nanog mailing list archives
Re: NOOP and Terremark
From: jamie rishaw <j () arpa com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:01:01 -0500
I'm sorry, I should have phrased differently. I meant: By the number of responses I've received that have been told to me "in private," or with a "this is not public info,"... While I certainly would not violate those restraints I do agree with you. jamie On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Dobbins, Roland <rdobbins () arbor net> wrote:
On Oct 28, 2013, at 5:27 PM, jamie rishaw <j () arpa com> wrote:It's clear that we all still consider open discussions on things likethis to be something to be kept to a small vetted community. It's not clear to me at all. Real-time discussions of specific events in order to coordinate response, sure - it's important to limit those communications to the groups/individuals who can do something useful to help in real time. General discussion of attack characteristics, defensive tactics, etc., absolutely not - they must be shouted from the rooftops. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () arbor net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
-- jamie rishaw // .com.arpa@j <- reverse it. ish. *"Reality defeats prejudice."* - *Rep. Barney Frank*
Current thread:
- NOOP and Terremark jamie rishaw (Oct 28)
- Re: NOOP and Terremark Dobbins, Roland (Oct 28)
- Re: NOOP and Terremark jamie rishaw (Oct 28)
- Re: NOOP and Terremark Dobbins, Roland (Oct 28)