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