Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Announcements Your Rights Online

Cybersecurity Firms Form Industry Association 129

Posted by simoniker from the do-they-get-badges-or-just-white-hats? dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Washington Technology is reporting that a new industry association centered around cybersecurity has been formed, to make sure security firms like RSA Security Inc., PGP Corp., Network Associates Inc., and others get their voices heard in Washington." Art Coviello, CEO of RSA Security Inc, is quoted in the article as saying: "The country is faced with the serious threat of terrorism and the possibility of cyberterrorism. If we can speak with one voice, we can play an important role in protecting the nation's critical infrastructure."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cybersecurity Firms Form Industry Association More

Cybersecurity Firms Form Industry Association

Comments Filter:

  • the new 'dot com'? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26, 2004 @12:32AM (#8394398)
    So the next new bubble is exploiting people's paranoia huh?

    • Re:the new 'dot com'? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26, 2004 @12:35AM (#8394417)
      Yes, the "homeland security" craze is the next dot-com, and has been since 9/11. And yes, it is exploitative. This is not a troll, this is a fact.
      • I love how some firms are concerned that large telephone switching centers would be targetted by terrorists. (Thus why they need to run their own fiber all over the place.)

        Let me get this straight, a guy with a pickup truck full of explosives is going to blow up (all withing a 10 block radius):

        • a building full of equipment and cable (containing 100 people)
        • City hall (containing thousands of people)
        • A school (containing thousands of people)
        • A skyscraper (containing thousands of people)
        • A bridge (causing b
    • Yeah, it really gives a new meaning to "dot bomb."
    • Think of it as a luxury mall selling lockpicks: for a few millions of dollars a foreign government can buy software to encrypt and authentify its records. for a few hundreds of millions of dollars the department of homeland security can buy software to audit any foreign records.

  • PGP (Score:3, Funny)

    by Aphex Junkie ( 633436 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @12:36AM (#8394418)
    I've actually heard people say that "only paranoids use PGP". Now they'll eat their words!

  • Just what are we securing here? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Thursday February 26, 2004 @12:36AM (#8394425)
    Let's see. Yesterday on Slashdot we had Microsoft adding anti-viral features into the next generation of Windows [slashdot.org] and today the anti-malware industry comes up with a lobbist group. Somehow, I think this has more to do of the security of their businesses from Microsoft's strengths than the security of any computers from Microsoft's weaknesses.
    • Exactly.

      *cough Lobby Group annoucement *cough. :)

    • Yeah, I have difficulty imagining a capitalist society without that sort of thing.

      What I'm looking at as noteworthy here is that it might actually do some good in the process (maybe), since frankly I expect MS's own anti-viral features to suck more ass than a donkey vacuum.

      • Even though their browser sucked, people stopped downloading Netscape. Now it is the RealPlayer's turn. Tomorrow it will be the anti-viruses, &c.

        They wrestled the exception to allow themselves to add enhancements to the OS, and that is what they are doing. Other firms know, they are doomed and are trying to delay it...

        • Except the current version of RealPlayer sucks, and their company policies are horrible. Windows Media Player might not compare to WinAmp very favorably, but compared to RealOne it actually starts to look good.

          I don't plan on touching a Windows box without first putting a combo of virus scanner and Spybot [safer-networking.org] on it first. I would expect that MS is targeting all of the idiots who don't have any virus protection (the same idiots who have yet to disable Messenger and enable the XP firewall). The people who have t
          • Back when I had a WinXP box... I had to disable the firewall (on as default) so that I could send and receieve files through Windows Messenger... stupid Microsoft. I never used any other firewall or virus protection either and the only thing that destroyed all my data was when I installed over Windows with SuSE.

    • Re:Just what are we securing here? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zeinfeld ( 263942 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @01:20AM (#8394678) Homepage
      Let's see. Yesterday on Slashdot we had Microsoft adding anti-viral features into the next generation of Windows and today the anti-malware industry comes up with a lobbist group. Somehow, I think this has more to do of the security of their businesses from Microsoft's strengths than the security of any computers from Microsoft's weaknesses.

      I doubt that this is an anti-Microsoft group as people are conspiricizing. It would make sense to join if you are a small to medium size business player and you don't run a policy office direct.

