Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (10957)	8/10/2005 2:27:59 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Frank, Grannick's blog article was an interesting read. There seem to be two non-secure streams: 1 - Content 2 - Transmission An exploit is an exploit. Is the success of Skype a failure of security? What kind of canal (track, highway, network) allows non-paying, unauthorized customers to freely use its right-of-way? Depending on the resources a Black Hat is prepared to commit (I'm contemplating some pretty well-funded candidates, national and trans-national), security can be compromised at many layers. The existence of a priesthood cloistered around majority device usage is no guarantee. Diversity in intelligent network devices may offer a relative gain, but that's no guarantee, either. No idea occurs which isn't susceptible to reverse-engineeering, bribery, monitoring or any of the other classic tricks which have been used to crack so-called 'secure' sytems for years. Constant change applied to intelligent devices - Enigma-like - might offer a gain something like the one offered by device diversity. But reverse-engineering broke Enigma, too. Going back to the origins of the subject, if installing security is so complex that the user just doesn't bother (or even understand) - we have a no-win proposition, right from the get-go.