[146920] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Water Utility SCADA 'Attack': The, um, washout
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Nov 28 05:36:08 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <m3mxbgbn12.fsf@stuor.nsc.liu.se>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 02:31:11 -0800
To: Leif Nixon <nixon@nsc.liu.se>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Nov 28, 2011, at 1:43 AM, Leif Nixon wrote:
> "andrew.wallace" <andrew.wallace@rocketmail.com> writes:
>=20
>> These reports are ment for private sector eyes only. I suggest new =
secrecy legislation, for fusion centres.
>=20
> Making it harder to share information on incidents and vulnerabilities
> is not the best of ideas.
>=20
> Over the last ten years I have seen much, much, MUCH more damage
> resulting from information *not* being shared than from information
> being improperly shared.
>=20
> --=20
> Leif Nixon - Security officer
> National Supercomputer Centre - Swedish National Infrastructure for =
Computing
> Nordic Data Grid Facility - European Grid Infrastructure
Generally, I agree with you, but, FUD is not information. Spreading FUD =
(as is the
case in this incident more than information) is more harmful than good.
Making it harder to spread misinformation and FUD is good.
Making it harder to share information is bad.
Information is the anti-FUD.
Owen
