Re: [Minds-disaster] Letter to front Computer Center document
Cian <pooka@redbrick.dcu.ie> wrote:
[ David Barrett ]
I wouldn't say it's obsequious. Okay, but I think it puts forward the wrong impression. Btw, is this supposed to be on the list or do you want to keep it to personal mail? List... erk!
It is as related as the letter from the Societies officer, Cian... perhaps a document describing the Nervecenter concept in a more abstract way would be a better idea; but I think that it is an illustration of how important we are to other Clubs and Socs.
It's not really in the same leage as the Societies Officer's letter, I think. Doesn't this belong in the "Future" section of the past, present and future document? It _is_ important to show them what we do, of course, but isn't this contact about the incident? This was thought up not to show that we dealt with the incident well, but our worth to college and how we were not a security hole.
The thing IS... what do we put in such a document? An analysis of the system logs? The exact number of emails sent? No, not at all. I was reaching.
A description of exactly what the first perl script did, why it was written, what the modified script did, the time at which it was run, what happened then (we noticed and shut it down ..), the subsequent organisation and disciplinary actions taken, the mailing list, us putting together this package. I don't think that the minutes would convey as much information that the Centre will be interested in. This would make it obvious that we've done our own investigation and that we know exactly what happened. It's all about reducing work they have to do ... Fair point... however, if we want to show that we did a proper investigation, wouldn't we need to at least give a *rough* idea of how many emails were sent?
PPF document?
Past, Present, Future doc by yourself & Meaigs. How did that shape up, btw? Gotcha... still working on my part, gotta have it done by 1pm :)
David
[ David Barrett ]
This was thought up not to show that we dealt with the incident well, but our worth to college and how we were not a security hole.
I see what you mean, but I think our worth to the college can be adequately expressed via the Past, Present & Future doc. I think the CC are going to be more interested in the incident and its implications than that stuff, to be honest. So our submission should reflect that ...
the Centre will be interested in. This would make it obvious that we've done our own investigation and that we know exactly what happened. It's all about reducing work they have to do ... Fair point... however, if we want to show that we did a proper investigation, wouldn't we need to at least give a *rough* idea of how many emails were sent?
We can give an estimate, if we can get the logs. That's not the most important part of it though; the method, and exactly what happened from the outset, is far more interesting information. Cian -- "there is nothing wrong /* Cian with emulating a man ** I need to sleep. Let me sleep. who has a nice beard" */ while(student);
participants (2)
-
Cian -
David Barrett