Chris Brenton <cbrentonat_private> wrote: > Again, I concur. Up till recently .cn was blocked from accessing > sans.org, incident.org, dshield.org, whitehats.ca, 3 financial > institutions and a host of other .org and .com's under my wing. If they > can't play nice why let them play at all. How recently? What made you change your mind? It wasn't the boss saying "Hey -- we want Chinese admins to be able to learn about better security initiatives from [sans|incidents]"? Seems kinda "head in the sand" to keep the admins from the reputed "worst offenders" away from some of the reputed best suppliers of "how to do it better" information... > In my spare time I teach the Perimeter track for SANS. One thing I'm > *very* big on with my students is banning subnets that are high > maintenance and provide no value add. For example, if you don't do > business with .cn's, why expose yourself to attack from this source? Have you recently added a segment on "Why it is not the network admin's job to decide who your employer does business with"? 8-) -- Nick FitzGerald Computer Virus Consulting Ltd. Ph/FAX: +64 3 3529854 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided by the SecurityFocus ARIS analyzer service. For more information on this free incident handling, management and tracking system please see: http://aris.securityfocus.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jul 24 2002 - 09:21:54 PDT