Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2017-2597PUBLISHED: 2022-08-08** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2017. Notes: none.
CVE-2017-2631PUBLISHED: 2022-08-08** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2017. Notes: none.
CVE-2017-2657PUBLISHED: 2022-08-08** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2017. Notes: none.
CVE-2017-7527PUBLISHED: 2022-08-08** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2017. Notes: none.
CVE-2021-41615PUBLISHED: 2022-08-08
websda.c in GoAhead WebServer 2.1.8 has insufficient nonce entropy because the nonce calculation relies on the hardcoded onceuponatimeinparadise value, which does not follow the secret-data guideline for HTTP Digest Access Authentication in RFC 7616 section 3.3 (or RFC 2617 section 3.2.1). NOTE: 2.1...
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.