Re: [fw-wiz] iso 17799

From: George Capehart (gwc_at_acm.org)
Date: 07/20/04

  • Next message: Christine Kronberg: "Re: [fw-wiz] iso 17799" 
    To: firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:29:40 -0400

    On Monday 19 July 2004 17:33, Marcus J. Ranum allegedly wrote:
    > 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....

    *ducking tomatoes and meringue pies*

    Well, thanks for dragging *me* into this food fight . . . :> I agree
    with NIST's criticism of 17799. Don't know that I am quite comfortable
    that the CC are somehow "better," however. Smacks of apples and
    oranges to me. I *will* take the position, though, that if one tries
    to build an Information Security program around 17799, there will be a
    *lot* that is missing . . . IMHO it just doesn't cover all the bases.

    My 0.02 $CURRENCY.

    /g

    _______________________________________________
    firewall-wizards mailing list
    firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards

  • Next message: Christine Kronberg: "Re: [fw-wiz] iso 17799"
    • Quantcast