Quoting Bernd Eckenfels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > In the IT field, "security" refers specifically to unauthorized use, as in > > "security guard", and "security system". It does not, in general, refer to > > the more generic definitions of "security", as in "security blanket", > > "securities and exchange commission", or "job security". > > Can you show me a definition of that? I presented two which teach you otherwise.
To quote Garfinkel and Spafford (2nd edition, page 6): "A formal definition wouldn't necessarily help you any more than our working definition, and would require detailed explanations of risk assessment, asset valuation, policy formation, and a number of other topics beyond what we are able to present here." (in 971 pages). Their definition: "Computer Security: 'A computer is secure if you can depend on it and its software to behave as you expect.'" And they go on... "Our practical definition might also imply to some that security is concerned with issues of testing your software and hardware, and with preventing user mistakes. However, we don't intend our definition to be that inclusive." So I for one would prefer to keep off debian-security such Safety issues as mounting /usr ro (except to expose them as NOT a help towards Security); though running linux off readonly media (hardware-locked) is borderline on-topic. Cheers, -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +44 1908 653 739 Fax: +44 1908 655 151 Snail: David Wright, Earth Science Dept., Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA Disclaimer: These addresses are only for reaching me, and do not signify official stationery. Views expressed here are either my own or plagiarised. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
