=> -----Original Message----- => From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] => [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jerry Wolper => Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 17:33 => To: ProFox Email List => Subject: RE: [NF] -- IT Wrestles with Microsoft Monoculture Myopia => => > No one ever said the internet had to be secure. Nothing is => > intrinsically secure. Doors do not come with locks on => them; you have => > to add your own security. If you have something to => protect then you => > damn well better figure out how you are going to protect => it. If you => > leave the protection to someone else and that protection => fails, you => > have only yourself to blame. => > => > At some point consistency is much more important than diversity. => > Predictability is not necessarily a failing; often it is a => blessing. => => If I encode this message to keep it secure, there had better => be a corresponding decoder at Ed's end, or the post will be => totally unreadable. As long as the Internet is a two-way => system, some part of "protection" is going to be beyond the => individual's contral. => => And if I use an anti-virus and/or firewall that I haven't => written myself, am I abdicating some of my responsibility? => If we can agree that rolling one's own system software isn't => necessarily a good idea, then we have to trust (not blindly) => authors and vendors to provide an appropriate level of => security. To the extent that M$'s monopoly has made it more => difficult to choose more secure software, that's a problem. => => -Jerry Wolper => [EMAIL PROTECTED]
These are good points, Jerry. Your message was encoded. You wrote it in English following standard rules of grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. If you had written it in French or German or Swahili, I wouldn't be writing this response because I would have no idea what to write (other than "Huh?"). I really don't see what part of "protection" was out of your control, particularly since you had alternatives to sending the message you sent and the medium you used to send it. As for "abdicating," strictly speaking, that's what you would be doing by using someone else's product. I admit to overstating my position; obviously there has to be a trade off between all the factors (cost, speed, reliability, etc,) when choosing a method to protect yourself. Let me pose a question that, not being a TCP/IP expert, I truly do not know the answer to. I connect to a network using DHCP and I am assigned an address. I surf, send e-mail, etc. with no problems and I disconnect. I connect to the same network a week later and I am assigned a different address by DHCP. Again, I use the network connection without a hitch and I disconnect. So how did my NIC work under two different addresses? Couldn't I have a NIC that ignores the address it is given and instead "reads" everything that passes through it? Depending on the network topology, there might not be any other traffic to see. Or maybe, being a rogue NIC, I could tell the router I am a hub and receive traffic for several addresses. How does all of this work? Where is the security? Can someone explain, please? TIA HALinNY _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
