On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 11:51:45PM -0400, Daniel B. wrote: > So what is it that you're arguing about? That computer security in > general is not information security? If so, so what? That's why > ISO says" _information_" security instead of just "security."
If you read the thread, you can see that what started this part of the discussion was a claim that mounting /usr read-only was a security measure just because it makes the system more reliable. That's "availability" as in "system is more often available to users" rather than "system makes information available to the right people". I hope that by now the difference is clear to everyone involved. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
