[59610] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Backbone Infrastructure and Secrecy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rubens Kuhl Jr.)
Fri Jul 11 12:01:19 2003
Reply-To: "Rubens Kuhl Jr." <rubens@email.com>
From: "Rubens Kuhl Jr." <rubens@email.com>
To: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net>,
"E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 04:02:47 -0300
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Managing security perception can sometimes reduce security risks or the
security TCO, by reducing the number of low-risk attackers. Die-hards will
only stop for real security controls, but you may find easier to impose such
controls without a lot of noise from your security alarms.
The real issue is when you start believing that you are as safe as the sheep
think you are.
Rubens
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net>
To: "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>; <nanog@merit.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: Backbone Infrastructure and Secrecy
|
| E.B. Dreger wrote:
| > Perhaps some "security" measures have a different purpose -- as
| > you say, "LOOKS great" (emphasis added).
|
| Just like 99% of all recent airport security measures... reassure the
sheep,
| then they might stop bleating and march to order instead. "Baaaaaauy
| McDonalds, Baaaaauy Gas, Baaaaauy SUV".
|
| This is OT. Obviously.
|
| Peter
|
|
