- David Eason hat diesen Pin entdeckt. Entdecke (und sammle) deine eigenen Pins bei Pinterest. Bruno Boni de Oliveira (@brunoboni) Bruno Boni de Oliveira. (@brunoboni). 0posts 0followers 0following. BEITRÄGE STORIES MARKIERT. Alles download. Kommentare zu Bruno Boni. Du. Kommentar speichern. Filter: Alle Freunde Ich. Sortieren: Datum Likes. lädt Es gibt noch keine Kommentare, schreib doch.
steal srl in 25014 CASTENEDOLOAssociazione Culturale Bruno Boni "Sindaco per Sempre", Brescia. Gefällt Mal. Gli scopi fondanti l'Associazione derivano dai principi di un comune. Instagram post by Bruno Boni • Jun 5, at pm UTC. 1, Likes, 26 Comments - Bruno Boni (@thebrunoboni) on Instagram. Bruno Boni – Wikipedia.
Bruno Boni Filmography Videobruno boni Deshalb ist unsere Seite für Sie aktuell nicht erreichbar. Welche Erkenntnisse haben die Zeit überdauert? Aber deshalb werden die meisten Boni inzwischen ja an langfristige Entwicklungen gekoppelt. Impressum Datenschutzerklärung Vorherige Englisch deaktiviert? Bruno Boni war ein italienischer Ruderer, der die olympische Bronzemedaille im Zweier ohne Steuermann gewann. Bei der Olympischen Ruderregatta auf der Themse bei Henley traten jeweils maximal drei Boote gegeneinander an. Bruno Boni – Wikipedia. Associazione Culturale Bruno Boni "Sindaco per Sempre", Brescia. Gefällt Mal. Gli scopi fondanti l'Associazione derivano dai principi di un comune. Tritt Facebook bei, um dich mit Bruno Boni und anderen Nutzern, die du kennst, zu vernetzen. Bruno Bonis Profilbild, Bild könnte enthalten: 1 Person, lächelnd.
They have to go to a malicious website before you will see any exploit heartbeat requests coming to them. Regards, Boni Bruno. Posted by Boni Bruno at PM 1 comment:.
The EndaceProbe appliances, with 10Gb Ethernet 10GbE interfaces and 64TB of local storage, were deployed so that they could see, capture and record every packet on the network.
Between Tuesday at p. The dropped packet counter on the EndaceProbe recorded zero packet loss, so when I say that 72 billion packets traversed the network, I really mean 72 billion packets traversed the network and captured every single one to disk.
Those 72 billion packets translate to: 68GB of metadata that can be used to generate EndaceVision visualizations.
Users of the network consumed more than GB of iTunes traffic 7th highest on the list of application usage and GB of bit torrent 10th highest on the list.
Whether vendors should be taking this as an insight into how interesting their presentations are is an interesting question in its own right!
The ability to see traffic spikes at such a low level of resolution is critical for understanding the behavior of the network and planning for the future.
With the wrong tools, you could easily be mistaken to thinking that a 1Gbps link would be sufficient to handle InteropNet traffic. In a few clicks, we were able to show that the problem was coming from a single user Silvio, we know who you are!
So, until next year, we bid Las Vegas farewell and head home for a well deserved rest. How long should I store packet captures?
How much storage should I provision to monitor a 10Gbps link? When is NetFlow enough, and when do I need to capture at the packet level?
These are questions network operations managers everywhere are asking, because unfortunately best practices for network data retention policies are hard to find.
Whereas CIOs now generally have retention policies for customer data, internal emails, and other kinds of files, and DBAs generally know how to implement those policies, the right retention policy for network capture data is less obvious.
The good news is that there are IT shops out there that are ahead of the curve and have figured a lot of this out.
Some common answers include: Respond faster to difficult network issues Establish root cause and long-term resolution Contain cyber-security breaches Optimize network configuration Plan network upgrades.
You may notice that the objectives listed above vary in who might use them: stakeholders could include Network Operations, Security Operations, Risk Management, and Compliance groups, among others.
While these different teams often operate as silos in large IT shops, in best-practice organizations these groups are cooperating to create a common network-history retention policy that cuts across these silos and in the most advanced cases, they have even begun to share network-history infrastructure assets, a topic we discussed here.
Some of your objectives may be met by keeping summary information — events, statistics, or flow records for example — and others commonly require keeping partial or full packet data as well.
Generally speaking, the items at the top of the list are smaller and therefore cheaper to keep for long periods of time; while the items at the bottom are larger and more expensive to keep, but much more general.
If you have the full packet data available you can re-create any of the other items on the list as needed; without the full packet data you can answer a subset of questions.
That leads to the first principle: keep the largest objects like full packet captures for as long as you can afford which is generally not very long, because the data volumes are so large , and keep summarized data for longer.
Next, you should always take guidance from your legal adviser. The choice here will depend on how tightly controlled your network is and on what level of privacy protection your users are entitled to.
For highly controlled networks with a low privacy requirement, such as banking, government or public utilities, full packet capture is the norm.
For consumer ISPs in countries with high privacy expectations, packet header capture may be more appropriate.
General enterprise networks fall somewhere in between. Whichever type of packet data is being recorded, the goal consistently stated by best-practice organizations is a minimum of 72 hours retention, to cover a 3-day weekend.
For the most tightly-controlled networks retention requirements may be 30 days, 90 days, or longer. GTP-C in mobile networks In addition to control plane traffic, in every network there are particular servers, clients, subnets, or applications that are considered particularly important or particularly problematic.
For both control-plane and network-specific traffic of interest, organizations are storing a minimum of 30 days of packet data.
