|
From: Joe Pluta <joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com> > As the script kiddies get more sophisticated, Leif, I think you need both > strong network policy procedures and proprietary protocols To quote Bruce Schneier (Preface to Applied Cryptography): "If I take a letter, lock it in a safe, hide the safe somewhere in New York, then tell you to read the letter, that's not security. That's obscurity. On the other hand, if I take a letter and lock it in a safe, and then give you the safe along with the design specifications of the safe and a hundred identical safes with their combinations so that you and the world's best safecrackers can study the locking mechanism - and you still can't open the safe and read the letter - that's security." Just make sure that having a proprietary protocol (which has other problems such as finding people to maintain it after you are gone) does not become a convenient "pillow of complacency".
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
