full-disclosure - RE: MS should re-write code with security in mind

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: <41262587.3030307@sdf.lonestar.org>
From: bkfsec at sdf.lonestar.org (Barry Fitzgerald)
Subject: RE: MS should re-write code
    with security in mind

Clairmont, Jan M wrote:

>Glenn:
>Not to take issue with the performance of encryption, but 
>what good is performance when it's all spent processing spam, malware, trojans, spyware and all the other cr*p that downloads.
>Even things like spybot, zone alarm etc. do not  prevent any
>of the junk that gets loaded thru mail and port 80, plus any other vulnerabilities that continually open up.
>
>  
>
An interesting cost benefit analysis of this would be to take the amount 
of bandwidth increase if people used encrypted/authenticated pipes as 
upposed to unencrypted/enauthenticated pipes just for mail (in this 
case) and compare that to the bandwidth lost in SPAM (only count spam 
that would be blocked by said authentication system) and see which comes 
out larger.

If the bandwidth consumption is less for the encryption, then you have 
your answer.

             -Barry

p.s.  I'm not sure where to start to get valid numbers on this.  Every 
scenario I've been able to think of in the time it took to write this 
e-mail has major methodological flaws.