Rick Moen wrote:
> My interpretation: Techies love to play with gadgets, and a solid
> majority of the so-called "security authors" I encounter are basically
> gadget freaks. As such, they're always warm to the notion of adding
> more mechanism and complexity, as allegedly enhancing security.
Of course adding complexity to as system will not necessarily make it more
secure. After all, there's no such thing as unbreakable. :) To claim such
thing is stupid. I think the idea of adding complexity to a system is just
trying to add delay to the inevitable thing. Trying to delay it gives your
more time to take measure for more means of protection. It's kinda like
trying to fight Godzilla from destroying your city but you're weapons are
useless against him so you just try to keep 'em busy so that you can have
more time to evacuate most of the people from your city. 128-bit encryption
might take thousands or even millions of years to brute-force crack, but
will still be cracked anyway. :)
--
=======================================================================
Gideon N. Guillen
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Public Keys:
DSS/Diffie-Hellman
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=get%200xC0976975
RSA Key:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=get%200x76C298B1
=======================================================================
_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
