Skip to main content

Security: Bluelane successful with Microsoft's Interop initiative



"In a battery of more than three thousand different tests, Blue Lane's solution was able to demonstrate its knowledge of various Microsoft protocols and prove its ability to accurately process them and ensure the network server traffic was acceptable with no false positives."

Greg Ness, VP bluelane, when asked, mentioned:

To my knowledge this is the first time that any software vendor has tested and found no adverse traffic impacts - no false positives - in a third party network security appliance deployed to protect servers from malicious attacks. This is a particularly important development for the protection of servers because the false blocking of traffic has a considerable impact on server availability. False positives in established network security appliances have forced many to deploy server protection in alarm-only mode, since the consequences of blocking good traffic can outweigh the risks of an attack and take down critical infrastructure. Alarm-only however is the equivalent of crying wolf if it isn't accurate. It still offers no real protection without additional intervention.


Check out MS's announcement.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Security: VMware Workstation 6 vulnerability

vulnerable software: VMware Workstation 6.0 for Windows, possible some other VMware products as well type of vulnerability: DoS, potential privilege escalation I found a vulnerability in VMware Workstation 6.0 which allows an unprivileged user in the host OS to crash the system and potentially run arbitrary code with kernel privileges. The issue is in the vmstor-60 driver, which is supposed to mount VMware images within the host OS. When sending the IOCTL code FsSetVoleInformation with subcode FsSetFileInformation with a large buffer and underreporting its size to at max 1024 bytes, it will underrun and potentially execute arbitrary code. Security focus
Post a Comment
Read more

OS Virtualization comparison: Parallels' Virtuozzo vs the rest

Virtuozzo's main differentiators versus hypervisors center on overhead, virtualization flexibility, administration and cost. Virtuozzo requires significantly less overhead than hypervisor solutions, generally in the range of 1% to 5% compared with 7% to 25% for most hypervisors, leaving more of the system available to run user workloads. Customers can also virtualize a wider range of applications using Virtuozzo, including transactional databases, which often suffer from performance problems when used with hypervisors. On the administration side, customers need to manage, maintain and secure just a single OS instance, while the hypervisor model requires customers to manage many OS instances. Of course, the hypervisor vendors have worked hard to automate much of this process, but it still requires more effort to manage and maintain multiple operating systems than a single instance. Finally, OS virtualization with Virtuozzo has a lower list price than the leading hypervisor for comme...
Post a Comment
Read more