In his article Ian had some valid points to say, but i think he had a flaw
in one of his suggestions...
Johnson-Bryden, Ian wrote this...
>
>
> From a security point of view UNIX, DOS and TCP/IP are subjects which suffer
> from the widespread public knowledge of the technology. The most secure
> protocols and OS would be those which were known to only one person. That
> constitutes a secret. Once a second person knows about the technology it
> ceases to be secret.
This form of security (ie security by obscurity) offers a false sense of
security. true security comes when someone understands how you have secured
something as well as you do (if not better) and still cannot break your
security.
>
> There is always someone who will claim that a particular OS (or flavour of
> OS) is better than another. In many cases that is because the claimant is
> only familiar with the OS he promotes.
Yes :) only too true... hey i do it..
>
> Ian JB
>
The rest of Ians article was straight forward and correct from what i can
see (well the parts i am knowledgable about anyway). thanks for the info
on the DOS/Windows world (i normally avoid it).
--
Matthew Keenan
Systems Programmer Information Technology Division
University of Technology Sydney
www: http://milliways.itd.uts.edu.au/~matt/
email: matt @
uts .
edu .
au
phone: +61 2 330 1390 "Don't murder a man who is about
fax: +61 2 330 1999 to commit suicide."
home: +61 2 416 5722 -- Machiaveli
GAT/M/CS d-- -p+(+) c+++ !l- u++++ e+ m--(*) s++/--
n- h- f+(*) g+ w+++ t+ r+ y
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
