Dailydave mailing list archives
Re: Hackers more secure?
From: "Bruce Ediger" <eballen1 () qwest net>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 20:24:16 -0600 (MDT)
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, Jeremy Richards wrote:
networks'? I propose that hacking and 'defence in depth', or ensuring a networks compliance are very, _very_ different animals.
The minute somebody says "compliance", I know that they're just a corporate drone (saving your majesty's presence, of course!) intent on completing some checklist which may not even have a logical basis, much less make the "compliant" person or system safe/ethical/aware/secure. I don't see anything that would prevent a "hacker's network" from being more secure, in one sense or another, than a "compliant" network. Again, at least the hacker didn't have some silly checklist to blind him/her/it against some obvious procedure that doesn't appear on the checklist. I mean, for crying out loud, some "compliant" networks demand the use of Internet Explorer, and Outlook. What sense does that make? -- Bruce Ediger 720-932-1954 eballen1 () qwest net
Current thread:
- Hackers more secure? Jeremy Richards (Oct 04)
- Re: Hackers more secure? Bruce Ediger (Oct 04)
- RE: Hackers more secure? Paul Melson (Oct 05)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Hackers more secure? Steve Manzuik (Oct 05)
- RE: Hackers more secure? Kyle Quest (Oct 08)