Posted by Puckdropper on 10/22/07 00:53

Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in news:46GdnfUzY-
HIeYbanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@comcast.com:

*snip*

>
> To be able to prevent something, you must have 100% security. And that
> means, in computer systems anyway, 100% perfect code, absolutely no
> access to the sensitive code, either via communications link, physical
> access to the server or any other way. There must also be no copies
> (i.e. backups) of the sensitive files at all. And even then you're
> likely to have potential gaps in the system.
>
> But how many systems do you know fit this?
>

Prevention is NOT about stopping EVERYTHING. It's about stopping SOME
THINGs. You are correct that absolute prevention requires 100% effective
security, but we're merely talking about stopping some attacks.

Security, at its simplist, is about allowing access to those who need
access and preventing access to those who do not need access.

Puckdropper
--
Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

[Back to original message]