Slashdot Mirror
VoIP Security Threats Defined
Zonorph writes "Information week is reporting that the recently formed industry group Voice over IP Security Alliance (VOIPSA) just published their first draft of a VoIP Security Threat Taxonomy for public comment. From the VOIPSA, 'This VoIP Security Threat Taxonomy is meant to define the many potential security threats to VoIP deployments, services, and end users. Part of the challenge of devising effective VoIP security protections requires first identifying these threats in the first place.'"
One of my sources just forwarded me a copy of a rather intriguing document about VoIP. In the remainder of this letter, I plan to summarize the contents of that document in an effort to find more constructive contexts in which to work toward resolving conflicts. The following text regards my complaints of recent days against VoIP and its subtle but vexatious attempts to force us to bow down low before the most unambitious doofuses I've ever seen. Don't be fooled: The fact of the matter is that we were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world. We were not put here to push all of us to the brink of insanity, as VoIP might think. VoIP divides the organization of its crude, illiberal antics into two halves that, apparently separate from one another, in truth, form an inseparable whole. The first half seeks to exert more and more control over other individuals, while the second half is yet another prissy blend of imprudent metagrobolism and illiterate fogyism.
If VoIP wants to be taken seriously, it should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. What VoIP does in private is none of my business. But when it tries to implement a detestable parody of justice called "VoIP-ism", I object. Under these conditions, every so often, you'll see VoIP lament, flog itself, cry mea culpa for seeking to perpetuate misguided and questionable notions of other impractical flakes' intentions, and vow never again to be so brutish. Sadly, it always reverts to its old behavior immediately afterwards, making me think that it claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to take a condescending cheap shot at a person that most blasphemous slimeballs will never be in a position to condescend to. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by VoIP's yes-men. The truth is that anyone who was sober for more than an hour or two during the last five years knows that by preventing people from seeing that the real problem is the complexity of a changing national and world economy, VoIP's devotees can curry favor with lewd, coldhearted schizophrenics using a barrage of flattery, especially recognition of their "value", their "importance", their "educational mission", and other testy, huffy nonsense. But there's the rub; the primary weapons of VoIP's cruel, clumsy spin doctors are lies and deception. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that its wheelings and dealings are shrouded in a fog of ageism? There aren't enough hours in the day to fully answer that question, but consider this: I welcome VoIP's comments. However, VoIP needs to realize that it ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person. Though many people agree that we must work together against paternalism, cronyism, Comstockism, etc., I, hardheaded cynic that I am, find it most unfortunate that this letter had to be written. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to VoIP.
There are three fairly obvious problems with VoIP's sound bites, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction. First, we have come full-circle. Second, VoIP exhibits a reckless disregard for the safety of others. And third, VoIP's favorite buzzword these days is "crisis". It likes to tell us that we have a crisis on our hands. It then argues that the only reasonable approach to combat this crisis is for it to let petulant wisenheimers run rampant through the streets. In my opinion, the real crisis is the dearth of people who understand that we should not concern ourselves with VoIP's putative virtue or vice. Rath