On 5 Jan 2004, seth vidal wrote:
> And defense in depth is a bad thing?
When the cost is high defense in depth is just duplication of effort.
If you're hosts are nicely firewalled is there a real point to site-wide
firewalling? Same thing really. It's about distributed computing versus
centralized. and it's about scalable systems mgmt. If you can't control
the client workstation then you're right, you have to centralize. But if
you can control the clients then there shouldn't be a problem
distributing the scanning load to them.
my take.
Well for a small environment I would agree. However, anytime you get
over 100 hosts.. I have found that someone is going to break out of the
little shell you placed in them because they know better... and sadly
you cant bury the miscreants bodies fast enough when the number of hosts
gets above 1000. [Yes I am going to have to give up my founding BOFH
badge for saying that...]
Either way.. this is a problem of Enterprise versus small environments.
An enterprise environment cant trust the users because they are always
too many of them and not enough sticks. A smaller environment.. the
fear of the electric cattleprod is always there to keep people in line
(ha). Since Fedora isnt aimed at the enterprise market... I would say
that the anti-virus is probably something to be aimed at for extras. [So
I agree with Seth in some ways.. just not all.]
--
Stephen John Smoogen smoogen(a)lanl.gov
Los Alamos National Labrador CCN-5 Sched 5/40 PH: 5-8058
Ta-03 SM-261 MailStop P208 DP 17U Los Alamos, NM 87545
-- So shines a good deed in a weary world. = Willy Wonka --