DISQUS

Everything in life is a test. How you respond to the challenges in your life determines your learning path and the person you end up being. Do you take the easy way, or the right way? No challenges-no learning.

Anyone who sits in their comfort zone and does not take risks is probably not growing as a person. Why would a compassionate God pluck us down in a cushy life so that we were unable to grow; to deny us the satisfaction of being creative or productive, experiencing growth, balancing losses with wins, and goal achievement? I'd rather not bother. Whether things have turned out according to there original design or not, perhaps this was the original plan. If God learns vicariously through our experiences, what would he learn if we all still lived in the Garden of Eden?

Everything in life is a test. How you respond to the challenges in your life determines your learning path and the person you end up being. Do you take the easy way, or the right way? No challenges-no learning.

Anyone who sits in their comfort zone and does not take risks is probably not growing as a person. Why would a compassionate God pluck us down in a cushy life so that we were unable to grow; to deny us the satisfaction of being creative or productive, experiencing growth, balancing losses with wins, and goal achievement? I'd rather not bother. Whether things have turned out according to there original design or not, perhaps this was the original plan. If God learns vicariously through our experiences, what would he learn if we all still lived in the Garden of Eden?

Sorry, meant to say that we do not have the RIGHT to judge others. It is better to understand where someone is coming from to understand his point of view, but we do not have the right to judge. That said, we do have the freedom to accept or disapprove certain behaviors by individuals.

Sorry, meant to say that we do not have the RIGHT to judge others. It is better to understand where someone is coming from to understand his point of view, but we do not have the right to judge. That said, we do have the freedom to accept or disapprove certain behaviors by individuals.

Arik,

Sorry, I believe God to be an all-loving God that does not judge us, only loves us unconditionally. We only judge ourselves at the end, and for that reason we do not have to judge others.

Arik,

Sorry, I believe God to be an all-loving God that does not judge us, only loves us unconditionally. We only judge ourselves at the end, and for that reason we do not have to judge others.

Why not go the whole distance Daniel? Why settle for HIPS and NAC/NAP? These will always be REACTIVE technologies.

What is more, they are in the vein of network security which has a fundamental failing; they protect the containers, not the contents of those containers, (that is,the data), on the network.

That is the fundamental difference between network security and information-centric security. Why can't security people get it through their heads that denying access to the network is not the same thing as allowing access to information?

The best way to do this is a la Ranum, with deny-by-default and enumerating goodness by using white lists etc..

So as an entension of your thoughts, it seems to me that not only is infosec doing the wrong thing, they are also doing it the wrong way as well!

Why not go the whole distance Daniel? Why settle for HIPS and NAC/NAP? These will always be REACTIVE technologies.

What is more, they are in the vein of network security which has a fundamental failing; they protect the containers, not the contents of those containers, (that is,the data), on the network.

That is the fundamental difference between network security and information-centric security. Why can't security people get it through their heads that denying access to the network is not the same thing as allowing access to information?

The best way to do this is a la Ranum, with deny-by-default and enumerating goodness by using white lists etc..

So as an entension of your thoughts, it seems to me that not only is infosec doing the wrong thing, they are also doing it the wrong way as well!

You might want to take a look at the book Body for Life as well. It is an exercise/nutrition book in the form of a self-help book. It is food for thought, whether you work out or not.

You might want to take a look at the book Body for Life as well. It is an exercise/nutrition book in the form of a self-help book. It is food for thought, whether you work out or not.

Only completely trusted and full deny-by-default systems would be safe to attempt this with. A trusted system is much more secure than a merely hardened one, and I would still put it behind a firewall anyway, because they are still subject to human errors in configuration.

Only completely trusted and full deny-by-default systems would be safe to attempt this with. A trusted system is much more secure than a merely hardened one, and I would still put it behind a firewall anyway, because they are still subject to human errors in configuration.

