Suche innerhalb des Archivs / Search the Archive All words Any words

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[] weitere Kritik an GOVNET,
Gutes Argument: Die Anbieter von Kommunikationsnetzen würden an dem
Projekt gut verdienen, aber die Gefahren des allgemeinen Internet (das
ja weiterbesteht) wären dadurch nicht gelöst. _Hier_ sollte die
US-Regierung ihre Bemühungen verstärken.

16 October 2001 
John Pescatore   
Jay Pultz 
Instead of developing a new, separate U.S. government network to
replace part of the Internet, federal officials should focus on
improving performance, security and survivability.

On 11 October 2001, Richard Clarke, the newly appointed adviser to
U.S. President George W. Bush for "Cyberspace Security," promoted the
concept of a separate government Internet to enable more secure
communications among agencies and federal workers. The new GOVNET
network would be distinct from the public Internet to keep it safe
from viruses, hackers and terrorists. Clarke's office issued a request
for information for vendors to respond to the initiative.

First Take

At first glance, a government-only Internet appears to make sense. It
has meritorious goals high performance, a high level of security and
survivability. However, the federal government already uses several
networks for military and nonmilitary communications. Therefore, the
General Services Administration, charged with procuring services for
the federal government, should carefully examine whether GOVNET would
be redundant to existing networks and, thus, become a costly waste of
time and resources.

Presidential Decision Directive 63 promises that the U.S. government
would become a model security citizen on the Internet. Moving to a
physically separate GOVNET would require the government to unhook from
the Internet without ever trying to live up to the directive's goals.
Gartner believes that rather than retreat from secure use of the
public Internet, the government should focus on the required security
technologies, processes and purchasing discipline to ensure that the
government conducts all its uses of the Internet securely and
reliably, and uses its buying power to have security services built
into offerings for the provision of Internet service. Where the
Internet fails to meet its needs, the government should look to
enhance rather than replace its private networks. Lastly, the
government should consider piloting an ARPANET-like initiative on
next-generation security and survivability technologies that might
identify enhanced security benefits for both government and commercial
networks. (ARPANET, the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network, was
the forerunner of the Internet.)

If GOVNET gets funded, defense contractors, network providers and
security vendors should view it as a short-term opportunity to sell
products and services to a private network. Enterprises and government
agencies should assume that a long-term solution to Internet security
will arise elsewhere and should proceed to buy denial-of-service
protection and other managed security services from commercial

Analytical Source: John Pescatore, Information Security Strategies,
and Jay Pultz, Enterprise Network Strategies

Written by Michael Gomez,

Liste verlassen: 
Mail an infowar -
 de-request -!
- infopeace -
 de mit "unsubscribe" im Text.