Talk:Security/Archive 1

Orwellian Trends

Anyone else feel this article merits a criticism section? I know we have all noticed that as a society we posses less privacy and are less free than in the past 100 years, and most of our freedoms have be escorted out of our society under the premise of "safety" and "security" (and sometimes "for the children"). I seem to remember a wise man saying that any man who gives up an essential liberty for the feeling of safety will lose his liberty and his safety. Any thoughts?

Security is also the ability to control and allocate resources without external coersion

"Safety is the condition of being protected against ..." - "Security is being free from ...". If there is such a difference in these terms you should make it more clear. Maybe the difference is in "Security measures" and "Safety"? --Media lib 00:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Private security

the following section I deleted (am about to) since it didn't seem to fit. There is a private security but it is just a redirect to security guard. I think that maybe a new article could be inspired by this?? Mozzerati 20:51, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

In private security, security is the result of services provided to prevent, deter, detect and/or document crime, fire, disorder or violations of company rules. These services may be provided by a security guard or by alarms, security cameras, or as a routine part of the performance of every employee's duties (especially in smaller companies).

Compare with: National security, Police

(Unsigned comment by Mozzerati)

physical security is essential to computer security, because people who break into where the computer hardware is physically located, can often get into a lot more stuff than people who are connecting over the Internet, so different kinds of security, irrespective of how it is provided, they all interconnect. AlMac 15:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You are right. There are very few (and expensive!) computer systems that handle in an acceptable way physical access. Poli (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2005 July 15 (UTC)

I am a newbie here, but I have worked in computers for over 40 years and in computer security for over 20 years. I started writing Security breaches then ran into problems with not achieving NPOV and style for here. To try to fix this, I started an article Computer security audit focused on what any computer site can do rather inexpensively to identify what needs to be fixed, and link to security education. As you can see, it may have to be deleted, because while people agree that this topic belongs in Wiki something, I may be too involved in security that works, to write an article that is impartial on how to avoid Computer insecurity.

In my opinion, until WiFi came along, physical security for computer systems, in fixed locations (as opposed to portable lap tops) was reasonably doable, and not darn expensive. But with WiFi there is a massive need for education, comparable to how come so many people get infected with computer viruses.

WiFi is in the security news a lot because most modern PCs come with WiFi on by default. This means crooks can cruise parked cars scanning for the WiFi on signal that comes from laptop inside that car, and they know if it is in the trunk, back seat or wherever, to break into the car and get the lap top. Ditto any lap top left unattended just about any semi-public location.

WiFi is in the security news a lot because MANY computer systems come with WiFi security off by default. This means a lot of computer systems get installed with no security, THEN someone tries to figure out security, and perhaps not right away. In our modern era, computers need to have security turned on before connected to Internet or to WiFi.

AlMac 03:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Home

Home security should be a firearm, a knife, a toxic dart, or a bowling ball and a high balcony. Though you can not lay fire on someone until they enter your dwelling ( i hate the word "dwelling.") When you see someone enter your property and they look like a possible threat or have a weapon you should:

1. Stop what you are doing.

2. Lock door. This gives you time to "prepare" the inside of your house for the intruder

 If you were on a computer and your opposer is a guy then putting your computer onto a nasty website will destract him if he see's it.

3. Find a weapon. Weapons can be anything from a baseball bat to a pair of scissors a mag light can work as a club, or if you're sensible you will have a firearm in a safe that can be accessed without going near a window.

 If you do have a safe you need to be sure it is at a place that can be easily accessed without going near a window or a place that is easy to get to but hard for the intruder to find.

4. If you have a second story go there.

5. By this time the intruder has probably found a way inside. You should go to a room that has a room across from it. Then while stayind in the hall you should close the door LOUDLY and then go into the room across from it without closing the door. This will attract the inrtuders attention.

6. Then when he gets to the door you closed he has his back to you. Then he is in your little world you can do anything to him. but you need to do so in 1-2 seconds cause thats the time when he will turn around and look. If you have a club weapon then you should hit him on the back of the head right above the spine where the head is weak. If you have a knife weapon you should stab the top of the right shoulder right where the pressure point is.

daniel glisson

Is there a point in your process where you call the police? Or, is your theory that

• You will kill the intrucer, but if he escapes outside, then dies, you will move the body back inside your home, because if the police forensics are not competent, they will conclude the intruder died when you were in the right.
• Then call your lawyer, before you call the police.

