[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       pfsense-discussion
Subject:    Re: [pfSense] USB3 to ethernet adaptor
From:       RB <aoz.syn () gmail ! com>
Date:       2016-05-26 16:53:12
Message-ID: CADkMHCnWuSmR3d7u4TcwZh1Y0ZVuyynsw5uEUxB+Gy79rPFmrw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:42 AM, WebDawg <webdawg@gmail.com> wrote:
> I posted this a while ago:
>
>
> http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2016/Jan/77
>
> http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2016/Mar/25

I see, but that has nothing to do with the security of the VLAN
implementation, rather of the switch as a whole.  That switch is
certainly awful, but it's no reason to impugn the viability of using
VLANs across the board.

> Also, just because a vulnerability has not been reported or discovered,
> does not mean it does not exist.

Nor does it mean we avoid using an entire technology because there
"might" be vulnerabilities in what has otherwise remained a stable and
useful paradigm for decades.

The question of VLAN jumping remains open, in my mind.  An
appropriate, well-configured switch fabric should have no problem
carrying vastly different security levels in different VLANs,
vulnerabilities in its management software notwithstanding.
_______________________________________________
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]