"everyone knows there are linux viruses out there"
    >>really I replied, name one outside of a anti-virus compnies lab, in
    >>the wild.....second nasty look....
    >>
    >>There have been some severe critisims over such buy a black box and
    >>forget security strategies.....somehow it always comes back to the sys
    >>admin knowing what he/she is doing and having the time to do it.....
    >>
    >>On amore positive note I think there are more and more signs of snake
    >>oil salesmen getting the shove....
    >>regards
    >>
    >>Thing
    >>

    >
    >
    > Did you see this?:
    > It is quite relevant to the topic:
    > http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5749234.html
    >
    > "Matt Thomlinson, whose job it is to help make Microsoft engineers create
    > more secure code, noticed that some of the engineers were turning red,
    > becoming obviously angry at the demo hacking incident. Yet as painful as
    > the lesson was, he was glad to see the crowd of engineers taking things
    > personally."
    >



    hmm.....yes well........I hope so too, though its not all the engineers
    fault, for to long security took to low a priority at Redmond.

    I think that a huge industry has grown up around MS OS's weaknesses, and
    now they blow out of proportion anything and everything to sell their
    snake oil. MS is getting its act together, I wonder when we will get to
    the stage that Symantec and the like wont be able to sell their charms....

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Jun 20, 2005
    #8
  9. Porky

    Dave Taylor Guest

    thing <> wrote in news:42b69379$:

    >
    > hmm.....yes well........I hope so too, though its not all the
    > engineers fault, for to long security took to low a priority at
    > Redmond.
    >
    > I think that a huge industry has grown up around MS OS's weaknesses,
    > and now they blow out of proportion anything and everything to sell
    > their snake oil. MS is getting its act together, I wonder when we will
    > get to the stage that Symantec and the like wont be able to sell their
    > charms....
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing
    >
    >


    Well, I think that could be good for consumers. I really should look
    more into tripwire and process guard though. Stupid AV and Antispyware
    is still signature based...
    At least not running as admin has been publicized, perhaps not where it
    counts, but the message is getting out there.


    --
    Ciao, Dave
     
    Dave Taylor, Jun 20, 2005
    #9
  10. In article <>,
    Porky <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:25:30 +1200, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> Why exactly do you say that? The basic fact is that these security
    >> companies are increasingly running into flaws in their own products, is
    >> it not?
    >>
    >>> Hell, she even lists hardware appliances as
    >>>"Computer-security programs".

    >>
    >> Those boxes are in fact computers running programs, are they not?
    >>
    >>>She exhibits a lack of understanding of how
    >>>these products work and what exactly these "flaws" are.

    >>
    >> It is enough to know that those flaws threaten security, is it not?

    >
    >Another ***** LAME ***** troll from a COLA fruitcake ...


    Another attempt to lay down a smokescreen of abuse to distract attention
    from the real issue at hand.

    By the way, up to this point, it has not been a Linux-versus-Dimdows
    thread, but if you insist...
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 20, 2005
    #10
  11. Porky

    Mercury Guest

    The trouble with that article is:
    The author does not explain why it is a good thing for a product having a
    +ve count of defects.
    The authordoes not explain why it is not necessaily a good thing for a
    product to have zero holes.
    The author does not provide an analysis on the elapsed time from discovery
    of a hole / exploit to patch availability.
    The author does not detail which of the products have auto patch
    notifications and a simple patch installation mechanisms.

    It's ironic, but the product with 200 holes & patches could be the best one!

    Just for starters.

    "Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Interesting BusinessWeek article
    > <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2005/tc20050617_1613_t
    > c024.htm> suggesting that relying on additional "security" software to
    > plug holes in an insecure underlying operating system is simply making
    > the problem worse instead of solving it.
    >
    > Here's a table of flaws found in security software:
    > <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/tech_stats/flaws050616.htm>.
     
    Mercury, Jun 20, 2005
    #11
  12. In article <42b7568b$0$91660$>, "Mark" <> wrote:
    >No they don't. Once again an exhibition of lack of understanding of the
    >products. Netscreen appliances run their own OS, with a proprietery hardware
    >configuration (one of the reasons for choosing them instead of Cisco or
    >Checkpoint).


    Possibly ... but you are the top poster here :)

    Bruce


    -------------------------------------
    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
    - George Bernard Shaw
    Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
    - Ambrose Bierce

    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jun 20, 2005
    #12
  13. Porky

    Mark Guest

    If you knew or understood some of the products referred too you'd understand
    that the "flaws" where often nothing more than "potential", totallly
    theoritical, and even if they could be used could not create a security
    issue (Netscreen is the best example).

