Printable View
I was reading this article here and had a thought ...
If Henry's vision of a 2nd(3rd) more secure internet ever came into fruition wouldn't it necessitate just cordoning off a section of the present infrastructure creating like a dedicated partition of present T lines etc.
what I mean is, wouldn't such a '3rd internet' still theoretically be accessible to 'outsiders' no matter how dedicated or secure the section is??
Im certainly no Tech-guru ... just asking ...
As with I2, the virtual circuits would not be interconnected with non-participants.
Because of that lack of interconnection, outsiders would be excluded.
In addition the network could use protocols other than tcp/ip.
Think of it more like a private network of leased circuits such as many banks still use or Metro Area Networks over FDDI that many governments use.
IMO "secure network" is a giant catch-22. More network equals less secure.
The bottom line is that the idea is not practical because of the reasons stated in the article.
*edit*Code:The 2011 fees to connect to the I2 and the available speeds are:
Bandwidth Annual Fee Quarterly Fee* Monthly Fee*
2x5G $375,000 $96,563 $32,500
10G $480,000 $123,600 $41,600
2x10G $525,000 $135,188 $45,500
Henry is a turdbrane, and unfortunately his type, like scum, tend to rise to the surface ;)
There is not, nor never will be, a "secure internet"............. not until you have killed all the other users ............... it is humans who are the security risk.
How come the Russians got a hold of all our atomic weapons secrets?...... it wasn't through ARPANET, I can assure you...................:cool:
Interesting article none the less.
Surely someone like the FBI has enough resources to protect itself as much as any agency in the world?
I used to consult for governments and large businesses. I can tell you that the important networks with high value data use the best technology and have the best protection money can buy. Those intranets and exonets are separate from their public, internet connected information networks that one hears about when they are compromised.
I presume this article has something
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...cybersecurity/
I still thinks its crazy that the DOD cant handle it.
I agree. It just seems way too unfeasible to me. Could they have it so tied down that they're sending invitations honeypot-like?!Quote:
I still thinks its crazy that the DOD cant handle it.
Who knows? I don't. I just find it crazy that DOD can't handle it and also suspicious that they would admit to it.
I think spec should apply for DOD XD ... where is that dude anyways.
He asked to be banned and his request was granted. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Cider
Reads like "phishing for a budget to me" :rolleyes:
The solution is pretty simple at the higher level, and it is to use private secure networks. Nothing is allowed access to or from the public internet. Of course segregation costs money and people don't like the extra effort............. but when you explain to them that the alternative is instant dismissal with no pension, not to mention the potential of time in the "Big House" they tend to get the message pretty quickly.
That basically reduces the issue to one of training and policing YOUR personnel.
;)