Talk:Security (computers)

The name "security (computers)" somehow seems odd to me. How 'bout security (computing) instead? There is, as yet, no established general disambiguation naming convention, but it might perhaps make more sense to disambiguate based on field of study instead of by association with physical objects. Also "computers" is pluralized, which is generally a no-no. Something to ponder. --maveric149

I've seen (computers) in a few pages. I started writing this page under the name "secure (computers)" then I thought it might apply to other systems like money, et cetera, so I changed it. I also thought people would have to override the name in links anyways (to get rid of the (computers) so it didn't hurt to use security instead of secure. But that was stupid since now I've got computers in the name and not the right usage!

Something I only realized afterwards. What distinguishes this page from computer security isn't security status versus security techniques, but internal versus external attack. This page is all about internal attacks, security semantics within the system, which are a real problem. The other page concerns itself with hypothetical (and irrelevant to most users) external attacks, which probably explains why its approach to internal attacks (proofs) is so completely lame. -- Ark

Here's one proposal for a new name: fine-grained security. There are serious problems with it however. While, in relation to computer security, security internal to the computer is fine-grained indeed, within OS and FS design circles, internal security schemes (eg, Unix) are considered very coarse-grained. In programming circles, fine-grained security usually means the ability to protect any arbitrary data structure within a programming language.

That brings up "internal security" but I consider that artificial.