On Sat, 19 Feb 2000, Norman R. Bottom wrote:
> Folks,
>
> The difference here is that Firewalls is the wrong word. As anyone knows, who
It's only the wrong word if you don't choose to recognize that the
instantiation in regard to INFOSEC is different than that used in building
codes. Fortunately for such a young industry, we've got a set of commonly
defined terms that we all understand and can use to communicate. Also
fortuately, most of us don't have language police.
> reads this list, computer "firewalls" are non-standard, lack ASTM approval,
> and lack the integrity of the real thing. What do you say about an industry
There are at least two current firewall certification programs that I'm
aware of, one of which definitely defines a standard of operation which
must be met (opinions vary on how useful that standard is.) How
meaningful the approval is should be left up to those evaluating
making decisions based on it, just as an architect won't use a commonly
approved material if the conditions dictate a stronger one is necessary.
> that misuses construction terms and military terms? You say it is in its
> infancy. Maybe, someday, InfoSec will have its own terms � or, borrow
> interesting terms from a sport, such as football or professional tennis. The
> folks who labeled InfoSec with military terms played too many video arcade
> games, IMHO.
Actually a lot of the folks who coined terms came out of the traditional
US Military/Intelligence INFOSEC communities and applied terms with which
they felt were descriptive enough to explain something to people who
hadn't encountered it. It's worked well enough to date that unless you
have some vocabulary that's astoundingly better I doubt we'll be
changing.
> By the way, contrary to some opinions, a P-38 is a German, W.W.II,
> semi-automatic pistol. To claim it to be a "can opener" shows how easy it is
> to steal and misuse nomenclature. Next we'll be calling DMZ's, free-fire
> zones, or something as silly.
Funnily enough the people at Lockheed would tell you that a P-38 is a twin
engined, twin fusulaged, W.W. II era fighter aircraft (and the first
product of the same "skunkworks" organization that created the U2 and
SR71.) In fact, it's been called the most successful fighter aircraft of
WWII. That should show that it's possible to use the same nomenclature to
describe different things when talking in different contexts even in the
same time period.
In fact, the Lockheed P-38 was designed in 1937, and the Walther P-38
contract was awarded in 1938.
The Lockheed aircraft was the first US fighter to fly over 400MPH, and the
can opener (designed in 1942, so also a WWII-era implement,) was named
both for the 38 punctures used to open a C-ration can and for the speed of
opening, which was likened to the speed of the fighter which held the
record for the most downed Japaneese aircraft during WWII.
Nobody seems to have been listed as mixing the three up catestrophicly
during WWII, so I doubt we'll have anyone in Korea starting a war because
some packets from an army.mil machine crossed the DMZ ;)
Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
PSB#9280
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
