NIST IPv6 document

mikea mikea at
Mon Jan 10 14:09:25 CST 2011

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 02:52:56PM -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Friday, January 07, 2011 09:25:59 am David Sparro wrote:
> > I find that the security "Layers" advocates tend not to look at the 
> > differing value of each of those layers.
> Different layers very much have different values, and, yes, this is often glossed over.
> > Going back to the physical door analogy, it's like saying that a bank 
> > vault protected by a bank vault door is less secure than a vault with 
> > the bank vault door AND a screen door.
> More analogous would be the safe with glass relockers and a vial of
> tear gas behind the ideal drill point. Yes, those do exist, and,
> should you want to see a photo of such a vial, I can either provide
> one (have to take the photo with the safe door open next time I'm on
> that site, which may be a while with all this snow and ice on the
> ground) or you can find pics through google.
> Even physical locks have layered security principles. Think Medeco
> locks with chisel-pointed pins and the associated sidebar in the
> center, or ASSA's Twin double-stack pin technology, or the use of
> spool pins in locks, or Schlage's Primus system (also sidebar driven)
> or anti-drill armor in front of the pin stack (to prevent drilling the
> shear line), etc. The use of layers in the physical security realm
> is a proven concept, and the synergy of the layers has been shown
> effective over time. Not totally secure, of course, but as the number
> of layers increases the security becomes better and better.

My father used to tell me that "Locks keep the honest people out." He
was right; the clever non-honest are the ones we have to deal with at
that level. 

Computers are so great a force multiplier that we are having to do the
same sorts of things to defend against assaults from them. 

Mike Andrews, W5EGO
mikea at
Tired old sysadmin 

More information about the NANOG mailing list