Re: [comp.security] Secure computers

1998-11-06 Thread Kent West
On 5 Nov 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Ben Collins writes: > > Does this still protect against the popular "nuclear bomb" DoS attack? > > Yes. The level of service does not change at all when the site is nuked. > -- Unless the lights were mercury vapor lights, in which case there might be s

Re: [comp.security] Secure computers

1998-11-05 Thread Neale Pickett
Manoj Srivastava writes: [ a pretty good, but still not quite up to snuff, procedure for securing a machine ] I have a better method, though. Gather all matter which has ever come into contact with the machine in question, either through network or disk activity, or which has been bombarded w

Re: [comp.security] Secure computers

1998-11-05 Thread john
Ben Collins writes: > Does this still protect against the popular "nuclear bomb" DoS attack? Yes. The level of service does not change at all when the site is nuked. -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will. D

Re: [comp.security] Secure computers

1998-11-05 Thread Ben Collins
Does this still protect against the popular "nuclear bomb" DoS attack? Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> UnixGroup Admin - NASA LaRC On 5 Nov 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > > "Matt" == Matthew Devney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Mat

[comp.security] Secure computers

1998-11-05 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, "Matt" == Matthew Devney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Matt> Take it off the network, unplug it, lock the case, encase it in Matt> 19 feet of concrete, and you can pretty much guarantee it'll be Matt> safe. But the security consultant will still worry. "Dennis" == "Dennis" <[EMAIL P