PaulDotCom mailing list archives
Warfare all over
From: jim.halfpenny at gmail.com (Jim Halfpenny)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:23:04 +0000
2009/1/2 Jack Daniel <jackadaniel at gmail.com>
I have a couple of real problems with the whole "warfare" analogy- first, as expressed before, it trivializes actual warfare, which is disrespectful and desensitizing. On a more "tactical" level, those of us who work to defend are not allowed counterstrikes, much less preemptive attacks to secure ourselves. Jack
I agree. The whole concept of warfare extends well beyond the battlefield but your typical infosec incident wouldn't even register as a skirmish. Warfare is too often a "sexy" term used to spice up a subject.. A better analogy I feel is that of crime V law enforcement. Infosec incidents are usually criminal so the analogy fits, along with anti-criminal measures such as locks on doors, entry/exit auditing, strong authentication etc. Let's not give the other side a cool, sexy profile al la the whole piracy issue. Criminal scumbags are the ones attacking us, not spies, soldiers, insurgents and terrorists (on the whole). Jim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.pauldotcom.com/pipermail/pauldotcom/attachments/20090102/944d1c30/attachment.htm
Current thread:
- Warfare all over Jack Daniel (Jan 01)
- Warfare all over Arch Angel (Jan 01)
- Warfare all over Mike Patterson (Jan 01)
- Warfare all over Jim Halfpenny (Jan 02)
- Warfare all over Arch Angel (Jan 02)
- Warfare all over Mike Patterson (Jan 02)
- Warfare all over Matt Hillman (Jan 03)
- Warfare all over Karl Schuttler (Jan 03)
- Warfare all over Matt Lye (Jan 04)
- Warfare all over Arch Angel (Jan 02)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Warfare all over johnemiller at gmail.com (Jan 02)