Slashdot Mirror
Network Webcurity Wishlist?
breillysf asks: "I am a California-based network security attorney who has been asked by a senior US Senator to compile a list of the most important legal concerns facing network security administrators. He has a good feel for the government security issues (and lack there of), but he is concerned about what is going on in the front lines in the private sector. I thought the Slashdot crowd would have the best feel on the pulse of the current situation. Specifically, if you could ask Congress for help in the area of network and information security, what would you ask for? Or would you tell them to get out of the way?"
"For example, I tried to push for tax incentives for upgrades in network security measures, but the Senator replied that is dead in the water because we are now spending into a deficit. He would rather see insurance companies reward firms with lower premiums for enhanced security. But there are International legal issues, compliance issues, privacy complications, potential negligence liability exposure, lack of federal incident response, FOIA and anti-trust issues with info sharing, conflicting state and federal cybercrime and privacy laws, USA Patriot Act concerns, etc."
Yours,
Anonymous Coward
Fp Damn Lameness Filter Anyway
ban all open source development. Everyone knows that all 1337 h4x0rs use Linux to cause havoc.
Plain and simple, getting patches and rolling them out is a pain in the ass, for most vendors products. I've switched most of my servers to BSD based systems, simply because it's easier and simpler for me to stop a service, do a cvs update against the patched source tree, compile and reenable the service, than it is for any other operating system.
Windows update is ok (the 75% of the time that it works), but there are far to many interdependancies between products - for example, to apply the latest Outlook 2000 bugfix, you need to download a 50MB patch for all of Office 2000, and have an Office 2000 disk around - since all my Outlook 2000 installs came with Small Business Server, I don't have this, and can't apply the
patch.
In short, it needs to be easier to patch systems - so simple, that people will bother to do it on a regular basis.
BBK
what i really really want
i really really really wanna zig-a-zig-ah.
thanks you
Specifically, if you could ask Congress for help in the area of network and information security, what would you ask for?
BAN MICROSOFT.
-Lx?
Please help curb angry, pointless trolls by consuming at least one caffinated beverage prior to posting.
And on a personal note to cmclean: Got job?
My complaint about George W Bush
May I be cynical for a bit? I hope you don't mind,
but with George W Bush's latest barrage of
malodorous notions, I can't resist the urge to make a
few cynical comments. To get right
down to it, some of the facts I'm about
to present may seem shocking. This
they certainly are. However, it's time that a few
facts had a chance to slip through the fusillade of hype.
What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it
in the form of a question: Where are the people
who are willing to stand up and acknowledge
that Bush, in his infinite wisdom, has decided
to destroy the natural beauty of our parks and forests?
On the surface, it would seem to have something to do
with the way that his whole approach is repugnant.
But upon further investigation, one will find that
by allowing Bush to put mephitic thoughts in our
children's minds, we are allowing him to play puppet master.
As for the lies and exaggerations, Bush's
epigrams are rife with contradictions
and difficulties; they're entirely maladroit,
meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited
for a supposedly educated population.
And as if that weren't enough, if Bush is going to
obstruct important things, then he should at least have
the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, a
true enemy is better than a false friend. And
second, many people respond to his debauched vituperations
in much the same way that they respond to television
dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but
they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything
about them. That's why I insist we pronounce the truth
and renounce the lies.
Even people who consider themselves scornful
foolhardy-types generally agree that Bush's slurs
symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion
-- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us
lose more than a little freedom. One might conclude
that Bush is incapable of writing a letter without using
such phrases as "crapulous pop psychologists", "loquacious
exhibitionists", "oppressive personae non gratae", or
some combination thereof. Alternatively, one might conclude
that Bush has a different view of reality from the rest of us.
In either case, if you're not part of the solution,
then you're part of the problem. His historical record of
fickle pleas is clearer than the muddled pronouncements
of his apple-polishers for a variety of reasons. For
instance, the worst sorts of inconsiderate Neanderthals there
are must be treated with political justice, not with
civil justice, as they are sincerely not real citizens. Let me
rephrase that: I wonder if he really believes the
things he says. He knows they're not true, doesn't he?
A complete answer to that question would
take more space than I can afford, so I'll have to give
you a simplified answer. For starters, if
we let him cause riots in the streets, then greed,
corruption, and tribalism will characterize the government.
Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens.
And lies and deceit will be the stock and trade of the
media and educational institutions.
Even Bush's bedfellows couldn't deal with the full impact of
Bush's refrains. That's why they created "Bush-ism," which is
just a garrulous excuse to force square
pegs into round holes. He plans to drag everything
that is truly great into the gutter. He has instructed
his votaries not to discuss this or even admit to his
plan's existence. Obviously, Bush knows he has
something to hide. Most of you reading this letter
have your hearts in the right place. Now
follow your hearts with actions. I have traveled the length and
breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can
therefore assure you that Bush's artifices cannot stand on
their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate
artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that Bush's
warnings can give us deeper insights into the nature of
reality. We can and we must protect ourselves by any means
necessary against the unrestrained bestiality
of stupid, quasi-macabre paper-pushers. And that's the honest truth.
In a competitive OS environment, security would be a selling point in today's new world. But it isn't. All these Word and Outlook viruses are Microsoft-specific.
Microsoft products are regularly cracked for two reasons. The first is that, being a monopoly, they are ubiquitous. If Yale was the only company in the nation making padlocks, criminals would only study Yale padlocks and learn to crack them, no matter how well they were built.
The second is that Microsoft is not particularly security-conscious. The road to Windows started in DOS, which needed no security--it couldn't be networked! All the DOS-based Windows--3.1, 95, 98, ME--either have no security or had security put in after the fact. Only Windows NT, 2000, and (perhaps, I don't know) XP were built with security in mind at the beginning.
Even with that, Microsoft has made a conscious decision to promote ease of use over security. It's always a trade off: security is obnoxious. If you don't believe me, think back to the last time you misplaced your car keys. Microsoft's decision has been wonderful in giving the average user unprecedented access to information, but just as wonderful in giving the average computer criminal unprecedented access to everyone else's information.
DoJ vs. Microsoft is still going on, last I checked. Anything that creates competition in the OS market will help secure the Internet. Vendors are likely to make security a selling point, and criminals will have to learn to crack multiple platforms to commit their crimes.
--The basis of all love is respect
By thugs in black suits you mean lawyers right?
What, me worry?
It seems every other post starting a new thread has been moderated to 5, and most of them are shite. What is going on?