Posted by The Natural Philosopher on 10/22/07 00:15

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> "Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote in message
> news:ffg1n1$d6e$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:50:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
>
>>>> Nope. Security by obscurity is no security at all.
>>>>
> [snip]
>
>> Locking your door would be a form of prevention that could easily keep
>> it from happening. Will it keep everyone out? No. but it'd keep out
>> the crackhead who'd just go to the next house to look for an unlocked
>> door.
>
> Yeah -but if you obscure the door well, you don't have to worry about
> locking it.
>
>
The secret is that it doesn't even look like a door.

You hide things where it doesn't even look like there is a hiding place.

Everyone goes for safes. No one goes for ..well let's not give any
secrets away, just find the cheapest most ordinary object in your house
you can think of, and work out how to put small valuables inside.

But most of all, just look like someone who hasn't got a dime.

I get a real kick out of dressing like a tramp, knowing how much I
really am worth..Ok I'm no Bill Gates,. but I wont ever have to work
again anyway.

Same with net security. JUts put stuff in dull boring plaes and gve it
dull birin names, and above all don't go around being ostentatious.
People target that.

They might spend 6 months tryng to hack the pentagon, or the coca cola
company: they aren't going to do that for a nickel and dime website. Tey
aren't going to spend 6 minutes.

[Back to original message]