Some organizations store this kind of data for up to a year. This flow data is useful for a wide variety of diagnosis and trending purposes. Best-practice here is to store at least days of flow data.
Samples and summaries: 2 years or more sFlow or sampled NetFlow, using or packet samples, can be useful for some kinds of trending and for detecting large-scale Denial of Service attacks.
Summary traffic statistics — taken hourly or daily, by link and by application — can also be helpful in understanding past trends to help predict future trends.
Because this data takes relatively little space, and because it is mostly useful for trending purposes, organizations typically plan to keep it for a minimum of two years.
One point to remember in maintaining history over periods of a year or longer is that network configurations may change, creating discontinuities.
Average vs Peak vs Worst-case? Should you size for 72 hours of typical traffic, or 72 hours of worst-case? The reasoning here is that when the network gets very highly loaded, someone will be dragged out of bed to fix it much sooner than 72 hours, so a long duration of history is not needed; but that person will want to be able to rewind to the onset of the event and will want to see a full record of what was happening immediately before and after, so having a system that records all traffic with zero drops is crucial.
Under worst-case load, when recording is most important, it could run at the full 10Gbps, which would fill storage 10 times as fast.
The good news is: best-practice here says you do not need to provision 10x the storage capacity, but you should be using a capture system that can record at the full 10Gbps rate.
That means that in a worst-case scenario your storage duration would be more like 7 hours than 70; but in that kind of scenario someone will be on the case in much less than 7 hours, and will have taken action to preserve data from the onset of the event.
Of course, the same considerations apply for other types of network history: systems need to be able to process and record at the worst-case data rate, but with reduced retention duration.
Other considerations The above discussion slightly oversimplifies the case; there are actually two more important considerations to keep in mind in sizing storage for network history.
Second, while we say above you should provision storage for typical load, most organizations actually use projected typical load, extrapolating the traffic trend out to months from design time.
How far ahead you look depends on how often you are willing to upgrade the disks in your network recording systems.
A three-year upgrade cycle is typical, but with disk capacity and costs improving rapidly there are situations where it can be more cost-effective to provision less storage up front and plan to upgrade every 24 months.
Implementing the policy When organizations first take on the challenge of standardizing network-history retention policy, they nearly always discover that their current retention regime is far away from where they think it needs to be.
Protocol validation is really a very effective way to address zero-day attacks, application attacks, worms, and numerous other attack vectors.
For example, let's say your web server receives a client request for an unknown method, before processing such a request, ask yourself what is an effective way to deal with unknown method attacks.
Would signatures be an appropriate solution? Maybe trapping the requests and creating an error on the web server would be a better solution — I would do this on the server side.
I would also argue, at least for network security devices, that inspecting the traffic for any method that exceeds a set number of alphanumeric characters this should be a configurable parameter would be a better way to go Say some unknown method is received over the network that is not a GET, HEAD, POST, PUT or whatever else you deem suitable for your web serving environment, instead of trying to come up with various signatures to combat an unknown method attack, simply allow a set number of methods and address the unknown methods by limiting them to say 15 characters.
Any unknown method attack that exceeds 15 characters in this example will not be allowed to the web servers.
This will save on system resources, security analysis time, and provide a nice mechanism to address various protocol issues. The unknown method attack I describe here is just one example I'm highlighting to show that protocol validation can capture any variant of an unknown method attack quickly and efficiently.
Same is true if you implement protocol validation on various URI parameters. Remember Conficker? This would provide proactive protection against a variety of MS RPC attacks without relying on any signatures.
There are many benefits to incorporating protocol validation into your security solutions and it must become an integral part of any network security device being considered today to mitigate network attacks against your systems or you will simply be too exposed.
Next time you evaluate some sort of network security device, make sure you check whether protocol validation is being enforced in a comprehensive way, if not, move on Stay secure!
There are some nasty malicious PDF files read more… going around the Internet for which most Anti-Virus tools provide little or no detection.
As a good security precaution, if you use or read PDF files, you should take the following two actions: 1. Make sure you are using the latest version of Adobe Reader formerly known as Adobe Acrobat Reader , which as of this writing is 9.
Wishing you a safe computing year in , -boni bruno. Labels: Malicious PDF documents on the rise Historically, physical access controls have never run over IP networks, but now with Cisco in the game, the convergence for a complete physical access control solution over IP networks is now a reality.
The Cisco Physical Access Control solution is made up of both hardware and software components. In wired deployments, the device is capable of being powered by Power over Ethernet PoE.
It is also possible to connect to the gateway over a Wi-Fi The diagram below depicts a typical Cisco PAC archtiecture: Since there is a gateway for each door, access control can be deployed incrementally, door by door.
There is no central panel; this simplifies system design, wiring, and planning, resulting in significant cost savings over legacy architectures.
Additional modules can be connected to the gateway, allowing for extensibility. All communication from and to the gateways is encrypted. Lately I've been focusing on bigdata architectures, analytics and multi-cloud integration.
These experiences, along with the colleagues and customer's I've been lucky enough to work with through the years, have provided me the skills required to safeguard some of our nations critical infrastructure and affect a paradigm shift in how information is analyzed, secured, distributed, monetized and consumed.
Feel free to contact me for demos, talks, or better yet, let's collaborate on building something fantastic! Welcome Services Portfolio About Contact.
Stay well! Joes CTF event. You can download the pcaps HERE. The network was left open for a week, but you will want to focus on Aug 4th and Aug 5th time frames in the pcaps Contact me.
Contact me Feel free to contact me for demos, talks, or better yet, let's collaborate on building something fantastic!