Re: Acceptable Losses (was Re: Whoops! (re: WH network monitoring plan response))

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () research att com>]

In message <Pine.GSO.4.44.0212241538270.9020-100000 () clifden donelan com>, Sean 
Donelan writes:
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Richard Forno wrote:
> > In my last post when I said this:
> > > If something's deemed 'critical' to a large segment of the population, the
> n
> > > security must NEVER outweigh conveinience. Period. Non-negotiable.
> >
> > I meant to say that security must ALWAYS outweigh convienience.
>
> Sigh, people are playing games with words to force false choices. Of
> course its negotiable because the act of defining something "critical"
> is a negotiation.
Not only that -- security is not 0/1, all or nothing.  It is possible 
to be more or less secure; building a security system -- like a 
firewall -- that has only the two states of "wide open" and "absolutely 
impenetrable" is a bad idea.

Security is about risk management -- see Schneier's book "Secrets and 
Lies".

                --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
                http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)