Wall, Kevin wrote:
Isn't this something that users probably shouldn't be given a choice
on? Normally I would think that corporate security policy dictate
keeping the AV software / signatures up-to-date as well as dictating
the (personal) firewall configurations. Some centrally administered
Dana Epp wrote:
I'd be interested to hear what people think of the two approaches
(separate security courses vs. spreading security all over the curricula).
Regards.
Fernando.
I don't think it's an either/or question; we need both approaches. Students
should study security wherever it's
Crispin Cowan wrote:
Another perspective (overheard at a conference 12 years ago):
* Scientists build stuff in order to learn stuff.
* Engineers learn stuff in order to build stuff.
I think that's about as accurate a summary of the distinction as you can make
in 16 words. What makes it
At 9:40 AM -0400 7/7/04, James Walden wrote:
Dana Epp wrote:
Of course, I also think students should have to take at least one course in ASM to
really understand how computer instructions work, so they can gain a foundation of
learning for the heart of computer processing. And
I think they
Fernando Schapachnik wrote...
I've considered 'secure coding' courses, and the idea always
look kind oversized. How much can you teach that students can't read
themselves from a book? Can you fill a semester with that? I'm
interested in people's experiences here.
I suppose that depends
