🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <152795@pyramid.pyramid.com>
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes:
>>>Which is a lot more than I would give most of the folks I've seen talking
>>>about computer security in the popular press.
>>
>>Dare we name names?
>
>Heck, no. You think I want my tail sued off? :-)

Why, "No." Carl! 8^)

But I guess, in a way that's how terrorists work. 8^)
It's the mere threat.

No, I won't call myself any sort of authority on security, but
I think we all know there are a lot of turkeys out there.
A few probably reading these words right now.  Probably worst in
the PC world (I don't have a PC, but there are all these "experts" I've never
heard.  But I had a little "test" I asked a few "experts:"
I'd try to naively ask, "Could you write me a little Trojan horse?
I'd just like to see what one would look like."  It didn't matter
if it was a shell script or a Fortran program or what ever.  Many could
not do it.

On the other hand, most computer security types are not familiar with
the issues of physical security.  I did meet one very good one with both.

I don't know.  Dismal area to work.  Mostly a social rather than technical
problem.  I like Thompson's analogy of makers of armor and makers of
armor piercing shells.  Futile.  "The way to win is not to play."
Checking Newsgroups, I see only "Californians" are reading this.

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
  "Would you worry about a CHP whom could not violate the laws to enforce
  them?"