There are many different kinds of security, but I'll assume you're referring to computers and related systems.
A lot of people are spending a lot of time and effort on that. Some interesting reading: http://dsd.gov.au/infosec/top35mitigationstrategies.htm http://www.cpni.gov.uk/advice/cyber/Critical-controls/ > A friend taught me that con men exploit smart people more easily > than dumb people, because there are fewer ways to be smart than > dumb, making smart people (and their blind spots) more predictable. > > I am helping a friend set up security procedures for a business > in a highly regulated industry, with acres of forms and checklists > and standards that are supposed to result in secure systems. > Many look like brainfarts from academics working from unproven > hypotheses, who haven't collected the histories of real exploits, > much less fought an exploit themselves. > > Standarized security systems probably have standardized holes, > suitable for automated exploitation. Instead, should we > construct vivid and instructive stories, and count on the > creativity of end users to develop and elaborate a varied > (and difficult to exploit) set of solutions? > > Or do semi-informed people tend to make the same predictable > mistakes more often than standard security procedures result > in widespread identical holes? > > Build a kludge, or buy a black box? > > Keith > > -- > Keith Lofstrom [email protected] Voice (503)-520-1993 > _______________________________________________ > PLUG mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
