home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: sms@WLV.IMSD.CONTEL.COM (Steven M. Schultz)
-
- In article <786@longway.TIC.COM> From: pkr@sgi.com (Phil Ronzone)
- >In article <780@longway.TIC.COM> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
- >>This may well be true. But for a large set of problems the existing UNIX
- >>security approach is quite sufficient. If you don't have the actual hardware
- >>secured it's overkill.
- >
- >I disagree - secure software, from the boot code on, is very effective.
-
- i have to side with Peter on this. the keywords were "large set
- of problems" and "quite sufficient" - that doesn't (at least to
- me) obviate the need for more strict security when the need
- arises, but for many situations just administering the systems
- correctly is enough.
-
- short of soldiers with M16s at a computer facility door i do not
- believe that software is any substitute for physical security.
- it's just one more password that has to be spread around (in
- case the SSO or whoever) goes on vacation, etc...
-
- >>Security and convenience are opposed goals, and sometimes a system
- >>MUST be available.
-
- agreed.
-
- >I disagree again -- I think the recent Internet worm is an example of why.
-
- now it's my turn to disagree. sheesh, why does the worm have to
- be brought up everytime security is discussed? it was a BUG that
- was exploited, and i for one do not think that adding security
- will do away with BUGs in software. on the contrary, as the
- complexity of the system is increased by the added software the
- number of bugs could actually increase, no?
-
- and, if people can't administer systems "correctly" now - what's
- going to happen when the amount of administration required increases
- due to the files/databasei/etc that "security" will add to the system??
-
- Steven M. Schultz
- sms@wlv.imsd.contel.com
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 20, Number 104
-
-