Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.misc    |    General topics about computers not cover    |    21,759 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 20,050 of 21,759    |
|    Sylvia Else to All    |
|    Re: Security? What "Security"?    |
|    14 Oct 24 11:49:01    |
      XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy, misc.news.internet.discuss       From: sylvia@email.invalid              On 14-Oct-24 11:35 am, % wrote:       > Sylvia Else wrote:       >> On 11-Oct-24 10:17 pm, Sn!pe wrote:       >>> My pet rock Gordon asserts that every networked device has a backdoor.       >>> Therefore, anything viewable in clear on that device is insecure and the       >>> quality of message encryption is moot.       >>>       >>       >> An initial question is what exactly is meant by "backdoor". Any       >> networked device that is capable of remote update by the vendor can       >> presumably be updated by the vendor to do anything that any device on       >> your network can do. But this does not imply that anyone else can do       >> that. Of course it does mean that you security depends on the security       >> of the vendor, which is an unknown quantity. This is partly why the       >> few remotely updatable devices that I do own are fire-walled off from       >> the rest of my internal network.       >>       >> Few networked devices accept incoming connections, for the simple       >> reason that they're unlikely to get past a gateway router. Most work       >> by making outgoing connections to the vendor's server. The better       >> implementations require an authenticated server certificate, which       >> makes impersonation of the vendor pretty much impossible. Without a       >> certificate the intending intruder may engage in something like a DNS       >> cache poisoning attack, but they have become more difficult over the       >> years.       >>       >> If one is to worry about back-doors, the main vulnerability is the       >> router itself, and this has indeed been a problem in the past,       >> especially where the ISP has the ability to update firmware or change       >> settings, because now one is dependent on the security of the ISP,       >> which is not always been up to the task.       >>       >> Commercially supplied routers have a bad record of vulnerabilities. I       >> use a small single board computer as a gateway instead.       >>       >> Sylvia.       >>       > i have nothing to hide so i don't do anything              Not even information that could be used in identity theft?              Sylvia.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca