|
|
Security Basics
server security Jun 20 2012 05:27PM Littlefield, Tyler (tyler tysdomain com) (3 replies) Re: server security Jun 20 2012 11:44PM Alex Dolan (dolan alex gmail com) (3 replies) Re: server security Jun 21 2012 04:34PM Mike Hale (eyeronic design gmail com) (4 replies) Re: server security Jun 22 2012 11:02AM Rory Browne (rbmlist gmail com) (3 replies) RE: server security Jun 22 2012 06:09PM Ron McKown (RMcKown apptio com) (1 replies) RE: server security Jun 22 2012 08:09PM Ward, Jon (Jon_Ward SYNTELINC COM) (1 replies) RE: server security Jun 22 2012 09:30PM Dave Kleiman (dave davekleiman com) (2 replies) |
|
Privacy Statement |
You would have to admit little layers of security, such as running non-standard ports, can protect you as in the Slammer worm. I am not saying that is the best or recommended solution to a problem, but it can work.
Respectfully,
Dave Kleiman - http://www.ComputerForensicsLLC.com - http://www.DaveKleiman.com
4371 Northlake Blvd #314
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
561.310.8801
-----Original Message-----
From: Tracy Reed [mailto:treed (at) ultraviolet (dot) org [email concealed]]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 18:31
To: Tracy Reed
Cc: Dave Kleiman; security-basics (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]
Subject: Re: server security
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 02:54:22PM PDT, Tracy Reed spake thusly:
> Many "little layers of security" just aren't worth it.
Clarification: Some "little layers of security" just aren't worth it.
Multiple layers of security certainly are.
--
Tracy Reed
[ reply ]