When you say "Howard" in terms of taxonomy, are you referring to Howard & Longstaff? If so, you should really read Krsul as Howard's taxonomy is nothing but an attribute accumulation system. Howard's taxonomy does not provide repeatable methodologies or decision trees. Furthermore, it fails to detail workable definitions for the language he introduces, rendering it impotent for classifying anything other than laboratory situations and making discussion between researchers (the point of a taxonomy) no easier than before his paper. Krsul [97 and thesis with Prof Spafford] makes a much better attempt at rationally analyzing taxonomies and providing binary decision points. It has failings, but is the best attempt at an attack classification taxonomy (IMHO) to date. Good luck. -- Alex Russell http://netWindows.org http://alex.netWindows.org "Marco de Vivo [UCV]" <mdevivo@reacciun.ve> wrote: > Hi fellows.- > > Could some of you give some advice about sites/urls/papers/books etc. > discussing taxonomies related to: > > Attacks > Vulnerabilities > Incidents > Breaches > Security > Protection > Forensics (Does any taxonomy about this, indeed exist?) > Any mix of the above > > > I am familiarized with the following taxonomies: > > Howard's > SRI's > Lindqvist & Jonssen's > Cohen's > Cheswick & Bellovin's > Landwehr's > Neumann & Parker's > > > Thank you for your help > > Marco
