I apologize, I meant #2...the SANS comment.

Thanks!
Trevor


On 7/29/06 11:33 PM, "Laura A. Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> How can I provide links to something I say doesn't exist? :-)
> 
> There are lots of guidelines out there, and there are even some relatively
> well agreed-upon sets of them (Common Criteria "standards", etc.), but there
> is not a specific single set of specifications that serves as a worldwide
> standard. That's why I wondered to which "standards" the OP was referring.
> 
> Laura 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Trevor Seward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 7:54 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: .Net Satisfies Security Compliance Satistactions
>> or Not ???
>> 
>> Laura, not disputing your claim, but can you provide links
>> regarding #3?
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> Trevor
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/27/06 10:01 AM, "Laura A. Robinson"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>>> 1. If it's not "any feud against M$", you might want to
>> consider not 
>>> referring to Microsoft as "M$".
>>> 
>>> 2. No offense to SANS, but even as recently as last week,
>> I've heard 
>>> things they've told people about MS software that were last true in
>>> 1996. I don't know if it's an endemic thing in SANS, or if
>> they just 
>>> have one or two woefully uninformed people presenting for them, but
>>> they have propagated some complete bulls**t presented as fact and
>>> people unfortunately sometimes just swallow it up rather than
>>> verifying for themselves whether the statements are accurate.
>>> 
>>> 3. To whose "Security compliance standards" do you refer, exactly?
>>> There is not a single set of standards out there for
>> anything computer
>>> security related.
>>> 
>>> 4. To what "vulnerable features" do you refer?
>>> 
>>> I'm sorry, but your post almost reads like a troll because
>> you don't 
>>> list a single specific question, just throw out some FUD
>> about the .NET framework.
>>> If you have some actual questions, please, do ask them and you'll
>>> undoubtedly get some well-informed responses. But what
>> you've written 
>>> below is unanswerable because it doesn't actually ask any
>> real questions.
>>> 
>>> Laura
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:53 AM
>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>> Subject: .Net Satisfies Security Compliance Satistactions
>> or Not ???
>>>> 
>>>> Hey group,
>>>> 
>>>> I attended the SANS conference for .Net security session.
>>>> Based on some lecture's and based on my search findings at
>> internet 
>>>> search engines, I wanted to ask if .NET cannot comply to
>> the Security 
>>>> compliance standards at all. Various issues involved with the
>>>> vulnerable features of .Net framework scares the hell out of the
>>>> Security Developers around the world, who are involved with .Net
>>>> framework. Did any security group consider making any updates and
>>>> releasing it to M$, has anyone contacted them yet, any progress on
>>>> fixing these issues and bringing it into compliance.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry if that involved a lot of questions in a single email
>>>> :-) Was just curious to know what is going around.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Shyaam
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> PS: this is not any feud against M$ and I am just trying to learn
>>>> more about this. Please dont respond to this email thinking that I
>>>> belong to some anti-M$ gang, I am requesting as it has happened
>>>> before. I need more input and hence I am posting in this group.
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -------------
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -------------
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -----
>>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -----
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to