The difference being the financial system can use the knowledge to make themselves more resilient. How does the bank customer use the information you listed to make themselves more resilient? Further, the banks are a fairly trusted and well regulated group. There are a good number of bank customers that are not good guys. Is there a fear the banks will use provider information for malicious ends? Is that the reason the providers will not give the information? Could it be they do not want customers to know most of their SONET rings are collapsed? ----- Original Message ----- From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> Date: Friday, January 20, 2006 4:44 pm Subject: Re: The Backhoe: A Real Cyberthreat? [ & Re: cyber-redundancy ]
To answer Sean Donelan's question, yes, enterprise customers and/or their agents _do _need to have specific information on the routes in which
facilities (and even dark fiber builds) are placed, ephemeral as
be at times due to SP outside plant churn. They need this data in order to ensure that they're not only getting the diversity/redundancy/separacy
paying for, but because of the more fundamental reason being
way they have to provide maximal assurances to stakeholders of
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Frank Coluccio wrote: their leased those data might that they're that it is the only the organization's
survivability.
Is the same thing also true for customers of financial institutions? Why are financial institutions so reluctant to give details about the locations of their data centers, processing offices, money transport routes and security procedures to their customers? Don't customers of financial institutions have the same concerns about the survivability of the financial institutions as the financial institutions have about their suppliers?
Doesn't this just turn into Y2K all over again with every organization demanding guarantees and copies of data from every other organization?