Return-Path: <sentto-279987-1131-986952016-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 16854 invoked by uid 510); 11 Apr 2001 00:21:22 -0000
Received: from fl.egroups.com (64.211.240.233) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 11 Apr 2001 00:21:22 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-1131-986952016-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.4.53] by fl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 11 Apr 2001 01:20:16 -0000
X-Sender: fc@all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 11 Apr 2001 01:20:16 -0000
Received: (qmail 75111 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2001 01:20:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Apr 2001 01:20:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Apr 2001 01:20:14 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id SAA27051 for iwar@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:20:13 -0700
Message-Id: <200104110120.SAA27051@all.net>
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010410161449.00aff5f0@poptop.llnl.gov> from "Tony Bartoletti" at Apr 10, 2001 04:41:14 PM
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [iwar] Difference between IW and RA and Comp Sec etc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Per the message sent by Tony Bartoletti:
> At 03:56 PM 4/10/01 -0700, you wrote:
> > > How about "Computer Security involves local/defensive measures taken to
> > > address the safety of your information processing."
> >
> >Wrong words. Try proteciton - not security.
> Perhaps you are really saying that computer security is the reasonable
> assurance that your info-systems are "safe", derived from an ensemble of
> measures that might range from "protections" all the way through the threat
> of massive physical retaliation.
No. I am saying that the term 'security' means the feeling of safety.
The word 'protection' means keeping from harm.
They are very different things.
> I am hoping to define "computer security" (InfoSec*) a bit more tightly.
Information security - feeling safe about information.
> What range of "protections" is limited to "computer" protections?
Computer protections - all measures that can be used to keep
computers (not people) from harm.
> What elements of computer security (InfoSec*) lie beyond mere protections?
Computer Security != InfoSec
because: Computer != Information
> *NOTE: I know that "InfoSec" can involve being careful to whom you talk
> while on foreign travel, etc. But in the context of "Symbol Warfare", I am
> using InfoSec in the signal-processing sense. Is this wrong?
Not 'right' and 'wrong' - only my view and yours.
FC
--
Fred Cohen at Sandia National Laboratories at tel:925-294-2087 fax:925-294-1225
Fred Cohen & Associates: http://all.net - fc@all.net - tel/fax:925-454-0171
Fred Cohen - Practitioner in Residence - The University of New Haven
This communication is confidential to the parties it is intended to serve.
PGP keys: https://all.net/pgpkeys.html - Have a great day!!!
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Do you have 128-bit SSL encryption server security?
Get VeriSign's FREE Guide, "Securing Your
Web Site for Business." Get it now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2cW4jC/c.WCAA/bT0EAA/kzAVlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
------------------
http://all.net/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-06-30 21:44:08 PDT