[Pauldotcom] Warfare all over

[Jim Halfpenny]

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
> ourselves.
>
> Jack
>

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).

Jim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.pauldotcom.com/pipermail/pauldotcom/attachments/20090102/944d1c30/attachment.htm