Aaron Sherman ajs@ajs.com
Fri Jan 31 10:39:12 PST 2003

On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 10:09, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:00:12AM -0500, Aaron Sherman said:

> > In that case, there's not much you can do. You have to keep up-to-date

> Sure there is.  Design your system to include what you want to
> happen in case of a failure, as well.  Consider what happens if
> the other guy gets compromised; give him only the access he
> NEEDS, not the access he WANTS.  And yes, I realize that's a lot
> of work, and requires overcoming bureaucratic inertia.  I'm
> fighting the same fight, and not always winning.

Yeah, AKA don't over-specify the solution (e.g. person x needs data,
therefore they need an open database port). I feel into that trap in my
original message.

However, in an Oracle environment (not sure about MS SQL or other DBs,
as I've only done inter-business DB access with Oracle) the default
means of granting limited access is to create an account with specific
privs. Since a worm like the one that's been taking down MS SQL won't
care about that account, having your partner get slammed means you do

What you *can* do is not allow UDP traffic OUT of your firewall except
for specific services that are required. Most people don't bother doing
this, but it certainly would have helped staunch the bleeding....

Aaron Sherman <ajs@ajs.com>
This message granted to the Public Domain in 2023.
Fight the DMCA and copyright extension! http://eldred.cc/

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list