full-disclosure - Response to comments on Security and Obscurity

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: <e92364c3040902082457bc88be@mail.gmail.com>
From: jftucker at gmail.com (James Tucker)
Subject: Response to comments on Security and Obscurity

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:02:12 -0400, Barry Fitzgerald
<bkfsec@....lonestar.org> wrote:
> I... tend to agree.  It's a difficult question because analogies are
> useful if the person reading the paper has no point to base their
> opinion off of.  However, I see two problems with this:
> 
> 1) Perhaps a paper of this type shouldn't be considered introductory
> material.  Perhaps the knowledge of the system should be a pre-requisite
> for reading the paper.  Familiarity with the topics should be assumed.
> Discerning between the advantages and disadvantages between disclosure
> and secrecy isn't a small or simple thing and perhaps people without
> that level of familiarity, shouldn't venture directly down that path.
> 
> 2) The above is especially true in the case of influence of public
> policy.  If person shaping public policy is basing their opinion off of
> a (most likely defunct) analogy, we have a major problem.  As I'm sure
> Peter is aware, this is probably more often than not, the rule in the
> shaping of public policy.  It reminds me of the scene in Fahrenheit 9/11
> where they were discussing the fact that the Patriot Act was passed
> without a single legislator reading it.  This scares me a lot.  Of
> course, this increases the need for simplification of the issues so that
> legislators can at least vote with a modicum of knowledge on a subject,
> but thus begins the cycle...
> 
> Perhaps a series of papers is more appropriate, starting with an
> in-depth understanding of the ideologies from the ground level?

I agree.