nanog mailing list archives
RE: NSP-SEC
From: David Barak <thegameiam () yahoo com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Fri, 3/19/10, Adam Stasiniewicz <adam () adamstas com> wrote:
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. Rather, those types of communications should be streamlined that would allow for quick resolution.
Fair point - I was using "strategic" in the law enforcement with things like "long-term undercover investigation" in mind, but your point is well taken. I think we agree that some things benefit from increased transparency and other things don't. David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com
Current thread:
- Re: NSP-SEC, (continued)
- 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 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)