| From: | dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Re[4]: Security Tally[f] |
| Date: | Fri, 27 Sep 1996 07:52:34 -0600 (MDT) |
|
|On Thu, 26 Sep 1996, David Buehrer wrote:
Sorry, but The Digital Mage wrote this. Not that I don't
mind being quoted for his stuff :) but He probably doesn't
feel that way.
|<snip>
|>
|%Well, they way I remember it was that any Tally in an LTG would carry
|%over to any LTG in teh same RTG and teh RTG itself as this is all public
|%domain and the phone company control it all. Private hosts don't care
|%what happened in the LTG as thats someone elses turf, besides they
|%probably couldn't get teh sec tally info anyway. However connected hosts
|%owned by teh same private comapny CAN have teh tally follow on if they
|%wish which makes theose kind very deadly.
|
|Don't be ridiculous, the system would be on active alert ALL THE TIME. do
|you know just how many deckers are out there??? all generating sec tallies
|which would add up?!?!!!!!
I think it works better if you say that the system Is on
alert all the time. It's just waiting for conditions to be
met (a high security tally) before it goes after a user.
And sometimes when there's a lot of activity the alert
status increases, and vice versa when it's been slow for
awhile (as reflected in the optional rule for increasing or
decreasing target numbers for system activity). IMHO
-David
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
