|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Cisco, Anti-virus Vendors Team on Network Security
Sean Donelan wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 [email protected] wrote: > > > Without the secret handshake Mac OS, Linux, Solaris and other operating > > > systems will not be able to connect to a Cisco Self-Defending Network > > > which limits its usefullness for ISPs. > > > > A *nix without a secret handshake is like a fish without a bicycle. > > > > Yes, viruses *are* theoretically possible on these platforms, but let's > > be honest here - even if you included all of the platforms, you'd only > > intercept another 1% or so viruses, tops. > > Well, if you let systems on the network without the secret handshake, > what's to stop people from connecting Windows boxes with the "security" > software disabled so it doesn't answer the "I'm Infected" question? Or > the next virus can take over the Cisco secret handshake port and always > answer "I'm Ok" when ever the network asks it a question. > > How does the Self-Protecting Network tell the difference between a > non-infected Mac or Unix machine from a Typhod Mary Windows bo if you are > depending on software on the system to answer the question? > > Yes, some level of security works when every obeys the rules. But the > current problem ISPs have is not everyone obeys the rules. Or maybe the problem is yet another single-vendor impostion of a "global" protocol standard.
|