Re: SCADA
"Bill McGee (bam)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.security.firewalls.wizards |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <A0A653F4CB702442BFBF2FAF02C031E906FBC9AF@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com> |
And what, exactly, is 'reliable'? The only reasonable definition I can think of is one that hasn't been broken into 'YET'. Like has been said before, unless you disassemble your machine, embed it into a cement and glass matrix, and dump it in the ocean, there is no such thing as 'secure' - and even then... Everything else involves degrees of risk balanced with the need to actually conduct business. In spite of what some of the purists on this list might imply, security is a trade-off, and every naive administrator believes his/her network to be 'secure' until it isn't. The rest of us manage risk and try our best to reduce the cost of risk to a level below the value of the business being conducted. Our job as security professionals is to help organizations reduce that risk as much as possible. Anyone selling anything else is hawking snake oil. Bill McGee Security Solutions Manager Cisco Systems, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Blask [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 01:38 PM Pacific Standard Time To: [email protected]; Firewall Wizards Security Mailing List Subject: Re: [fw-wiz] SCADA Daniel E. Hassler <[email protected]> > I agree with your observations but how can an insecure system be considered reliable? That there is a damn fine question, but when you ask it of the folks running these systems the answer is: "It has been reliable so far." ... :~) _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list [email protected] https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list [email protected] https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards