Return-Path: <sentto-279987-5005-1026963278-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 17 Jul 2002 20:38:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 19531 invoked by uid 510); 18 Jul 2002 03:33:55 -0000 Received: from n13.grp.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.66.68) by all.net with SMTP; 18 Jul 2002 03:33:55 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-5005-1026963278-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.96] by n13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Jul 2002 03:34:39 -0000 X-Sender: fastflyer28@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 18 Jul 2002 03:34:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 29347 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2002 03:34:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Jul 2002 03:34:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web14501.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.224.64) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Jul 2002 03:34:38 -0000 Message-ID: <20020718033438.38306.qmail@web14501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.100.117.184] by web14501.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 20:34:38 PDT To: iwar@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <200207170436.g6H4aFC12122@red.all.net> From: "e.r." <fastflyer28@yahoo.com> X-Yahoo-Profile: fastflyer28 Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 20:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [iwar] [fc:Cybersecurity-Research.Bill.Stalls.in.Senate] Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,SUPERLONG_LINE version=2.20 X-Spam-Level: From DC: As previously mentioned, the Cyber Protection act that the House passed has been sent to the Congressional "dead letter office".The cyber-protection measure will be in the hands of the new Congress, as the Senate has stalled all of the bills. The Senate must passed the budge prior to ending the session for the year. At present, it looks like only supplemental spending will be addressed prior to Summer recess. As this is an election year, they will leave Washington ASAP-near August 1. The September session will be only a few weeks long to work on finalizing the budget . Then the election will kick into high gear.. All House members and a 33% of the Senate must be re-elected to keep their jobs. What a fun way to spend your fall! Yuck. Tune in during early Jan, but do not expect any action from the Senate for several months. No, cyber folks, the sky did not fall. Have faith in the legislative process. And , remember to VOTE. Fred Cohen <fc@all.net> wrote: Cybersecurity-Research Bill Stalls in Senate By DAN CARNEVALE <a href="http://chronicle.com/free/2002/07/2002071202t.htm">http://chronicle.com/free/2002/07/2002071202t.htm> The Chronicle of Higher Education Washington A bill to expand research on securing computer networks from hackers has stalled in the Senate because critics have denounced provisions that would require federal agencies to adopt technology-security standards. A vote on the bill is being postponed while senators and lobbyists for the technology industry negotiate the language of the security standards. The proposed standards aren't likely to affect university researchers, observers say. But some higher-education officials fear that, if the standards are put into place, colleges could face similar standards down the road. The bill, S 2182, would authorize $978-million in grants over five years to study how to protect computer networks from terrorists and hackers. The National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology would award the grants. Sen. John Edwards, a North Carolina Democrat, has added an amendment to the bill requiring the National Institute of Standards and Technology to develop computer-security standards for all government agencies. The legislation has cleared the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and it is awaiting consideration by the full Senate. The House version, HR 3394, has already been passed by the House of Representatives, but that version didn't include the security requirements. Representatives from the technology industry, including the Information Technology Association of America and the Business Software Alliance, have criticized the addition of the security standards. Although the organizations applaud the proposal to increase cybersecurity research, they fear that the security standards could restrict what technology the government could use and inhibit business-government relationships. Jeff Grove, director of public policy for the Association for Computing Machinery, a scholarly society, said members of the computer industry wanted the bill's wording changed so that it would not restrict what technology companies could use. But Carlos Monje, deputy press secretary for Senator Edwards, said the proposal for benchmarks was not meant to restrict technology but to secure it. "The most important thing to remember about the best practices is that they aren't binding to a particular program," he said. "They're what we would call technology neutral." Another aide to Mr. Edwards said the senator had considered applying the standards to grantees, including university researchers, but encountered too much resistance. Negotiations are under way to make the language more appealing to critics, the aide said. There was no indication of when the bill would be ready for Senate consideration. Eugene H. Spafford, director of the Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security at Purdue University, said that with security standards being proposed for government agencies, university researchers could soon be required to follow them, too. "There are many people who have advocated for that," Mr. Spafford said. "And this could be a first step for that. The amendment as worded raises some concerns, and the possible creep raises larger concerns." Although research security is important, he said, the federal government should not dictate how any agency secures its network. "What I'm concerned about with one-size-fits-all standards is that they can do more harm than good," Mr. Spafford said. Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Will You Find True Love? Will You Meet the One? Free Love Reading by phone! http://us.click.yahoo.com/ps3dMC/R_ZEAA/Ey.GAA/kgFolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-10-01 06:44:31 PDT