[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
NSP-SEC - should read Integrity
- Subject: NSP-SEC - should read Integrity
- From: Tim.Green2 at mms.gov (Green, Tim R)
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:03:00 -0400
- In-reply-to: <[email protected].>
- References: <[email protected]><20100319083143.553b0111@t61p> <1269006269.1220.135.camel@petrie> <[email protected].>
There are some out there......Infragard?....(shrugs shoulders)......
-----Original Message-----
From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
[mailto:bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com]
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 9:57 AM
To: William Pitcock
Cc: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: NSP-SEC - should read Integrity
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 08:44:29AM -0500, 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.
I thnk I'd settle for operators with Integrity. those who do
what
they say.
--bill
- References:
- NSP-SEC
- From: gfortaine at live.com (Guillaume FORTAINE)
- NSP-SEC
- From: jtk at cymru.com (John Kristoff)
- NSP-SEC
- From: nenolod at systeminplace.net (William Pitcock)
- NSP-SEC - should read Integrity
- From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com)