Re: [fw-wiz] iso 17799
From: Marcus J. Ranum (mjr_at_ranum.com)
Date: 07/19/04
- Previous message: Bruce Smith: "Re: [fw-wiz] More Syslog Questions"
- In reply to: Paul D. Robertson: "Re: [fw-wiz] iso 17799"
- Next in thread: George Capehart: "Re: [fw-wiz] iso 17799"
- Reply: George Capehart: "Re: [fw-wiz] iso 17799"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: "Paul D. Robertson" <paul@compuwar.net>, "avraham shir-el (arthur sherman)" <avraham@jct.ac.il> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:33:28 -0400
Paul D. Robertson wrote:
>As far as I can tell, ISO9000 only really worked for the ISO9000
>consultants. Can't see where 17799 is any different.
Well, as George Capehart points out, NIST thinks in
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/secpubs/otherpubs/reviso-faq.pdf
that Common Criteria are better.
I am trying to see if I can mash down REALLY hard on that particular
button of Paul's....
mjr.
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- Previous message: Bruce Smith: "Re: [fw-wiz] More Syslog Questions"
- In reply to: Paul D. Robertson: "Re: [fw-wiz] iso 17799"
- Next in thread: George Capehart: "Re: [fw-wiz] iso 17799"
- Reply: George Capehart: "Re: [fw-wiz] iso 17799"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]