    "Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <42b64814$0$91618$>,
    > "Mark" <> wrote:
    >
    > >"Lawrence D¹Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> Interesting BusinessWeek article
    > >>

    <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2005/tc20050617_1613_t
    > >> c024.htm> suggesting that relying on additional "security" software to
    > >> plug holes in an insecure underlying operating system is simply making
    > >> the problem worse instead of solving it.
    > >>
    > >> Here's a table of flaws found in security software:
    > >> <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/tech_stats/flaws050616.htm>.

    > >
    > >Pretty uninformed article, looks like another uneducated reporter looking
    > >for a story when there is none. In fact I'd go as far to say its

    misleading
    > >and bad advice.

    >
    > Why exactly do you say that? The basic fact is that these security
    > companies are increasingly running into flaws in their own products, is
    > it not?
    >
    > > Hell, she even lists hardware appliances as
    > >"Computer-security programs".

    >
    > Those boxes are in fact computers running programs, are they not?
    >
    > >She exhibits a lack of understanding of how
    > >these products work and what exactly these "flaws" are.

    >
    > It is enough to know that those flaws threaten security, is it not?
     
    Mark, Jun 21, 2005
    #13
  14. Porky

    Mark Guest

    No they don't. Once again an exhibition of lack of understanding of the
    products. Netscreen appliances run their own OS, with a proprietery hardware
    configuration (one of the reasons for choosing them instead of Cisco or
    Checkpoint).


    "thing" <> wrote in message news:...
    > >>Hell, she even lists hardware appliances as
    > >>"Computer-security programs".

    > >
    > >
    > > Those boxes are in fact computers running programs, are they not?

    >
    > Yep, many have Linux or BSD though some have embedded XP....
    >
    > >>She exhibits a lack of understanding of how
    > >>these products work and what exactly these "flaws" are.

    > >
    > >
    > > It is enough to know that those flaws threaten security, is it not?

    >
    > Yes IMHO.
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing
     
    Mark, Jun 21, 2005
    #14
  15. Porky

    Mark Guest

    The problem is people write articles like this a fail to point out the
    beneficial gear from the "snake oil". I agree there is heaps of "snake oil"
    being pushed, Cisco would be one of the biggest perpertrators, however you
    have other security companies that produce extremely useful products getting
    a bad rap. It hurts more when uninformed reporters write broad sweeping
    statements like hers which are technically incorrect and misleading.

    As for Linux worm's, I remember the Lion worm was doing the rounds at the
    same time the mblaster one was, but the Lion worm got no press at all. There
    are hundreds and hundreds of exploits and worms for Linux and Unix. Don't
    kid yourself that theres none outside the lab. I see hits on our firewall at
    work and my firewall at home all the time.


    "thing" <> wrote in message news:42b67032$...
    > Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    > > Interesting BusinessWeek article
    > >

    <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2005/tc20050617_1613_t
    > > c024.htm> suggesting that relying on additional "security" software to
    > > plug holes in an insecure underlying operating system is simply making
    > > the problem worse instead of solving it.
    > >
    > > Here's a table of flaws found in security software:
    > > <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/tech_stats/flaws050616.htm>.

    >
    >
    > But it means salesmen get fed, CEOs feel safe as they can say they did
    > something and sys admins because they trust the "black box"
    > software....!!!!!
    >
    > I remember attending a cisco seminar, they discussed how installing
    > their "protection" software would stop a known Linux worm (I think it
    > was BIND actually), once their software had had its virus/worm
    > signitures updated....so I asked why not guarantee fixing the issue by
    > patching the problem itself? (as the patch was out in hours) and how
    > long had it taken to get the signitures out there?.....oi I got a nasty
    > look......"everyone knows there are linux viruses out there" really I
    > replied, name one outside of a anti-virus compnies lab, in the
    > wild.....second nasty look....
    >
    > There have been some severe critisims over such buy a black box and
    > forget security strategies.....somehow it always comes back to the sys
    > admin knowing what he/she is doing and having the time to do it.....
    >
    > On amore positive note I think there are more and more signs of snake
    > oil salesmen getting the shove....
    > regards
    >
    > Thing
     
    Mark, Jun 21, 2005
    #15
  16. Porky

    thing Guest

    Mark wrote:
    > No they don't. Once again an exhibition of lack of understanding of the
    > products. Netscreen appliances run their own OS, with a proprietery hardware
    > configuration (one of the reasons for choosing them instead of Cisco or
    > Checkpoint).


    Not a valid reason, obscurity is never a valid reason for security.

    I was being more general, many use Linux, some BSD or XP as the base.
    Firewall1, and Fortinet are just 2 that come to mind.

