This is most probably why I got out of the business a couple years
ago. I was very frustrated with trying to sell the Idea of doing it
right. Miss the geek factor of the work tho. I must start reading
Dilbert again.

At 05:57 AM 5/26/2006, you wrote:

>Frank Pawlak wrote:
> >
> > Marcus,
> >
> > I agree that the security industry is all but dead, but what are the
> > big financial firms, or perhaps the gov using for security
> > systems.

>You mean financial firms like the ones that we keep hearing about
>suffering from data breaches/loss/theft? You mean the government that
>gets consistently low "grades" for systems security?
>When an end-user at a business I know of recently experienced trouble
>following instructions setting up a laptop on a WPA wireless network,
>an upper-level manager was alleged to have asked why it was so much
>more difficult than things like WiFi hot spots. When told it was
>because the company network was more secure, said manager replied
>"Well, maybe we need to reduce our security."
>There's a reason Dilbert is so popular. I think its partly humour and
>partly horrified fascination. Now imagine the processes that pass for
>"thinking" by management, reflected in Dilbert's world, applied to
>network security and what do you suppose you get? Well, you get things
>like this: There is a certain very large manufacturing firm (that shall
>remain unnamed) that's struggling financially. Said large firm's
>network has been seriously... uh... negatively impacted by... uh...
>"security breaches" (I'm being purposefully vague out of necessity)
>multiple times. For reasons *I* find inexplicable, they continue using
>the systems that are getting "owned" out of some misguided (IMO) view
>that they're "cost effective." With "thinking" like that, is it any
>wonder the firm in question is struggling?
>It's hard enough keeping up with, much less keeping ahead of, the bad
>guys as it is. Now add being hobbled by the kind of people that do not
>understand what networks and network security is all about, do not
>*want* to understand, and fail to heed the recommendations of those who
>do understand.
>I'm not really bitter, jaded or cynical. I am pretty disgusted, tho.
>Note: My mail server employs *very* aggressive anti-spam
>filtering. If you reply to this email and your email is
>rejected, please accept my apologies and let me know via my
>web form at .
>firewall-wizards mailing list

firewall-wizards mailing list