71 lines
3.1 KiB
Plaintext
71 lines
3.1 KiB
Plaintext
From secprog-return-484-jm=jmason.org@securityfocus.com Fri Sep 6 15:24:57 2002
|
|
Return-Path: <secprog-return-484-yyyy=example.com@securityfocus.com>
|
|
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com
|
|
Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
|
|
by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67C5716F03
|
|
for <jm@localhost>; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:24:57 +0100 (IST)
|
|
Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
|
|
by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
|
|
for jm@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 06 Sep 2002 15:24:57 +0100 (IST)
|
|
Received: from webnote.net (mail.webnote.net [193.120.211.219]) by
|
|
dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g86A13C30435 for
|
|
<jm@jmason.org>; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:01:03 +0100
|
|
Received: from outgoing.securityfocus.com (outgoing3.securityfocus.com
|
|
[66.38.151.27]) by webnote.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA16998 for
|
|
<jm@jmason.org>; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 18:30:53 +0100
|
|
Received: from lists.securityfocus.com (lists.securityfocus.com
|
|
[66.38.151.19]) by outgoing.securityfocus.com (Postfix) with QMQP id
|
|
421EEA312D; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:39:46 -0600 (MDT)
|
|
Mailing-List: contact secprog-help@securityfocus.com; run by ezmlm
|
|
Precedence: bulk
|
|
List-Id: <secprog.list-id.securityfocus.com>
|
|
List-Post: <mailto:secprog@securityfocus.com>
|
|
List-Help: <mailto:secprog-help@securityfocus.com>
|
|
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:secprog-unsubscribe@securityfocus.com>
|
|
List-Subscribe: <mailto:secprog-subscribe@securityfocus.com>
|
|
Delivered-To: mailing list secprog@securityfocus.com
|
|
Delivered-To: moderator for secprog@securityfocus.com
|
|
Received: (qmail 17568 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2002 08:02:24 -0000
|
|
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:17:03 +0200
|
|
From: Andrey Kolishak <andr@sandy.ru>
|
|
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.61) Personal
|
|
Reply-To: Andrey Kolishak <andr@sandy.ru>
|
|
Organization: none
|
|
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
|
|
Message-Id: <5780619972.20020905101703@sandy.ru>
|
|
To: SECPROG Securityfocus <SECPROG@securityfocus.com>
|
|
Subject: Re: use of base image / delta image for automated recovery from
|
|
attacks
|
|
In-Reply-To: <NAEOJLMPJMJDFPLHIOJOAEFJDBAA.bmord@icon-nicholson.com>
|
|
References: <NAEOJLMPJMJDFPLHIOJOAEFJDBAA.bmord@icon-nicholson.com>
|
|
MIME-Version: 1.0
|
|
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
|
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
|
|
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-9.9 required=7.0
|
|
tests=IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,NOSPAM_INC,REFERENCES,
|
|
SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT_THEBAT
|
|
version=2.50-cvs
|
|
X-Spam-Level:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
take a look at http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,102881,00.asp
|
|
|
|
Andrey mailto:andr@sandy.ru
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BM> Does anyone do this already? Or is this a new concept? Or has this concept
|
|
BM> been discussed before and abandoned for some reasons that I don't yet know?
|
|
BM> I use the physical architecture of a basic web application as an example in
|
|
BM> this post, but this concept could of course be applied to most server
|
|
BM> systems. It would allow for the hardware-separation of volatile and
|
|
BM> non-volatile disk images. It would be analogous to performing nightly
|
|
BM> ghosting operations, only it would be more efficient and involve less (or
|
|
BM> no) downtime.
|
|
|
|
BM> Thanks for any opinions,
|
|
BM> Ben
|
|
|
|
|