Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

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.4.44.0212241538270.9020-100000@clifden.donelan.com>, Sean 
Donelan writes:
>
>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
>n
>> > 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 
Lies".

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)






Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.