      Its not just Microsoft thats missing, VeriSign and IBM are not there either, but they don't need this type of group.

      Membership fees are pretty rich $150K or $60K. Thats not chump change. But it is much less than what a full DC policy setup would cost to run.

    • Lobbying for insecure software. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @01:21AM (#8394682) Journal
      Yesterday on Slashdot we had Microsoft adding anti-viral features into the next generation of Windows and today the anti-malware industry comes up with a lobbist group. Somehow, I think this has more to do of the security of their businesses from Microsoft's strengths than the security of any computers from Microsoft's weaknesses.

      I agree, but for a different reason.

      The entire business model of the anti-malware industry (or at least the named companies) depends on widespread deployment of insecure networks and servers to create a demand for their products.

      So one can expect them to advise and pressure congress and other government officials to keep the deployed base as insecure as possible, to maintain and expand their market and thus their bottom line.

      Government pressure on the dominant software vendor to improve its own security, government support for (or removal of roadblocks against) secure software alternatives and development models, and government conversion to secure software, are all a threat to their bottom line.

      So expect them to advise the government to take action that would inhibit all of the above.

      • Re:Lobbying for insecure software. (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        True, but they won't do so without having a fix or software package they make to solve the problem. Then, it's competition between their products, and the one's deemed insecure. Good old healthy competition!
      • Well, the business model is about the appearence of the widespread deployment of insecure networks and servers. It's like the war on drugs. They are succeeding at failing. "We've stopped xxx tons of yyy from entering the country. But we need more money because smugglers are now trying to ship xxxxxx tons of yyy."
      • Do these big guys really have all that much trouble getting their voices heard in D.C.? Who'd 'a thunk it?

    • Re:Just what are we securing here? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by paroneayea ( 642895 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @01:34AM (#8394740) Homepage
      Really, don't you people get it? Most people don't understand how supposed "cyber-wafare" works. They don't understand how a virus works. They're stupid, or should I say technologically incompetent, enough to believe that Dr. Norton really does a great job in the anti-virus world because.... he's a virus. And cyber-terrorism? Yes, there are many people out there who think that sending "cyber-attacks" across the internet is like sending over a missile. They don't understand the concept of what makes an actual exploit in a system. They think that shooting enough virtual missiles of any type at a computer can take them down.
      I may be sounding harsh... but think about it, and I know you will recognize many of the people you know who fit this mindset description. Just think work, school, or home.
      • Like my grandmother. She reads the Net Force series of books.

        So, OK. If getting past a firewall involved shooting the gaurd in a fantasy world, then we'd all be screwed.

        I helped run an ISP with my parents, and she was terrified for our safety after she watched The Net.
    • Let's see. Yesterday on Slashdot we had Microsoft adding anti-viral features into the next generation of Windows [slashdot.org] and today the anti-malware industry comes up with a lobbist group. Somehow, I think this has more to do of the security of their businesses from Microsoft's strengths than the security of any computers from Microsoft's weaknesses.

      Actually that was a mistake in the story's title. MS isn't planning on adding an anti-virus program to windows, but merely a security tool that monitors 3rd party an

  • Hopefully One Voice... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by blcamp ( 211756 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @12:37AM (#8394429) Homepage

    Does not equal one technology, one protocol, one methodology, one market...

    One target.

  • What was wrong with the HTCIA? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bc90021 ( 43730 ) * <`bc90021' `at' `bc90021.net'> on Thursday February 26, 2004 @12:37AM (#8394430) Homepage
    Why didn't the executive members of these firms join the High Technology Crime Investigation Association? [htcia.org] They already exist, and already have quite a number of members, and a lot of law enforcement are members too.

  • Headed by Paul Kurtz? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Theatetus ( 521747 ) * on Thursday February 26, 2004 @12:37AM (#8394431) Journal

    I thought Kurtz got drummed out of the Homeland Security department (with no shortage of bad blood) after Congress gave his GovNet idea the cold shoulder. Maybe I'm remembering wrong; either way from what I remember of his proposals when he was in DHS they're all based around the idea of putting a (hopefully) impenetrable barrier (a Maginot Firewall?) around critical resources rather than constructing a compartmentalized defense-in-depth.

