Re: [Full-disclosure] Getting Off the Patch

[Pete Herzog <lists@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Yeah, sounds good in theory.  What about when vulnerabilities (and
> presumably patches) come out for your "sandbox" or other security
> software?

That's why you use a wide array of operational controls and not just 
one, like a sandbox. The sandbox in the article was just a small example.

>
> IMO, adding more software to a system rarely results in overall
> management gains.  This is because most software, including security
> software, sucks.  If you find yourself patching too often, or you
> can't trust that the patches won't break your environment, then you
> probably need to find a software vendor that invests more in QA.
>

I couldn't agree more. Flaws in operational controls (security 
software) are a serious shame on the security industry and as you 
suggested, if you have that many flaws in a software, replace the 
vendor. However, I'll go one more- if you find your patches breaking 
too often or too many things, then stop patching and find an alternative.

Sincerely,
-pete.

-- 
Pete Herzog - Managing Director - pete@xxxxxxxxxx
ISECOM - Institute for Security and Open Methodologies
www.isecom.org - www.osstmm.org
www.hackerhighschool.org - www.badpeopleproject.org

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/