Hi, Tobias: Tobias Brox wrote: > > [Jesus Manuel NAVARRO LOPEZ - Tue at 06:00:47PM +0200] > > Obscurity only works to have a life a bit more comfortable (giving > > away most script kiddies, or crazy VietNam veterans) > > As I say, security by obscurity is a bit better than no security at all,
No. Absolutely it isn't. It's preferably by far no security at all than *only* security by obscurity. What I was saying is that provided proper security is in place, *then* adding obscurity can make your life more comfortable (but not more secure). > because it stops the less determinate enemies, and eventually diverts them > to easier prey. > ...which either: A/ Poses a false sensation of security. B/ Points to you real dangers (something valuable must be there, since he's trying to hide it). > Anyone administrating some box attached to the 'net should be a bit > paranoid, and for the paranoid, security by obscurity is never good enough. Should? The one that connects to the net even a bread toaster *must* be paranoid. Regarding *security*, obscurity is no good at all. > Anyone really determinated to invade exactly _your_ box can evade any > obscurity. So can do *by chance* anyone else. -- SALUD, Jes�s *** [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