    Am I wrong in remembering that Kurtz was politely but firmly fired? If so will he help CSIA or just make their lobbying efforts more awkward?

    • Re:Headed by Paul Kurtz? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bersl2 ( 689221 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @01:12AM (#8394642) Journal
      the idea of putting a (hopefully) impenetrable barrier (a Maginot Firewall?) around critical resources rather than constructing a compartmentalized defense-in-depth.

      My instincts tell me that this is brain-dead. Any practical barrier is, by necessity, penetrable. A compartmental solution minimizes potential damage.

      Of course, all of this is just metaphoric thinking.
    • (a Maginot Firewall?)
      The viruses will swing through Belgium servers darling.....

  • Their page (Score:5, Informative)

    by Elequin ( 137149 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @12:37AM (#8394437)
    In case someone hasn't posted it yet, here is their page:

    http://www.csialliance.org/ [csialliance.org]

  • What they really want (Score:5, Interesting)

    by seriv ( 698799 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @12:38AM (#8394445)
    Something tells me that when they say "get their voices heard," it means a line-item in the next budget. Damn Lobbyists.

  • For the business impared... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Thursday February 26, 2004 @12:40AM (#8394455)
    Translating those bullet points from business blabber to geek speak...

    Coordinating with the Homeland Security Department to improve information sharing between business and government on cyber threats
    Promising that their security products have appropirate government backdoors.

    Improving corporate governance of information security
    Making sure companies are required to purchase more of their products.

    Improving federal procurement practices and guidelines
    Making sure the government purchases more of their products.

    Identifying gaps in cybersecurity research and development
    Encuraging government research to do R&D for them.

    Collaborating with U.S. and international standards development organizations to support emerging technology standards and specifications for cybersecurity
    Making sure that add-on products are always standard equipment, rather than fixing OS flaws.

    Supporting campaigns to improve awareness of cybersecurity
    Encuraging the government to help with their marketing.

    Supporting cybersecurity academic and workforce development programs
    Ensuring an even further oversupply of tech workers is created so their labor costs stay low.

    Pursuing Senate ratification of the Council of Europe's Convention on Cyber-Crime.
    Talk the Senate into approving this thing here [coe.int] that mandates international cooperation in anti-hacking investigations.
    • Identifying gaps in cybersecurity research and development
      Encuraging government research to do R&D for them.

      This is the only one of your points that I don't agree with. I think it's better read as "Encouraging the government to provide them with research funding."

  • Hmm. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) <teamhasnoi AT yahoo DOT com> on Thursday February 26, 2004 @12:40AM (#8394456) Journal
    Led by a former Bush official, and made up of companies that are under direct threat of having their business drastically changed by Microsoft and OSS.

    Oooh! I can't wait to see what kind of wacky, Orwellian, DRM-filled, DMCA protected bills they will try and shove down our throats with their big money lobbying powers.

    Perhaps they'll decide that Microsoft is the reason for the (security) season and we'll get some anti-anti-trust laws in there.

    OT- what the hell happened to the comment list in the user tab? Did I just eat a mushroom?

    • Re:Hmm. (Score:4, Funny)

      by EverDense ( 575518 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @12:56AM (#8394555) Homepage
      Led by a former Bush official, and made up of companies that are under direct threat of having their business drastically changed by Microsoft and OSS.

      Then how the hell do we work out which side we're on?

      %-(

      ;-)
      • I'm sure it will all work out the same for us lowly consumers even if they are opposed : Assume the position as usual!
      • Then how the hell do we work out which side we're on?

        This is Slashdot.
        We are on both sides (or against both sides depending on viewpoint;)

        You have a significant tactical advantage if you can convince your enemy to "bunch up".

    • Re:Hmm. (Score:4, Funny)

      by sadomikeyism ( 677964 ) <mlorrey.yahoo@com> on Thursday February 26, 2004 @12:59AM (#8394577) Homepage Journal
      I can see the headlines now:

      Judge Orders Microsoft to Keep Security Flaws

      Redmond (AP) - In a stunning revision of the laws of the free market, Justice Penfield Jackson has ruled today that Microsoft's closing of the vast plethora of security holes in its operating system is an anti-competetive act and ordered an injunction against releasing the patches to close these holes.

