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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
From: lists at (Cael Abal)
Subject: Anti-MS drivel

>>Why is it possible that a user is able to make this mistake?
> Oh COME now! Are you so INSULAR that you dont realise the real world? My
> wife works for a MENSA member, a recognised genius who would likely have
> more brain capacity than most people in the world. He doesnt have a CLUE how
> to secure his computer. WHY? He isnt in the least INTERESTED in computers
> outside of using them to do his work on. Oh and BTW, his work, nothing to do
> with computers other than using them as a tool, made him a
> multi-millionaire. Why the HELL should this guy, according to you, *HAVE* to
> know what he is doing with a computer. He, likely, has more money than you
> and I put together EVER will have unless one of us wins over 300 million US
> dollars. In my book, this guy is devoting his time the best way possible.
> Learning what to do with computers to the extent where he can lock it down
> is actually financially irresponsible to him. He can PAY someone US$200 an
> hour to do that and per hour STILL come out in front by a LONG shot.
> What IS it with computer/I.T. professionals (or those who know as much even
> if not so employed) that they think just because THEY know how to do it,
> everyone SHOULD know? Not everyone is INTERESTED and not everyone thinks it


I just wanted to break in here and suggest you reread Tobias' last few 
posts -- he's not arguing the position you seem to think he is. 
Actually, he's arguing almost completely polar to what you're 
attributing to him.  Are you trolling?

If I understand him correctly, Tobias is simply suggesting that users 
ought not be held accountable for using faulty software.  Using a 
debatable but reasonable definition of faulty software, as he does, it's 
really a fairly robust and straightforward argument.

take care,


Powered by blists - more mailing lists