Talk:Computer security: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (→Not sure...: new section) |
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "counterintelligence" to "counterintelligence") |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
== Not sure... == | == Not sure... == | ||
It's not a bad short article, but, obviously, there is a huge amount of material in the field. I only started [[communications security]] and am not even sure if that's the right term, given the blurry line, for example, between the network proper and things such as server authentication. To some extent, I punted when putting in a stub for [[information assurance]], which is used by GCHQ and (I think) NSA. I'm not convinced that even information assurance covers things such as personnel and physical security; see | It's not a bad short article, but, obviously, there is a huge amount of material in the field. I only started [[communications security]] and am not even sure if that's the right term, given the blurry line, for example, between the network proper and things such as server authentication. To some extent, I punted when putting in a stub for [[information assurance]], which is used by GCHQ and (I think) NSA. I'm not convinced that even information assurance covers things such as personnel and physical security; see counterintelligence. | ||
I would be absolutely delighted were there to be any kind of attempt, here or in the Forums or on the mailing list, to create a top-down structure of what we should cover, and perhaps even get some agreement as to who does what. As it is, there have been some differing views on how to approach [[cryptography]]; there's an author that consciously is bottom-up while I am top-down. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 13:06, 23 August 2008 (CDT) | I would be absolutely delighted were there to be any kind of attempt, here or in the Forums or on the mailing list, to create a top-down structure of what we should cover, and perhaps even get some agreement as to who does what. As it is, there have been some differing views on how to approach [[cryptography]]; there's an author that consciously is bottom-up while I am top-down. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 13:06, 23 August 2008 (CDT) | ||
:I agree - more collaboration and a "framework" to work on would help.... wikis tend to get built by "ordered chaos" though so I don't know how receptive people would be to it. "Computer security" is huge... I just wanted to get a little stub going with the hopes it would "germinate" into something bigger [[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 13:40, 23 August 2008 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 07:11, 4 May 2024
Comment here if you think I shouldn't have copied directly from WP
Please don't just mark the article for deletion.... comment here, leave me a message, something. Eric M Gearhart 11:58, 22 June 2008 (CDT)
Not sure...
It's not a bad short article, but, obviously, there is a huge amount of material in the field. I only started communications security and am not even sure if that's the right term, given the blurry line, for example, between the network proper and things such as server authentication. To some extent, I punted when putting in a stub for information assurance, which is used by GCHQ and (I think) NSA. I'm not convinced that even information assurance covers things such as personnel and physical security; see counterintelligence.
I would be absolutely delighted were there to be any kind of attempt, here or in the Forums or on the mailing list, to create a top-down structure of what we should cover, and perhaps even get some agreement as to who does what. As it is, there have been some differing views on how to approach cryptography; there's an author that consciously is bottom-up while I am top-down. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:06, 23 August 2008 (CDT)
- I agree - more collaboration and a "framework" to work on would help.... wikis tend to get built by "ordered chaos" though so I don't know how receptive people would be to it. "Computer security" is huge... I just wanted to get a little stub going with the hopes it would "germinate" into something bigger Eric M Gearhart 13:40, 23 August 2008 (CDT)