      "This is the only possible just ruling," says the head of CSIA, stooge for security companies made rich by Microsoft's past stupidity ....

  • I am the only one... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bobdoer ( 727516 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @12:41AM (#8394466) Homepage Journal
    ...who thinks that this sounds wrong?
    "Coordinating with the Homeland Security Department to improve information sharing between business and government on cyber threats"
    How would RSA Security Inc. or PGP Corp. know about terrorist actions? This sounds like an excuse for the government to require back doors in crypto products.
    Now I need to find my tin-foil hat...

  • lobby group good, industry censorship bad (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26, 2004 @12:41AM (#8394467)
    I imagine this will be good for making security an issue with lawmakers. But these things have a habit of being bought out by corporate interests. It will be interesting to watch them evolve and see whether a line for the party to toe gets drawn in the sand or whether they really do some good things like attacking the DMCA's restrictions on academic discussion of vulnerabilities.

    This is more important than ever with voting becoming privatized (Diebold etc) as certain vulnerabilities are matters of grave public interest.

    The whole idea of privatizing voting just does feel right does it? Why should corporate interests be running these things? Is there not such a thing as "society"? And if there is, why can't "society" do some things for itself rather than outsource them to corporations. Getting offtopic here... I will end.

  • Group's initiatives to include (Score:5, Funny)

    by jimmyswimmy ( 749153 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @12:43AM (#8394475)
    Kurtz said the group's initiatives will include:
    • Coordinating with the Homeland Security Department to improve information sharing between business and government on cyber threats

    Maybe they'll have a super-useful color coding system [dhs.gov] to let us know how much of a threat to our computers there is.
    Boy, that'll be informative.

  • I have a question. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Faust7 ( 314817 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @12:44AM (#8394488) Homepage
    Why on earth isn't Microsoft on this list?

    Now, before anyone chimes in with "Microsoft? Security? Thou smoketh crack!" ... consider this:

    Members said the group's mission is to improve cybersecurity through public policy initiatives, public-sector partnerships, corporate outreach, academic programs, adoption of industry technology standards and public education.

    Microsoft is an influence in some of those areas, a heavy influence in others, and a governing influence in others.

    Would it not be of vital importance that they be a member of this group?

    • Re:I have a question. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by deadmongrel ( 621467 ) <karthik@poobal.net> on Thursday February 26, 2004 @12:59AM (#8394576) Homepage
      Would it not be of vital importance that they be a member of this group?
      I think it would be better microsoft doesn't joing the group. why? 'cause then the security groups policies would be influenced more microsoft's business gains. Microsoft, like any other business organization would first look out for its business interests more than standards.

    • Re:I have a question. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gid13 ( 620803 )
      Probably because, as was mentioned in another post, this group may well be being formed as a reaction to MS planning to enter the security business by including anti-virus tech in future Windows versions. It's likely primarily about the survival of these businesses first, security second.

      Oh yeah, and thou smoketh crack. ;)

      • Whaaat? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        this group may well be being formed as a reaction to MS planning to enter the security business

        RSA is practically a standard-setter in themselves, and their encryption is used in countless Microsoft products. RSA is effectively a partner with almost the entire software industry, including Microsoft. Do you seriously think the only reason they were so instrumental in forming this group was that they were scared of Microsoft's security enhancements?

        Furthermore, Paul Kurtz is heading the team. As the web

    • Re:I have a question. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Thursday February 26, 2004 @01:00AM (#8394582)
      The common bond is that all of the members in this group sell products that deal specifically with computer security and not much else. In other words, if MS were to put out a perfectly secure operating system, these companies would lose a good chuck of their revenues...

      • really? hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        if MS were to put out a perfectly secure operating system, these companies would lose a good chuck of their revenues...

        I don't know about that... so many of the security protocols (like ssh) and the encryptions like rsa) used in ms's stuff was produced by totally different companies--seems like they have a solid role to play in the evolution of ms wares, since the r&d associated with all sorts of security is so flippin' broad that even a titan like ms can't foot the whole dollar-and-resource bill.

