Re: Lack of Security

["Geoff Zinderdine" <geoffz () mts net>]

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)