RE: Zone Alarm

["JT" <ptourvi1 () twcny rr com>]

Again, using ZA puts the choices in the uninformed users hands, they decide
whether to use it or not, give them the router and you have taken that
choice away. 

-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com
[mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com] On Behalf Of Shawn McMahon
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9:37 AM
To: full-disclosure () lists netsys com
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Zone Alarm


On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 04:03:57PM -0500, Schmehl, Paul L said:
> There *are* cases where "not so great" security is better than "really
> great" simply because "really great" won't get used and "not so great"
> is therefore better (than nothing.)  It's all well and good that experts

And I would submit that most of us here are in fact guilty of that; how
many of us have at least one password, somewhere, that's ~8 characters,
mostly letters, as opposed to 128 random alphanumerics?  Who here has a
house with a deadbolt and an alarm system, but no armed guards?  A car
that you park in parking lots, with no bomb-sniffing dog going under it
before you get in?

Security that won't get used isn't security, it's theory.  It belongs in
classrooms and labs.  Security is a process, as well, not a binary flag.
It's not "exit code 1, insecure" one day, and "exit code 0, secure" the
next.


-- 
Shawn McMahon     | Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill,
EIV Consulting    | that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any
UNIX and Linux    | hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure
http://www.eiv.com| the survival and the success of liberty. - JFK

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html