Re: simple security

[Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops@u-1.phicoh.com>]

In your letter dated Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:48:22 +0200 you wrote:
>> Some people argued that a stateful firewall is no longer needed because
>> attackers no longer use vectors that a firewall protects against.  This
>> sounds like circular reasoning to me, as if you no longer need a roof
>> because rain hasn't fallen on your head  for years.
>
>Do you take vaccinations for illenesses that don't exist anymore? Most people
>don't even take vaccinations for some that do exist but not where they live.
>Why would you protect IPv6 systems for old (now fixed) vulnerabilities in
>IPv4 systems?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument. But are you trying to say that in,
say, the past 5 years, there have been no remote holes in any commonly used
system? 

Or are you trying to say to because remote holes are not exploited over IPv6
at the moment, it is not worth having protection for them. Just wait until
it is too late, and router vendors once again get a bad rep for offering
no security.