nanog mailing list archives
Re: Lack of Security
From: "Geoff Zinderdine" <geoffz () mts net>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 22:39:20 -0500
Terribly sorry to stray so much from on topic, but I have a question I can't satisfactorily answer my self. First I wish to convey my deep sorrow and sympathy to all listmembers directly or indirectly affected by this attack. Our thoughts and prayers are with you here in Canada, and we shall strike with one heart and mind at those that perpetrated this act. My question follows: You can't get into a cab in NYC that doesn't have a shield that protects the cabbie from the passengers. Why on earth is the cabin even accessible from the passenger compartment? Could planes not be constructed to isolate the cabin entirely from the passengers? You could certainly provide limited seating for pilots that were flying along forward of this partition. Is there any good reason for the amount of trust which is required in the present model? Regards, Geoff Zinderdine DSL Support Technician MTS Communications ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Stewart" <dbs () ntrnet net> To: <nanog () merit org> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 9:07 PM Subject: Re: Lack of Security
At 09:42 PM 9/12/2001, Robert Hough wrote:The security we display in most aspects of our society echo the same security we display in most of our networks as well. Now ask yourself, why was it so easy to hijack these planes? Because we have sacrificed security for convenience - and our enemy used that against us. Well, something to chew on. G'Night.Can someone explain to me how only allowing ticketed passengers past security checkpoints is going to accomplish anything toward increased security? The only thing I can even dream of is that it will reduce the number of people passing the checkpoints. These hijackers were ticketed passengers. No carry-on? OK, so it will reduce hiding places for non-metallic weapons. On the other hand, so much for taking your laptop with you - are you willing to entrust your laptop to baggage handlers? Willing to put your Palm in your checked luggage? This is just my feeling, but I honestly believe these measures are only giving the *appearance* of security, apparently to make the general public feel better. I do agree, though, with the comments on network security - so many, many are much more lax about the security of their networks than airports have been. As an anecdote, when I came to my current job last year, the
network
was wide open. Since, I've placed servers behind firewalls, and blocked things like NetBIOS (you wouldn't believe the cry that went up from customers when I did that - they *want* to use NetBIOS shares between business offices in various cities)
Current thread:
- Re: Don't blame Intelligence or Security Agencies....., (continued)
- Re: Don't blame Intelligence or Security Agencies..... Todd Suiter (Sep 12)
- Re: Don't blame Intelligence or Security Agencies..... clarke (Sep 12)
- Re: Don't blame Intelligence or Security Agencies..... Ariel Biener (Sep 13)
- Re: Don't blame Intelligence or Security Agencies..... clarke (Sep 13)
- Re: Don't blame Intelligence or Security Agencies..... alex (Sep 13)
- Re: Don't blame Intelligence or Security Agencies..... Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 13)
- Message not available
- Re: Don't blame Intelligence or Security Agencies..... Dean Robb (Sep 13)
- RE: Lack of Security Joe Shaw (Sep 12)
- RE: Lack of Security Mathias Körber (Sep 12)
- Re: Lack of Security (Way OT) Andy Ellifson (Sep 12)
- RE: Lack of Security Mathias Körber (Sep 12)
- Re: Totally OT, sorry; was (Re: Lack of Security) Robert Hough (Sep 13)
- Re: Totally OT, sorry; was (Re: Lack of Security) Leo Bicknell (Sep 13)
- Re: Totally OT, sorry; was (Re: Lack of Security) Martin Hepworth (Sep 13)
- Re: Totally OT, sorry; was (Re: Lack of Security) Leo Bicknell (Sep 13)
- Re: Totally OT, sorry; was (Re: Lack of Security) Christian Kuhtz (Sep 13)