Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC
This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.
Latest Comment: The superior method of sandboxing called "sandcastling" involves having the user detonate the malware.
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading PerspectiveThis special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Tweet This
17 Comments
User Rank: Apprentice
8/6/2014 | 11:58:58 AM
That means they are complementary, like the yin and the yang, the masculine and the feminine.
In the same way, you would protect your systems on your network each themselves, but you also make sure no one can reach them if you don't need them to be able to be reached. Those things are also orthogonal.
In IPv6, the idea seems to be that we don't need network encapsulation anymore (NAT) because some moron says "most attacks are coming from application vulnerabilities anyway". But protecting your systems (internally) is orthogonal to not letting outside attackers in without invitations (a firewall) - you can do both at the same time, independent of one another (that's what orthogonal means).
So these are two different directions or dimensions and you can travel both whenever you like, both at the same time, only one and not the other, etcetera.
You can bolster your credentials-that-are-bound-to-one-user based model and at the same time bolster your "you are in unknown territory friend, and I have the upper hand here" model.
It is utterly foolish to suggest that a system needs to be secury only by way of its essential technical design.
A thief that knows a map of your palace will be a much harder threat than someone accidentally stumbling in.
Any thief knows this, so why don't the guards??
Technical open source systems are by definition vulnerable to mass exploits.
Obfuscated systems are, by definition, not.
At the same time, obfuscated systems are vulnerable to single-point attacks. Open source systems are not more vulnerable to those kinds of attacks, than to mass attacks.
Therefore you use both kinds of defense at the same time, and you use both of them to your maximum extent or capability.