      • Wow (Score:2)

        by mcc ( 14761 )
        In other words, if MS were to put out a perfectly secure operating system, these companies would lose a good chuck of their revenues...

        Now if that's not job security, nothing is.
      • I don't think there is anything called a "perfectly secure operating system". Sure microsoft could make its operating system more secure. The same could be said for any other operating system be it linux or BSD or MAC OS.
        • There is no perfect person either, yet it could be said there is a wide gulf between Ken Lay and Mother Theresa.
        • For one thing, I believe if a system is gonna be secure, its gotta be simple.

          My own observation is that the basic kernel of both Linux and Microsoft is way, way, way too complex. I still can't see why the kernel itself needs to be much more than a couple hundred KB of tight code. Of course, it can launch whatever processes needed for I/O, filesystem, etc. The kernel itself though should be damn close to incorruptible, with it being a standard configuration - with its MD5 well known - so in the event it

    • If you ask me, Microsoft seems to have a large influence on most categories having to do with computers. Considering Windaz has a huge amount of the world's business. But yes, I agree that Microsoft should be a member of this group, considering they seem to have a fleeting knowledge on computer issues and enticement.

    • Would it not be of vital importance that they be a member of this group? [of MS]

      This is an industry lobby group, not a government committee. Whoever forms the group can decide who joins the fun. In politics, lobby groups are purely about promoting their own interests. They are not about putting together a fair cross section of the industry.

      If this was a government hearing on cyber security, then yes MS should be invited to the party as they are a big player. But...its not.

  • Government trusts public industry for security. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by juebay ( 736455 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @12:46AM (#8394505)
    I could see the government supporting companies like Lockheed and the such. Yet, if I was the president of my very own nation why would I would trust anything in the public software industry, no matter how secure they say they are, when the very technology they create can easily be leaked and used against whoever uses the creations of the cybersecurity companies? Maybe a example would be better. If I worked at a war factory and gave the schematics of some sort of top secret, new tank. There are a couple problems in that the country that receives the information might not be able to use the plans because of lack of complicated subcomponents either because another company makes that subcomponent or the country can't make it because of lack of tools to manufacture. Now if a software company had their code stolen it can be enacted almost immediatly. Maybe the stripped down OSs might not be able to work the code but what prevents other nations from importing the hardware and software to get it to compile and run?

  • Cyber Terrorism? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by digitaltraveller ( 167469 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @12:54AM (#8394542) Homepage
    I think most knowledgeable security people read that quote and cringed. I'm dissapointed to see RSA going the fear salesman route. Well if you can't beat the charlatans, might as well join them.

    It's generally accepted within the legitimate security community that cyber terrorism is a non-issue. The threat can be completely mitigated by creating laws that prohibit safety critical systems from being connected to the internet. (eg. Traffic systems). And if we expand the definition of cyberspace to the limit, we need to move away from insecure SCADA systems. That's it.

    • Re:Cyber Terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @01:40AM (#8394768)
      Look out! It's a robot with a bomb!

      Cyberterrorism is not only a non-issue, the word itself only belongs in the mouths of those with something to sell by misdirection. Someone who rips off credit card numbers is certainly a criminal, but calling them a terrorist is as incorrect as saying they are from the planet mars.

  • If you value liberty, boycott CSI (Score:5, Informative)

    by rdl ( 4744 ) <ryan@@@venona...com> on Thursday February 26, 2004 @12:57AM (#8394558) Homepage
    I strongly advocate all those who value liberty boycotting CSI and all member companies.

    Any organization which advocates ratification of the CoE's Convention on Cybercrime is an extreme threat to free speech, liberty, and commerce online.

    Specifically, boycott:
    # BindView Corp.
    # Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.
    # Computer Associates International Inc.
    # Entrust Inc.
    # Internet Security Systems Inc.
    # NetScreen Technologies Inc.
    # Network Associates Inc.
    # PGP Corp.
    # Qualys Inc.
    # RSA Security Inc.
    # Secure Computing Corp.
    # Symantec Corp

    Thankfully it is easy to boycott all of these companies, since they tend to be evil to begin with.

