Re: [Full-Disclosure] Soft-Chewy insides

[George Capehart <capegeo@opengroup.org>]

Schmehl, Paul L wrote:

<snip>

> I'm not going to disagree with this at all, however I would point out
> that standards are one thing, implementation entirely another.  It's
> nice to have standards that provide guidance in security structuring,
> but without the tools to implement those guidelines, they're guidelines
> and not much more.  Only in the past couple of years have we seen any
> really useful tools in this area, and the prices are out of reach of
> many organizations.  (Like other things in technology, it would be nice
> if those prices would come down over time.)

<snip examples>

> That's what I'm referring to when I say "we, as a security community"
> have only begun to try addressing these issues.  Right now,
> organizations pretty much have to "roll their own" - not a very
> efficient way of solving a universal problem.

Hrmmmm.  Seems I misunderstood the issues.  I wasn't thinking along
those lines.  Sorry 'bout that.  :0  But then, I'm afraid there is 
always going to be the mix-and-match problem.  Different products and 
processes were designed at different times for different purposes to 
deal with different threat/risk profiles.  Plus, everyone's environment 
is different.  There *are* tools that help make the job a little easier, 
but the best tools for the job are the carbon-based ones . . .

My $0.02.

Cheers,

George Capehart




_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html