> > Keith Moore wrote: > > I believe you should buy or write applications that ensure their > > own security and protect the security of the machines on which > > they are hosted. I believe you should buy computing platforms > > that provide facilities to isolate applications from one another, > > so that a single compromised application doesn't compromise your > > entire platform. > > On this one half of the mailing list can read what's in the back of your > mind, that can be summarized in a few words: Windows is not a real OS. > Don't try to say that's not what you think, everyone would laugh. you know, I'm happy to say that I don't really know enough about Windows internals (for any version of Windows) to know for sure whether it provides those facilities or not. my honest guess is that recent versions do provide them, and that the reason Windows boxes are insecure is because of poor application implementation more than poor OS implementation. still, pretending that a firewall can make up for a lack of security on the host (ANY host) or in the apps is simply unrealistic, no matter who wrote the host OS. and nothing we do in IETF can change that. > I did and I pasted it again: > > > the reason I disagree is that fundamentally, there's no way > > that a firewall can reliably distinguish legitimate traffic > > from illegitimate traffic, > > Yes there is a way as I just demonstrated; a firewall with up-to-date > code can reliably distinguish legitimate traffic from illegitimate > traffic the same way an anti-virus can reliably detect viruses. no, you demonstrated that it can do so in some cases, but not with reliability - which would mean that you have the ability to rely on the firewall doing the right thing. for instance, "doing the right thing" often means being able to know which applications are enabled on a host, and to decide whether an application peer has valid credentials, etc. and the firewall simply can't do that. the app has to protect itself. > And if Microsoft sucks as much as you say it is fortunate that it can, > because a web server compromised by a nasty worm is bad for the entire > community. you're the one who brought up Microsoft. if you can't understand things that I actually did say, don't delude yourself into thinking you understand things that you think I thought but didn't say. Keith