  • Voices? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Pumpernickle ( 720937 )
    If we can speak with one voice, we can play an important role in protecting the nation's critical infrastructure.

    I recommend Mike [att.com]. He sounds authoritative. ^^
  • i think we would benefit from a unified voice of the encryption technologies and their developers just like the article says. but do we really want to mess with the already fascist feds when it comes to encryption algorithms? i am sure that groups like the NSA, CIA, and FBI have their own versions of encryption algorithms that might just put the ones in the civillian sectors to shame.

  • But (Score:5, Funny)

    by sinergy ( 88242 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @01:01AM (#8394587) Homepage
    we won't need them anymore now that Microsoft is Trustworthy.

  • Adam Smith, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chronoch ( 750034 ) <chronoch@yahoo.com> on Thursday February 26, 2004 @01:07AM (#8394618)
    Wow, another association to cloud the minds of the legislature and people. Professional associations have so much power nowadays with the way they influence policy and are practically infallible in the judicial system.

    Even worse, many people don't even know that Adam Smith, writer of The Wealth of Nations who first described capitalist marketism, was vehemently against professional associations and corporations for the fact that they reduce competition and free markets.

    Clearly, a market isn't 'free' anymore if the only selections that you have in the store are corporate products.

  • science fiction (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26, 2004 @01:19AM (#8394675)
    again america will be a frontrunner in creating a new enviroment. a safe computing enviroment for the masses. designed by coroprations, with the the goverment in mind.
    they will take care of all your needs...

    finaly we will see this funky abstract interface to the internet that _they_ think it should have looked like. lockin at every corner. intenet with an windows xp design (hey, this is slashdot), running on drm restricted hardware. computers limited and controled by someone else, but not who paid for it. computer experience for mom'n'pop, save and controlable.

    thinking too much into this? yeah, sure. i see freedoms get lost in free america day by day. and this will be forced on all of the world. just as those features they propose will become obligatory with the right goverment. - hey we all have the right goverment? don't we? we/you elected them. so they will do the right thing. - right.

  • Where's the ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bruthasj ( 175228 ) <bruthasj@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday February 26, 2004 @01:35AM (#8394744) Homepage Journal
    Watchdog group to oversee their activities? Any takers?
    • Since when was writing legislation an activity that needed to be overseen? You're worse than the commission itself.

      Whether you like it or not, congress has the ultimate descision. If the bill has any implications that may be harmful to corporations or groups that are donors to congerssmen (ACLU or the Chinese Government,) chances are they'll vote against the bill. If enough of them vote against it, it won't become law.

  • Whoohooo! (Score:3, Funny)

    by flinxmeister ( 601654 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @01:45AM (#8394786) Homepage
    Asymetric encryption in every pot!

    Personal firewalls as a right!

    Tax breaks for vulnerability scans!

    Secure coding is bad for the economy!

    America's childred deserve the latest bolt-on, after-the-fact, security solutions! You aren't against America's children...are you?

    Seriously, print this out for future reference.

  • cyberterrorism (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26, 2004 @01:55AM (#8394836)

    Boy, I sure hope a cyberterrorist doesn't cyber-hijack a cyberplane, and cybercrash it into a big cyberbuilding!

    I might even have to stand up from my cyberterminal in cyberspace, if that were to cyber-happen.

    All I can say is, I'm cyber-scared, and I hope the cybercops can protect me and my cyberfamily!

  • No Counterpane or Bruce Schneier? (Score:4, Informative)

    by CadmannWeyland ( 609987 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @02:04AM (#8394871) Homepage
    Amazing. Considering who's heading things up, I guess one should *not* be suprised to see that Counterpane and Bruce Schneier are not part of the list.

    Mr. Schneier represents a calm voice that is firmly, lucidly, and actively opposed to the tradeoffs being made by giving away too much liberty in return for too little new security.

    He's got some excellent essays here [schneier.com]. Highly recommended.

    Cadmann

    • Because Bruce Schneier is for the people (Score:4, Interesting)

      by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @02:57AM (#8395095) Journal
      It's a business lobbying consortium. It's not designed to advocate the views of the individual -- it's to try to siphon Homeland Security money into the coffers of RSA and a couple of security-related companies.