Could it be that it all boils down to a numbers game? Windows boxes are randomly scanned for potential botnets,etc., while as long as there is a known vulnerabity in OSX, it might be used for a very specific targeted attack to gain intellectual property? Would MAC users generally use their machines for specifically focused uses, ie. creative things such as design, mucic creation, etc., and as such be a different kind of target for theft?

Could it be that it all boils down to a numbers game? Windows boxes are randomly scanned for potential botnets,etc., while as long as there is a known vulnerabity in OSX, it might be used for a very specific targeted attack to gain intellectual property? Would MAC users generally use their machines for specifically focused uses, ie. creative things such as design, mucic creation, etc., and as such be a different kind of target for theft?

I always thought it's not what you have; it's what you do with what you have, that counts, and creativity, passion and hard work may compensate for lesser IQ points.

I may not be smart enough to be the genius who makes a breakthrough. I only have to be smart enough to recognize when some genius has done it.

I always thought it's not what you have; it's what you do with what you have, that counts, and creativity, passion and hard work may compensate for lesser IQ points.

I may not be smart enough to be the genius who makes a breakthrough. I only have to be smart enough to recognize when some genius has done it.

Its all about standards. The word of the day is mediocrity.

Your comments apply to many fields, not just information security. A piece of paper may be a ticket in the door, but what you do once you are in is up to you. A college education should prepare you to think, and learn, and adapt, and develop vision, in order to position yourself to change.
We all know that very few educations do that anymore.

An organization that is foolish enough to use that piece of paper as the sole criteria for keeping people on, rather than actual work performance, must have some pretty mediocre managers at the helm, most likely the result of some mediocre training from some mediocre educational institutions. I see so much mediocrity and lack of vision in business and government, while all the while the key decision makers keep drinking the mediocrity kool-aid.

Its all about standards. The word of the day is mediocrity.

Your comments apply to many fields, not just information security. A piece of paper may be a ticket in the door, but what you do once you are in is up to you. A college education should prepare you to think, and learn, and adapt, and develop vision, in order to position yourself to change.
We all know that very few educations do that anymore.

An organization that is foolish enough to use that piece of paper as the sole criteria for keeping people on, rather than actual work performance, must have some pretty mediocre managers at the helm, most likely the result of some mediocre training from some mediocre educational institutions. I see so much mediocrity and lack of vision in business and government, while all the while the key decision makers keep drinking the mediocrity kool-aid.

Very readable and informative.

However when you say:

"within the next decade or so we’ll see the introduction of new system architecture models — models that are highly restrictive and run using a “default closed” paradigm...", after saying we are using shoddy materials...thats a long time to bail out a leaking boat.

If a technology prevents any vulnerability from being exploited, then risk is zero. What if a technology could do that now, for existing O/Ss, instead of waiting a decade or so and re-designing everything from the ground up? What would its value be?

Very readable and informative.

However when you say:

"within the next decade or so we’ll see the introduction of new system architecture models — models that are highly restrictive and run using a “default closed” paradigm...", after saying we are using shoddy materials...thats a long time to bail out a leaking boat.

If a technology prevents any vulnerability from being exploited, then risk is zero. What if a technology could do that now, for existing O/Ss, instead of waiting a decade or so and re-designing everything from the ground up? What would its value be?

Won't experience continue to separate the men from the boys? Maybe this will help the very best to service more customers more efficiently, and reduce customer costs.

Besides, someone wrote that information security is not a permanent cashcow. When new o/s technologies arrive on the scene, much of the status quo will become obsolete. Nothing stays the same forever, except maybe for the idiocy. Since those new technologies will probably also protect users from themselves, perhaps even idiocy will be diluted as well.

Won't experience continue to separate the men from the boys? Maybe this will help the very best to service more customers more efficiently, and reduce customer costs.

Besides, someone wrote that information security is not a permanent cashcow. When new o/s technologies arrive on the scene, much of the status quo will become obsolete. Nothing stays the same forever, except maybe for the idiocy. Since those new technologies will probably also protect users from themselves, perhaps even idiocy will be diluted as well.