[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Info-cvs digest, Vol 1 #1046 - 16 msgs

From: Sandra Humphrey
Subject: Re: Info-cvs digest, Vol 1 #1046 - 16 msgs
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 14:53:34 -0500

Why are we using this forum to discuss issues not related to CVS? Could you not
take this off-line to discuss?

Sandra Humphrey

> Message: 4
> From: Jesus Manuel NAVARRO LOPEZ <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: CVS access control
> Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 18:00:47 +0200
> Organization: PROMOFINARSA, S.A.
> To: address@hidden
> Hi, Yap:
> address@hidden wrote:
> >
> > I starting to think the best security doesn't base or rely on security
> > through obscurity.  However, obscurity can strengthen security to an
> > extent.  For example, how many of us are able to obtain Air Force One's
> > flight path at any given moment?  Security is strengthened when the enemy
> > doesn't know the terrain as well as we do.
> >
> Well, err..., yes... to some extent, but mainly, err... nope.
> Obscurity, by any means strengthen security, since you *never* can get
> obscurity for granted (while it's possible to see when ligths comes
> on).  Obscurity only works to have a life a bit more comfortable (giving
> away most script kiddies, or crazy VietNam veterans) and, potentially,
> discover enemies at a glance.
> The key for this is you can know if you are discovered ("Hey, you, what
> are you doing here?") but you *never* can know for sure you're not
> already discovered.  Since you really don't know it, you cannot relay on
> it (in the same line of mind of that "if it is not granted, then it is
> forbidden" -> If I don't know for sure, then it is untrue).  But, as has
> been pointed out, it is even worse than this.  Since much of the time,
> you are hidden when you *think* you're hidden, there's always the risk
> to be overconfident about your real state.  Under these circumnstances,
> when you know you are not hidden no more, the strength of the hit is
> worse by too many orders of magnitude.
> In other words, it is not because you don't know where it is that Air
> Force 1 is secure (you probably don't know, but russian spy-satellities
> will do, and those are by far -or used to be, at least, a far bigger
> enemy to cope with), but because it fligths at an altitude nothing else
> should/can fligth (the japanese security*1) and because the four F-16
> within range.
> *1: Our social environment is, by definition too insecure: we are too
> social, so we must accept too much potential danger from our
> environment.  This is, for instance, why there're so much robbery: you
> accept a man to be too near, and then it is too late.  In heavily
> militarized/normalized societies, being the feudal japanese the
> paradigm, social formulae helped to increase security: anyone who
> approaches by your left is your enemy and being so, can be immediatly
> neutralized with no further questions nor hesitation.  The AF1 fligths
> at 45.000 feet, far away from any commercial fligth.  As soon as any
> object appears on range, you can be sure it is an enemy you can directly
> neutralize.
> --
> Jesús
> ***
> address@hidden
> ***

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]