Thoughts on Security by Obscurity

re: Thoughts on Security by Obscurity

markk02474@gmail.com — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:45:09 GMT

Microsoft's security by obscurity:

"The API utilized to register a firewall with the WSC can be obtained by contacting Microsoft at wscisv@microsoft.com. A Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is required for the disclosure of this API due to security concerns."

msdn.microsoft.com/.../bb190942(VS.85).aspx

re: Thoughts on Security by Obscurity

markk02474@gmail.com — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:21:26 GMT

Perhaps you can make Vista Firewall/NLA/RAS interactions less obscure? You gave a sample rule for VPN connections: netsh advfirewall firewall add rule name="Allow CIFS on VPN interfaces" dir=out action=allow enable=yes profile=public localIP=any remoteIP=any remoteport=445 protocol=TCP interfacetype=RAS

Now, if I use such rules on 5,000 user machines needing VPN access, won't DSL (PPPoE), and dialup connections also be considered RAS connections and match? Some number of users will be exposed using their home connections, right?

Network Awareness is poorly documented. What's the algorithm? Its triggered when an interface comes up and uses DHCP and gateway mac address info, but will it be triggered when I use a 3rd party VPN client shim driver to connect? Will it notice the routing change and new default gateway?

I learned security through obscurity when I used the ITS operating system - some things haven't changed!

re: Thoughts on Security by Obscurity

Victor Constanstinescu - MVP — Sun, 18 May 2008 06:34:17 GMT

Not sure why the talkback didn't work. Here it is: victor-youngun.blogspot.com/.../great-debate-security-by-obscurity.html