full-disclosure - (no subject)

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

Message-ID: <200408140335.31761.fulldisc@ultratux.org>
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