Schneier: Beware security products .. - Linux

This is a discussion on Schneier: Beware security products .. - Linux ; 'Bruce Schneier .. told delegates that they should not necessarily trust security vendors to give a fair representation of the security of those products' http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...9290271,00.htm...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Schneier: Beware security products ..

  1. Schneier: Beware security products ..

    'Bruce Schneier .. told delegates that they should not necessarily trust
    security vendors to give a fair representation of the security of those
    products'

    http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...9290271,00.htm

  2. Re: Schneier: Beware security products ..


    "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    news:ffn8pe$ogm$1@news.datemas.de...
    > 'Bruce Schneier .. told delegates that they should not necessarily trust
    > security vendors to give a fair representation of the security of those
    > products'
    >
    > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...9290271,00.htm


    WOW - Security companies "overstating" security threat in order to sell
    their product. Who would have thought??????




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  3. Re: Schneier: Beware security products ..


    "Sophie McDowell" wrote in message
    news:471f2f9d$0$26443$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
    >
    > "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    > news:ffn8pe$ogm$1@news.datemas.de...
    >> 'Bruce Schneier .. told delegates that they should not necessarily trust
    >> security vendors to give a fair representation of the security of those
    >> products'
    >>
    >> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...9290271,00.htm

    >
    > WOW - Security companies "overstating" security threat in order to sell
    > their product. Who would have thought??????
    >

    It's a lot like an owner of a security consulting firm telling people that
    they shouldn't trust security vendors and should, rather, engage a
    consultant to advise them.


  4. Re: Schneier: Beware security products ..

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:26:33 -0400,
    amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > "Sophie McDowell" wrote in message
    > news:471f2f9d$0$26443$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
    >>
    >> "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    >> news:ffn8pe$ogm$1@news.datemas.de...
    >>> 'Bruce Schneier .. told delegates that they should not necessarily trust
    >>> security vendors to give a fair representation of the security of those
    >>> products'
    >>>
    >>> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...9290271,00.htm

    >>
    >> WOW - Security companies "overstating" security threat in order to sell
    >> their product. Who would have thought??????
    >>

    > It's a lot like an owner of a security consulting firm telling people that
    > they shouldn't trust security vendors and should, rather, engage a
    > consultant to advise them.
    >



    One might think from your implications, that Bruce Schneier had said
    that, but he didn't.

    You're just being rather disingenouos.

    Big surprise.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHH/cyd90bcYOAWPYRAg/IAKCAzgXtajh4D2DH/8gOqLqZ7GKjMgCfWy2U
    weuqt4XTpyEOqmFtW9He50I=
    =Tt4J
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Civilization consists of being able to cordially hate your neighbours


  5. Re: Schneier: Beware security products ..

    Jim Richardson wrote:

    > On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:26:33 -0400,amicus_curious wrote:


    >> It's a lot like an owner of a security consulting firm telling people that they shouldn't trust security vendors and should, rather, engage a consultant to advise them.


    > One might think from your implications, that Bruce Schneier had said that, but he didn't.


    > You're just being rather disingenouos.


    Well, it is from amicus_disingenouos after all ..

  6. Re: Schneier: Beware security products ..


    "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    news:ffpp53$es6$1@news.datemas.de...
    > Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:26:33 -0400,amicus_curious wrote:

    >
    >>> It's a lot like an owner of a security consulting firm telling people
    >>> that they shouldn't trust security vendors and should, rather, engage a
    >>> consultant to advise them.

    >
    >> One might think from your implications, that Bruce Schneier had said
    >> that, but he didn't.

    >
    >> You're just being rather disingenouos.

    >
    > Well, it is from amicus_disingenouos after all ..


    Well, what Brucie reportedly said was:

    "Bruce Schneier, founder and chief technical officer of BT Counterpane,
    issued the warning at the RSA Conference Europe 2007 in London on Tuesday.
    He told delegates that they should not necessarily trust security vendors to
    give a fair representation of the security of those products.
    ....
    Businesses should evaluate security products very carefully, said Schneier,
    and find trusted individuals with expertise who can make security decisions
    within a company."

    Now if you are a business owner and willing to believe Bruce, what are you
    to do? A) can't trust the security vendor B) need to find a trusted
    individual. So, do you have one of these individuals on the shelf? Of
    course not. Who says that he is one? Bruce.

    Which leads us to the conclusion that Richardson is rather thick if he
    thinks that Bruce didn't say that.

    This brings up the notion of "trusted supplier" which causes the COLA folk
    to snicker and sneer about Microsoft being such a vendor, but they are just
    gapping idiots in my view. Real businesses are interested in results and
    have enough success on their own to afford sound advice and they do come to
    rely on it. What they are doing doesn't seem to meet the hopes of COLA,.
    but, that's just what happens in the real world.


+ Reply to Thread