nanog mailing list archives
Re: NSP-SEC
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:33:38 -0400
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:08:55 CDT, Adam Stasiniewicz said:
IMHO, I think you have it backwards. I see strategic discussions (like new crypto algorithms, technologies, initiatives, etc) should be open to public debate, review, and scrutiny. But operational/tactical discussions (like new malware, software exploits, virus infected hosts, botnets, etc) don't need public review.
Reducto ad absurdum: The police don't usually phone ahead to a suspect and say "We're planning to stop by around 4PM and execute a search warrant, so please don't destroy any evidence before then, ktxbai"
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: NSP-SEC, (continued)
- Re: NSP-SEC Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 19)
- Re: NSP-SEC James Bensley (Mar 21)
- Re: NSP-SEC Rich Kulawiec (Mar 21)
- RE: NSP-SEC Alex Lanstein (Mar 21)
- Re: NSP-SEC Patrick W. Gilmore (Mar 21)
- Re: NSP-SEC Lorand Jakab (Mar 22)
- Re: NSP-SEC James Bensley (Mar 21)
- Re: NSP-SEC Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 19)
- Re: NSP-SEC Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 21)
- Message not available
- Re: NSP-SEC James Bensley (Mar 22)
- RE: NSP-SEC Adam Stasiniewicz (Mar 19)
- Re: NSP-SEC Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 19)
- RE: NSP-SEC David Barak (Mar 19)