Comments on: Definitions and Assumptions http://www.blindside.org.uk/2007/08/30/definitions-and-assumptions/ What's going to go wrong in our e-enabled world? Sat, 22 Nov 2008 10:01:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Blindside : Blog Archive » Unremarked Threats to Information Assurance http://www.blindside.org.uk/2007/08/30/definitions-and-assumptions/#comment-2341 Blindside : Blog Archive » Unremarked Threats to Information Assurance Tue, 04 Sep 2007 07:28:52 +0000 http://www.blindside.org.uk/2007/08/30/definitions-and-assumptions/#comment-2341 [...] to the topic I started a few days back–there are some threats to information assurance that we do not [...] […] to the topic I started a few days back–there are some threats to information assurance that we do not […]

]]> By: wendyg http://www.blindside.org.uk/2007/08/30/definitions-and-assumptions/#comment-2238 wendyg Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:23:32 +0000 http://www.blindside.org.uk/2007/08/30/definitions-and-assumptions/#comment-2238 For want of a better definition, I've been thinking of it as similar to Peter Neumann's RISKS (which also seems to me easier to understand!). wg For want of a better definition, I’ve been thinking of it as similar to Peter Neumann’s RISKS (which also seems to me easier to understand!).

wg

]]> By: Dave Walker http://www.blindside.org.uk/2007/08/30/definitions-and-assumptions/#comment-2235 Dave Walker Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:43:42 +0000 http://www.blindside.org.uk/2007/08/30/definitions-and-assumptions/#comment-2235 I think that you and Wikipedia are looking at opposite sides of the same coin. The Wikipedia article covers "quality of service" requirements, and your view covers "policies, procedures and technologies, backed by legislation where appropriate, which can employed to enable such a quality of service".Basically, you're both right - about the only difference I can spot is that some of the technologies you discuss can also be applied to audit, whereas the Wikipedia article currently fails to mention nonrepudiation. Of course, that's nothing an edit wouldn't fix ;-). I think that you and Wikipedia are looking at opposite sides of the same coin. The Wikipedia article covers “quality of service” requirements, and your view covers “policies, procedures and technologies, backed by legislation where appropriate, which can employed to enable such a quality of service”.Basically, you’re both right - about the only difference I can spot is that some of the technologies you discuss can also be applied to audit, whereas the Wikipedia article currently fails to mention nonrepudiation.
Of course, that’s nothing an edit wouldn’t fix ;-).

]]>