From owner-freebsd-security Fri Aug 31 14:53:14 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [216.33.66.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A7B37B405 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:53:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id EB64F81D01; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:53:06 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:53:06 -0500 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Rob Simmons Cc: Eric Anderson , Not Going to Tell You , security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Possible New Security Tool For FreeBSD, Need Your Help. Message-ID: <20010831165306.T81307@elvis.mu.org> References: <3B8FF3B7.39F7646E@centtech.com> <20010831174446.R50234-100000@mail.wlcg.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010831174446.R50234-100000@mail.wlcg.com>; from rsimmons@wlcg.com on Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 05:51:43PM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * Rob Simmons [010831 16:51] wrote: > Why not require the incoming packets to be spoofed from a preordained set > of IP addresses to obfuscate it even more. Obfuscation isn't security, it is the illusion of it. -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message