[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Schwartz VS. Intel
In article <3u3lq9$aa5@maureen.teleport.com>,
Darrell Fuhriman <darrell@teleport.com> wrote:
>Intel complains that Schwartz was violating their security, but I
>would assert that any system that has non-shadowed passwords has
>no security.
So, using your argument on in a non-computing paradigm:
Given that wafer locks are blindingly easy to pick, if I enter a
building protected by a wafer lock by picking the lock, I'm not guilty
of breaking and entering, since wafer locks are so easy to pick that
they're not really secure at all.
I don't think so. Now imagine using the following argument with a cop
responding to the alarm I set off after entering the building:
"Well, I was just going to leave a note for the building owners telling
them that they're locks aren't secure enough."
I still don't think so.
tom
yes, all opinions are my own, not my employers.
--
Thomas Cronin | Properly done science is a sort of masochistic game
cronin@teleport.com | where one beats one's head against a wall until it
Beaverton, OR | falls down, and then goes in search of another wall.
www.teleport.com/~cronin | --Steven Vogel
Follow-Ups:
References: