full-disclosure - Re: WEEPING FOR WEP

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: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0704061301110.22389@statigery.qwest.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:05:00 -0600 (MDT)
From: Bruce Ediger <eballen1@...st.net>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: WEEPING FOR WEP

On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 neal.krawetz@....hush.com wrote:

 	...
> moderate risk) environments, you need to remember: security is a
> measurement of risk. If the threat is low enough, then WEP should
> be fine.
 	...

Wait just a minute.  Do you propose to say that "security" is an economic
good, with associated opportunity costs and benefits?  But just the other
day, all the anti-virus vendors and trade rags in the world seemed to
say that "security" was binary, and "on" is the preferred state.

What the sam scratch is going on around here?  Do I have to make a tradeoff,
again?

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/