Randy Bush writes:
>> ... a few battalions of B's and C's, if wisely deployed, could bridge
>> that gap.
>
> there is a reason Bs and Cs have spare round-tuits.
>
> fred brooks was no fool. os/360 taught some of us some lessons.
> batallions work in the infantry, or so i am told. this is rocke
On Jun 1, 2009, at 8:32 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
If people think that support for R&E programs should be cut instead,
I guess that is also a useful data point. It would be noteworthy
that any group advocated a cut in their own funding.
"The Federal government, with the participation of all
If people think that support for R&E programs should be cut instead, I
guess that is also a useful data point. It would be noteworthy that any
group advocated a cut in their own funding.
"The Federal government, with the participation of all departments and
agencies, should expand support f
>>> network security is a "loss center". not just a cost center, a
>>> *loss* center. non-bankrupt ISP's whose investors will make good
>>> multiples only staff their *profit* centers.
>> this glib statement may have been true at the isps where you worked. it
>> is not true for the ones where i
At 04:43 PM 01-06-09 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> network security is a "loss center". not just a cost center, a *loss*
center.
> non-bankrupt ISP's whose investors will make good multiples only staff
their
> *profit* centers.
this glib statement may have been true at the isps where you worked.
> network security is a "loss center". not just a cost center, a *loss* center.
> non-bankrupt ISP's whose investors will make good multiples only staff their
> *profit* centers.
this glib statement may have been true at the isps where you worked. it
is not true for the ones where i work(ed).
r
>> As hire As. Bs hire Cs. Lots of Cs.
>> this problem needs neurons, not battalions.
> this problem needs round-tuits, which Good Guys are consistently short
> of, but which Bad Guys always have as many of as they can find use
> for. a few battalions of B's and C's, if wisely deployed, could
>
Sean Donelan writes:
> How many ISPs have too many network security people?
network security is a "loss center". not just a cost center, a *loss* center.
non-bankrupt ISP's whose investors will make good multiples only staff their
*profit* centers. the Good Guys and Bad Guys all know this -- t
Randy Bush writes:
> As hire As. Bs hire Cs. Lots of Cs.
>
> this problem needs neurons, not battalions.
this problem needs round-tuits, which Good Guys are consistently short of,
but which Bad Guys always have as many of as they can find use for. a few
battalions of B's and C's, if wisely de
>> and why do we think that throwing a jillion bodies at the problem is a
>> useful approach?
> No, but it does keep people employed.
As hire As. Bs hire Cs. Lots of Cs.
this problem needs neurons, not battalions.
randy
Any organization moaning about unfilled slots is welcome to raise its
salary scale, and fill them. All such whining is really an implicit
statement that the job is not vital enough to fill. Funny, you never
hear complaints about being unable to fill CEO slots, or bond traders.
On Sun, May 31, 20
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009, Randy Bush wrote:
> and why do we think that throwing a jillion bodies at the problem is a
> useful approach?
No, but it does keep people employed.
Sorry, I think I reached a new low in my "stabby, jaded" level when
a past employer (a network consulting firm) blasted me for
> Two new grads are great, but over the next 10 years some estimates (yeah,
> I know about statistics) say there will be a gap of over 100,000 new IT
> Security jobs to fill in the US and close to a million unfilled positions
> world-wide.
and why do we think that throwing a jillion bodies at t
On Sun, 31 May 2009, Andrew Euell wrote:
are any nanog'ers Educators, the newly educated or Employers of the newly
educated? Is Information technology Education really in as much trouble as
the report suggests? I work with two new graduates of computer science/IT
programs of state universities th
So quoting the original document again: "The Federal government, with the
participation of all departments and agencies, should expand support for key
education programs and research and development to ensure the Nation’s
continued
ability to compete in the information age economy. Existing program
> At first glance, this looks promising - anyone else get a chance to
> read/review? Comments?
You might hate Marcus Ranum, or love him, but the presentation he did
at the DojoSec in March
is related to this subject, and it is well worth the hour:
http://vimeo.com/3519680
--
Marcin Antkiewicz
On May 29, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Andrew Euell wrote:
"The Nation’s approach to cybersecurity over the past 15 years has
failed to
keep pace with the threat."
I think that they may be getting it...
From my experience, people get it, but security is always a balance
between making something us
"The Nation’s approach to cybersecurity over the past 15 years has failed to
keep pace with the threat."
I think that they may be getting it...
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:41 PM, wrote:
> fine piece of work.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:37:58AM -0500, jamie rishaw wrote:
> > The White Hou
fine piece of work.
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:37:58AM -0500, jamie rishaw wrote:
> The White House just put out a release on net security[1] - at first glance
> a mission/vision/values paper, the release page[2] also containing a short
> video[3].
>
> At first glance, this looks promising -
The White House just put out a release on net security[1] - at first glance
a mission/vision/values paper, the release page[2] also containing a short
video[3].
At first glance, this looks promising - anyone else get a chance to
read/review? Comments?
-jamie
[1] http://www.whitehouse.gov/ass
20 matches
Mail list logo
