"Brian Steele [SPICEISLE]" wrote:
> 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.
Then you are mistaken. Security through obscurity has long been
repudiated by knowledgeable security folks, dating from collquia of
locksmiths and the debates about whether weaknesses in locks should
be kept secret or shared among members of the trade.
You also seem to be misguided about "hackers." For the most part,
for every clever person who finds a weakness and develops exploit
code, there are tens of others -- pimply teenagers with delusions
of grandeur -- who download the code and exercise it.
Time after time, proprietary security algorithms, protocols and
devices have revealed that they are generally weaker than those
systems that have been subject to open review.
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
