Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Novell (NOVL) dirt cheap, good buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David O'Berry who wrote (29939)	1/16/2000 11:26:00 PM
From: waldemar cyranski	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42771

David, the actual site was a news blip from CNBC on my Internet Explorer Home page.......what I typed was the highlight more or less without going to the entire news story.. I have never figured out how to send/include something from another location to the SI site so it can be included in the Novl thread on SI. My reason for posting the bit was to get some commentary from the "experts" on Novl. that do a lot of very technical babbling on every subject possible that Novl is/was/maybe doing while the stock slowly inches down and down....Somehow, I had the impression that NOVL. had the technical fix for security on the internet???????If so where in the hell is it??? And why dosnt some sandflea from Utah hold a press conference and announce the product?

To: David O'Berry who wrote (29939)	1/17/2000 12:14:00 PM
From: PJ Strifas	Respond to of 42771

Computer System security can not be bound within ONE program or ONE component. If you look at security outside of cyberspace, you will notice there is NO vault that is completely secure, no fortress unpenetrable either. In fact, it's not ONE component that makes any place "safe" from unauthorized access but rather a composite approach. What makes Fort Knox so secure is the layer upon layer of security sub-systems interwoven with detection systems. We know what the response will be, the consequences of being caught and that combines to create something called deterance. Cyberspace needs to develop the same culture if you will. Products and services need to be created in layers to provide trips/alerts/alarms which then bring a concerted response. Once caught, there needs to be consequences severe enough to deter others from doing the same. Of course there's one HUGE caveat to this "theory" of mine - what jurisidiction would all this occur in? Until there is a global awareness and cooperation in enforcing "rules of access" if you will, there is very little hope that you can create a system which can be considered totally "safe". Anyone who wants to argue that the connectionless nature of IP can mask someone's ID and location needs to remember that the most prolific tool used to combat this are honey pot systems (systems created with less security where "hackers" are contained, observed and their MO is documented for intrusion detection). It's my opinion that combining honey pot systems with a powerful disinformation plan can be a very powerful combination in taking an active approach to computer security. "Hackers" depend on newsgroups, websites and other sources to gather INFORMATION on systems (weaknesses, workarounds, hacks etc). If you can contaminate that information source, it becomes less reliable. That will eliminate the "casual hacker" - people who do it for the fun, excitement, etc. The professional hacker - one who gets paid to break into systems - that's a different animal all together. Just like the professional thief, you need some luck to catch that one. Regards, Peter J Strifas