RE: NSP-SEC

[Adam Stasiniewicz <adam () adamstas com>]

IMHO, I think you have it backwards.  I see strategic discussions (like
new crypto algorithms, technologies, initiatives, etc) should be open to
public debate, review, and scrutiny.  But operational/tactical discussions
(like new malware, software exploits, virus infected hosts, botnets, etc)
don't need public review.  Rather, those types of communications should be
streamlined that would allow for quick resolution.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Barak [mailto:thegameiam () yahoo com]
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 8:55 AM
To: nenolod () systeminplace net; jtk () cymru com
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: NSP-SEC

Total transparency in security matters works about as well as it would for
law enforcement: fine for tactical concerns, but not so great for
long-term strategic concerns.

-David Barak

On Fri Mar 19th, 2010 9:44 AM EDT William Pitcock wrote:

> On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 08:31 -0500, John Kristoff wrote:
> > An ongoing area of work is to build better closed,
> > trusted communities without leaks.
>
> Have you ever considered that public transparency might not be a bad
> thing?  This seems to be the plight of many security people, that they
> have to be 100% secretive in everything they do, which is total
> bullshit.
>
> Just saying.
>
> William