On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 01:50:33PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
that security types (I mean those with a police/physical security background) don't must care for these arguments. It usually comes down to "lock and bar every door unless you can prove to them that there is a need to have the door unlocked".
So these people are also the ones responsible for chaining shut fire doors because "fires never happen in this building, but theft does"? I sure feel safer now! The "need to have the door unlocked" is because that's the way the building is designed to fail its fireproofing. And the need to have the TCP port open is because that's the way the network protocol is designed to fail from UDP. If "this is the way the protocol works" is not enough of an argument, then I'm afraid we're past the point of engineering and into the realm of tea-leaf readers and chicken-entrail-based prognosticators. I'm aware there are such people promoting themselves as security experts. It's rather depressing that those people can still find gainful employment; but in this post-literate age where people prefer to repeat (or listen to) foolish bromides rather than Read the Fine Commentaries that define the protocol, I suppose I ought not to be surprised. Shocked but not surprised, A ---- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada <andrew@ca.afilias.info> M2P 2A8 +1 416 646 3304 x4110