Acceptable Losses (was Re: Whoops! (re: WH network monitoring plan response))

Wed Dec 25 01:07:27 UTC 2002

In message <Pine.GSO.4.44.0212241538270.9020-100000 at clifden.donelan.com>, Sean 
Donelan writes:
>
>On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Richard Forno wrote:
>> In my last post when I said this:
>> > If something's deemed 'critical' to a large segment of the population, the
>n
>> > security must NEVER outweigh conveinience. Period. Non-negotiable.
>>
>> I meant to say that security must ALWAYS outweigh convienience.
>
>Sigh, people are playing games with words to force false choices. Of
>course its negotiable because the act of defining something "critical"
>is a negotiation.
>
>
Not only that -- security is not 0/1, all or nothing.  It is possible 
to be more or less secure; building a security system -- like a 
firewall -- that has only the two states of "wide open" and "absolutely 
impenetrable" is a bad idea.

Security is about risk management -- see Schneier's book "Secrets and 
Lies".

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)