From: Ira McDonald (blueroofmusic@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 23 2009 - 13:03:52 EST
Hi,
[Changed subject to make this thread of discussion more obvious]
Randy asks two cogent and *hard* questions below.
First, common PWG automatic remediation steps/approaches is
certainly a question that MS NAP team folks will ask.
Even if we can answer this question, Randy's second question about
whether Imaging System vendors will refrain from building custom NAP
plug-ins is perhaps even harder.
Will vendor marketing and technical teams be responsible and listen
to their real customer needs. If vendors DO start releasing custom
NAP plug-ins, then the fruitful PWG collaboration with Microsoft is
going to be at serious risk and the PWG IDS standardization effort is
likely to collapse.
Please start rattling cages and inboxes at your respective vendors.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
email: blueroofmusic@gmail.com
winter:
579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
734-944-0094
summer:
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Randy Turner <rturner@amalfisystems.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> To paraphrase the remediation statements made during this conference call, I
> think we are going to have to come up with an answer for the NAP team when
> they come
> back with obvious questions, like this:
>
> "OK, you've got common attributes, which helps. But plugins are also needed
> for custom remediation of devices that support automatic (no operator
> intervention) remediation. So, is there also a PWG common mechanism for
> remediating devices that fail site security assessment policy?
>
> Playing devils advocate for a moment, this was the toughest technical
> question I thought they would fire back with.
>
> During my discussion on the value of a "CLASS" plugin, I used the rationale
> that Microsoft would probably want to avoid tons of NAP plugins (like
> printer drivers) that basically assess the same attributes (If we agree on a
> common set of PWG attributes). Therefore, a single "hardcopy-class" plugin
> that assesses the PWG common set would be preferred over (n) number of
> plugins basically assessing the same attributes. Ignoring the remediation
> question for a moment, they may ask the question
>
> "OK, say we were to write a class plugin for hardcopy devices, does that
> mean the vendors that comprise the PWG will NOT be writing any NAP plugins
> for their device? Are their respective technical/marketing teams willing to
> agree to this? Because if we write a class driver, and then start seeing (n)
> numbers of vendors distributing plugins, it would seem to eliminate the
> benefit."
>
> Randy
>
>
>
> On Jan 22, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Farrell, Lee wrote:
>
>>
>> ... at ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ids/minutes/
>>
>> IDS-call-minutes-20090122.doc and
>> IDS-call-minutes-20090122.pdf
>>
>> IDS-call-minutes-20090108-update.doc and
>> IDS-call-minutes-20090108-update.pdf
>>
>>
>> lee
>> ===========================
>> Lee Farrell
>> Canon Development Americas
>> 15975 Alton Parkway
>> Irvine, CA 92618-3731
>> (949) 932-3163 - voice
>> (949) 932-3520 - fax
>> lee.farrell@cda.canon.com
>> ===========================
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 23 2009 - 13:04:03 EST