Re: Right of reply, virus- public, private- a thin line

Article View: comp.sys.atari.st

Article #36783

#36783

From: Stephen Jacobs
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1989 15:07

13 lines
1287 bytes

In general, I agree with the philosophy of publicising the UNIX password
encryption algorithm: if it can't be made secure enough to resist a
determined attack, publicise it so nobody will have a false sense of 
security.  Likewise the philosophy of having a 'crash' command in the
incompatible time sharing system: if there's no challenge in causing
mischief, why bother.  On the other hand, if George Woodside has to promise
absolutely no disclosure in order to get samples of viruses, that's no
problem.  Whatever it takes to make people feel comfortable.  As an aside:
judging by recent discussion in news.admin, 90+% of UNIX systems are       
vulnerable to the mkdir trick.  Practically nobody uses it because it's 

no fun.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <7835@chinet.chi.il.us>

Path:

arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!uflorida!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!chinet!saj

References: <699@orbit.UUCP> <15139@cup.portal.com>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!uflorida!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!chinet!saj
From: saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st,comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Right of reply, virus- public, private- a thin line
Summary: Consider UNIX password encryption
Message-ID: <7835@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 28 Feb 89 15:07:03 GMT
References: <699@orbit.UUCP> <15139@cup.portal.com>
Followup-To: comp.sys.atari.st
Organization: Chinet - Chicago, Ill.
Lines: 13

Reply to Parent Message