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
| ||
|
From: fulldisc at ultratux.org (Maarten) Subject: (no subject) On Saturday 14 August 2004 02:52, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote: > On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 21:17:44 +0200, Maarten said: > > The only thing Todd (and I) are trying to say is that it is possible to > > rename after the fact. I don't #!%$&* care how many old Cobol programs > > need adapting for that to "get" possible, but the fact remains that it > > IS. > > The question is *in fact* what ROI the companies get for modifying all that > old Cobol. "Possible" and "worth doing" are two different things... Oh definitely. I do not contest that. But these posts saying "not possible" from a technical / logistical standpoint started to irritate me... But sure, until there is an economic reason for change, there won't be. > > How about mergers, or international intelligence-exchange between law > > enforcement agencies. Do you think that they let anyone stop them by > > complaining that database format X isn't readily compatible with format Y > > ? No. They fix it, they make it work together no matter what. > > Actually, that isn't always the case. > > http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=332&sid=100 > > Yes, a database so borked that copying it could break it. Hahaha. Great link, thanks... Although this may happen, it sounds to me like a political issue rather than a technical one. When you can retrieve data you can copy it (by however [inefficient] means is irrelevant now). > Hell, we're talking about an industry which as a whole *continues* to keep > spewing out 'We removed a virus/worm' warnings to known not-at-fault > addresses - presumably the (probably very low) cost of ceasing to do so is > counterbalanced by the advertising benefit of the spam. If they won't do > *THAT* little thing that's *obviously* in the public interest, why should > they change the way they name stuff, at probably higher cost, and less > obvious benefit? Hear hear...! Good point. Maarten -- Yes of course I'm sure it's the red cable. I guarante[^%!/+)F#0c|'NO CARRIER
Powered by blists - more mailing lists