Interesting bit of a quote

dangeer.org wrote:
> You're talking about entirely different stuff, Lynn,
> but you are correct that data fusion at IRS and
everywhere
> else is aided and abetted by substantially increased
record
> keeping requirements.  Remember, Poindexter's TIA
thing did
> *not* posit new information sources, just fusing
existing
> sources and that alone blew it up politically.  As a
security
> matter relevant here, we can't protect un-fused data
so
> fused data is indeed probably worse.

but this is the security issue dating back to before the 80s
... when 
they decided they could no longer guarantee single point of
security ... 
in part because of insider threats ... they added multiple
independent 
sources as a countermeasure. the crooks responded with
collusion ... so 
you started to see countermeasures to collusion appearing in
the early 80s.

the advent of the internet, sort of refocused attention to
outsider 
attacks ... even tho the statistics continue to hold that
the major 
source of fraud is still insiders ... including thru the
whole internet 
era. the possibility of outsiders may have helped insiders
obfuscate 
true source of many insider vulnerabilities.

the issue with auditing to prove no possible vulnerability
for a single 
point ... leading to the extremes of having to prove a
negative ... can 
possibly be interpreted within the context of attempting to
preserve the 
current audit paradigm.

independent operation/sources/entities have been used for a
variety of 
different purposes. however, my claim has been then auditing
has been 
used to look for inconsistencies. this has worked better in
situations 
where there was independent physical books from independent
sources 
(even in the same corporation).

As IT technology has evolved ... my assertion is a complete
set of 
(consistent) corporate books can be generated from a single
IT 
source/operation. The IRS example is having multiple
independent sources 
of the same information (so that you can have independent
sources to 
check for inconsistencies).

The fusion scenarios tend to be having multiple independent
sources of 
at least some different data ... so the aggregation is more
than the 
individual parts (as opposed to the same data to
corroborate).

ref:
http://www
.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm24.htm#35 Interesting bit of a
quote
http://www.
garlic.com/~lynn/2006h.html#58 Sarbanes-Oxley
http://www.g
arlic.com/~lynn/2006l.html#1 Sarbanes-Oxley

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe
cryptography" to majordomometzdowd.com