RE: Limiting Client Access - Partial Retraction

John / Patrick,

Very good dialogue (for us security geeks)!  I think the relationship
between IBM and 3rd party security vendors is the best example of symbiosis
found outside of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.  We need and feed off of
each other.  Of course, Jim is off having a drink with the flamingos and
doesn't really care anyway.

Regards,

Steven W. Martinson, CISSP
NetIQ Corporation
Technical Support Specialist 
(Formerly Pentasafe Security Technologies, Inc.)
Look for more details on our website: http://www.netiq.com
Toll Free: 1.888.283.4840
Fax:  1.713.523.6393

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer.


-----Original Message-----
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 00:45:46 -0800
From: "John Earl" <john.earl@powertechgroup.com>
Subject: RE: Limiting Client Access - Partial Retraction

> John,
> 
> I am invoking the god given right to make a partial retraction of my
last
> note...After thinking about the last couple of exchanges over 6
medium-hot
> Buffalo Wild Wings and a beer, I realized...

[jte] 
It must have been the Buffalo wings. 

> I fell into the trap that I HATE falling into and hate when others
fall
> into it. That is the trap of speaking as if the word "secure" means
the
> same thing to everyone. I did that in all of these posts and I
apologize.
> 
> So, for my retraction...
> I agree that it is possible to meet the requirements of a "rational"
> security policy by using exit point programs or products.

[jte] 
I'm feeling a whole lotta love right now.  :)  Next step is I try to get
you to see that exit programs are a natural fit with resource security,
Application Only Access, and other security schemes.  They provide an
important security layer that protects data when application security
falls down.


> I still argue that for the highest possible security, object level
access
> control is required. In other words, you can't attain the highest
possible
> level of security on your system without object level access control.
That
> said, it is obviously not everyone's requirement to attain the highest
> possible level of security.

[jte] 
I can't argue with the first statement.  And I will concur with your
earlier point that the iSeries makes it easier and less expensive to do
really good security than other architecture (which leaves open the
question "Why do so few people do it?").  As for the last statement, I
still maintain that even people who require the highest possible level
of security can't get their overnight.  They need a natural migration
path to that desired end.

> 
> Perhaps I should go back to lurking...:-)

[jte] 
Please, no.  I haven't gotten this fired up about something on the list
in months.  :-)

jte

--
John Earl | Chief Technology Officer
The PowerTech Group
Seattle, WA 98032
(253) 872-7788 x 302
john.earl@powertechgroup.com
www.powertech.com 
--