North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Acceptable Losses (was Re: Whoops! (re: WH network monitoring plan response))
- From: Steven M. Bellovin
- Date: Tue Dec 24 20:09:42 2002
In message <Pine.GSO.firstname.lastname@example.org>, Sean
>On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Richard Forno wrote:
>> In my last post when I said this:
>> > If something's deemed 'critical' to a large segment of the population, the
>> > security must NEVER outweigh conveinience. Period. Non-negotiable.
>> I meant to say that security must ALWAYS outweigh convienience.
>Sigh, people are playing games with words to force false choices. Of
>course its negotiable because the act of defining something "critical"
>is a negotiation.
Not only that -- security is not 0/1, all or nothing. It is possible
to be more or less secure; building a security system -- like a
firewall -- that has only the two states of "wide open" and "absolutely
impenetrable" is a bad idea.
Security is about risk management -- see Schneier's book "Secrets and
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)