    Checkpoint is a very mature company with some mature products, a track
    record is important IMHO.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Jun 21, 2005
    #16
  17. Porky

    thing Guest

    Mark wrote:
    > The problem is people write articles like this a fail to point out the
    > beneficial gear from the "snake oil". I agree there is heaps of "snake oil"
    > being pushed, Cisco would be one of the biggest perpertrators, however you
    > have other security companies that produce extremely useful products getting
    > a bad rap. It hurts more when uninformed reporters write broad sweeping
    > statements like hers which are technically incorrect and misleading.
    >
    > As for Linux worm's, I remember the Lion worm was doing the rounds at the
    > same time the mblaster one was, but the Lion worm got no press at all. There
    > are hundreds and hundreds of exploits and worms for Linux and Unix. Don't
    > kid yourself that theres none outside the lab. I see hits on our firewall at
    > work and my firewall at home all the time.
    >


    Again you seem to be not reading what I write.

    "name one outside of a anti-virus compnies lab, in the wild.....second
    nasty look.... "

    Or dont you know the difference between a virus and a worm?

    and my point was you could have something on top of the OS that needs
    updating, or patch the problem instead....

    While it is arguable that that "something on top of" might get updated
    and stop the worm before an update comes out that is a small window and
    questionable, particulary as often there are work arounds that
    accomplish the same thing (until a patch is out there).

    The original thread also discussed the point that these products have
    their own serious issues so the so called cure may be worse than the bite.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Jun 21, 2005
    #17
  18. Porky

    Mark Guest

    Its nothing to do with obscurity, its to do with architecture.

    "Mature" products doesn't necessarily mean good products. Cisco PIX are
    "mature", yet offer the worst security among the leading brands.

    There is an overwhelming shift to proprietery ASIC based solutions in the
    security industry due to performance requirements. x86 architecture just
    cannot deal with the throughput requirements. Netscreen were one of the
    first, many are following. Dropping Linux or XP into an ASIC orientated
    solution doesn't work well, hence the move to propreitery code.


    "thing" <> wrote in message news:42b79ab7$...
    > Mark wrote:
    > > No they don't. Once again an exhibition of lack of understanding of the
    > > products. Netscreen appliances run their own OS, with a proprietery

    hardware
    > > configuration (one of the reasons for choosing them instead of Cisco or
    > > Checkpoint).

    >
    > Not a valid reason, obscurity is never a valid reason for security.
    >
    > I was being more general, many use Linux, some BSD or XP as the base.
    > Firewall1, and Fortinet are just 2 that come to mind.
    >
    > Checkpoint is a very mature company with some mature products, a track
    > record is important IMHO.
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Mark, Jun 21, 2005
    #18
  19. Porky

    thing Guest

    Mark wrote:
    > Its nothing to do with obscurity, its to do with architecture.
    >
    > "Mature" products doesn't necessarily mean good products. Cisco PIX are
    > "mature", yet offer the worst security among the leading brands.


    crappy over priced sh*t IMHO.

    > There is an overwhelming shift to proprietery ASIC based solutions in the
    > security industry due to performance requirements. x86 architecture just
    > cannot deal with the throughput requirements. Netscreen were one of the
    > first, many are following. Dropping Linux or XP into an ASIC orientated
    > solution doesn't work well, hence the move to propreitery code.
    >


    Well again linux can be compiled to run on most things, take fortinet,
    they have chosen to use a Linux base.

    The OS on embedded seems to be in flux, some are moving to Linux some
    possibly away.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Jun 21, 2005
    #19
  20. In article <42b79cb1$0$91672$>,
    "Mark" <> wrote:

    >Its nothing to do with obscurity, its to do with architecture.
    >
    >"Mature" products doesn't necessarily mean good products. Cisco PIX are
    >"mature", yet offer the worst security among the leading brands.
    >
    >There is an overwhelming shift to proprietery ASIC based solutions in the
    >security industry due to performance requirements. x86 architecture just
    >cannot deal with the throughput requirements. Netscreen were one of the
    >first, many are following. Dropping Linux or XP into an ASIC orientated
    >solution doesn't work well, hence the move to propreitery code.
    >
    >"thing" <> wrote in message news:42b79ab7$...
    >> Mark wrote:
    >> > No they don't. Once again an exhibition of lack of understanding of the
    >> > products. Netscreen appliances run their own OS, with a proprietery

    >hardware
    >> > configuration (one of the reasons for choosing them instead of Cisco or
    >> > Checkpoint).

    >>
    >> Not a valid reason, obscurity is never a valid reason for security.
    >>
    >> I was being more general, many use Linux, some BSD or XP as the base.
    >> Firewall1, and Fortinet are just 2 that come to mind.
    >>
    >> Checkpoint is a very mature company with some mature products, a track
    >> record is important IMHO.


    Can you give a reference for your claims?
     
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jun 21, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Insecure Firefox setting?

    , Mar 26, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    405
    Parko
    Mar 26, 2005
  2. Mellow Crow
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    465
    Winged
    May 10, 2005
  3. Proteus

    where can i telnet or do insecure http form?

    Proteus, Nov 29, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    3,637
    Ken K
    Nov 30, 2005
  4. Au79
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    489
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Security Products Are Insecure

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 17, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    362
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Nov 17, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page