[Dailydave] Reminder: I attend painful meetings so you don't have to
chris.rohlf at gmail.com
Mon Dec 21 08:50:37 EST 2015
Im going to go against the grain here. With all due respect to those on
this list/reply, this is why things rarely go our way when it comes to
policy and regulation. In general, the government proposes something they
believe is sane. In response, the industries loudest voices respond in ways
that devolve into threads about LangSec. I don't want to spoil the ending
for you but *No One Cares*.
Yes this is just a thread on Daily Dave but its illustrative of how the
direction of these arguments often go for us. We need to speak their
language or be doomed. As the intrusion software controls grow and change
please call the Dept of Commerce and say "This regulation threatens
American business interests. Here are our top 5 reasons why...". Any
regulation that makes it difficult for you to compete globally will have
long lasting economic implications. This matters far more than any high
level description of esoteric weird machines we can think of.
I sincerely fear over regulation of what we do and while the deep technical
reasons for why are important, they are not the argument we need to be
making right now.
On Saturday, December 19, 2015, <dan at geer.org
> Andrew writes:
> | > Dr. Sergey Bratus did an excellent job of looking at how there is NO
> | WAY TO DEFINE THE STANDARD EXECUTION PATH OF A PROGRAM.
> | Really?
> Search term for this: LANGSEC
> Or simply go to http://langsec.org
> Papers from last workshop: http://spw15.langsec.org/papers.html
> CFP for next workshop: http://spw16.langsec.org/
> Dailydave mailing list
> Dailydave at lists.immunityinc.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Dailydave