On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 18:56 -0500, Thomas Jones wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 13:21 -0700, tuxxer wrote:
>>On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 20:56 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>>
>>>Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>(2) be Fedora-specific enough to give value over some of the other more
>>>>standardized security guides; and
>>>
>>>What are these "standardized security guides"?
>>>
>>
>>I think he's talking about the general, high-level stuff you might get
>>if you googled "linux security" or something.
>
>
> Sure, but also things like "Practical UNIX and Internet Security,
> "Computer Security: Art & Science," Gollmann's "Computer
Security," and
> such.
>
>
Personally, I would consider "standardized security guides" within the
realm of the following sources:
Information Assurance Technology Framework Release 3.1, National
Security Agency
Automated Tools for Testing Computer System Vulnerability, NIST Special
Publication 800-6
Establishing a Computer Security Incident Response Capability(CSIRC),
NIST Special Publication 800-3
A great many(granted not all) security resources written today is full
of fluff and doesn't recognize or even mention industry standards or
procedures. To tell you the truth, i've found that CS research
papers(available from NEC) seem to contain more relevant content than
alot of the published books. IMHO.
Okay, okay, you definitely win the Battle of the Citations. ;-) (Like
Karsten, my specialized experience doesn't fall into the security realm
either, except in a more esoteric sense.) You're working from a
different definition for "standardized" than I intended, which is a good
indicator that I made a poor word choice. "General practical" would
have been better, and would be more along the lines of the books I
named. In any case, I'm glad we have a good security technical editor
aboard.
--
Paul W. Frields, RHCE
http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
Fedora Documentation Project:
http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/