[124002] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: NSP-SEC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Stasiniewicz)
Fri Mar 19 11:09:25 2010
From: Adam Stasiniewicz <adam@adamstas.com>
In-Reply-To: <570778.33984.qm@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:08:55 -0500
To: David Barak <thegameiam@yahoo.com>, nenolod@systeminplace.net,
jtk@cymru.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
IMHO, I think you have it backwards. I see strategic discussions (like
new crypto algorithms, technologies, initiatives, etc) should be open to
public debate, review, and scrutiny. But operational/tactical discussions
(like new malware, software exploits, virus infected hosts, botnets, etc)
don't need public review. Rather, those types of communications should be
streamlined that would allow for quick resolution.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Barak [mailto:thegameiam@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 8:55 AM
To: nenolod@systeminplace.net; jtk@cymru.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: NSP-SEC
Total transparency in security matters works about as well as it would for
law enforcement: fine for tactical concerns, but not so great for
long-term strategic concerns.
-David Barak
On Fri Mar 19th, 2010 9:44 AM EDT William Pitcock wrote:
>On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 08:31 -0500, John Kristoff wrote:
>> An ongoing area of work is to build better closed,
>> trusted communities without leaks.
>
>Have you ever considered that public transparency might not be a bad
>thing? This seems to be the plight of many security people, that they
>have to be 100% secretive in everything they do, which is total
>bullshit.
>
>Just saying.
>
>William
>
>
