[iwar] Historical posting


From: Fred Cohen
From: fc@all.net
To: iwar@onelist.com
Mon, Jan 1, 1999 

fc  Mon Jan 1, 1999
Received: (from fc@localhost) by all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id FAA15269 for iwar@onelist.com; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 05:21:43 -0700
To: iwar@onelist.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list iwar@egroups.com; contact iwar-owner@egroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: 
Date: Mon, Jan 1, 1999
From: Fred Cohen 
Reply-To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: [iwar] Historical posting

          


            
 Leo,

 Your last statement is correct.

We have moved past nuclear worries(to some degree), the cold war is
sometimes referred to as over, I wouldn't always agree, but that's a side
note.

 The part that is hardest to accept is computers are easily replaced, yes
this is partially true. If we currently look at what each government spent
on Y2K, and the total cost was added up I am sure we would all be surprised
at the staggering result. I think the main reason the money was spent was
that today, we really can't survive without computers or computer parts, it
provides us with the needed technology to survive today, our power for one.

 I think the fields of warfare for technology based countries has only
changed on the field we operate on. Instead it being on a green muddy field
tramped on by many souls, we sit in offices behind a desk and practice
defending and attacking via the box we sit in front of.

Glenn




>From: "Leo, Ross" Ross.Leo@c...
>
>Tony poses a great question.
>
>I believe that history shows that intentional de-stabilisation of one's
>adversary tends to increase their willingness to take sterner measures to
>bolster themselves, and in so doing become more unpredictable.  I think I
>recall a story regarding Hitler's willingness to nuke the Soviets (and
>others) in the event he could not beat them on the ground (and possibly
>regardless of whether he could or not).  Had our Allies not gotten wind of
>Telemark, we might have found out for certain.
>
>In the final analysis, we in the Information Security profession are in the
>business of risk measurement, mitigation, and management.  We can only do
>that well if we have a reasonably predictable and finite set of potential
>outcomes or consequences.  When one de-stabilises one's adversary, the
>aspects of "reasonably predictable" and "finite" are quite likely to
>disappear along with the possible mitigation options.
>
>Given the choice, however, I prefer the option that enables some measure of
>control over the impact and the outcome.  At the very worst, we can still
>replace the computers and so forth.  Anthrax or excessive doses of neutrons
>are still pretty tough things to come back from.
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>  Hey Freelancers:  Find your next project through JobSwarm!
>  You can even make money in your sleep by referring friends.
><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/jobswarm1 ">Click Here</a>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>------------------
>http://all.net/