[23739] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: DOD mulls Internet disconnect (Re: The future of NAPs and IXPs)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay R. Ashworth)
Mon Apr 19 18:24:36 1999
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 18:21:29 -0400
From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <990419161812.374ea@SDG.DRA.COM>; from Sean Donelan <SEAN@SDG.DRA.COM> on Mon, Apr 19, 1999 at 04:18:12PM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, Apr 19, 1999 at 04:18:12PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
> >It's worth pointing out, as a sidebar to that, that the greater the
> >dependence on interconnection, the more hardened it's _feasible_ to make
> >that interconnection environment, assuming you've rolled your numbers
> >right. Staying on the proper side of that curve is important...
>
> Don't fall into the trap of thinking you can harden anything enough. The
> Internet was built on the assumption diversity buys reliability better than
> hardening. To this day, it seems to be a hard thing to do in practice. It
> is much easier to adopt the bunker mentality, and try to protect it all
> behind one big wall. Which doesn't work much better in practice, but pays
> consultants a lot better.
<chuckle>
> Normally, I wouldn't assume Lt. Generals understand technical matters
> very well, prefering instead to listen to majors and below. I have
> no clue what the Lt. General is thinking changing .mil to .com will
> do for security.
>
> http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1999/0419/fcw-newsdod-4-19-99.html
Well, from the piece, either the reporter or the officer fails to
understand the fundamental disconnect between the two namespaces and
their implications.
> I wonder if the Lt. General realizes the damage he may end up doing.
Of course not. _I_ wonder if he's _listening_ to his Colonels...
> Some of us "outsiders" have long relied on information from the military
> web sites to help us improve the design of our own infrastructures. Which
> in turn the government relies on to carry out its mission. It is a fallicy
> to think you can provide the information needed to protect the network to
> just one or two "cleared" companies. I'm not "cleared," yet I still need
> provide information assurance services to my clients. It would be a shame
> if a hacker chopped three "zeros" off a defense spending bill. I thought
> the government had figured there is more interdependence between all levels
> after all its critical infrastructure studies in the last couple of years.
If this was true, then they wouldn't have shut down the OTA a couple
years ago; they being some of the few people on the Hill who were
waiting at the station when the Clue Train stopped there. (www.cluetrain.org)
> Sorry, I just had to vent.
You go.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com
Member of the Technical Staff Buy copies of The New Hackers Dictionary.
The Suncoast Freenet Give them to all your friends.
Tampa Bay, Florida http://www.ccil.org/jargon/ +1 813 790 7592
