full-disclosure - [inbox] Re: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Mo nopoly

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20031001163031.55DC43D160@winona.cs>
From: jimlane at cs.toronto.edu (Jim Lane)
Subject: [inbox] Re: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Mo 
 nopoly

Maybe it takes an "old mainframer" to point this out but it depends on what 
kind of functional unit you're talking about. I remember the days when, from 
the users point of view, the computer was a dumb terminal and all the 
intelligence (and security risk) was safely off in a locked room somewhere. We 
still had security problems back then but they were a lot easier to deal with. 
Yet another case where Bill Bates and his like have a lot to answer for. 
Remind me again why client/server was supposed to have been a good idea? Sigh.
-- 
-- 
Jim Lane                    Question authority:
Sysadmin, CSLab               Amateurs built the Ark,
jimlane@...toronto.edu        Professionals built the Titanic
> 
> I think the point is that most people expect their cars to be operational
> and do NOT do the maintenance themselves... they DO outsource it to a
> mechanic.  The average user has A LOT less control over their car than their
> computer.  A car is basically a single function unit, point A to point B.
> Computers never have been nor ever will be that one dimensional.  At the
> most, I think we could hope for users who learn to know better than to try
> to do the 'maintenance' on their computers themselves.
> 
>