AlMac|^(talk) 06:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Someone should put a disambiguation link in for Security, Colorado.

Additional types of security

I used the Search button for "security" and found these 45 types of security among the top 200 results, and in this order. I have not alphabetized or categorized them.

Computer security National security Homeland security Social security Information security Energy security Collective security Operations security (OPSEC) Port security Network security Security of person Food security Human security International security Airport security Concrete security (exact security) (in cryptography)

Communications security (COMSEC) Multilevel security (multi-level security) (MLS) Security through obscurity (in cryptography and computer security) Physical security Data security Provable security (in cryptography) Internet security WS-Security (Web Services Security) Application security Job security Unix security Auction rate security (ARS) End point security Internal security (IS)

Semantic security Database security Soft security Door security Wireless LAN Security Economic security (financial security) Asset-backed security (in finance) Airline security SOA Security Convertible security Logical security Intelligence cycle security WARP (information security) Wireless security Entropic security

Someone else can decide whether to add any of these to the internal links. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Security comment ebay

koqwuuiew fre fer crre guirt gtrgvt ythyht6yy6 u iu;i op ijuyiuj y uiomkuihylojyujuljyjkuyjf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganmstarr (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Few comments

• Currently one of the types of security listed in the article is Financial security. This is however a financial instrument, not an type of security. I am going to remove this link.
• I am going to add Privacy to the list of related concepts, that are used to contrast the concept of security. Several analysis and implementation techniques are shared between the domains of security, safety and privacy.

-- Equilibrioception (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

English page/French page mix-up !

LOL ! Did you know that the corresponding French language page for the English page of "Security" is "Surete", (which means "Safety"), and the corresponding French page to the English language page of "Safety" is "Securite", (which means "Security") ???!!!

Eugen Craciun aka Rudolph Aspirant 30the of June, 2011 01:44, Oslo time zone

84.210.21.34 (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

edited for typo, 30th of June, 2011, A.D., 01:46, Oslo time zone

Security vs. Safety

I changed the beginning paragraph of this page to better clarify a subtle difference between security and safety. backburner001 20:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I work with column internals. We get a lot of data from our German office. I belive Sicherheit = Factor of Safety as well. If some1 could please verify this. Thanks all.

I suggest we need a new term to describe the non-safelty / reliability aspect, something more along the line of how Bruce Schneier defined security. I propose something along the linges of "Malice Engineering", see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sweerek/Malice_engineering — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweerek (talk • contribs) 01:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Security Concepts

The given definition of Risk is fundamentally flawed. Consequently all other definitions here that rely on it are suspect. Risk is a statistical concept - the probability of an event happening. It is not an event - it is the likelihood of an event. A possible event that could cause damage is a Threat, of which the Risk may or may not be known.

The definition of Exploit is completely incorrect. An exploit is a technique of (guess what?) exploiting a vulnerability. The definition of Vulnerability is really the only one that passes muster as given, provided the definition of Threat is amended as suggested.

The definition of Defense in Depth is also pretty facile and incomplete. A better defintion would be "the provision of multiple independent layers of defense to increase robustness against attack". 212.159.59.5 (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• By all means, please, be Bold and correct them. I would ask that you take care in the use of Peacock terms like robustness though. When talking about Security, there are lots of things like that. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed is that the definition of Risk is flawed. Yes it is statistical, yet there is a qualitative property to risk as it relates to the human condition (i.e., risk of starvation, risk of abandonment, etc.). Equally, threat, again relating to the human condition, has a qualitative property as well (i.e., feeling threatened, taking a threatening action, etc.).

There is nothing incorrect or inaccurate about the available dictionary definitions of Security, and they should equally be used here. These centre around the notion of either or both the establishment of peace of mind and/or the avoidance of worry and concern.

The present definition, "Security is the degree of protection to safeguard a nation, union of nations, persons or person against danger, damage, loss, and crime.", should be changed to become more accurate. It presently does not accurately represent the concept of security as the results of actions or events that either improve or degrade the human condition or one or more people. Perhaps this substitute is sufficient, "Security is the relative state of peace of mind and freedom from worry or concern provided to a person or to people by actions taken to protect and safeguard people, property, and information against harm or loss." TrevorTownsend (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)