[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: KeyNote draft available
At 10:56 AM -0800 3/14/98, E. Gerck wrote:
>You recognize of course that this "argument" is seriously deceptive:
>if we cooperate with a security flaw because it is inevitable for
>set = A and make it the freely avaliable for set = Universe then
>unless A = Universe we have effectively reduced the security level.
Is it better to deliver systems which claim to enforce things they can not
enforce, or to deliver systems that do not make those claims?
IMHO, In the former case, people will trust the claims and field insecure
systems. In the latter case, people will understand the limits of
technology and include non-technological controls.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz | If hate must be my prison | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506 | lock, then love must be | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | the key. - Phil Ochs | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Follow-Ups:
References: