Wow, just when you though big government was someone else's problem

Sat Apr 4 16:17:21 UTC 2009

Read it again.  It says all government networks and any network the  
president deems vital, I'd have to assume that would at least be all  
of the major backbones.

What's the point of picking on the source of the information?  Sure  
his list is moderated and a bit self-serving, that's why you read from  
the source.

And yes, I am aware of a number of activities inside the Fed Gov  
around secure DNS, while I applaud them for making a first step, an  
effective total effort will not come via government procurement.  Or  
aren't you aware?

jy

On Apr 4, 2009, at 6:46, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Jeff Young <young at jsyoung.net> wrote:
>> This comes from Lauren Weinstein's list and it's worth a read.
>> It's a bill introduced into legislation, who knows where and when
>> and if it will become law but, wow.
>>
>> http://lauren.vortex.com/Cyber-S-2009.pdf
>
> Relying on Lauren to hear about cybersecurity related news is like
> relying on Fox News for an accurate picture of what Obama is doing.
> Ignore.
>
>> I'll just give you a teaser:
>>
>> SEC. 9. SECURE DOMAIN NAME ADDRESSING SYSTEM.
>
> There's more than enough government supported work going on that
> promotes DNSSEC, in case you're not aware?
>
>> Other pearls of wisdom:  the government will license all "cyber"  
>> security
>> folks and you don't work on government or "any network deemed by
>> the president to be critical infrastructure" without one.
>
> Do you by any chance get to go work on sensitive government networks
> without, say, a security clearance?
>
> --srs
>