[Pauldotcom] Warfare all over
jim.halfpenny at gmail.com
Fri Jan 2 10:23:04 UTC 2009
2009/1/2 Jack Daniel <jackadaniel at gmail.com>
> I have a couple of real problems with the whole "warfare" analogy-
> first, as expressed before, it trivializes actual warfare, which is
> disrespectful and desensitizing.
> On a more "tactical" level, those of us who work to defend are not
> allowed counterstrikes, much less preemptive attacks to secure
I agree. The whole concept of warfare extends well beyond the battlefield
but your typical infosec incident wouldn't even register as a skirmish.
Warfare is too often a "sexy" term used to spice up a subject..
A better analogy I feel is that of crime V law enforcement. Infosec
incidents are usually criminal so the analogy fits, along with anti-criminal
measures such as locks on doors, entry/exit auditing, strong authentication
etc. Let's not give the other side a cool, sexy profile al la the whole
piracy issue. Criminal scumbags are the ones attacking us, not spies,
soldiers, insurgents and terrorists (on the whole).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pauldotcom