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:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 8:55 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] 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 > >
