This is a silly argument that goes round and round...
Your statement sounds like a typical F.U.D. argument, Mike. You don't
know about it, so it must be insecure. Hell, I'll feel more insecure
about the product if the "architectural information" for the product
was freely available on the 'net, for any and every hacker to peruse
and find faults with same.
As a CONSUMER of security products, I am far, far less interested in
whether or not the "architectural information" has been exposed to
outside scrutiny, than in actual in-production experiences with the
product, including identified exploits against the product and the
producer's solution for same.
Regards,
Brian Steele
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael P. Lyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Kelly Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, December 23, 1998 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: Let the Games Begin!
>We've been around and around on this, so my reply will be short:
>
>On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 05:03:04PM -0800, Kelly Lucas wrote:
>> I said all that to say this: instead of making derogatory remarks
about
>> someone's challenge, let's hear about it after you've hacked the
system,
>> or after you've pointed us to some conclusive data that clearly
>> illustrates the flaws of the product/platform.
>
>This is so rarely present. And this is a broken philosophy. It
takes
>SOME time for a product to be hacked.. for us not to be allowed to
look
>at architectural information is silly.
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
