2 Sep 2006 11:37
Re: SE Linux vs SE NetBSD !!
John Nemeth <jnemeth <at> victoria.tc.ca>
2006-09-02 09:37:57 GMT
2006-09-02 09:37:57 GMT
On Jan 20, 11:21am, "Travis H." wrote:
} On 8/29/06, John Nemeth <jnemeth <at> victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
}
} There's lots of cases where the perimeter is breached. A big one is
} road warrior
} salespeople who bring worms in on their laptops, and Windows users who
} execute malware.
This is where things like Cisco's NAC (Network Admission Control)
comes into play. Basically, it prevents machines from connecting to
the network if they aren't running the latest patches, anti-virus, etc.
(whatever you put into your policy). It can either block the machine
completely or quarantine it in a subnet where it can only get updates.
There may be other products that do similar things, but I'm not aware
of any.
} > Of course, for
} > real security, you shouldn't be using plain NFS. Also, we don't know
} > when somebody might breach the firewall or the firewall administrator
} > might make a mistake. Defense in depth and all that.
}
} All true.
}
} What options exist apart from NFS and SMB? I think there was one
} called coda, and AFS, and Linux has sshfs (requires a kernel module on
} the client)... anything else?
Sun's version of NFS can use secure RPC. There may be other
options in NFSv3 or NFSv4. Another thing would be to use IPSec. Of
course, there is the issue of authenticating users and making sure they
(Continue reading)
RSS Feed