|
|
Posted by Sanders Kaufman on 11/22/07 03:09
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:1195684683.31094.4@proxy00.news.clara.net...
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>> The best way to deal with something like that is to ensure that you do
>> perform some kind of Challenge/Authentication; call it a "protocol"; and
>> explain that you're already on the right track with their state goal.
>>
>> It accomlishes several things.
>> 1. It reassures them that they have not been duped by previous
>> contractors.
>> 2. It reassures them that you are not trying to dupe them.
>> 3. It meets the spec, rather than trying to change the spec.
>>
>> That last one is VERY important.
>>
> "Its better than CHAP"
Yeah, boi - that's what I'm talin' bout!
Ya say, "I gotcher back on this one. I've implemented a *proprietary* CHAP
protocol - one not used by others, and thus faaaar more secure."
Then ya tack on an extra C-Note to the invoice for "enhanced, custom
security".
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|