In article <2088705.FsI0XD3EcA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
> Armed with open source
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Still, there are four primary arguments in favour of open-source
> | security tools: agility in the face of changing threats, control of
> | one's own destiny with full source code, customization to one's
> | own requirements, and lower cost. With that in mind, good examples
> | of freely available security products abound.
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | Customization long has been a benefit of open source, and it's just
> | as important in security....
> |
> | Finally, cost is the eternal and obvious argument in favor of open
> | source. A single appliance in a data center may not be much of a
> | budget item, but costs do add up....
> `----
>
> http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;1667002243;fp;4;fpid;4
>
> More open == more secure.
>
>
> Yesterday:
>
> InfoSec: Consultant touts open-source security tools
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Open source security tools abound, so take advantage of them and avoid
> | paying for commercial products if open source fits your needs. That was
> | the message from Matthew Luallen, president of consulting firm Sph3r3,
> | who spoke at yesterday's InfoSec Conference.
> `----
>
> http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2007/032007-infosec-open-source-security.html
>
>
> Firefox hit by fewer flaws than IE in 2006
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Mozilla's Firefox suffered from 26 percent fewer vulnerabilities in
> | the second half of 2006 than Microsoft's Internet Explorer, a
> | security company's research said Monday.
> `----
>
> http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=827194064&rid=-50
Real encrypytion guys laugh out loud at proprietary security programs
because they are such an absurd joke.
Phil Zimmerman said it over and over. Only open-for-inspection code for
true security.
You have to wonder about some wanker offering a proprietary program to
provide "security." Snake in the grass no one can trust.
|
|
