Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!rutgers!cbmvax!grr From: grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: RE: Worm report fails to address the problem Message-ID: <7512@cbmvax.UUCP> Date: 2 Aug 89 15:09:07 GMT References: <89627152623.c83.DSTEVENS> Reply-To: grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA Lines: 30 In article <89627152623.c83.DSTEVENS> DSTEVENS@DSRM12.STEVENS-TECH.EDU (David L. Stevens) writes: > > > In Message <8136@hoptoad.uucp> John Gilmore > writes: > > > I found the OTA worm report to not be very helpful. > > > > It recommends central control of Internet security. Of course, this is > > what a government would tend to recommend -- centralization of authority. > > However, without some form of central authority you end up with anarchy, > and you need someone with sufficient clout to punish people who violate > security. Say what? It is not at all obvious that anybody needs to be punished for violation of this precious "security", in the absence of any further malign intent or actions. "Security" need not be need not be used as a catchall excuse that lays all the fault on the perpetrator and excuses the victims for their failure to understand their exposure and secure their system to such a degree they deem appropriate. I'd leave the "enforcement" of security up to the organizations who have a compelling need for it and prefer not to have government supply a new set of rules and regulations over a network of diverse organizations and interests. One might still be regretting such rules long after the battle of the worm has faded into legend... -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@uunet.uu.net Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)