RES: Exploits start against flaw that could hamstring huge swaths of

Tue Aug 4 17:01:03 UTC 2015

I don't disagree, but automation usually protects against typing errors, it
doesn't protect against incorrect configurations.  Using multiple vendors
or server software means that your people have to know all of the systems.
There are many cases where, for example, a Cisco like CLI will make a
network engineer think that a command works exactly the same way on another
vendors system when in fact the under the hood implementation is very
different.

It's not always feasible to have the people with the needed skill levels
and automation does not help that at all.
On Aug 4, 2015 10:21 AM, "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote:
> > Automation just means your mistake goes many more places more quickly.
> >
>
> and letting people keep poking at things that computers should be
> doing is... much worse. people do not have reliability and
> repeat-ability over time.
>
>
> If you fear 'many more places' problems, improve your testing.
>
> > On Aug 4, 2015 9:38 AM, "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote:
> >> > With the (large) caveat that heterogenous networks are more subject to
> >> > human error in many cases.
> >>
> >> <cough>automate!</cough>
> >>
> >> > On Aug 4, 2015 9:25 AM, "Joe Greco" <jgreco at ns.sol.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > So, you guys recommend replace Bind for another option ?
> >> >>
> >> >> No.  Replacing one occasionally faulty product with another
> >> >> occasionally
> >> >> faulty product is foolish.  There's no particular reason to think
> that
> >> >> another product will be impervious to code bugs.  What I was
> suggesting
> >> >> was to use several different devices, much as some networks prefer to
> >> >> buy some Cisco gear and some Juniper gear and make them redundant, or
> >> >> as a well-built ZFS storage array consists of drives from different
> >> >> manufacturers.
> >> >>
> >> >> Heterogeneous environments tend to be more resilient because they are
> >> >> less likely to all suffer the same defect at once.  Problems still
> >> >> result
> >> >> in some pain and trouble, but it usually doesn't result in a service
> >> >> outage.
> >> >>
> >> >> This doesn't seem like a horribly catastrophic bug in any case.
> Anyone
> >> >> who is reliant on a critical bit like a DNS server probably has it
> set
> >> >> up to automatically restart if it doesn't exit cleanly.  If you
> don't,
> >> >> you should!
> >> >>
> >> >> So if it matters to you, I suggest that you instead use a combination
> >> >> of different products, and you'll be more resilient.  If you have two
> >> >> recursers for your customers, one can be BIND and one can be Unbound.
> >> >> And when some critical vuln comes along and knocks out Unbound,
> you'll
> >> >> still be resolving names.  Ditto BIND.  You're not likely to see both
> >> >> happen at the same time.
> >> >>
> >> >> However, at least here, we actually *use* TSIG updates, and other
> >> >> functionality that'd be hard to replace (BIND9 is pretty much THE
> only
> >> >> option for some functionality).
> >> >>
> >> >> ... JG
> >> >> --
> >> >> Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI -
> >> >> http://www.sol.net
> >> >> "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance
> [and]
> >> >> then I
> >> >> won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail
> >> >> spam(CNN)
> >> >> With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many
> >> >> apples.
> >> >>
>