SCN: Re: OPS: A Preliminary Review of SSL

[Kurt Cockrum]

jj said:
>Taking Andrew's comment first, there is nothing about SCN's "platform"--
>meaning hardware or operating system--that precludes encryption services
>such as SSL.  The reason such services are "unsuitable for SCN" (at least
>at the current time) can be taken from Rod's comment:  "responsibly run". 

Don't *anybody* get the impression from the above that OPS is "irresponsibly
run".  We do the best we can under the circumstances, which are basically
the same as somebody who's homeless and trying to be a responsible citizen
at the same time.

>What's to be done?  I don't know.  While technical work is involved, the
>failure to get it done seems to be non-technical.  There are certainly
>problems in Operations--even if we are upaid volunteers I think we should
>be doing better.

For sure, we seem to be stuck.
If we had some decent *support* we could do *lots* better.
If we could identify barriers to us doing a better job (besides
examining our own inadequacies, which we are doing), and had
the services of *facilitators* who could understand what we are
talking about, and who could actually *help* us overcome them,
instead of just *sympathize*, we could do lots better.
OPS basically supports the rest of SCN,
but if there is reciprocal support (more significant than just
"atta boy", and "there, there, that's OK"), it's below *my* radar screen.

>                  I would very much like someone (Andrew? Rod?) to
>"consult"  with some other freenets and see how they get work done with
>unpaid staff.

A start would be finding out if there is a technical freenet list,
and somebody getting on it.
Another is to find out what the relationships are between other OPS
groups and their BODs are.  This might be kind of hard to do.

>               But I think we also have organizational problems
>(especially when I consider how much time I put into non-technical issues
>here).  And that is a Board issue--which the Board refuses to address. 

And unfortunately, they can now trot out the excuse that they have to
devote all their energy to the lawsuit.
True or not, I expect they will get a *lot* of mileage out of that one!

IMO at this particular point in time, for us to "grow up" in terms
of what we offer to our users, and how we respond to their legitimate
demands, we have to have "grown-up" access to the physical plant.
Improving security remotely over a wire has its *limits*, which we have
reached.  But basically, making the *wire* *itself* secure requires 24/7
access to the hardware and physical plant.  A lot of the low-level stuff,
like tripwire installation and the like, *require* *lots* of low-level
and sustained hands-on access to the hardware, which requires decent
access to the physical plant.  It can't be faked or "virtualized".

And it can't be done under the near battle-conditions we currently have
to operate under, with gate-keepers, non-negotiable agreements,
cinderalla-style time-limits, telnet access over unsecured links, and
all the other time-sinks and hurdles every inch of the way.

For years we've been making do without it, and it's obvious to the
whole world.  We gotta get past "making do".

OPS has camped out in the rain for 8 years *before* the lawsuit, and and
all we have to show for that is a shaky, fragile, distant relationship
with SPL that is liable to fall apart any moment, considering the
transitions they are making, and our place on their priority list.
Not only that, I hear that *their* OPS is getting screwed in the battle
for space, too.  This is like the homeless shelter losing its lease.

I think I've identified the main show-stopper that keeps OPS from delivering
the goods.  Change or mitigate *that* and we could really get moving...
But I'm not holding my breath; instead, I'm getting ready for another
8 years in the rain :( :(

Maybe we should've invited *Slade* *Gorton* to be on the BOD.  He may
be totally evil, but he's the most effective politician in the PNW
and he sure can deliver the goods!  (just a little gallows humor there :)
--kurt
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *