On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:58:50 EDT, Michael Barker said:
> Seems like they're following up on Department of Defense Directive 8570.01,
> whereas all Information Assurance personnel (that being defined as anyone
> with privileged access) are required to be certified.
Sort of what I was worried about
m.pdf
-Original Message-
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu [mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu]
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 4:13 AM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Jeff Young
Subject: Re: Wow, just when you though big government was someone else's problem
On Sat, 04 Apr 200
]
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 8:20 PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Jeff Young
Subject: Re: Wow, just when you though big government was someone
else's
problem
I suggest that we wait until the actual text of S.778 actually shows
up at http://thomas.loc.gov before reacti
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:16:24 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian said:
> Do you by any chance get to go work on sensitive government networks
> without, say, a security clearance?
What the draft actually says:
SEC. 7. LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION OF CYBERSECURITY PROFESSIONALS.
(a) IN GENERAL. - Withi
PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Jeff Young
Subject: Re: Wow, just when you though big government was someone else's
problem
I suggest that we wait until the actual text of S.778 actually shows
up at http://thomas.loc.gov before reacting to hyperbolic analysis of
draft
I suggest that we wait until the actual text of S.778 actually shows
up at http://thomas.loc.gov before reacting to hyperbolic analysis of
drafts not actually assigned to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs. Although I am concerned with what has been
attributed to t
* Jeff Young:
> If only we knew: to achieve a secure DNS all you need to do is
> publish a notice in the Federal Register.
In the end, this is how we got many of our (non-public-key)
cryptographic algorithms, and people seem to be quite happy about
them.
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Jeff Young wrote:
> Read it again. It says all government networks and any network the
> president deems vital, I'd have to assume that would at least be all of the
> major backbones.
Deeming something vital / critical has a whole lot of extra baggage
attached to
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Jeff Young wrote:
This comes from Lauren Weinstein's list and it's worth a read.
It's a bill introduced into legislation, who knows where and when
and if it will become law but, wow.
http://lauren.vortex.com/Cyber-S-2009.pdf
Read it again. It says all government networks and any network the
president deems vital, I'd have to assume that would at least be all
of the major backbones.
What's the point of picking on the source of the information? Sure
his list is moderated and a bit self-serving, that's why you r
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Jeff Young wrote:
> This comes from Lauren Weinstein's list and it's worth a read.
> It's a bill introduced into legislation, who knows where and when
> and if it will become law but, wow.
>
> http://lauren.vortex.com/Cyber-S-2009.pdf
Relying on Lauren to hear abou
This comes from Lauren Weinstein's list and it's worth a read.
It's a bill introduced into legislation, who knows where and when
and if it will become law but, wow.
http://lauren.vortex.com/Cyber-S-2009.pdf
I'll just give you a teaser:
SEC. 9. SECURE DOMAIN NAME ADDRESSING SYSTEM.
3 (a) INGEN
12 matches
Mail list logo
