🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1988Mar2.235819.18983@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry 
Spencer) writes:
> This is true but irrelevant, since perfection is not available.
Something doesn't have to be absolutely useless to be a waste of time.  Only 
not very useful.

> Only if E1 >> E2 or vice-versa.  If they are of the same order of magnitude,
> then E1+E2 does approximate 2*max(E1, E2) and abandoning one of them does
> reduce security significantly.
A factor of two is `significant'?  So if we add one bit to DES (don't ask how) 
it will be `significantly' more secure?  I disagree.

> True.  However, a system in which an intruder must bypass 2 or 3 effective
> but not perfect security mechanisms *is* much harder to penetrate than a
> system with only one such mechanism.
Again, if he can crack one, he can crack two.

> The best we can do is to put as many obstacles in the intruder's
> path as possible, in hopes that the effort needed to overcome them all will
> discourage him enough to make him go somewhere else.
If your security is based on `discouraging' an intruder, it doesn't sound very 
strong.  You should assume the intruder is trying to crack _your_ system.

--Joe