Search: Home Bugtraq Vulnerabilities Mailing Lists Jobs Tools Beta Programs
Standardizing on Security
Hal Flynn, 2004-01-14

The Linux standards group publishes 565 pages of data describing a standards-compliant Linux package. So why aren't any of them about security?

Comments Mode:
Standardizing on Security 2004-01-15
Anonymous
Standardizing on Security 2004-01-16
Anonymous
Bring in the zealots. 2004-01-16
Anonymous (1 replies)
Bring in the zealots. 2004-01-19
Anonymous
Fedora Core release 2 2004-01-16
Jared Robinson
Standardizing on Security 2004-01-16
Anonymous
Standardizing on Security 2004-01-17
Anonymous (1 replies)
Standardizing on Security 2004-01-19
Anonymous
Hal would be right... 2004-01-19
Anonymous
Standard Argument 2004-01-19
Anonymous
Standardizing on Security 2004-01-21
blacklight
Security is both a process and a product, where the product is unfinished because the process is still evolving with many branches pointing to as many tentative solutions. The desire for clearly spelled out answers is understandable, but are clearly spelled out answers that are not right desirable? Let's make sure we evolve a few "right" answers, before we even think of standardizing anything.

Anyway, I am not too happy with my comments because I am too vague, and I know it: the problem with vagueness is that we can go round and round the apple tree without being able to resolve anything. Aside from that, vagueness is simply not actionable.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/207/24444#24444
Standardizing on Security 2004-01-21
Anonymous







 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2009, SecurityFocus