<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title><![CDATA[[SecurityRatty] tag: whistle-blower]]></title>
    <link>http://securityratty.com/tag/whistle-blower</link>
    <description></description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
    <generator>iRatty Engine</generator>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[IPNetSentryX 1.6.5]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/c4ae14aaa0229a25a6ab5369ce06c4fb</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/c4ae14aaa0229a25a6ab5369ce06c4fb</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[OS X includes a basic firewall that helps to protect your Mac from a variety of outside intruders, such as hackers trying to run spam-spewing robots. In Leopard, though, the firewall-which is disabled...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[OS X includes a basic firewall that helps to protect your Mac from a variety of outside intruders, such as hackers trying to run spam-spewing robots. In Leopard, though, the firewall-which is disabled by default-offers very little in the way of customization. At most you can specify programs and services (such as file sharing and screen sharing) to which outside connections are explicitly permitted or blocked. IPNetSentryX stands at the opposite end of the firewall software spectrum. The program from Sustainable Softworks has every bell and whistle that even the geekiest Mac user could hope for-and a complex user interface to match.]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/complex user interface">complex user interface</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/firewall software spectrum">firewall software spectrum</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/mac">mac</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/mac user">mac user</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/ipnetsentryx stands">ipnetsentryx stands</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/hope for-and">hope for-and</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/sustainable softworks">sustainable softworks</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/basic firewall">basic firewall</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/explicitly">explicitly</category>
      <source url="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/072208-ipnetsentryx.html?fsrc=rss-security">IPNetSentryX 1.6.5</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Feature Request #1: Stable Code]]></title>
      <link>http://securityratty.com/article/8ccf3e65d2b1b8b72fdbe0860c092c80</link>
      <guid>http://securityratty.com/article/8ccf3e65d2b1b8b72fdbe0860c092c80</guid>
      <description><![CDATA[I have a note to all network hardware vendors
Dear network vendor
As someone that is forced to configure and implement security on your hardware, I would greatly appreciate stable code and properly...]]></description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I have a note to all network hardware vendors&#8230;</em></p><p>Dear network vendor,</p><p>As someone that is forced to configure and implement security on your hardware, I would greatly appreciate stable code and properly functioning features. Unfortunately, I cannot always choose the hardware my customers are using in their infrastructure. However, if you would like for me to recommend they continue purchasing and using it, then the product must demonstrate to me that it is: capable, reliable, predictable and well-documented. If your product is not meeting these requirements, I&#8217;m forced to recommend other solutions to your (current) customer. </p><p><u>Stable Code</u>. If I have to spend 2-6 hours per implementation working through your product&#8217;s bugs, and then must either spend time on a support call or spend time getting packet captures to prove to you it&#8217;s not working, I am not a happy camper because you&#8217;re slowing down my progress. Your customer is not happy because they&#8217;re paying for that time and I&#8217;m not cheap. </p><p><u>Features</u>. Don&#8217;t publish in technical documentation that your product, or code can do something, only for me to find out later that it cannot. On-site in the middle of an implementation is not the time to architect Plan B. Let me know before, either through technical docs, white papers, best practices or release notes. I do read those. If you want to bend the truth, do it the marketing fluff, not my technical documents. </p><p><u>Documentation</u>. If your product <em>does</em> do what you say it does, then please do document and explain the concepts and procedures. Examples are good, but explanations are mandatory. A correct CLI reference is always lovely as well. If there are got&#8217;chas or tricks, please also document those. Again, white papers or release notes are fine. Having to track down the one security engineer from your company that holds the magic key is not practical, nor scalable. Plus, he may be on vacation during my install, which would make me irate. </p><p><u>Support</u>. If your product is not functioning or performing as expected, do NOT expect your customers to have a current maintenance contract to address a known issue or bug (or an un-known issue or bug for that matter). If they found a bug for you, you should probably <em>give</em> them a maintenance contract for a year&#8230; or two. If you don&#8217;t let us call support, I will find one of your pre-sales engineers and we will use him or her for post-sales support, which is not what you want them to do. But that&#8217;s your problem, not mine.</p><p>I believe that sums up the major issues. Specifically, I am interested in security, RADIUS, SSH, SNMP, DHCP&nbsp;and 802.1X functions. Before you add another bell or tweak another whistle, please make what you have works&#8230; consistently. That should be first, so it&#8217;s my Feature Request #1. </p><p>Respectfully,</p><p>jj</p><p># # #</p>
]]></content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/code">code</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/stable code">stable code</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/support">support</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/post-sales support">post-sales support</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/current maintenance contract">current maintenance contract</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/current">current</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/maintenance contract">maintenance contract</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/security engineer">security engineer</category>
      <category domain="http://securityratty.com/tag/security">security</category>
      <source url="http://www.securityuncorked.com/security-uncorked/2008/6/30/feature-request-1-stable-code.html">Feature Request #1: Stable Code</source>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
