Lists Home |
Date Index |
Yeah, that was a hasty remark, but jamming isn't something
a 15 year old does when the mall is on fire. And jamming
can be defended against. At least the US is warning the
EU. That is responsible.
We have to understand our risk levels before we respond.
The problem is not resisting pressure from one source,
but when multiple sources of feedback couple and push
in a risky direction. In today's environment, we
can't afford to be wrong. Technology push and
customer pull need a third leg: discrimination.
These need not be mindless forces.
We can devise architectures for response systems
that are not subject to DDoS and other Internet
holes. It has to be understood by the customers
that they require this and not buy on the cheap.
That is the dilemma of 80/20.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) scripsit:
> The difference
> is I have to answer the RFP truthfully even if it
> costs my company the contract because the procurement
> personnel 'drank the kool-aid' while accepting the
> Federal dollars.
Magna est veritas, et praevalebit -- but note the future tense.
> You'll hear it when those pdas in the
> hands of the first responders stop working as their
> servers go 'off the air' just as the truck or plane
> filled with something nasty takes out the local mall.
> Hang on to your radio. RF doesn't know about DDoS.
Whatever are you talking about? RF certainly does know'
about DoS, under the name of "jamming". The U.S. already
has plans in place to jam GPS information when and as
needed, and in fact is trying to persuade the EU not
to deploy its Galileo system on the same frequency as
the encrypted version of GPS they are getting ready to
deploy, because (koff, koff) it will not be "interoperable",
by which they mean that jamming Galileo will also jam
> The web was fielded witlessly.
"There is no man alive who can claim that he has never acted like an
--Gospel of Spider