In brief discussions with a firm (no names mentioned, again) here is what I have learned. They work as a "for profit" company receiving fees for their testing, and re-testing. Nothing is free, usually under 6 figures to obtain certification. They will only talk specifics with an NDA in place. The fee covers 12 months of "certification" and must be re-paid and re-tested for renewal. Other paying clients, with commercial products, would have a great deal of concern if an open source product was included in the certification list. It would be possible to pay for certification testing, and keep it secret from the public. regards Jim Sanders From: Tom Eastep <teastep@shorewall.net> To: judas_iscariote@shorewall.net, Shorewall Users < shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net> Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:07:48 -0700 Subject: Re: [Shorewall-users] Shorewall Certification? Cristian Rodriguez wrote:> Tom Eastep wrote: > >> But I believe that it *could* be certified at least to the SMB level >> (Small/Medium Business). >> > > MMM..intersting..but certification costs money right ? >I would think so but the ICSA web site is silent on the certification procedure and cost. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net PGP Public Key \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key
James Sanders wrote:> In brief discussions with a firm (no names mentioned, again) here is what I > have learned. > They work as a "for profit" company receiving fees for their testing, and > re-testing. Nothing is free, usually under 6 figures to obtain > certification. They will only talk specifics with an NDA in place. > The fee covers 12 months of "certification" and must be re-paid and > re-tested for renewal. > Other paying clients, with commercial products, would have a great deal of > concern if an open source product was included in the certification list. > It would be possible to pay for certification testing, and keep it secret > from the public.Security certification that''s based on non-disclosure of the process sounds like security certification that''s not worth having. :-) http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0111.html#1 Paul
Paul Gear wrote:> James Sanders wrote: >> In brief discussions with a firm (no names mentioned, again) here is what I >> have learned. >> They work as a "for profit" company receiving fees for their testing, and >> re-testing. Nothing is free, usually under 6 figures to obtain >> certification. They will only talk specifics with an NDA in place. >> The fee covers 12 months of "certification" and must be re-paid and >> re-tested for renewal. >> Other paying clients, with commercial products, would have a great deal of >> concern if an open source product was included in the certification list. >> It would be possible to pay for certification testing, and keep it secret >> from the public. > > Security certification that''s based on non-disclosure of the process > sounds like security certification that''s not worth having. :-)They disclose the requirements for certification completely. But they give absolutely no details about how I as a firewall developer would go about getting certification. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net PGP Public Key \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key
On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 14:09 -0700, James Sanders wrote:> In brief discussions with a firm (no names mentioned, again) here is > what I have learned. > They work as a "for profit" company receiving fees for their testing, > and re-testing. Nothing is free, usually under 6 figures to obtain > certification. They will only talk specifics with an NDA in place. > The fee covers 12 months of "certification" and must be re-paid and > re-tested for renewal. > Other paying clients, with commercial products, would have a great > deal of concern if an open source product was included in the > certification list. > It would be possible to pay for certification testing, and keep it > secret from the public.Ouch! "Under 6 figures" is kind of scary. -- Homer Parker <hparker@homershut.net>
Homer Parker wrote:> > Ouch! "Under 6 figures" is kind of scary. >Yes -- enough to scare me off :-) -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net PGP Public Key \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key
Tom, Are you aware that your email posts are now coming across as attachments rather than as simpe email? I don''t think it''s just me since I see this in Gnus (XEmacs news/email application) and in MS Outlook. Just thought you should know. ...Jake -- Jake Colman Sr. Applications Developer Principia Partners LLC Harborside Financial Center 1001 Plaza Two Jersey City, NJ 07311 +1 (201) 209-2467 www.principiapartners.com
Jake Colman wrote:> Tom, > > Are you aware that your email posts are now coming across as attachments > rather than as simpe email? I don''t think it''s just me since I see this in > Gnus (XEmacs news/email application) and in MS Outlook. > > Just thought you should know.This started happening when Sourceforge upgraded to Mailman 2.1 and is a result of the way that Mailman is now encapsulating PGP/MIME posts. Some mailers deal with it better than others. Thunderbird and Evolution both deal fine with these posts, for example. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net PGP Public Key \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key
Tom Eastep wrote:> Jake Colman wrote: >> Tom, >> >> Are you aware that your email posts are now coming across as attachments >> rather than as simpe email? I don''t think it''s just me since I see this in >> Gnus (XEmacs news/email application) and in MS Outlook. >> >> Just thought you should know. > > This started happening when Sourceforge upgraded to Mailman 2.1 and is a result > of the way that Mailman is now encapsulating PGP/MIME posts. Some mailers deal > with it better than others. Thunderbird and Evolution both deal fine with these > posts, for example.FWIW, even the venerable ''Pine'' mailer displays these messages without a fuss. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net PGP Public Key \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:43:10 -0700 Tom Eastep <teastep@shorewall.net> wrote:> Tom Eastep wrote: > > Jake Colman wrote: > >> Tom, > >> > >> Are you aware that your email posts are now coming across > >> as attachments rather than as simpe email? I don''t think > >> it''s just me since I see this in Gnus (XEmacs news/email > >> application) and in MS Outlook. > >> > >> Just thought you should know. > > > > This started happening when Sourceforge upgraded to Mailman > > 2.1 and is a result of the way that Mailman is now > > encapsulating PGP/MIME posts. Some mailers deal with it > > better than others. Thunderbird and Evolution both deal fine > > with these posts, for example. > > FWIW, even the venerable ''Pine'' mailer displays these messages > without a fuss. > >They appear normal here in Sylpheed-Claws 2.2.3. This is POP3 account. I don''t know how IMAP servers may treat the messages. -- Tom P.
It''s a client issue, not a server issue, so it doesn''t matter if one uses POP3 or IMAP. By the way, I utilize Thunderbird with an IMAP account and Tom''s message are displayed normally. Bye Paolo Basenghi - Centro elaborazione dati Az.Spec.Farmacie Comunali Riunite Via Doberdo'' 9 - 42100 Reggio Emilia Tel +39(0522)543313 email: paolo.basenghi@fcr.re.it www.fcr.re.it - www.informazionisuifarmaci.it www.saninforma.it - www.futurfarma.it Le informazioni contenute in questa comunicazione sono riservate e destinate esclusivamente alla/e persona/e o all''ente sopra indicati. E'' vietato ai soggetti diversi dai destinatari qualsiasi uso, copia, diffusione di quanto in esso contenuto sia ai sensi dell''art. 616 c.p., sia ai sensi della legge 196/2003. Se questa comunicazione vi e'' pervenuta per errore, vi preghiamo di rispondere a questa mail e successivamente cancellarla dal vostro sistema. Tom Pittman ha scritto:> They appear normal here in Sylpheed-Claws 2.2.3. This is POP3 > account. I don''t know how IMAP servers may treat the messages. >