|
|
Posted by Gary L. Burnore on 10/22/07 00:54
On 22 Oct 2007 00:53:16 GMT, Puckdropper <puckdropper@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>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.
Correct.
>You are correct that absolute prevention requires 100% effective
>security, but we're merely talking about stopping some attacks.
Right.
>Security, at its simplist, is about allowing access to those who need
>access and preventing access to those who do not need access.
And obscurity doesn't prevent anything.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
[Back to original message]
|