      That doesn't mean that it won't have positive benefits -- I would *dearly* love to somehow see increased emphasis on security finally convince people to use PGP more -- but these people are not out to try and make your life better, a la the EFF.

  • new? (Score:1)

    by zeruch ( 547271 )
    I think exploiting (pun intended) peoples fears has been part and parcel of the landscape for quite a while. It's just tech firms are finally figuring it out for themselves.
    Now the general geek population needs to figure it out.

  • Their intiatives (Score:3, Interesting)

    by -tji ( 139690 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @02:30AM (#8394962) Journal
    From their web site, they say their initiatives are:
    # Coordinating with the Homeland Security Department to improve information sharing between business and government on cyber threats
    # Improving corporate governance of information security
    # Improving federal procurement practices and guidelines
    # Identifying gaps in cybersecurity research and development
    # Collaborating with U.S. and international standards development organizations to support emerging technology standards and specifications for cybersecurity
    # Supporting campaigns to improve awareness of cybersecurity
    # Supporting cybersecurity academic and workforce development programs
    # Pursuing Senate ratification of the Council of Europe's Convention on Cyber-Crime.

    They sound pretty reasonable to me..

    They one that might have some bad implications is the last one:

    # Pursuing Senate ratification of the Council of Europe's Convention on Cyber-Crime.

  • the rest of the quote -- (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rodentia ( 102779 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @02:32AM (#8394967)

    If we can speak with one voice, we can play an important role in protecting the nation's critical infrastructure. . .

    and operate as a cartel under color of the public weal.

  • its the patriotic thing to do (Score:3, Funny)

    by quonsar ( 61695 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @03:54AM (#8395313) Homepage
    If we can speak with one voice, we can play an important role in protecting the nation's critical infrastructure."

    and make a huge pile of money^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H um, contribution to national security. cuz, we're like, um, patriots.

  • In some ways I think this iniative is a fantastic idea. It seems the only way to change things at a government level are to have someone actively trying to tame (aka lobbying) the political beast. Unfortunately this is something that, in my opinion, we have not really been good at.

    Look at the auto industry. They have advisory bodies actively working with government to ensure policians understand the ramifications of passing that latest pollution bill. They have taken the time to learn how politicans t

  • We need protection from the evil cyberterrorists ! Right now invisible, indestructable uberterrorist Osama is training hordes of l33t terrorist haXX0rs in his high tech Al Qaeida Global Terrorism Control Center ! Any day now they will initiate reactor core meltdowns, detonate the US nuclear arsenal, shutdown powerplants, reprogram auto-industry factories to make laser-eyeing killbots and last but not least, disable the FCC censor buffor so America's TV nation will be subjected to uncontrolled boobflashes !

  • On the usage of the word terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26, 2004 @06:14AM (#8395769)
    The AV companies talk about terrorism? Yeah, "wee care". Really. That's hilarious. They are just interested in their profits. Only in the US can they use such excusions and are not laughed off the stage.

    The word terrorism has suffered an inflation when it has been misused after sept. 11th. When I hear that word on tv I immediately switch channel.

    Nowadays anything bad may be categorized as terrorism. But we have had laws before sept. 11th that punish for crimes. Why can't we just use those laws? Why we need an extra "terrorism" label for those actions? It's just that those in power are fooling people. They created the new "terrorism" category and repeat it over and over again until it becomes a fact.

    Disgusting.

  • washingtonpost.com's more detailed report (Score:3, Informative)

    by rhwalker22 ( 581141 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @09:40AM (#8396540) Homepage
    Please check out washingtonpost.com's more detailed report [washingtonpost.com] on the new group's goals.

  • Speaking With One Voice (Score:4, Interesting)

    by handy_vandal ( 606174 ) on Thursday February 26, 2004 @11:19AM (#8397379) Homepage Journal
    If we can speak with one voice, we can play an important role in protecting the nation's critical infrastructure.

    Speaking with one voice is a good thing: Strength in Unity.

    Speaking with one voice is a bad thing: Way of the Fascist.

    -kgj

Slashdot Top Deals

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Close