I was worried that someone got a security.SE account under the name Jamal, used his picture, linked to his github from that profile, since there was no indication of the reverse linkage
:)
but, if you can see that link, I'm fine this far
no need to reopen this – it's meta, so if my question has been answered, I doubt the whole thing has any future value!
true. security folks might be even above my level of paranoia
by the way, I wanted to get a moderator opinion on something completely different
and the subtitle of this chat reminded me of that
the security.SE tour page says "Information Security Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for information security professionals" <--- we all know that's not true – many (good!) questions are asked by people that are pretty much untouched by security aspects of IT
The sentence in the title of this question is shown on hovering hidden accounts when one visits the page http://stackexchange.com/users/userid/username?tab=accounts. I have given a screenshot below.
(I have hidden some of my accounts from the screenshot too!)
The tooltip currently shown is
...
@MarcusMüller not sure what your day job is, but you do seem to know a good amount about security :-)
It is always a long discussion about wording/titles etc
I think we came to the agreement that while we would never reject anyone for not being a professional (as everyone has to deal with security in their day job at some point, even if only indirectly) that the core would be the professional piece
For example, we won't typically look at how to repair a home pc hit by a virus (wipe and rebuild) but we may look at specifics of how a company prepares for an attack
so, moderator-opinion question coming up is: Is there a line that you'd like people like me to draw? More precisely: Is there a threshold of basicness, under which a question should *not* be answered
yeah, I figured that part of "there's a lot of discussion", and I mostly sympathized with the "if the question even allows for a "professional" answer, ie. one that either explains an involved security concept or one that allows to answer on a general level that "skilled people" can use to infer the correct course of action on a related problem from, then it's kinda on-topic"
but as seen especially well from the meta Q you just linked to, the opinions on that "scatter" between both extremes (all that is between "basically, everything to do with security is on-topic" and "nope, this is not superuser.com")
@MarcusMüller ahh - that's where I started. Electronic engineer, high freq signals. Work back in the early nineties with Siemens Nixdorf on GaAs telecomms circuits for mobile
yeah, and it's kind of the same thing in the other direction – a lot of SDR conferences I've been to/watched/skimmed the proceedings of have been "infiltrated" by infosec people
(not that the whole SDR business wouldn't have basically been invented / brought to feasibility by people trying to eavesdrop more effectively in the first place – but that's a different kind of security theatre :) )
pretty interesting exchange
i mean, from a sample in this chat alone, one can assume that the circles of RF comm/analysis people and Infosec aren't really separate
and SDR pretty much assumes there's people that understand both sides of e.g. a communication network – the hardware/electrical signals/physical layer side of things, and the side of things where it's important to keep your bits private
The sentence in the title of this question is shown on hovering hidden accounts when one visits the page http://stackexchange.com/users/userid/username?tab=accounts. I have given a screenshot below.
(I have hidden some of my accounts from the screenshot too!)
The tooltip currently shown is
...
Are questions about computer security on personal, home computers on topic here, or should questions be limited to higher-level IT field questions?
