On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You don't want the securest implementation. You want one that's
secure enough while still allowing the job to get done. You also don't
want to be *paying* for more security than you actually need. Note that
the higher price paid to the vendor isn't
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Buhrmaster, Gary wrote:
The Federal Government (through its Trusted Internet
Connection initiative) is trying to limit the number
of entry points into the US Government networks.
(As I recall from 4000 interconnects to around 50,
where both numbers have a high percentage of
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Buhrmaster, Gary wrote:
The Federal Government (through its Trusted Internet
Connection initiative) is trying to limit the number
of entry points into the US Government networks.
(As I recall from 4000 interconnects to around 50,
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:30:11 CDT, J. Oquendo said:
What about exceeding the minimum requirements for a change.
(I think you'll find that if somebody is actually willing to *pay* for more
security, there's plenty of outfits who are more than happy to
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:07:04 -0400 (EDT)
Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:30:11 CDT, J. Oquendo said:
What about exceeding the minimum requirements for a change.
(I think you'll find that if somebody is actually
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:13:08 EDT, Steven M. Bellovin said:
Right. The US government is a *huge* operation. Suppose you were the
CIO or the CSO for the US government (excluding the classified stuff)
-- what is the proper cybersecurity strategy?
Step 1: Figure out what I actually *have*
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:55 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:13:08 EDT, Steven M. Bellovin said:
Right. The US government is a *huge* operation. Suppose you were the
CIO or the CSO for the US government (excluding the
On Oct 7, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:55 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:13:08 EDT, Steven M. Bellovin said:
Right. The US government is a *huge* operation. Suppose you were
the
CIO
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Step 0. DONT PANIC.
Good point.
Along the same line, I would like to point out this Ira Winkler article on
the topic:
Not Much Genius in DHS's Einstein 3.0 Plan
We've got plenty of military toyz we could level at Redmond...
_H*
I think I may have found a spin for the political statements: With the
USA government so focused on blaming axis of evil countries for all
its woes, perhaps the statement was really meant to say that should
evil country setup some botnet attack against our systems, the USA
would retaliate by
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:07:04 -0400 (EDT)
Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:30:11 CDT, J. Oquendo said:
What about exceeding the minimum requirements for a change.
(I think
The system would literally, like an anti-aircraft weapon, shoot down an
attack before it hits its target, he said. And that's what we call
Einstein 3.0.
Oh dear.
I cringe whenever I read such a massacre of correct English like this.
If it's going to literally shot down an attack like an AA
I'm surprised that no one has made a Skynet reference yet, perhaps because
such a reference would be trite and predictable. I'm feeling trite and
predictable this morning, so allow me to be the first. Homeland Security is
planning to launch Skynet. I hope you guys have your nuclear bunkers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:24 AM, Steve Church [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm surprised that no one has made a Skynet reference yet, perhaps
because such a reference would be trite and predictable. I'm feeling
trite and
predictable this morning, so
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:30:11 BST, n3td3v said:
You guys are living in cloud cuckoo land. The rogue government
wouldn't have their bot nets in home computers that you could shut
down easily.
Which is easier to shut down, an attack coming from a relatively small
number of /16s that belong to
William Hamilton wrote:
If it's going to literally shot down an attack like an AA weapon, are
they planning on physically launching projectiles at compromised machines
across the world and destroying them?
The politician saw the episode of Star Trek where 7 of 9 typed in a
few computer
The system would literally, like an anti-aircraft weapon, shoot down
an attack before it hits its target, he said. And that's what we call
Einstein 3.0.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't even a basic firewall or ACL
provide the same functionality? Drop the packet, drop the attack? I'm in
the
Matlock, Kenneth L wrote:
The system would literally, like an anti-aircraft weapon, shoot down
an attack before it hits its target, he said. And that's what we call
Einstein 3.0.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't even a basic firewall or ACL
provide the same functionality? Drop the packet,
Tony Patti wrote:
I presume this CNN article falls within the Internet operational and
technical issues (especially security) criteria of the NANOG AUP,
in terms of operat[ing] an Internet connected network,
especially where Chertoff refers to like an anti-aircraft weapon, shoot
down an
that its uninstaller
committed suicide.
-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 12:47 PM
To: Tony Patti
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: cnn.com - Homeland Security seeks cyber counterattack
system(Einstein 3.0)
Tony Patti wrote:
I
--
From: Tony Patti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Subject: cnn.com - Homeland Security seeks cyber counterattack system
(Einstein 3.0)
To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org
I presume this CNN article falls within the Internet operational and
technical issues (especially
I have a big problem with politicians making technical decisions that
may look good at the politicial level but make no sense at the technical
level.
fighting back implies that your own facilities will be busy pinging
thousands of bots to death around the world. Yeah, smart. Looks good
during a
Jean-François Mezei wrote:
I have a big problem with politicians making technical decisions that
may look good at the politicial level but make no sense at the technical
level.
Works in the financial world, doesn't it.
--
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information:
PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Subject: cnn.com - Homeland Security seeks cyber counterattack system
(Einstein 3.0)
To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org
I presume this CNN article falls within the Internet operational and
technical issues (especially security) criteria
25 matches
Mail list logo
