bugtraq - Re: Airport x-ray software creating images of phantom weapons?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <200411161849.iAGIn7bt015509@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:49:07 -0500
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Jason Coombs <jasonc@...ence.org>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com, bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Airport x-ray software creating images of phantom weapons?

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:08:48 GMT, Jason Coombs said:

> If quality is the true objective, then perhaps we should adopt exceptions to
> intellectual property laws to force into the public domain any creative work
> that has the capability to impact the security of anything important...

A few minutes of careful thought and pondering over what security measures
have been deployed and proposed will reveal the following:

1) Invisible effective measures don't do much good, because they don't
sway votes.

2) Highly visible measures, even if ineffective, do "good" because they allow
the projection of a "We're doing something about it" spin.

Now, why do you think "quality" counts as an objective here?  (Consider in
your discussion the chances that the Department of Homeland Security will
*ever* lower the Threat Level to 'green', and under what conditions that would
happen, and what that would mean for the continued employment of the people
responsible for lowering it to green....)

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped