From secprog-return-484-zzzz=spamassassin.taint.org@securityfocus.com  Fri Sep  6 15:24:57 2002
Return-Path: <secprog-return-484-zzzz=spamassassin.taint.org@securityfocus.com>
Delivered-To: zzzz@localhost.spamassassin.taint.org
Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by spamassassin.taint.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67C5716F03
	for <zzzz@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 zzzz@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
    <zzzz@spamassassin.taint.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
    <zzzz@spamassassin.taint.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



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


