I have a client like this (maybe several, actually) ... after lots of long
discussions, i learned just to listen carefully to make sure i understand
what's underneath the jargon, and tell her i'll look into it. In a day or
two or three, depending on their concern, i just send her an email or call
her and announce that "It's fixed" or "Problem solved". It works really
well. And it can be done in an honest way.

But i do listen carefully to make sure i understand the concern, no matter
how strange it seems. Once in awhile, that's improved what i'm doing ... and
then i still let her know i fixed it, once i have done it. I just have had
to get used to speaking with this particular client around a bit of a
"reality warp".

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Cameron Childress
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 12:28 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CFCDev] implicit invocation security concerns


On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:15:20 -0600, Joe Ferraro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My client asks that I prove "true containership" in mach-ii. Any
> Suggestions?

If I were to make a couple of totally wild assumptions about your
client, they would be this:

1) Your client has no clue and is making stuff up as he goes along.
He's use to being in an environment where no-one knows any better and
therefore is very self confident in his totally made up, but presented
as fact, statements.

2) Due to his lack of ability to recognise his own congured up words
and definitions, he has accepted some ill-conceived and totally
incorrect definition of "Implicit Invocation".  It's your job to dig
to the true nature of his consern, sans imaginary buzzwords.

3) If I were from the planet Neptune and someone said the words
Implicit Invocation, I might think that it meant that certain programs
could be invoked implicitly by some accidental action.  For example,
he may have convinced himself that it means receiving and email with
the words "woogie boogie" could imply to your program that it should
decrypt all encrypted data and send it to your entire address book (or
some such thing).

Given this context, I would think he is simply looking to be convinced
that the program is self contained and cannot be influenced by
unexpected inputs or accidentally "invoked" to do something it
shouldn't do.

---
As a side note, when speaking to clients, it's often good to just say
"it's all voodoo magic and you don't need to know more than that", or
perhaps "we develop applictions using tried and true well accepted
standards tested and proven over time by a large community of uses".

-Cameron
----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev'
in the message of the email.

CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported
by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).

An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]



----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' 
in the message of the email.

CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported
by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).

An archive of the CFCDev list is available at 
www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]

Reply via email to