On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Richard Forno wrote: :Here's my contribution to the current cyber-security FUD thread. I've been :mulling this piece over for a while now, and it can certainly apply to a few :different companies in this particluar market. Seeing the current debate, I :feel justified in posting this essay to NANOG. After reading the rest of the essay I thought, what a luxury it must be to afford so much integrity. ;) Most of the people quoted in the news media on IT security issues earned their credentials in the military or policing worlds. Many of them have a very specific worldview as a result of their professional background. If you have encountered many of them, you might agree that their perspective on technology is often a little more mullet-and-moustache than cloak-and-dagger. I have not seen the intelligence business model done very well, with the exception of a couple that I think are truely excellent. It is pretty evident that most of the people in that business think that CIO's want to spend money catching hackers instead of selling more widgets. I can see why, seeing as that's what they did for a living before retiring into the private sector. They are highly experienced professionals, it's just that some of the expertise sometimes doesn't translate as well as one would hope. However, what the mullet-and-moustache crowd knows and alot of the IT security industry doesn't, is that when CNN says cyberattacks are imminent, businesses will want to get what they pay for, and free geeky editorial isn't going to cut it. It's a question of authority, and when it comes down to an ex-spook vs. "an area consultant" when they're writing a story, the one with the most cachet and authority wins. So, to all the crusading FUD-busters out there: You've been had. While you've exasperatedly been trying to convince your boss that there are more serious technical problems and that this FUD is a red herring, she's been watching CNN trying to figure out what her customers are going to do. Cheers, -- batz