I am not a linguist but, I think firewall is just a word... Cars have `em
buildings have `em airplanes etc...
acs
On 19-Feb-00 Paul D. Robertson wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, Norman R. Bottom wrote:
>
>> The use of terms such as Firewalls (read Firebase); Intrusion Detection; and
>> , DMZ
>
> "Firewall" is a construction term, not a military term (the .nsa.gov/.mil
> term was traditionally 'Network Guard'.)
>
> A military mind who didn't have the pre-history of intrusion attacks would
> have labled Intrusion Detection counter<somethingorother>. DMZ is really
> not accurate, free-fire zone would have been more fitting. Never-the-less
> the terms are common usage in firewalling, and common terminology helps
> significantly when discussing anything.
>
>> is OK. However, some on the list cannot seem to grasp that military terms
>> are
>> used with reference to an enemy, and a threatened assault.
>
> "So, I deployed my P-38 rapidly, assulting the B-2 unit's rear echelon.
> Piercing the hardened perimiter with precise yet frenzied attacks.
> Having conquored the exernal defenses, I eagerly consumed the enemy.
> Nothing like a good fast victory over a can of pound cake to pump life
> into a day in the field."[1]
>
> IOW, terminology is generally used to describe something, making a martial
> situation out of anything that uses common military terminology, or even
> uncommon military terminology seems well, silly.
>
>> If you cannot distinguish between a friend and an enemy, you are dog meat.
>
> No, you're either in a guerilla campaign or a terrorist action, a complex
> war, or what we tend to lable as "peace time." People have survived and
> triumphed in all of those before. It's a better analogy than us v.s. them
> anyway, since it more accurately reflects the chaos that is Internet
> Security.
>
>> Either give up military terminology or name your enemy. He/she is a hacker,
>> cracker, or phreak.
>
> In a firewall context, it's not "military terminology", it's "firewall
> terminology." There are plenty who would take issue with your term of
> "hacker", so putting lables on it really doesn't bring much value,
> especially if it polarizes your view of things to "targeted by name" and
> "always the intenet to kill you." Neither of those is absolute, and
> reacting as if they are when it's not warranted will get you labled a bozo
> in a lot of situations, isn't efficient and tends to create the "cry wolf"
> scenerio.
>
> Remember scorched earth defenses tend to leave unoccupyable territory.
>
> Physical building firewalls slow down a fire to give you a chance to act
> or react. They do the same thing no matter if it was an arsonist, a
> dropped cigarette or faulty wiring. In Internet firewalling, I've seen
> the equivalent of all of those take down sites, a poorly-written Web
> browser isn't an "enemy", a misconfigured DNS entry that's obviously
> transposed numbers isn't "evil" and firewalling helps protect against
> them no matter if it's maliciousness, curiousity or incompetence.
>
> Paul
>
> [0] This footnote intentionally left blank.
> [1] For those who didn't have the utter joy of life with Uncle Sam back
> when food didn't come freeze dried in plastic pouches- A P38 is a tiny
> mostly-functional can opener, a B-2 unit is just one of the boxed sets of
> rations you got in the field. No, I don't really remember if pound cake
> was a B-2 dessert, we traded a lot. Critiques/comments/questions are best
> offline.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
> PSB#9280
>
> -
> [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
_______________________
Aaron C. Springer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgp key published
_______________________
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
