lazylion - Slashdot User

Using War Games To Make Organizations More Secure 49

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday February 10, 2011 @09:07AM from the what-doesn't-kill-you dept.

wiredmikey writes "Along with budget constraints and disconnect between IT and executive management surrounding information security, results of a recent survey show that a major problem is outright lack of understanding of threats. We all know the best way to get that budget increased, is to get hacked. Unfortunately, that could also result in you losing your job. Some companies, however, are taking creative approaches to both raise awareness and identify potential vulnerabilities. A manager with a large financial services group, for example, says that his company addresses security vulnerabilities by staging a series of what it calls 'war games,' in which a user or group of users is tasked with trying to compromise a system, while another user or group of users is tasked with preventing the break-in. Management needs to understand the security threat and its impact to business, and these 'war games' are an innovative and creative way for IT departments to convince executive management on security needs."

Submission + - TWiki.NET limits free speech of floss project (metro.cx) 2

Submitted by

gmc2000

on Tuesday January 13, 2009 @07:18AM

gmc2000 writes: "On his blog, a Foswiki community member reports on a recent threat by venture capital company TWiki.NET at the address of TWiki<TM> fork Foswiki: "What they ask is "to stop the confusingly similar use of the TWIKI TM in vague statements". I find that an odd request, as the term 'vague' is highly subjective. If we (the Foswiki project) were to bow to their threats, where will it end? Do we have to remove the T-word completely from the Foswiki site? That sounds close to censorship to me, and (IANAL but) I am sure that is not how trademark law (even in the US) was meant."
The 'threat-o-gram' is directed at two community members personally, volunteers of the Foswiki project. In his reply, one of the adressees says not to be impressed: "We have a decent insurance at //SEIBERT/MEDIA for such cases. That would not cost me a single Penny.". Is this a classic example of a spider-like organisation making the mistake that it can attack a starfish-like organisation by disabling one or two of its 'legs'? Do their threats carry any weight, or are they based on a totally wrong interpretation of US trademark law?"

Slashdot Top Deals