Would you be willing to get SEC4LIB aggregated to something else,
given the difficulties of extracting a list's archives if you choose
to move eventually?
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Erin Germ <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The responses I had and am still having are overwhelming. Sorta like being
> spammed - in a good way though. I honestly didn't think that many people
> would be interested in security for libraries.
> Rather than individually add the over 100 responses to an email
> distribution list, I want to send out an invite to a Google discussion
> group - SEC4LIB. Here we can discuss security for libraries and also
> determine how to proceed in organizing the SEC4LIB group. This Google group
> may only be a temporary home until the group decides how best to move
> forward, communicate and share ideas:
> I want to clarify a few things as the SEC4LIB discussions move forward. As
> of now, this is an informal group to discuss and investigate existing
> security features and shortcomings of library services, applications,
> products, and solutions.This would include documenting, researching,
> investigating, and pen-testing library applications, services, products,
> and solutions.
> - Bring attention to the security aspect and concerns of library
> software, applications, services, products, and solutions
> - Address the concerns that as more enhancements to existing library
> applications, services, products, and solutions are implemented, securing
> those enhancements or new applications, services, products, and solutions
> are equally important
> - Work with vendors and providers to address security concerns in the
> products, services, applications, and solutions we depend on
> - Discuss general security practices and policies for library operations
> - Conduct research, investigations, and dialog in a professional manner
> Feel free to share this with colleagues and interested parties.
> Erin Germ