🚀 go-pugleaf

seagull@netcom.com (Seagull) writes:
>> This "security by obscurity" policy is a crock; I've been helping keep
>> business systems secure for over 25 years, and full disclosure has
>> always been best, allowing the system administrators to understand and
>> evaluate the problems for their own machines. This "we won't tell you
>> what the problems is, but there is one, and the vendor will tell you
>> when it's fixed, but you won't be able to test it because the problem is
>> a SECRET only the few are allowed to know" policy translates to the
>> crackers having the info on their mailing lists and BBS's, while
>> legitimate system owners are in the dark.

>This, IMHO, is not.  So your solution is to give every two-bit idiot
>that doesn't have the brains to be a cracker, but enough brains to read
>and be dangerous a sure-fire way of becoming 'root' on your system?  How
>many crackers do you think there are in the world?  How many cracker-
>wannabe's are there?  I'll bet you everything I own that the second group
>is larger than the first.

So, seagull, what _you're_ saying is that it's no longer the system
administrator's responsibility to take all appropriate and necessary
measures to stay abreast of current security problems, check to see if
they are subject to them, fix if possible, avoid if not, and know what
sorts of attacks to look for?

Whew...

that was gonna be a _lot_ of work.

Glad it's not my problem, anymore.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth       High Technology Systems Consulting              Ashworth
Designer             Linux: The Choice of a GNU Generation        & Associates
ka1fjx/4         "The difference between theory and practice   +1 813 790 7592
jra@baylink.com   is bigger in practice than in theory" -pds         NIC: jra3